[ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Satoshi Vision - Unmoderated Thread

[BitcoinFX]

Note to bitcointalk.org forum admins, moderators and all forum users: This is an unmoderated version of the following thread topic:

[ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5211986.0

Forum users have become increasingly disillusioned with the continual self-moderation (having multiple on-topic posts deleted) by the topic starter 'Bitcoin SV' - this thread simply aims to maintain open and honest discussion, in regards to BitcoinSV (BSV), without censorship!

"Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they believe that the creator of the original topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution."

See user: 'Bitcoin SV' - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2371095

...

Also see this topic in SCAM Accusations:

Re: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.0

...

Full disclosure:

I, BitcoinFX do NOT support BitcoinSV. 'Original' Bitcoin is BTC - see: https://bitcoin.org

BSV is NOT original Bitcoin (it is a fork of a fork of original Bitcoin BTC) , as described in the BSV license:
- https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE

Quote: "... The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767
with the hash "000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b" ..."

...



Image source: https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1201835155725455361

...

Herewith, re-posting user 'Bitcoin SV' thread topic, as-is ...

“The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.”

Satoshi Nakamoto

White paper
https://bitcoinsv.io/bitcoin.pdf

Hard Fork Latest Updates
https://bitcoinsv.io/genesis-hard-fork

Bitcoin SV – Blocking potential P2SH replay attack after Genesis hard fork
https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/12/23/bitcoin-sv-blocking-potential-p2sh-replay-attack-after-genesis-hard-fork

The Bitcoin SV Node team notes the recent public disclosure on Reddit by Gregory Maxwell (a.k.a. /u/nullc) from the Bitcoin Core (BTC) of a potential replay attack vector on Bitcoin SV after the “Genesis” hard fork in February 2020 which will be deprecating the P2SH (pay-to-script-hash) feature that is not part of the Bitcoin design described by Satoshi Nakamoto.

The post describes a possible theft via replay attack of P2SH (pay-to-script-hash) transactions from the BTC chain that could be executed to steal unsplit funds of BTC users on the Bitcoin SV chain. The Bitcoin SV mission is to return Bitcoin to the vision described in Satoshi’s whitepaper which uses the word “honest” no less than 15 times and we emphatically reject the notion that obvious theft of coins by miners can fall within the definition of “honest” behaviour.

 We note that Mr. Maxwell’s public disclosure in no way fits the broadly accepted definition of “responsible disclosure” and by describing in detail the steps required to exploit and potentially cause loss of funds to BTC users, we would deem it both irresponsible to BTC users and poor security practice.  Had the disclosure been made responsibly according the guidelines set out in the Bitcoin SV Responsible Disclosure Policy, it likely would have been eligible for a substantial bug bounty.  It is particularly puzzling to the BSV Node team that the disclosure was made in this public way by a BTC core developer given the users most likely put at greater risk by the disclosure are not those actively engaged with BSV, but primarily those that are BTC users who may not even be interested in BSV.

We note for the record that the Bitcoin SV Node team has previously made responsible disclosures to the Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash development teams and intend to continuing to do so as part of our commitment to professionalizing Bitcoin software development.

The Bitcoin SV team had been previously aware of variations of this attack vector and did in fact have a plan in place to mitigate it, in part involving a coalition of honest miners forcibly rejecting blocks that contain obvious theft attempts in order to protect the integrity of the chain. We note that this mechanism has subtle but important differences to an explicit consensus rule although has a similar effect. However, due to this public disclosure and explicit description of the method, we believe there is now a significantly higher risk of a dishonest miner attempting to execute this theft attack with a large amount of hashpower and consequently the economic cost to honest miners of implementing the proposed mitigation method is likely to be substantially higher as well. As such the Bitcoin SV team has determined that a stronger mitigation is now required.

We note for the record that Mr. Maxwell’s post did bring to our attention some aspects of this issue that the Bitcoin SV team had not yet fully considered.  So we thank him for the technical review and shedding some new light on the matter.  

In fact, this event demonstrates that the public review process implemented by the Bitcoin SV team, in advance of finalizing the code in early January, is achieving the intended goal of improving security outcomes for the ecosystem.

