Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[kyuupichan]

Anyone who has any doubt about the toxicity of the Bitcoin SV community can visit the /r/BitcoinCashSV subreddit and see it for themselves.

This is just one example post among dozens.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/d7a5hz/my_prediction_on_the_future_of_bab_in_north/

BAB in Townsville reminds me of BTC on that street in Berlin.

 

[cypherblock]

if you believe that CSW is a liar and a fraud

https://medium.com/@samwill102244/anatomy-of-a-fraud-a-deep-dive-into-one-of-craig-wrights-plagiarized-papers-96bc8624fc12
[doublepost=1569278087,1569277184][/doublepost]

• Title: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

• Copyright: Craig Steven Wright, 1970-

• US Copyright Catalog Registration Number: TXu002136996

• Download: SSRN

From: https://www.copyright.gov/press-media-info/press-updates.html?loclr=twcop

"As a general rule, when the Copyright Office receives an application for registration, the claimant certifies as to the truth of the statements made in the submitted materials. The Copyright Office does not investigate the truth of any statement made.
...
In a case in which a work is registered under a pseudonym, the Copyright Office does not investigate whether there is a provable connection between the claimant and the pseudonymous author."

 

[AdrianX]

As a general rule, the person registering the copyright usualy has a claim to being the author. But in all reality, it's a moot point arguing over something that does not matter at least until it does.

 

[Norway]

A miner does not create rules - they enforce them. Miners can enforce rules - that is, they are the police in the system. Miners are NOT politicians.

Dr. Craig S. Wright AKA Satoshi Nakamoto
​

Anyone who disagrees should check out the whitepaper.

• Title: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
• Copyright: Craig Steven Wright, 1970-
• US Copyright Catalog Registration Number: TXu002136996
• Download: SSRN

Funny how people can't see the point of this post. They just see a proper reference to a whitepaper and get hung up on whether it's a proof of CSW being SN or not.

But my post was about the role of the miners. According to both Craig and the whitepaper, they don't vote over what the rules should be. The miners just enforce the bitcoin rules.

This important perspective is fundamentally different between BCH and BSV.

 

[cypherdoc]

https://medium.com/@samwill102244/anatomy-of-a-fraud-a-deep-dive-into-one-of-craig-wrights-plagiarized-papers-96bc8624fc12
[doublepost=1569278087,1569277184][/doublepost]

From: https://www.copyright.gov/press-media-info/press-updates.html?loclr=twcop

"As a general rule, when the Copyright Office receives an application for registration, the claimant certifies as to the truth of the statements made in the submitted materials. The Copyright Office does not investigate the truth of any statement made.
...
In a case in which a work is registered under a pseudonym, the Copyright Office does not investigate whether there is a provable connection between the claimant and the pseudonymous author."

oh great. we still have both guys, the poster and the liker, who've claimed this thread is a shithole still hanging around. why is that? not that I mind or care; I find them both equally amusing.

 

[trinoxol]

> https://medium.com/@samwill102244/anatomy-of-a-fraud-a-deep-dive-into-one-of-craig-wrights-plagiarized-papers-96bc8624fc12

Is this true? It's too much work to check

 

[cypherblock]

oh great. we still have both guys, the poster and the liker, who've claimed this thread is a shithole still hanging around. why is that? not that I mind or care; I find them both equally amusing.

Yup instead of actually addressing the post (or ignoring it if you have nothing to say) you poke at me personally. Well done. Classic.

 

[cypherdoc]

yup, none of your quotes bring up anything new. how many times have I said CSW being Satoshi doesn't matter? instead of actually addressing that point (or ignoring it if you have nothing to say) you poke at me personally and trash a thread that is way older than your participation in Bitcoin. Well done. Classic.

 

[cypherblock]

LOL.

Any thoughts about this https://medium.com/@samwill102244/anatomy-of-a-fraud-a-deep-dive-into-one-of-craig-wrights-plagiarized-papers-96bc8624fc12 ?
[doublepost=1569316432,1569315359][/doublepost]

Funny how people can't see the point of this post. They just see a proper reference to a whitepaper and get hung up on whether it's a proof of CSW being SN or not.

