[ANN][KV5] KVANTA5 — Post-Quantum SHA256d PoW | ML-DSA-87 | NIST FIPS 204 | Live

[Geobees]

@luk3Z,
BC2 (Bitcoin II) and CapStash ($CAP) before this...same chain lineage, same dev.

@BitcoinBTGS,
One of us is launching.
One of us peaked at 3 cents in April and has been quiet since.

But the numbers say it best:
BTGS: Market cap $22K - 24h vol $344
KV5/USDT: (NonKYC): 24h vol $4,417 — just day 2 on NonKYC
BC2/USDT  (NonKYC): 24h vol $80,102 USDT

We're contributing empirical ML-DSA-87 data to the Bitcoin developer conversation, not just launching a coin.

[BitcoinBTGS]

@Geobees,
You wanted a comparison and brought up market caps and volumes? Let's talk numbers and facts then.
You call my project out, but let’s look at your track record with BC2 and your previous tokens. Launching consecutive coins, abandoning them when the difficulty adjustment or network stalls, and then spinning up a brand new ticker to collect fresh funds from people's pockets is a pattern everyone in this space can see through. How much did you pull from people on BC2 before it froze and miners/buyers got left holding the bag?
Instead of spending over $2,000 on NonKYC listings and hyping up a new token to pump the price for quick cash, maybe you should have actually fixed and maintained the protocol you already built instead of treating serial coin-launching as a business model.
BTGS is community funded from day one. We don't farm thousands of dollars from unsuspecting users' pockets to chase continuous exchange listings with empty promises of 5-figure prices just to disappear later.
I wasn't even comparing projects when I left my initial comment I was just stating a neutral observation. But since you insisted on comparing: my project is standing strong at 6 months old, driven by its community, not by serial pre-planned cash grabs

[Geobees]

@Geobees,
You wanted a comparison and brought up market caps and volumes? Let's talk numbers and facts then.
You call my project out, but let’s look at your track record with BC2 and your previous tokens. Launching consecutive coins, abandoning them when the difficulty adjustment or network stalls, and then spinning up a brand new ticker to collect fresh funds from people's pockets is a pattern everyone in this space can see through. How much did you pull from people on BC2 before it froze and miners/buyers got left holding the bag?
Instead of spending over $2,000 on NonKYC listings and hyping up a new token to pump the price for quick cash, maybe you should have actually fixed and maintained the protocol you already built instead of treating serial coin-launching as a business model.
BTGS is community funded from day one. We don't farm thousands of dollars from unsuspecting users' pockets to chase continuous exchange listings with empty promises of 5-figure prices just to disappear later.
I wasn't even comparing projects when I left my initial comment I was just stating a neutral observation. But since you insisted on comparing: my project is standing strong at 6 months old, driven by its community, not by serial pre-planned cash grabs

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to entertain the audience about you.
For context: this individual was lurking across all three of our Discord servers (BC2, CapStash, KV5) attempting to recruit from our established communities. He was banned from all three. The "neutral observation" and subsequent vitriol make a lot more sense now.

Although isn't the right place to talk about BC2, I would like to straighten up a couple things...

1. -BC2 is the only successful Bitcoin relaunch in history so far. Longevity? Market Cap? Community members? Infrastructure? Ecosystem?
     The numbers says so - because every other attempt ended in a death spiral...unless you know something I don't.

2. -How is BC2 "abandoned" -with a core team of 6 active developers next to me- while maintaining a larger and more decentralized node network than the original Bitcoin itself?

BC2 node network as of today:
49,504 listening nodes | 226 full relay nodes | 2,371,105 active links
For context — Bitcoin has ~23,000–25,000 reachable nodes after 17 years.
BC2 has 2x more. At 1 year old. Grown from 1 full-relay node at genesis to 226 as per today.
All of this during the peak of the worst bear market in recent memory — BTC down over 50% from its highs. This is pure organic growth at its best as far as I know!

The BC2 community isn't celebrating with press releases and announcements here and there...this is what "silent work" looks like when people actually care about the technology instead of the price.
So..."abandoned" is an interesting word choice.

The evolution from BC2 → CapStash → KV5 is documented, public, and principled.
As for BTGS we wish them luck, they need it.

End of transmission-----

[Geobees]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**NETWORK UPDATE — KV5/USDT Now Live on NonKYC Exchange**

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KV5/USDT is now live on NonKYC.io — deposit, withdraw, and trading are open.

Official announcement: https://x.com/nonkyc_exchange/status/2078731595364597831

Trading pair: https://nonkyc.io/market/KV5_USDT
Pool: https://nonkyc.io/pool/KV5_USDT
Proof of Reserve: https://nonkyc.io/asset/KV5

Minimum deposit: 200 KV5 | 50 confirmations required

This is KV5's second CEX listing this week alongside SafeTrade.