Mitigation
In response, the Bitcoin SV Node team will update the “Genesis” hard fork specification by upgrading the rule rejecting the P2SH script pattern from a policy rule to a consensus rule.  That is the specific script template “OP_HASH160 <hash> OP_EQUAL” will not be allowed in new outputs and this rule will be directly implemented in the Bitcoin SV Node software.  Whilst unfortunate to restrict the usage of a particular script pattern, we note that the same effect can be achieved using variations of the script pattern e.g. “OP_SHA256 OP_RIPEMD160 <hash> OP_EQUAL”.

This change closes the attack vector and mitigates the need for honest miners to forcibly reject blocks containing theft transactions.  Whilst this could have triggered a valuable demonstration of the principle of honest miners acting punitively against dishonest miners, the public disclosure by Mr. Maxwell raises the potential cost to those miners to an unacceptable level.

Segwit script pattern
To address an additional but unrelated issue related to native Segwit transaction replay an additional measure will be taken. This will be detailed in a later post.

An update to the Genesis hard fork specification will be published shortly and the code changes included in the next beta release of Bitcoin SV.  Release notification will occur through the usual channels noted here: https://bitcoinsv.io/genesis-hard-fork/

Bug Bounty
We take this opportunity to remind the security research community of the substantial bug bounty program offered by Bitcoin SV with a maximum reward of up to $100,000 USD (payable in BSV), rivalling the largest bug bounty programs in the world offered by multinational technology giants.

We offer a top-tier bug bounty program in order to encourage further scrutiny, review and responsible disclosures from all parties.  Gregory Maxwell is of course eligible to participate so long as he adheres to principles of Responsible Disclosure in the future.

...

Again,

note to bitcointalk.org forum admins, moderators and all forum users: This is an unmoderated version of the following thread topic:

[ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5211986.0

Forum users have become increasingly disillusioned with the continual self-moderation (having multiple on-topic posts deleted) by the topic starter 'Bitcoin SV' - this thread simply aims to maintain open and honest discussion, in regards to BitcoinSV (BSV), without censorship!

"Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they believe that the creator of the original topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution."

See user: 'Bitcoin SV' - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2371095

...

Also see this topic in SCAM Accusations:

Re: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.0

...

Full disclosure:

I, BitcoinFX do NOT support BitcoinSV. 'Original' Bitcoin is BTC - see: https://bitcoin.org

[1714095591]

1714095591

[1714095591]

1714095591

[1714095591]

1714095591

[1714095591]

1714095591

[nutildah]

Here are a couple of my comments that were deleted from the old thread (I refuse to waste my time commenting in the new thread).

This one points out how BSV's transaction volume is being steadily manipulated in order to surpass BTC's transactions per day.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Lets hope blue is not passing away in sleep at hodl.
https://i.ibb.co/rxr6JkL/Untitled.jpg

Thanks for posting this. This plot is one of my favorites to demonstrate the manipulation of statistics by BSV. Notice how all the lines are pretty wavy, indicating a rather tremendous amount of variation in the number of transactions? Then notice how the line smooths out for BSV between late May and mid July? This is because BSV was coordinating a ramp up in transactions to surpass BCH. It lost all variance because all (most) transactions are being performed by a single entity.

Here's what it looks like close-up so you can see it in better detail:



Let me guess: you are going to say this methodical, calculated ramp up in transactions is completely organic, right? The loss of variance is also organic, correct? Then why did the variance reappear after the ramp up had ended?

The one dispels the myth that BTC is "ignoring the miners":

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic...

https://sv.coin.dance/blocks

It’s no secret, BSV is winning the blocksize race.

Funny how you have to invent competitions in order to have one where you are actually winning.

BTC can build a layer that ignores the miners, if BTC ever reaches 20k again it will cost 50$ just to fund a lightning node with an on chain transaction.

This statement highlights the cognitive dissonance of BSVers. How can transaction fees be so high if BTC is ignoring miners? Either transaction fees are high, or miners are being ignored. Both items cannot be present at the same time.

At this rate BSV miners will claim a higher reward from transaction fees over block rewards, this is how bitcoin was meant to be.

Average BSV block reward per day minus fees: $148,950
Average BSV transaction fees per day: $125  

The only way this could possibly happen (before the next halving) is if transaction fees increase by a factor of 1191 while the price remains the same. This will never happen.

