[ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision - page 22.

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Quote from: TopTort777 on February 25, 2021, 08:37:38 AM

Craig suing the Bitcoin Association and the developers? does he make a professional impression on companies?

He does not pursue them. He takes them to court so that they can be instructed to perform the actions described by the judge. Under no circumstances will they be punished or controlled.

He wants to prove something: the original Bitcoin was designed to work within the law and so that the illegal activity can be reversed. This functionality seems to have been corrupted in the version of BTC in use today.

An individual or company has the legal right to recover their stolen goods. His legal action is something you can support unless you want a coin of the anarchist crime. The current environment is due to the propaganda and persecution of a group of people who see Satoshi as a threat to their businesses.

Another very good example again here: https://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-ipo-risks-defi-satoshi & https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679788/000162828021003168/coinbaseglobalincs-1.htm

Dr Craig S. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. BSV is Bitcoin as described in the white paper. BSV is Bitcoin. Only BSV can legally be sold as Bitcoin, everything else is a consumer fraud.

Craig Wright is the first person to succeed with this technology. Surprisingly, it looks like he was also the last, because no one who works on his little rings to build defi and crypto has yet figured out how SCALE ... Craig did it all by himself in 2008.

When you put your energy into working, creating, building and educating, you don't lose sleep worrying about what others are doing.

If you wish to understand the clarification then I invite you to read this: https://coingeek.com/suing-developers-mt-gox-connection-and-other-misinformation-follow-craig-wrights-legal-notices/

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Quote from: ?? on ??

Ok fanboy, you will be the one sued for real.

Okay 🤡. No unnecessary threats here. I don't know you or even have ever interacted with you. Your insults, other defamations are totally unethical and contrary to the rules of use of the Bitcointalk forum. Understand that your threats characterised & attempt at intimidation does not take. If you have something useful to say, write it down, otherwise ignore me or get the hell out of here.

Quote

Bitcoin vs big tech: the death of advertising?

Long before the days of the Internet or smartphones, I’d fly to New York and switch on the hotel TV in a jet-lagged stupor. Like all visiting Brits, I was amazed to find a hundred or more channels running 24/7. Back home there were only four. We had commercial television, but not this commercial. You hardly noticed the shows between the ads. And then there were those infomercials. Who was buying vegetable slicers or exercise machines in the early hours?

When I ventured out for breakfast, every copy of Sunday’s New York Times looked to my British eyes like a pile of newspapers: but no, that was just one copy—stuffed with ads. American media was powered by ads.

Not all Americans approved. Google and Facebook both started in universities and their Ivy League founders were not big fans of advertising. When Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin presented a paper about their new search engine at a conference in 1998, they all but ruled out ads as a source of income: “We believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm,” they wrote.

It was only when Stanford’s computer network could no longer handle Google’s voracious need for storage and processing power that Page and Brin had no choice but to turn Google into a business. As early Google biographers David A. Vise and Mark Malseed put it, they “were now entrepreneurs, if perhaps still a little reluctantly.”

Google, 1999, saved by Wayback Machine

Facebook fell into the saving arms of advertising a little sooner than Google—a mere two months after it launched, to be precise. But, as Harvard’s student newspaper reported, Zuckerberg “said he did not create the Website with the intention of generating revenue.” In his early biography of Facebook, David Kirkpatrick sums up the early days: “Making Thefacebook [as it was then called] fun was more important than making it a business.”

As both businesses grew, their experiments with advertising soon turned into dependencies. It was the habit they couldn’t kick. At first, Google’s ads had their own column on the right of the web page so as not to be confused with the ‘organic’ search results. But as time went on and Google wanted to make more and more money, the differences became increasingly blurred. Some of the ads moved to the top of the left-hand column, marked with coloured backgrounds. Over time, the distinctions were watered down until today, you have to look closely to see whether you’re clicking on an ad or a search result.

Today, advertising isn’t the only way the tech giants pay for their expensive habits. There’s also data collection and selling—the ‘surveillance capitalism’ that Shoshana Zuboff has named and described so effectively. She sees the appropriation of users’ information as today’s version of the plundering of natural resources by imperialists before anyone had considered who those resources rightly belonged to.

If Zuboff is right, we may be reaching the time when the digital ‘natives’ (an appropriate word in the context of her imperial analogy) are beginning to assert their rights over the resources they have been unwittingly contributing to the building of the mighty tech businesses. Despite my early impressions of ad-dependent media in New York, it turns out that advertising isn’t an inevitable business model, even for U.S. media. Who would have predicted in the late nineties that a new movie and TV business worth $240 billion could be built in the U.S. with no ads? Yes, well done Netflix.

Who would have expected the New York Times’ latest financial results to show a 48% annual increase in subscriptions alongside a 26% fall in ad revenue? It seems readers are ready to pay for news and no longer assume that because it is online it must be ‘free’ (i.e. ad-supported). And who would have thought that Facebook would go along with the wishes of WhatsApp’s founders not to have ads on that massively-popular platform?

Although the ad-funded tech giants might appear unassailable, there are signs that the door is open to new ideas and new business models.

Enter Bitcoin, offering the prospect of low-cost micropayments and scalability as an alternative to ads and data collection. Bitcoin is already the enabler of any number of new business models. Some, such as revolutionising supply chains, collecting Internet of Things readings or storing healthcare data are industrial—in the sense that their adoption does not depend on millions of consumer choices.

https://coingeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/relica.jpg
Relica

But other Bitcoin-powered startups address individual users. We already have examples such as Twetch, PowPing, Streamanity and Relica, all of which, loosely speaking, offer alternatives to ad-supported tech giants. Instead, they create transactional relationships based on micropayments, giving an extra dimension to the experience of content creation or consumption. And crucially, the tiny revenue slice they take from their users means that they can also provide their services with no ads and no data collection from their users.

So the revolution is already happening? Well, up to a point: the good news is that these services are up and running. But it would also be fair to say that adoption hasn’t exactly exploded—at least not like it did with the launch of Google (which just produced much better results than other search engines) or Facebook (which provided instant gossipy connections with people you knew or wanted to know).

So what’s the holdup? Well, although we may like the idea that we pay for what we use (rather than paying for being used), are we going to change our habits, and our addiction—shared with the businesses themselves—to ‘free’ models? Dr. Craig Wright has said that Google could increase its profitability massively by imposing a small charge on each user instead of taking advertising and selling data. But is Google going to risk disrupting itself? Probably not.

If the history of Internet startups is anything to go by, the best strategy is to avoid a direct assault on an established business, but instead to start by serving a small market very well. Amazon began in a basement, not as ‘the everything store’ but by offering book buyers a bigger catalogue than their local shop ever could. Venture capitalists sometimes say the kiss of death in a startup’s pitch is to argue that a market is worth x billion dollars, ‘so if we only had one per cent of it, we’d be worth y’. As venture capitalist Peter Thiel says “competition is for losers”. His message is there are secrets—about technology and people—still to be discovered and that winners look for their own monopolies to exploit.

The superpowers of Bitcoin—micropayments, scalability and low fees—will come into their own when entrepreneurs find ways of using them to create services that are addictive, unique and something their uses want to tell their friends about. And the good news is that that is happening all the time.

Just in the past couple of weeks, as a user, I’ve discovered both TonicPow and Haste, and have been spreading the word. I’m not waiting for either of them to do something bigger than they’re doing (although no doubt they both will). As a customer, I’m happy with what they do now.

So, yes, the online ad and data collecting model can be replaced. But it doesn’t have to be like for like—any more than radio replaced newspapers, TV replaced radio, or the Internet replaced either of them. Innovation is thriving in Bitcoin SV but my prediction is that its successes will be by adding to the world we know, rather than by destroying it. Because, for all the innovation of the past decades, those vegetable slicers are still being flogged in the middle of the night.

Source: https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-vs-big-tech-the-death-of-advertising Big thanks to Charles Miller

At first for years Silicon Valley rejected the technology, then they copied it and now do the hodl casino game. Sadly. Bitcoin technology can be very useful provided it is properly set up like BSV.

