Bitcoin SV?

[oioioi]

another fork that no one can ensure this will be a good investment for the future, quite surprised this can achieve a good ranking in the coinmarket, but, will it last long or it might fall after the market improves?
but I never want to buy this

[esetop01tryba]

Bitcoin in the market is one and still hard forks in my opinion garbage that has no prospects. I will not deny the growth is possible but I will not betray my ideals by not buying Bitcoin SV !

[team87]

SV drained itself trying to win the war with ABC and it lost. Some people still believe that Craig is Satoshi and that one day he'll prove it and the value of SV will increase. Some were hoping that SV will take over ABC and become the better BCH. SV is worth half of what people are paying for ABC so it can still have potential but both BCH versions are not worth the risk. I wouldn't buy them.

That's what I want to ask and I need to hear more widely, that some people believe that Craig is satoshi. Although not necessarily the truth now. Could the BCH holders benefit from all this? is there a connection? Thank you pixie85,,

[hv_]

SV drained itself trying to win the war with ABC and it lost. Some people still believe that Craig is Satoshi and that one day he'll prove it and the value of SV will increase. Some were hoping that SV will take over ABC and become the better BCH. SV is worth half of what people are paying for ABC so it can still have potential but both BCH versions are not worth the risk. I wouldn't buy them.

That's what I want to ask and I need to hear more widely, that some people believe that Craig is satoshi. Although not necessarily the truth now. Could the BCH holders benefit from all this? is there a connection? Thank you pixie85,,

https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/unitedcorp-launches-suit-against-bitmain-bitcoincom-roger-ver-kraken-bitcoin-exchange-and-others-20181206-00743

This and more such stuff might incoming to folks not following the legal protocol definition - there is only one. No matter who has written up.

But all trying to sell Bitcoin - and cannot deliver the real Bitcoin (legally defined in the white paper)  - are scamming ppl.

[ðºÞæ]

SV drained itself trying to win the war with ABC and it lost. Some people still believe that Craig is Satoshi and that one day he'll prove it and the value of SV will increase. Some were hoping that SV will take over ABC and become the better BCH. SV is worth half of what people are paying for ABC so it can still have potential but both BCH versions are not worth the risk. I wouldn't buy them.

That's what I want to ask and I need to hear more widely, that some people believe that Craig is satoshi. Although not necessarily the truth now. Could the BCH holders benefit from all this? is there a connection? Thank you pixie85,,

https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/unitedcorp-launches-suit-against-bitmain-bitcoincom-roger-ver-kraken-bitcoin-exchange-and-others-20181206-00743

This and more such stuff might incoming to folks not following the legal protocol definition - there is only one. No matter who has written up.

But all trying to sell Bitcoin - and cannot deliver the real Bitcoin (legally defined in the white paper)  - are scamming ppl.

Legally defined in white paper is peer to peer. Anyone can point me to the section where it says after X time change to 3rd party system.

Bitcoin white paper
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf



Here are Satoshi quotes, where is there any reference to a segregated witness, 3rd party (segwit).

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.


What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a truste third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.


We need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign any earlier transactions. For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced, and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received. The payee needs proof that at the time of each transaction, the majority of nodes agreed it was the first received.


I would be surprised if 10 years from now we're not using electronic currency in some way, now that we know a way to do it that won't inevitably get dumbed down when the trusted third party gets cold feet.


With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless.

A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.

[a4illusionist]

Never heard of this coin before but now after this post i looked it up. Seems like a stable coin even in these times where the market is struggling and every coin is falling apart. But i think that this can be manipulated and would be manipulated as naturally it don't seem possible.

[bitcoinPsycho]

"Bitcoin SV"?
it's BCH SV and to be honest... These forks are going no where, Just another avenue for the lucky BCH holders to dump what they earned out of the forks and move on.

I agree. I think it’s called Bcash SV

[LukkasG]

What is happening with the Bitcoin SV for now? I caught a glimpse of this coin that has a pretty good potential to be the center of attention.
 Please share your opinion, to answer my curiosity today. Thank you very much and goodluck.

In my opinion this coin is only good for speculation and I am widely using this )
But, don't see any future for fork of another fork

[tadpole_bitfrog]

What is happening with the Bitcoin SV for now? I caught a glimpse of this coin that has a pretty good potential to be the center of attention.
 Please share your opinion, to answer my curiosity today. Thank you very much and goodluck.