Let's compare the same stats for BTC:

Average BTC block reward per day minus fees: $14,400,000
Average BTC transaction fees per day: $136,444

The ratio between block reward and fees for BTC is only 105.5, whereas it is 1191 for BSV! Your entire existence has just been rendered absurd.  

Additionally your last stress test could only produce a block that was 8 MB. Why not just use Bcash? What's the difference? At least the Bcash cult leader doesn't think he's Satoshi.

What a joke.

So does this one:

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic...

The lightning network (the only Scaling solution BTC has come up with) literally ignores miners in every way possible.

False. You literally just said this:

if BTC ever reaches 20k again it will cost 50$ just to fund a lightning node with an on chain transaction.

Where do you think that $50 is going? Besides, how can fees be so high if everybody is ignoring the miners?

Bitcoin miners are doing just fine. You're just rehashing that same tired, disproven narrative perpetuated by other BSV idiots that we've heard a thousand times before.

Ohhhh what about the poor, poor miners? Who will think of them???  

Everything is driven by economic incentives. LN will be used because blocks are already quite full, which means the miners are already making maximum income from transaction fees. There's no problem here whatsoever.

This one is about how the count of active addresses is a better metric for determining the popularity of a coin than transaction volume:

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic...

https://sv.coin.dance/blocks

Proof is here. bitcoin SV now averaging bigger blocks the BTC on a daily basis. This explains the recent price surge for BSV. If Bitcoin SV continues increasing block sizes at this growth rate, it will be a very slow death for BTC. BSV price will continue to increase simply because there will be an incentive for miners to mine the most profitable chain.

This comment will be flagged and deleted by dictator moderators on this form.

 

The only reason your comments get deleted is when you post twice in a row or if you spam off-topic nonsense. In this case you only posted once, and while your comment is indeed nonsense it is still not off-topic, so it won't be deleted.

BSV muppets always fail to take into account active addresses, which is a much better metric for estimating the popularity of a coin.

Active addresses

BTC: 537k
ETH: 313k
DASH: 64.6k
LTC: 42.8k
DOGE: 34.45k
BSV: 28.4k
ETC: 18.3k
BCH: 17.2k

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/activeaddresses-bsv.html

Congrats, more people use DOGE on a daily basis than BSV, despite it only having 14.5% the total market cap of your tremendously overpriced coin.

The "payment" aspect for BSV accounts for 2.1% of all usage... just like Satoshi intended...  

Finally, this is why I stopped commenting in their thread (in addition to having all of my comments deleted, lol):

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic...

There is a lot that (the real) nutildah says with which I do not agree.

However, this nutlidah impostor should rethink their approach. It seems evident that the username was chosen to intentionally deceive. Very poor taste. I doubt you're fooling anyone. You're only making yourself look bad.

There are 2 sets of multi-accounters working this thread, if not just 1. One of the main problems with this thread is that it was started by a banned user named korner. He's opened probably 100 different accounts to troll the forum, one of which is my impostor.

Frankly I don't give a shit about SV anymore. Its a comedic spectacle. No longer worth bumping this thread over.

In any case, this thread is a good initiative, and we should encourage people who had their replies deleted to repost them here, as well as keep this thread listed above the actual ANN thread at all times.

[solosequenosenada]

Thanks to the OP for creating this thread, it is both important and exhausting to prevent these groups from confusing and misleading newcomers about Bitcoin.
It is a matter of time before people find out what their true intentions are and then these forks will die, in slow motion as has been happening.

[notblox1]

I am very happy to see this Unmoderated Thread.

One interesting thing I noticed is that member 'Bicoin SV' is supporting one more suspicious project called trusd
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205460

He trusts this newbie member:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2721770

Connection should be investigated

[nutildah]

I am very happy to see this Unmoderated Thread.

One interesting thing I noticed is that member 'Bicoin SV' is supporting one more suspicious project called trusd
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205460

He trusts this newbie member:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2721770

Connection should be investigated

The connection is "Bitcoin SV" (should really have quadruple-quotes around his name) decided to leave positive feedback for every single member I have ever given a negative feedback to, and several of the people I gave a neutral to...  

