Bitcoin SV is closest to the original Bitcoin protocol, says Ryan X. Charles

Bitcoin SV is closest to the original Bitcoin protocol, says Ryan X. Charles

Following the recent Bitcoin Cash hard fork, a number of platforms in the blockchain and cryptocrrency space have come under fire for coming out in support of Bitcoin SV. And one of the questions these companies are being asked is, why support Bitcoin SV?

For Ryan X. Charles, CEO of Money Button, the answer is simple: “I like the original protocol. [Bitcoin] SV is closest to that.”

Money Button recently published a blog post explaining why the company has chosen to side with Bitcoin SV, and it boiled down to three things: Bitcoin SV is the closest blockchain to the original protocol, it is committed to keeping the base protocol in place, and it understands the need to scale.

Charles also posted a YouTube video in which he explained the company’s position further, while also shooting down accusations that he’s siding with nChain, the development team behind Bitcoin SV, because the firm is Yours Inc.’s largest investor.

“Bitmain is actually the largest investor, so when people say I’m funded by nChain and they say that’s why I’m saying what I’m saying, it’s actually the exact opposite—that the largest investor is actually on the other side,” Charles clarified in the video.

As someone who has been working full time with Bitcoin since 2013, Charles said he likes “the idea of bringing economic freedom to everyone, and Bitcoin solved that correctly.” To do that at scale, however, the network needs to get rid of limits and ensure that the protocol is “set in stone.”

“Something that I think the nChain and CoinGeek side understand that seems to have been glossed over on the ABC side is the desperate urgent need to scale right now,” he explained. “We can’t just take this slowly. You can’t just wait for adoption and then scale. We need to be 100% focused on both of these things simultaneously. We need to bring the cryptocurrency to new markets entirely, and we need to, at the same time, prepare for the volume that’s going to happen.”

Read the full transcript of Ryan X. Charles’s “Why I Choose SV” video below. You can also catch him at the CoinGeek Week Conference on November 28-30 in London, where he will discuss how Money Button will bring easy payments for everybody, everywhere.

WHY I CHOOSE SV

Ryan X. Charles, CEO, Money Button

So this video is for all the people, sort of primarily on my Twitter feed and YouTube channel who are impartial under these circumstances and just want to understand my decision to decide to go with SV [Satoshi Vision], which was going to seem very unusual to a lot of people, so I’m just going to explain the best I can the reason here.

First of all, my company, I’ve said this before, Yours Inc., we’ve raised money from Bitmain and nChain and I finally revealed that the quantities because it just seemed relevant, because people keep bringing it up. It’s $1 million from Bitmain, $500K from nChain and then a number of other investors in earlier smaller rounds, so it’s something maybe like $1.7 million or thereabouts total. Bitmain is actually the largest investor, so when people say I’m funded by nChain and they say that’s why I’m saying what I’m saying, it’s actually the exact opposite—that the largest investor is actually on the other side.

And I’m saying all these things, everything I’ve ever said that’s favorable to nChain actually comes at risk to me. Not only am I getting money from this, I’m risking making an enemy of Bitmain which would obviously be really bad because first of all, I like Bitmain and the thought of being enemy with them is just a horrible idea but also obviously if they were genuinely an enemy I wouldn’t stand a chance. So I don’t want to be enemies with Bitmain, but I’m in a mega weird situation where first of all I have friends on both sides, I have people that I like on both sides and then investors on both sides, and they’re just in a literal war where there’s no physical violence but they are attacking each other with computers. I mean, this is like out of a science fiction movie or something, right?

How weird is this? What am I supposed to do in this situation? All I can do is, the reality of the corporate structure of Yours Inc. is, I’m the CEO, I’m the board, I have to make the best decision that I can in these unusual circumstances. That’s the situation. It’s weird as hell.

I tried everything I could to prevent a split. I even went so far as to invent a new procedure that I’ve never heard of before called the Anti-Split Procedure, which is the idea of relying on the unified transaction history between both chains. If we had had greater ecosystem adoption, I think this is workable; however, the major players particularly Bitcoin.com went in the opposite direction and promoted a split. They split their coins in their services, not in the wallet but in the services, which all but assures that the split coin will ripple off throughout the ecosystem because the way that you merge UTXOs together, eventually all the coins become split.

It’s just fighting an uphill battle, and it’s difficult to maintain that, but I did try and I think it’s fair to say that I did everything in my power. I mean, I literally figured out a way to do it that would be helpful to wallets to not have to decide, and then I even wrote actually the software myself for this particular thing, and then spread the word about it as well. There were some other apps out there that did the same way, but ultimately, basically it’s clear that there’s two coexisting chains right now and the reality is not enough people supported the Anti-Split Procedure. The reality is that there’s a split, and the exchanges are starting to list ABC as Bitcoin Cash [BCH] and that means the other chain is probably going to be listed as different cryptocurrency because you can split them, and that’s probably what the exchanges are going to do. They’re probably going to just split their coins and trade them both separately—it’s almost certain that’s what’s going to happen.

From the perspective of Money Button and Yours.org, it is not a good idea to have multiple of these things. None of the user experience stuff that we’ve done accounts for having more than one. We’re not going to do more than one, it’s a distraction, it makes it harder, the UX is worse. We have to pick whichever one is the best one that’s most likely to work long term. And I believe that’s SV.

Let me try and explain the reasoning behind SV in particular.

First of all, my personal story is that I discovered Bitcoin in 2011 and I became obsessed with it back then. Eventually went full time Bitcoin in 2013, I’ve been full time since then.

The first reason is simply just the idea that this is the closest thing we have to the original protocol, and I don’t believe there is anything wrong with the original protocol. The more I’ve learned about Bitcoin over time and worked through every possible scenario, I’m convinced the original protocol will work at scale.

When I say the original protocol, I’m not talking about the original code. I think people get this wrong. There’s an article, sorry not an article, a video from Ed Dash, I think you’re right on a lot of points but think it’s a mistake to think of the original code as the being what’s important, it’s not the code. The code could be different, it’s the original economic protocol. It’s the ideas like someone signs a transaction and gives it to the other person, peer to peer, and it’s the idea that the person that receives it actually gives it to miners who then validate it and confirm it into a block and that there are no double spends in blocks, and you have other properties like a total of 21 million and the inflation schedule that gets cut in half every four years, and that miners get their subsidy as well as transaction fees, and you also have transactions have inputs and outputs. It can have more than one input, it can have more than one output, and that inputs and outputs contain script and that script is a language that although lacking in loops, actually has the ability to compute any number. You just have to have a longer script so you can unroll loops and script, and you can do smart contracts that are actually involved in the computation of anything you could possibly want to compute inside script.

That is basically Bitcoin, that and the fact that the miners expend energy in a way that is provable, that all they did was spend energy just to find the block. You can look at all these things in a purely economic way separate from the software and cryptography.

Anyway, I just like Bitcoin. I like the idea of sound money for the entire world and there is nothing wrong with the original protocol. It will work at scale. What we need to do is we need to focus on removing the limits. That’s the only thing we need to focus on. Get rid of the limits. This is an engineering challenge first and foremost, and it’s an economic challenge second.

Engineering challenge is basically getting rid of the… factors that occur when you remove limits. The economic challenge is over time, some of these components of the system will actually be operated by businesses that earn money for doing these things and that you transact with them using smart contracts. I believe ultimately you can do things like even pay someone to validate transactions for you and you actually use Bitcoin to do it. That you pay with Bitcoin and you use contracts on Bitcoin where if they validate correctly, you pay them. Basically, once you have Bitcoin itself, all of the other problems that you need to solve in the economy can be solved with Bitcoin.

I like the idea of sound money. I like the idea of bringing economic freedom to everyone, and Bitcoin solved that correctly. I like the idea of the original protocol. SV is closest to that.

I think Satoshi’s original design was correct in a number of ways. I think it was correct about scaling. I think it does scale by increasing the maximum block size and having it market for providing all the services of the blockchain itself. Miners are the most obvious thing because they earn money from mining, but you can also have validators and other things, wallets, people that provide SPV services could earn money for providing that service. Smart contracts, I mentioned.

Another one is law. So something I didn’t think much about until recently, until Craig started making a big deal about it is law. It is true actually that, although I wouldn’t have been to invent Bitcoin, I can now see in hindsight given everything that’s happened is that Bitcoin is actually legal basically everywhere. And this is an important property, it’s really important to not change that.