It is definitely a great altcoin. It is a lot of investor attention and wants to pump the value of this altcoin. BCH really has a lot of capital and loyal investors. They know what they are doing and they will make our crypto market better.

[hv_]

SV drained itself trying to win the war with ABC and it lost. Some people still believe that Craig is Satoshi and that one day he'll prove it and the value of SV will increase. Some were hoping that SV will take over ABC and become the better BCH. SV is worth half of what people are paying for ABC so it can still have potential but both BCH versions are not worth the risk. I wouldn't buy them.

That's what I want to ask and I need to hear more widely, that some people believe that Craig is satoshi. Although not necessarily the truth now. Could the BCH holders benefit from all this? is there a connection? Thank you pixie85,,

https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/unitedcorp-launches-suit-against-bitmain-bitcoincom-roger-ver-kraken-bitcoin-exchange-and-others-20181206-00743

This and more such stuff might incoming to folks not following the legal protocol definition - there is only one. No matter who has written up.

But all trying to sell Bitcoin - and cannot deliver the real Bitcoin (legally defined in the white paper)  - are scamming ppl.

Legally defined in white paper is peer to peer. Anyone can point me to the section where it says after X time change to 3rd party system.

Bitcoin white paper
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf



Here are Satoshi quotes, where is there any reference to a segregated witness, 3rd party (segwit).

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.


What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a truste third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.


We need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign any earlier transactions. For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced, and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received. The payee needs proof that at the time of each transaction, the majority of nodes agreed it was the first received.


I would be surprised if 10 years from now we're not using electronic currency in some way, now that we know a way to do it that won't inevitably get dumbed down when the trusted third party gets cold feet.


With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless.

A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.

u got it - SW + LN  or ABCoin is not Bitcoin.

[team87]

SV drained itself trying to win the war with ABC and it lost. Some people still believe that Craig is Satoshi and that one day he'll prove it and the value of SV will increase. Some were hoping that SV will take over ABC and become the better BCH. SV is worth half of what people are paying for ABC so it can still have potential but both BCH versions are not worth the risk. I wouldn't buy them.

That's what I want to ask and I need to hear more widely, that some people believe that Craig is satoshi. Although not necessarily the truth now. Could the BCH holders benefit from all this? is there a connection? Thank you pixie85,,

https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/unitedcorp-launches-suit-against-bitmain-bitcoincom-roger-ver-kraken-bitcoin-exchange-and-others-20181206-00743

This and more such stuff might incoming to folks not following the legal protocol definition - there is only one. No matter who has written up.

But all trying to sell Bitcoin - and cannot deliver the real Bitcoin (legally defined in the white paper)  - are scamming ppl.

Legally defined in white paper is peer to peer. Anyone can point me to the section where it says after X time change to 3rd party system.

Bitcoin white paper
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf



Here are Satoshi quotes, where is there any reference to a segregated witness, 3rd party (segwit).

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.


What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a truste third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.


We need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign any earlier transactions. For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced, and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received. The payee needs proof that at the time of each transaction, the majority of nodes agreed it was the first received.


I would be surprised if 10 years from now we're not using electronic currency in some way, now that we know a way to do it that won't inevitably get dumbed down when the trusted third party gets cold feet.


With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless.

A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.

u got it - SW + LN  or ABCoin is not Bitcoin.

Well, maybe the description of all of you will give an explanation to me to understand a little about Bitcoin SV. Thank you for the bitcoin white paper attachment that you provided here. Stay enthusiastic in this difficult situation.

[ccsang]

Why you think this coin has a pretty good potential to be the center of attention, just because bitcoin sv price/volume suddenly increase and it's already become top 5 cryptocurrency? I believe the reason of market crash a lot is BCH wars, I won't buy it and never support them, just hope both of them suddenly crash to very low price after the pump, then market start to recover

[four3200]

"Bitcoin SV"?
it's BCH SV and to be honest... These forks are going no where, Just another avenue for the lucky BCH holders to dump what they earned out of the forks and move on.

I agree. I think it’s called Bcash SV

Bcash SV
Got any hash rate? How many block producing pools?

Bcash ABC
Got any TX rate?

Bcash Original
Does it even exist?

[BitcoinHodler]

as a rule of thumb any altcoin that has the name "bitcoin" in it like "bitcoin cash", "bitcoin satoshi vision", "bitcoin gold",... are considered shitcoins because it simply shows that the people who created these coins had no confidence in their own creation so they had to use the name "bitcoin" to gain some popularity because of bitcoin's popularity.

in case of BSV it is pure shitcoin because it has nothing else to offer! it is a copy of copy of bitcoin since they forked BCH and it is only created for pump and dumping purposes and for people behind it to make money from the companies they own.

