Complete craigpitulation

[Anonymous No.11907259]

https://coingeek.com/original-bitcoin-reborn-bitcoin-sv-bsv-bch-hash-war-ends/
Now nchain blathering shitcocks can stop muh 7d chess hashwar is still on bullshit. Your overlord has surrendered. You lost just like everybody told you that you would.
Good luck going forward. You may be In a shitty position right now but hopefully this set of events will at least be educational to you and maybe you can use those lessons to make something g valuable in a few years.
Enjoy the slow bleed as both btc and bch holders dump on you to finance their pussy and blow habits.

[Anonymous No.11907286]

BCH (BABC) burned themself.
War is far from over, next round is against BTC.

[Anonymous No.11907297]

>>11907286
BTC lost years ago.

[Anonymous No.11907333]

>>11907259
>imagine having a literal manlet slope as a leader

[Anonymous No.11908030]

>>11907259
this makes sense, when they started the hash war they didn't think ABC would be so dumb to introduce automatic checkpoints and rush to start implementing the semi-proof of stake system.

they thought the hashwar would go on for months but ABC shot themselves in the head so it's best to just break off.

i thought that BCH was just about removing limits but apparently ABC doesn't really want bitcoin. SV is now closest to bitcoin as a matter of fact.

[Anonymous No.11908047]

>bitcoin abc/bitcoin sv is the real bitcoin cash wich is the real bitcoin

imagine having to defent this narrative

[Anonymous No.11908150]

Just keep forking. I'm sure you'll find the real bitcoin eventually.

[Anonymous No.11908162]

>>11908030
>They didn't think ABC would be so dumb to introduce automatic checkpoints
They were introduced by Satoshi, you uneducated nigger. ABC just reintroduced them
Ironic that the retards complaining about this are calling themselves "Satoshi's vision".

[Anonymous No.11908168]

>>11908047
>>11908150
Kek this

[Anonymous No.11908178]

>>11908030
Yeah no point in being chained to ABC forever when there isn't even a hashwar. Better to get on with business now.

[Anonymous No.11908198]

>>11908047
It's easy when you're not a brainlet.
Bitcoin is an electronic p2p cash system.
>BTC isn't cash.
>BSV isn't p2p. Could be, but no-one wants to mine this shit.
>BCH is the real bitcoin

[Anonymous No.11908212]

>>11908198
good luck with your checkpointed chinked proof-of-stake system.

[Anonymous No.11908233]

It’s obvious that sv and Craig Wright are an attack on the real bitcoin as it exists in the form of BCH

[Anonymous No.11908234]

>>11908212
>checkpointed
Just like Satoshi implemented
>chinked
Just like any other PoW except for SV which no-one mines
>proof-of-stake
Obviously false
>system
It's a system, you got that part right.

[Anonymous No.11908289]

>>11908233
They're failing miserably, so who cares (except for brainlets on /biz/ who support SV, kek)

[Anonymous No.11908527]

>>11908162
Introduced 200 blocks back to protect against bugs yes, while it was a different time back then when someone that wasn't even a millionaire could come in and get 51%. Also it certainly never was auto-checkpoints. So lulz, right back at you buddy.

[Anonymous No.11908644]

>>11908047
Low iq faggot boomer cuck coretards get out. >>11907297

[Anonymous No.11908658]

>>11908234
He sure showed you.

[Anonymous No.11908688]

>>11908527
How else would you describe hostile chain reorgs and rollback implemented by well financed attackers with the agenda to destroy the ledger other than a bug that requires fixing?
BSV provoked those changes with their irrational idiocy. And their chain is the one that remains vulnerable to those attacks, more vulnerable even with half the hashpower of BCH now protecting it. Wouldn't it be a shame if someone turned around and did to their shit tier chain what they had threatened to do to others? Tragedy I'm sure.

[Anonymous No.11908923]

>>11908688
that image again, oboy.
>hostile chain reorgs and rollback
yeah that's how bitcoin works. current situation with several sha256 coins was never intended, it's just how it is.

if ABC want to move away from bitcoin with proof of stake and auto-checkpoints just 10 blocks away then whatever, fine. we still have bitcoin safe and sound in SV. in the end we all win with different competing cryptos. depending on how those mystical patents are defined though i wonder if non-SV can actually become world money now

[Anonymous No.11908954]

>>11908923
the truth is there is no need for more than 1 pow chain.
every other blockchain can just use it's proof of work to protect from reorgs. 1 chain that does the work (btc obviously) the rest should just mark it periodically with a transaction that exists on both chain.

