[ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision

[Barchugin163]

you already have a visual identity ... I am a designer and I can help the team with the image of BSV

[buzzkillb]

You know what I find curious? The fact that someone could hate a voluntary inanimate system with such inflamed passion that one invests a significant percentage of waking hours trying to tear that system down, rather than just ignoring it entirely. But that's neither here nor there. Let's move on to your irrelevant bloviating...

Some day, you will learn that a blockchain which is unhampered by a centrally-planned production quota on transactions has a value independent of whatever other characters also see value in such an innovation.

Pretty much every part of this sentence is untrue, or at best incorrect.

sez you. Let's tally.

- Bitcoin's block size cap is the result of consensus among the Bitcoin network and is not "centrally-planned."

Har. I guess that's kind of defensible. In the same sense that the FED's recent orgy of money printer go brr is the result of the consensus of the American people, the consensus of the heads of America's trading partners, and the consensus of all the humans living within those countries. And to the same extent that such money printer go brr activity is not centrally planned.

If that qualifies as 'consensus' and 'not centrally-planned' to you, then have at it.

We have an alternate consensus. What are you gonna do? Round us up and gas us?

- This limits the "production quota on transactions" only when talking about on-chain transactions.

Did I claim anything to the contrary? No. I did not. This is significant enough to be seen by me and others as A Big Problem.

- The value of anything is determined by those who value it. It is an opinion which requires human beings to formulate and does not exist on its own accord.

Did I claim anything to the contrary? No. I did not.

Again, my thesis is that the value of the lack of a centrally-planned production quota upon transactions will become widely apparent when Blockalypse II is upon us. Your thesis can differ, and it affects me not in the least. Waaah.

Conclude whatever you want about the value of huge blocks which have centralized your coin down to a relative handful of nodes -- I don't really care. What you don't get to pretend (without ridicule) is that BSV is in any shape or form the manifestation of "Satoshi's vision."

Ha. Neither do you about BTC. We each can point to evidence in Satoshi's writings that buttress our respective arguments. So what's your residual point? Do you even have one? Other than 'Aussie Man Bad'? Oh yeah - I forgot: 'Pedo Man Bad'. What else ya got?

The Faketoshi Factor is still heavily priced in... I expect it to gradually fade away and put the fair market value of BSV at somewhere between $30 - $40 a coin. It may be years before it sinks this low, however, especially if BTC starts to take off and brings along the altcoin market with it (as it is wont to do).

May 20th, 2019: price of BSV is $61.70
May 21st, 2019: Craig registers copyright for Bitcoin white paper, price goes up 20%
May 29th, 2019: China "fake news tweet" says Wright transferred 50,000 BTC to Binance
June 25th, 2019: BSV reaches local high of $242
August 27th, 2019: Judge Reinhart rules against Wright, orders payment of 500,000 BTC to Kleiman estate
September 19th, 2019: Wright and Kleiman enter settlement discussions
December 19th, 2019: BSV reaches local low of $80
January 11th, 2020: Judge Bloom drops sanctions on Wright, gives him more time to receive documents from bonded courier
January 15th, 2020: BSV reaches local high of $343

Then pretty much every noticeable move since then has been tied to coronavirus economic fallout.

You still don't get it. A myopic focus upon today's current price is not what we see as valuable about this system. But hey - you do you.

Meanwhile, some cabal of early miners have put 145 last nails in CSW's coffin, and the BSV price is essentially unaffected. Sux to be U.

Agreeing a lot here, what's with everyone's focus on price of cryptocurrency in relation to fiat? This price thing I see on other coins as its some type of negative against the dying current day system. I don't remember when Bitcoin came out people were focused on price, and they were instead doing cool stuff. Strangely and I can't believe this is happening, BCH and BSV are now doing the cool stuff while Bitcoin appears to be stagnating. At the same time what once looked like almost troll coins are the ones speaking out to not go brrrrrr KYC'ing it up inviting the banks and every scummy organization in. What crazy timeline am I on??