Bitcoin itself is actually not libertarian; it is compatible with libertarianism. But it’s also compatible with stateism. I don’t think that it’s intrinsically libertarian. Libertarians like it because it’s useful to them. It’s not state-based money so libertarians like that. It’s sound money on the internet that can be used by libertarians but it can be used by everybody. A disturbing fact about Bitcoin at scale is that if nation states start using Bitcoin, they will actually start forcing people to use it which means it’s not voluntary anymore. So it’s not about being libertarian, it’s about being compatible with the law and not being illegal. It’s compatible with libertarian and stateism, right. That’s important.

The idea of not changing the protocol is really music to my ears. That the protocol is going to be set in stone means that, Oh my gosh, I’m freed from the burden from having to worry about that. If I know that all we’re going to do is get rid of the limits, I know what’s going to happen in the future and I know exactly where to concentrate on and focus on. As someone trying to simply build on this technology, and if you know my story, I mean I’ve been building on Bitcoin for a long time and it’s been problem after problem after problem. The biggest challenge was simply grappling with this payment channel stuff we’re trying to do and gradually realizing that the whole thing was just not going to work. I mean, it’s unworkable and we had to abandon all that work. I’m really sick of building on shaky foundations.

If you count SV as a new cryptocurrency, it is the fourth cryptocurrency that my company has been on. We are looking around for something that just effing works and doesn’t get changed up all the time, something we can rely on and continues to have the properties that we need for the products that we’re building. So it’s music to my ears that the SV protocol is completely focused on being set in stone and removing limits. That’s perfect.

The urgency of scaling. Something that I think the nChain and CoinGeek side understand that seems to have been glossed over on the ABC side is the desperate, urgent need to scale right now. We can’t just take this slowly. You can’t just wait for adoption and then scale. We need to be 100% focused on both of these things simultaneously. We need to bring the cryptocurrency to new markets entirely, and we need to, at the same time, prepare for the volume that’s going to happen. And this is again primarily an engineering challenge of being able to simply scale the software, but it can be done. It’s really fundamentally a matter of paralyzing stuff which doesn’t require any protocol changes at all in order to that.

So the urgency of scaling. And the reason why this matters is just because the subsidy and the blocks declines by half every four years. There’s another decline, I think it’s going to be in something in approximately a year from now. It’s going to decline in half again, and it keeps declining every four years. And the only way the miners get paid in the future is with transaction fees, and we really need to radically increase the transaction volume to make sure that the miners are being paid. And we need apps that do a lot of transactions and pay the miners with each transaction. This is urgent because if this doesn’t happen, eventually it just basically means the mining power on the network will become inferior to something that actually does work. It’s quite urgent and we really need to do it right now or the inflation schedule will just going to remove enough value from the miners and they won’t be earning enough money to secure the changing world.

This is something the SV side appreciates and that’s why they’re pushing for larger blocks, and there’s no security problem here. You guys keep saying that there’s security problem because you want to attack them but there isn’t actually any problem with the raising limits to 128MB right now.

The patents from nChain. nChain does have a lot of patents and they’re creating more patents. It seems like a bad idea to fight them so that would be a cost for me like if I were on the other side instead of, you know, being collaborative with them on these stuff that they’d be like, suing me for patent infringement on the other side. That’s just the reality of the situation that if I were to pick ABC I have to worry about that, and I have to worry about that a whole lot less if I’m friends with them and I’m on their chain.

Another thing is that the battle is not over. I believe Craig and Calvin have a huge amount of BTC, not just BCH but BTC, and this is extremely useful in this situation to manipulate mining prizes and they can leverage this to help them win. This might take a while, but there are lots of other things they can do too, the patents and whatever else. They can do a bunch of things to win this still and to become the longest chain, and I just don’t think we’ve seen the start of this. Well, we’ve seen the start but I just think that we’re nowhere near done.

So that the overview of all the reasons. I want to give a few pieces of, I’m trying to create constructive criticism for ABC. First piece of constructive criticism is, I’m not sure I understand your mission statement. I think you guys, you say things like sound digital money for the entire world. In my opinion, the way this looks is that you guys didn’t actually rally around the idea of sound digital money for the entire world. No one actually really cared about CTOR and CDS and the clean stack rule.

What you guys actually rallied around was booting Craig Wright from the community. You actually decided to agree to these unusual changes that not everyone really agreed to, but you agreed to them anyway because you realized that this was a way to actually extract Craig. If I were you guys, I’d want to clarify the mission statement and make sure that your actions are consistent with whatever that mission statement is, and I’d be worried about like basically, you need to make sure that you aren’t perceived as being the anti-Craig Wright chain. Because it looks to me like that’s what you are. That’s the defining quality of ABC. Come up with a mission statement; it might be the same mission statement that you already have, but you need to find a way to pitch it so that it’s consistent with all of your actions.

Another one is governance. Who decides protocol rules? It’s actually unclear to me what you guys think about at this point. The checkpoint thing, if you just think this through, if you find that you’ll keep adding checkpoints, what’s actually happening is you have to have some other governance mechanism to create the checkpoints. What is that?

If you keep adding them, you may as well not have Proof of Work. It’ll be very interesting if you keep adding them or if you don’t add them. Yes, I know that Satoshi added checkpoints. I mean, the circumstances were quite different. I don’t think it’s fair to say that’s the exact same thing. It’s not exactly the same.

The circumstances here are very different. You wanted to make sure if there is a longer, basically if the other side won the hash battle, that you won anyway. I don’t think that’s compatible with Nakamoto Consensus and you can see it in Andreas Brekken’s comments that he felt guilty about it. He felt guilty because everybody knows that this is, you did something kind of sly there. This is a bit outside of the way the rules are supposed to work. With that being said, I advocate you guys do every moral and legal tactic you can to win, and whether that’s moral or legal is a different question but you guys do what you think is best.

I’d be worried about being perceived as “split culture.” This is the second time the Bitcoin Cash community has split, and it’s going to look like you guys favor the idea that basically whenever you disagree with someone you split off. That’s just incompatible with world money. If you try to pitch the world money thing as your philosophy, this is an example of something where your actions really need to match your statements, or you’re just not going to succeed. You can’t keep splitting. This better be the last split for ABC, or what’s going to happen? You’re splitting off like amoebas that gets smaller and smaller and smaller. There’s a story about, you know, farmers where in a poor area where the farmers are forced to divide their land to give it to their sons, and then each generation divides it further and further and further until they get poorer and poorer and poorer, until they’re just in poverty.

You can’t keep doing this. The value goes is in squared with money, value as in utility. You can’t keep splitting forever. I’d be very worried about being perceived as split culture and I would want to counter that narrative.

That’s all I have to say about that. These are all pieces, this is just how I see it and I would say if I were you guys, I would want to address every single one of those points and make sure that you have strong mission statement, a clear stance on governance, and that you avoid being perceived as being split culture. And that you aren’t split culture, that you stop splitting.

Based on everything that’s happening right now, it seems very likely the ABC chain will be referred to as Bitcoin BCH on the exchanges, and the SV chain will probably be perceived as a split chain that will have some separate value that is also listed on the exchanges. In other words, it’s splitting. That’s just the reality of what’s happening right now.

I personally don’t care about the name. I look at it like what we’re really trying to do here is create Bitcoin at scale, and we’re just going to call it Bitcoin when that happens. But for right now, it doesn’t matter. Because the customers that we’re looking for, they were trying to solve problems for real people here. They don’t care what the name is, and we already changed the name once, Bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash. I don’t care what this one’s called, it’s probably going to end up being called either Bitcoin SV or Bitcoin BSV, I don’t really care. It is what it is on that point.

Comment about Jihan [Wu]. We raised money from Bitmain and Jihan if you watch this video, the last thing in the world I want to do is make an enemy of Bitmain. I hope you can appreciate my situation that no matter what, which direction I go in here, I’m going to have a cost to myself and my company that I’m most certainly going to make enemies either way. I hope that you do not regard this as being like a backstabbing or something like that. I just have to pick a side right now out of pure pragmatism and I could be picking the wrong side, so please just don’t be angry and realize the way it looks from my perspective. I wish you guys the best of luck.

Certainly my goal is not to oppose BItmain, it’s more like that’s just the reality of the situation now. We got two competing cryptocurrencies and pretty much the exact same market. And I don’t see how we have a world of many of these things. I see a world of one.

Anyway, I don’t know what else to say about that. I regard Bitmain as one of the most incredible companies in the space, and JIhan you’re one of the most incredible entrepreneurs. I look up to you, I admire you, I respect you. I think you are a genius entrepreneur and I wish you talk more because I would love to hear more about what you have to say. Because I think you are someone that I could learn from. I look to you as a role model, but I just don’t have a choice in this situation. No matter which direction I go in, there are costs. And I have to pick the thing that I think is best. And I think Bitcoin SV is best, so I’m sorry.