[Anonymous No.11908994]

>plans to add Avalanche, a pre-consensus system for miners to agree in advance about the next block size and move BCH towards a Proof of Stake system
I don't follow BCH but there is no way Roger Ver would and Jihan, 2 of the biggest miners in the world, would allow PoS. Am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.11909038]

>>11908954
Yes in the end there will be only one. I think it will be bitcoin but I don't think it will be BTC.

>>11908994
Yes, ABC is not what it seems. In the latest bitcoin.com video Roger Ver was asked by someone in the comments which crypto he think now has the most bitcoin-ness, SV or ABC. You can see him hesitating and he didn't actually answer but instead half-promised to look into it and make a new video about it. I don't think he will make that video.

[Anonymous No.11909057]

>>11909038
https://youtu.be/cJlsz8TWy1s?t=1157
at time 19:17

[Anonymous No.11909304]

>>11908923
> yeah that's how bitcoin works. current situation with several sha256 coins was never intended, it's just how it is.
Right, it is how it is. And from that landscape actual security must be built. And just pretending that people can't summon massive mercenary armies on your doorstep by buying off hashpower is unrealistic and irresponsible to your users. And the less hashpower you have, the more irresponsible it is. And BSV has half the hashpower of BCH --and-- no defense from hostile chain reorg attacks.
No matter how you want to spin that, it's irresponsible. If they're not attacked it's for no other reason than they're lucky, or their shitcoin isn't even worth the trouble.

[Anonymous No.11909332]

>>11908198

[Anonymous No.11909340]

>>11909038
What has the most bitcoin-ness doesn't matter, except potentially as a marker for something that has had historically good stability. That doesn't apply anymore because everybody knows nakamoto consensus is broken now. There's 50 exahash or so of mercenary hashpower out there, and if you are a tasty enough target, they will stomp you unless you can defend against it, so only parties with over 26 exahash at their command realistically have any business not instituting some kind of defense against these attacks and just relying on proof of work alone.
What matters is what best delivers on the original promises of Bitcoin, and that is indisputably BCH.

[Anonymous No.11909353]

>>11909332
This is why you're wrong >>11907297
low iq corecuck boomer get out.

[Anonymous No.11909387]

>>11909353
delusional rambling, just like most of your posts in this thread. from the misspellings and writing style, i can tell you took a screenshot of your own comments and are posting them as if they're fact. sadder than sad.

[Anonymous No.11909425]

>the chromosome deficient still arguing about which chinese shitfork matters
imagine wasting your life on this, all because you were too stupid to buy bitcoin early

[Anonymous No.11909432]

>>11909387
> is not
well that's a super convincing rebuttal to something that everyone here that isn't a coretard has known for about a year now. I'm sold.

[Anonymous No.11909482]

>>11909332

The description of Segwit on wikipedia states:
> The signature data called the witness would be separated from the Merkle tree record of who is sending or receiving the bitcoins.
while the whitepaper states
> We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership
As "record of who is sending or receiving the bitcoins" is now "separated from the Merkle tree" then this information is no longer part of the "chain of digital signatures", as that chain is stored in the Merkle tree. SegwitCoin no longer has "a chain of digital signatures", so it's not a bitcoin per whitepaper definition.

[Anonymous No.11909505]

>>11909304
well it's early. if miners want to kill them off now is the time to do it before it's too late. my guess is most miners just want to do what's profitable though.

[Anonymous No.11909539]

>>11909425
>>11909387
it's sad watching coretards still try to shill their bags even now when everyone is onto the scam.

[Anonymous No.11909578]

>>11909505
> miners just want to do what's profitable though.
Precisely.
Which by extension means that the pig won't be slaughtered until it is fattened. The pig will not be able to delay that slaughter by saying "but we were following nakamoto consensus true to the whitepaper!" That's not how things work in a hostile environment.