There was nothing much to comment on with regards to "miners enforce the rules". But breaking it down, miners choose which software to run (so sort of choosing which rules to follow), and like any node they will enforce the rules of that software. By lending their hashpower to a particular set of rules (unlike non-mining nodes) you can say they they add "weight" to it (making a particular chain longer) and so that can be thought of additionally as 'enforcement'. Let me know your interpretation of Satoshi's comment.

 

[cypherdoc]

>Any thoughts about this

yes, CSW may very well be a fraud. why does that matter to me following or running the BSV code that is most similar to the original Bitcoin and will soon remove the blocksize limit that Satoshi has always envisioned would be removed?

 

[cypherblock]

>why does that matter to me following or running the BSV code

Well it might be of some concern considering he's in an influential position over BSV. But yeah it may not matter to you as long as he doesn't change the stated direction of BSV. I would certainly say it adds some risk to BSV in general and likely is a negative on price. Which I would think is at least a long term concern of yours.

 

[Zarathustra]

There was nothing much to comment on with regards to "miners enforce the rules". But breaking it down, miners choose which software to run (so sort of choosing which rules to follow), and like any node they will enforce the rules of that software. By lending their hashpower to a particular set of rules (unlike non-mining nodes) you can say they they add "weight" to it (making a particular chain longer) and so that can be thought of additionally as 'enforcement'. Let me know your interpretation of Satoshi's comment.

The rules are set in stone. Software forks with non-Bitcoin rules are not Bitcoin.

 

[Norway]

The multicoiners think it's sustainable to keep forking and devs making up new rules and chains. But that is a hyperinflationary system. And hyperinflation is not sustainable.

The miners don't vote on bitcoin's rules. They only enforce the bitcoin rules. And they may start mining something else that is not bitcoin, but that will not be profitable at scale when bitcoin has established a significant network effect.

Core changed the protocol by removing OP-codes, adding limits and more. They didn't just fork off at one point with SegWit. It was a long and gradual process. The protocol forks didn't cause any persistent chain splits in the beginning, but eventually they did. And they managed to steal the brand and the ticker. The same thing happened later with BCH/BSV.

A global mainstream electronic cash system can't be hyperinflationary, and it depends on a network effect. To become this network, the rules must be set in stone. This is why the inventor of bitcoin is on a mission to restore the protocol and lock it down 11 years, 1 month and 1 day after the genesis block. Anyone trying to change the rules after this date, will not be able to steal the ticker, the name or the network effect.

Multicoiners who want "the market to decide new rules", miners "to vote on different rules" etc will lose the long game, plagued by fragmentation on their road to hyperinflation.

BCH will split, and I will enjoy my popcorn.

 

[cypherdoc]

>why does that matter to me following or running the BSV code

Well it might be of some concern considering he's in an influential position over BSV. But yeah it may not matter to you as long as he doesn't change the stated direction of BSV. I would certainly say it adds some risk to BSV in general and likely is a negative on price. Which I would think is at least a long term concern of yours.

once the limit is removed in February, what exactly is it that you're concerned CSW might do to the BSV protocol? I haven't heard a bloody thing about the long term plans that concern me other than restoring the protocol and then locking it down. can you be specific? I asked Steve who had the github keys and he said him and Daniel. those two seem trustworthy and haven't said anything contrary to the above assumptions. plus, a few months ago I got them to clarify and modify their open source licensing and it says hard forks can occur as long as they include the BSV genesis block. those public statements can be binding in a court of law if they betray those statements. literally everything they say day in day out about this is consistent and has formed a huge log of evidence that can be used against them and nchain if they try to go against those promises. furthermore, bsv is open source and is ruled by market economics so you're not forced to upgrade away from the concensus rules you believe in which right now are pretty ideal and come February will be idyllic.

so once again, can you be specific about what it is that you're hearing from them that makes you think they will go against everything they've said? how about any of their actions over the past year that have gone against that scaling plan other than then increasing the blocksize twice with the plan to remove the limit altogether accelerated forward in time due to the great success of the 128mb and 2G upgrades? how about their node networking improvements that blew away @jtoomim's 22mb fud? how about all those devs that have met with CSW and not only believe him but have made great contributions to services and apps? please, we all look forward to what it is you're hearing and and seeing that indicates there's going to be a mass betrayal of the roadmap?