KV5 is the first live SHA-256 PoW blockchain with mandatory ML-DSA-87 (NIST FIPS 204 Level 5) post-quantum signatures from genesis — mainnet since June 1, 2026.

[BitcoinBTGS]

@Geobees,
You wanted a comparison and brought up market caps and volumes? Let's talk numbers and facts then.
You call my project out, but let’s look at your track record with BC2 and your previous tokens. Launching consecutive coins, abandoning them when the difficulty adjustment or network stalls, and then spinning up a brand new ticker to collect fresh funds from people's pockets is a pattern everyone in this space can see through. How much did you pull from people on BC2 before it froze and miners/buyers got left holding the bag?
Instead of spending over $2,000 on NonKYC listings and hyping up a new token to pump the price for quick cash, maybe you should have actually fixed and maintained the protocol you already built instead of treating serial coin-launching as a business model.
BTGS is community funded from day one. We don't farm thousands of dollars from unsuspecting users' pockets to chase continuous exchange listings with empty promises of 5-figure prices just to disappear later.
I wasn't even comparing projects when I left my initial comment I was just stating a neutral observation. But since you insisted on comparing: my project is standing strong at 6 months old, driven by its community, not by serial pre-planned cash grabs

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to entertain the audience about you.
For context: this individual was lurking across all three of our Discord servers (BC2, CapStash, KV5) attempting to recruit from our established communities. He was banned from all three. The "neutral observation" and subsequent vitriol make a lot more sense now.

Although isn't the right place to talk about BC2, I would like to straighten up a couple things...

1. -BC2 is the only successful Bitcoin relaunch in history so far. Longevity? Market Cap? Community members? Infrastructure? Ecosystem?
     The numbers says so - because every other attempt ended in a death spiral...unless you know something I don't.

2. -How is BC2 "abandoned" -with a core team of 6 active developers next to me- while maintaining a larger and more decentralized node network than the original Bitcoin itself?

BC2 node network as of today:
49,504 listening nodes | 226 full relay nodes | 2,371,105 active links
For context — Bitcoin has ~23,000–25,000 reachable nodes after 17 years.
BC2 has 2x more. At 1 year old. Grown from 1 full-relay node at genesis to 226 as per today.
All of this during the peak of the worst bear market in recent memory — BTC down over 50% from its highs. This is pure organic growth at its best as far as I know!

The BC2 community isn't celebrating with press releases and announcements here and there...this is what "silent work" looks like when people actually care about the technology instead of the price.
So..."abandoned" is an interesting word choice.

The evolution from BC2 → CapStash → KV5 is documented, public, and principled.
As for BTGS we wish them luck, they need it.

End of transmission-----

@Geobees,
Let's leave empty, meaningless marketing phrases aside. What does opening side-by-side comparisons between our project and yours have to do with claiming we "lack innovation"?
1- Your talk about innovation and technology in your projects (BC2, then CapStash, and now KV5) while they are essentially just a Copy-Paste of Bitcoin's source code with minor tweaks—no different from thousands of forks that launched and died at the bottom of the market. Have you ever seen real Bitcoin developers launch a new coin and a new ticker with every single update? Of course not!
2- What's glaringly obvious in your approach is the heavy reliance on new or alt accounts on the forum to spam flashy praise like: "Great developer", "Amazing project", and "Revolutionary innovation"—none of which hold any real value, and no one is fooled by them except the naive.
3- Launching consecutive coins and changing tickers every few months isn't "innovation"—it's a constant scramble chasing fresh liquidity whenever the old coin fails or goes into intensive care.
Here at Bitcoin Gold (BTGS), we will remain exactly as we are: focused on one solid, stable project, developing the infrastructure and updating the protocol on the same network without needing to spin up a new coin every couple of days under a false guise of innovation.
Respect people's intelligence, good luck to you, and we look forward to seeing your next 10 upcoming coins!

[Geobees]

@Geobees,
Let's leave empty, meaningless marketing phrases aside. What does opening side-by-side comparisons between our project and yours have to do with claiming we "lack innovation"?
1- Your talk about innovation and technology in your projects (BC2, then CapStash, and now KV5) while they are essentially just a Copy-Paste of Bitcoin's source code with minor tweaks—no different from thousands of forks that launched and died at the bottom of the market. Have you ever seen real Bitcoin developers launch a new coin and a new ticker with every single update? Of course not!
2- What's glaringly obvious in your approach is the heavy reliance on new or alt accounts on the forum to spam flashy praise like: "Great developer", "Amazing project", and "Revolutionary innovation"—none of which hold any real value, and no one is fooled by them except the naive.
3- Launching consecutive coins and changing tickers every few months isn't "innovation"—it's a constant scramble chasing fresh liquidity whenever the old coin fails or goes into intensive care.
Here at Bitcoin Gold (BTGS), we will remain exactly as we are: focused on one solid, stable project, developing the infrastructure and updating the protocol on the same network without needing to spin up a new coin every couple of days under a false guise of innovation.
Respect people's intelligence, good luck to you, and we look forward to seeing your next 10 upcoming coins!

