Has Bitcoin turned into BSV?

[headingnorth]

Back in the day when Bitcoin was still sound money, the hard fork of bitcoin called BSV or Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was seen as a joke.
The founder of BSV was the idiot Craig Wright who claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

But Bitcoin has been hijacked by Core developers who have openly abandoned Bitcoin's mission as sound money
with the release of Core 30. They have implemented many of the objectionable features of BSV that made it a joke,
including removing data limits that restrict bitcoin to monetary transactions. The 80 byte limit is meant to help bitcoin
from getting bloated with huge amounts of spam and malware but that protection has now been gutted. This is a huge security issue.

Without these guardrails in place attack vectors against bitcoin has gone up exponentially. And for what?
So a bunch of idiots can spam the network with cat jpegs? Bitcoin has turned into a memecoin.

Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency blockchain
6 February 2019
BBC

Images of child sexual abuse have been found embedded in the system powering a high-profile crypto-currency.
Somebody added the illegal images to the core ledger of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) by using a payment processor.
This ledger, known as the blockchain, is a running record of crypto-currency transactions, shared among users of the platform.

Experts have warned that abuse of blockchain tech is a growing problem.

How did this happen? The blockchain is central to the way many crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin work and in theory
stops people making fake transactions or manipulating their account balance.

One key feature of the blockchain is that information added to it cannot be changed without significant effort.
In January, the amount of data that could be added to the BSV blockchain was increased significantly.

Before that, people could generally add only short chunks of text or web links to the blockchain.
But now it is possible to add full images in an encoded format.
Payment system Money Button said its service had been used to post the illegal images on the BSV blockchain in early February.

[ABCbits]

Regarding question on the thread title, i don't see Bitcoin Core developer increase block size limit to ridiculous big number[1] or add stealing confiscation feature[2]. So my answer is no.

Back in the day when Bitcoin was still sound money, the hard fork of bitcoin called BSV or Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was seen as a joke.

BSV is fork of BCH, not BTC.

The 80 byte limit is meant to help bitcoin
from getting bloated with huge amounts of spam and malware but that protection has now been gutted. This is a huge security issue.

OP_RETURN created with low byte limit meant to make people choose OP_RETURN over fake pubkey that bloat UTXO[3]. And spam already possible before OP_RETURN limit raised[4].

[1] https://blog.lopp.net/bsv-scalability/
[2] https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/
[3] https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0#opreturn-and-data-in-the-block-chain
[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5557375.msg65774888#msg65774888

[Cookdata]

Why did you change the content of your post? I saw your post eaelier but couldn't reply that time, on coming back here you have change the narative to suit your agenda with child porn so the message can get clear meaning or what were you thinking at first? It wouldnt bring audience isn't?

Back in the day when Bitcoin was still sound money, the hard fork of bitcoin called BSV or Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was seen as a joke.
The founder of BSV was the idiot Craig Wright who claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto.


In early 2019, the Bitcoin SV (BSV) blockchain increased its OP_RETURN limit to 100 kilobytes (KB),
a significant expansion from the original 80-byte limit in Bitcoin. This change was intended to position BSV
as a data-carrying platform for enterprise applications, allowing larger amounts of data, such as images and text,
to be embedded directly into transactions.

Key aspects of the BSV 100KB OP_RETURN change

Enabling data storage: By increasing the limit, BSV's supporters aimed to enable new use cases beyond currency,
including on-chain data storage and applications.

Concerns over content and centralization: The move was highly controversial. Critics raised concerns that it would
enable the storage of illegal or inappropriate content on an immutable blockchain. It also led to fears of blockchain "bloat,"
where large volumes of non-monetary data would increase the demands on node operators, potentially leading to centralization.
Controversial content: Shortly after the limit was implemented, reports emerged of bad actors using the feature to upload illegal
content to the BSV blockchain.

Ecosystem response: To combat the negative publicity and potential legal risks associated with immutable illegal content,
 parts of the BSV ecosystem implemented filtering mechanisms at the application and service level to avoid displaying or providing access to such data.

https://ninjastic.space/post/65952486

You know very well Bitcoin hasn't been hijack, you know every reasons why OP_RETURN limit was increased. Bitcoin SV is a hard fork from Bitcoin and has nothing to do with core developers.

You know better.

[ertil]

Has Bitcoin turned into BSV?

Not yet. But I expect some people will try, because it is a natural consequence of having censorship-resistant chain: if people can do some things, then they will, even if they will hurt themselves in the process. And if increasing maximum block size from 4 MB into any bigger value is technically possible, then some people will try. Maybe they will fail, who knows, but I guess it will be tried in the future. And if some quantum algorithms will require bigger signatures, then some people will use that as their excuse, even if other solutions will be possible.

Edit: Next loophole found, 1-of-460 multisig is possible: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/YO8ZwnG_ISs/m/nRDyiy6LAAAJ

And as with OP_RETURN, don't expect it to be "fixed". Because fully fixing it is confiscatory, it will be allowed to include at least one such transaction per block, just to avoid dealing with pre-signed transactions.

[headingnorth]

Regarding question on the thread title, i don't see Bitcoin Core developer increase block size limit to ridiculous big number[1] or add stealing confiscation feature[2]. So my answer is no.

The Core devs have already increased the data size limit to a "ridiculous big number" to more than 1000 times the previous limit.
That is more than enough to do permanent damage to bitcoin's long-term security while destroying community trust.
It is exactly the same big number as BSV so they have made Craig Wright very happy.


They couldn't do it with the blocksize so they did it through the op_return.
There is more than one way for bad actors to do damage to bitcoin.
And I would not be surprised that a future Core upgrade would include blowing
open the block size limit as they have now done with op_return.

More disturbingly they rammed through the changes out of the blue without consensus or community feedback.
The precedent has been set. They are dismantling bitcoin's sound money principles one unilateral,
centralized upgrade at a time. You can't have sound and secure money with such serious vulnerabilities.