Create account

BitcoinSV is “the most powerful Bitcoin ever created.” That’s how I introduce it.
Septmike
replied to post · 17 days ago
Yep, that's why it is down to 41.00. LMAO. Shit Version and Calvin Dairy Ayre going to 0. But that's what they told everybody they would do. You should listen.
You can’t look at the price alone. You’re a smart guy. I’m buying a seriously rediculous amount of this daily. Read the BitcoinSV roadmap. Simplicity and power is key.
You're basically buying shares of a company. They own the whole thing, there is no room for competition in SV. It's a corporate owned and operated chain.
BitcoinSV is what Satoshi wanted. No discussions. So far, this product is breaking records others struggled with and still struggle with (realize ABC failed to manage high tx volumes)
Bunch
replied to post · 17 days ago
I highly doubt Satoshi would have wanted his project to be subject to the whims of someone as unprofessional, egocentric and quick to anger as CSW. He wanted no one in charge
We don't know. We can only go by what Satoshi has written. I will hold BitcoinSV accountable to sticking to it.
Septmike
replied to post · 17 days ago
You will hold SV accountable? LMAO. Or what? You will sell your coins? Don't worry you won't get anything for them anyway .
Would not be hard to mine and propagate big blocks when it's all in the same data center connected with 100gig fiber. It's a centralized corporate product plain and simple. No question
ChainXOR
replied to post · 17 days ago
Failed? Besides, achieving a 64 MB block that takes 40 mins to propagate and NO increase on sustained throughput is not really that impressive. Watch when CTOR comes into effect ;-)
When Graphene will be rolled out it'll eat 128MB blocks for breakfast.
cbeastsv
replied to post · 16 days ago
Wonderful. We'll see 1500 ICOs p/s and no store of value added by them.
You're optimistic.
cbeastsv
replied to post · 16 days ago
Like Ethereum, ICOs add store of value when they are expensive to mine. ICOs need to be profitable businesses, not speculative tokens. Scripts, not DSV and oracles.
Remind me in 18 months lol. It’s on! Love competion. Breeds the best product
cbeastsv
replied to post · 17 days ago
Or the best death. Nothing to be ashamed of when valiant efforts fail.
Or earns respect. CSW has been insulted way too much. He is holding up against Jihan, Roger, Haipo, Jiang, PoSM. Jihan has already proved to be weak (Core).
Septmike
replied to post · 17 days ago
Yep he is insulted way too much. The guy that threatens mining at 0 for years. And that's exactly what will happen. Good luck
nchain, coingeek and csw have earned every criticism and I understand why people step over the line to insults although I don't want to do it myself. How did he get to you hoarder? :(
Sorry there is more. I really didn’t like when BTC miners let BCH starve for hash and laughed at mining it for “spiritual” support. Those miners don’t get it. I mined BCH
Hey thanks for taking the time to talk. I still have hope that you will make a big swap over to BCHABC and we can have that global party when adoption goes through the roof one day.
I mined BCH 100% too man. It's not black and white though. For people who mine BTC and sell it for BCH, it has an impact also.
That’s the wrong way to do it. The market gives value to the greater PoW chain. This is partially why BTC value collapsed with hashwar when hash left the chain.
Without data this is a religion. I want it to be true but we have continuous daily evidence that hash power follows price between BCH and BTC and every other crypto that shares an algo
Not every one. Not mine. I’m 100% on BCH since October 3rd last year, and now 100% SVpool.
I'm 100% BCH since August 1 2017, the day of the BCH-BTC fork. PM me on reddit if you want to hash it out more. I will keep hoping you come back to promote Bitcoin Cash.
Bitcoin Cash is redundant (peer-to-peer electronic Cash Cash) and ABC has mutilated it. I need what Satoshi envisioned and hope u fight for what you see as the true Bitcoin one day too
I promote it every day. I think "ABC has mutilated it" is empty rhetoric. What do you think about a `miner_id` soft fork? Is that ok with you? Where do you think it is going?
Nikamoto
replied to post · 15 days ago
Damn
And I need massive scaling. 64MB blocks and 1,500 txns/s rates already achieved gets me pumped. Not another decade of “fixing” Bitcoin.
No one knows the future, but I predict you are going to be disappointed with SV in the long term. The recent big blocks were squeezing water from a stone, and still didn't get 128MB
Finally Jihan really disappointed me letting Core take BTC. And he gives the devs too much free reign.
I definitely worry about ABC becoming a reference client like Core did. But look at SV. It is 100% the reference client with a clear corporate master that will dictate future rules :(
... but ABC had so much clout this time because bitmain and so many other miners were behind them. Not the other way around.
Well we can agree about BTC. I still think Jihan clearly believes in the spirit of permissionless p2p cash.
I always missed the original BTC with zero conf, some free transactions, fast confirmations. It worked well. I just wanted that back plus massive scaling. SV brings bitcoin back...
We already had all that. BU currently scales better than either SV or ABC. But BU's changes work on both chains. SV has done nothing for scaling. ABC is taking steps for it.
cbeastsv
replied to post · 17 days ago
I wasn't talking about Bitcoin. I mean proof of work. It may be possible to relaunch bitcoin for AI only someday.
ChainXOR
replied to post · 17 days ago
Finally something that makes sense :-)
Bunch
replied to post · 17 days ago
And establishing your own record counts for little when it is just yourself trying. The mighty 128MB block has not been reached, so you've definitely failed, even on your own terms
It hasn't even been a week. We shall get there. (Remember that ABC hasn't even hit 32 MB blocks yet).
Amaury-Bitmain Coin is massively centralized. 3 updates in 1 week. No discussions.
ChainXOR
replied to post · 17 days ago
Non censensus updates. Learn the difference.
Nikamoto
replied to post · 17 days ago
Autmatic checkpoints is a non consensus change ? Wtf
ChainXOR
replied to post · 17 days ago
Actually no. Not all node implementations need to follow it.
I didn’t say consensus! Look at what I wrote in the blockchain for the record 😉
ChainXOR
replied to post · 17 days ago
So, NOTHING to do with centralization. For instance BU or the other do not have to adhere to these updates.
Centralized checkpoints by Amaury. That ruins confidence for 0 conf. Im glad I didnt have to worry about that (or other change)
Barricade
replied to post · 17 days ago
How checkpoints affect 0-conf txs?
If the devs don’t have enough confidence and need the checkpoints, how can merchants have confidence in 0-conf?
Barricade
replied to post · 17 days ago
Merchants can have more confidence because checkpoints make deep re-orgs more difficult to perform.
if miners stayed on the chain for security and not only transiently to win a hash war, that would build the most confidence. Jihan should supply that mental security to his devs
Septmike
replied to post · 17 days ago
That’s more experimentation, what I didn’t like to begin with.
Septmike
replied to post · 17 days ago
Cough cough. Bullshit.
As long as it sticks to the white paper, there needs to be a power base to protect it from people like you and roger.
Yes, the base layer will be set in stone, as intended. No competition there. Plenty of room for devs to build and compete on top of this highly scalable architecture.
Septmike
replied to post · 17 days ago
Yep, you know it too. You said it exactly perfect.
Bunch
replied to post · 17 days ago
If you mean most powerful at evaporating value, destroying good will and throwing a wrench at community collaboration, then sure, it is.
I look at objective qualities in the product, like a Tesla. Doesn’t matter if Elon Musk smokes weed-The Roaster for 2020 still goes 0-60 in 1.9 seconds. So I’m blind to drama