I think you insult everyone's intelligence claiming to be a developer who can't read a GitHub repository or even the README...and probably shouldn't comment on what constitutes innovation.
Your critique carries no technical weight...it comes from someone who got caught sliding into our community members' DMs three times trying to poach them, then got banned from all three servers and is now venting about it on a public forum. This is childish behavior and here's my last words to you:

~34,000 lines of original code:
— ML-DSA-87 cryptographic layer — full NIST FIPS 204 (Dilithium5) integration into the signing and verification stack
— P2QR transaction system — an entirely new transaction type with its own script system, consensus enforcement, address encoding (kvqr1... prefix), and wallet key management (~1,900 lines in consensus + script layers alone)
— P2QR Multi-Sig Vault — 5 new Qt dialogs (~3,500 lines) for institutional multi-signature construction, co-signer approval, broadcast, and import/export workflows
— KV5 v2 Fragmentation Protocol (kv5frag) — a custom block fragmentation and reassembly layer built on top of BIP324, splitting messages into up to 5 × 8MB fragments for reliable 32MB block propagation across the peer network within the 60-second block window
— Full wallet stack rewrite — P2QR send, receive, sign, scriptpubkeyman, spend (+3,900 lines across wallet files)

The code is public, the chain is live and we're done here.

[BitcoinBTGS]

LoL , I think this is all just about saving face.
@Geobees,
You listed thousands of lines of code and several new features. That's fine.
But you still haven't answered the only question that actually matters.
If BC2 was successful, actively developed, had a strong community, a healthy node network, and six active developers as you claim...
Why wasn't every single one of those features implemented on BC2?
ML-DSA?
Protocol upgrade.
P2QR?
Consensus upgrade.
Wallet rewrite?
Software update.
Network improvements?
Protocol version upgrade.
None of those features technically require abandoning an existing blockchain and creating a brand-new coin with a brand-new ticker.
Bitcoin added SegWit, Schnorr signatures, Taproot, descriptor wallets, compact blocks, and many other protocol improvements without becoming Bitcoin2, Bitcoin3, or Bitcoin4.
That is how mature blockchain development works.
Innovation is measured by improving the protocol—not by launching a new coin every time a new idea appears.
Your own list proves my point.
The question is not whether you wrote 34,000 lines of code.
The question is why those 34,000 lines couldn't become BC2 v2 instead of CapStash... and then KV5.
If every major upgrade results in a brand-new blockchain, what confidence should users have that KV5 won't eventually become another archived project replaced by KV6?
That's the question you continue to avoid.

[Geobees]

Hold your breath, everything is around the corner!
KV5 is the only live PoW chain running the algorithm the US government just mandated for all federal systems. That's why it was built.

[BitcoinII-Dev]

LoL , I think this is all just about saving face.
@Geobees,
You listed thousands of lines of code and several new features. That's fine.
But you still haven't answered the only question that actually matters.
If BC2 was successful, actively developed, had a strong community, a healthy node network, and six active developers as you claim...
Why wasn't every single one of those features implemented on BC2?
ML-DSA?
Protocol upgrade.
P2QR?
Consensus upgrade.
Wallet rewrite?
Software update.
Network improvements?
Protocol version upgrade.
None of those features technically require abandoning an existing blockchain and creating a brand-new coin with a brand-new ticker.
Bitcoin added SegWit, Schnorr signatures, Taproot, descriptor wallets, compact blocks, and many other protocol improvements without becoming Bitcoin2, Bitcoin3, or Bitcoin4.
That is how mature blockchain development works.
Innovation is measured by improving the protocol—not by launching a new coin every time a new idea appears.
Your own list proves my point.
The question is not whether you wrote 34,000 lines of code.
The question is why those 34,000 lines couldn't become BC2 v2 instead of CapStash... and then KV5.
If every major upgrade results in a brand-new blockchain, what confidence should users have that KV5 won't eventually become another archived project replaced by KV6?
That's the question you continue to avoid.

Here's the answer to your question:

BitcoinII was, and still is, a literal 1:1 re-launch of the Bitcoin protocol as the protocol (and all consensus rules) existed as of Bitcoin Core v27, and later Bitcoin Core v29 respectively. There were only very minimal changes made: Genesis Block, Ports, etc.
It's entire "design philosophy" is to be able to pick and choose upgrades from upstream Bitcoin Core. Integrating anything "new" that does not exist in upstream Bitcoin Core makes future upgrades and maintenance by future developers (I'm not disillusioned to the fact that I wont live forever)
more complicated, while simultaneously shifting away from what BitcoinII was launched as and what it's White Paper states as it's "mission" or "purpose of existence".