[hv_]

Real SCAM found here

https://coingeek.com/xapo-indodax-exchanges-hit-with-lawsuit-over-stolen-btc

BSV is max regulator friendly and will clean out scams

- Funny scammers trick is to shout scam to such 'enemies'

Understand these guys and you ll see the only way BitCoin will be only protocol in the long run

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHCXDNBcSyg

Risk - Finance

 

[jbreher]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

...Wright...

...CSW...

Meanwhile:

While bitcoin has outperformed gold and the S&P 500 index in 2020, data shows even better returns among leading bitcoin “fork” cryptocurrencies.

- https://www.coindesk.com/returns-for-bitcoins-forks-have-trounced-bitcoin-this-year

Oh - that's actually merely an event. Brimming with averagosity. Well, here's an idea:

Some day, you will learn that a blockchain which is unhampered by a centrally-planned production quota on transactions has a value independent of whatever other characters also see value in such an innovation.

[hv_]

Price is dumb and boring - mostly

It will follow value (or devalue of fiat / other blockchain tokens)

Value is created by usabillity and long term stable function ( not by courts / single ppl - lol)

Bitcache is such a new function, A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cache System for Bitcoin

https://twitter.com/_unwriter/status/1269996810883551232

[hv_]

Meanwhile:

While bitcoin has outperformed gold and the S&P 500 index in 2020, data shows even better returns among leading bitcoin “fork” cryptocurrencies.

- https://www.coindesk.com/returns-for-bitcoins-forks-have-trounced-bitcoin-this-year

Oh - that's actually merely an event. Brimming with averagosity. Well, here's an idea:

Since COVID market crash:
BTC +24%
BSV -4%

Your point being ?

proof of mind / blocks framed to sth too little


BitCoin is bigger than ticker
than bag hodl
than price

It might be such desruptive that it disrupts any core and stream blockers

[hv_]

Compliant BitCoin doesn't need any leaders

Just honest miners

That's BitCoin lesson 101

Runs like a machine, cannot be stopped

Use it for good and make the internet free of trolls again

 

[hv_]

Compliant BitCoin doesn't need any leaders

Just honest miners

That's BitCoin lesson 101

Runs like a machine, cannot be stopped

Use it for good and make the internet free of trolls again

 

Your shitcoin needs sugar daddy's money (who claim to have invested more than $100M in ShitshowSV), otherwise it sinks.

Can you hear that loud sucking sound?



 

Suckers you hear?

Mhh, just found out


https://mobile.twitter.com/Peruminati/status/1270690856689860613/photo/1

... mostly honest ...


 

[jbreher]

Meanwhile:

While bitcoin has outperformed gold and the S&P 500 index in 2020, data shows even better returns among leading bitcoin “fork” cryptocurrencies.

- https://www.coindesk.com/returns-for-bitcoins-forks-have-trounced-bitcoin-this-year

Oh - that's actually merely an event. Brimming with averagosity. Well, here's an idea:

Since COVID market crash:
BTC +24%
BSV -4%

Your point being ?

Well, my main point is that the value of a Bitcoin that is not intentionally crippled by a centrally-planned production quota upon transaction volume will be made apparent when increasing usage makes clear the folly of such a limitation. I don't know how that got lost, but you nattering nabobs seem to keep missing it.

My secondary point is actually coindesk's point. To wit:

While bitcoin has outperformed gold and the S&P 500 index in 2020, data shows even better returns among leading bitcoin “fork” cryptocurrencies.

- https://www.coindesk.com/returns-for-bitcoins-forks-have-trounced-bitcoin-this-year

If you have a problem with that point, I suggest you argue against them.

"Aussie Man Bad!" (paraphrased)

Meanwhile, a cabal of early miners has conspired to drive 145 last nails in CSW's coffin. And the price of BSV remains about the same.

One would think you all would learn that BSV != CSW.

[hv_]

Time to jump out, just a question of time to this project going to fall, time to sell before your investments turn into dust, BSV is not what they mean to be anymore.

It used to "meant to be" a scam.  It is not meant to be a scam, anymore?  wot?

Cause BitCoin was not a scam, initially?

[jbreher]

https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/1271468034931036160

https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/1271473195921465344


https://twitter.com/fluffypony/status/1271471545790222336

Let's see how the faggots on the BSVtard team dodge this fucking bullet. This will be entertaining to watch.

