Odd Bitcoin Cash activity has holders nervous

The Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network reportedly came under attack recently, leading to a tidal wave of questions and concerns about the blockchain’s stability. That attack initiated a series of questionable transactions that are causing even some of the most hardened BCH enthusiasts to have second thoughts about the network’s long-term viability and stability as an alternative to fiat.

Network analysis has shown that there have been unidentified miners throttling the blockchain so heavily that a backlog in activity had become the new standard. The miners were never traced to a particular mining pool, which only added to the mystery. The overwhelming amount of activity could not be traced to any particular event, such as a planned stress test, and the backlog of transactions took nine hours to be completely cleared.

According to a breakdown of the activity, which had been posted on Reddit, miners were able to generate 18 blocks an hour – three times the amount that should have normally appeared. The Reddit post explains, “It is important to note that persistent backlogs are a death-blow to the [zero-confirmation] concept, which requires predictable next block inclusion. As long as there is no backlog, then a recipient can know that any transaction that pays the minfee [minimum fee] will be accepted. Under conditions of backlog, this predictability is degraded, possibly fatally.” That last statement is particularly ominous, as it suggests that subsequent blocks would be impacted and that the entire system could crash. 

While the blockchain appears to now be back to normal, the activity has posed some serious questions. If it were so easy for the attack to occur, what’s to stop another, larger attack from being launched? Additionally, the low-fee broadcast transactions, which are often indicative of a dusting attack, could have been setting the stage for that larger attack. Litecoin saw a similar dusting attack last month, which may or may not have been linked to the most recent BCH attack.

The price of BCH wasn’t permanently impacted by the attack or the backlog; however, a look at the blockchain’s hash rate on bitinfocharts.com shows that it has stagnated this year, along with its number of transactions.

Bitcoin Cash’s unstable protocol driving away developers

Bitcoin Cash’s unstable protocol driving away developers

Bitcoin Cash’s (BCHABC) choice to continue pursuing protocol changes is already causing developers to split off. Bitcoin XT announced on May 7 they would no longer develop releases for BCHABC with the scheduled hard fork later this month.

While they support big blocks, and that was their original reason for moving to Bitcoin Cash, they feel the current strategy to hard fork the protocol at regular intervals. They wrote:

“Such a strategy allows for a majority implementation to effectively act as gatekeepers of determining the content of these scheduled forks and is anything but representative. The artificial deadlines are a centralizing and ultimately destabilizing force on development.”

Ultimately, they feel the patch BCHABC has taken is to give Bitcoin ABC an abundant amount of control over the decisions made for the entire network. They also feel the ABC team is using this advantage to lord their control over the community, rather than work with it. “With the governance strategy BCH had adopted, the advantage of multiple implementations is negligible,” they commented.

This type of dissent was a natural outcome of the path BCHABC has chosen. With an unstable protocol, regardless of the governance strategy the community decides on, there will inevitably be disagreements about the path of the token. They’ve chosen to continue tinkering with Bitcoin Cash, and now they are paying for it with an abandoned developer.

Looking at the opposite side of the November 2018 hard fork, Bitcoin SV (BSV)’s insistence on maintaining a stable protocol has paid off, with new businesses, enterprises, and developers all getting excited about the potential it holds. When they know their creations will last for years on a very stable platform, they can build with confidence.

More than that, BSV has committed to massive on-chain scaling, something BCHABC’s “big blocks” have yet to achieve in any meaningful sense. That gives enterprises the safety in knowing whatever they build can be built to grow, and won’t be constrained by artificial limits of small block sizes.

If you’d like to hear more about this scaling vision, come join the CoinGeek Toronto scaling conference. New developers will be showing off their applications, and the brightest minds of BSV will be discussing their plans for the future.

SBI exchange to drop Bitcoin Cash due to dwindling market cap

SBI exchange to drop Bitcoin Cash due to dwindling market cap

Japanese cryptocurrency exchange SBI Virtual Currencies is removing Bitcoin Cash (BCH) from its list of supported coins. The company explains in a press release (in pdf) dated today that it made the decision after watching BCH’s market cap continue to dwindle, which would ultimately make the blockchain susceptible to a 51% attack. According to the release, BCH will officially be removed at the end of this month. 