[Anonymous No.11909657]

>>11909578
well miners didn't exactly slaughter BCH either when it was at the top. also remember that you don't actually slaughter and profit at the same time, since you're mining the chain you're destroying. so it doesn't make sense to fatten the crypto before you slaughter it. if you get over 50% of the hash it is just more profitable to keep mining it. that's why the hashwar this month was unique

[Anonymous No.11909725]

>>11909657
> well miners didn't exactly slaughter BCH either when it was at the top.
It was never profitable to, in fact when it was profitable to start slaughtering BTC, they --did-- that. That's exactly what happened on November 12th 2017, and that's what caused that mass panic and spike to 0.5. It might be profitable now that the hashrates are getting so low with the depressed market, but ironically thanks to the BSV threat, they've already changed it so it's not so easy to execute that kind of attack on BCH anyway. And of course, it doesn't hurt that the largest mining manufacturer in the world holds a million BCH. An attack on that chain has a pretty obvious response from that party.
> if you get over 50% of the hash it is just more profitable to keep mining it. that's why the hashwar this month was unique
That's not true, that's in fact why BTC almost died that day. Because it was more profitable to mine BCH and thus all except 10% of the hashpower abandoned BTC. If that had stayed that way for two weeks, BTC would've died permanently.

[Anonymous No.11909786]

>>11909482
> The signature data called the witness would be separated from the Merkle tree record of who is sending or receiving the bitcoins
What does the next sentence say you fucking retarded cunt?

[Anonymous No.11909799]

>>11909725
>That's not true
but it is. 90% of the miners left BTC but none of them attacked BTC because its better to have a backup and to keep mining BCH for profits during that time. that's what we're discussing here, how 51% attacks just aren't worth it. if some BTC miner moves his hash to SV to kill it that's hashpower he would profit way more from just keeping it on BTC and mining honestly.

[Anonymous No.11909890]

>>11909799
It sounds like you don't realise that 90% of miners leaving BTC is an attack because of the way BTC's DAA works. With that drastic a loss of hashrate, it would completely die. It wouldn't be able to mine new blocks fast enough to keep up with the DAA. But miners didn't care about that, they mined what was most profitable anyway. At the time I thought this was evidence miners realised BTC was a chain managed by idiots pursuing a moronic consensus ruleset and they were happy to let it die --because of that--, but it could just as well be they just don't care about any individual chain and will just mine for short term profitability no matter what. Certainly in the case of BSV vs BCH, the BSV ruleset was idiotic and the BCH ruleset was good, and yet still nChain had no trouble summoning 4 exahash of mining power to mine their chain.
BSV and BCH both don't have the DAA problem that BTC does which would kill them on a rapid departure of hashrate, but BCH used to be and BSV still is vulnerable to someone taking out a massive short position, and then purchasing mercenary hashpower necessary to run very large double spend attacks on the exchanges. They win double out of that, first from their short paying off as the market realises the chain isn't safe, and secondly from the double spends to the exchanges, and they can still evacuate their winnings via another chain they haven't torpedoed.
So if it makes economic sense to rent hashpower for that attack in the case of BSV, I think it will eventually happen unless they erect defenses against it like BCH already has.

[Anonymous No.11909994]

>>11909890
i know about how the difficulty adjustment works, i just don't see that as an attack. just a flaw in bitcoin. i think bitcoin cash's moving average over the last 144 blocks is a much better algorithm.

what's interesting is that craig intend to restore the original 2016 blocks at a later date (unless he changes his mind):
https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1061991109914738688
i guess it does provide incentive for miners to upgrade their hardware every 2016 blocks to be able to earn a bit more for two weeks.

[Anonymous No.11910014]

>>11909994
it depends on your perspective. The reason he wants it re-instated is pretty clear I think; it is a reliable mechanism for deprecating old forks in a clean way that for example now both BSV and BCH don't have. Renegade hashpower could keep legacy chains of those kind alive forever if it cared to, but not so with the BTC DAA. That comes with the drawback however that if miners dump fast enough, it can indeed kill the chain.
Engineering is often like that, it's not picking the right thing so you're covered everywhere, it's picking the less bad thing so you're covered on what really matters. So which you prefer is going to depend on what you decide matters.