Another comment is that SV might lose. I’m not picking this because I believe that SV is going to win, I’m not sure. I don’t really know what’s going to happen. I do know that I greatly value focus. Gosh, I really need to the ability to just focus right now. I need to not have to worry about hash battles, and I need to be able to worry about things that I’m actually trying to do like create value for my customers and make sure the product works and grow. And earn money, and have a real business. That’s what I’m trying to do right now.

I need to be able to focus and basically I have to pick a side because it’s just a losing battle staying down the middle. We got bugs in the software that we have to fix. The best way to fix it is to just pick a side. It’s just a losing battle for us to try to bridge these cryptocurrencies when obviously the two sides don’t see it that way and just are completely different, and it’s just not powerful enough to bridge them.

I’m actually very excited about being able to focus. This wasn’t my fault that it happened this way, I had nothing to do with it and I tried everything in my power to prevent a split. What we’re going to do now though is we just have to basically move forward.

I like the idea that actually by picking this path it actually answers some questions for us. For instance, right now Bitcoin SV does not have exchange support at all that I’m aware of, maybe Poloniex I guess. I don’t know if you can withdraw or deposit from anywhere. But this means the way we’re going to solve the onboarding problem is by empowering people to earn it. Just forget about the exchanges. We don’t actually need them. We’re going to work around them. We’re going to have people that use this and the exchanges will add it because they’re compelled to, because people actually use this thing. And they want to be able to trade it, and there’s going to be a market for that. So I look at it that way, that there’s a form of forced focus that just take options off the table for me and we’re going to work within the constraints that we have, and we’re going to solve problems that way.

That’s all I have to say. In a nutshell, I didn’t want a split to happen, I did everything in my power to prevent it and I now believe that it’s a win-lose situation. There are going to be people that lose, I don’t know who’s going to win, I don’t know who’s going to lose. There are ups and downs of this decision. I might be one that loses and this company might lose, and that’s just going to be outside of my control. Within the constraints I have, I’m going to make the best decisions I can and as a company, we’re going to move forward and create as much value as we can for our users in spite of this absurd situation.

Bitcoin ABC developers throwing everything they can at Bitcoin BCH

Bitcoin ABC developers throwing everything they can at Bitcoin Cash

Everyone by now is aware of what’s going on with Bitcoin Cash and the results of the hard fork. The BCH ecosystem has basically been turned upside down as the community still tries to provide some semblance of order to the cryptocurrency, but it seems that developers with Bitcoin ABC are doing exactly what Bitcoin SV supporters had feared—throwing everything they can at the network. The only thing that’s left is to try to toss in the kitchen sink.

Since November 15, Bitcoin ABC developers have introduced a number of changes that seem to be indicative of a “let’s see what sticks” mentality. The changes have mostly been found through the group’s GitHub repository, which indicates that developers—even through Wednesday—were still playing around with the code.

The disappointing part is that the developers apparently haven’t been willing to let the community know ahead of time about the changes. This smacks of draconian attempts to control the network, regardless of what the entire community may feel is best for the blockchain and shows that the developers are content with treating BCH as their own personal sandbox.

A conversation on the Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) Slack proves that developers from ABC were not willing to share their updates with the rest of the community. Tom Harding, a Bitcoin XT developer, points out, “I did not know about the 10-deep floating block finalizing,” in response to someone asking if BU knew of the upgrades. Another user, “ptschip,” also said that the first he heard of an upgrade was “when their release came out.”

As one user, “painlord2K,” aptly put it, “So BCH is ABC coin now. No doubts about it.”

The world gets it—developers have to develop. It’s in their nature; it’s who they are. This isn’t an issue in and of itself. It only becomes an issue when certain individuals feel that they are better equipped to make decisions for the community and will stop at nothing to force their opinions on everyone else, despite extreme opposition.

Cryptocurrency is too important to be utilized as a playground—that’s why testnets exist. BCH has to have a solid foundation to evolve and mature, but Bitcoin ABC developers are proving that they’re happy with the currency operating in moving sand and, possibly, quicksand.

OKEx exchange denies allegations it manipulated the crypto markets

OKEx exchange denies allegations it manipulated the crypto markets

Customers of the OKEx cryptocurrency exchange woke up recently to find that the exchange had fooled around with options on its platform. OKEx had settled Bitcoin BCH futures contracts with virtually no warning prior to last week’s hard fork of the BCH blockchain, leading to what some are calling “multi-million-dollar” losses. In fact, one investor said that his fund dropped $700,000 almost instantaneously because OKEx closed the contracts at a level different than what was reflected in market prices. The decision has caused a hurricane of bad press for the exchange, with many calling for an investigation. As is to be expected, the exchange has publicly come forward to that it did nothing wrong.

A Medium user, “AMBER AI,” addressed the issue in a recent post, accusing OKEx of “outright market manipulation and one of the more serious acts of fraud in the history of limit order book trading in the cryptocurrency markets.”

The poster added that traders have lost as much as $24 million over the decision. The post continues, “The course of events surrounding the BCH hard fork are indicative of market manipulation, fraud and deceit.”

After OKEX made the move, it weakly tried to explain its decision as a means to protect user assets. It said, “It has come to our concern that an early announcement may make room for market manipulation and cause loss to our users. Therefore, we decided to give a short notice in order to maintain the fairness and stability of the market.”

In response to the accusations levied against it by AMBER AI, it said, “In the absence of evidence, Amber AI alleged us for trading against our own customers and manipulating the markets. These are completely false allegations and the defamatory statements have caused serious damages to OKEx’s reputation.”

Its reputation was already damaged, due to its own decisions. This past August, the exchange froze a user’s account and began a forced liquidation because the user took a long position of 4,168,515 Bitcoin futures contracts. OKEx then contacted the user and asked him to lower the position, a request that was refused. The exchange had no business getting involved with the user’s actions.

OKEx has apparently had its feelings hurt by the AMBER AI Medium post. It said that it is considering legal action against the user. Given that the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission could be poised to investigate OKEx over its handling of the contracts, a post on Medium seems to be the least of its problems.

Exchanges selling BCHABC could be conducting fraud

Exchanges selling BCHABC could be conducting fraud

In anticipation of the Bitcoin Cash hard fork last week, two cryptocurrencies were launched—BCHABC and BCHSV. Each corresponded to one of the two camps that were pushing BCH’s divide, but only one has the potential to be considered a fraudulent pump-and-dump scheme—BCHABC.

Medium user “Without Fear” provides a considerable amount of data to support that belief in a recent thread on the social media platform. Before anyone goes off the deep end and accuses Without Fear of being nothing more than a puppet for BCHSV, it would be in their best interest to read the post and understand better the scenario.

Without Fear points out that, prior to the hard fork, “[W]e have hash that wasn’t mining BCH before the fork, which means that (without looking at it) this is either pragmatic hash that makes money by selling the ABC coins they mine, or hash rented by the people who wanted or believed in the ABC ruleset. However it became clear after the following announcement by Bitcoin.com that a lot of the hash that would mine BCHABC the day of the fork would be stolen hash from Bitcoin.com pool miners.”

The author goes on to show that there have been a number of mining pools that have stolen hash from their customers in order to point them to BCHABC proponent Bitcoin.com, including Antpool, viaBTC and BTC.TOP, creating a pool that post’s author refers to as BABV. This hash, asserts Without Fear, is unstable and is being mined against the market’s wishes—it is forced hash.

He also shows how the Kraken exchange is trying to manipulate public sentiment. Kraken is backed by Bitcoin.com’s Roger Ver and recently stated that it will support BCHSV, but warned that Bitcoin SV “should be seen as an extremely high risk investment, citing several “red flags”: BCHSV has no wallets that support replay protection, it has no support in major block explorers and because miners are subsidized or operating at a loss, among others. This is a blatant disregard of the facts and a manipulation of the truth. Neither BCHSV nor BCHABC offer replay protection and BCHSV most definitely has support in block explorers. There is no evidence to support the fact that BCHSV miners are being subsidized, whereas Without Fear provides several examples of how BCHABC is subsidized. Ver himself has even admitted to it, telling CoinGeek’s Calvin Ayre that Bitcoin.com can subsidize BCHABC with 4000 petahashes for a decade.

