Public CodeValley/Emergent Consensus questioning and investigation Thread. Ask your hard questions and dispel your doubts here.
What is going on here? I am asking some hard questions for the CodeValley Company, which recently proposed a new revolutionary software development paradigm called Emergent Coding at the latest big Bitcoin Cash conference in Australia. I am asking these questions because, as I (and ~150 people who agreed with me) noticed, there are stunning similarities between CodeValley and the companies who have tried and succeeded in crippling Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash: nChain and Blockstream. According to me, as it looks now, similarities between these 3 companies (nChain, Blockstream, CodeValley) are the following: }- Sources of funding are extremely unclear or openly hostile to Bitcoin }- At first and even second glance, there is no product, no way to make money }- Whitepaper & Documentation is missing, hollow or total abstract bullshit, company has no logical sense of existence }- Detailed specifications or proofs of operation are not available }- Main products are closed-source patented blobs (BSV, Liquid, Emergent Coding) }- They have huge influences in the industry or try to establish themselves in such position to have the infuences I am here (and you are here, I assume) because we want to find out the truth, whatever the truth is. The point of this topic is to ask the hardest possible questions in order to estimate the probability of CodeValley company being legit. But this is also a chance for CodeValley to clear their name by providing sufficient information that proves that (after 4 years of having working company and 10+ years of having patents [Archived]) they actually have a working product and are a legit company, and not an infiltrator designed and paid by banks/TPTB in order to cripple and destroy Bitcoin Cash. Also if they truly are what they claim and they truly have such a revolutionary technology, this is a great opportunity for promotion. To show the world that the tech actually works. I will ask my questions and you can ask your questions as well. Don't make them easy. Don't have mercy (but these things work better when you are polite). Let's begin the trial by fire! Calling nlovisa My Questions/Tasks for CodeValley: [Of course you actually don't have to answer any of them or you can give us bullshit answers again, but in such case the community may conclude that you actually are next nChain/Blockstream and an enemy infiltrator, reject you and shoot down all your efforts. So the choice is yours] @@@@ 1. Please upload your actual businessplan which you presented to the people in power who gave you funding(VCs? Government?) to create $50 Million BCH tech park. A businessplan which is supposed to explain spending of $50 million AUD should have at least 7 pages (but more probably 20+). Some names and unimportant details (but NOT money/financial numbers) can be redacted. -- You have 6 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 2. Please list your current VCs and >%5 shareholders, with CEO names and HQ locations of each of them. -- You have 4 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 3. Few days ago you promised to upload freely-accessible documentation to https://codevalley.com/docs subpage which would describe emergent coding in greater details. @ - What happened to that promise? @@@@ 4. After I accused that your company is bullshit and your product is hollow, you immediately started to praise me and offered me a trip to Australia [Archived]. @ - So, do you always praise and offer a paid trip across the world to Australia to all people on the Internet who heavily criticize you? Is this a common practice in your company? @@@@ 5. A travel from Poland to Australia and back would cost something under $2000 AUD, counting buses, with hotels that would make something close to $2500 AUD even for few days. Based on this, I estimate your "invite random people from the internet to Australia in order to show them the product" budget has to consist of at least $50.000 AUD yearly (but $100.000 - $200.000 is more probable of course). @ A) In your financial books, what exactly is called the Excel position of your budget expenses under which would your secretary put my trip's expenses? @ B) How do you maintain such a large budget for such frivolous spending and how do you explain it to your shareholders/VCs? @@@@ 6. Few days ago you answered somebody a question: "The trust model is also different. The bulk of the testing happens before the project is designed not after. Emergent Coding produces a binary with very high integrity and arguably far more testing is done in emergent coding than in incumbent methods you are used to.". @ A) Who EXACTLY does the testing? People? Software? AI? Non-bullshit answer, please. @ B) Why exactly is there "more testing" in Emergent Coding than in normal software creation paradigm? Why is emergent coding different? Do the developers who work in this paradigm are somehow special? Are the programming languages magical? @ C) What are the specific software tools used for this "testing"? "Agents" is a non-answer, so don't even try. @@@@ 7. Please provide a simple demo binary of a simple program created completely using your "Emergent Coding" and also provide all the binary sub-component files that make up the final binary. Requirements: There has to be a minimum of 3 sub - binaries making up the final big binary for this to be valid. 2 or less does not count. None of the binaries can be obfuscated, they have to be clean X86/X86_64 machine code binaries. Notes: It should be incredibily simple, quick and easy task for you, since designing such a complex and apparently breakthough system must have required thousands, tens of thousands if not hundereds of thousands tests. All of these tests produced working binaries - after all you wouldn't claim you have a working marvellous revolutionary product without extensive testing, right? -- You have 18 hours for this task -- Of course, If you are saying the truth and have truly developed this revolutionary "emergent coding" binary-on-the-fly-merging technology, this should normally take you under 18 minutes to just find the test samples and upload them. @@@@ 8. Please construct a simple (binary or source) single-use-compiler demo that will combine 3 or more sub-binaries into final working product. Please upload the sub-binaries and the "single-use compiler" to publicly available site so people in our community can verify that your product is actually working. The single-use-compiler binary can be obfuscated with proper tool in order to hide your precious intellectual property. The 3 sample sub-binaries cannot be obfuscated. They have to be pure, clean, binary X86/X86_64 machine code. Everything has to be working and verifable of course. -- You have 72 hours to complete this task -- I understand all your technologies are patented with patents that basically predate Bitcoin and you are giving us obfuscated binaries, so you don't have to worry about anybody stealing your company's intellectual property, right? @@@@ 9. You mentioned the only application I need to create programs using Emergent Coding is the pilot app. @ - What programming language(s) is the pilot app written in? @@@@ 10. When you developed the Emerging Coding, before it started existing, you couldn't have used emergent coding to create the first (test & development) applications because it is a chicken and egg problem. @ - What programming language did you use to create first