[Anonymous No.11910131]

>>11910014
>it is a reliable mechanism for deprecating old forks in a clean way
oh yeah i forgot about that.

[Anonymous No.11910196]

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/sun-setting-p2sh-8b3c08f271c0

>The two worst ideas (cancers) to have infected Bitcoin are the joint diseases of:
>soft forks and
>P2SH

I wish he didn't describe P2SH as "cancer", it's a little harsh since it comes from Gavin Andresen who Satoshi handed over the Bitcoin project to.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016

I get the arguments against P2SH but I wouldn't go so far as to call it cancer.

[Anonymous No.11910210]

>>11910196
You seem too intelligent to care what that fraud thinks, I don't understand why you do?

[Anonymous No.11910250]

>>11910210
i'm not convinced that he was not part of satoshi. i'm actually more convinced that he was.

[Anonymous No.11910270]

>>11910250
Why?

[Anonymous No.11910275]

I want core and cash shills executed by firing squad

[Anonymous No.11910276]

>>11910250
Gavin CIAndressen is as irrelevant as this mong and any fork.

[Anonymous No.11910361]

>>11910270
i'd rather not go into it. people will yell at me again.

[Anonymous No.11910422]

>>11910361
So nothing but the regular stuff that has all been debunked? It's just that whole "Well there's so much of it altogether, surely it must add up to something" ? I've never heard one single thing that was actually convincing and not debunked, just massive rafts of things which ended up being false.

[Anonymous No.11910432]

>>11910276
Says the retarded boomer who doesn't realise his fork has been compromised by exactly those agencies.

[Anonymous No.11910611]

>>11910422
consider the possibility of someone being part of satoshi but not being able to actually prove it. however for some reason or another he still tries to make up ways to prove it, ways that people find out are just bullshit. but his knowledge of bitcoin and ideas aren't bullshit. i don't know if he really was part of satoshi but so much about him just fits. sure some other parts doesn't but humans are like that. regardless of who he is i can get behind his message of keeping bitcoin bitcoin and the importance to scale really big before it's too late. when i think about how small crypto is, well it's pathetic. fucking nothing has happened in 10 years, if bitcoin isn't kicked into high gear now with massive corporations and huge amounts of traffic it WILL be completely worthless in 10 more years. craig wright's approach to patent shit (build walls around his crypto) and to rape and bury all other chains might be exactly the thing that will finally work. some pizza shop in africa starting to accept crypto for his 1 customer per year that know wtf crypto is isn't going to take us places.

[Anonymous No.11910662]

>>11910611
His message is actually dangerous, because it's both right, and leading people who realise it's right to follow him down a dead end for actually implementing it. Nothing worse could happen to the goal in question. His aggression is also useless, because it's utterly ineffective. Even if you take the approach that unifying strongman archetype would be useful, he has to actually execute on the promise of it, and he doesn't. He's just a laughing stock. Nobody is scared of him or intimidated by him or moved to comply with his directives. They just laugh.

[Anonymous No.11910740]

>>11910662
i don't think he intends to scare or intimidate anyone. he just trolls on twitter, probably laughed all the way through typing that letter to roger ver which ended with "fuck you".

regardless im excited to see what happens in 2019. craig has been collecting patents for many years now and it's time to finally deliver. either something will come of it or nchain fades away. then a few years later VISA releases the global system that will finally kill off the need for any crypto, outside of someone buying some drugs but that will never become a replacement of fiat by its own (just forever stay as a means of exchange, fiat->crypto->fiat)

[Anonymous No.11910786]

>>11910740
his threats regarding the BCH/BSV split were both laughably inadequate, seriously delivered, and when he failed to deliver on them, pic related. He obviously takes himself seriously, although he is obviously not worth being taken seriously.
It doesn't matter how many patents you have when you're trying to launch a system that the states and central banks of the world are guaranteed to fight every step of the way, you're relying on the best who will suffer most from your success to protect it. That's foolish, the patents are worth absolutely nothing.
In light of that fact, all you have is a blowhard idiot who forked a codebase he doesn't understand that he can't even get to operate properly who actually --validates-- all the ridiculous claims core have made about scaling on chain being an impossibility, while BCH in the background with far less flare for the dramatic and attention proves that untrue and just quietly makes it actually happen.