So, where does this leave us? BABV is a pool that is creating hash that is supposed to be mined elsewhere, but whose components have been pointed by the pool operators—not the miners—to mine BCHABC in an attempt to signal market strength. As Without Fear correctly ascertains, “However, this is not real demand, the machine owners never asked or consented to mine BCHABC. This is being done behind their back while they are paid as if machines are mining BTC, or whatever is most profitable.”

In the absence of true market demand, the forced hash will revert to its original source and BCHABC will, by default, stop progressing. Explains Without Fear, “Considering that ABC hash support was 800 when the BCH price was around $500 and that the current BCHABC price is less than $300, such plunge in hash would spiral out of control and lead to a full halt in what these exchanges have labelled as the “BCH” chain. The portfolios of people who held BCH before the fork would now be worth zero while the BCHSV chain keeps being mined.”

Without Fear’s advice is simple and insightful: “[S]teer clear of exchanges that try to sell ABC as ‘BCH’ as ABC is extremely unstable and not comparable to your BCH holdings.”

Support for Bitcoin SV growing

Support for Bitcoin SV growing

Firms in the blockchain and cryptocurrency space have come out in support of Bitcoin SV, in light of the recent Bitcoin Cash hard fork.

Money Button, which runs Yours.org allowing users to monetize content in Bitcoin Cash, said in a blog post that “Bitcoin SV is the closest blockchain to the original Bitcoin protocol,” which the company said “fully and completely solved the problem of sound money for the entire world.”

Unlike with the ABC implementation that maintains a maximum block size of 32MB, Bitcoin SV has increased this to 128MB. Money Button supported this update, saying, “We need to raise the limits to the edge of the abilities of the software, and identify and fix all scaling limitations.”

Money Button CEO Ryan X. Charles, in a YouTube video, made similar points as in the blog post, noting that Bitcoin ABC and its supporters seemed to lack a clear mission statement. “In my opinion, the way this looks, is that you guys didn’t actually rally around the idea of sound digital money for the entire world. No one actually really cared about CTOR, and CDS, and the clean-stack rule. What you guys actually rallied around was booting Craig Wright from the community. You actually decided to agree to these unusual changes that not really everyone agreed to, but you agreed to them anyway because you realized this was a way to actually extract Craig,” he said.

Charles said that while it was unclear what the forked coins’ ticker symbols will be, “I personally don’t care about the name… What we’re really trying to do here is create Bitcoin at scale… We’re trying to solve problems for real people here. They don’t care what the name is.”

Blockchain-powered social media platform Matter.cash tweeted that it was running Bitcoin SV, but added, “We are still open on how to support both ABC and SV, and for now we needed to make a decision to move forward.”

Alex Agut of HandCash said his company will be following the Bitcoin SV ruleset “exclusively,” because of the “honest hash” used for mining operations, that is, hash power not borrowed from other networks. Agut pointed out that, contrary to what many are now saying, the hash war “is not over yet… It could take weeks or months, but based on hashpower and economic incentives, the SV ruleset is most probably going to be the imposed ruleset for BCH in the end, and we do not wish to change chains again. There is no technical indicator that points to another possible result.”

James Belding of Tokenized, the company that was recently awarded £5 million for its Bitcoin Cash tokenization solution, tweeted, “The Tokenized team will be supporting Bitcoin SV (BSV) exclusively. We firmly believe in the original vision of Bitcoin, as described in the WP and Satoshi’s early writings, and are proud to keep working to bring sound money to the world.” He said of ABC supporters, “We hope to join forces again in the future. We know how much you all care about the mission.”

Video streaming platform Keyport.tv tweeted, “We stand in support of Bitcoin SV because we believe that @nChainGlobal and @RealCoinGeek have the right plan to scale Bitcoin to global money.”

Bitcoin Cash wallet Centbee said in a tweet that it was supporting “the original #Bitcoin Protocol as described in the Satoshi Nakamoto white paper. @BitcoinSVNode is the only implementation that follows this protocol and that is why we support it.”

CoinGeek delivers record-breaking 64MB block with Bitcoin SV

CoinGeek delivers record-breaking 64MB block with Bitcoin SV

With Bitcoin SV, 32MB blocks are just the start for Bitcoin Cash. On Tuesday, the full node implementation designed to fulfill the Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin mined a 64MB block—the largest ever on a public blockchain.

At 7:54 a.m. on November 20, CoinGeek, which runs Bitcoin SV, generated the landmark 64MB block at block height 557335. The block accounted for 334,074 transactions and earned a mining fee of 0.651400BCH.

The record-breaking 64MB block comes shortly after SVPool mined a 38MB block at block height 557333, and is part of a longer run of 10 blocks with an average size of over 20MB. Mining blocks 32MB and beyond is important for Bitcoin Cash, as it shows that professional mining efforts are more advanced than others and that the network is capable of routinely mining larger blocks.

The achievement is part of the ongoing professional stress test conducted on the Bitcoin Cash network. The stress test, powered by Play.BCH.cash and independent of any Bitcoin Cash implementation group, is designed to test the throughput capacity of the Bitcoin blockchain. The group previously ran a pre-test on November 10, in which Bitcoin SV mined five 32MB blocks—and hasn’t stopped setting records since.

Since November 17, the stress test team has been sending transactions onto the Bitcoin Cash network. Instead of testing both networks, the team opted to focus on generating large volumes of transactions on the BCHSV chain although many of the transactions are being replayed on the BCHABC chain, resulting in a string of blocks at miner configured soft limits, all set to less than 10MB.

The team paused the test to allow transactions to propagate in hopes that more big blocks will be found as the transactions migrate from validation queues into mempools and are mined over the next 6-12 hours. The test will resume in the next 24 hours, after at least half of the transactions delivered onto the network are successfully mined.

Bitcoin SV, which seeks to restore the original Satoshi protocol, keep it stable, enable it to massively scale, and allow major businesses to confidently build on top of Bitcoin Cash, is currently in the midst of a hash war with Bitcoin ABC, which has taken an early lead due to an artificial burst of support from hash power “rented” by its supports Bitcoin.com and Bitmain Technologies from miners on the rival Bitcoin Core (BTC) network. Bitcoin SV, on the other hand, operates on the “miners choice” philosophy, delivering sustained Proof of Work from miners committed to support the Bitcoin Cash network on an ongoing basis and which should count as legitimate votes for the Nakamoto Consensus that determines protocol rules according to the original Bitcoin white paper.

Although it’s still ongoing, the Professional Stress Test is already proof that Bitcoin SV is correct about its scaling roadmap: the Bitcoin Cash chain can handle much larger blocks and quickly scale for big enterprise use. For the recent November 15 protocol upgrade, Bitcoin SV lifted its default maximum block size to 128MB from the prior 32MB—opening the door to the record-breaking 64MB and 38MB blocks.

With the November 15 protocol upgrade, Bitcoin Cash—with Bitcoin SV—has finally come of age, and it’s no longer a dev experiment, but a mining-backed project. If you’re interested in seeing the true original power of Bitcoin, we recommend you to join the bComm Association and to also come to the CoinGeek Week conference from November 28-30 (with a special advance Miner’s Day on November 27), the perfect venue to meet the thought leaders and discuss the implications of the world’s first Bitcoin Hash War fought according to Nakamoto Consensus. Be part of the community that wants to let the original Bitcoin show the world its true power as sound money and so much more.

Bitcoin SV Mines 64 MB Block on Bitcoin Cash, Largest Ever on a Public Blockchain

Bitcoin SV mines 64 MB Block on Bitcoin Cash, largest ever on a public blockchain

20 November 2018 –Bitcoin SV, the new full node implementation for Bitcoin Cash (BCH) mined a 64MB block, the world’s largest ever on a public blockchain. The huge block was mined by CoinGeek Mining, during an on-going Professional Stress Test of the BCH network. Just one hour before, a 38MB block was mined, also using the Bitcoin SV implementation, by SVPool, a personal initiative of nChain’s Chief Scientist Dr. Craig Wright. That 38MB block held the record for largest block mined on a public blockchain until the 64 MB block.

The BCH Professional Stress Test is designed to test the BCH blockchain’s throughput capacity. The 64 MB block came at block height 557335 and the 38 MB block came at block height 557333 on the BCH network. Powered by Play.BCH.cash and organized independently of any BCH full node implementation team, the testing group also ran November 10 pre-test, in which Bitcoin SV mined five 32 MB blocks, which were then the largest ever blocks mined on a public blockchain. Bitcoin SV thus continues to demonstrate its record-setting capabilities, with larger blocks now mined of 64 MB and 38 MB.