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Quote

Calvin Ayre write: This will help understand this better: 'Suing developers', Mt Gox connection, and other misinformation follow Craig Wright's legal notices - CoinGeek - Craig did not get these coins from Mt Gox and he is not suing devs. https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1364948849685651459

Quote

‘Suing developers’, Mt Gox connection, and other misinformation follow Craig Wright’s legal notices

Much misinformation has floated around the internet in the wake of Dr. Craig S. Wright’s letters before action to Bitcoin (and its related forks) protocol developers. One is the unproven claim that the BTC in one of Dr. Wright’s wallets was connected to thefts from defunct exchange Mt. Gox before it shut down in 2014. That claim has already resulted in another threat of legal action against Dr. Wright on behalf of BTC entrepreneur Danny Brewster, who claims to have lost BTC in the Mt. Gox hack.

What Dr. Wright’s letters are… and aren’t

The letters sent on Dr. Wright’s behalf warned developers that he is moving to establish legal ownership and enforce recovery of BTC stolen from his computer in 2020. Should a court decide in Wright’s favor, developers would be legally compelled to take action to assist in the recovery of those coins.

The notion that blockchain developers have the ability to recover (or assist in the recovery of) stolen coins has prompted a large backlash online—due to the misconception that it is impossible for them to do so.

Several news outlets, including long-time industry journal CoinDesk, claimed developers would need to “hand over the keys” to lost BTC, and that it would “require the multi-million (if not billion) dollar endeavor of reorganizing Bitcoin’s blockchain history with a 51% attack” to recover the coins. Neither of these claims is true. Bitcoin is a ledger that uses triple entry accounting.

Additionally, Dr. Wright is not “suing” developers, as many headlines and tweets across the BTC sphere have claimed, and repeated. Developers themselves are not liable to pay any damages to Dr. Wright and would only face problems if they refuse to obey a court order.

He has claimed in the past that, in the event of a large theft, developers could broadcast a message to transaction processors (or miners) notifying them to freeze UTXOs related to the stolen coins. This would render them unmoveable until their legal owners were identified, upon which the UTXOs could be reassigned to the owners’ addresses.

Rather than representing a threat to Bitcoin (and its forks), a legal recovery process would actually make these networks more secure and attractive to large, enterprise, and institutional investors—the type Bitcoiners have been courting for years in the hope it would increase the value of both their coins, and the networks themselves.

Resisting such a move would appear counter to BTC’s interests in gaining mainstream appeal, and brings into question the motives of those who wouldn’t want such actions enforced. Would they prefer to see stolen BTC stay stolen, without redress?

Brewster’s letter

Today’s letter from Danny Brewster warning Dr. Wright of legal action came from Anderson Kill P.C., a law firm with a history of representing clients in cases against Wright. The letter claims Brewster (and others) have an “equitable interest” in the BTC contained in an address commonly known as the “1Feex address”, from its first five characters.

Attorneys Preston Byrne and Stephen Palley claimed in the letter that independent security auditor WizSec found that “Mt. Gox’s hot wallet was completely drained to” the 1Feex address in March 2011, and warned Wright to retain all evidence regarding that address in case further action was warranted.

Quote

Mark Karpelès @MagicalTux
Someone is finally calling Craig Wright's bluff regarding the 1Feex bitcoins. I have no doubt those coins were stolen from MtGox in 2011, which means CSW's alleged ownership is invalid and some would call his claim fraudulent. Read the actual letter:

https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/1364731889576148994

WizSec is a Tokyo-based IT security firm that has performed forensic analysis on publicly-available data pertaining to the Mt. Gox affair. Brewster was the founder of an early attempt at a “Bitcoin bank” called Neo & Bee, based in Cyprus, that collapsed amid controversy in 2014.

Dr. Wright has made a previous statement that the BTC in the 1Feex address do belong to a company connected with him—but were purchased legitimately from a Russian exchange as an OTC exchange for Liberty reserve dollars on March 1, 2011. He said there have been no claims by Mt. Gox liquidators or regulatory investigators that the 1Feex address was involved in the Mt. Gox hack, and no authorities have requested any information on the matter from Dr. Wright over the years.

Nevertheless, Brewster’s tweet about his letters prompted pile-on of congratulatory replies from BTC and blockchain supporters. They suggest few in the Bitcoin community have any understanding of what’s really going on here… or what is even realistically possible.

Brewster’s claim was echoed by none other than disgraced CEO of Mt. Gox himself, Mark Karpeles, who said it meant Dr. Wright’s claim was “fraudulent”:

Quote

Mark Karpelès @MagicalTux
Someone is finally calling Craig Wright's bluff regarding the 1Feex bitcoins. I have no doubt those coins were stolen from MtGox in 2011, which means CSW's alleged ownership is invalid and some would call his claim fraudulent. Read the actual letter:

https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/1364731889576148994

Since Dr. Wright as CEO admits to Tulip Trading Limited owning (in some way) the 1Feex address and purchasing the BTC in it from a Russian exchange, Karpeles’ suggestion indicates the funds were stolen before moving to that address—an odd claim.

Karpeles was detained in Japan without trial for a year after the Mt. Gox fiasco, and eventually charged with and convicted of data manipulation surrounding the hack. Dr. Wright has alleged in the past that Karpeles himself was responsible for the missing 650,000 BTC, or that his actions allowed the theft to take place.

A sad reflection on BTC and the blockchain industry

The various responses to Dr. Wright’s latest action show how quickly misinformation can spread online… and how readily it is accepted as fact by an uncritical audience that either doesn’t understand Bitcoin, or is interested only in attacking Wright and the movement he represents.

Their repetition of factually incorrect, misguided, and irrelevant material represent instead more a misinformed rabble than serious commentators. Their immediate dismissals of any statement made by Dr. Wright, or cheerleading of any claim or action against him (without even the slightest attempt to clarify facts) damage the blockchain industry’s reputation.

Even those who are better-informed of the issues (both legal and technical) have participated in this mob behavior, though choose their exact words more carefully. While they are also capable of being misguided, there are also those among them who are clearly worried and panicking, with their own political and legal motives for attacking Dr. Wright’s reputation.

Whether you believe, or agree with, everything Dr. Wright has said over the years is unimportant. He clearly has a deeper understanding of Bitcoin and its surrounding issues than most. The only way to have an educated opinion is to read all the material available, including that written and presented by Dr. Wright, before making an objective judgment. Unfortunately, most out there have clearly not done this.

Source: https://coingeek.com/suing-developers-mt-gox-connection-and-other-misinformation-follow-craig-wrights-legal-notices/ Big thanks to Jon Southurst

The context cited here is completely lipid unlike other articles https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-demands-bitcoin-developers-give-him-access-to-stolen-mt-gox-coins where the interpretation is differently exposed and then propagated. It is not the same sound

Bitcoin SV (BSV)

brand new

Activity: 0

Merit: 29

Quote

BITCOIN SV MEETUPS

In this Meet Up, we will analyse software updates on the BitcoinSV Blockchain, analyse real projects and talk about new methodological standards that may be available for a use case with the Blockchain.

Join oneandbit at Blockchain - BitcoinSV
Fri. 26 Feb.
18:00 ‐ 19:00
A Coruña in Spain

https://www.meetup.com/BitcoinSV/events/276303248/

Source https://bitcoinassociation.net/bsv-meetups/

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Quote from: ?? on ??

Funny - SV's sole existence is to mislead.

Hey Princess Troll! Thank you for go back up this thread on the top, but can you argue or expand on what your written comments? What are you basing such accusations on!?

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Quote from: hv_ on February 25, 2021, 01:12:38 AM

Quote from: BSVfan on February 24, 2021, 02:45:42 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

WHEN FLIP???

"Soon"

... one day ... it seems.

Bitcoin (BSV) has already flipped in terms of functionality, capacity, stability

and most important: Legal Status == going WITH any law, not try to launder, support crime and ano trolls

https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-and-a-brief-history-of-bitcoin/

Good path

Yes, I completely share your point of view. It is a great step forward that is nowhere else. Few people discern the potential on a global scale for various reasons, laws, cultures, competitions? BSV frightens the uninitiated because they are afraid of what they do not understand, it is human. Perhaps the public space could interpret the right attentions, the stakes and the objectives on condition (perhaps) that figures with whom they identify in their daily life explain them with simple words (lead: TV actors are their master). People, information, codes, communications, all evolve. How many people still read the press when it still exists? They need to be informed that other solutions exist on all possible media.

PS: Beware it seems that the trolls change the title of the thread to mislead.