In explaining the move in relation to the market cap, SBI asserts, “This material is not part of the rules for the management system of virtual currency related information of Japan Virtual Currency Exchange Business Association.”

It adds that any potential hard forks of BCH – of which there will be several – could have a negative impact on the exchange. A little of this was seen in last year’s BCH hard fork that saw the creation of BCHABC and the continuation of Bitcoin through Bitcoin SV (BSV).

Anyone holding BCH through SBI can sell their coins by the end of this month. By the end of May, any coins remaining will be delivered to a CooXWallet, which will act as a “customer-managed designated hardware wallet.”

All BCH transaction are now “suspended,” but custody sale transactions are still authorized. SBI will provide more details about the permanent removal of BCH later this month. 

While SBI lays out the reasons for the delisting, some in the crypto community believe there is a darker, more nefarious reason. The announcement comes shortly after Binance announced that it would be delisting BSV over the assertion by Dr. Craig Wright, nChain’s Chief Scientist, that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Because SBI and nChain have a tight relationship, some assert that SBI’s move is in retaliation to Binance’s decision. 

The continued in-fighting that has been going on in the Bitcoin community, and the cyberbullying against Wright, are indications of the immaturity that is still prevalent in the crypto space. That immaturity was at the heart of the BCH hash wars last year and the crypto community is now witnessing the outcome of the continued childish behavior.

Antoher long-time Bitcoin Core supporter switches to Bitcoin SV

Another long-time Bitcoin Cash supporter switches to Bitcoin SV

In February, long-time Bitcoin Core (BTC) fan Kevin Pham announced that he was switching his alliance and would begin supporting Bitcoin SV (BSV). The move was symbolic, given Pham’s history with cryptocurrencies, even though some have asserted that he only made the announcement to irk the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) community. Regardless of the reason, it shows the value BSV has and Pham is now joined by a long-time BCH fan who has jumped on “the Bitcoin SV train.”

According to a post on Yours.org, the unidentified BCH supporter recently had a conversation with a friend while wearing a BCH shirt. The friend asked him if he was “on the Bitcoin SV train yet,” to which he replied, after a little bit of thought, “Yeah… I am.”

The author explains in his post, “I’ve been working in crypto media and PR for years now, so I’ve seen a lot happen. I also understand the ecosystem and the people in it pretty well. There’s a lot of hype, hope, idealism, greed, and bullshit. And I’ve also met a lot of very cool people, some of whom are now my best friends. I’ve learned a lot and it’s changed the way I think, so much that I’d probably be a completely different person now had Bitcoin not come along (and so would the rest of you probably be too).”

He adds that BCH, when it was created, was the perfect solution to the “clunky and comically buggy Lightning Network” and that BCH was, at the time, continuing crypto’s original path. He adds of the BTC community, “Their attacks on BCH were childish and oddly uniform, their arguments often without substance. As with politics, that’s usually a sign for me that someone’s on the right side. And looking at the landscape objectively, all I saw was a Bitcoin that had been co-opted by a company with dubious connections that seemed antithetical to cryptocurrency principles. BTC may hit a million someday and they’ll see that as its greatest achievement. But all I wanted was money I could use without the political interference, delays and censorship that plague the failing and degenerate fiat financial system.”

The author believes that BCH is going to lose its traction and could “live in obscurity from here on.” He asserts that the BCH community is fractured and lacks cohesion, a point that has been published even by BCH’s own developers, and that BSV has an “actual vision and purpose,” as well as a more solid claim to be called the “real Bitcoin.” He adds, “Bitcoin SV is solving that problem with its mainstream-friendly message. After a decade in crypto you might not be 100% comfortable with that message, but it’s necessary. The internet had to put on several more normie-friendly hats and increase its functionality before it really took off — so does cryptocurrency.”