client/serveapi/daemon/tool used to merge multiple binaries into one in Emergent Coding? @@@@ 11. Please list all of your current programmers and programming language each of them is using next to their name. Also provide LinkedIn profiles if applicable. -- You have 18 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 12. Please also list all Development Environments (IDEs) used by your current programmers next to their name. -- You have 18 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 13. Please list all compilers used by your current programmers next to their name. -- You have 18 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 14. So if I understand correctly CodeValley will be the company who runs $50 million BCH tech park and the tech will house multiple Bitcoin Cash-related startup and companies. Let's say I have a BCH startup and I would like to rent a loft/spot in your "tech park". A) Please provide a PDF of sample basic contract you have (hopefully) prepared for such startups. -- You have 4 hours to complete this task -- B) How much does the rent cost per a room (or m2/sqft) for a month and for a year? @@@@ 15. Please submit the list of compilers that produce X86/X86_64/ARM binaries compatibile with Emergent Coding "mash-it-together" "binary compiler". -- You have 4 hours to complete this task -- @@@@ 16. Is it possible for Emergent Coding to merge multiple non-binary applications (like Python or PHP programs) together? Or is it just binaries? Who are you? I am a freedom thinker and individual independent from all infuences who just does what he finds appropriate at the moment. Disclaimer to preempt questions: }- I do not work for anybody }- I do not have any hidden agenda }- I am only doing what I think is right }- I am a born revolutionist, this is why I am in Bitcoin Why are you doing this? }- Because I believe in truth above all. Truth will save us. }- Because I believe in Satoshi's peer-to-peer cash for the world vision and I will not stray from this path. }- Because most people are apparently missing psychological immune system which is why attempts like Blockstream, nChain appear and are repetedly [at least partially] successful. I have an anti-bullshit immune system that works great against this type of attacks. I was actually one of the first to be banned in /Bitcoin sub for pointing out their lies with manipulations and to spot Craig Wright's attempt to infiltrate and bend /btc sub to his will.. }- Because I was fooled twice by entities similar to CodeValley before (namingly nChain and Blockstream) and I will not be fooled again. Bitcoin Cash will not be co-opted easily as long as I am here. }- Because if Bitcoin Cash community is an organism, then I became a B lymphocyte cell. I produce antibodies. I show you how to defend yourself from bullshit, lies and manipulation. This is my basic function. }- Because I am here to kill the bank
Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? An analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). Part 3
Part 1 Part 2 So I have been subbed to /bitcoin since it had less than two thousand subs but haven't posted there in years. I think I took a break from researching bitcoin to take a foray into the world of conspiracy around 2014 and only got back in to it around the beginning of 2017 but with a bit of sense of skepticism and cynicism about everything. I think I returned to /bitcoin around that time but there had been a rift that had emerged in the community between those that said that bitcoin was censoring any discussion around big blocks but then also just censorship in general. This lead to the formation of /btc which became the main spot for big blockers to gather to talk about protocol development. Following the fork of Bitcoin Cash and SegWit (BTC) in August 2017 the camps were further divided when the fence sitters were denied their SegWit2x compromise. Many from the fence sitters then deferred back to the incumbent bitcoin as citing muh network effect, liquidity, and hashpower while some who felt betrayed by the failure of getting S2X through went to support BCH for some attempt at on chain scaling rather than through pegged side chains or Lightning Network. Bitcoin cash initially went with a modest doubling of the blocksize to 2MB but implemented some other features like a new more rapidly adjusting difficulty algorithm to protect themselves against hashpower fluctuations from the majority chain. In about July of that year I had seen what I potentially thought was someone LARPing on /biz/ but screencapped, that segwit2x which was scheduled for november 2017 would be called off and then hashpower would switch to BCH causing congestion and chain death spiral on BTC and BCH would pump massively. I was partial to the idea as the game theory and incentives on a big block bitcoin should attract miners. About a month after SegWit2x was indeed called off while the BTC blockchain was hugely congested, BCH went through a violent pump reaching 0.5 BTC/BCH on a European exchange called Kraken while it also pumped ridiculously on American exchange coinbase. Shortly afterwards the market took a giant dump all over those people who bought the top and it has since retraced to roughly 30:1 or so now. After that pump though BCH kind of gained some bagholders I guess who started to learn the talking points presented by personalities like Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Peter Rizun and Amaury Sechet. Craig S Wright by this time had been outed as Satoshi but had in 2016 publicly failed to convince the public with the cryptographic proof he provided. To which he later published the article I don't have the courage to prove I am the bitcoin creator. In essence this allowed many to disregard anything he offered to the crypto community though his company nChain was very much interested in providing the technical support to scale what he saw as the true implementation of bitcoin. Following debate around a set of planned protocol upgrades between a bitcoin node implementation by his company nChain and the developers of another client Bitcoin ABC (adjustable block cap), the two parties both dug their heels in and wouldn't compromise. As it became clear that a fork was imminent there was a lot of vitriol tossed out towards Wright, another big billionaire backer Calvin Ayre and other personalities like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu. Craig's credibility was disregarded because of his failure to provide convincing cryptographic proof but still people who wanted to pursue the protocol upgrades that nChain were planning (as it best followed their interpretation of the bitcoin white paper) pursued his variant, while others who followed the socia consensus deferred to the positions of their personalities like Wu, Ver, and Sechet but even developers from Ethereum and other protocols chimed in to convince everyone that CSW is a fraud. This was referred to as the hash war and was the first time that the bitcoin protocol had been contentiously hard forked. Hashpower is the CPU cycles you can commit to the Proof of Work function in bitcoin and the majority will generate the longest chain as they have the most proof of work. To win the contentious hard fork legitimately and make sure your chain will always be safe going forward you need to maintain your version of the blockchain with 51% of the hashpower on the network and force the other parties to continue to spend money on building a blockchain that is never going to be inserted in to the majority chain. As well as this you need to