Bitcoin SV (BSV)

brand new

Activity: 0

Merit: 29

Quote

Blockchain Policy Matters: U.S. Congressman Patrick McHenry

In the first episode of the new Blockchain Policy Matters online video series, Bitcoin Association sat down with U.S. Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC 10), Republican Leader of the House Financial Services Committee, to discuss the present political landscape for digital currencies, his personal vision for the future of finance, as well as how he sees blockchain technology as a positive force for financial inclusion.

With financial fairness and digital currencies the talk of the town in Washington D.C., North Carolina’s Patrick McHenry has fast found himself in the national spotlight just weeks into the 117th United States Congress. A staunch proponent of blockchain technology and digital currencies, McHenry is an established voice amongst a slowly growing contingent of congressional leaders pushing for an embrace of the technology. His role as Republican Leader of the House Committee on Financial Services affords him a front-row seat to the innermost workings of the U.S. economy – permitting the highest possible vantage point from which to assess its apparent shortcomings and identify opportunities to innovate.

‘Here in the United States, we pay more for the movement of funds than the rest of the world. There is a profit motive for that, certainly, but what we need is action to bring more competition into the exchange of money [and] the movement of money,’ McHenry told Bitcoin Association.

‘We see the benefits across society of digitisation using technology. In essence, instead of having a person make the decision, you enable the technology to do it quickly and efficiently. Once that technology is set up, there are massive cost savings.’

‘Combine the two – a competitive marketplace for moving money and digitisation – and you can see how this will make the small exchange of cash, the small exchange of value, very affordable and competitive. That’s what I think is interesting. It’s not the movement of a million dollars between institutions that is of interest; it’s the ability for me to give you 25 cents.’

McHenry was quick to acknowledge that technically speaking, the technology to deliver micropayment capabilities does indeed exist today, but pointed to the disparate nature and poor interoperability of existing solutions, as well as an oftentimes difficult and complicated user experience as presenting significant barriers to adoption for everyday users – a factor he said is holding back the sector at large.

‘What we can’t think of or contemplate is the world of digital payments that is a decade in the future, because all we can think of is the clunkiness now,’ McHenry said.

‘We’re talking about a wholly different view that is broadly enabled by technology; you may not be able to see it, you may not be able to feel it, but you’ll experience the good results of it in the future.’

McHenry’s outlook for innovation in this space however goes beyond just payments in the traditional sense, he sees applications for the broader technology going far further and intertwining with other aspects of our increasingly digitised global economy.

‘The first layer here is to actually monetise the Internet and to make the Internet truly the Internet of money,’ said McHenry.

‘Bitcoin is that layer that will enable us to take the exchange of data and actually have an exchange of data for some value. I think it’s a huge opportunity to connect data and tradeable value.’

McHenry’s vision for a brighter, Bitcoin-based future will be a familiar one for many in the digital asset community, however, it’s far less common to hear this type of vision articulated by a senior lawmaker. While most representatives on the Hill struggle to distinguish a distributed ledger from a digital currency, North Carolina’s McHenry is hard at work conceptualising the next evolution of the technology and the benefits it may bring.

‘Imagine talking about a very small transaction, to perhaps read an article or for a driverless car to ask another driverless car to let you pass, there are huge opportunities that are quite limitless for the use of blockchain technology,’ explained McHenry.

‘The potential here is that you have connected with your daily life perhaps dozens or hundreds of transactions. I think that is the world of the future – potentially thousands of these small transactions [that] would enable your life in a more seamless way.’

Policy

But developing a ground-breaking or world-changing technology is only part of the equation, acceptance and adoption – both from the population at large and the lawmakers tasked with setting the rules of engagement – can be just as, if not more challenging – particularly for new or nebulous ideas.

‘The initial reaction out of Washington is that everything must fit the existing regulatory regime, which is not really keeping up with where we are in terms of the technology of Bitcoin or a distributed ledger technology,’ explained McHenry.

‘[Bitcoin] is neither a commodity nor a security – it does not fit into either rubric well. In fact, it’s very difficult to think of it on really the two planes of thinking that we have in Washington This is a whole new way of thinking and that is very difficult for Washington to adapt to at its best. And Washington is currently not at its best.’

For McHenry, improving understanding amongst lawmakers around the capabilities of blockchain technology and the benefits it offers to society is a critical first step, not only from the perspective of affecting a positive regulatory response from legislators, but also ensuring that misinformation or misunderstandings don’t make their way into the policymaking process.

‘Education has to be the primary driver here. Most policymakers are not informed about the basics of cryptocurrency, the basics of blockchain technology – just the basics – so we need that base level of education to rise and then we can build off that platform,’ says McHenry.

‘Right now, that baseline of education for policymakers is very important, because what we don’t need out of Washington or the states is to restrict or crush or try to kill this type of technological advancement.’

McHenry was realistic about the challenges and obstacles that lay ahead for progressing positive policy in the blockchain and digital currency space at the federal level, but remained optimistic about the potential for individual states to take the lead in enacting sensible rules and regulations within their own jurisdictions.

‘At the state level, we’ve seen various different types of adoption of distributed ledger technology and an acceptance of cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin. I think that will eventually percolate up into policymakers better understanding it in Washington,’ said McHenry.

‘New York is not what I would call a “light-touch” financial regulatory state, but they are more thoughtful when it comes to cryptocurrency. It is encouraging that they can “get it” – have what I would say is an onerous set of financial regulations – but they can get this within an atmosphere of innovation.’

While McHenry praised the thoughtfulness of New York state lawmakers, he was quick to caution any over-eagerness in pushing through legislation with the potential to impinge on innovation in the space.

‘I don’t think we need to go into a more onerous atmosphere around cryptocurrencies and their adoption – I don’t think that’s necessary, nor do I think it’s proper,’ he said.

‘I do think it would inhibit innovation and the adoption and the raising of funds in order to adopt these technologies here in the United States.’

The issue of capital raising was a pertinent one for McHenry, who denoted it as one of a pair of legislative priorities he had for digital currencies in the current congressional session.

‘We have to build off what the Securities Exchange Commission laid out in the guidance they’ve given in order for legitimate money to come into the development and capacity to deploy new cryptocurrencies and new innovations,’ explained McHenry.

‘We have to build on that legislatively so that you can have more legitimate dollars flow into this technology and into the development of this technology.’

Equally important for McHenry is the tax component – an ongoing source of confusion for all corners of the industry – as lawmakers continue to grapple with the difficulties of implementing a fair and effective tax regime for digital assets – one which recognises the various nuances of instruments that at present, don’t fit neatly into a pre-prescribed taxation box.

‘The IRS views those that own or hold cryptocurrency as pure speculators and that there is no use case for any of these technologies – that is the default in the IRS rules, which is basically saying that everyone is out there making millions and billions of dollars on this, which is not, in fact, the case,’ said McHenry.

‘In order for these assets to be widely deployed, you have to have the democratisation of their holding – these IRS rules actually run quite counter to that. That’s why I think we need to get this right so that you can be a holder of [digital currencies] and when you accrue value, it is accrued as a different third case – neither income nor capital gains – with a wide set of minimum standards so you can hold these, use them to buy and sell things, and make them deployable in a massive way.’

‘You’re going to have an onerous set of tax regulations around this new technology because [the IRS] see volatility and therefore the IRS – and Washington generally – see opportunity for enrichment right into the federal treasury. So, I think we have got to get the tax piece right

Government

Formulating policy and enacting legislation that will effectively balance the benefits of blockchain technology with the need to regulate the actors and entities involved appears poised to be subject to an ongoing arm-wrestle in Washington. But before extending a long regulatory arm into private sector applications of blockchain technology, McHenry urged his fellow lawmakers to take a hard look at the information systems and technology that they themselves rely on.

‘The federal government is very far behind, they haven’t caught up with APIs and on top of that, we’ve seen an enormous number of data breaches in the federal footprint,’ he said.

‘Those honeypots of data and information – the federal government keeps building and is intentional about building up these really clunky, last-generation systems – so the federal government has to advance dramatically. I think blockchain technology for our federal record-keeping is really quite right, but that is going to take quite a while to do.’

Similar to McHenry’s outlook on advancing the legislative and regulatory standing of digital assets, in his view, a blockchain-based approach to information systems in government would have to be driven at the state level before it was likely to gain traction federally.