They are obsessed with me I suppose. But they're not the first hater I've had, and they won't be the last.

[dragonvslinux]

Don't mind me, just cross-posting some information for the first page of this thread 

Bitmex Research vs Craig Wright: 13 Part Tweet Storm

Courtesy of @BitMEXResearch, October 13th 2019. Further reading: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member.
Click on images for larger versions. Note this is a collated post with links & mark up, not original content.

(1/13) Craig Wright is speaking at @ForumChallenge this week in London, in a session entitled “What was your purpose as Satoshi writing the Whitepaper?”

Please see below some of the court rulings and fraud accusations related to Mr Wright

Source: https://cc-forum.com/agenda/



(2/13) In a 2005 case, in an Australian court ruling against Mr Wright, the judge mentioned that there were “doubts about his credibility”, due to contradictory evidence
Source: http://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2005/368.html



(3/13) Mr Wright appears to have edited his blog dated 2008, in 2015, to make it look like he was writing a cryptocurrency paper at the time, while a 2014 snapshot of the blog does not include this cryptocurrency comment
Sources: http://web.archive.org/web/20151003011022/http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au/2008_08_24_archive.html, http://web.archive.org/web/20140602022658/http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au/2008_08_24_archive.html





(4/13) According to @DrFunkenstein6, Mr Wright may have submitted an email to the court for the Kleiman case, where the date and date implied by the email signature timestamp are inconsistent

@DrFunkenstein6
Craig Wright just submitted a provably fake email in court for the Kleiman case. @PeterMcCormack and @adam3us, you may find this interesting!

(5/13) According to @jimmy007forsure, Mr Wright may have submitted another email to the court for the Kleiman case dated in 2008, when the domain is question was only registered in 2009

@jimmy007forsure
This email was blown apart ages ago. But BSV fans still seem to think its legit and was provided by Ira Kleiman and thus proves Craig is Satoshi .. Sorry its another forgery and Craig handed the doc over under discovery. Craig is a liar, fraud and a bloody idiot.

(6/13) Court transcripts from the Kleiman case appear to imply that Wright backdated messages he sent on Bitmessage, because the software was not released at the time on the screenshot Mr Wright provided
Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/421765199/gov-uscourts-flsd-521536-261-1#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&amp;ad_group=100652X1574425X601bafb21062f76b9a122e2322edb2c7&amp;keyword=660149026&amp;source=hp_affiliate&amp;medium=affiliate



(7/13) Mr Wright may have claimed to have a PhD in Computer Science from Charles Sturt University on his Linkedin profile, however a Forbes article implies this may not be the case
Sources: https://archive.is/XnLQd, https://forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/12/11/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-craig-wright-lies-hoax/#46034df67947



(8/13) A recent article by Sam Williams indicates that Mr Wright plagiarised some academic papers, copying large chunks of text from other papers
Source: https://medium.com/@samwill102244/anatomy-of-a-fraud-a-deep-dive-into-one-of-craig-wrights-plagiarized-papers-96bc8624fc12



(9/13) According to @kyletorpey, a lawsuit against Craig Wright claims Wright used a computer-generated font called Otto to forge Dave Kleiman's signature

@kyletorpey
The $10 Billion lawsuit against Craig Wright claims Wright used a computer-generated font called Otto to forge Dave Kleiman's signature and acquire hundreds of thousands of bitcoins.

(10/13) Mr Wright appears to have claimed to have had one of the world’s fastest supercomputers called “C01N”, however according to a @ZDNet article the supplier he mentioned denied having any relationship with Mr Wright
Source: https://zdnet.com/article/sgi-denies-links-with-alleged-bitcoin-founder-craig-wright




(11/13) Mr Wright claims to be entitled to over 1 million Bitcoin in the “Tulip Trust”, which trust documents show was created in 2011. However, as @MyLegacyKit points out, documents imply that Mr Wright may have acquired the company as late as 2014

@MyLegacyKit
For those who still think this Tulip trust thing is a genuine set up in 2011/2012, please pay attention now. In the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit we found out the following.

The Tulip Trading Limited trust was requested by Craig Wright on October 16, 2014 as a "shelf company".

