BSV TO BTC -3.1% not going well for this imposter coin is it?
poor bagholder view - again
nobody tells you to hodl, ponzl, specl, segwitl
The Original White Paper is about P2P Cash - USE -
Peer - to - Peer (no hodl here)
do your own research
Topic: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision - page 62. (Read 226442 times)
poor bagholder view - again
nobody tells you to hodl, ponzl, specl, segwitl
The Original White Paper is about P2P Cash - USE -
Peer - to - Peer (no hodl here)
do your own research
These big blocks and the world ready capacity of Original Bitcoin is the reason why so many other fork-supporters are getting triggered / mad and try to tear down BSV
https://twitter.com/brad1121/status/1258158485285433344
13 Mio TX in a single block
33 BitCoin fee !!
>
cause that is real long term planning of security coming by PoW (!) / mining - fees getting job done once block rewards vanish more and more by halvenings
Relay-node count is no security - full nodes are miners - do own research and don't listen on segwidiots
Grow up
learn Bitcoin - it was planned for running in data centers - not on sybill hobby tech
https://twitter.com/brad1121/status/1258158485285433344
13 Mio TX in a single block
33 BitCoin fee !!
>
cause that is real long term planning of security coming by PoW (!) / mining - fees getting job done once block rewards vanish more and more by halvenings
Relay-node count is no security - full nodes are miners - do own research and don't listen on segwidiots
Grow up
learn Bitcoin - it was planned for running in data centers - not on sybill hobby tech
BSV is not a fork of BTC.
The funny thing is that you are not even wrong about that. BTC is a fork of Bitcoin.
Then where is the original? A "fork" implies an offshoot was made while the original continued onward.
BCH = hard fork
BSV = hard fork of hard fork
BTC = soft forks only
Satoshi-era builds are somewhat compatible with today's Bitcoin network. However, they are zero percent compatible with BCH and BSV networks.
One could argue that BSV is a fork of Bitcoin as well.
They could argue that but they would be wrong in every aspect.
However, it is the only such that has forked itself back into near compliance with the original definition (i.e. the definitive definition) of the Bitcoin protocol.
This is simply a tired talking point with no technical basis. Looking at the current BSV GitHub repository:
gmaxwell - 144 commits
deadalnix (Sechet) - 766 commits
sepa (Wuille) - 835 commits
Your coin was largely built by Blockstream and Bitcoin Cash devs, and it remains that way.
"BSV is set in stone, until we change it, again."
And you again demonstrate your abysmal ignorance to the fact that a protocol is not the same thing as a software implementation. You seem to parrot this inanity at every opportunity, heaping yet another pile of rightful derision upon your ignorant ass. One might expect that a person with a modicum of intelligence, having this gaping hole in their knowledge pointed out to them repeatedly, would pause to actually learn something about the matter. But no. Not you. No, not you.
FWIW, BTC has indeed endured a hard fork - though it was back in the time before BTC, BCH, and then BSV each went their own respective directions. So it is irrelevant as a differentiator. But you still want to cling to 'soft forks only', don't you? Demonstrating yet another vector of your ignorance.
BSV is not a fork of BTC.
The funny thing is that you are not even wrong about that. BTC is a fork of Bitcoin.
Then where is the original? A "fork" implies an offshoot was made while the original continued onward.
BCH = hard fork
BSV = hard fork of hard fork
BTC = soft forks only
Satoshi-era builds are somewhat compatible with today's Bitcoin network. However, they are zero percent compatible with BCH and BSV networks.
One could argue that BSV is a fork of Bitcoin as well.
They could argue that but they would be wrong in every aspect.
However, it is the only such that has forked itself back into near compliance with the original definition (i.e. the definitive definition) of the Bitcoin protocol.
This is simply a tired talking point with no technical basis. Looking at the current BSV GitHub repository:
gmaxwell - 144 commits
deadalnix (Sechet) - 766 commits
sepa (Wuille) - 835 commits
Your coin was largely built by Blockstream and Bitcoin Cash devs, and it remains that way.