Well, that's amusing and all, but this does not concern BSV. The blockchain discussed in your quoted tweets is BTC. Accordingly, you are off-topic in this thread.

What bullet? Another shitshow centered around CSW, and BSV's 24-hr price activity is better than BTC's.

SpongeBobNobodyCares.png

[hv_]

Time to jump out, just a question of time to this project going to fall, time to sell before your investments turn into dust, BSV is not what they mean to be anymore.

It used to "meant to be" a scam.  It is not meant to be a scam, anymore?  wot?

Cause BitCoin was not a scam, initially?

You seem to be correct....

bitcoin was not a scam... but bcash SV was a scam from it's start...  referring to the November 2018 forkening (bcash sv came to be forked out of bcash) that had come out of the August 2017 forkening (another scam from the start bcash)  so I was merely wondering if the mission of bcash sv had grown away from being a scam, and if there would have needed to have been any evidence for that.... extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence, correct?  

A scam coin that forks out of another scam coin that did start out as a scam, but then there would probably be ONLY a few varying kinds of scenarios where scam project might evolve to NO LONGER be considered a scam project... and that is where the extraordinary evidence would be required to show that... otherwise, just logical to continue to presume such initially serving as a scam coin to continue to be serving as a scam, until proven otherwise with a decent amount of solid evidence.. both facts and logic.

You seem to be fully addicted to a single ticker, filled bags

BitCoin is not a scam, but selling some tickers as BitCoin is

[hv_]

Time to jump out, just a question of time to this project going to fall, time to sell before your investments turn into dust, BSV is not what they mean to be anymore.

It used to "meant to be" a scam.  It is not meant to be a scam, anymore?  wot?

Cause BitCoin was not a scam, initially?

You seem to be correct....

bitcoin was not a scam... but bcash SV was a scam from it's start...  referring to the November 2018 forkening (bcash sv came to be forked out of bcash) that had come out of the August 2017 forkening (another scam from the start bcash)  so I was merely wondering if the mission of bcash sv had grown away from being a scam, and if there would have needed to have been any evidence for that.... extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence, correct?  

A scam coin that forks out of another scam coin that did start out as a scam, but then there would probably be ONLY a few varying kinds of scenarios where scam project might evolve to NO LONGER be considered a scam project... and that is where the extraordinary evidence would be required to show that... otherwise, just logical to continue to presume such initially serving as a scam coin to continue to be serving as a scam, until proven otherwise with a decent amount of solid evidence.. both facts and logic.

You seem to be fully addicted to a single ticker, filled bags

BitCoin is not a scam, but selling some tickers as BitCoin is

For the most part, you speak in riddles, hv_.  Hopefully, at some point, you might learn how to express your nonsense a bit more clearly, if there were to happen to be any substance in what you might be saying, which seems highly unlikely.

Abstract levels of thinking are riddles, you ll learn such

[hv_]

Time to jump out, just a question of time to this project going to fall, time to sell before your investments turn into dust, BSV is not what they mean to be anymore.

It used to "meant to be" a scam.  It is not meant to be a scam, anymore?  wot?

Cause BitCoin was not a scam, initially?

You seem to be correct....

bitcoin was not a scam... but bcash SV was a scam from it's start...  referring to the November 2018 forkening (bcash sv came to be forked out of bcash) that had come out of the August 2017 forkening (another scam from the start bcash)  so I was merely wondering if the mission of bcash sv had grown away from being a scam, and if there would have needed to have been any evidence for that.... extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence, correct?  

A scam coin that forks out of another scam coin that did start out as a scam, but then there would probably be ONLY a few varying kinds of scenarios where scam project might evolve to NO LONGER be considered a scam project... and that is where the extraordinary evidence would be required to show that... otherwise, just logical to continue to presume such initially serving as a scam coin to continue to be serving as a scam, until proven otherwise with a decent amount of solid evidence.. both facts and logic.

You seem to be fully addicted to a single ticker, filled bags

BitCoin is not a scam, but selling some tickers as BitCoin is

For the most part, you speak in riddles, hv_.  Hopefully, at some point, you might learn how to express your nonsense a bit more clearly, if there were to happen to be any substance in what you might be saying, which seems highly unlikely.