Bitcoin SV is currently in the midst of a “hash war” with Bitcoin ABC to be the leading BCH implementation, with miner votes that began with the November 15 BCH network upgrade. Although Bitcoin ABC has taken an early lead, its support relies heavily upon “rented” hash borrowed by its backers (Bitcoin.com and Bitmain Technologies) from miners on the rival Bitcoin Core (BTC) network ; in contrast, the hash backing Bitcoin SV is sustained Proof of Work from miners committed to support the BCH network on an on-going basis and which should count as legitimate votes for the “Nakamoto consensus” that determines protocol rules according to the original Bitcoin white paper.

The Professional Stress Test results confirmed that Bitcoin SV is correct about its scaling roadmap: the BCH blockchain can handle much larger blocks and quickly scale for big enterprise use. Named for the “Satoshi Vision” of Bitcoin’s creator Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin SV intends to restore the original Bitcoin protocol, keep it stable, and allow it to massively scale to a global network used by billions of people. For the recent November 15 protocol upgrade, Bitcoin SV lifted its default maximum block size to 128MB from the prior 32MB; that opened the door to the record-breaking 64MB and 38MB blocks. In contrast, Bitcoin ABC has kept its default block cap at 32MB, and is taking a slower scaling approach.

Bitcoin SV’s lead developer Daniel Connolly remarks:

“Once again, we have shown the power of Bitcoin SV, proving that very big blocks can be mined once the default maximum block setting was increased. I believe we will see even bigger blocks, reaching closer to our current 128MB limit, and one day we expect to remove the default block cap completely, so that miners can configure their own block settings. The Satoshi Vision requires even bigger blocks, so businesses can do more complex transaction types and miners can earn more transaction fees.”

Bitcoin SV Technical Director Steve Shadders adds:

“For Bitcoin to achieve the Satoshi Vision, major businesses need confidence to build on a blockchain that has block capacity to support enterprise-level applications and projects, not just transactions between individual users. That is why miners and businesses should choose Bitcoin SV over Bitcoin ABC as the implementation to unlock Bitcoin’s massive potential.”

The Bitcoin SV project was created at the request of and sponsored by Antiguan-based CoinGeek Mining, with development work initiated by nChain. The project is owned by the Antiguan-based bComm Association on behalf of the global BCH community, and the Bitcoin SV code is made available under the open source MIT license. For more information about Bitcoin SV, visit www.bitcoinsv.io.

Remitano, major exchanges opt for ‘responsible’ route in Bitcoin BCH hash war

Remitano, major exchanges opt for ‘responsible’ route in Bitcoin BCH hash war

Until the hash war ends, there is no splitting of Bitcoin BCH for peer-to-peer cryptocurrency exchange Remitano.

The P2P exchange suspended its BCH deposits and withdrawals prior to the November 15 protocol upgrade, 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.

Remitano has already announced that it would resume processing deposits and withdrawals of BCH. But unlike other platforms that have prematurely given the BCH ticker to ABC after it took a temporary early lead, thanks to an artificial burst from “rented” hash power subsidized by Roger Ver’s Bitcoin.com and from Bitmain Technologies, Remitano opted for the “responsible” route—that of the Bitcoin way.

On its website, Remitano declared, “Looking at the events of the hash war, we find it irresponsible to simply give BCH ticker to either Bitcoin ABC or Bitcoin SV. As the original white paper stated, whatever the longest chain should be followed.”

“We will resume BCH deposits and withdrawals shortly, with the condition that every Bitcoin Cash transaction that transacted with us will need to be mined on both chains. So we will be listening for blocks on both Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin SV, and will only credit people who have cast their transactions to both chains,” the exchange explained. “We will also broadcast withdrawal transactions on both chains to make sure it will be mined on both chains. We believe it is the only responsible solution for now and we would recommend any exchange or payment gateway to do the same.”

BCH transactions that only validate on one chain will not be credited on the Remitano platform, at least until the end of the hash war. According to the exchange, such “will be the case when you withdraw from any exchanges that decided to give BCH ticker to either BCHABC or BCHSV.”

Remitano, a product of Seychelles incorporated Babylon Solution Ltd., provides escrowed P2P marketplace for buying and selling Bitcoin BCH, as well as other cryptocurrencies like BTC. Remitano currently offers services in the United States, Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Vietnam, Cambodia, and China.

Aside from Remitano, several major crypto exchanges have accommodated BCHSV and BCHABC.

Last Friday, Binance distributed both coins to all eligible users in a 1:1 ratio, based on the snapshot of all BCH balances taken last November 15 at 4:40 p.m. UTC. The platform also opened trading for BCHABC/BTC, BCHABC/USDT, BCHSV/BTC and BCHSV/USDT on November 16.

Bitfinex has also assured its users that the platform would “not advocate for or against any particular fork, and miners have full prerogative to commit their hashing power to whichever projects they choose.” The exchange also introduced its Chain Split Tokens so traders can trade BCHABC and BCHSV against USD and BTC.  According to Bitfinex, “Upon creation by a user, the BCH will be debited from the user’s account and an equivalent amount of BAB and BSV will be credited. Users will be able to reverse this process at any time using the Token Manager.”

Meanwhile, HitBTC offered pre-fork trading for BCHSV and BCHABC as part of its bid to encourage “the free choice of our community to support either of the new chains.”

In a blog post, HitBTC explained that its stance was a part of the exchange’s strategy. It stated, “By allowing the traders to determine a consensus for the future of the projects, we are essentially supporting the decision-making of our community.”

The hash war is far from over as Bitcoin SV’s strongest supporters, CoinGeek and nChain, are committed to a long term fight using their legitimate, sustained hash—long after Bitmain can no longer afford to bleed money for rented hash. It’s worth noting, however, that nChain is not seeking a Bitcoin variant with Bitcoin SV, it’s simply providing another choice for BCH miners.

One thing is for sure, Bitcoin BCH—with Bitcoin SV—has finally come of age, and it’s no longer a dev experiment, but a mining-backed project. If you’re interested in seeing the true original power of Bitcoin, we recommend you to join the bComm Association and to also come to the CoinGeek Week conference from November 28-30 (with a special advance Miner’s Day on November 27), the perfect venue to meet the thought leaders and discuss the implications of the world’s first Bitcoin Hash War fought according to Nakamoto Consensus. Be part of the community that wants to let the original Bitcoin show the world its true power as sound money and so much more.

'Think about the game being played here': Jimmy Nguyen tells the truth about Bitcoin BCH hash war

‘Think about the game being played here’: Jimmy Nguyen tells the truth about Bitcoin BCH hash war

Last November 15, during the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network upgrade, a hash war has been fought with miners voting between two competing implementations of the BCH protocol—Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC.

As expected, Bitcoin ABC took a temporary early lead, thanks to an artificial burst from “rented” hash power subsidized by Roger Ver’s Bitcoin.com, which announced that it would use pool customer hash from the Bitcoin Core (BTC) network onto the BCH chain for 24 hours, as well as from ABC’s main supporter Bitmain Technologies.

The hash war, however, is far from over. Bitcoin SV’s strongest supporters, CoinGeek and nChain, are committed to a long term fight using their legitimate, sustained hash—long after Bitmain can no longer afford to bleed money for rented hash.

On November 17, nChain CEO Jimmy Nguyen appeared on Keyport’s live stream coverage of the Bitcoin BCH hash war to speak the truth, as well as explain to the BCH community the consequences of their willingness to accept a burst of rented hash to quickly decide the hash war. And to those who are out there on social media, cheering for the supposed ABC victory, Nguyen posed this question: Is this the precedent we want to set for the Bitcoin Cash community?

Read the full transcript of Jimmy Nguyen’s Keyport speech below.

TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES ABOUT THE ONGOING BITCOIN CASH HASH WAR

Jimmy Nguyen – CEO, nChain Group

Since the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network upgrade on November 15, a hash war has been fought with miners voting between Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC – two competing implementations of the BCH protocol. nChain and CoinGeek support Bitcoin SV. As we fully expected, Bitcoin ABC appeared to take a temporary early lead by receiving an artificial burst from temporary, “rented” hash power subsidized by Roger Ver’s company Bitcoin.com, which announced it would move its pool customer hash from the rival Bitcoin Core (BTC) network onto the BCH blockchain for just 24 hours, and from ABC’s main supporter Bitmain Technologies. 

