Has Bitcoin turned into BSV?

[headingnorth]

Back in the day when Bitcoin was still sound money, the hard fork of bitcoin called BSV or Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was seen as a joke.
The founder of BSV was the idiot Craig Wright who claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

But Bitcoin has been hijacked by Core developers who have openly abandoned Bitcoin's mission as sound money
with the release of Core 30. They have implemented many of the objectionable features of BSV that made it a joke,
including removing data limits that restrict bitcoin to monetary transactions. The 80 byte limit is meant to help bitcoin
from getting bloated with huge amounts of spam and malware but that protection has now been gutted. This is a huge security issue.

Without these guardrails in place attack vectors against bitcoin has gone up exponentially. And for what?
So a bunch of idiots can spam the network with cat jpegs? Bitcoin has turned into a memecoin.

Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency blockchain
6 February 2019
BBC

Images of child sexual abuse have been found embedded in the system powering a high-profile crypto-currency.
Somebody added the illegal images to the core ledger of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) by using a payment processor.
This ledger, known as the blockchain, is a running record of crypto-currency transactions, shared among users of the platform.

Experts have warned that abuse of blockchain tech is a growing problem.

How did this happen? The blockchain is central to the way many crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin work and in theory
stops people making fake transactions or manipulating their account balance.

One key feature of the blockchain is that information added to it cannot be changed without significant effort.
In January, the amount of data that could be added to the BSV blockchain was increased significantly.

Before that, people could generally add only short chunks of text or web links to the blockchain.
But now it is possible to add full images in an encoded format.
Payment system Money Button said its service had been used to post the illegal images on the BSV blockchain in early February.

[ABCbits]

Regarding question on the thread title, i don't see Bitcoin Core developer increase block size limit to ridiculous big number[1] or add stealing confiscation feature[2]. So my answer is no.

Back in the day when Bitcoin was still sound money, the hard fork of bitcoin called BSV or Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was seen as a joke.

BSV is fork of BCH, not BTC.

The 80 byte limit is meant to help bitcoin
from getting bloated with huge amounts of spam and malware but that protection has now been gutted. This is a huge security issue.

OP_RETURN created with low byte limit meant to make people choose OP_RETURN over fake pubkey that bloat UTXO[3]. And spam already possible before OP_RETURN limit raised[4].

[1] https://blog.lopp.net/bsv-scalability/
[2] https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/
[3] https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0#opreturn-and-data-in-the-block-chain
[4] https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=5557375.msg65774888#msg65774888

[Cookdata]

Why did you change the content of your post? I saw your post eaelier but couldn't reply that time, on coming back here you have change the narative to suit your agenda with child porn so the message can get clear meaning or what were you thinking at first? It wouldnt bring audience isn't?

Back in the day when Bitcoin was still sound money, the hard fork of bitcoin called BSV or Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was seen as a joke.
The founder of BSV was the idiot Craig Wright who claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto.


In early 2019, the Bitcoin SV (BSV) blockchain increased its OP_RETURN limit to 100 kilobytes (KB),
a significant expansion from the original 80-byte limit in Bitcoin. This change was intended to position BSV
as a data-carrying platform for enterprise applications, allowing larger amounts of data, such as images and text,
to be embedded directly into transactions.

Key aspects of the BSV 100KB OP_RETURN change

Enabling data storage: By increasing the limit, BSV's supporters aimed to enable new use cases beyond currency,
including on-chain data storage and applications.

Concerns over content and centralization: The move was highly controversial. Critics raised concerns that it would
enable the storage of illegal or inappropriate content on an immutable blockchain. It also led to fears of blockchain "bloat,"
where large volumes of non-monetary data would increase the demands on node operators, potentially leading to centralization.
Controversial content: Shortly after the limit was implemented, reports emerged of bad actors using the feature to upload illegal
content to the BSV blockchain.

Ecosystem response: To combat the negative publicity and potential legal risks associated with immutable illegal content,
 parts of the BSV ecosystem implemented filtering mechanisms at the application and service level to avoid displaying or providing access to such data.

https://ninjastic.space/post/65952486

You know very well Bitcoin hasn't been hijack, you know every reasons why OP_RETURN limit was increased. Bitcoin SV is a hard fork from Bitcoin and has nothing to do with core developers.

You know better.

[ertil]

Has Bitcoin turned into BSV?

Not yet. But I expect some people will try, because it is a natural consequence of having censorship-resistant chain: if people can do some things, then they will, even if they will hurt themselves in the process. And if increasing maximum block size from 4 MB into any bigger value is technically possible, then some people will try. Maybe they will fail, who knows, but I guess it will be tried in the future. And if some quantum algorithms will require bigger signatures, then some people will use that as their excuse, even if other solutions will be possible.

Edit: Next loophole found, 1-of-460 multisig is possible: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/YO8ZwnG_ISs/m/nRDyiy6LAAAJ

And as with OP_RETURN, don't expect it to be "fixed". Because fully fixing it is confiscatory, it will be allowed to include at least one such transaction per block, just to avoid dealing with pre-signed transactions.

[headingnorth]

Regarding question on the thread title, i don't see Bitcoin Core developer increase block size limit to ridiculous big number[1] or add stealing confiscation feature[2]. So my answer is no.