A new guide for splitting Bitcoin SV from Bitcoin Cash with ElectrumSV

A new guide for splitting Bitcoin SV from Bitcoin Cash with ElectrumSV

If you have some Bitcoin Cash (BCHABC) stored away in an Electron Cash wallet, and you’ve been wondering how you can split those coins to get your Bitcoin SV (BSV), there’s good news. The kind people over at the Bitcoin SV Node team at nChain have written a guide to do just that.

The guide was created by the fine folks at nChain, led by Steve Shadders, Director of Solutions and Engineering at nChain. While making the guide, they worked with the ElecrumSV team and suggested some user experience design tips which might be coming in the near future.

For your convenience, we provide a summary of the steps involve in splitting a coin, but if you want a more thorough walkthrough, we recommend checking out the original guide.

First, you’ll need to make sure you have the latest version of the ElectrumSV wallet. You can find it on their website for your operating system.

Now, don’t open your Electron Cash wallet with ElectrumSV. You might corrupt the wallet, and that would be bad. Instead, make sure they are in the standard location for Electrum SV wallets by copying them over. The ElectrumSV wallet will tell you it’s found your Electron Cash wallet if it doesn’t find an existing ElectrumSV wallet. That will do the job.

If you already have an ElectrumSV wallet, you won’t get this copying option when you open the app. Instead, you’ll see an option to “Import…” your Electron Cash wallet. That’s what you’ll want to do.

In the case that ElectrumSV doesn’t find a BCHABC wallet, it won’t give you that “Import…” option.

Once your BCHABC wallet is copied or imported, you have to split the coins. Select the wallet you copied or imported in from the previous steps with the “Choose” button. Then click on the “Coin Splitting” tab.

This tab will give you a rundown of how the splitting process works. It’s worth reading to understand how the process works, but the steps you’ll need to follow are pretty simple. Click the “Split” button, and then provide your password if your wallet was set with one.

Once the splitting process is over, you’ll see a transactions log in the “History” tab. You’re BSV will now be in the ElectrumSV wallet, minus the small fee required for splitting, and your BCHABC will be in the original Electrum Cash wallet.

That’s all it takes. Once you’ve followed all these steps, you’re ready to use your newly split Bitcoin SV.

Money Button moves away from CashAddr format

Money Button moves away from CashAddr format

In another move that will provide greater separation between Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV, Money Button has announced that it has dumped the CashAddr address format and reverted back to using legacy cryptocurrency addresses. This is more than likely just the beginning and other entities will undoubtedly follow suit. The decision follows a suggestion made by the company’s CEO, Ryan X. Charles, from November.

On November 21, Charles tweeted, “I think we should ditch cashaddr for Bitcoin SV and go back to the original format that starts with a 1. Many hardware wallets and exchanges never adopted cashaddr, and although it’s irritatingly the same as BTC, at least we will have consistency between wallets.”

After receiving a considerable amount of feedback on the idea, Money Button pushed forward with the switch, announcing this past Saturday on Twitter, “It is done. We are back to the legacy address format now! All addresses start with a 1, the way it should be!”

Both Bitcoin Core (BTC) and BCH used an address format that was virtually identical when BCH first split from BTC. This initially caused some confusion, leading to the creation of the CashAddr format, which was never fully supported by every entity involved with BCH. Some still used the legacy format, while others made the transition, but the lack of widespread acceptance was cause for it to not have been considered a complete success. This was sometimes cumbersome, as it forced crypto users to “translate” one format to the other if they were conducting transactions involving two entities that didn’t use the same format.

One of the main goals, according to Money Button, is to make transactions easier. They explain in a separate Twitter post that users will be able to send from one wallet or exchange to another without having to use a converter.

Of course, whether legacy or CashAddr formats are used may not necessarily be the only long-term solution. More and more, wallets are moving to the use of “nicknames” that allow users to assign words to their addresses to conduct transactions. Most notably, BSV supporter HandCash has already introduced the trait with its wallet.

