Topic: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Satoshi Vision - Unmoderated Thread - page 16. (Read 5656 times)
What the hell is Bitcoin SV? Did Roger create another Bitcoin clone as Bcash failed? LAWL epic fail
We don't dabble in trading scamcoins here. (Edit: by this I mean BSV)
Much like the whole white paper copyright registration fake news, this is simply a pump capitalizing on false pretenses. This time, Craig's defense says the judge's sanctions were inappropriate because he could not disclose his bitcoin holdings until after receiving "the remaining cryptographic slice" from the bonded courier. The appellate court overseeing the issue agreed that they should wait until February 3rd for the courier to appear before slamming him with a half million bitcoin debt to Ira Kleiman.
However, most of what the court had to say about Wright wasn't very kind.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.373.0.pdf
The court order, while stating that Judge Reinhart's sanctions on Wright had been "improperly imposed," is still just a slam on Wright that is being cleverly re-interpreted to fool people into thinking that Wright is going to produce evidence that a bonded courier is scheduled to deliver cryptographic "slices" proving that he owns Satoshi's bitcoin stash.
Spoiler alert: He won't.
Basically, nothing new here.
Short BSV if you can.
Much like the whole white paper copyright registration fake news, this is simply a pump capitalizing on false pretenses. This time, Craig's defense says the judge's sanctions were inappropriate because he could not disclose his bitcoin holdings until after receiving "the remaining cryptographic slice" from the bonded courier. The appellate court overseeing the issue agreed that they should wait until February 3rd for the courier to appear before slamming him with a half million bitcoin debt to Ira Kleiman.
However, most of what the court had to say about Wright wasn't very kind.
Quote
The Court notes that although the Defendant was ordered to produce all documents related to the blind trust by May 9, 2019, the Defendant had still failed to timely produce all documents that he had in his possession as of the evidentiary hearing date. In fact, as late as January 6, 2020, it was the Plaintiff who advised the Court that the Defendant produced another document purportedly related to the blind trusts. Plaintiffs advise that the Defendant has not provided any explanation as to the document’s late disclosure. At the status conference on January 9, 2020, Plaintiffs also called into question the document’s authenticity.
Quote
...the sole evidence put forward to establish the Defendant’s claim of impossibility, his own testimony, was found not to be credible by Judge Reinhart... (“I completely reject Dr. Wright’s testimony about the alleged Tulip Trust, the alleged encrypted file, and his inability to identify his bitcoin holdings . . . During his testimony, Dr. Wright’s demeanor did not impress me as someone who was telling the truth.”).
Quote
The Court has also reviewed the transcripts from the Evidentiary Hearing held by Judge Reinhart and agrees with his credibility findings relating to Defendant. Indeed, in answering opposing counsel’s questions, the Defendant was evasive, refused to give and interpret words in their very basic meanings, was combative, and became defensive when confronted with previous inconsistencies.
Quote
...the Court has no doubt that the Plaintiffs were prejudiced by the Defendant’s antics. It is clear to the Court that the Defendant’s conduct was anything but substantially justified or harmless. Defendant’s conduct delayed and obstructed the discovery process of this case, wasted valuable time and resources in litigating this issue, and prevented the Plaintiff from obtaining evidence that the Magistrate Judge found relevant to the Plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, the Court rejects the Defendants’ argument that no prejudice has been suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of the Defendant’s conduct. Such argument is entirely devoid of merit.
Quote
Finally, the Defendant argues that at minimum he “should have been afforded the opportunity to wait until [the date the bonded courier is set to come] to see if he receives the key slices to generate the list of his bitcoin holdings, which he could then provide to plaintiffs.” Defendant contends that in the event this occurs, “even plaintiffs would have to concede that Dr. Wright’s inability to do the impossible and comply with the discovery order caused them absolutely no prejudice.” Given the Defendant’s many inconsistencies and misstatements, the Court questions whether it is remotely plausible that the mysterious “bonded courier” is going to arrive, yet alone that he will arrive in January 2020 as the Defendant now contends. However, given that the Defendant maintains that he should at least be afforded this opportunity, the Court will indulge him this much.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.373.0.pdf
The court order, while stating that Judge Reinhart's sanctions on Wright had been "improperly imposed," is still just a slam on Wright that is being cleverly re-interpreted to fool people into thinking that Wright is going to produce evidence that a bonded courier is scheduled to deliver cryptographic "slices" proving that he owns Satoshi's bitcoin stash.
Spoiler alert: He won't.
Basically, nothing new here.
Short BSV if you can.
.....
Yeah, sure, man, whatever you want... benefits above all. You might be interested in buying XRP!
In the meantime, look at this beautiful chart
How many of you hate, don't like, disagree with BSV but hold some because of FOMO, fear to miss the train?
BSV is up by 40% today.
