Hacker News Reader

Comment by apo | Hacker News Reader

Highly misleading. This runs on an alternative network called Bitcoin SV. It's most definitely not Bitcoin, but a fork of a fork of a fork.

Amusing really, because the "SV" stands for Satoshi's vision. The founder, Craig Wright has been bamboozling people for a long time with his nonsense.

It's so long ago that most have forgotten, but the real Satoshi weighed in on a pretty heated argument about whether the Bitcoin block chain should be used to store DNS records. Satoshi was against it due to scaling concerns.

The project went on to create its own network and blockchain called Namecoin.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg289...

I would take this project in the same spirit. Someone created a block chain and network for mass data storage. At least that's the goal. The result is what you see, but it's not Bitcoin.

View on HN

Seems like there are a lot of people caught up in whether or not Craig Wright is a fraudster or a genius and not a lot of people evaluating Bitcoin SV and the various projects being built for it on their own merit.

Bitcoin SV is most definitely bitcoin.

It is simply the original bitcoin protocol, ie. with all the stupid things that were added to "BTC" since 2009 removed.

... that makes it infinitely scalable and useful like bitcoin was supposed to be, not just for money, for data storage, and for computation.

No Segwit No RBF No block size limit No limits on scripts or data sizes

BTC is useless in comparison... and the 'ad hominem' will only cover this up for so long.

> It is simply the original bitcoin protocol, ie. with all the stupid things that were added to "BTC" since 2009 removed.

Bitcoin SV clearly introduced many changes. But those changes are backward-incompatible for Bitcoin nodes, meaning that every one of them will reject an SV block.

It really doesn't matter what you think about the wisdom of what was added since 2009. All that matters is that Bitcoin nodes will ignore the blocks.

Experimentation is all well and good. But fringe groups breaking the protocol willy-nilly then claiming the result as Bitcoin is misleading at best.

That's what I was pointing out. It's a tactic used repeatedly by SV advocates including Wright. His involvement is relevant given the extraordinary nature of his claims and the deliberately misleading nature of his proof.

> No Segwit No RBF No block size limit No limits on scripts or data sizes

Scaling is so very easy when users are scarce.

You're talking about BTC, not BitCoin.

It uses "Bitcoin" to refer to the protocol, not the BTC network. People fought about the name "Bitcoin" for ages and everybody has their own opinion about this topic. The network that you refer to as Bitcoin has forked several times as well and least resembles the original protocol and idea when compared to BCH or BSV. OTOH the market values it the highest.

> Someone created a block chain and network for mass data storage.

I don't like the phrase of storing data on the chain. The blockchain is not a storage medium but a network that incentivised connectivity and data propagation.

Except for an early hard fork due to a transaction verification bug that allowed for infinite Bitcoins to be created, the main Bitcoin chain, as implemented by the Bitcoin Core client, has never forked, to my knowledge. It also seems disingenuous to claim that it doesn't resemble the original protocol, when the block size cap that the forks adjust, was put into place by Satoshi himself.

FWIW, that was a soft fork, since it's backward compatible. It did cause a brief chain fork, however.

Bitcoin core altered the protocol by removing instant transactions and adding segwit. So it’s not bitcoin anymore

"Removing instant transactions?" Do you mean "the GUI shows 0-conf transactions as pending?" And why does adding Segwit make it "not bitcoin anymore"? Further, the Bitcoin Core devs didn't alter the protocol, the miners and users did by using the voting mechanism to enable Segwit, entirely of their own volition.

> Do you mean "the GUI shows 0-conf transactions as pending?

It's not just GUI but also a miner policy which can break the use of BTC as cash - as it was originally intended.

> And why does adding Segwit make it "not bitcoin anymore"?

It's an ugly addition to the original protocol that among others breaks the definition of a coin as a chain of digital signatures. This might lead to legal issues as some people (including lawyers) pointed out.

BTC hard forked twice (or thrice if you count the one accidental hard fork) and soft forked a dozens of times. Claiming that BTC is the "main chain" is misleading. The main chain is dead for years; run the original bitcoin client, it won't sync up.

It's actually the very first text on the page:

> Did you know that you can upload files directly to the Bitcoin network, as permanent, immutable, and monetizable Bitcoin transactions?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com