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

[SesAnn3]

All I know is that person in above Picture (click link to view the image) is not satoshi but faketoshi. BSV got just an artificial pump and it will surely come back.

[1714856115]

1714856115

[hv_]

Quite entertaining how the trolls just only can react on BSV by derailing their thefts of original BitCoin protocol, idea, IP ... and try to social media proof that the guy who's pointing out their dumb thefts, try to make him a theft...


Now, who IS still the proven thief?

Core / Blockstream , abc devs ?

Why going into original sourcs as long as social media gives more time for popcorn...


 

[BitcoinFX]

O RLY?

Twitter storm time ...

"Craig Wright has committed 'ID theft' of the #Bitcoin creator !?

I am 'BitcoinFX', registered user No. 30 - February 01, 2010, from the http://bitcointalk.org forum, one of the places the real Satoshi Nakamoto launched Bitcoin (#BTC).

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.msg188#msg188

1/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222878843704397826

...

"My Signed message thread:

- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1221190086328492033

2/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222879101293297665

...

"I ran an early Bitcoin exchange service and contributed mainly on the forum to help the Bitcoin concept to flourish.

https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1222243021540020224

I communicated with the real Satoshi, yet Craig Wright seemingly avoids myself (and others) like the plague!

3/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222879327425060865

...

"To date, Craig Stephen Wright has failed to sign a valid publicly verifiable Bitcoin message for any address:

Dan Kaminsky's:
- https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not/

Attempting (Failed) Verification of the Wright Signature:
- https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification

Also see:
- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/fraud-timeline.html

4/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222879510271492096

...

"Signed and Verifiable messages in Bitcoin are very easy. The real Satoshi could also prove identity via PGP.

- https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/

At the base of the page, see PGP Key; Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc :

- https://bitcointalk.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc

Financial privacy is not broken using PGP.

5/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222879720250990592

...

"Signed messages are a better proof-of-identity over not signing messages.

Bitcoin is financial cryptography software, after all.

Logging in to forum accounts and/or sending from original Satoshi email addresses is also feasible proof, for example.

6/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222879837834092544

...

"Whilst privacy and anonymity are quite different:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity

Pseudonymity in Bitcoin has always allowed for people to be honest brokers and to pay taxes.

'Criminals' unfortunately utilize all forms of money. This is unavoidable.

7/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222879979563835392

...

"The real Satoshi Nakamoto remains 'anonymous' and used #Tor for safer communications.

Use of privacy and anonymity tools for internet circumvention etc., does not make you a 'criminal'.

https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1221778440950599681

8/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222880212125392896

...

"#BitcoinSV is NOT the original Bitcoin. #BSV is a fork of a fork of original #Bitcoin which is #BTC.

They copied Bitcoin --> Bitcoin Cash --> BitcoinSV

See the BSV license agreement:

- https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE

One would imagine Satoshi to be lord of his own yard, right!

9/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222880593563869184

...

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

Again, BitcoinSV is NOT Bitcoin, Bitcoin is BTC.

10/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222880754063101953

...

"Finally, big blocks in BitcoinSV are NOT a scaling 'solution', they are a scaling problem!

CSW is NOT Satoshi and BSV is NOT Bitcoin.

Prove me wrong! Still waiting!

I recommend following: @MyLegacyKit for more facts on this subject.

11/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222881013812137984

...

"Peace and love to all Bitcoin (BTC) supporters and to the honest folks of the fantastic crypto community twittersphere !

Not your private keys, not your coins!

Don't trust, verify!

☮️ ❤️ 🌮 🔐 ⚡️

12/12"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222882485295570944

...

BSV is NOT Bitcoin and Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi.

...

"Worthless and unenforceable patents !?

- https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5960/can-i-patent-open-source-project

"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something..."

1/8"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222936773581594624

...

"... "... Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent..."

2/8"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222936939655041025

...

"... "... So trying to get a patent on something somebody else invented and implemented in code would be futile...."

- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222880754063101953

3/8"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222937111772397568

...

"Further,

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.msg52932888#msg52932888

Quote: "The bitcoin whitepaper was first distributed by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://cypherspace.org/CPL/ ... "

4/8"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222937305004068864

...

"... "Background ...

The CPL is written from a mindset which derides the very concept of Intellectual Property restrictions as being incompatible with a free society ..."

5/8"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222937500001415169

...

"... "... Cryptographically assured anonymity and anonymous use of Internet resources mean that denizens of cypherspace can ignore copyright, licenses attempting to control use and distribution of works, and patents on ideas..."

6/8"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222937618339573760

...

"... "... It is not possible to enforce IP laws by calls to government legal systems when the flaunter is strongly anonymous. ..."

7/8
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222937735658426369

...

"CSW's and nChain's patents are likely Prior Art i.e. worthless and unenforceable without said cryptographically assured proof.

😎

8/8"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1222938179579338752


Signed Message Thread ...