I bought BSV when it was under 50$ a few months ago when they announced in a conference that they forked and now big blocks are possible on the BSV chain.
I personally don't promote BSV but i as a trader i can tell it has potential to go over 1500$ sometime sooner, and watching as an spectator how some exchanges acted against BSV i can see that BSV is really a threat to other coins as is currently on the top 10 coinmarketcap and is not trade on many important exchanges.
BSV is up by 40% today.
I bought BSV when it was under 50$ a few months ago when they announced in a conference that they forked and now big blocks are possible on the BSV chain.
I personally don't promote BSV but i as a trader i can tell it has potential to go over 1500$ sometime sooner, and watching as an spectator how some exchanges acted against BSV i can see that BSV is really a threat to other coins as is currently on the top 10 coinmarketcap and is not trade on many important exchanges.
BSV forked from BCH which forked from BTC. I don't think you can call BSV as original.
BitCoin didn't change functionality and code, but sth minor, the ticker from [no ticker] to BC to ... to BSV
Nobody can change BitCoin that Satoshi designed
But you can lie to ppl and tell them BTC = Bcore+1MB+RBF+Segwit+LN + WTFdevInjects is 'Bitcoin' , cause it isn't
That doesn't work for logical / analytical thinking ppl,
it might work for poor bagholders.
BitCoin is more
BSV forked from BCH which forked from BTC. I don't think you can call BSV as original.
This is game of speculation a group of big whales just manipulating the market to trap the new investors by creating more confusion and pretending this as original coin but that is crystal it is fork of the fork so you are right and I also will do agree with you.
LOL STILL SHIT
BSV forked from BCH which forked from BTC. I don't think you can call BSV as original.
That's all ?
Proof for BSV for what?
Is only see some funny Nonsens and low level Name callings from no names
BSV is original Bitcoin - read the code
It works from 2009 - no code alterations needed from any dev
Happy Birthday BitCoin!
Proof for BSV for what?
Is only see some funny Nonsens and low level Name callings from no names
BSV is original Bitcoin - read the code
It works from 2009 - no code alterations needed from any dev
Happy Birthday BitCoin!
I am very happy to see this Unmoderated Thread.
One interesting thing I noticed is that member 'Bicoin SV' is supporting one more suspicious project called trusd
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-trusd-an-elestic-yet-stable-digital-asset-5205460
He trusts this newbie member:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/trustusd-2721770
Connection should be investigated
One interesting thing I noticed is that member 'Bicoin SV' is supporting one more suspicious project called trusd
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-trusd-an-elestic-yet-stable-digital-asset-5205460
He trusts this newbie member:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/trustusd-2721770
Connection should be investigated
The connection is "Bitcoin SV" (should really have quadruple-quotes around his name) decided to leave positive feedback for every single member I have ever given a negative feedback to, and several of the people I gave a neutral to...
They are obsessed with me I suppose. But they're not the first hater I've had, and they won't be the last.
I am very happy to see this Unmoderated Thread.
One interesting thing I noticed is that member 'Bicoin SV' is supporting one more suspicious project called trusd
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-trusd-an-elestic-yet-stable-digital-asset-5205460
He trusts this newbie member:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/trustusd-2721770
Connection should be investigated
One interesting thing I noticed is that member 'Bicoin SV' is supporting one more suspicious project called trusd
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-trusd-an-elestic-yet-stable-digital-asset-5205460
He trusts this newbie member:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/trustusd-2721770
Connection should be investigated
Thanks to the OP for creating this thread, it is both important and exhausting to prevent these groups from confusing and misleading newcomers about Bitcoin.
It is a matter of time before people find out what their true intentions are and then these forks will die, in slow motion as has been happening.
It is a matter of time before people find out what their true intentions are and then these forks will die, in slow motion as has been happening.
Here are a couple of my comments that were deleted from the old thread (I refuse to waste my time commenting in the new thread).
This one points out how BSV's transaction volume is being steadily manipulated in order to surpass BTC's transactions per day.
Thanks for posting this. This plot is one of my favorites to demonstrate the manipulation of statistics by BSV. Notice how all the lines are pretty wavy, indicating a rather tremendous amount of variation in the number of transactions? Then notice how the line smooths out for BSV between late May and mid July? This is because BSV was coordinating a ramp up in transactions to surpass BCH. It lost all variance because all (most) transactions are being performed by a single entity.
Here's what it looks like close-up so you can see it in better detail:
Let me guess: you are going to say this methodical, calculated ramp up in transactions is completely organic, right? The loss of variance is also organic, correct? Then why did the variance reappear after the ramp up had ended?
This one points out how BSV's transaction volume is being steadily manipulated in order to surpass BTC's transactions per day.
Thanks for posting this. This plot is one of my favorites to demonstrate the manipulation of statistics by BSV. Notice how all the lines are pretty wavy, indicating a rather tremendous amount of variation in the number of transactions? Then notice how the line smooths out for BSV between late May and mid July? This is because BSV was coordinating a ramp up in transactions to surpass BCH. It lost all variance because all (most) transactions are being performed by a single entity.
Here's what it looks like close-up so you can see it in better detail:
Let me guess: you are going to say this methodical, calculated ramp up in transactions is completely organic, right? The loss of variance is also organic, correct? Then why did the variance reappear after the ramp up had ended?
The one dispels the myth that BTC is "ignoring the miners":
Funny how you have to invent competitions in order to have one where you are actually winning.
BTC can build a layer that ignores the miners, if BTC ever reaches 20k again it will cost 50$ just to fund a lightning node with an on chain transaction.
This statement highlights the cognitive dissonance of BSVers. How can transaction fees be so high if BTC is ignoring miners? Either transaction fees are high, or miners are being ignored. Both items cannot be present at the same time.
At this rate BSV miners will claim a higher reward from transaction fees over block rewards, this is how bitcoin was meant to be.
Average BSV block reward per day minus fees: $148,950
Average BSV transaction fees per day: $125
The only way this could possibly happen (before the next halving) is if transaction fees increase by a factor of 1191 while the price remains the same. This will never happen.
Let's compare the same stats for BTC:
Average BTC block reward per day minus fees: $14,400,000
Average BTC transaction fees per day: $136,444
The ratio between block reward and fees for BTC is only 105.5, whereas it is 1191 for BSV! Your entire existence has just been rendered absurd.
Additionally your last stress test could only produce a block that was 8 MB. Why not just use Bcash? What's the difference? At least the Bcash cult leader doesn't think he's Satoshi.
What a joke.
So does this one:
The lightning network (the only Scaling solution BTC has come up with) literally ignores miners in every way possible.
False. You literally just said this:
if BTC ever reaches 20k again it will cost 50$ just to fund a lightning node with an on chain transaction.
Where do you think that $50 is going? Besides, how can fees be so high if everybody is ignoring the miners?
Bitcoin miners are doing just fine. You're just rehashing that same tired, disproven narrative perpetuated by other BSV idiots that we've heard a thousand times before.
Ohhhh what about the poor, poor miners? Who will think of them???
Everything is driven by economic incentives. LN will be used because blocks are already quite full, which means the miners are already making maximum income from transaction fees. There's no problem here whatsoever.
This one is about how the count of active addresses is a better metric for determining the popularity of a coin than transaction volume:
https://sv.coin.dance/blocks
Proof is here. bitcoin SV now averaging bigger blocks the BTC on a daily basis. This explains the recent price surge for BSV. If Bitcoin SV continues increasing block sizes at this growth rate, it will be a very slow death for BTC. BSV price will continue to increase simply because there will be an incentive for miners to mine the most profitable chain.
This comment will be flagged and deleted by dictator moderators on this form.
Proof is here. bitcoin SV now averaging bigger blocks the BTC on a daily basis. This explains the recent price surge for BSV. If Bitcoin SV continues increasing block sizes at this growth rate, it will be a very slow death for BTC. BSV price will continue to increase simply because there will be an incentive for miners to mine the most profitable chain.
This comment will be flagged and deleted by dictator moderators on this form.
The only reason your comments get deleted is when you post twice in a row or if you spam off-topic nonsense. In this case you only posted once, and while your comment is indeed nonsense it is still not off-topic, so it won't be deleted.
BSV muppets always fail to take into account active addresses, which is a much better metric for estimating the popularity of a coin.
Active addresses
BTC: 537k
ETH: 313k
DASH: 64.6k
LTC: 42.8k
DOGE: 34.45k
BSV: 28.4k
ETC: 18.3k
BCH: 17.2k
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/activeaddresses-bsv.html
Congrats, more people use DOGE on a daily basis than BSV, despite it only having 14.5% the total market cap of your tremendously overpriced coin.
The "payment" aspect for BSV accounts for 2.1% of all usage... just like Satoshi intended...
Finally, this is why I stopped commenting in their thread (in addition to having all of my comments deleted, lol):
There is a lot that (the real) nutildah says with which I do not agree.
However, this nutlidah impostor should rethink their approach. It seems evident that the username was chosen to intentionally deceive. Very poor taste. I doubt you're fooling anyone. You're only making yourself look bad.
However, this nutlidah impostor should rethink their approach. It seems evident that the username was chosen to intentionally deceive. Very poor taste. I doubt you're fooling anyone. You're only making yourself look bad.
There are 2 sets of multi-accounters working this thread, if not just 1. One of the main problems with this thread is that it was started by a banned user named korner. He's opened probably 100 different accounts to troll the forum, one of which is my impostor.
Frankly I don't give a shit about SV anymore. Its a comedic spectacle. No longer worth bumping this thread over.