(12/13) In May 2016 Mr Wright claimed he was about to release a message & signature proving he was Satoshi, however as the BBC points out, he "backed out" and all he produced was a signature “that could be found via a search engine”
Source: https://bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36213580



(13/13) And finally. The 2019 court ruling in the case between the estate of David Kleiman and Mr Craig Wright concluded that Mr Wright "willfully created fraudulent documents" and acted in "bad faith"
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.277.0.pdf

@BitMEXResearch
The court ruling in the case between the estate of David Kleiman and Mr Craig Wright has been published

The court reaches damning conclusions against Mr Wright, who "willfully created fraudulent documents" and acted in "bad faith"

https://courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.277.0.pdf

Sourced from @BitMEXResearch tweet storm, October 13th 2019
Further reading: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper

@MyLegacyKit, October 16th 2019

Craig Wright - The TL;DR Fraud Timeline Summary

-No Blacknet whitepaper
-Handfuls of plagiarisms
-Contempt of court verdict
-Didn't write Bitcoin whitepaper
-No fibre to Bagnoo
-No Bitcoin email to Dave Kleiman
-No early paper with 90% overlap with Bitcoin whitepaper

1/10

-Didn't pay for bitcoin dot org
-Many forgeries on his blog
-Rewrites history of Hal Finney, Martti Malmi & others
-Didn't mine Bitcoin as Satoshi
-Couldn't have used Bitmessage
-Microsoft Patch Tuesday didn't ruin Genesis block
-Couldn't have used Bitcoin-Qt client in 2009

2/10

-Lies about Bitcoin reusing public keys
-Lies about USA Bitcoin mining location
-Lies about Hal Finney's first mining
-No mining son in 2010
-Only learns about Bitcoin in July 2011
-No mining to Panama trust
-No Tulip Trust in 2011
-No locked files in Tulip Trust

3/10

-No 1,100,111 BTC in Tulip Trust
-No 215,140 BTC mining contract
-No 650,000 BTC loan
-No 821,050 BTC payment to trustee
-No 300,000 BTC for W&K shares
-No 380,103 BTC payment for gold/software
-No 650,000/700,000 BTC market buy for $30 million

4/10

-Never proved large BTC transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain
-Never mentioned by investigative journalists
-Forged emails with Dave about Tulip Trust
-Backdated Directors/Shareholders in companies
-Created bogus company figures
-Only buys Bitcoin in 2013
-Can't code

5/10

-Sets up court approved W&K fraud around dead Dave Kleiman
-Tried to bring Ira Kleiman into his Bitcoin fraud
-Lied about Dave Kleiman being involved in Bitcoin
-Lied to ATO
-Lied about his role in W&K
-Lied to Bitcoin Belle
-Doxed himself to Wired/Gizmodo

6/10

-Lied to Jon Matonis, Gavin Andresen, mainstream media
-Failed multiple key signing sessions (notable: Sartre)
-Used fake & backdated Satoshi PGP keys
-Lied about running SGI supercomputers
-Lied about 2 Charles Sturt University PhD's
-ATO tax fraud verdict $1.7 million

7/10

-Makes fraudulent $54 million R&D tax concession claim
-Doesn't have Satoshi's communication style
-Truckloads of articles questioning or calling out his Satoshi claim
-Promised 10,000 patents, delivers less than 250
-Does numerous failed SegWit, LN & BTC death threats

8/10

-Gets sued by Ira Kleiman for fraud & much more
-Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit is treasure dome of forgeries, from false signatures to backdated emails, pulled false evidence & perjury
-Registered false Bitcoin copyright claim
-Gives bad reputation to people in inner circle

9/10

And then Craig Wright is surprised that people call him a fraud. So he starts a handful of libel suits, and expects to win them with rusty staples and coffee stains... 🤦

10/10

Source: Arthur van Pelt - Dragon Industries collated tweets storm, October 16th 2019

Just stumbled across this piece of fraud that seems to of slipped under the radar, and notably wasn't referenced in Bitmex's tweet storm:



Source: https://twitter.com/PeterMcCormack/status/1164384928781557765

Here's the metadump of the archived pdf showing the create date chronologically after the modify date 

