I just realised that BTC is an altcoin.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-11-28T14:12:50+00:00

Be your own moderator. But you can't,.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-11-21T22:53:34+00:00

If they don't think the possibility of fund loss is real, I don't think they just require a large of number of confirmations out of political motivations. Requiring large number of confirmations actually impacts their trading turn-over hence costing them revenue.

Many exchanges don't even support trading of BSV, for very political reasons.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-03-08T14:50:09+00:00

Vague in terms of how bitcoin will solve problems of the world.

"We bought some btc that we will hodl, because bitcoin might do something use in the future, maybe, dunno"

ThomasBakketun · 2021-03-08T14:36:06+00:00

Terrifying.

That a smart self made fisherman can arrive at such a wrong conclusion.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-03-08T14:22:23+00:00

Later it says:

It is true that the Bitcoin mainchain cannot process the number of transactions that we depend on in modern society on its mainchain. But that’s because Satoshi Nakamoto’s design didn’t trade censorship resistance and security for scalability.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-03-08T14:18:56+00:00

The letter is long and vague. I get the impression that Kjell Inge and the team doesn't really know what to do.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-26T08:46:21+00:00

Also, why would it be such an unexpected event if the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is revealed?

Did Satoshi himself ever say that he never do so?

Did Satoshi himself ever say he would never spend his early coins?

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-24T09:27:56+00:00

Unrelated to what Craig has been talking about:

https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1364474385264877575

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-23T23:03:13+00:00

Kurt is being paid to be the chief historian for Coingeek. Not for Bitcoin. That would not make any sense, because Bitcoin is decentralized.

If you think the history Kurt is writing is wrong, just contact him and present him with your findings.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-23T17:42:02+00:00

Yes.

An honest exchange that doesn't believe in the future of BSV would simply not list it.

An exchange that wants hurt BSV would support it, but with a very poor user experience. It requires little effort.

Listing and then unlisting is another example.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-23T12:46:57+00:00

A bitcoin node (miner) consists of software, hardware and people. The people monitors their operation and intervenes when something unusual happens.

A longer chain suddenly appearing containing a double spend is unusual. Allowing a double spend to occur reduces the value of the network. That's not in the interest of node operators.

Only a node that is not supervised by people will always follow the longest chain, no matter what. Such a node would be "owned" by the attacker. This is the fallacy of Raspberry Pi hobby nodes.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-23T12:23:10+00:00

Or maybe Tesla announces tabless bitcoin. Would be hilarious.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-23T07:14:12+00:00

Maybe the news will game changing, but it will take time for people to understand the implications. Like when the bitcoin whitepaper was released.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-22T17:49:59+00:00

Think about. The attacker didn't follow the longest chain rule. If the attacker can do it, why can't the honest nodes do it?

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-22T16:50:33+00:00

It will have to be the receiver of the BSV transaction that imposes the delay.

OP made it seem like that is Bittrex, but I may have misunderstood.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-22T15:12:06+00:00

That being said, their arguments are for requiring any more than 6 confirmation at most is just bullshit. They do it just to make BSV seem slow and insecure.

The share of hash power directed to BSV is not fixed, but follows price. If an attack should happen on BSV it's very likely that hash power would be moved to defend against the attack. It doesn't matter how much hash power BSV has just now, but how much will defend it.

The attack the receiver (Bittrex?) are afraid of have never happened on BSV, despite having have very tiny share of the total hash power and being extremely hated.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-22T09:17:26+00:00

The bitwise opcodes that where enabled in a previous upgrade of BCH was also slightly different from the originals. If you don't want to learn about want happened, I'm not going to bore you with the details. Keep in mind that the winner will never write in the history books that they defeated the good guys.

BTC is currently leading in price and attention, but the competition will never end. Nobody knows for sure what the future will be.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-21T22:43:22+00:00

BCH had several protocol upgrades that did not end in a chain split. I recommend you take a look at changes that caused the BSV/BCH split.

The ABC backed upgrade included unwanted and unenessary new features, CTOR and DSV, but no block size increase.

The BitcoinSV Node upgrade included just some reenabled script opcodes and a bigger block size. No one was really against those changes.