Abstract levels of thinking are riddles, you ll learn such

 

In your case, the riddles continue play out as nonsense mumbo jumbo. 

I have witnessed your meaningless troll/shilling pattern plenty of times. 

Don't be trying to suggest that there is any beyond nonsense meaning there, because there is not.

BitCoin got cleant - refaktored - removed the shit on base protocol > this is needed for scale

It was proven / enterprises are coming

not more to say - no riddle here

[hv_]

 ^ muppet ..

[vapourminer]

The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ...

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

...snip...

were there not two versions of the client early one? the official of course but also a second one written from scratch independently updated to be protocol level compatible by someone else. satoshi could ignore it so no extra work for him. as a second client can be useful in case a bug takes out one version. but core has been amazingly robust though.

but maybe im thinking ethereum.. i know that one had a couple.

[hv_]

Fork of BCH, that's in the code.

Legal partnerships marked in red ?

 

[jbreher]

The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ...

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

...snip...

...

The real satoshi is talking about the possibility of future chain forks here (i.e. BCH and BSV etc.,)

No, the real satoshi is clearly NOT talking about the possibility of future chain forks in your quoted passage. The real satoshi is manifestly speaking to the topic of alternate client software implementations working on the same blockchain.

What was it he said in the same discussion immediately preceding? Oh yes:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

[emphasis added]

<muttering> ...some peoples' kids... </muttering>

you still need to address his points, specifically:

Any such requirement is in your mind only.

Do you believe that some court in some jurisdiction should be able to force changes to the blockchain?

'Should be able to'? As in, from a philosophical viewpoint? No, I don't. Then again, I am of the opinion that taxation is theft, but I pay what the people with guns insist I must anyhow.

Or maybe you meant as a practical matter? Is an 'are jurisdictions _able_ to force changes to the blockchain'?. I don't think so, but I am not 100% positive.

Bitcoin has so far exhibited a fair amount of resiliency. However, governments have created coordinated responses to other limits to their power. And all that hashrate comes with a physical manifestation with defined geographic locations. Which are therefore subject to the dictates of Men With Guns. If such Men With Guns mount a coordinated campaign against >50% of the network -- however improbable such coordination seem -- then yes. I can certainly envision the possibility that governments can force changes made to the blockchain. Any blockchain.

But this state is completely independent of any mutterings Craig may make. And are true for any and all PoW blockchains. BTC included.

So while you seek to vilify BSV for one person's mutterings on the topic, the utterances are completely unaffected by -- and completely without effect to -- any reality regarding the topic.

[hv_]

Ppl cleaning water, air, cloths, ... any good stuff before they use it

Bitcoin protocol oughta be clean

(my English clearly isnt : - )

[jbreher]

But "law is law" is the fundamental pillar to BSv, your opinion directly contradicts that of Faketoshi and CSW. You must realize that without Faketoshi's obnoxious claims and Ayre's bank account, there is no BSV, or are you in denial to that as well?

You really need some new go-to 'talking points'. 'Aussie man bad' and 'pedo man bad' are played out. The market is not listening to you. You have heaps and heaps of ammunition, should your tropes have any relevance at all. But they don't.

As posted above: SpongeBobNobodyCares.png

'Law is law' is not relevant to BSV. Seems relevant to Craig, but again: CSW != BSV. After so much repeated evidence of this truism, you'd think you'd get it through your thick skull. But no.

The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ...

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

...snip...

...

The real satoshi is talking about the possibility of future chain forks here (i.e. BCH and BSV etc.,)

No, the real satoshi is clearly NOT talking about the possibility of future chain forks in your quoted passage. The real satoshi is manifestly speaking to the topic of alternate client software implementations working on the same blockchain.

What was it he said in the same discussion immediately preceding? Oh yes:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

...snip...

Not so and your entirely missing the point that the real satoshi was making.

No. In your quoted bit, Satoshi was clearly speaking of an alternate client implementation working upon the same blockchain. There is simply no other way to interpret 'all nodes getting identical results in lockstep'. If you can't see that, your [sic] a special type of stupid. Or maybe just willfully, delusionally ignorant.