Many observers have quick to prematurely call a win for Bitcoin ABC. But the hash war is not over. nChain and CoinGeek continue to fight, mining with our legitimate, sustained hash committed to support the Bitcoin Cash network and the Satoshi Vision. For days before the hard fork, Bitcoin SV had support from over 75% of the network hash.. Knowing they clearly did not have enough support to win, Bitcoin ABC’s backers had to rent and subsidize BTC hash to move onto BCH to use as voting power. When they can no longer to afford to pay massive daily amounts to rent hash for this BCH hash war, we will still be here fighting, and the consistent hash power supporting Bitcoin SV will overtake Bitcoin ABC. That is the inevitable result of this BCH hash war

On November 17, I appeared on Keyport’s live stream coverage of the BCH hash war to provide my views and a statement to the Bitcoin Cash community about “Truth and Consequences” of their willingness to accept a burst of rented hash to quickly decide the hash war. This is a transcript of my speech, edited for clarity.

I’m about to tell you truth and consequences. These are the truth and consequences for the Bitcoin Cash community of what’s happening in this hash war.

So the weekend went exactly as I expected. There was the fork on Thursday, November 15; there was a huge burst of hash that came into the network on the side of Bitcoin ABC that was rented or subsidised— probably from the BTC network, in order to artificially boost the support for Bitcoin ABC far higher than it had ever been in the days and weeks coming up to the hard fork.

Then the Bitcoin ABC supporters decided to declare early victory, because they seemed so far ahead in hash. Then they started going to the exchanges, if not even before the hard fork. (I think they did look before to try and get them to recognise their chain as Bitcoin Cash (BCH).

They added checkpoint—not a surprise, our developers heard about that a week ago.

So everything that happened is exactly as I predicted, and we’re continuing to plug away.

And people are probably wondering why we didn’t bring more hash in to support the Bitcoin SV side of the coin. Let me explain why. We actually had plenty of petahash offered to us; in fact, we actually didn’t have to go ask any miners or mining pools to lend us their hash.

Before and after the BCH Miners Choice Summit on November 2nd that CoinGeek sponsored and which I attended, we had a potential deal for thousands of petahash —to be rented and subsidised by us much like, I’m sure, Bitmain and Roger Ver were doing in some capacity or variation. While I was at that summit, we had thousands more petahash offered to us to rent, by people who just did not like Bitmain, opposed the Bitcoin ABC implementation, or wanted to support us for all kinds of reasons.

I could have walked away from that day with easily ten to fifteen thousand petahash worth of support for Bitcoin SV. And it’s not for lack of money or resources that we decided not to do it because Calvin Ayre, CoinGeek and nChain could have easily afforded to do that for as long as it took during this battle, and we would have blown the Bitcoin ABC side out of the water, at least compared to the hash that they have demonstrated so far in the charts you can see. But I actually had a realization at that moment in Hong Kong about whether that was the right thing to do; and I decided it was not, because of the consequences it would have in the future for the Bitcoin Cash community. And here’s what they are:

The whole reason that such hash was available on the BTC network to move onto BCH is because the people who should have fought Bitcoin Core did not, and splintered off to create the Bitcoin Cash network, and allowed BTC to continue on. That’s perfectly fine. But now they’re borrowing hash, renting it, subsidizing it from the very network they so vehemently oppose—many of them – to try and claim a victory on the BCH network.

I want you to think about the hypocrisy of that, because it’s staggering. I also want you to think about the game that is being played here, if you are able to just move hash for a day or two from the rival network that many of our community do not like, and use that to claim victory. What does it say about what you would do just to win what looks to many people right now like a sporting contest.

In addition, I want people to know that I thought long and hard about what should be the governing model to decide disagreement between rule sets for Bitcoin – because that’s what this is, that’s what’s really being tested in this moment right now. It’s not just about a particular feature set here or there.  It’s about what should be the governing model when there are disagreements.

And think about this: when the Nakamoto Consensus was written in the Bitcoin white paper, there was supposed to only be one Bitcoin network. There was not supposed to be miners on a network running the same hash algorithm that you could pay to rent their hash to come in and vote in a disagreement over rule sets. Instead, the Bitcoin network as we know it, this whole system, it’s magic is in its economic incentives. Miners have incentives to provide the computing power and security of the network; they earn block rewards, they earn transaction fees, they have the investment and monetary interest therefore to make decisions on rule sets that best continue that economic incentive and the security of the network.

But if you are not mining on the network and don’t have your own investment in it, and you are not making money on this network but making it over on BTC, why is it that you should have a vote for the rule set for Bitcoin Cash, particularly when it is hash borrowed from the very network that Bitcoin Cash was designed to split off from?

So the Nakamoto Consensus is being tested for the first time right now, and I want you to really think about that. Obviously, Satoshi Nakamoto could not have envisioned, at the time the white paper was written, that there was going to be some splintered-off network using the same hash algorithm. And with the idea of one CPU equals one vote, or miner hash power equals the vote, it was designed—and I’m sure most logical people can agree with it—to recognise that the people who have an ongoing continuous invested interest in the network are the ones that should vote on a rule set.

But what has happened over this weekend is that the supporters of ABC have been so quick to come forward, and say, after a day or two of hash bursts provided by Roger Ver and his company Bitcoin.com’s move of hash from his customers from BTC over to BCH – and I’m sure move of BTC hash by Bitmain and other sources – after one or two days of bursts, they are so quick to declare, therefore they must be the winner.

But we took an alternate path. And as you can now probably understand why Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre have been so repeatedly vocal about the need for genuine and legitimate sustained hash that supports the network. We made the decision to fight with genuine honest hash.  And that is why, if you notice, over the days leading up to the hard fork., the CoinGeek, SVPool, and BMG pools started gradually increasing the hash they were devoting to the network.

That was done for a reason. It wasn’t just an all-in burst to vote on the day of the hard fork. It was designed to demonstrate continued commitment to sustain this network and a desire to show the world we are going to continue using that hash on this network. It wasn’t a flash in the pan.

And so the situation that has unfolded this weekend is basically akin to saying: I want to have an election in the United States, and I don’t think I have enough votes, so I’m going to go pay people from Canada to come to the US for a day, vote, and leave—even those people who have no interest in the outcome of that election; it does not affect their lives, their livelihood, what pocket of money they get to pay their bills. That is what the people on the ABC side of the fence have just created: the idea that you can do that and that you can do that every time there’s a disagreement over the rule set.

So I really want people to think about what kind of system you want to decide consensus rule disagreements in the future for Bitcoin. Is it who can pay the most for one or two days to rent hash from a competing rival network that you escaped from? Or is it the votes of the miners who are ongoing providers of sustained hash, because they have an ongoing economic interest in the network?

And you saw the numbers in the days before the fork: it was clear the SV side of was demonstrating on a daily basis—for multiple days—far more than majority support from the network.

I believe that should be the governing model for Bitcoin consensus rule decisions. I also want everyone out there in the community to think about the consequences for the future. IF you are so quick to say that ABC should be declared the victor and awarded the BCH ticker symbol, and its consensus rules should govern, you’ve just walked into a bigger problematic box that I knew you would. Because I knew this would all happen; it’s all unfolded on Twitter and online. You’ve just provided the playbook for a big corporation with really big pockets, a state actor of government, anyone who could afford to pay for just one or two days of rented hash, to come over to the BCH network and get its rule set implemented.

Now that may not be nefarious; it could be Google, IBM, or Microsoft, who are very interested in blockchain technology, and they want to shape the Bitcoin Cash network with rules that favor their business model. This may be perfectly legitimate, and some people may support it. But I know many of you out there in the Bitcoin community would say: “well, wait a minute, I don’t want some big corporations just coming to pay, to take over the rule set of my network.” It would not cost that much —20 or 30 million dollars could have bought them a victory in a day or two according to what all the people screaming and cheering for ABC want to see happen.

A state actor could do that easily, that’s a drop in the bucket. And if you continue this path where you say “AHA!” after a day or two with bursts of hash that did not exist before and were just taken from the BTC network, if that is the way to determine the rule set, you have just set up the biggest vulnerability ever to the Bitcoin Cash network:  for someone with a deep pocket to come in and implement whatever rule set they want.

And for those of you who aren’t a big fan of big corporations and government – you know who you are out there in the Bitcoin Cash community – I think you need to sit back and think: what have I just done? Because that’s what I thought, and this is exactly what I knew was going to happen. I sat there in Hong Kong, and I had all these offers of hash that we could have taken, and we could have used it to quickly win. But I had a moment where I had to say: I had a moment to say, is this the precedent we want to set for the Bitcoin Cash community? That anyone who has a deep pocket to pay for hash for a day or two, who doesn’t have to mine the day before – such as a government, a big corporation who could be a zero miner the day before – to just pay enough miners enough money on a hard-fork date to have enough hash to have its rule set take over?