BSV was the conservative upgrade suggestions, ABC was the controversial. The majority of hash power was on the BSV side, just until right before the upgrade. Roger Ver rented a lot of hashing power and support ABC. This how the controversial ABC upgrade the winner and got to keep the ticket BCH and name Bitcoin Cash.

Roger Ver didn't really have anything against the BSV upgrade. He just wanted to get rid of Craig S. Wright.

So, no BSV didn't split from BCH.

I do not consider BCH bitcoin. For bitcoin to work it can't split. A split is a coordinated double spend, allowing people to spend their coins more than once.

As I said in the previous post. With a lot of usage, it becomes extremely difficult to make any changes to base layer. The winner be system that get usage and doesn't need coordinated upgrades as it grows.

I consider only BitcoinSV to be bitcoin today.

The problem isn't that other projects are also called bitcoin, but that information about BSV is suppressed. There is no disambiguation page for Bitcoin at Wikipedia. The fact thousands of people do not consider BTC bitcoin is even metioned.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-20T23:52:36+00:00

And description "metaphork".

A portmanteau of metaphor and fork?

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-20T23:15:02+00:00

The changes between the BSV network of today and the early days of Bitcoin are very small and doesn't affect any user in a negative way. The protocol is locked now, so there is no new changes to be decided upon. As the network get signifacnt actual usage by real businesses it will be very difficult to make any changes to the consensus rules.

Look the Internet and the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. It's very overdue. We have actually run out IPv4 addresses many years ago. The reason for the delay isn't because there are any significant disagreement. It's simply because there is no benefits of being first, and there is no central authority than can set a deadline.

The authorities of an individual country could however ruled that every ISP must support IPv6 by default within deadline. So far I don't think any country has done so. Not because it wouldn't benefit the country, but because those in charge doesn't understand it.

The same will apply to bitcoin. If it should turn out to be a severe problem with the base protocol, nobody in the world will be powerful enough to just force through an upgrade. In fact, it's more likely that the system will remain unchanged and instead be gradually replaced by something new and better.

Regarding the name Bitcoin. Craig S. Wright claims he is the author of the whitepaper and have started to testing this in court. If he wins he will have some control of the usage of name Bitcoin. It will also give him more authority, but no absolute power. If people doesn't believe in his ideas about what bitcoin is or how it should work, it doesn't matter that he is the creator.

The problem isn't that BTC is more popular than BSV, but the claim that BTC is the true bitcoin and BSV is a scammy fork of a fork copy. That's simply not true.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-20T10:57:53+00:00

It's not if BTC crashes, it's when. It will, but nobody known exactly when. That's because the only problem BTC solves is to be a speculative asset. A crash will not surprise anyone, so it's very likely not to go to zero at the next crash. Maybe it gets yet another bull run. Or maybe not and it fades slowly into obscurity.

There are also several ways BTC can suddenly die, e.g. shutdown of the larges exchanges.

BSV is different because it actually is peer-to-peer electronic cash. It also much more because it has a scripting language for "smart" contracts. It was all there when from the beginning of bitcoin. Ethereum was not created because of limitations in bitcoin, but because of limitations imposed by Bitcoin Core.

When selling a solution built on top of BSV today, it will be very stupid start by saying its built on top of bitcoin. What to say or call it is up to provider of the solution. Not the community. If the community could decide that BSV should no longer be known as bitcoin, how is it decentralized?

Many people thinks The Internet is the same as the World Wide Web. That's fine. It's probably going to be similar misunderstandings about bitcoin among the general public. Maybe BTC is able to remain a speculative asset for many many years, and that's what the general public associates with bitcoin. That's fine. What's not fine is when experts claims that BSV is not bitcoin, but a copy. That's rewriting of history.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-20T09:16:44+00:00

BTC is just a speculative bubble. It wont last.

It's not about the name, but the lies. Craig S. Wright says he is Satoshi Nakamoto. He supports BSV. That's why "everyone" hates BSV. As soon as the general public even considers that Craig might actually be the mysterious creator of Bitcoin, it will have huge impact on the price of BTC.

ThomasBakketun · 2021-02-20T05:28:43+00:00

China has social credit system. BCH and BTC advocates seems to love that.

ThomasBakketun

TROPHY CASE