‘At the state level, I think you’ll see [blockchain technology used] at the recordkeeping levels of counties and states, very basic information – for example, when you buy or sell a car or when you buy or sell a house – very basic societal pieces of information that governments do a good and wise job of holding on to and keeping track of – those will move onto a public ledger of sorts,’ said McHenry.

‘I think you’ll see certain states have this type adoption and it will be three-to-five states, then it’ll be 40, but it’s going to take a while to get this group of policymakers and elected officials seasoned to this and seeing the huge advantage and the huge cost savings year-over-year once it’s deployed.’

McHenry’s home state of North Carolina has been quick to embrace the potential of blockchain technology, with a dedicated task force established to explore opportunities for the deployment of ‘blockchain technology, virtual assets, smart contracts and digital tokens’ within the state apparatus.

‘[North Carolina] want to purposefully be a leader in blockchain technology and in putting more onto a blockchain across the governmental footprint to give people open access to their data,’ explained McHenry.

‘I think it’s a huge opportunity at the state level and I think it’s going to be the big driver here in the United States for federal policymakers to catch up.’

Outlook

McHenry enters his ninth congressional term beset with a policy agenda to advance responsible innovation with blockchain and digital currencies, an approach that is underpinned by a personal appreciation of the opportunities financial technology can unlock.

‘I saw the benefit of financial technology to my father’s entrepreneurial business that he started out of our backyard,’ he explained.

‘The second piece of equipment he bought, he put on a MasterCharge, which was the brand-new financial technology innovation of its day. That MasterCharge, now MasterCard, was a huge boost to him being able to start a business and put my two brothers, two sisters and I through college.’

That first-hand experience and understanding for McHenry has undoubtedly played a role in shaping his approach and positions throughout his political career, the hallmarks of which are evident in his overarching priorities for the current congressional session.

‘I see huge benefits for entrepreneurs and everyday people via technology transformation,’ he said.

‘Democratising capital and driving innovation are my two primary focuses, and I think they’re quite linked. That’s what I’m focused on, and I think that as a result of that, we will have greater financial inclusion.’

https://youtu.be/aRldRdk50JQ

Source https://bitcoinassociation.net/blockchain-policy-matters-u-s-congressman-patrick-mchenry/ thanks to Alex Speirs.

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Quote

News BSV apps: Add a Bitcoin payable Paymail to your domain using myPaymail

Most of us who have been in Bitcoin for a while have gotten ourselves a Paymail where we can receive and send Bitcoin, but only a few of us have taken the next step and made our personal/business email or domain a Bitcoin payable Paymail!

With myPaymail.co you can be satoshi@ yourdomain.com within a few minutes.

myPaymail gives everyone the ability to accept Bitcoin payments on their domains and utilize any of their email aliases, it’s quick, easy and affordable at only $1 per added Paymail.

A business can setup acceptance of Bitcoin payments to all or any of their email accounts, where myPaymail instantly output payments to one or more Paymail/Bitcoin addresses in your settings.

A great benefit utilizing myPaymail is having your domain myPaymail become a receiving address independently of your Paymail address you sign, ID or spend from. This further increases your privacy.

The current best feature of myPaymail is the ability to export transaction logs in CSV format; complete with sender, payment destination, price, amount, date & time, tx details link and note, making income accounting a breeze for tax purposes.

Additional Paymails or Bitcoin addresses can also be added under your new Paymail, so you can automatically split payments in defined percentages, which makes it a perfect setup for something that gets donations or similarly where payments automatically go where you need it to. The split feature takes a 0.1% fee of the receiving amount (min 586 Satoshis).

Can I use my commercial email domain to add a Paymail?

No, you can’t add Paymail on any commercial email domain like @gmail.com, @outlook.com etc. Only when you have custom domains that you’re in control of, can you add Paymails to them.

Can I have multiple emails utilising Paymails on the same domain?

Yes, as many as you’d like.

Do I need to have an existing email on my domain?

No, you can setup any amounts of Paymails without any existing emails on your domain.

So how do I start?

Do you have access to your DNS settings on your domain? Then let’s go!

With your custom domain email account (.com, .io, .net etc) you can add DNS (Domain Name System) data that talks to myPaymail, they’ll then handle the payments arriving to your custom domain Paymails and send it to your designated Paymails in your settings.

DISCLOSURE: If myPaymail stops working or is shut down in the future, you can go and edit your DNS settings to a new Paymail provider on the market (or alternatively run your own Paymail service) within minutes/hours. You’ll never lose your Paymails as long as you are in control of your domains. Also note that there is risk of having a third party service that might receive and/or send your Bitcoin transactions, make sure to read their TOS, check their legal validity as a company and in which jurisdiction they reside/operate in before you make a decision to use their services.

1. First thing you’ll need is a Money Button wallet to sign in to myPaymail.co.
2. After you’ve signed in, click Create new Paymail.

3. Click Use a custom domain and fill in your wanted [email protected] handle (this could literally be [email protected]). Then click on DNS instructions that will appear below the input field.

4. Go to your domain registrar or the DNS service provider for your chosen domain. Here you’ll input the details provided by myPaymail.

5. Add a new TXT record in your DNS editor and fill out the details (example below uses CloudFlare.com).

6. Add a new SRV record.

7. Now you’ll need to enable DNSSEC at your registrar (where you bought the domain).
7a. You either enable it at your registrar and you’re ready to click Verify at myPaymail or you’ll need to follow the next step.

7b. If you have your DNS settings on a third party provider (your hosting, CloudFlare, etc), you’ll need to “add a DS record” to your domain at your registrar. Basically you copy the DS record generated from your third party provider and copy it to your domain registrar and a few other details.

8. Click Verify and finish payment with a Money Button $1 swipe, you are now ready to receive money on your [email protected] Paymail if all settings are set correctly.
Congratulations, now you have added a Bitcoin payable Paymail to your domain!

Source: https://coingeek.com/add-bitcoin-payable-paymail-to-your-domain-using-mypaymail/ Big thanks to Vegard Wikeby

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Quote

Your invitation to join me on my Bitcoin journey (from Calvin Ayre)

I have always enjoyed studying. I graduated Wellesley High School and Bates College with honors, not because I was the smartest person in the world, but because I was good at studying. It bothered me if I didn’t understand something my teacher said or that I read in a text book—I would always take steps to make sure I fully understood the material before moving on.

This is the exact approach I’m taking as I try to learn more about Bitcoin.

As of today, I’ve made the move from CalvinAyre.com to CoinGeek.com, with a full-time focus on the intersection of Bitcoin SV (BSV) and the gaming industry. I know the gaming inside and out, I’ve been living and breathing it since March of 2005. But Bitcoin? Not so much. I’ve flirted with Bitcoin-related content since 2013, but never really dug into the technicalities powering it and the innovation happening around it, until now.

Over the last month I’ve taken several Bitcoin courses, started consuming Bitcoin-related articles, interviews and livestreams, jumped into some social media activity and signed up with a number of BSV-powered applications. Starting now, I will be creating content exclusively for CoinGeek.com in an effort to share all of my newfound knowledge and hopefully inspire you start learning about Bitcoin too.

So why bother educating yourself on Bitcoin and blockchain technology?

I used to feel the same way. It’s not an easy subject to master and human beings tend to lean towards to the path of the least resistance. Well, here’s the thing. Blockchain is in its infancy—think about the evolution of mobile technology from its clunky beginnings in the ‘90s to how we use it today. EVERYONE has cell phone and even toddlers know how to use them—we can’t live without them! This is what’s going to happen with blockchain.

The other point I’d like to make is once you start learning about Bitcoin and the blockchain its built upon, the technical gibberish starts to make sense and suddenly you begin to get why the technology is so exciting. You can follow those conversations on social media, you understand those articles that your peers are sharing. It feels good to be informed and conversely, it feels awful to be uninformed.

So how do we start educating ourselves? Well, this is an easy one, thanks to my friends at Bitcoin Association who have created several introductory online courses.

BSV Academy Bitcoin Theory Course: Getting back to the basics

Start with the BSV Academy Bitcoin Theory Course like I did. By no means is this an easy course and to get the most out of it, be prepared to dedicate time to study. The course takes you through the Bitcoin whitepaper, diving into the terms and technicalities Satoshi unveiled. As my rugby coach used to tell us at Bates, you can’t execute the complicated plays before you master the basics and “going back to the basics” is what this course is all about.