convince exchanges that you have the majority chain and have them feel safe to accept deposits and withdrawals so that they don't lose money in the chaos. This is how it would play out if both parties acted according to the rules of bitcoin and the Nakamoto Consensus. There was a lot of shit talking between the two parties on social media with Craig Wright making a number of claims such as "you split, we bankrupt you" "I don't care if there is no ability to move coins to an exchange for a year" and other such warnings not to engage in foul play.. To explain this aftermath is quite tedious so It might be better to defer to this video for the in depth analysis but basically Roger Ver had to rent hashpower that was supposed to be mining BTC from his mining farm bitcoin.com, Jihan Wu did the same from his Bitmain Mining Farm which was a violation of his fiduciary duty as the CEO of a company preparing for an IPO. In this video of a livestream during the hashwar where Andreas Brekken admits to basically colluding with exchange owners like Coinbase, Kraken (exchange Roger Ver invested in), Bitfinex and others to release a patched ABC client to the exchanges and introducing "checkpoints" in to the BCH blockchain (which he even says is arguably "centralisation") in order to prevent deep reorgs of the BCH blockchain. >"We knew we were going to win in 30 mins we had the victory because of these checkpoints that we released to a cartel of friendly businesses in a patch so then we just sat around drinking beers all day". By releasing a patched client that has code in it to prevent deep reorgs by having the client refer to a checkpoint from a block mined by someone who supported BCHABC if another group of hash power was to try to insert a new chain history, this cartel of exchanges and mining farm operators conspired in private to change the nature of the bitcoin protocol and Nakamoto Consensus. Since the fork there have been a number of other BCH clients that have come up that require funding and have their own ideas about what things to implement on the BCH chain. What began to emerge was actually not necessarily an intention of scaling bitcoin but rather to implement Schnorr signatures to obfuscate transactions and to date the ABC client still has a default blocksize of 2MB but advertised as 16MB. What this demonstrates for BCH is that through the collusion, the cartel can immediately get a favourable outcome from the developers to keep their businesses secure and from the personalities/developers to work on obfuscating records of transactions on the chain rather than scaling their protocol. After the SegWit fork, many from the BCH camp alleged that through the funding to Blockstream from AXA and groups that tied to the Bilderbergs, Blockstream would be beholden to the legacy banking and would be a spoke and hub centralised model, so naturally many of the "down with central banks anarcho capitalist types" had gathered in the BCH community. Through these sympathies it seems that people have been susceptible to being sold things like coin mixing and obfuscation with developers offering their opinions about how money needs to be anonymous to stop the evil government and central banks despite ideas like Mises’ Regression Theorem, which claims that in order for something to be money in the most proper sense, it must be traceable to an originally non-monetary barter commodity such as gold. What this suggests is that there is an underlying intent from the people that have mechanisms to exert their will upon the protocol of bitcoin and that if obfuscation is their first priority rather than working on creating a scalable platform, this demonstrates that they don't wish to actually be global money but more so something that makes it easier to move money that you don't want seen. Roger Ver has often expressed sentiments of injustice about the treatment of Silk Road found Ross Ulbricht and donated a large amount of money to a fund for his defence. I initially got in to bitcoin seeking out the Silk Road and though I only wanted to test it to buy small quantities of mdma, lsd, and mescaline back in 2011 there was all sorts of criminal activity on there like scam manuals, counterfeits, ID, Credit Card info, and other darknet markets like armoury were selling pretty crazy weapons. It has been alleged by Craig Wright that in his capacity as a digital forensics expert he was involved with tracing bitcoin that was used to fund the trafficking of 12-16 year olds on the silk road. There have been attempts at debunking such claims by saying that silk road was moderated for such stuff by Ulbricht and others, but one only has to take a look in to the premise of pizza gate to understand that there it may be possible to hide in plain site with certain code words for utilising the market services and escrow of websites like the silk road. The recent pedo bust from South Korea demonstrates the importance of being able to track bitcoin transactions and if the first thing BCH wanted to do after separating itself from Satoshi's Vision and running on developer and cartel agendas was to implement obfuscation methods, this type of criminal activity will only proliferate. Questions one must ask oneself then are things like why do they want this first? Are some of these developers, personalities and cartel businesses sitting on coins that they know are tarnished from the silk road and want to implement obfuscation practices so they can actually cash in some of the value they are unable to access? Merchants from the silk road 1 are still being caught even as recently as this year when they attempted to move coins that were known to have moved through the silk road. Chain analytics are only becoming more and more powerful and the records can never be changed under the original bitcoin protocol but with developer induced protocol changes like Schnorr signatures, and coinjoin it may be possible to start laundering these coins out in to circulation. I must admit with the cynicism I had towards government and law enforcement and my enjoying controlled substances occasionally I was sympathetic to Ross and donated to his legal fund back in the day and for many years claimed that I wouldn't pay my taxes when I wanted to cash out of bitcoin. I think many people in the space possess this same kind of mentality and subsequently can be preyed upon by people who wish to do much more in the obfuscation than dodge tax and party. Another interesting observation is that despite the fact that btc spun off as a result of censorship around big block scaling on bitcoin, that subreddit itself has engaged in plenty of censorship for basically anyone who wants to discuss the ideas presented by Dr Craig Wright on that sub. When I posted my part 2 of this series in there a week ago I was immediately met with intense negativity and ad hominems so as to discourage others from reading the submission and my post history was immediately throttled to 1 comment every 10 mins. This is not quite as bad as cryptocurrency where my post made it through the new queue to gather some upvotes and a discussion started but I was immediately banned from that sub for 7 days for reason "Content standards - you're making accusations based on no evidence just a dump of links that do nothing to justify your claims except maybe trustnodes link (which has posted fabricated information about this subreddit mods) and a Reddit post. Keep the conspiracy theories in /conspiracy" My post was also kept at zero in bitcoin and conspiracy so technically btc was the least censored