Bitcoin SV to process 1TB in transactions within three years

The hash war between Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC is far from over. Bitcoin SV (BSV) is continuing to develop the blockchain in accordance with what cryptocurrency was meant to be—a peer-to-peer electronic cash—in an effort to ensure that crypto fulfills its reason for existence. To that end, preparations are being made that will allow the network to handle more transactions than any other cryptocurrency.

Dr. Craig Wright stated in a Medium post two days ago that BSV will be able to process as much as 1 terabyte (TB) of transactions within three years. This volume is imperative to allow a blockchain to handle the number of transactions that can rival other types of payments, including PayPal and credit card processors.

Currently, BSV blocks are limited to 64 megabytes (MB). This is going to increase to 512MB in six months and, within a year, will be as large as 2 gigabytes (GB).

Wright also asserts that miners will be able to make substantial returns within six months because of the scaling endeavors. He explained, “Bitcoin as SV will have miners earning over $8,000 a block based on use alone. That equates to $640 a Bitcoin on exchanges, and we have not factored in the gambling price of Bitcoin, just what miners will earn as a service.”

Miners should get behind BSV now to take advantage of the mining capabilities. As Wright points out, “With the Teranode project nChain will be scaling Bitcoin SV to handle over 1.0 TB within the next 3 years (aiming for 2) and growing sizes from there. At that level, miners will earn over $600,000 for each Terabyte block, and this is every 10 minutes on average.”

The crypto pioneer and chief scientist for nChain added that, within two to three years, BSV will be processing 6.5 million transactions a second. This is “Visa, MasterCard, banking in SWIFT, and ALL global currencies (not just crypto) in under 15% of a block.”

BCHSV, the cryptocurrency that was created to support the hard fork of Bitcoin Cash, has seen substantial gains over the past week. After reaching a low of around $38 on November 22, it is now trading at $103.79, according to CoinMarketCap, at the time of this writing. On the other hand, BCHABC, which represented the other half of the hash war, continues to fall. According to the latest data from CoinMarketCap, its value has dropped over 20% and continues to decline.

Wormhole apparently launching on Bitcoin SV ‘soon’

Wormhole apparently launching on Bitcoin SV ‘soon’

“For the good of the coin.”

When Wormhole.cash launched in August, it promised to be a game changer that would allow any group or person to create a token that could represent bonds, stocks, loyalty points, and even fiat. But when the facts were revealed, it was found that the project co-developed by Bitmain Technologies and supported by Bitcoin ABC was nothing but a nefarious plan that strips away the very heart of not just Bitcoin Cash—but the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Then came November and the scheduled protocol upgrade of the Bitcoin Cash network, which also saw a hash war being fought with miners voting between the Bitcoin SV (Satoshi Vision) and Bitcoin ABC implementations of the BCH protocol. And, lo and behold, Wormhole is apparently “coming to Bitcoin SV soon.”

Not much is known about this project supposedly based off Bitcoin SV. On GitHub, the team behind this project said they are “launching soon,” noting that “our fork of Wormhole is in active development.”

According to the team, “While this was a somewhat contentious addition to Bitcoin Cash, our small group of developers sit squarely between supporting Wormhole and supporting Bitcoin SV, big blocks, along with following the insight and strength of Satoshi’s Vision. While many, including Satoshi himself, feel that burning BCH to create WHC is a problem. We feel there is much to be explored in launching Wormhole on Bitcoin SV and look forward to working with BitcoinSV in creating Wormhole on Satoshio’s [sic] Vision of Bitcoin.”

It would appear that the Wormhole SV team doesn’t really understand the original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin—a blockchain with a protocol that is stable, scalable, secure and enables safe, instant transactions.

The original Wormhole project, which emulates Ethereum (ETH), will result in the Bitcoin Cash network turning into a developer’s playground, opening the system up to a whole host of troubles by turning the ever-watchful eye of securities regulators and government agencies towards Bitcoin Cash. We explained how Wormhole will destroy Bitcoin BCH in depth here and here.

And now we have Wormhole SV promising to be “for the good of the coin.” So again we ask: with Wormhole coded to be able to control and ultimately destroy the network, how can we call it “peer-to-peer electronic cash”?

