Much has been said about the recent Bitcoin Cash (BCH) hash war, and its conclusion—with the ABC camp declaring premature victory thanks to an artificial burst from “rented” hash power—has brought forth even more questions like, why did ABC and its supporters wasted millions of dollars of their money and tens of millions of other people’s money in the fight? What’s in it for them?
Far from creating a state of anarchy, it appears that the ABC faction may have been working for the Chinese government after all.
In early December, a lawsuit launched by Florida-based blockchain company United American Corp. (UAC) accused Bitmain, its co-founder Jihan Wu, along with his “team of conspirators” composed of Bitcoin.com CEO Roger Ver, ABC developers Amaury Sechet, Shammah Chancellor and Jason B. Cox, as well as Kraken and its CEO, Jesse Powell, of working “with the knowledge and support of the Chinese government to stage a premeditated hostile takeover” of the BCH network.
The CBDC project was the brainchild of former PBOC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, who has made it his goal to protect the country from technologies that are “designed and controlled by others,” like Bitcoin.
To date, the Chinese central bank has registered 78 digital currency patents, Bloomberg reported. PBOC also ranks fifth in the world when it comes to blockchain-related patents, with 44 as of August, according to China’s IPRdaily. One of its more recent patents, filed in June, is for a digital wallet that will allow users and business to trade their yuan for digital currency, which can be used for payments. Users can also track their transactions using the wallet, which will be built in coordination with a centralized digital currency issuance registration agency. In short, the PBOC will be able to track all transactions too.
In comparison, nChain has been making an effort to patent new ideas and technology in a bid to protect the technology rather than stifle development. With nChain’s protective patents, the technology can be used by people developing on the SV chain, but not by malicious actors such as the Chinese government.
ABC’s end game plan
So how does the ABC faction fit in all of this?
It would be recalled that on the November 15 network upgrade, a sudden huge wave of hash magically came to support ABC. This is all thanks to Bitcoin.com’s pool, which boosted its BCH for only 24 hours by moving customer hash from the BTC chain. ABC also received more support from “rented” hash from BTC mining pools controlled or friendly to Bitmain. In exchange, 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, which BTC.top CEO Jiang Zhuoer estimated can cost over 100 million yuan ($14 million) per day.
The rented hash supporting ABC is temporary, which means the endeavor was a losing proposition for Bitmain and the rest of the group. Now, the ABC camp is also being accused of being backed by the Chinese government, all in an effort “to centralize the Bitcoin Cash network resulting in Chinese entities now having established dominance over this important segment of the cryptocurrency market with proprietary software checkpoints and instituting other means of control over the system,” according to the UAC lawsuit.
The hash war may have ended, but it’s clear that the fight to bring the truth to light has just begun. It’s also clear that the attacks on the original Bitcoin, first with Bitcoin Core (BTC) and more recently with ABC, have cost the ecosystem a lot of time—in development and in pushing for adoption.
But with everybody coming together on Bitcoin SV, the only cryptocurrency the only coin that can massively scale on chain and also provides for fast transactions at low fees, it’s only a matter of time before we achieve the original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin—that of a “peer-to-peer electronic cash system.”
We’re inviting everyone—from exchanges to payment processors, miners, merchants, app developers and others—to work with us and make Bitcoin SV global money today.
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.
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.
By now, everyone knows Bitcoin SV successfully mined a 64 MB block, the largest ever on a public blockchain. It could mine a substantially bigger one if not distracted by the wasteful Hash war Bitmain and Bitcoin.com forced on the industry because they forked away from Bitcoin to their new ABC coin. This proves that Bitcoin SV scales today as we have promised for a while now.
Why is this important to miners? The reason is the Bitcoin block reward will halve again in just over a year (from 12.5 to 6.25 coins for each block), and then halve again every several years after that. As this happens, if transaction fees do not replace the reduced block reward, Bitcoin mining will not remain profitable. We also want to ensure individual transaction fees remain low so the Bitcoin network can work for an electronic cash system and to support advanced technical features. The only way to increase overall revenue from transaction fees is for the blockchain to massively scale, and to enable huge volumes of low cost microtransactions. This is the only way to drive both Miner revenues and market demand for mining hardware. Therefore, if miners do not support Bitcoin SV and its scaling roadmap, they would be following a path that ends in their own destruction.
Bitcoin SV is the only cryptocurrency with a blockchain that massively scales, the only that has utility value, and the only one that can do it all. BSV will most likely take over and replace all other non-scaling platforms. This will then also grow real utility value in BSV.
But it is important to understand that value in a chain which has no utilitarian use is fake value, and the current dump we are seeing is the market coming to realize that the current alt-coins are all worthless.
I personally look forward to a future where there is only one chain, Bitcoin SV, and this one chain does it all. But it all starts and ends with scaling. Because of this, I believe Bitcoin SV is the only token you can retreat to and have any hope of retaining your value in the current market correction.