"Herewith, a Signed and Verifiable message from my (old) 2010 #Bitcoin (BTC) zero balance wallet address:

1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp

Why can't Craig Wright do this?

Not Your Private Keys, Not Your Bitcoin. 🔑

Don't trust, verify. 🧐

1 of 3"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1221190086328492033

...

"
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
@BitcoinFX_BTC on twitter.com
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp
HN37ufAaK25q9kDIKB4ddMkd2LeT8Y/2hE3gWDPDEbvqBDWOLcHAIbFQqgnqVu+zqwOHC2rf1/M6op0wQrt08vY=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

2 of 3"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1221190088065011713

...

"Verify Signed Message - https://brainwalletx.github.io/#verify?vrAddr=1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp&vrMsg=%40BitcoinFX_BTC%20on%20twitter.com&vrSig=HN37ufAaK25q9kDIKB4ddMkd2LeT8Y%2F2hE3gWDPDEbvqBDWOLcHAIbFQqgnqVu%2BzqwOHC2rf1%2FM6op0wQrt08vY%3D

BitcoinTalk Account Backlink - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4630066.msg53701472#msg53701472

BTC Address - https://blockchain.com/btc/address/1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp

Still a bit nauseating ! 🤪

3 of 3"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1221190101004406785

[hv_]

Validating Nodes; AKA Sybil Systems
There is no such thing as a validating node in Bitcoin. Bitcoin scales using SPV, but even with what some people in the BTC religion call full validating nodes, only miners matter. In particular, nodes were designed to preclude Sybil systems. Bitcoin is a proof-of-work system. Nodes are defined in six steps in the white paper. Any system that does not complete all of the six stages is not a node in Bitcoin. As such, any Raspberry Pi system is alluding itself. Your Raspberry Pi will never find a proof-of-work. Any such system is by definition a Sybil.

Yessss

Some guy is getting it.

If non-miner node (lol) GETTING a wrong copy - it's lost.

Miners are UPDATING the state

Raspis try to follow - just are behind all the time. No security coming from those 'Sybils' - don't trust them - just 'accept' what miners pass over - they verify for you - cause only miners getting paid for

[BitcoinFX]

Validating Nodes; AKA Sybil Systems
There is no such thing as a validating node in Bitcoin. Bitcoin scales using SPV, but even with what some people in the BTC religion call full validating nodes, only miners matter. In particular, nodes were designed to preclude Sybil systems. Bitcoin is a proof-of-work system. Nodes are defined in six steps in the white paper. Any system that does not complete all of the six stages is not a node in Bitcoin. As such, any Raspberry Pi system is alluding itself. Your Raspberry Pi will never find a proof-of-work. Any such system is by definition a Sybil.

 

You are referring to the Bitcoin (BTC) white paper here;

- https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

When Bitcoin (BTC) was released all nodes (wallets) were 'validating nodes'.

Mining bitcoins in-wallet with CPU power (Proof-of-Work) was entirely optional via a Tab > Generate Coins.

GPU mining and pooled mining did not exist until later on.

Your twisted narrative of Bitcoin history is therefore a completely invalid argument.

...

"Important to understand here:

1. In 2009/2010 the Bitcoin client was a wallet, a node and a miner (which was called "generating coins" back in the days).
2. Satoshi foresaw a future split of the Bitcoin client in wallets, mining nodes (in parks) and listening nodes.

17/23"
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1222883332968656898

[hv_]

There is no BTC white paper - this claim got rekkt by segwit & co

VERY EASY TO VERIFY - don't trust twitter trolls

[BitcoinFX]

There is no BTC white paper - this claim got rekkt by segwit & co

VERY EASY TO VERIFY - don't trust twitter trolls

Yes it is very easy to verify, Bitcoin = BTC at domain bitcoin.org - always has! ...

- https://web.archive.org/web/20090303195936/http://bitcoin.org/

"Paper: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Abstract. 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. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone."

Paper: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System <<<<< links to ...

- https://web.archive.org/web/20100704213649/http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Again, Bitcoin = BTC at domain bitcoin.org - always has!

...

Bitcoin is NOT BSV and CSW is NOT Satoshi.

Got it now? Good!

I'm presenting you with hard facts and hard evidence here, with empirical sources and you only have words ... who is the troll ? YOU ARE @hv_ .

[hv_]

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

yes - and no segwit, ctor, rbf, and honest miners run the nodes

>>>>>>

BSV looks the hard fact BitCoin

BTC just soft forked away

No troll wins here

[Dabs]

Core wallet = full validating node. Just not mining new blocks. But verifying existing blocks. Segwit is implemented by consensus. That means everyone agreed to it. Plus, it works, so why not use it. You don't have to use it if you don't want to and stick to old school addresses, those still work.