"BSV is set in stone, until we change it, again."
btc forked hard away from Origianl BitCoin when 1MB max block size got into the consensus layer - how stupid this was - we all know (Hal managed to convince Satoshi, but Satoshi just agreed, but to lift it just as needed)
capacity parameters should never go into consensus relevant level - only idiots think that s good
many other crap has been invented to btc that has bad purpose as well - so it (legally!) doesnt matter soft or hard
Most compliant still: BSV - nomatter what trolling ya do here
However, it is the only such that has forked itself back into near compliance with the original definition (i.e. the definitive definition) of the Bitcoin protocol.
That is called regression with an attempted spin to try to argue that it is better
Well, no. There is no value judgement in my statement. It is simply a statement of fact.
Couldn't be a statement of fact.
U R So Dum.
Rly Rly Dum.
BSV has indeed forked. This is a fact. BSV's forking has brought it to near compliance with the initial definition of the Bitcoin protocol.
These are simple statements of fact.
That you keep asserting that this is non-factual just demonstrates how fucking deluded you are. Or maybe ignorant. Or maybe duplicitous. Or maybe just Rly Rly Dum.
However, it is the only such that has forked itself back into near compliance with the original definition (i.e. the definitive definition) of the Bitcoin protocol.
That is called regression with an attempted spin to try to argue that it is better
Well, no. There is no value judgement in my statement. It is simply a statement of fact.
Your statement, OTOH, is dripping with a false bravado driven assertion -- an assertion which is merely an (unfounded) opinion.
Now, it is true that I believe BSV's inherent attributes to be superior to BTC's current inherent attributes. And that very statement is indeed an assertion that it is better. But I had not made that assertion in the post to which you inaccurately responded.
BSV is not a fork of BTC.
The funny thing is that you are not even wrong about that. BTC is a fork of Bitcoin.
One could argue that BSV is a fork of Bitcoin as well. However, it is the only such that has forked itself back into near compliance with the original definition (i.e. the definitive definition) of the Bitcoin protocol.
Can I get bsv from btc now?
Are you serious?
BSV is not a fork of BTC. So therefore you cannot get BSV from bitcoin unless you held BTC on about August 1, 2017 at the time of the bcash forkening.
In other words, bsv is a fork of Bcash, and that fork of Bsv from Bcash ABC (the original bcash) took place in mid November 2018.
So there are currently two running forms of Bcash, which are Bcash ABC and Bcash SV.... or maybe there could be more, if I have not been keeping up with all of the shitcoin forks, and many of the shitcoins, including the bcash variants are filled with diptwats who want to print their own bitcoin or to dispute peddly bullshit in order to set forth their vision of the world. So I am not completely sure if there may have been more forkenings of any of those two shitcoins in recent times (such as in the past year or so)?
Hopefully, that helps to clarify, to the extent that you may have genuinely not understood what BSV is or from where it started its scamming phoney baloney.
.... says the shill #1 who still believes Segwit Fork is Bitcoin. Nah. Hodl you nonsense
Can I get bsv from btc now?
-3 trust and nobody's clicking on your bullshit
Lol - this is the segwit hodl ponzi world - trust.
Sane ppl are able to flip such sign to see why segwit is not BitCoin (that flips your trust as well - except 0 - lol)
have fun with hodl
Never any fact's behind your claims you just say things and expect people to believe you?
Not all Bitcoin users HODL.. Some use it daily I can't recall the last time I used FIAT I just use BTC now so your "everyone HODL" is not true I also know many others who don't HODL. HODL is a choice you don't NEED to do it.
You keep banging on about Segwit and how it's "Not Bitcoin" care to explain your reasons behind this rather than just saying "Segwit is not bitcoin" just saying that over and over will not make it true.
Please present your case...
there is a legal definition about BitCoin
read it up and compare what forks are sold using that unique label / promise / purpose - TERM SHEET
only BSV is max compliant to that - segwit is a funny way of ... what exactly ?
Not much to say here - the case is clear but you need to do own PoW / research - but why should you ?