In short, BC2 is DELIBERATELY not "experimented on". The large majority of it's holders seem to prefer this, as they often talk about how it is "Identical to BTC except for price". The majority of those who seem to care and voice their opinions on the state of the network voted to retain the original BTC DA
because they believe that changing it moves it away from what it was intended to be.

I've funded somewhere in the range of 50% of the total cost of all exchange listings for it in one way or another: Either through funding with fiat, or funding from my own holdings.

CapStash exists for an entirely different reason: It was built as an educational tool for the BC2 Community to help some of them learn the ins and outs of mining (It's GUI includes controls for the build in CPU miner, including Coinbase Tag entry fields), and to be practically "unkillable" in the event the majority of the
world's ASIC mining infrastructure is taken offline for one reason or another. You can think of it as "The Cockroach that survives Nuclear War.", so to speak. It was a fun build, and new things are being thought of and built for it often.

Myself and a small group of people funded that NonKYC listing too, true enough.

Kvanta5 exists for an entirely different reason than BitcoinII and CapStash. It's intended use cases are pretty clearly spelled out throughout the entirety of this announcement post.

And to your insinuations about fiat: I've not realized one red American cent in profit from any of these. In fact, I've got less fiat currency to my name now than I did before BitcoinII was launched. When I decide to do something, I go in 100%, and it all goes back into these chains in some way or another, whether it be infrastructure bills,
infrastructure upgrades, listing fees, mining to support the networks, etc.

It's practically a guarantee that I myself will never get rich from all of this, and that's perfectly fine. I do it because I enjoy it. I do it because maybe, just maybe, it'll help someone else. Heck, maybe it'll even help you.

Have a good day.

[BitcoinBTGS]

I simply disagree with you. While you may have packaged your explanation nicely and wrapped it up like a gift, I remain convinced that there is another side to this story that goes beyond the narrative being presented.
Nevertheless, I wish you all the best and hope your projects succeed.
And finally, for the record, I have never participated in these coins in any way—I've never mined, bought, or sold them. I simply consider them digital garbage, and ultimately, time will tell whether that assessment is correct.

[BitcoinII-Dev]

I simply disagree with you. While you may have packaged your explanation nicely and wrapped it up like a gift, I remain convinced that there is another side to this story that goes beyond the narrative being presented.
Nevertheless, I wish you all the best and hope your projects succeed.
And finally, for the record, I have never participated in these coins in any way—I've never mined, bought, or sold them. I simply consider them digital garbage, and ultimately, time will tell whether that assessment is correct.

You're free to disagree with anything you want in this world. Further to the point, I'm not naive enough to believe I am capable of convincing everyone of anything.

I will offer you this one piece of friendly advice: Perhaps your time would be best spent focusing on "BTGS" instead of trying to hijack discussion related to other coins or networks. This isn't the easiest environment to try to
build anything in, and I'm sure by now you've seen that first hand.  Given that, I highly encourage you to spend your time focusing on the things YOU are trying to build. There's no guarantee the participants in the network you've
launched will appreciate your efforts no matter what you do, but it is the ONLY thing you can do that will bring the network you've created and launched any form of "success".

Again, have a good day.

[BitcoinBTGS]

I fail to see the connection between our network and what you are saying; why do you keep trying to drag it into the conversation? Just forget about it entirely. I am not convinced by your veiled remarks; I remain convinced that there is something else behind them—as I explained in previous messages, this matter has nothing to do with our projects or yours. This is a personal criticism that in no way represents the BTGS team. I have told you this before, yet you insist on bringing our project into the discussion. I have only one account here on BitcoinTalk; I do not create multiple or new accounts to praise our project or criticism others. This is my account, and I am not attacking you—I am offering constructive criticism, as I see no justification for what you are saying. I remain unconvinced that launching a new chain is technically necessary, and I believe the repeated creation of new tickers creates legitimate concerns about long-term continuity and user confidence.

[BitcoinII-Dev]

I fail to see the connection between our network and what you are saying; why do you keep trying to drag it into the conversation? Just forget about it entirely. I am not convinced by your veiled remarks; I remain convinced that there is something else behind them—as I explained in previous messages, this matter has nothing to do with our projects or yours. This is a personal criticism that in no way represents the BTGS team. I have told you this before, yet you insist on bringing our project into the discussion.

I fail to see what you hope to gain by commenting here, to be honest.

I'm not trying to drag your network into anything, I was only offering you friendly advice.

Perhaps you should create a personal account from which to voice your personal criticisms instead of using your chain's "Official Account".

And you may want to pay your hosting bills for wherever your website is hosted. I tried to check it out earlier out of curiosity, and found the website couldn't be reached.

Unreachable websites/blockchain explorers tend to be frowned upon by Exchanges, Users, Etc.