besides C_S_T. In addition to the throttling I was also flagged by the u/BsvAlertBot which says whether or not a user has a questionable amount of activity in BSV subreddits and then a break down of your percentages. This was done in response to combat the "toxic trolls" of BSV but within bitcoincashSV there are many users that have migrated from what was originally supposed to be a uncensored subreddit to discuss bitcoin and many such as u/cryptacritic17 has have switched sides after having been made to essentially DOXX themselves in btc to prove that they aren't a toxic troll for raising criticisms of the way certain things are handled within that coin and development groups. Other prominent users such as u/jim-btc have been banned for impersonating another user which was in actual fact himself and he has uploaded evidence of him being in control of said account to the blockchain. Mod Log, Mod Damage Control, Mod Narrative BTFO. Interestingly in the comments on the picture uploaded to the blockchain you can see the spin to call him an SV shill when in actual fact he is just an OG bitcoiner that wanted bitcoin to scale as per the whitepaper. What is essentially going on in the Bitcoin space is that there is a battle of the protocols and a battle for social consensus. The incumbent BTC has majority of the attention and awareness as it is being backed by legacy banking and finance with In-Q-Tel and AXA funding blockstream as well as Epstein associates and MIT, but in the power vaccum that presented itself as to who would steward the big block variant, a posse of cryptoanarchists have gained control of the social media forums and attempted to exert their will upon what should essentially be a Set In Stone Protocol to create something that facilitates their economic activity (such as selling explosives online)) while attempting to leverage their position as moderators who control the social forum to spin their actions as something different (note memorydealers is Roger Ver). For all his tears for the children killed in wars, it seems that what cryptoanarchists such as u/memorydealers want is to delist/shut down governments and they will go to any efforts such as censorship to make sure that it is their implementation of bitcoin that will do that. Are we really going to have a better world with people easier able to hide transactions/launder money? Because of this power vacuum there also exists a number of different development groups but what is emerging now is that they are struggling for money to fund their development. The main engineering is done by self professed benevolent dictator Amaury Sechet (deadalnix) who in leaked telegram screen caps appears to be losing it as funding for development has dried up and money raised in an anarchist fashion wasn't compliant with laws around fundraising sources and FVNI (development society that manages BCH development and these donations) is run by known scammer David R Allen. David was founder of 2014 Israeli ICO Getgems (GEMZ) that scammed investors out of more than 2500 Bitcoins. The SV supported sky-lark who released this information has since deleted all their accounts but other users have claimed that sky-lark was sent personal details about themselves and pictures of their loved ones and subsequently deleted all their social media accounts afterwards. There are other shifty behaviours like hiring Japanese influencers to shill their coin, recruiting a Hayden Otto that up until 2018 was shilling Pascal Coin to become a major ambassador for BCH in the Australian city of Townsville. Townsville was claimed to be BCH city hosting a BCH conference there and claiming loads of adoption, but at the conference itself their idea of demonstrating adoption was handing a Point of Sale device to the bar to accept bitcoin payments but Otto actually just putting his credit card behind the bar to settle and he would keep the BCH that everyone paid. In the lead up to the conference the second top moderator of btc was added to the moderators of townsville to shill their coin but has ended up with the townsville subreddit wanting to ban all bitcoin talk from the subreddit. Many of the BCH developers are now infighting as funding dries up and they find themselves floundering with no vision of how to achieve scale or get actual real world adoption. Amaury has recently accused Peter Rizun of propagandising, told multiple users in the telegram to fuck off and from all accounts appears to be a malignant narcissist incapable of maintaining any kind of healthy relationship with people he is supposed to be working with. Peter Rizun has begun lurking in bitcoincashSV and recognising some of the ideas coming from BSV as having merit while Roger has started to distance himself from the creation of BCH. Interestingly at a point early in the BCH history Roger believed Dr Craig Wright was Satoshi, but once CSW wouldn't go along with their planned road map and revealed the fact he had patents on blockchain technology and wanted to go down a path that worked with Law, Roger retracted that statement and said he was tricked by Craig. He joined in on the faketoshi campaign and has been attempted to be sued by Dr Wright for libel in the UK to which Roger refused to engage citing grounds of jurisdiction. Ironically this avoidance of Roger to meet Dr Wright in court to defend his claims can be seen as the very argument against justice being served by private courts under an anarchocapitalist paradigm with essentially someone with resources simply being able to either flee a private court's jurisdiction or engage a team of lawyers that can bury any chances of an everyday person being able to get justice. There is much more going on with the BCH drama that can be explained in a single post but it is clear that some of the major personalities in the project are very much interested in having their ideals projected on to the technical implementation of the bitcoin protocol and have no qualms spouting rhetoric around the anti-censorship qualities of bitcoin/BCH while at the same time employing significant censorship on their social media forums to control what people are exposed to and getting rid of anyone who challenges their vision. I posit that were this coin to become a success, these "benevolent dictators" as they put it would love their new found positions of wealth/dominance yet if their behaviour to get there is anything to go by, would demonstrate the same power tripping practices of censorship, weasel acts, misleading people about adoption statistics and curating of the narrative. When the hashrate from Rogers bitcoin.com minging operation on BCH dropped dramatically and a lot of empty blocks were being mined, his employer and 2IC moderator u/BitcoinXio (who stepped in to replace roger as CEO) was in the sub informing everyone it was simply variance that was the reason when only a few days later it was revealed that they had reduced their hash power significantly. This is not appropriate behaviour for one of the primary enterprises engaged in stewarding BCH and encouraging adoption nor is the inability to be accountable for such dishonest practices as well. It seems bitcoin.com treats btc as their own personal spam page where Roger can ask for donations despite it being against the sub rules and spin/ban any challenge to the narrative they seek to create. Let's see how the censorship goes as I post this around a few of the same places as the last piece. Stay tuned for the next write up where I take a deep dive in to the coin that everyone doesn't want you to know about.