Code:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.6
Linearized                      : No
Author                          : Craig Steven Wright
Create Date                     : 2009:03:24 11:33:15-06:00
Keywords                        : Bitcoin;, Blockchain;, law;, smart, contract;, time, chain;, immutable
Modify Date                     : 2008:05:21 19:43:08+01:00
Language                        : en-GB
XMP Toolkit                     : Adobe XMP Core 1.1-c016 91.132716, 2008/10/29-16:58:49
Creator Tool                    : Writer
Metadata Date                   : 2008:05:21 19:43:08+01:00
Producer                        : OpenOffice.org 2.4
Web Statement                   : https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=8&ti=1,8&Search_Arg=bitcoin&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=smt26T35HVzgQS6nr_ENlOg0IjL7h&SEQ=20080728095548&SID=1
Authors Position                : Dr
Caption Writer                  : Satoshi Nakamoto
Format                          : application/pdf
Title                           : Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Description                     : Bitcoin, a peer to peer cash system
Creator                         : Craig Steven Wright
Subject                         : BitCoin, Blockchain, law, smart contract, time chain, immutable
Rights                          : (C) Craig Steven Wright.2008
Document ID                     : uuid:3658ec91-de13-42e3-9796-6369d7172efc
Instance ID                     : uuid:02a9a63b-da5a-449f-b280-36f9a69f1962
Page Count                      : 9

As a reminder this version of the whitepaper published to SSRN [archive] (has been removed) was referenced by CoinDesk in 2018, while Peter only tweeted about the fraud a year later.

[hv_]

That's all ?

Proof for BSV for what?


Is only see some funny Nonsens and low level Name callings from no names


BSV is original Bitcoin - read the code


It works from 2009 - no code alterations needed from any dev

Happy Birthday BitCoin!

[Dabs]

BSV forked from BCH which forked from BTC. I don't think you can call BSV as original.

[dishku]

BSV forked from BCH which forked from BTC. I don't think you can call BSV as original.

This is game of speculation a group of big whales just manipulating the market to trap the new investors by creating more confusion and pretending this as original coin but that is crystal it is fork of the fork so you are right and I also will do agree with you.

[hv_]

BSV forked from BCH which forked from BTC. I don't think you can call BSV as original.

BitCoin didn't change functionality and code, but sth minor, the ticker from [no ticker] to BC to ... to BSV

Nobody can change BitCoin that Satoshi designed

But you can lie to ppl and tell them BTC = Bcore+1MB+RBF+Segwit+LN + WTFdevInjects is 'Bitcoin' , cause it isn't

That doesn't work for logical / analytical thinking ppl,

it might work for poor bagholders.

 BitCoin is more

[fratoshi]

How many of you hate, don't like, disagree with BSV but hold some because of FOMO, fear to miss the train?

BSV is up by 40% today.
I bought BSV when it was under 50$ a few months ago when they announced in a conference that they forked and now big blocks are possible on the BSV chain.



I personally don't promote BSV but i as a trader i can tell it has potential to go over 1500$ sometime sooner, and watching as an spectator how some exchanges acted against BSV i can see that BSV is really a threat to other coins as is currently on the top 10 coinmarketcap and is not trade on many important exchanges.

[solosequenosenada]

.....

Yeah, sure, man, whatever you want... benefits above all. You might be interested in buying XRP!

In the meantime, look at this beautiful chart

[nutildah]

We don't dabble in trading scamcoins here. (Edit: by this I mean BSV)

Much like the whole white paper copyright registration fake news, this is simply a pump capitalizing on false pretenses. This time, Craig's defense says the judge's sanctions were inappropriate because he could not disclose his bitcoin holdings until after receiving "the remaining cryptographic slice" from the bonded courier. The appellate court overseeing the issue agreed that they should wait until February 3rd for the courier to appear before slamming him with a half million bitcoin debt to Ira Kleiman.

However, most of what the court had to say about Wright wasn't very kind.

The Court notes that although the Defendant was ordered to produce all documents related to the blind trust by May 9, 2019, the Defendant had still failed to timely produce all documents that he had in his possession as of the evidentiary hearing date. In fact, as late as January 6, 2020, it was the Plaintiff who advised the Court that the Defendant produced another document purportedly related to the blind trusts. Plaintiffs advise that the Defendant has not provided any explanation as to the document’s late disclosure. At the status conference on January 9, 2020, Plaintiffs also called into question the document’s authenticity.