Everyone should come to CoinGeek Week this week in London, where thought leaders in this space will be discussing the power of original Bitcoin in Bitcoin SV.
CoinGeek Mining is pleased to announce the original Bitcoin is back with Bitcoin SV (ticker: BSV). CoinGeek will support a permanent chain split from Bitcoin Cash (BCH), continue mining the BSV chain, and will work with others globally to establish a vibrant ecosystem for the BSV coin. This ends the on-going BCH hash war triggered by the November 15, 2018 network upgrade.
Bitcoin SV, which stands for Satoshi Vision, has a straightforward and clear mission: fulfil the vision set out by Satoshi Nakamoto’s original Bitcoin white paper. BSV’s roadmap is to restore the original Satoshi protocol for Bitcoin, keep it stable, enable it to massively scale, and allow major enterprises to confidently build on top of the BSV blockchain.
After a November 15, 2018 network upgrade, BCH forked into two competing chains that have been battling for miner votes to lead the network rule set. ABC supporters used a burst of rented hash power to create the illusion of an early lead, whilst the Bitcoin SV miners used their own genuine investment in mining hash to provide a dominant lead before the hard fork and a consistent level of support since then. Since ABC’s artificial early lead, the Bitcoin SV chain has gained ground. On November 25, the BSV chain significantly led ABC as the longest chain, at times over 30 blocks ahead. Bitcoin SV also reduced ABC’s lead in accumulated Proof of Work to a 26% margin (down from over 55% just a few days ago). Thus, the hash war was trending exactly as CoinGeek predicted, with SV’s sustained hash prepared to outlast and eventually overtake “rented” or subsidized hash for ABC.
But within just a week of the November 15 upgrade, ABC hastily implemented numerous controversial changes, some of them hard forks – such as adding checkpoints, a 10-block reorganization defense. ABC also demonstrated clear intent to abandon the Nakamoto consensus Proof of Work security model with plans to add Avalanche, a pre-consensus system for miners to agree in advance about the next block size and move BCH towards a Proof of Stake system. These changes mean that ABC has abandoned fundamental principles of Bitcoin – the Nakamoto consensus and miners’ Proof of Work to determine the valid blockchain – and bears even less resemblance to Bitcoin than BTC’s SegWit coin.
CoinGeek founder Calvin Ayre comments:
“After Bitcoin Core became SegWit coin last year, our mission has always been to make sure the original Bitcoin survives and succeeds. With its series of radical and unilateral code changes in just the last week, ABC’s BCH has departed so far from the original Bitcoin that it is now an alt-coin developer experiment and we no longer have any interest in it or its tarnished brand. Bitcoin SV fought to preserve the Satoshi Vision, and is the original Bitcoin. We will now focus entirely on building upon an already vibrant Bitcoin SV ecosystem. Although ABC may keep the damaged BCH ticker symbol, BSV is winning over BCH’s native application ecosystem in droves. We look forward to out-competing BCH (and BTC) in the marketplace, rather than in further chain battles.”
In a short time, a BSV ecosystem has already quickly grown. Many exchanges are already trading Bitcoin SV (identified to date as both BSV and BCH-SV), as listed on CoinMarketCap. Numerous BCH wallets, applications, and services also announced they will support BSV, with many choosing to support only BSV rather than ABC. The growing list features some of the most popular (former) BCH applications, such as HandCash and Centbee wallets, Money Button, Yours.org, and Keyport TV. The Tokenized platform, which won CoinGeek’s £5M contest, is also moving its best-in-class, business-friendly tokenisation solution to BSV.
To support further growth of BSV, stability for users is a key priority. CoinGeek has consulted with the Bitcoin SV development team about stability measures. Steve Shadders, Technical Director of the Bitcoin SV project, explains:
“One aspect of stability is replay protection. Since ABC has not made this stability a priority, Bitcoin SV will do so in order to restore confidence to users and businesses on both chains. This change will require the Bitcoin SV team to work with the Bitcoin ecosystem, and the timeline will be announced when there is adequate ecosystem readiness.”
Meanwhile, the Bitcoin SV team has prepared a helpful user guide explaining how users can safely split their BCH coins into ABC and BSV coins. The user guide will be updated periodically as more tools are developed.
“The smart money is on BSV. Because it is the original Bitcoin, BSV will generate the future value that was always envisioned for Bitcoin. While the current market price is depressed for other cryptocurrencies, BSV is the only token postured to increase significantly in value because its roadmap plans for big enterprise usage. We’re excited to help fulfil the Satoshi Vision, and invite all Bitcoin believers to join the BSV journey.”
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.