The Bitcoin Theory course is free and you can tackle it in your own time, spreading out your study sessions over the course of days or weeks and reviewing the material as you wish. The final assessment is 80 multiple choice questions, 60 of which students must answer correctly in order to pass. My advice here is to take notes while you go through each section and do not move on to the next section until you fully understand the previous one. Review the content from every section the day before you take the final assessment to be sure everything is fresh in your mind.

I feel so much more informed now that I’ve completed this course and terms such as nonce, Merkle tree, Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), SHA-256 and UTXO are no longer scary mysteries to me. Should you decide to take this course, do not hesitate to reach out with questions and I’ll help you find the answers. If I can do it, you can do it!

Saxion Bitcoin SV MOOC: BSV’s business proposition

After finishing the BSV Academy Course I took the “What is Bitcoin and why does it matter” MOOC offered by Saxion University of Applied Sciences, in collaboration with the Bitcoin Association. This less technical course (also free and online) is designed to educate the masses on the business proposition of Bitcoin SV and serves as an outstanding follow-up to the Bitcoin Theory course.

I loved learning about how some of the other blockchains work and where their technology falls short. I also learned a lot about how our data is currently sold and compromised, how the internet has developed over time and how Bitcoin SV can solve so many of the data and payment issues we face today. I found the final assessment for this course to be much easier than the Bitcoin Theory course, so you’ve got that to look forward to.

Now that I’ve completed these two courses, next up on my list is to watch Ryan X. Charles’s Theory of Bitcoin: The Bitcoin Whitepaper series, stay tuned for my top takeaways from each episode.

Before getting back to my Bitcoin studies, I’ll leave you with a parting thought. This is the second time Calvin has taken me out of my comfort zone, the first time being on-camera work for CalvinAyre.com, a skill that is now my second nature. As I prepare to come out of my comfort zone once again—this time with creating content surrounding BSV technology—I invite you to join me for this next journey.

Sign up for the latest Bitcoin and blockchain news and developments for the gaming industry.

Source: https://coingeek.com/your-invitation-to-join-me-on-my-bitcoin-journey/ Big Thanks to Becky Liggero Fontana & Calvin Ayre

BSVfan

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 33

Quote from: ?? on ??

WHEN FLIP???

"Soon"

... one day ... it seems.

Do_zzze

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 39

Quote

Bitcoin Alert Key: Still a pressing legal issue

The legal saga over protocol developers’ obligations to combat illegitimate transactions just became front and center. In 2020, Dr. Craig Wright and his legal team sent letters to BTC Core developers, representatives from the BCH community and representatives of the BSV community. But to understand why this is still important, it’s necessary to look back into Bitcoin history for a feature many had forgotten: the Bitcoin Alert Key.

In June 2020, law firm ONTIER LLP, representing Dr. Craig Wright and his company Tulip Trading, sent out the series of letters describing a hack on Wright’s computer network in February that year that was reported to the Surrey Police in the U.K. The intrusion, according to Dr. Wright, resulted in the loss of an encrypted file containing the private keys to almost 111,000 unsplit BTC. Additionally, the attacker stole part of the information required to decrypt the file, and then deleted the material from Wright’s network.

The 2020 letters notified BTC Core developers Wladimir van der Laan, Jonas Schnelli and Pieter Wuille that they have a legal responsibility to nullify any transactions on the BTC network if there is a court order to do so. Subsequent letters went to Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Sechet and entrepreneur Roger Ver (representing BCH at the time) as well as to the Bitcoin Association.

The BTC and BCH letters contained an additional warning, pointing out that [ur=https://coingeek.com/bitcoin101/how-are-bitcoin-transactions-processed/l]the Bitcoin transaction[/url] database (now with 12 years of data) remains the intellectual property of “Satoshi Nakamoto,” and as such those networks are using the database without permission.

Here’s where the Bitcoin Alert Key comes in

The June 2020 letters informed recipients that Tulip Trading intends to regain legal control over the stolen data—which would require action from the developers. Although some of the recipients were not developers, they are regarded as having influence over protocol direction otherwise known as a fiduciary responsibility.

Recovering stolen Bitcoins will require a court order establishing who the legal owner of the property is, and freezing/unfreezing of the UTXOs (unspent transaction outputs) involving the value in question. It’s the miners who would enforce this rule, but the protocol software needs a way to broadcast the message to all concerned, and in a way miners could guarantee the message came from an authorized source.

This is what Bitcoin’s Alert Key system was designed to do. There’s one problem, though, and it’s a big one: the Alert Key was removed from the Bitcoin protocol software in 2016. It had not been used since April 2014. At the time, developers gave this justification: they feared the key could be abused and access to its features may have been compromised. Reportedly, there was a possibility that Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles had somehow gained access to the keys, and the access codes had fallen into the hands of Japanese police after Karpeles’ arrest and interrogation.

Wladimir Van Der Laan also argued that a P2P alert system represented a centralized point of control and thus attack vector. He and other protocol developers acting as fiduciaries agreed that some kind of communication system remained necessary, but suggested other means to notify miners of urgent changes, such as social media forums and mailing lists.

The original Bitcoin Alert Key was never used for its intended purpose in notifying miners to freeze/unfreeze UTXOs. It was used 12 times between February 2012 and April 2014, mainly to broadcast urgent software upgrade notices, and security fixes.

Developers officially “retired” the Alert Key with Bitcoin 0.13.0 in 2016. They also subsequently published the access codes to the Alert Key in 2018 to ensure no future Alert would be acted upon.

Satoshi Nakamoto added the Alert Key to the Bitcoin protocol in 2010, and is said to have handed access to it to Gavin Andresen before ceasing communications with the BTC community later that year.

Alert Key necessary for Bitcoin to operate within law

Dr. Craig Wright has stated in recent years that the Alert Key system was actually necessary for Bitcoin to function legally. Protocol developers, he said, should use the Key to notify the network that particular UTXOs or transactions should be frozen, if there was a court order to do so.

In 2011, bitcoin had a methodology to freeze bitcoin. As I noted, the alert key was something I introduced. They cannot argue that I didn’t mean to. More importantly, this narrative that the Blockchain can’t be changed is false. At one point over a thousand blocks were rolled back. They don’t talk about this anymore because the narrative of what they’re trying to create doesn’t allow it. Lightning cannot work if blocks can be rolled back. So the argument they make against me is really one of protecting their money-laundering empire.

The Alert Key was the only way Bitcoin could stop the various hacks, thefts and scams that have plagued its ecosystem since its inception. The hack/theft on Dr. Wright’s own personal network would be a prime example of such a situation but there are many other people that have fallen victim to theft of their Bitcoins. Even more have lost their private keys and any access to their property.

“They are seeking a system that enables money-laundering and this is why they can make this argument. However the argument is not based on reality and does not have any evidence. This is why they fight not to be in court.”

A court battle over the issue is in Bitcoin’s future. But how to alert processors on a network when there’s no longer an Alert Key?

Mt. Gox enters the story again

Dr. Wright pointed out that the Alert Key system was still included and functional in the Bitcoin protocol software between 2011 and 2014—the time period over which someone removed 850,000 BTC from Mt. Gox’s wallets. He added that CEO Karpeles, who was allegedly aware of the theft long before Mt. Gox shuttered in 2014, had a fiduciary responsibility to notify the authorities of these losses immediately, but had not done so.

Instead, Wright said, Karpeles chose to present “fabricated stories about transaction malleability that others in Blockstream used as part of the false narrative to promote Lightning and their money-laundering solutions.”

He raised doubt about most aspects of the Mt. Gox story, and described how using the Alert Key would have solved the problem easily.

“The 2011 process for Mt Gox if their story was true would have been simple. Rather than having a secret communication on a supposed text message based Skype record that was forensically never verified (basically a text file from a person facing criminal charges that was altered to remove all meta data) they could have simply said to Gavin Andresen that this theft occurred and please send a message on the Bitcoin network using the alert key. Doing that would have frozen all of the bitcoin that they lost. Legally, there are reporting requirements for fiduciary organisations following hacking. Not following these is a crime.”

The false notion of ‘censorship resistance’

The Alert Key as a UXTO-freezing mechanism wasn’t discussed in the developers’ conversation surrounding its removal. Such a notion would have damaged the (false) belief that Bitcoin is somehow “censorship-resistant,” which has become gospel in the user community over the years.