 

[cypherdoc]

lol @cypherblock. any thoughts on what I just said?

or maybe just trash this thread again as a BSV shithole

 

[AdrianX]

Funny how people can't see the point of this post. They just see a proper reference to a whitepaper and get hung up on whether it's a proof of CSW being SN or not.

But my post was about the role of the miners. According to both Craig and the whitepaper, they don't vote over what the rules should be. The miners just enforce the bitcoin rules.

This important perspective is fundamentally different between BCH and BSV.

Any needed rules can be activated with that mechanism.

Needed being a distinct point of contention. ABC using efforts to try to justify the need and failing, hence my sport for BSV, I didn't see all the OP-codes as needed however I see potential in the meternet, and it explains the need for the OP-codes to begin with.

 

[AdrianX]

> https://medium.com/@samwill102244/anatomy-of-a-fraud-a-deep-dive-into-one-of-craig-wrights-plagiarized-papers-96bc8624fc12

Is this true? It's too much work to check

I am just reading the first line, "plagiarism" examples. Plagiarism to be meaningful has to be relevant. Build on someone else's work is not meaningful, not citing your references is not meaningful, spreading existing ideas is meaningful but not plagiarism, claiming someone else's work as yours is meaningful and relevant and plagiarism if copied verbatim.
CSW does not appear to be claiming ownership of the uncited works; he's using them as a base to describe bigger ideas, then there is the case for unclaimed works like the Bitcoin White paper.

People for a while were plagiarising my work on a regular base, weekly over 2 years. I had to ask them to cease and desist, only if they did not was I able to initiate a lawsuit. Proof of suspected plagiarism is the initiation of a lawsuit.
CSW is dealing with a bunch of salty critics, and it looks like someone is hating on him. That said there is never smoke without a fire, but if that article opens with the best they have got, there is no fire there.

Blatantly plagiarizing is yet again hyperbole, He's talking about the underlying ideas, Ideas people claim are imposable, the existing body of knowledge used as a premise on which those ideas are built is important but not originating from CSW does not undermine the ideas he's attempting to communicate.

If you don't like the ideas criticize the ideas, not the delivery method.
[doublepost=1569349405,1569348437][/doublepost]

BCH will split, and I will enjoy my popcorn.

you are being confrontational again, people tend to get defensive and block confrontation.

Let me FT;FU

BCH will could split, as a result of the lack of understanding of how bitcoin works.

The reality is it's easier to say you're a rude ash hole and we're going to ban you than it is to see the facts.
[doublepost=1569349814][/doublepost]

literally everything they say day in day out about this is consistent and has formed a huge log of evidence that can be used against them and nchain if they try to go against those promises.

This is a lot more valuable than an open roadmap that is full of glaring mistakes, nChain and SV has my support so long as I feel their actions are consistent with their statements, in contrast to ABC who now don't have my support as their action have betrayed that trust.

 

[Norway]

Any needed rules can be activated with that mechanism.

No, that is not the quote. It doesn't say "activated". Many people misinterpret the last sentence in the whitepaper. The correct quote is:

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

The miners are just enforcing a set of rules, like the police. They are not making new rules or voting over them, like politicians.
Dr. Wright's whitepaper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3440802

 

[AdrianX]

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Yes, that's what was expressed, I just didn't bother copying and pasting the original, and the words may have been interpreted otherwise.
Agreed many people misinterpret what miners do. Miners accept the rules that have always been. They enforce those rules in a competitive market and other needed rules by building blocks on top of other valid blocks. What rules are, or are not, necessary are subjective economic policy and why the protocol is locked.

 

[79b79aa8]

>why does that matter to me following or running the BSV code

Well it might be of some concern considering he's in an influential position over BSV. But yeah it may not matter to you as long as he doesn't change the stated direction of BSV. I would certainly say it adds some risk to BSV in general and likely is a negative on price. Which I would think is at least a long term concern of yours.

you got it!

i might add the BCH lead dev adds some risk to BCH in general and likely is a negative on price. Which I would think is at least a long term concern of yours.

oh, and the problem will persist post lead dev succession.