More DDoS Attacks on Bitcoin (BCH-SV) Friendly Websites

More DDoS attacks on Bitcoin (BCH-SV) friendly websites

If the only defence of your policies is to silence your critics, the chances of your ideas being the wrong ones are pretty high.

Over the past week, CoinGeek.com has suffered through several distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS). The first one was a big one, and we had to upgrade our defences. Thank-you to the beautiful people at Cloud Flare, subsequent attacks have caused minimal disruptions.

On Thursday BitcoinSV.io was hit with a massive DDoS attack.

The attack comes soon after the website published a listing of wallets, block explorers and other business and services that have chosen to add their support for Bitcoin SV after the ABC decision to move away from Bitcoin BCH.

The timing of these attacks could be coincidental, but the timing of the attacks is somewhat suspect. We won’t cast aspersions towards any of the bastions of free speech in the bitcoin community, but it does highlight a problem with society in recent years.

I was always led to believe that you let your opponent talk and you listen. You present your well-reasoned arguments and allow the better ideas to succeed for the betterment of the society.

With their most recent changes, 5th since the upgrade, ABC’s critics continue to grow. People are critical on social media, and now the mainstream tech press is starting to join the chorus of critics admonishing the Bitmain and Bitcoin.com funded group of developers.

TNW, formerly known as The Next Web, has written a scathing article titled “Bitcoin Cash ABC update exposes potentially catastrophic vulnerability” where it highlights the vulnerabilities opened up by ABC’s slapdashed approach to blockchain development.

For many on Twitter, the checkpoints are a bridge too far as it removes the security provided by the proof of work principal as laid out in the original whitepaper, with many saying and we agree, that ABC is no longer Bitcoin.

The move removes the trustless decentralized system, and it allows a “trusted central authority” to publish these checkpoints. Ask yourself, whom do you trust? Roger Ver, Jihan Wu or Amaury Sechet, I’m sure they’re all nice people to share a meal with but do you trust them with all your money?

DDoS attacks, several updates untested updates and all manner of collusion with wallets and exchanges seem like the actions of desperate men.

There are rumours that the Chinese government is behind this or there is a secretive cabal trying to control the chain for nefarious reasons. I believe it’s much simpler than a crazy conspiracy; this is about plain old-fashioned greed.

The group is desperate to make Wormhole token a thing. Back in August, there was an offer, 1000 wormhole tokens for every BCH burned. This 1000-1 ratio isn’t for everyone, the general public would be and will be offered 10-1 rate when wormhole becomes a widely accepted token.

My sources tell me that Jihan, Roger and a few trusted allies either orchestrated or took advantage of this 1000-1 proposal.

Despite crowing from Ver, the hash war isn’t over and as the chorus of dissent against ABC’s move away from Bitcoin grows louder, and the support for SV swells, we expect more attempts to silence the critics but you can’t DDoS the planet.

When Bitcoin ceases to be Bitcoin (the 2nd death)

When Bitcoin ceases to be Bitcoin (the 2nd death)

The post originally appears on Medium and we republished with permission.

On the 18th of November, 2018, deadalnix pushed the following commit to the bitcoin-abc repository which was publicly released yesterday: https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/commit/917d65774c40c6bfad500a660e581c8ea5e20df0

The theory behind this is a defense against hostile reorganizations (there is no actual evidence of such actions having been taken) with a rolling checkpoint system. A block was finalized once it had received ten confirmations — even if an alternate chain had more proof-of-work, if it conflicted with a checkpoint, the node would not switch over to the longest chain.

In doing do Amaury Sechet has not only abandoned any pretense of Bitcoin ABC following the Bitcoin model of blockchain security. He has opened it up to new attacks that require centralised decision-making to engage in permissioned mining by ignoring the longest chain to defend against. If the below attacks are carried out it will not be miners that decide which transactions are considered canonical according to bitcoin rules, but a central committee most likely made up of Amaury, Jihan and Roger.