[XIE-XIE]

Yes, all day long, when BTC fell free, SV definitely rose as if they had the power to hit the storm, and SV would compete with ABC to become BCH

[tisumagic]

Yes, all day long, when BTC fell free, SV definitely rose as if they had the power to hit the storm, and SV would compete with ABC to become BCH

why did you see that the two coins were able to withstand the strom, while the king just couldn't. have you ever thought that these coins have the possibility of being manipulated by those with large capital

[HardFireMiner]

as a rule of thumb any altcoin that has the name "bitcoin" in it like "bitcoin cash", "bitcoin satoshi vision", "bitcoin gold",... are considered shitcoins because it simply shows that the people who created these coins had no confidence in their own creation so they had to use the name "bitcoin" to gain some popularity because of bitcoin's popularity.

in case of BSV it is pure shitcoin because it has nothing else to offer! it is a copy of copy of bitcoin since they forked BCH and it is only created for pump and dumping purposes and for people behind it to make money from the companies they own.

On 1 August, 2017, Bitcoin Hard Forked implementing a lot of code into it, one of the biggest implementation was Segregated Witnesses. To get more specific about Segwit, it basically separates the signature data from the transaction data and creates two hashes:  first hash of just transaction data, without the signatures; and second a witness hash consisting of a hash of both the witness data and of the transaction data. Bitcoin uses a Merkle tree for storage in a block to efficiently store transaction data, and puts the Merkle root into the block header of every mined block.  SegWit creates another Merkle tree to separately store the witness hashes, but importantly, does not requires nodes to keep the signature data.

Now, if I don't have to, why should I keep the signature data? It is much cheaper to just drop storing the witness hashes, let somebody else do it. And how this is Bitcoin if I have to rely on a third party to store the witness hashes? Wasn't decentralization the first reason Bitcoin was created?

This way, on 1 August, Bitcoin was hijacked, forking off Bitcoin Cash.

On 15 November, 2018, BitcoinABC hijacked Bitcoin Cash network using rented hashing power (https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/unitedcorp-launches-suit-against-bitmain-bitcoincom-roger-ver-kraken-bitcoin-exchange-and-others-20181206-00743), thus implementing a lot of code written on knee, with ridiculous content such as The Wormhole Protocol and Wormhole Cash, basically transforming Bitcoin Cash into a securities platform, without legal tender.

There is only one Bitcoin.

[four3200]

bsv = B.S. Version 

1000% shitCON

 https://miningpoolstats.stream/bitcoinsv

f2pool controls 100% HASH

51% attack?
no 100% attack

double down
double spend

watch Bitfinex Bittrex Polo etc go BANKRUPT 

[HardFireMiner]

bsv = B.S. Version 

1000% shitCON

 https://miningpoolstats.stream/bitcoinsv

f2pool controls 100% HASH

51% attack?
no 100% attack

double down
double spend

watch Bitfinex Bittrex Polo etc go BANKRUPT 

Your source of information is inaccurate, while this is also not perfect, it's better, check it out https://cash.coin.dance/

[four3200]

Wasn't decentralization the first reason Bitcoin was created?

This way, on 1 August, Bitcoin was hijacked, forking off Bitcoin Cash.

On 15 November, 2018, BitcoinABC hijacked Bitcoin Cash network using rented hashing power (https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/unitedcorp-launches-suit-against-bitmain-bitcoincom-roger-ver-kraken-bitcoin-exchange-and-others-20181206-00743), thus implementing a lot of code written on knee, with ridiculous content such as The Wormhole Protocol and Wormhole Cash, basically transforming Bitcoin Cash into a securities platform, without legal tender.

There is only one Bitcoin.

UnitedCorp also alleges that a few days later on November 20th, the ABC development team planted a "poison pill" into the blockchain in the form of a "Deep Reorg Prevention" as well as other functionality in order to cement the control of the blockchain ledger. This intervention allows maintenance of control on future implementations and any related rule sets for future network upgrades.

https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/unitedcorp-launches-suit-against-bitmain-bitcoincom-roger-ver-kraken-bitcoin-exchange-and-others-20181206-00743

1 rent HASH get longer chain

2 "poison pill" in RogerCashv2

3 bch.Orginal;dead  Roger Wins!

There was no insider (exchange) fix'n the market ... what was bCH @ $500? hmmm