[Anonymous No.11910834]

>>11910786
people keep saying he broke down but yeah nah he didn't break down. he's been downright cheerful through this hashwar.

patents do matter. any crypto can use something that violates patent laws but are then locking themselves out of scaling. wallmart won't touch anything that are in the risk zone of being illegal.

in the end it's just up to them to prove their worth in 2019. i still hold on to my pre-Nov 15 BCH for now.

[Anonymous No.11910917]

>>11910834
> people keep saying he broke down but yeah nah he didn't break down. he's been downright cheerful through this hashwar.
This is simply wrong, did you see the video from previous pic related? He looked like he'd been snorting cocaine, and then this pic related. He was completely wrecked.
The worst thing about the entire hashwar is it came out that his plan all along was to shadowmine and continuously rollback to the point of the fork. But --all bch forks-- have always had checkpoints issued for them, period. So never, even in theory, could his strategy have worked, because he didn't understand this very basic fact about the blockchain. And he always falls victim to shit like that because he has no fucking idea what he's actually doing.
> wallmart won't touch anything that are in the risk zone of being illegal.
Bet your bottom dollar walmart touches linux, and it has the exact same weaknesses. This simply doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.11910960]

>>11908030
Based.
They will never admit this.

[Anonymous No.11911057]

>>11910960
cause it isn't true.
BSV lost in the most catastrophic way it was possible to lose
BCH won in the most complete way it was possible to win.
Simple facts, common sense.

[Anonymous No.11911125]

Hope dies last.

[Anonymous No.11911319]

>>11910432
>he doesn't realize Craig (((3 nodes are enough))) Wright and all other big block fork attemps is the 3 letter agency PsyOps
>inb4 things which aren't Bitcoin (blockstream and whatever) mattering

[Anonymous No.11911364]

>>11911319
BSV is, BCH is not.
And by *your shitfork is compromised* I mean on chain BTC pre-segwit like you sad boomer fuck cultists think is magical and have no idea that you're already destroyed due to >>11907297 every man and his dog knows what you're planning and knows it will fail because the opposition controls the volume thanks to your retarded cult ideology ceding it because muh niggers kfc don't matter.

[Anonymous No.11911604]

>>11911364
>my bcrash fork is the real brcash which is the real bitcoin
imagine having to defend this narrative

[Anonymous No.11911635]

>>11911604
I have no problem at all defending that narrative, on the other hand..
> my shitfork sabotaged to not even match the fucking --title-- of the whitepaper and transparently vulnerable to supply tampering, censorship and price manipulation is the real bitcoin
imagine having to defend this narrative.

[Anonymous No.11911713]

>>11911057
Noone cares what you think shill. ABC has embarrassed themselves daily since this started.

[Anonymous No.11911734]

>>11911713
you lost

[Anonymous No.11912458]

>>11911635
>having to cope by schizophrenically believing my mutable shitfork is bitcoin or valuable at all

[Anonymous No.11912668]

>>11912458
You clueless smug btc boomers all sound the same. Big blocks can be attacked because muh centralised full nodes! Totally ignorant of the fact that any attack against them just makes the remaining nodes more authoritative on the network, and this scales down smoothly until it gets to the point the nodes and their hashing power can't be located or attacked at all. The degraded landscape still functions. It's just lower throfhbout throughout and less capacity, which you permanently hamstrung yourself with anyway due to your retarded choices.
At the same time you utterly miss the gaping vulnerability of 99 percent plus traffic routed through massive centralised hubs the topology of lightning absolutely requires to be centralised, and once these points are captured there's no scaling them down period. And you don't even raise an eyebrow as sidechains controlled by transparent corporate interests and thus in turn their parent intelligence agencies are set up to manage an arbitrarily large portion of the total money supply also.
Basically you spotted one vulnerability, didn't actually consider the response to it in a hostile landscape, and idiotically sleepwalked right into the other ones without the slightest clue you were being conned. And now you saunter around smugly thinking you've accomplished anything totally unaware you're one hundred percent under the control of the very forces you imagine you are opposing.