[hv_]

Core wallet = full validating node. Just not mining new blocks. But verifying existing blocks. Segwit is implemented by consensus. That means everyone agreed to it. Plus, it works, so why not use it. You don't have to use it if you don't want to and stick to old school addresses, those still work.

Nope - not 'everyone' - and it's not a 'democratic' decision to change a protocol BTW - even more NOPE to change financial system having a strict definition WHITE PAPER

Learn finance and compliance

... the hard way

[nutildah]

Q: What's the difference between a slow, clunky database and a centralized blockchain?

A: Nothing.

[BitcoinFX]

Oh dear ...

"BSV mempool suddenly jumps to 400+ MB this morning. Interesting. 🙄"
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1227517652559712256

[nutildah]

Wow, I just watched BSV lose $50 in 15 minutes. That was breathtaking.

In the last 24 hours:

BTC down 3%
BSV down 14.5%

[hv_]

Wow, I just watched BSV lose $50 in 15 minutes. That was breathtaking.

In the last 24 hours:

BTC down 3%
BSV down 14.5%

Lol. Idiots only watch price and their bags - fcking short term and sighted


BitCoiners build, sustainable

[nutildah]

BitCoiners build, sustainable

LOL. Having your network dependent on the health of 250 nodes doesn't sound very sustainable to me.

What's the deal with the 75 nodes that still refuse to upgrade? That's a large chunk of your overall node count:

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/nodes

Furthermore, why would people use a centralized blockchain when there are already databases that do the same thing that SV does better, faster and cheaper?

[hv_]

BitCoiners build, sustainable

LOL. Having your network dependent on the health of 250 nodes doesn't sound very sustainable to me.

What's the deal with the 75 nodes that still refuse to upgrade? That's a large chunk of your overall node count:

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/nodes

Furthermore, why would people use a centralized blockchain when there are already databases that do the same thing that SV does better, faster and cheaper?

Seems not miners.

Why do you still care about relay nodes? They don't help. No need to count those clients.

Miners are honestly running the blockchain and network.

Not pees or raspis

[nutildah]

BitCoiners build, sustainable

LOL. Having your network dependent on the health of 250 nodes doesn't sound very sustainable to me.

What's the deal with the 75 nodes that still refuse to upgrade? That's a large chunk of your overall node count:

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/nodes

Furthermore, why would people use a centralized blockchain when there are already databases that do the same thing that SV does better, faster and cheaper?

Seems not miners.

Why do you still care about relay nodes? They don't help. No need to count those clients.

Miners are honestly running the blockchain and network.

Not pees or raspis

It would appear that your dream of cutting out validating nodes has become a reality. Now everyone on SV will be 100% reliant on 3rd party wallet providers to store their funds. No need for privacy or security with Bitcoin SV, right?

You didn't answer my other question: why would people use a centralized blockchain when there are already databases that do the same thing that SV does better, faster and cheaper?

[hv_]

BitCoiners build, sustainable

LOL. Having your network dependent on the health of 250 nodes doesn't sound very sustainable to me.

What's the deal with the 75 nodes that still refuse to upgrade? That's a large chunk of your overall node count:

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/nodes

Furthermore, why would people use a centralized blockchain when there are already databases that do the same thing that SV does better, faster and cheaper?

Seems not miners.

Why do you still care about relay nodes? They don't help. No need to count those clients.

Miners are honestly running the blockchain and network.

Not pees or raspis

It would appear that your dream of cutting out validating nodes has become a reality. Now everyone on SV will be 100% reliant on 3rd party wallet providers to store their funds. No need for privacy or security with Bitcoin SV, right?

You didn't answer my other question: why would people use a centralized blockchain when there are already databases that do the same thing that SV does better, faster and cheaper?

You ve no clue about incentives and game theory, right

Bitcoin is saved and secure by economics. The tech layer is just a poor instance of it. Don't get blinded by little techy things you might be able to grasp

The bigger picture is embedded economics (where store of value is a result, and does not come by funny definition in a book) and international law

[nutildah]

You ve no clue about incentives and game theory, right

Bitcoin is saved and secure by economics. The tech layer is just a poor instance of it. Don't get blinded by little techy things you might be able to grasp

The bigger picture is embedded economics (where store of value is a result, and does not come by funny definition in a book) and international law

What? That made no sense at all. I didn't mean to trigger you into having a stroke, I just wanted to know why anybody would use BSV when its obviously run by a scam artist and databases are much more efficient at storing data.

[hv_]

You ve no clue about incentives and game theory, right

Bitcoin is saved and secure by economics. The tech layer is just a poor instance of it. Don't get blinded by little techy things you might be able to grasp

The bigger picture is embedded economics (where store of value is a result, and does not come by funny definition in a book) and international law

What? That made no sense at all. I didn't mean to trigger you into having a stroke, I just wanted to know why anybody would use BSV when its obviously run by a scam artist and databases are much more efficient at storing data.

Why should anyone spend more time to explain what Bitcoin really is if you dont see the sense

I give up