We have not yet seen Nakamoto Consensus in true action as it was ruined by a market manipulation last week during the BCH hash vote. Bursts of transient hash (especially hash taken from customers of cloud mining on the rival BTC network) are not Proof of Work meant to decide Bitcoin rules as envisioned in the original Satoshi white paper and are a form of cheating. Under a true Nakamoto Consensus vote, this would have been decided easily in favour of Bitcoin SV to restore and lock the original Bitcoin protocol and enable massive scaling, since over 70 percent of sustained hash supported locking and scaling leading up to the November upgrade. Bitmain and Bitcoin.com should not be rewarded by the exchanges for cheating, and should not get the BCH infrastructure.
We always planned for this to be a long fight and still continue voting with our sustained hash power until the rented hash is gone, as I always said we would do. That said, here is my suggested way forward:
It is clear that ABC has forked away from the original Bitcoin design to the extent that there is no real technical way to combine the two technologies (ABC and original Bitcoin) anymore. Many are even suggesting that ABC has implemented so many changes (CTOR, OP_CheckDataSig, and especially their new checkpoints after November 15 hard fork) that they in fact created a new genesis block, and have forked off to something new which is neither Bitcoin nor even BCH anymore. I also saw some people are calling ABC’s new coin “BAB” because it’s no longer BCH, and even the Bitfinex exchange lists it now as BAB.
It is also clear that the 64 MB block mined yesterday with Bitcoin SV proves to the world that we are correct and that Bitcoin, as originally designed, can already scale quite massively. We think without the distraction of this hash election, we can already mine 128 MB blocks and we are predicting potentially 1GB blocks on SV in 12 months, once more technical work is done.
CoinGeek is the owner of the largest sustained hash on BCH for months leading up to the November upgrade and therefore the leader of efforts to make sure we give the original Bitcoin design (which Satoshi Nakamoto said should be set in stone) an opportunity to show its true genius and power. We will accept that all exchanges list ABC’s coin as BAB (Bitcoin ABC) and Bitcoin SV’s coin as BSV (Bitcoin SV); ABC adds replay protection while SV does not. Note, we are on record as saying the Wormhole token protocol used on ABC’s chain is technically no longer Bitcoin, so ABC’s coin would be Bitcoin in name only. We also want all wallets, payment processors and other service providers to do the same, and we want the ABC faction to work with us to push this through. For this, both sides agree not to attack each other’s chain, and let the chains compete as separate offerings in the marketplace. Basically, both sides give up the claim for BCH and start even.
Additionally, CoinGeek and friends will make sure that no one in our camp launches any legal proceedings related to the manipulation of customers’ BTC hash or last week’s DDoS attack on CoinGeek’s website.
I think this would be a counted as a win-win and should be accepted by all sides, as I for one want to get back to my true passion, focusing on massively scaling Bitcoin to enterprise levels.
Bitcoin is sound money that can grow for the world and we have already proven this with Bitcoin SV when we mined the 64 MB block yesterday.
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.”
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.
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 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.”
With the protocol upgrade of the Bitcoin BCH blockchain scheduled for today, most Bitcoin BCH enthusiasts had expected Bitcoin ABC to be the strong favorite above rival Bitcoin SV. However, the community is speaking, and speaking loudly. Not only is Bitcoin SV proving to control the hash war, BCHSV is proving to be stronger than BCHABC in the markets.
BCHABC has dropped substantially in price, falling more than 38% since its inception, according to the Poloniex exchange. Conversely, BCHSV is surging and has increased by more than 100%. At the time of this writing, in the past 24 hours, BCHSV has climbed 8.57% and BCHABC has fallen another 15.22%.
Two days ago, BCHABC saw one of its biggest movements. BitMEX futures showed the price drop a little more than 62%.
The debate over which direction Bitcoin BCH should head has been greatly heated and has resulted in two distinct trains of thought. On the one hand, Bitcoin ABC has been more concerned with creating a virtual “playground” out of Bitcoin BCH, where developers can introduce new features and changes basically on a whim without taking into consideration the impact those changes have on the long-term acceptance of the blockchain.
On the other hand, Bitcoin SV proponents want to improve the network. They want to make it highly scalable for future acceptance by both businesses and merchants and continue to allow the cryptocurrency to grow as a viable currency. This is the only reason that cryptocurrency even makes sense.
Bitcoin ABC also supports the highly contentious OP_CHECKDATASIG, or DSV, OP_CODE, which has already shown to not provide any utility to the network. Despite repeated demonstrations that it can be detrimental to Bitcoin BCH’s growth, Bitcoin ABC pundits have continued to push forward, against the will of a growing number of enthusiasts.
While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, when those opinions stifle progress and go against the wishes of a community, they become irrelevant. Cryptocurrency exists for one reason and one reason only—to be spent. Some developers have felt it necessary to try and force their will on the community, but it is now apparent that the community has spoken and its wishes need to be respected, as well as accepted.