...the sole evidence put forward to establish the Defendant’s claim of impossibility, his own testimony, was found not to be credible by Judge Reinhart... (“I completely reject Dr. Wright’s testimony about the alleged Tulip Trust, the alleged encrypted file, and his inability to identify his bitcoin holdings . . . During his testimony, Dr. Wright’s demeanor did not impress me as someone who was telling the truth.”).

The Court has also reviewed the transcripts from the Evidentiary Hearing held by Judge Reinhart and agrees with his credibility findings relating to Defendant. Indeed, in answering opposing counsel’s questions, the Defendant was evasive, refused to give and interpret words in their very basic meanings, was combative, and became defensive when confronted with previous inconsistencies.

...the Court has no doubt that the Plaintiffs were prejudiced by the Defendant’s antics. It is clear to the Court that the Defendant’s conduct was anything but substantially justified or harmless. Defendant’s conduct delayed and obstructed the discovery process of this case, wasted valuable time and resources in litigating this issue, and prevented the Plaintiff from obtaining evidence that the Magistrate Judge found relevant to the Plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, the Court rejects the Defendants’ argument that no prejudice has been suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of the Defendant’s conduct. Such argument is entirely devoid of merit.

Finally, the Defendant argues that at minimum he “should have been afforded the opportunity to wait until [the date the bonded courier is set to come] to see if he receives the key slices to generate the list of his bitcoin holdings, which he could then provide to plaintiffs.” Defendant contends that in the event this occurs, “even plaintiffs would have to concede that Dr. Wright’s inability to do the impossible and comply with the discovery order caused them absolutely no prejudice.” Given the Defendant’s many inconsistencies and misstatements, the Court questions whether it is remotely plausible that the mysterious “bonded courier” is going to arrive, yet alone that he will arrive in January 2020 as the Defendant now contends. However, given that the Defendant maintains that he should at least be afforded this opportunity, the Court will indulge him this much.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.373.0.pdf

The court order, while stating that Judge Reinhart's sanctions on Wright had been "improperly imposed," is still just a slam on Wright that is being cleverly re-interpreted to fool people into thinking that Wright is going to produce evidence that a bonded courier is scheduled to deliver cryptographic "slices" proving that he owns Satoshi's bitcoin stash.

Spoiler alert: He won't.

Basically, nothing new here.

Short BSV if you can.

[mk111]

What the hell is Bitcoin SV? Did Roger create another Bitcoin clone as Bcash failed? LAWL epic fail

[arielbit]

there is no vision......what vision?

so satoshi left and come back to fork bitcoin? LOL

unless craig sign satoshi's wallets he is not satoshi, if he is not satoshi, how come it is called "satoshi's vision"

what is bitcoin now? it is the decentralized community of miners, coders, shitcoiners, scammers, schemers, gamblers, investards...i can go on and on.. a "VISION" of one man is meaningless now. so cut the crap with the "VISION" shit LOL

[Last of the V8s]

Guys I guess don't engage in other thread now, you're bumping it up... ?

[hv_]

there is no vision......what vision?

so satoshi left and come back to fork bitcoin? LOL

unless craig sign satoshi's wallets he is not satoshi, if he is not satoshi, how come it is called "satoshi's vision"

what is bitcoin now? it is the decentralized community of miners, coders, shitcoiners, scammers, schemers, gamblers, investards...i can go on and on.. a "VISION" of one man is meaningless now. so cut the crap with the "VISION" shit LOL

Funny, he might NOT even be Satoshi, if he signs.

Logic is a bitch

Anyhow BSV is just refactored Original BitCoin, so good to keep it working just to honor the work of Satoshi?

One of the best visions ever imo



Bitcoin is the real thing, injecting shit and fuck up the original protocol is nothing special, sorry


Cheers

[nutildah]

Funny, he might NOT even be Satoshi, if he signs.

It sure would be a lot better than what ever else he's done to prove he's Satoshi. So far he's done nothing but tell lies.