Nobody ows you to present sth
Nor Satoshi ows you anything more, but to respect his work and understand it - not altering it
This cannot be repeated more, but many wont get that
Here just came in a present
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-history-part-1-the-early-days-satoshi-no-limits-184b-bitcoins-and-on-chain-poker-game/
-3 trust and nobody's clicking on your bullshit
Lol - this is the segwit hodl ponzi world - trust.
Sane ppl are able to flip such sign to see why segwit is not BitCoin (that flips your trust as well - except 0 - lol)
have fun with hodl
Here it should go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVivnmVkoHc
and yes, you can do all of that on BitCoin
https://blog.blockchainfirm.io/blockchain-use-cases-by-industry/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVivnmVkoHc
and yes, you can do all of that on BitCoin
https://blog.blockchainfirm.io/blockchain-use-cases-by-industry/
Improved version
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-sv-node-team-introduces-new-version-1-0-3
No consenus change - that one is locked down
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-sv-node-team-introduces-new-version-1-0-3
No consenus change - that one is locked down
the story is here, rest tickers are just hodling (trolling) dead
https://coingeek.com/how-boost-uses-bitcoin-sv-to-reduce-fake-news/
"FAKE NEWS" oh the irony https://coingeek.com/how-boost-uses-bitcoin-sv-to-reduce-fake-news/
Segwit=Bitcoin? Thats your level?
World says: Fake news.
Cause
BitCoin was specked up once and set in stone. BTC = Fakecoin
the story is here, rest tickers are just hodling (trolling) dead
https://coingeek.com/how-boost-uses-bitcoin-sv-to-reduce-fake-news/
https://coingeek.com/how-boost-uses-bitcoin-sv-to-reduce-fake-news/
I hope the outcome will be a happy one for everyone.
Quote
origin: https://cutt.ly/rt8LqK9
Truth time for C. Wright and "his" million bitcoins
On this April 17th, part of the cryptosphere is keeping a close eye on Florida. A new episode in Craig Wright's incredible judicial saga is being played out in one of the U.S. State District Courts. In the case between the alleged creator of Bitcoin (BTC) and the heirs of his late partner Dave Kleiman, the inarguable Faketoshi will have to present his evidence to the court in the next few hours, at the risk of writing off "his" 1.1 million bitcoins - this time definitively.
Craig Wright and the One Million Bitcoins
A controversial figure in the cryptosphere, the self-proclaimed genius inventor of Bitcoin, the dean of digital currencies continues to attract mockery. Now well known for his charlatanism, often humiliated, but always triumphant, Wright sees an important event concerning him looming this weekend.
An umpteenth countdown is indeed launched for Craig Wright aka Faketoshi. An order signed this week by a Florida judge has ordered the Australian to go backwards to comply with a previous decision... This previous injunction had already, in the past, obliged him to present before the Court all useful evidence to prove his status as owner of the million BTC.
In short, the legal saga between Wright and the Kleiman heirs appears to be rather simple in its substance - one million Bitcoin at stake between the parties - but its unfolding is anything but straightforward. The defendant's strategy seems to have no logical thread, leading the trial to frequent dead ends, forcing the court to retrace its steps.
Skilful and strategic - but also deceitful and resorting to delaying tactics, in the words of the magistrate himself - the cryptosphere's chief trickster has apparently never shown the slightest real good faith in wanting to comply with the Court's main requests.
Probably because he has - in reality - no evidence to back up his statements, Craig Wright has indeed recently objected to the request not to have to produce documents essential to the investigation. His manoeuvre was in his image - burlesque - and consisted in invoking the sacred bonds of marriage and the right to professional secrecy, reasons - very serious in his view - that did not allow him to disclose the documents required before the Tribunal.
Judge Beth Bloom of the Florida District Court ruled on the case. She overruled the objection and ordered Faketoshi to deliver the evidence to the Court without delay. The seconds and minutes are ticking away, because the date of April 17 is the only limit accepted... otherwise Craig Wright could write off his hypothetical fortune of 1.1 million bitcoins.