It is important to note that at this time none of the other ABC compatible implementations include this change. It appears that it was implemented unilaterally and without consultation by Amaury Sechet in a continuation of a well established pattern. This is the past, present and future of ABC coin.

If ABC want to go down this road and implement the rest of their roadmap that is their prerogative. But please do not try to call it Bitcoin whilst undermining the most fundamental principles that make Bitcoin what it is.

Overview of the Commit

There are two chains — an honest chain (that follows the majority of the mining consensus), and a shadow chain (that follows the attacker).

The game theory behind the defense is that if a hostile miner produces the shadow chain, once it diverges from the honest chain by more than ten blocks it is considered useless, as it cannot reorganize the honest chain — even if it has more work. The attacker would give up and stop extending the shadow chain.

Checkpoints are maintained by node operations themselves, and this behavior of checkpointing is enabled on all nodes by default.


The Double-Spend Attack

If an attacker controls more than 50 percent of the processing power driving the ABC blockchain, they can submit a set of 10 blocks to the network by reorganizing the ten honest blocks. If this attack is executed at the same time as the network finds the 10th block in that submitted a sequence (and thereby selecting it as an honest checkpoint), it can cause ABC to suffer a chain split. ABC is currently open to being maliciously hard forked.

Since not all information gets propagated over the network at the exact same time, some nodes will see a 10-block reorganization — which they will reject — and others will see a 9-block reorganization, which they will accept. The network will then fork into two.

If there is two exchanges on different forks, an attacker is able to sell the same coin twice on both exchanges for a double-spend attack.

The Sybil Attack

Cost of Attack: ❤0K (Rental Hash)

minority hash rate miner can perform a network attack. Normally, if they mine ten blocks in a sequence and submit their own blocks for processing while ignoring other miner’s blocks, it becomes a minority chain split that nodes (who only recognize the longest chain) will inevitably ignore. However, if a node that is out of sync reconnects to the network — for instance, if it has gone offline for a few hours — it could receive data related to the wrong blockchain first, leading to the real chain being rejected from that point onward. The attacker would then have full control over what transaction a node accepts, and what can be exploited to execute double-spend attacks.

As a rule of thumb in developing node infrastructure, you cannot rely on the timestamped data to be synced with other nodes.

Note: The original white paper appeared to imply that the ability for nodes to be switched off, and then verify what happened when it was offline, was important:

“Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.”

BCHABC requires a node to be online 24×7.


FURTHER GAME THEORY

Bob and Alice are trading BTC for BCH.

Bob says he sent Alice the BTC, so Alice should send the BCH. Alice starts up her full node that has been online during the day and syncs the latest blocks. When her node has stopped syncing, it says that Alice received BTC — she then sends Bob BCH. Later, she finds out that she has synced a malicious 10-block fork that has become immutable, and the actual BTC she received were spent on something else on the main chain.

While the attack relies on Bob getting the malicious 10-block fork to Alice before another honest miner has sent her the real chain, there are ways to optimize this scenario. For instance, he may be spawning Sybil nodes to maximize his odds of this happening.

In a typical Bitcoin scenario, Sybil attacks are hard to perform because just one of the nodes you connect to needs to be honest for the attackers to fail. In this case, an attacker just has to get to you first. Furthermore, if an attacker is able to place his node in closer proximity to you or the seed nodes, he can optimize his chances of you getting a response from him faster than the honest nodes. This attack doesn’t need to rely on partitioning to work. Bob could be the owner of several block explorers, too, so even if Alice double-checked, Bob could still be able to trick her.

Bob may have even generated more blocks than 10. He could have 16 blocks. He would feed Alice 6 others using a 10-minute average Poisson distribution.

While this attack is in theory absurd, with enough money on the line, this attack could be executed.


Solution

Disable finalizing during the initial block download, and only enable it after the most active chain has been fully synced for x amount of hours.

Conclusion

The most fundamental principle of Bitcoin confirmation is proof of work, that is underpinned by proof of investment. By enabling the investment of miners to be sidestepped that fundamental principal is thrown out the window. It is now up to a central authority to decide and once you take that step there is no longer any need for a block chain. A MySQL database will achieve the same result.