Anyhow BSV is just refactored Original BitCoin

It's not. Its a fork of a fork. It contains changes made by Bitcoin Core and BCH devs. Feel free to keep spewing lies, and I'll keep correcting them.

[solosequenosenada]

....

The sacrifice for supporting back to 0.8 vs merely (say) supporting a year or two ago is insignificant-- mostly automated tests take a little longer to run and keeping around a bit of older redundant code to support the communication requirements of older nodes.

If there were a big cost difference between three years back and six years back, then perhaps newer versions would only still talk three years back.

That isn't the case because almost all of the compatibility costs are created by having any compatibility at all. One it exists, keeping it around isn't usually a large cost.

If you're running a relatively centralized system and can just demand everyone upgrade all at once to new behaviour you've specified then some things can be implemented somewhat easier. Though interestingly, it turns out-- most things are about the same either way. Changes to commitment structures (what data gets hashed) are hard to do in compatible ways, almost everything else is easy. But assuming everyone can upgrade at once is an extraordinarily centralizing assumption.

Supporting back a couple years means that users are free to run niche or custom software. They can keep on using Bitcoin XT or "Bitcoin Classic" or their own customized versions of them if those things have features they're dependent on.

They don't have to stop what they're doing and rebuild and retest their infrastructure on someone else's schedule. They don't have to take a risk that the new code introduces some backdoor or bad interaction with their other software. They can wait until they're doing other upgrades to change to new stuff.

Old versions can be insecure in various ways but you can keep your existing stuff running with a separate newer node as a firewall to protect it.

Even if you assume that everyone will eventually upgrade to new software-- and I generally do-- users being able to do it on their own timeframe can extraordinarily reduce their costs and risks. There are very few visible nodes in the Bitcoin network <0.13.1 (less than 5%), though we can't tell what people are running privately behind firewall nodes.

There are also other alternative implementations that are limping along. They add new features but because they're much smaller than the biggest public development effort, it sometimes takes them months or a year to catch up. Fortunately, compatibility means they're not killed dead if they can't always keep up with the fastest developed implementation.

None of that works in BCH land. If you really loved Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, or some other niche version ... or just had your own patches on an older version of ABC... well you're just SOL: you can't just keep running them. Your only option is to take on an incredible amount of development work either updating the code to the new consensus rules or recreating the features you need on the new software and testing that these changes don't break anything you care about. BCH's frequent hardfork practices have demonstratively killed many (most?) of the "many implementations" that were being so heavily promoted here a couple years ago.

I think there is a lot of juicy irony that many people around here were hollering about zomg dev control but then switch to BCH and an hardfork process that crams controversial (e.g. CTOR) changes down people's throat, actively kills competing implementation, and materially reduces user's freedom to choose to not follow around some client authors latest brainfart.


Post by @nullc on reddit . https://www.reddit.com/user/nullc/

Not even mentioning BSV which is a fork of a fork of a fork.....

[arielbit]

there is no vision......what vision?

so satoshi left and come back to fork bitcoin? LOL

unless craig sign satoshi's wallets he is not satoshi, if he is not satoshi, how come it is called "satoshi's vision"

what is bitcoin now? it is the decentralized community of miners, coders, shitcoiners, scammers, schemers, gamblers, investards...i can go on and on.. a "VISION" of one man is meaningless now. so cut the crap with the "VISION" shit LOL

Funny, he might NOT even be Satoshi, if he signs.

Logic is a bitch

Anyhow BSV is just refactored Original BitCoin, so good to keep it working just to honor the work of Satoshi?

One of the best visions ever imo



Bitcoin is the real thing, injecting shit and fuck up the original protocol is nothing special, sorry


Cheers

"honor the work of Satoshi?"

what is bitcoin? a memorial? a religion even? LOL

it is a programmable money.

let's say for the sake of argument that craig is satoshi, do we believe whatever he says that "should be done in bitcoin"? answer: NO , because people involved got brains too and will come into consensus for the better/greater good and not some kind of "vision" of a person.

sorry, but injecting shit and fucking up the original protocol is special..why? because Bitcoin itself in day 1 is an injected shit to fuck up the world protocol for inflating fiat currencies.

while BitcoinSV is some injected shit to fuck up the Bitcoin revolution protocol that is taking the world by storm.

logic is indeed a bitch.