Truth time for C. Wright and "his" million bitcoins
On this April 17th, part of the cryptosphere is keeping a close eye on Florida. A new episode in Craig Wright's incredible judicial saga is being played out in one of the U.S. State District Courts. In the case between the alleged creator of Bitcoin (BTC) and the heirs of his late partner Dave Kleiman, the inarguable Faketoshi will have to present his evidence to the court in the next few hours, at the risk of writing off "his" 1.1 million bitcoins - this time definitively.
Craig Wright and the One Million Bitcoins
A controversial figure in the cryptosphere, the self-proclaimed genius inventor of Bitcoin, the dean of digital currencies continues to attract mockery. Now well known for his charlatanism, often humiliated, but always triumphant, Wright sees an important event concerning him looming this weekend.
An umpteenth countdown is indeed launched for Craig Wright aka Faketoshi. An order signed this week by a Florida judge has ordered the Australian to go backwards to comply with a previous decision... This previous injunction had already, in the past, obliged him to present before the Court all useful evidence to prove his status as owner of the million BTC.
In short, the legal saga between Wright and the Kleiman heirs appears to be rather simple in its substance - one million Bitcoin at stake between the parties - but its unfolding is anything but straightforward. The defendant's strategy seems to have no logical thread, leading the trial to frequent dead ends, forcing the court to retrace its steps.
Skilful and strategic - but also deceitful and resorting to delaying tactics, in the words of the magistrate himself - the cryptosphere's chief trickster has apparently never shown the slightest real good faith in wanting to comply with the Court's main requests.
Probably because he has - in reality - no evidence to back up his statements, Craig Wright has indeed recently objected to the request not to have to produce documents essential to the investigation. His manoeuvre was in his image - burlesque - and consisted in invoking the sacred bonds of marriage and the right to professional secrecy, reasons - very serious in his view - that did not allow him to disclose the documents required before the Tribunal.
Judge Beth Bloom of the Florida District Court ruled on the case. She overruled the objection and ordered Faketoshi to deliver the evidence to the Court without delay. The seconds and minutes are ticking away, because the date of April 17 is the only limit accepted... otherwise Craig Wright could write off his hypothetical fortune of 1.1 million bitcoins.
Honeybadger doesn't care. He delt with many things, even devs and other ppl who wanted his honey
get rid of thinking about single ppl - the big BitCoin thing, the economics the PoW - that's what works
Your "Leader" is a PROVEN LIAR...
This is your personal subjective opinion.
This is not opinion its FACT...
But you cannot win
Win what? it's not a fucking game with levels.. Fool..Maybe your life with your falling BTC is so pity?
Everything in life is a ZeroSumGame! Including BSV.. but BSV will be at 0 long before anything else will be.
Come back and tell us how hot your bag is when NO exchanges allow you to trade your shitcoin...
I'm not wasting anymore time on you...
Just know your not welcome here....
BSV supportes try to make that better now. No price / position talk. Think of building business on top. BSV is set in stone - freedom for any app dev, strategy consultant and CEO
More real world use cases incoming / enhance sufficiency / lower cost of production
https://coingeek.com/polands-food-supply-chain-set-to-improve-with-bitcoin-sv
(I wonder after how many days I must rather update / edit my old posts or can create a new one?)
https://coingeek.com/polands-food-supply-chain-set-to-improve-with-bitcoin-sv
(I wonder after how many days I must rather update / edit my old posts or can create a new one?)
Some nice talks given via Tim Draper Startup House here
https://www.facebook.com/draperstartuphouse/videos/204569890978444/
https://www.facebook.com/draperstartuphouse/videos/204569890978444/
Everything is good. Don't listen to anyone
Everything s getting better with the BitCoin - only big block blockchain really working in the space
PoW concetp holds not only for mining - also for alle apps /use cases on a stable minted chain
EDIT:
some issues reported quite ok, given the skew of the news site owners / history
https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-law-is-coming-for-bitcoin-warns-satoshi-claimant-craig-wright
Jump to: