Topic: Bitcoin SV? - page 4. (Read 21042 times)

bsv = B.S. Version 

1000% shitCON

 https://miningpoolstats.stream/bitcoinsv

f2pool controls 100% HASH

51% attack?
no 100% attack

double down
double spend

watch Bitfinex Bittrex Polo etc go BANKRUPT 

as a rule of thumb any altcoin that has the name "bitcoin" in it like "bitcoin cash", "bitcoin satoshi vision", "bitcoin gold",... are considered shitcoins because it simply shows that the people who created these coins had no confidence in their own creation so they had to use the name "bitcoin" to gain some popularity because of bitcoin's popularity.

in case of BSV it is pure shitcoin because it has nothing else to offer! it is a copy of copy of bitcoin since they forked BCH and it is only created for pump and dumping purposes and for people behind it to make money from the companies they own.

Yes, all day long, when BTC fell free, SV definitely rose as if they had the power to hit the storm, and SV would compete with ABC to become BCH

I agree. I think it’s called Bcash SV

What is happening with the Bitcoin SV for now? I caught a glimpse of this coin that has a pretty good potential to be the center of attention.
 Please share your opinion, to answer my curiosity today. Thank you very much and goodluck.

What is happening with the Bitcoin SV for now? I caught a glimpse of this coin that has a pretty good potential to be the center of attention.
 Please share your opinion, to answer my curiosity today. Thank you very much and goodluck.

"Bitcoin SV"?
it's BCH SV and to be honest... These forks are going no where, Just another avenue for the lucky BCH holders to dump what they earned out of the forks and move on.

https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/unitedcorp-launches-suit-against-bitmain-bitcoincom-roger-ver-kraken-bitcoin-exchange-and-others-20181206-00743

This and more such stuff might incoming to folks not following the legal protocol definition - there is only one. No matter who has written up.

But all trying to sell Bitcoin - and cannot deliver the real Bitcoin (legally defined in the white paper)  - are scamming ppl.

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.


What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a truste third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.


We need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign any earlier transactions. For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced, and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received. The payee needs proof that at the time of each transaction, the majority of nodes agreed it was the first received.


I would be surprised if 10 years from now we're not using electronic currency in some way, now that we know a way to do it that won't inevitably get dumbed down when the trusted third party gets cold feet.


With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless.

A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.

That's what I want to ask and I need to hear more widely, that some people believe that Craig is satoshi. Although not necessarily the truth now. Could the BCH holders benefit from all this? is there a connection? Thank you pixie85,,

SV drained itself trying to win the war with ABC and it lost. Some people still believe that Craig is Satoshi and that one day he'll prove it and the value of SV will increase. Some were hoping that SV will take over ABC and become the better BCH. SV is worth half of what people are paying for ABC so it can still have potential but both BCH versions are not worth the risk. I wouldn't buy them.