That’s exactly the situation you are creating now for all of those who are out there on social media and online, cheering for a supposed ABC victory. That’s all you think it takes. But that’s not what it should be, and that’s not what it was envisioned to be at a time when the white paper was introduced to the world with the idea that there was just going to be a single Bitcoin network with a single network of miners who all had an economic incentive and interest to mine that network, and therefore make the best decisions for the viability and vibrancy of that network.

I’ll close by saying that that’s the truth I wanted the Bitcoin community to realise and the consequences of the path you’re trying to take. At nChain and on behalf of the CoinGeek people who are somewhere else, I want to say—and if it’s not clear already—we’re very committed with the SV project to really advance the Satoshi Vision. Obviously, some people have a different interpretation of it; that’s okay, but if there’s one thing we’ve been consistent about time and time again—we want the original Bitcoin. We want to see it grow to what it was meant to be. You can disagree with us about what feature set it should be, what block cap size, about anything else. But there is one thing we consistently work on, day in and day out. You don’t have to like Craig, but it’s very clear that is his mission and vision, and it’s ours as well. And that vision has to be enforced by a pure understanding of what Nakamoto Consensus should be: loads of miners who have an economic interest day in and day out—not people who can be mercenaries, who are rented to come in and allow anyone, any corporation or state actor, to take over your network.

To some people out there who are cheering for an ABC victory after a day or two: I want you to think long and hard about what you just did, if that’s the result you want. Because you’re not going to like it—the hypocrisy, I think, is staggering for where Bitcoin Cash came from. . . from Bitcoin Core.

So it’s time for this community to make a choice, to make a choice about how you want disagreements to be decided, and how you want to allow the ruleset for your chain to be governed.

I know what choice I’m going to make, and it’s a choice that supports the Satoshi Vision. I’m going to leave now, because I have a lot of work to do to support that vision.

Gear up for the main Bitcoin BCH Professional Stress Test with Bitcoin SV

Gear up for the main Bitcoin BCH Professional Stress Test with Bitcoin SV

With the protocol upgrade now behind us, the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network is all set for the final part of the Bitcoin Cash Professional Stress Test, the biggest test ever conducted on a public blockchain.

The team behind Stresstestbitcoin.cash, which operates independently of the BCH implementation groups, will run the main test on November 17 at 12:00 UTC with a goal of processing over 24 million transactions within a 24-hour period on the main BCH chain to showcase the network’s current capacity. On its website, the team said the stress test “will be a positive signal for merchants, businesses and investors, giving them confidence in the Bitcoin BCH network and its ability to scale on-chain.”

The BCH Professional Stress Test has already conducted a Taste Test last November 1, followed by a Warm Up Test last November 10. The pre-test took place over four-hour period and generated over 1.5 million transactions, or around 400,000 transactions per hour.

During this test, SVPool and BMG Group successfully generated five full 32MB blocks—proof “that there are mining systems on the BCH network today that are ready to mine blocks larger than 32MB,” according to the pre-stress test report. SVPool, a personal initiative of Dr. Craig Wright, and nChain’s BMG Group run Bitcoin SV (Satoshi Vision), the full node implementation designed to fulfill the vision set out by Satoshi Nakamoto’s original Bitcoin white paper.

Unlike other competing BCH implementations which seek to make unnecessary changes to Bitcoin, Bitcoin SV’s roadmap is to restore the original Satoshi protocol, keep it stable, enable it to massively scale, and allow major businesses to confidently build on top of BCH.

Of the five 32MB blocks, four were generated within less than one hour. The team stressed, “These 4 blocks were all mined by BMG pool in rapid succession showing that their infrastructure is ready for blocks larger than 32MB.” Other mining groups that use Bitcoin SV—CoinGeek and SVPool—also mined very large blocks during the pre-test. SVPool mined a 20.6MB block, and CoinGeek mined a 15.4MB block.

Meanwhile, mining pools that run Bitcoin ABC achieved much smaller blocks during the pre-test: ViaBTC mined a single 8MB block, while most other blocks mined using Bitcoin ABC were at most 1-2MB during the pre-test.

Based on the pre-test results, it’s highly recommended that everyone get ready for the main stress test event on November 17 by running Bitcoin SV. After all, the preview test has already confirmed that Bitcoin SV is correct about its scaling roadmap: the BCH blockchain can handle much larger blocks and can more quickly scale for big enterprise use.

And after the BCH Professional Stress Test, come to the CoinGeek Week conference from November 28-30 (with a special advance Miner’s Day on November 27)—it’s the perfect venue to meet the thought leaders and discuss the implications of the world’s first Bitcoin Hash War fought according to Nakamoto Consensus.

Bitcoin BCH Hash War Will be Decided by Sustained – Not Temporary, Rented - Hash Power

Bitcoin BCH hash war will be decided by sustained – not temporary, rented – hash power

16 November 2018 – With the Bitcoin BCH network upgrade on November 15, a hash war has begun with miners voting between Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC – two competing implementations of the BCH protocol. As fully expected, Bitcoin ABC appeared to take a temporary lead on the first day by receiving an artificial boost from temporary, “rented” hash power subsidized by Roger Ver’s organization Bitcoin.com, which announced it would use its pool customer hash on BCH for just 24 hours, and from ABC’s main supporter Bitmain Technologies, the Chinese manufacturer of crypto mining rigs. However, Bitcoin SV has strong support from CoinGeek, the largest BCH miner, and nChain, the leading blockchain research & development firm. CoinGeek and nChain have the resources to fight long term with their own sustained hash, long after Bitmain cannot afford to bleed money for rented hash.  Therefore, the BCH hash war will not be decided in 1 or 2 days, but over many days and possibly weeks by on-going miner votes with sustained Proof of Work. Until a dominant chain emerges, cryptocurrency exchanges, wallet and service providers are advised to remain neutral, and to run a Bitcoin SV node to be prepared for the best interests of users.

CoinGeek founder Calvin Ayre expressed his determination to fight the BCH hash war as long as it takes:

“CoinGeek and nChain are in this battle for the long haul. We will mine BCH and fight as long as it takes to protect the original Bitcoin from Bitmain, Jihan Wu, and their Bitcoin ABC development group who all want to change BCH into some alt-coin Wormhole token technology. Roger Ver’s company Bitcoin.com is subsidizing hash for only 24 hours, taken from his own customers. As for Bitmain, to keep up with us in this hash war, Bitmain will have to spend millions of dollars a day from its investors’ money and shareholder assets, while also trying to raise more investor money for its shaky IPO. This will bleed Bitmain’s cash and cryptocurrency reserves, because we are prepared to fight for months and months. If I were a shareholder or investor in Bitmain, I’d be asking why Jihan Wu is spending all your money to control BCH when Bitmain’s business supports multiple cryptocurrencies.”

Bitcoin SV is the new full node implementation for Bitcoin Cash that seeks to restore the original “Satoshi Vision” for Bitcoin and allow it to massively scale. For the November 15 upgrade, Bitcoin SV’s feature set is not compatible with that of competing client Bitcoin ABC. When there is a disagreement between rule sets, the original Bitcoin white paper described the “Nakamoto consensus” method for miners to vote with their computing power (1 CPU = 1 vote) to enforce any rules: “The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it.”

The current hash war is the world’s first test of Nakamoto consensus. After the November 15 upgrade, Bitcoin ABC appeared to temporarily lead with a higher portion of the BCH network’s total hash power. But ABC’s perceived first-day advantage comes from a sudden burst of hash presumably rented from the Bitcoin Core (BTC) network to move over to BCH. By November 14, the day before the hard fork, Bitcoin SV’s support consistently grew for weeks and dominated with a clear 72-78% lead over ABC (18-22%):

Bitcoin BCH Hash War Will be Decided by Sustained – Not Temporary, Rented - Hash Power

Bitcoin BCH Hash War Will be Decided by Sustained – Not Temporary, Rented - Hash Power
[Source: Cash.Coin.Dance, 14 November 2018]
Bitcoin ABC even dropped to tying for 3rd place with Bitcoin Unlimited, another implementation which is compatible (as a configurable option) with both Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC rule sets.