“It was the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2011 that came up with the narrative that Bitcoin was censorship resistant,” Dr. Wright added. “That was created in order to promote organisations like WikiLeaks to take bitcoin and to avoid government sanctions. A part of removing the alert key is that it destroys the false myth of censorship resistance. It is very simple for government to implement freezing orders as they did with Liberty Reserve with an alert key. More importantly, there is nothing that home users can do to stop the alert key and if miners seek to ignore it, there is a lot of action that governments can take against them.”

Please realize that no anonymous blockchain asset can survive long-term if BTC’s current form continues. Regulators simply would not tolerate it, and serious users would turn away. BTC has not grown on the trajectory its supporters wanted, and there is a reason. However the original Bitcoin lives on as BSV and is finding a place for itself by cooperating with the existing economy.

Source: https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-alert-key-still-pressing-legal-issue/

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Quote from: Do_zzze on February 22, 2021, 11:03:10 AM

Are you ready? The cards can be dealt again 🔥 don't miss the technological turn:

Quote

Craig Wright has re-enabled the scripting language,
taken the script length limits away and unbounded the
blocksize on BSV. That means you can upload any data
onto the blockchain and write any functions you want
to operate on it now. You can also sell the data on the
chain to other parties and sell the functions too. So it's
a computer that can do around 10,000 operations per
second at the moment, and he's releasing Teranode later
this year which will increase the capacity to around a
million operations per second. He's aiming for a billion
operations per second in the next few years.
If he's correct about the system, we'll be able to rebuild
the entire global system on BitcoinSV. Not just money
but everything.
Every other crypto project is trying to stop him because
of the scale of the invention. Think of it this way: every
TX on BSV can open a payment channel to 4 billion
sequential TXs. So if it's capable of doing a billion TX/
sec (TPS) then multiply each TX by 4bn subsequent TX,
and you have an extremely fast super computer capable
of running trillions of transactions in parallel. That's
'scale' and it's the kind of world-beating supercomputer
we need to run the global economy. It makes all the other
crypto currencies look absolutely silly by comparison.
That's what's happening. Best kept secret in 'crypto'.

Source: https://twitter.com/liujackc/status/1363699260387037185

WOW It's like a mega planetary hyperthreaded multiplexed computer with calculation power beyond anything else that exists using full Turing and Bitcoin technology - that's the vision of Satoshi aka BSV! Shocked

FASCINATING. Even with all the computers in the world connected, this is a tenfold effect. it is indeed a vision that allows to reach hitherto unequalled potentials!

I understand why the time traveler of this thread informs the importance of the phenomenon and speaks of Øeuvre.

Do_zzze

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 39

Are you ready? The cards can be dealt again 🔥 don't miss the technological turn:

Quote

Craig Wright has re-enabled the scripting language,
taken the script length limits away and unbounded the
blocksize on BSV. That means you can upload any data
onto the blockchain and write any functions you want
to operate on it now. You can also sell the data on the
chain to other parties and sell the functions too. So it's
a computer that can do around 10,000 operations per
second at the moment, and he's releasing Teranode later
this year which will increase the capacity to around a
million operations per second. He's aiming for a billion
operations per second in the next few years.
If he's correct about the system, we'll be able to rebuild
the entire global system on BitcoinSV. Not just money
but everything.
Every other crypto project is trying to stop him because
of the scale of the invention. Think of it this way: every
TX on BSV can open a payment channel to 4 billion
sequential TXs. So if it's capable of doing a billion TX/
sec (TPS) then multiply each TX by 4bn subsequent TX,
and you have an extremely fast super computer capable
of running trillions of transactions in parallel. That's
'scale' and it's the kind of world-beating supercomputer
we need to run the global economy. It makes all the other
crypto currencies look absolutely silly by comparison.
That's what's happening. Best kept secret in 'crypto'.

Source: https://twitter.com/liujackc/status/1363699260387037185

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Theory of Bitcoin talks contracts: Bitcoin offers nothing new—at least in the legal sense

Theory of Bitcoin talks contracts: Bitcoin offers nothing new—at least in the legal sense
Fabriik's Ryan X. Charles and Bitcoin creator Dr. Craig S. Wright look at how long-standing laws concerning formal deals are applied to the digital age—and how Bitcoin can automate and enforce them.

Read more: https://coingeek.com/theory-of-bitcoin-talks-contracts-bitcoin-offers-nothing-new-at-least-in-the-legal-sense/

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Quote from: ?? on ??

Richard Hein is a fraud, just like Craig.

Craig is satoshi, that annoys you and that's good. The fraud here is BTC, the cartel that took it over with the updated SegWit and the name of the Bitcoin they stole, compare the source codes to see.

Here's how Bitcoin has evolved since 2008

> Creation 2008 = XBT (Original ticker name) Turing complete Ok. 2010 Satoshi takes a personal step back.

> Update 2017 = BTC (SegWit increment = modify source code, unlocked protocol, limited, fee modified, just steal Bitcoin name). No Ecosystem except LN which doesn't enter data in the ledger when leaving channels (transfers) open. Not Turing. Not evolving as is.

> Update 2017 (bis) = BCH = Refusing SegWit (Unlocked protocol + Modified source code + Proven Oligarchy + Remains limited). But closest to XBT until 2018 compared to BTC. No Ecosystem. Not Turing. Not evolving as is.

> Update 2018 > BSV (Locked protocol + Cleaned source code + No SegWit + unlimited + full opening of Bitcoin potential). BSV is certainly Bitcoin, like XBT, but with the potential released as well as its locked protocol = evolving as is, that's why the ecosystem is perennial because it is stable and healthy, with already hundreds of applications redistributing the economic and technological models accessible to all. Complete Turing Ok.

Now that all the morons buy BTC and Hodl without being able to use, get screwed on the fees that fill the pockets of the BTC cartel then the only logical alternative because these cartels (and partners) accumulate so many BTCs will be to create a BTC upgrade fork to multiply the buns. This is the same model that has happened several times in the past and the only possible continuity for their Hodl Ponzi shema. Will they use the word Bitcoin with affrons > yes for sure or not, this is also why Satoshi defends his legacy. The copyright is not to make the white paper disappear, on the contrary, so many bots are turning your head and making you believe that BTC is Bitcoin and its BTC potential is Bitcoin but is clearly a deception! it's a big deal to be fooled by BTC aficionados and BTC social speakers who don't do any code introspection, research, proof or even try to understand, others will bite you with venom.

Compare the source codes 👑 so you can understand with your own eyes.

Original XBT is now no longer available (After 2010 BTC Core have control on the sourcecode. Maybe Core control "erased it"?)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin (BTC Core have control on the sourcecode)
https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc (BCH)
https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv (BSV)

Also note that the keys were modified by Core control all this is in the highlights worn by Coingeek to help you open your eyes to this painted canvas to make you accept that BTC is Bitcoin.
https://coingeek.com/news/tag/crypto-crime-cartel

Understand that the economic context is the stakes are colossal for the BTC cartel even their personal financial interests advocates priority compared to the technological advances and the original essence of what Bitcoin is. It seems that BTC is controlled by Blockstream and has no locked protocol, so it is centralized.

If you are truly passionate with the Bitcoin soul then you might understand what Bitcoin really means? I encourage you to do your own research and preserve yourself from BTC bots.

Keep this in mind:One would have to be stupid not to understand this and miss the potential Bitcoin liberated.

kna

newbie

Activity: 13

Merit: 32

Quote

Bitcoin’s scaling test network is processing more data than ever

The Bitcoin SV Scaling Test Network (STN) continues to process huge transaction blocks, proving BSV has the capacity for enterprise-tier applications. Over the past week, the network regularly handled blocks of over 380MB, with close to 2 million transactions in each one.

Why does this matter? The Bitcoin apps of the future will need to process data in millions of “nanotransactions” as large-scale projects push data onto the network for processing and blockchain storage. This data will come not only from human activity, but also from embedded sensors in IoT devices and other automated processes.