This is an ill thought out change executed in an incredibly rushed and reckless manner with almost zero chance it was properly tested. The fact that a new consensus rule can be introduced in such a unilateral manner by a single developer is alarming. What is more alarming is that one developer can throw out the entire foundation of Bitcoin security without opposition. This is the future of ABC coin. In August last year Bitcoin died on the BTC chain with the introduction of Segwit. It survived in the form of Bitcoin Cash until yesterday when it was killed off again by Bitcoin ABC. If Bitcoin SV had not stood it’s ground and preserved the rules of Bitcoin in SV, yesterday would have been the last day Bitcoin existed in this world.

Dr. Craig Wright explains why Bitcoin needs to be stable

Dr. Craig Wright explains why Bitcoin needs to be stable

Last November 2, CoinGeek sponsored a Bitcoin BCH Miners Choice Summit at The Grand Harbour in Hong Kong. The dynamic half-day conference featured the industry’s most exclusive guest speakers, including nChain Chief Scientist Dr. Craig Wright.

In his presentation, Wright discussed what Bitcoin was meant to be, and why miners should support the original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin by mining with Bitcoin SV and joining SVPool. He stressed the importance of not leaving the future to the developers who want to make major changes every six months and increasing its complexity.

“Bitcoin needs to be stable. It needs to be a system that won’t just be built on and changed every few days. To be stable as money, Bitcoin needs to be the same next year and the year after,” Wright told the audience. “It’s about a stable protocol, stable protocols matter. We want people in business, we want people to be able to take contracts and money and use it.”

Dr. Wright asked the audience to look to the future—a future in which mining companies held the same respect the banks used to before the financial collapse, saying miners should focus on creating businesses that can be passed down to their children rather than focusing on the get-rich-quick empty promises of ICOs.

Watch Dr. Craig Wright’s speech, “Back to the Future of Bitcoin: Why Miners Should Support Satoshi Vision,” below. You can also catch the nChain chief scientist along with other industry thought leaders at the upcoming CoinGeek Week Conference, happening on November 28-30 (with the exclusive, invitation-only Miners Day on November 27) in London.

Jimmy Nguyen tells BCH miners: It’s time for Bitcoin to grow up and professionalize

Jimmy Nguyen tells BCH miners: It’s time for Bitcoin to grow up and professionalize

The CoinGeek-sponsored Bitcoin BCH Miners Choice Summit, held at The Grand Harbour in Hong Kong last November 2, wasn’t just an opportunity for Bitcoin BCH miners to network. It was also an event where they learned why Bitcoin SV stands out from other competing implementations.

Jimmy Nguyen, CEO of the nChain Group, and Steve Shadders, director of solutions and engineering as well as technical director of the Bitcoin SV project, took the stage to explain the four pillars on which Bitcoin SV sits: stability, scalability, security, and safe and instant transactions. All “S” words, according to Nguyen, in honor of Satoshi Nakamoto.

“We are asking for miners to choose and support our vision of Bitcoin Cash, and we believe miners would choose Bitcoin SV as the implementation because it will ensure them the most long term profitability. And we chose to create this implementation because of differences of opinion we had with the other Bitcoin Cash developer groups which we felt were trying too hard to change Bitcoin, and as Craig was talking about, and also we believe it’s time for the Bitcoin development to be led not by the protocol developer groups, which who had led them for so long, but to be really be led by what’s the interest of miners,” Nguyen told the audience.

The nChain CEO also talked about his belief that it’s time for Bitcoin to lock in the protocols, just as the Internet protocol was locked in, thus allowing development of the internet into what we have today. Nguyen stressed, “It’s time for Bitcoin to grow up and professionalize.”

Watch Jimmy Nguyen and Steve Shadders’ presentation, “Bitcoin SV: The BCH Implementation for Satoshi Vision,” below. Nguyen is also speaking at the CoinGeek Week Conference, happening on November 28-30 in London, with the special, invitation-only Miners Day event on November 27.