This post was inspired by the video “Roger Ver’s Thoughts on Craig Wright”. Oh, wait. Sorry. “Roger Ver’s Thoughts on 15th November Bitcoin Cash Upgrade”. Not sure how I mixed those two up. To get it out of the way first and foremost: I have nothing but utmost respect for Roger Ver. You have done more than just about anyone to bring Bitcoin to the world, and for that you will always have my eternal gratitude. While there are trolls on both sides, the crucifixion of Bitcoin Jesus in the past week has been disheartening to see. As a miner, I respect his decision to choose the roadmap that he desires. It is understandable that the Bitcoin (BCH) upgrade is causing a clash of personalities. However, what has been particularly frustrating is the lack of debate around the technical merits of Bitcoin ABC vs Bitcoin SV. The entire conversation has now revolved around Craig Wright the individual instead of what is best for Bitcoin Cash moving forward. Roger’s video did confirm something about difference of opinions between the Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin SV camps. When Roger wasn’t talking about Craig Wright, he spent a portion of his video discussing how individuals should be free to trade drugs without the intervention of the state. He used this position to silently attack Craig Wright for allegedly wanting to control the free trade of individuals. This appears to confirm what Craig Wright has been saying: that DATASIGVERIFY can be used to enable widely illegal use-cases of transactions, and Roger’s support for the ABC roadmap stems from his personal belief that Bitcoin should enable all trade regardless of legal status across the globe. Speaking for myself, I think the drug war is immoral. I think human beings should be allowed to put anything they want in their own bodies as long as they are not harming others. I live in the United States and have personally seen the negative consequences of the drug war. This is a problem. The debasement of our currency and theft at the hands of central banks is a separate problem. Bitcoin was explicitly created to solve one of these problems. Roger says in his video that “cryptocurrencies” were created to enable trade free from government oversight. However, Satoshi Nakamoto never once said this about Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto was explicitly clear, however, that Bitcoin provided a solution to the debasement of currency.
“The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 02/11/2009
As we’ve written previously, the genesis block is often cited as a criticism of the 2008 bailout. However, the content of the article outlines that the bailout had already occurred. The article reveals that the government was poised to go a step further by buying up the toxic bank assets as part of a nationalization effort! In this scenario, according to the Times, "a 'bad bank' would be created to dispose of bad debts. The Treasury would take bad loans off the hands of troubled banks, perhaps swapping them for government bonds. The toxic assets, blamed for poisoning the financial system, would be parked in a state vehicle or 'bad bank' that would manage them and attempt to dispose of them while 'detoxifying' the main-stream banking system." The article outlines a much more nightmarish scenario than bank bailouts, one that would effectively remove any element of private enterprise from banking and use the State to seize the bank's assets. The United States is progressively getting to a point where cannabis can be freely traded and used without legal repercussion. As a citizen, each election has given me the opportunity to bring us closer to enacting that policy at a national level. However, I have never had the ability to have a direct impact on preventing the debasement of the United States dollar. The dollar is manipulated by a “private” organization that is accountable to no one, and on a yearly basis we are given arbitrary interest rates that I have no control over. The government uses its arbitrary control over the money supply to enable itself to spend trillions of dollars it doesn’t have on foreign wars. Roger Ver has passionately argued against this in multiple videos available on the internet. This is what Bitcoin promised to me when I first learned about it. This is what makes it important to me. When the Silk Road was shut down, Bitcoin was unaffected. Bitcoin, like the US dollar, was just a tool that was used for transactions. There is an inherent danger that governments, whether you like it or not, would use every tool at their disposal to shut down any system that enabled at a protocol level illegal trade. They, rightfully or wrongfully, did this with the Silk Road. Roger’s video seems to hint that he thinks Bitcoin Cash should be an experiment in playing chicken with governments across the world about our right to trade freely without State intervention. The problem is that this is a vast underestimation of just how quickly Bitcoin (BCH) could be shut down if the protocol itself was the tool being used for illegal trade instead of being the money exchanged on top of illegal trade platforms. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with Roger’s philosophy on what “cryptocurrencies” should be. However, I know what Bitcoin is. Bitcoin is simply hard, sound money. That is boring to a lot of those in the “cryptocurrency” space, but it is the essential tool that enables freedom for the globe. It allows those in Zimbabwe to have sound currency free from the 50 billion dollar bills handed out like candy by the government. It allows those of us in the US to be free from the arbitrary manipulation of the Fed. Hard, sound, unchanging money that can be used as peer to peer digital cash IS the killer use case of Bitcoin. That is why we are here building on top of Bitcoin Cash daily. When Roger and ABC want to play ball with governments across the globe and turn Bitcoin into something that puts it in legal jeopardy, it threatens the value of my bitcoins. Similar to the uncertainty we go through in the US every year as we await the arbitrary interest rates handed out by the Fed, we are now going to wait in limbo to see if governments will hold Bitcoin Cash miners responsible for enabling illegal trade at a protocol level. This is an insanely dangerous prospect to introduce to Bitcoin (BCH) so early in its lifespan. In one of Satoshi Nakamoto’s last public posts, he made it clear just how important it was to not kick the hornet’s nest that is government:
“It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 12/11/2010
Why anyone would want to put our opportunity of sound monetary policy in jeopardy to enable illegal trading at a base protocol level is beyond me. I respect anyone who has an anarcho-capitalist ideology. But, please don’t debase my currency by putting it at risk of legal intervention because you want to impose that ideology on the world. We took the time to set up a Q&A with the Bitcoin SV developers Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly. We posted on Reddit and gathered a ton of questions from the “community”. We received insanely intelligent, measured, and sane responses to all of the “attack vectors” proposed against increasing the block size and re-enabling old opcodes. Jonathon Toomim spent what must have been an hour or so asking 15+ questions in the Reddit thread of which we obtained answers to most. We have yet to see him respond to the technical answers given by the SV team. In Roger’s entire video today about the upcoming November fork, he didn’t once mention one reason why he disagrees with the SV roadmap. Instead, he has decided to go on Reddit and use the same tactics that were used by Core against Bitcoin Unlimited back in the day by framing the upcoming fork as “BCH vs BSV”, weeks before miners have had the ability to actually vote. What Bitcoin SV wants to accomplish is enable sound money for the globe. This is boring. This is not glamorous. It is, however, the greatest tool of freedom we can give the globe. We cannot let ideology or personalities change that goal. Ultimately, it won’t. We have been continual advocates for miners, the ones who spend 1000x more investing in the network than the /btc trolls, to decide the future of BCH. We look forward to seeing what they choose on Nov 15th. Roger mentions that it is our right to fork off and create our own chains. While that is okay to have as an opinion, Satoshi Nakamoto was explicit that we should be building one global chain. We adhere to the idea that miners should vote with their hashpower and determine the emergent chain after November 15th.