Yet suddenly on the November 15 upgrade date, a huge wave of hash magically came to support Bitcoin ABC. This came from Bitcoin.com’s pool which announced it was boosting its BCH hash for only 24 hours, by moving customer hash from the BTC chain. In addition, Bitcoin ABC is receiving more support from “rented” or subsidized from BTC mining pools controlled by (Antpool.com, BTC.com, ViaBTC) or friendly (BTC.top) to Bitmain. To obtain rented hash, Bitmain must pay to subsidize the difference in lower revenue miners receive on the BCH chain when total hash rate grows, compared to mining on the more profitable BTC network. BTC.top’s CEO Jiang Zhuoer estimates this can cost over 100 million yuan or USD $14 million per day. The rented hash supporting Bitcoin ABC is temporary, and will leave the BCH network when not subsidized. This is a losing proposition for Bitmain; each day a hash war continues, Bitmain must pay millions of dollars to give Bitcoin ABC an artificial advantage. But when Bitmain can no longer afford to pay for it, the rented hash will leave BCH and Bitcoin SV will again dominate by virtue of its long-term, sustained hash support.

In contrast, Bitcoin SV’s support comes from CoinGeek and nChain’s BMG mining groups, which are 100% dedicated to support Bitcoin SV with their genuine hash. SVPool, a personal initiative of nChain Chief Scientist Craig Wright and the newly-formed Mempool also run Bitcoin SV; those pools gather miners supporting the Satoshi Vision and do not pay added subsidies to miners beyond the amount actually earned from participating in their pools.

Ayre explained why sustained hash power should decide:

Bitcoin is about Proof of Work (PoW), not Proof of Rented Hash (PoRH). To decide which chain should be the true Bitcoin BCH, you should pick the longest chain with the most legitimate, sustained Proof of Work invested. It is ridiculous to count transient, rented hash which comes onto BCH artificially for short bursts of time because it is subsidized to do so, but then disappears and does not really sustain Proof of Work on the network. That is like paying a person to show up in a foreign country to vote in a political election, without meeting citizenship requirements to vote. At CoinGeek’s BCH Miners Choice Summit on November 2, we were offered thousands and thousands of petahash to rent for this battle. While we can afford to pay for more rented hash than Bitmain can, we decided to set a better precedent for Bitcoin and fight with honest hash invested to support BCH long term.”

Bitcoin BCH Hash War Will be Decided by Sustained – Not Temporary, Rented - Hash Power

比特币现金(BCH)哈希算力大战将由持续的——非临时,也非租赁的算力决定

20181116日——随着11月15日比特币现金(BCH)网络升级,矿工们在Bitcoin SV和Bitcoin ABC(两个竞争的比特币现金协议实现方式)之间投票掀起了哈希算力大战。不出意料,Bitcoin ABC在第一天看起来取得了暂时领先,是因为它的人为推动是来自于Roger Ver的公司Bitcoin.com所补贴的临时“租赁”算力(其宣布将在比特币现金上使用其矿池客户算力仅24小时),以及来自于ABC的主要支持者中国加密货币矿机制造商比特大陆(Bitmain Technologies)。然而,Bitcoin SV得到了最大的比特币现金矿业巨头CoinGeek和领先的区块链技术研发公司nChain的大力支持。CoinGeek和nChain有足够的资源用他们自己的持续算力进行持久战,而Bitmain终将因租赁算力而资金枯竭。因此,BCH哈希算力大战不会在12天内决定,而是通过持续的工作量证明所进行的矿工投票在许多天甚至数周内决定。在主导链出现之前,建议加密货币交易所、钱包和服务供应商保持中立,并运行Bitcoin SV节点,以便为保护用户的最佳利益做好准备。

CoinGeek创始人卡尔文·艾尔(Calivin Ayre)表达了他将长期进行比特币现金哈希算力大战的决心:

“CoinGeek和nChain联手参与这场持久战。我们将挖掘比特币现金(BCH)并为原始的比特币而战,保护其免受比特大陆(Bitmain)、吴忌寒(Jihan Wu)以及他们的Bitcoin ABC开发组的影响,因为他们都想将比特币现金(BCH)改为某种代币的虫洞技术。Roger Ver的公司Bitcoin.com正在用取自他自己客户的算力进行补贴,而且仅维持24小时。至于比特大陆(Bitmain),为了跟上我们在这场哈希算力大战中的步伐,将不得不每天从投资者的资金和股东资产中花费数百万美元,同时还试图通过摇摇欲坠的IPO筹集更多的投资者资金。我们已为数月的战斗做好了准备,这将把比特大陆(Bitmain)现金流和加密货币储备拖到枯竭。如果我是比特大陆(Bitmain)的股东或投资人,我会问吴忌寒,如果比特大陆(Bitmain)的业务同时支持多种加密货币,为什么你要把所有的钱花在控制比特币现金(BCH)上。”

Bitcoin SV是全新的比特币现金全节点实现,旨在恢复原始的比特币“中本聪愿景”并允许其大规模扩容。对于11月15日的升级,Bitcoin SV的功能设定与竞争客户端Bitcoin ABC互不兼容。当规则集存在分歧时,最初的比特币白皮书描述了“中本聪共识”方法,指导矿工以其计算能力(1 CPU = 1票)投票来执行任何规则:“多数派决定应由最长的链来表示,因为有最大工作量证明投入其中。”

当前的哈希算力大战是世界上第一次对“中本聪共识”的考验。11月15日升级后,Bitcoin ABC看起来以略高份额的比特币现金网络总算力暂时领先。但ABC第一天的优势来自突然爆发的算力,据推测,其算力可能是从比特币核心钱包Bitcoin Core (BTC) 网络租用转移到比特币现金(BCH)。截至11月14日,也就是硬分叉的前一天,Bitcoin SV的支持持续增长了数周,并以72-78%遥遥领先ABC(18-22%):

Bitcoin BCH Hash War Will be Decided by Sustained – Not Temporary, Rented - Hash Power

Bitcoin BCH Hash War Will be Decided by Sustained – Not Temporary, Rented - Hash Power
[Source: Cash.Coin.Dance, 14 November 2018]
Bitcoin ABC甚至下降到与Bitcoin Unlimited竞争第三名。Bitcoin Unlimited是另一个实现方式,兼容Bitcoin SV及Bitcoin ABC双方规则集(作为一个可配置的选项)。

然而,就在11月15日升级当天,突然有一股支持Bitcoin ABC的哈希算力浪潮神奇出现。这是来自Bitcoin.com的矿池,该矿池宣布其在通过转移比特币(BTC)链上的客户算力来推升其比特币现金(BCH)算力,且仅持续24小时。此外,Bitcoin ABC正在收到的更多支持是来自比特币矿池(Antpool、BTC.com和ViaBTC)或与其关系密切的矿池(BTC.top)的“租赁”或补贴。为了租赁的算力,比特大陆(Bitmain)必须支付补贴收益差额,因为在总哈希算力增加时,与在比特币(BTC)网络上挖矿相比,矿工们在比特币现金(BCH)链上的收益较低。BTC.top的首席执行官江卓尔(Jiang Zhuoer)估计,这可能每天花费超过1亿元人民币或1400万美元。支持Bitcoin ABC的租用哈希算力是暂时的,并且在未获得补贴时将离开比特币现金(BCH)网络。对比特大陆(Bitmain)来说,这是一桩亏本生意;哈希算力大战每天都在继续,比特大陆(Bitmain)必须花费上百万美元为 Bitcoin ABC 创造优势。但当比特大陆(Bitmain)再也不能支付庞大的费用,租来的哈希算力将离开比特币现金(BCH),Bitcoin SV将再次凭借其长期、持续的哈希算力支持,重返主导地位。

相比之下,Bitcoin SV的支持来自CoinGeek和nChain的BMG挖矿团队,它们100%致力于用真正的算力支持Bitcoin SV。由nChain首席科学家克雷格·怀特(Craig Wright)个人倡议的SVPool及新建的Mempool也在运行Bitcoin SV;这些矿池将矿工汇聚起来支持中本聪愿景,并且不向矿工支付超出参与矿池实际收益的额外补贴。

艾尔解释了为什么应该要由持续的算力来决定:

对比特币来说,考虑的是工作量证明(PoW),而不是租赁哈希算力证明(PoRH)。为了决定哪个链应该是真正的比特币现金(BCH),人们应该选择最长的链,其拥有合法持久的工作量证明。计算暂时、租用的哈希算力是非常荒谬的 ,其算力来自于短时间内对BCH的人为操作,因为他们可以得到补贴,但是他们最终都会消失,这并不能真正地维持网络上的工作量证明。这就像付钱给一个不符合公民身份要求的人,让他去外国参加政治选举投票。在11月2日CoinGeek的BCH矿工选择峰会上,有成千上万的petahash愿意为了这场战争供我们租用。虽然我们有能力租用比比特大陆(Bitmain)更多的哈希算力,我们还是决定树立一个更好的榜样,并用诚实的哈希算力作战来长远地支持比特币现金。”