Quote

https://twitter.com/two2wheel2life/status/1362145502557593605

Conor McGee ✪ @449
@two2wheel2life
So for five days now the Bitcoin #BSV STN has been pumping out 384mb blocks with around 1.9 million transactions in them. Over 250 million txs over the past 24 hours.
#Bitcoin scales just fine.
https://stn.whatsonchain.com

The key point here is that Bitcoin SV (BSV), and only BSV, can scale to the levels big data requires. BTC, which does not process data other than financial transfers, can handle only 4-7 transactions per second—and even then, at fees of US$10 (or much more) per transaction. Ethereum, which was ostensibly created to process mainly non-financial data, often becomes congested and has recently experienced its own problems with ridiculously high usage fees.

No matter how high the price-per-unit rises for BTC and ETH on exchanges, their currency units and networks have zero utility in the real world if their capacity and cost-per transaction level remain as they currently are. Neither shows much sign of changing that in the future, either—BTC developers have created no serious roadmap for scaling their network, and Ethereum has no solution to scaling other than to radically redesign the protocol and economic incentives. As well as causing lengthy delays, this creates huge risk and uncertainty. Meanwhile, BSV as it currently exists is capable of running (and processing) any contract that exists on Ethereum.

This means that unit prices for BTC and ETH are based on speculative gambling only, which is risky for anyone considering them as “investments.”

What the scaling test network is for

Despite being a testing network, the Bitcoin STN has very similar capabilities to the Bitcoin mainnet. STN developers’ intent is to reflect conditions on the mainnet as much as possible, so that when demand increases enough to deploy new projects, the mainnet will be ready.

The STN also serves as a testbed for third-party application developers to see how well the Bitcoin network handles their transaction load, and optimize them to make the most of it.

As STN Operations Manager Brad Kristensen has said in the past, maintaining consistent transaction throughput at high rates is more important than record-size blocks. The Bitcoin network will see peaks and troughs for data usage and, like a power station, it’s necessary to ensure it can handle the heaviest demand times.

Bitcoin can replace the internet

Handling enterprise-tier and large government big data applications was always part of Satoshi Nakamoto‘s vision for what Bitcoin should become. The blockchain allows data to be verified, processed and stored in ways the current internet does not. That information existed at a certain point in time, along with details of who put it there, is an invaluable tool—especially in an era where very little information available electronically is trustworthy.

Bitcoin also allows for the data contained in transactions to be kept private, allowing individuals to own, share and verify their own information while deciding who is able to access it. They can also guarantee that information can’t be removed or altered—or if anyone even tries, there’s an auditable record.

New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.

Source from Jon Southurst https://coingeek.com/bitcoins-scaling-test-network-is-processing-more-data-than-ever/

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Quote from: ?? on ??

BREAKING

Quote from: Dabs on February 19, 2021, 12:13:09 PM

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/okcoin-delists-bitcoin-cash-bitcoin-150000460.html

OKCoin Delists Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV to Avoid ‘Misleading’ New Bitcoin Clients

https://www.coindesk.com/okcoin-delist-bitcoin-cash-bitcoinsv-misleading-clients

... ouch for shitcoins eh..

"OKCoin is delisting bitcoin cash (BCH), a fork or “clone” of bitcoin, as well as its own fork, bitcoin sv (BSV), both as a way to protect neophyte clients who are trying to buy bitcoin and as a statement of principle.

Shared exclusively with CoinDesk before Friday’s announcement, the exchange’s higher-ups decided to scuttle the markets for either coin because they created confusion for new clients who joined OKCoin to buy bitcoin.

On top of that, the routine lawsuits and legal threats from Bitcoin SV creator Craig Wright played a hand in the exchange decision to delist both BCH and BSV"

Yeah this is not the first action trying to short-circuit BSV again.

The origin of the OKcoin delisting is "Craig Wright" pretext This is written in black and white with an open blackmail towards the community, their customers and users. It's the same hypocritical mode as the Binance delisting echo, Kraken and all those morons who don't give a damn about progress.

Their decision is outrageous OK fuck them! They're nothing but corner sellers and coins taxers. That's the way it is, there were others before these morons and there will be others after.
What counts is the technological advance of BSV in no way OKcoin the persons in charge clearly (decision 🤡 makers?) did not take the right measure which is necessary for the adoption of BITCOIN technological advancement, the imposed choice.
Namely that the OKcoin model is obsolete because BSV's CEFI (DEFI) puts them technologically out of the game.

Quote

https://blog.okcoin.com/2021/02/19/protecting-bitcoin-why-were-removing-bch-and-bsv-from-okcoin/?utm_campaign=BSV%20BCH&utm_content=154833960&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-2445396642

"Should the #BSV and #BCH communities listen to the broader market and choose to rebrand away from Bitcoin in pursuit of their own path, we would be very happy to revisit our decision and change our stance on these assets".
🔎 so OKcoin openly practices blackmail ?!

Quote

"we take into consideration various factors during these reviews, including ecosystem development and ethics, network stability, quality and commitment of the developer community, liquidity and ethical or reputational red flags".

🔎 where is the failure in BSV? OKcoin Hypocrite

$romain

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 46

✯ ₪ ☄ ₪ ✯

Quote

Bitcoin: Creating tokens, but not tokenmania

Bitcoin is the world’s best platform for creating digital “tokens.” It scales unbounded, it’s fast and cheap, and the base protocol rules can’t change. For Bitcoin to make headway at enterprise level, it’s important to consider serious use cases for tokens first.

BSV has platforms like Tokenized, Elas, MemoSV, sCrypt and now Fabriik‘s SFP (Simple Fabriik Protocol) to create tokens for anything that could (and should) be represented digitally. We’ve seen experimental demos of how tokens can be used with Transmira’s Omniscape augmented reality concept at the last CoinGeek conference, and RelayX used the Run protocol to create USDC, BSV’s first “stablecoin.”

Just as these platforms are designed to create useful items for business and government, they can also be used for experimentation and fun. History also shows us that games and novelties can get out of hand pretty quickly.

As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Or in other words, preserved-DNA experiments could prove beneficial, but building a live dinosaur theme park as the first project took events in the wrong direction.

The famous Spider-man quote “with great power comes great responsibility” traces all the way back to the French Revolution and even the Bible. Bitcoin technology confers great power on its users—for Bitcoin to truly succeed, developers should make sure their creations show off its best attributes.

Mini tokenmania

Given the endless possibilities Bitcoin technology offers, and enthusiasts’ eagerness to experiment, build something new, and maybe even create a well-known collectible, it’s easy to see why many got excited at the thought of creating new tokens on Fabriik’s SFP protocol. With SFP, the ability to create new tokenized assets on the BSV blockchain became even more accessible.

The Bitcoin (and wider blockchain) community also has a historic tendency to create hype and speculation around transferable digital assets—something that led to Joshua Henslee’s experimental Shuacoin token trading informally for over US$100 on Twetch this week. This is fun, but it’s easy to see how these tendencies could be exploited by bad actors or an irresponsible approach to token creations. In the Ethereum world, things went from CryptoKitties (the fun game) to $140,000 virtual cat tokens in just a few months.

Underlying this is the notion that any digital asset could somehow have a monetary or collectible value. This notion is older than Bitcoin, and was common in closed-system games like World of Warcraft, Second Life… and even Roblox. Actually the human tendency to collect items goes back a lot further than that. Just look at any serious stamp, art, butterfly, or coin collection… or Cabbage Patch Kids, sneakers, and Beanie Babies.

To avoid those comparisons, speculative manias, scams and any notion that Bitcoin isn’t serious, it’s important to maintain focus on creating tokens that are useful in the real/business world. Promotional coupons, concert tickets, loyalty points and tokenized property titles aren’t as fun to talk about as collectibles, but these are the things that would see Bitcoin become more widely adopted in the enterprise space.

Perhaps we need a different word to use instead of “tokens.” That word aptly represents the concept, but thanks to its past association with ICOs, pumps and price speculation, it may be better to find a name that breaks that mental link and charts a new direction that’s unique to Bitcoin. Or we could just stick with “token,” and keep building. But when creating tokens, it’s better to think about selling useful concepts to businesses, rather than tokens to individuals. Bitcoin is more than a game.