“It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one. Nodes that were present may remember that one branch was there first and got replaced by another, but there would be no way for them to convince those who were not present of this. We can't have subfactions of nodes that cling to one branch that they think was first, others that saw another branch first, and others that joined later and never saw what happened. The CPU proof-of-worker proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 11/09/2008
Connor of The BCH Boys
Edit: A clarification. I used the phrase "Bitcoin is boring". I want to clarify that Bitcoin itself is capable of far more than we've ever thought possible, and this statement is one I will be elaborating on further in the future.
An example of a high profile CSW shill /u/sharklaserrrrr [Arian Kuqi co-founder cryptonize.it] dishonest behavior - he lies 3x in a row and when called out for proof, he runs away with: "I actually have work to do"
It is important to expose lies, especially such blatant and clear cut ones such as this one, whenever or whoever makes them. This is even more important when a relatively high profile figure spreads lies because lies are what lead to hijacking of BTC, we need to expose them early to prevent the same fate for BCH. It is also important because the same modus operandi is employed by all of the astroturfers, be it CSW shills or any other kinds of shills. It's important to recognize. The lies that Ari told were in response to this thread where it is proven that the following passage was plagiarized from planetmath.org verbatim by CSW in his "Beyond Godel" paper where he purports to show that Bitcoin is Turing complete:
Starting from the simplest primitive recursive functions, we can build more complicated primitive recursive functions by functional composition and primitive recursion. In this entry, we have listed some basic examples using functional composition alone. In this entry, we list more basic examples, allowing the use of primitive recursion:
The source is from planetmath.org, and they explicitly state on their home page that ’The entries are contributed under the terms of the Creative Commons By/Share-Alike License’ and the license itself states: You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Right from the get go he is dishonest because the issue is plagiarism, which is completely different than copyright, but even on that point he is wrong because the license requires attribution so CSW is in breach of both:
He broke academic ethics by plagiarism
He broke copyright as he did not include attribution as the license requires
When this is pointed out to Ari is where the ugly lies commence. He points to Kleene, S., (1952) “Introduction to Metamathematics” as the original source of the claim, accusing planetmath.org of the actual plagiarism - this is a blatant lie, there are 0 results when you search for "In this entry" in that book And when this is pointed out to him, he runs away with a weak excuse as any common troll ever:
I actually have work to do so if you don’t mind, do your own research
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
I just see to Bitcoin Wikipedia page this [quote]Craig Steven Wright has claimed to be the creator of bitcoin. Wright, named himself as the creator of bitcoin in a BBC news interview. Wright apparently proved his claim by using 'signature' bitcoins associated with its inventor. Wright said 'his admission is an effort to end speculation about the identity of the originator of the currency.' In December 2015, Wired and Gizmodo, magazines also named Wright as likely to be bitcoin's creator.[/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin this is completely false info and lure to misunderstanding. I dont know who are the editors of this article. The article is semi lock and i cannot edit. First Wright never sign a transaction. Second Gizmodo and Wired in the end and with new article announce that they have do mistake about wright claims. This hoaxer's name must remove from bitcoin wikipedia asap. edit 1: it seems wikipedia page has corrected. It says now "Craig Steven Wright has claimed to be the creator of bitcoin in a BBC news interview in 2016. He offered to prove this claim cryptographically several days later, without offering an explanation of the delay. The circumstantial proof he provided was picked apart by cryptography experts, with one describing it as "flimflam and hokum"." edit 2: i think we must remove completely the Wright name from wikipedia bitcoin page. He has nothing to do with bitcoin history, he is not part of it.
The CSU PhD claim: Craig S Wright has repeatedly claimed that he has a PhD in computer science from Sydney's Charles Sturt University (CSU). 1) ..a statement sent to FORBES today from the university said it had never handed Wright any PhD. "Mr Wright has not been awarded a PhD from CSU," the statement read.
The fact that CSU says he wasn't awarded a PhD, combined with fact that he won't post a scan of his supposed CSU PhD degree, makes the whole situation stink. If Craig S Wright wants to promote BCH because he likes BCH, that's fine. However, the BCH community should not embrace him as a leader. He's way too high risk, has huge red flags, and is a disaster waiting to happen.