Source: https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creating-tokens-but-not-tokenmania/

Pastaga

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 9

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Pastaga on February 14, 2021, 05:15:13 PM

Unlike BTC, which has a block size limit that prevents its ability to recover after 51% of denial of service attacks, BSV has no block size limit, so as soon as the attacker runs out of money, everything is stopped and TX is simply. mined again. In addition, BSV has other technical defences:

This is just plagiarism of the article you are already quoting. Why not include it with your quote?

https://www.taal.com/blog/2020/on-security-of-blockchains/

Quote

unlike BTC which has a block size limitation which would inhibit its own ability to recover from such a 51% denial of service attack, BSV has no block size limitation, so the moment the attacker were to run out of money, all the suspended transactions would simply be mined again.

This thread makes me sad... Rather, the fact that people actually pay this guy to copy/paste bullshit makes me sad. Capitalism is pretty dumb sometimes.

Don't worry I'll delete this post in 24 hours.

EDIT# For the attention of nutildah user: Rather, the fact that people actually pay this guy to copy/paste

WTF! What bullshit? Bullshit is the deconcentration of intelligence. Capitalism is also open-mindedness. No plagiarism, just words to present the introduction before the quotation Angry

nobody paid me. If you have evidence, concrete facts expose them! I am not paid for anything. Keep your unfounded public insinuations to yourself instead of producing defamation damaging to my honour and consideration. If you don't appreciate my participation in sharing information on this public forum, if you are bothered by the way I put full stops and commas know that I don't care, I am not a professional blogger or journalist. You can also then go ahead your need to make yourself feel indispensable in criticising and judging other people, understand your actions and think about the consequences of your actions, go your own way or ignore me so you won't be sad anymore.

Pastaga

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 9

Unlike BTC, which has a block size limit that prevents its ability to recover after 51% of denial of service attacks, BSV has no block size limit, so as soon as the attacker runs out of money, everything is stopped and TX is simply. mined again. In addition, BSV has other technical defences:

Quote

The issue of blockchain security is a very complex issue that has many common misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Firstly, it is important to understand that the security model of proof of work systems is vastly different from proof of stake systems. Generally speaking any proof of work system is more secure than a proof of stake system. This is based on the fact that proof of work is an objective expenditure of cost, where as proof of stake relies on weak subjectivity model of the value loss for dishonest actors. This model as explained by Vitalik Buterin, founder of Ethereum, is a weaker security model than objective proof of work, and furthermore, he fails to acknowledge the more important aspect that the value loss by a dishonest attacker in a Proof of Stake system would be loss of their staked coins, which are coins in the native token of the blockchain. These coins would presumably, as a result of their attack, lose market value, and thus reduce the cost of the attack. In contrast, in a proof of work system, the hashpower needed to coordinate a 51% attack on a blockchain is paid in USD, as hashpower is derived from the costs of running hashing servers on the network, and thus this cost will not change the longer the attack is sustained. This is enough reason to presume that even a minority proof of work blockchain like BSV is more secure than any other alternative proof of work or alternative consensus blockchain (Thorcoin, etc) due to the fact that there are only 2 other proof of work blockchains (BTC and BCH) that have more proof of work security than BSV. In order to compare relative security of any proof of work blockchain, one must work out the cost of mounting a 51% attack on the network in terms of hashpower, and then add on the increasing losses per block of revenues forgone. This is simply a function of the number of coins per block multiplied by the market value of the coin.

So to summarize, in order to attack a proof of work blockchain, there are 2 costs to be paid:

1. Cost of purchase and maintain 51% hashpower in USD (continuous cost)
2. Cost of forgone revenue of blocks (which comprise partly of loss block rewards, and lost transaction fees)

While #2 is subject to the price of the coin falling vs USD due to market panic and sentiment, the first is a fixed USD cost.

In comparison, in a proof of stake system the costs are:

1. Cost of purchase of 51% of the staking coins required (one-time cost)
2. Cost of forgone revenue from loss staking

It is clear to see that while the second cost is similar between the two systems, in a PoW system the primary cost (namely the cost of purchasing and maintaining 51% hash dominance) is an ongoing cost and therefore must be continually paid. While in proof of stake it is a one-time cost of just acquiring the needed number of coins to stake.

Therefore, the most often quoted misunderstanding is that for BSV, where the average network hashpower is just 2 exahash, and with BTC having ang 120 exahash, one can come to the simplistic yet incorrect assumption that one could just purchase 2 exahash of the BTC hashpower (at a current market rate of $0.10 TH/s/day{a}) and thus control over 50% of the active hashpower hashing on the BSV network, and therefore would be able to ‘do whatever they want’. This is not true.

Cost of an Attack

Firstly, a 51%+ attacking miner would only be able to do one of two things:

1. Double spend their OWN coins. (steal back your OWN payments)
2. Mine no transactions or otherwise BLOCK other transactions from getting into the blockchain. (denial of service)

There is no possibility of stealing coins which do not belong to you. Having the majority hashpower just means that attacker can ‘roll back’ the blockchain, but at a continual cost. That cost would need to be sustained, because once the attack ceases to be funded, all the transactions that were held back would just be mined all at once by the honest miners, because there is no block limit on BSV that would prevent the backup from being cleared immediately.

Cost of Attack Breakdown:

1. $200k USD in order to purchase 2 exahash from BTC miners
2. Cost of forgone revenues from mining honestly. ($150{b} * 6.25{c} * 144{d} ~= 135k USD)

So, you see that the cost of a sustained attack on BSV would cost between 200k-335k USD per day. (#2 assumes that the attacker will diminish their revenue due to the drop in BSV price caused by the attack, similar to Proof of Stake systems). Additionally, the more paying transactions there are in the BSV network, the more revenues the attacker would lose in executing such an attack.

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

Clearly there is no reason to engage in this attack (not even considering the illegal nature of the attack which would fall under the cybercrimes act and thus be criminally prosecutable), unless you stand to earn more than 200k-335k USD per day from such an attack. And given that the only method that can actually earn the attacker gains is if they can get away with double spending their own coins, by purchasing something and then stealing back the payment, the only businesses that would be at risk are ones that are selling digital goods in excess of 200k USD. (because physical goods markets are not vulnerable to this attack given that such an attack would just result in the physical good not being shipped to the attacker.).

One then must look at how many practical businesses are selling virtual goods in excess of >200k-335k USD, and whether this actually applies to any real use case.

In Conclusion

While true that the BSV blockchain does not enjoy the same amount of security as BTC objectively speaking because of its relative hashrate, its security is seen to be good enough for most practical business use cases, and more importantly, clearly enough for supporting a microtransaction economy in which the goods and services purchased are less than $1. Furthermore, unlike BTC which has a block size limitation which would inhibit its own ability to recover from such a 51% denial of service attack, BSV has no block size limitation, so the moment the attacker were to run out of money, all the suspended transactions would simply be mined again. Therefore, there is no disruption for any businesses relying on BSV blockchain, unless that business was dependent on the transaction being in a certain block by a certain time.

There are other technical defensive measures being built into BSV blockchain that will further diminish the efficacy of such attacks and will eventually completely nullify their effects in upcoming upgrades, namely changes that will ultimately eliminate the dependency on block depths as a proxy for transaction finality (such as elimination of the child txn chaining limit). These shall be explored in later articles as they are released.

{a} This is taken from the current total miner revenues in BTC (~12m USD).
See: https://www.blockchain.com/charts/miners-revenue

Over the total hashpower (~120 EH).
See: https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate

{b} Assuming a price of $150 USD per BSV.
{c} This ignores the value of transaction fees for simplicity. The addition of which would only make the attackers losses increase.
{d} Number of average blocks in a day.

ARTICLE SOURCE: THANKS TO JERRY CHAN https://www.taal.com/blog/2020/on-security-of-blockchains/

EDIT# For the attention of nutildah user: Rather, the fact that people actually pay this guy to copy/paste

WTF! What bullshit? Bullshit is the deconcentration of intelligence. Capitalism is also open-mindedness. No plagiarism, just words to present the introduction before the quotation Angry

nobody paid me. If you have evidence, concrete facts expose them! I am not paid for anything. Keep your unfounded public insinuations to yourself instead of producing defamation damaging to my honour and consideration. If you don't appreciate my participation in sharing information on this public forum, if you are bothered by the way I put full stops and commas know that I don't care, I am not a professional blogger or journalist. You can also then go ahead your need to make yourself feel indispensable in criticising and judging other people, understand your actions and think about the consequences of your actions, go your own way or ignore me so you won't be sad anymore.

Topic: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision - page 22. (Read 226359 times)