"I currently wear the lead developer hat" - Gavin Andresen
Software projects need leaders. There are times decisions must be made. I want to emphasize it's not picking the best decision 100% of the time that's key. It's the ability to make a decision. Possibly the most cherished aspect of "Bitcoin" is decentralization. It's a powerful concept, because it ensures a degree of fairness for all participants as no entity can easily co-opt and/or corrupt the situation. So we recognize decentralization as important, but I warn against thinking it's the end all, be all solution to everything. It isn't. It doesn't work in every case. Even in Evolution we see clear winners, decisions being made. Some genes win while others are abandoned. Everything doesn't remain equal. Similarly, completely decentralized development of some project, whether a company or a software application, doesn't work with precisely equal peers. There must be some hierarchy for progress to be made. Otherwise, what happens when a disagreement on a point comes up? With equal peers there are only two possibilities: stall everything, or fork/separate. For a multi-billion dollar project like Bitcoin Cash, clearly neither of those happening is desirable. Not everyone entered the community at the same time nor followed developments closely, so let me recap some history. Most know Satoshi led the project from the outset, but not everyone realizes Gavin Andresen led it for probably its most critical growth stage (the time between pennies to $10). During this time key, fundamental functionality was built in, with bugs fixed and improvements made along the way. As is inevitable disagreement among volunteer developers broke out to varying degree from time to time. One of the biggest was over precisely how to implement P2SH. Good points could be found on different sides. However, in not too much time Gavin put his foot down and said "this is how it's going to be." And, that's how it was (and still is). Gavin was what's called a benevolent dictator. The situation was handled in short order and Bitcoin has been fine. It wasn't about ego or a "power trip". In fact, Gavin never wanted a lead role, but reluctantly accepted when Satoshi requested it of him. Gavin recognized that, for the overall good of the project, some authority was needed, to end debate and put everyone on the same page. We all push together, rather than in separate directions or alone. Keep in mind, having an agreed upon software thought leader (as I'd call it) doen't mean not decentralized. Nobody can control miners, nor force users to run software. However, that small addition of limited power over one of the power groups in Bitcoin (software devs) can make things run so much better, and possibly be the only way to make things run at all. The latest drama to unfold in the Bitcoin Cash community seems to be over a post by BCH dev deadalnix in which he hints at taking a firm leadership-like action on an issue. I sincerely applaud and thank him. I recognize it's not about power or ego, but about caring about the health of the project and being smart enough to recognize the futility of perpetual equal authority. However, it looks like this isn't sitting well with at least one other community participant as this post referencing Craig Wright shows. So I wake up to this drama and sigh, feeling compelled to make this post and implore my fellow community members to take heed to these words. I nominate Amaury Séchet (deadalnix) to wear the lead developer hat, until such time as he chooses to step back (as Gavin eventually did), or someone else makes the case why they should take it over. My choice is based on track record. He seems well qualified. For those unaware, without his stepping up and the user confidence in his abilities Bitcoin Cash might not exist. As I recently commented, not all devs are equal. You can disagree with my nomination, but please don't disagree that we need a software lead.
Craig Wright: Nigerian Prince-- and other unlikely stories
Last December the media again set itself aflame with claims of an "unmasking" of Bitcoin's creator. As in prior events, the claims turned out to be untrue-- this time with the target seemingly having implicated himself with poorly backdated vague blog posts in order to advance a massive tax rebate fraud against the Australian Government. After the journalists exited stage left, heads hung in shame (but, presumably, wallets fat with the largess of countless page-views) and the Aussie authorities moved in to settle accounts in the rebate fraud, most here likely expected that would be the last we would hear of Craig Wright. Sadly, it doesn't look like it. During the last few months Craig and his accomplices have been very active quietly networking in the Bitcoin industry. Their pitch: Craig is the real thing and the press got it wrong. Their elaboration on the details would lower your IQ to hear it, so I won't bore you with it-- needless to say, few who are thinking critically and understand the technology would believe it and that's probably the point: it's a filter. If you do listen long enough you find out that Craig, earnest creator of Bitcoin, and true heir to a MILLION BTC apparently has some procedural issues with a trust securing his funds, which could all be resolved with a bit of money-- but unfortunately, the evil dictators controlling his country have frozen all of his money... and that's where you come in dear reader. You see, he just needs a bit of money to complete the paperwork to obtain the coins, and-- of course-- secure safe passage to freeer lands... That's right-- It sounds like he's setting up a classic advanced fee fraud. Now before you think that no one would be foolish enough to fall for this, keep in mind that these scams play on ego, vanity, greed (or better-- desperation)... You, Captain of Bitcoin Industry (or intrepid journalist) are being taken in Confidence by the mysterious Creator of Bitcoin-- inconsistencies in his story are to be expected, after all, mysterious is part of the job description!-- he happens to share all your views and concerns on Bitcoin, considers your own efforts important, and now he just needs some modest funding, and in return he eagerly wishes to invest in your (now starving for investment) Bitcoin Venture. You deserve a break and HE is putting his trust in you because you are very important and trustworthy. Of course, for security reasons-- and not to mention the unlawful flight from authorities-- you must keep this all completely confidential. (And especially don't discuss it with someone that might talk some sense into you!) Laid out like this it sounds stupid, but people-- including some "big names" (if not ones respected in this subreddit) appear to have fallen for it. The important thing is, you don't have to join their ranks. The pool of the best targets-- the ones with the easiest egos to stroke and the greatest access to funding-- is running dry and Craig is apparently taking his act on the road, metaphorically, to reach a wider audience. If someone approaches you, pause to apply some judgement. Think: if you were to read about someone else believing the story you're being told, how foolish would you think they are? As for those who've already been taken: You're not the first person to get ripped off in the land of Bitcoin or through advanced fee fraud. Cut your losses and try to avoid embarrassing all of us.
Shutting down or restricting the uses of bank accounts, thereby forbidding clients to buy crypto, is a blatant affront to the rights of civil liberty, manifested, but not limited to, in the rights to private property and free speech (562 points, 262 comments)
I believe Bitcoin Core/Blockstream is now attempting to infiltrate Bitcoin Cash in the same manner that they did with Bitcoin Segwit. They are suddenly befriending Bitcoin Cash. Only in that way can they destroy from within. Do not be fooled. (401 points, 166 comments)
You have $100 worth of BTC. So you purchase an item for $66, but have to pay a $17 fee. Now you have $17 worth of Bitcoin left, but it costs $17 more to move it. So $66 item effectively cost you $100. #Thanks BlockStream (1420 points, 433 comments)
2025 points: kairepaire's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
2018 points: vbuterin's comment in "So no worries, Ethereum's long term value is still ~0." -Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream and opponent of allowing Bitcoin to scale as Satoshi had planned.
1215 points: vbuterin's comment in Vitalik Buterin tried to develop Ethereum on top of Bitcoin, but was stalled because the developers made it hard to build on top of Bitcoin. Vitalik only then built Ethereum as a separate currency
1211 points: LiamGaughan's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
[PSA] If your Bitcoin are not ready-to-transact in a wallet whose keys you exclusively control, then you don't control your Bitcoin (625 points, 216 comments)
Why us old-school Bitcoiners argue that Bitcoin Cash should be considered "the real Bitcoin" (585 points, 587 comments)
I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork (535 points, 346 comments)
Why large blocks: because one man's "coffee purchase transaction" is another man's monthly income (508 points, 104 comments)
There is a word for a "store of value" with no underlying utility, and that word is "collectible" (481 points, 171 comments)
Ripple user comes to defend Ripple, gets hundreds of upvotes, but can't answer the most fundamental question: what prevents inflation? (462 points, 407 comments)
If you don't agree that the mission is to make onchain transactions readily available to ALL people at ALL income levels then you don't understand the whole reason Bitcoin was invented to begin with (449 points, 203 comments)
Shutting down or restricting the uses of bank accounts, thereby forbidding clients to buy crypto, is a blatant affront to the rights of civil liberty, manifested, but not limited to, in the rights to private property and free speech (563 points, 262 comments)
I believe Bitcoin Core/Blockstream is now attempting to infiltrate Bitcoin Cash in the same manner that they did with Bitcoin Segwit. They are suddenly befriending Bitcoin Cash. Only in that way can they destroy from within. Do not be fooled. (405 points, 170 comments)
You have $100 worth of BTC. So you purchase an item for $66, but have to pay a $17 fee. Now you have $17 worth of Bitcoin left, but it costs $17 more to move it. So $66 item effectively cost you $100. #Thanks BlockStream (1427 points, 434 comments)
2028 points: kairepaire's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
2019 points: vbuterin's comment in "So no worries, Ethereum's long term value is still ~0." -Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream and opponent of allowing Bitcoin to scale as Satoshi had planned.
1210 points: vbuterin's comment in Vitalik Buterin tried to develop Ethereum on top of Bitcoin, but was stalled because the developers made it hard to build on top of Bitcoin. Vitalik only then built Ethereum as a separate currency
1205 points: LiamGaughan's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
Craig Wright published the cryptographic signature in his block that according to researcher Dan Kaminsky and Jeff Garzik was a scam. 5 May 2016, Wright sent around an e-mail with a link to the new story: "Craig Wright faces criminal charges and serious jail time in the UK." Wright stated that "I am the source of terrorist funds as bitcoin creator or I am a fraud to the world. At least a fraud ... Craig Wright is a fraudster who claims to be the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. There has been no concrete evidence presented in favour of Wright's claim. There is overwhelming evidence against his claim, yet Wright was able to get lots of media coverage by sympathetic journalists with a limited understanding of technology after Wright tricked or bribed a couple of Bitcoin figureheads ... By Craig Wright 16 Apr 2019 Bitcoin & Blockchain Tech. At the time, Wikipedia wanted to remove the page. There wasn’t anything good that had been published which detailed and described Bitcoin other than the white paper. Wikipedia requires referencing, and the only thing I could find to try and link it to is what’s in the references there. Then, people would take away the wrong concept ... Bitcoin is a peer to peer electronic cash system created by Dr. Craig Wright under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. It was first detailed in the Bitcoin Whitepaper in October 2008, and the source code was released in January 2009. The Bitcoin ledger and Block chain were established with the generation of the Genesis block on the 3rd of January 2009 and the mining of Block 1 six days later on ... By Craig Wright 16 Apr 2019 Bitcoin & Blockchain Tech. At the time, Wikipedia wanted to remove the page. There wasn’t anything good that had been published which detailed and… Read more. BTC and Censorship. By Craig Wright 15 Apr 2019 Alternative Coins & Systems, Bitcoin & Blockchain Tech, Law & Regulation, Philosophy. There are those out there who try to explain how Bitcoin is ...
Frag den Trainer! 48 BITCOIN - Wie funktioniert die Blockchain?
Bitcoin is one of the most important inventions in all of human history. For the first time ever, anyone can send or receive any amount of money with anyone ... Bitcoin SV with Craig Wright. In this video we interview Dr Craig S. Wright. Possibly Bitcoin's most hated man talks about what it really takes to succeed in life and crypto for the book Satoshi's ... what they don't want you to see about Craig Wright and BitCoin (BSV, Satoshi Vision) - Duration: 13:29. CryptoMange 16,220 views. 13:29. Tough questions to Roger Ver - Roger's portfolio, beliefs ... Satoshi-claimant Dr. Craig Wright reveals his chances to receive the keys to the $8 billion Bitcoin fortune and bluntly expresses his opinions on the crypto community. Get your Cointelegraph merch ... Is Craig Wright really Bitcoin's creator? Unmasking raises doubts (CNET Update) - Duration: 3:02. CNET 16,015 views. 3:02. How The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio - Duration: 31:00. ...