The Core devs have already increased the data size limit to a "ridiculous big number" to more than 1000 times the previous limit.
That is more than enough to do permanent damage to bitcoin's long-term security while destroying community trust.
It is exactly the same big number as BSV so they have made Craig Wright very happy.


They couldn't do it with the blocksize so they did it through the op_return.
There is more than one way for bad actors to do damage to bitcoin.
And I would not be surprised that a future Core upgrade would include blowing
open the block size limit as they have now done with op_return.

More disturbingly they rammed through the changes out of the blue without consensus or community feedback.
The precedent has been set. They are dismantling bitcoin's sound money principles one unilateral,
centralized upgrade at a time. You can't have sound and secure money with such serious vulnerabilities.

[PepeLapiu]

They all should be fired. Every single one of the core contributors who are responsible for this change.

And replaced with people who want bitcoin to susceed as money, not as a dick pic repository.

[Dunamisx]

Back in the day when Bitcoin was still sound money, the hard fork of bitcoin called BSV or Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was seen as a joke.
The founder of BSV was the idiot Craig Wright who claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

Am much excited now that after a long while, the calmness has been restored, we now have our peace and things are going well with us the way it  has always been right from time, those that wanted to claim Satoshi have been silenced forever, we couldn't hear anything again about Craig Wright after the judge declare the final statement.

[FinneysTrueVision]

BSV was a cult of personality centered around Craig Wright. Its supporters used a lot of FUD and misinformation to attack Bitcoin and Core developers. BSV supporters were also some of the most insufferable people on social media. I’m not opposed to spam filtering, but when I see some of the bad faith arguments being made by Knots supporting lunatics it brings back memories of the worst elements from the big block side.

[Astt12]

Bitcoin (BTC) never became BSV (Bitcoin SV). Bitcoin (BTC) is the original and original blockchain, created by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009.Later, some developers wanted to change the rules of Bitcoin, so they created new versions — Bitcoin Cash (BCH) (in 2017) and Bitcoin SV (BSV) (in 2018), which in turn split from BCH.Bitcoin is still the same as it was — the original and most powerful network.
BSV is just a kind of “fork” or copy, not the original Bitcoin.

[DeathAngel]

It has not & anybody suggesting Bitcoin has turned into BSV is being disingenuous. I think all this FUD is being driven by people who want to try & control Bitcoin. I’m tempted to suggest that I do not trust those who are most vocal against Core version 30. This reminds me of many years ago during the fork wars & it did not go well for those pushing for changes.

[PepeLapiu]

It has not & anybody suggesting Bitcoin has turned into BSV is being disingenuous. I think all this FUD is being driven by people who want to try & control Bitcoin. I’m tempted to suggest that I do not trust those who are most vocal against Core version 30.

Imagine for one second that I was the one dev who controls the bitcoin code, the one bitcoin code dictator.

Imagine I secretely wanted to turn bitcoin into a a useless shitcoin full of spam and filthy material. Okay? Imagine I was such an actor.

How do you think I should go about doing my deed?

Whenever anyone suggests I do something about the increasing spam problem, I would falter and fumble around. I would ask "But what is spam really?"

Instead of fixing the problem, I would declare that "Those are legit transactions, they pay their miner fee."

And when the people claim the value proposition of bittcoin as money is bring degraded by the spam, I would say "Bitcoin is not money, bitcoin is just a database."

And when the most senior of all devs starts to claim that my behavior could lead to illicit and filthy material on chain, I would accuse him of being a child pormographer for even bringing up such a thing.

And when anyone would suggest I open up the op_return limit from 80 bytes to 150 bytes, I would just squint really hard and read 100,000 bytes instead of 150 bytes."

And all along, I would tell them I'm not promoting spam, I'm just doing "harm reduction".

This reminds me of many years ago during the fork wars & it did not go well for those pushing for changes.

You mean when some people wanted to change bitcoin by increasing block size?
Because today, someone wants to fundamentally change bitcoin by blowing up op_return 1250x it's original size of 80 bytes.

[AmoreJaz]

Bitcoin (BTC) never became BSV (Bitcoin SV). Bitcoin (BTC) is the original and original blockchain, created by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009.Later, some developers wanted to change the rules of Bitcoin, so they created new versions — Bitcoin Cash (BCH) (in 2017) and Bitcoin SV (BSV) (in 2018), which in turn split from BCH.Bitcoin is still the same as it was — the original and most powerful network.
BSV is just a kind of “fork” or copy, not the original Bitcoin.

That is true, bsv will never be btc. Most hard forks won't achieve the popularity of btc. It is like imitation of btc so to speak. So many hard forks that we had, and yet,  up until now, btc remain standing and not toppled by its position. It demonstrates that no matter how many hard forks that was launched, introduced, no other hard fork coin can surpass let alone imitate the popularity of btc. So yes, there may be some hard fork coins that are still in the market, but many people won't remember them. Or should I say, they are not even part of their holdings for long-term purposes.

[bitbuzz001]

That’s a dramatic take. Bitcoin’s security and decentralization are stronger than ever. The devs aren’t abandoning sound money, they’re making sure Bitcoin can handle new demands while staying censorship-resistant.

[ABCbits]

Regarding question on the thread title, i don't see Bitcoin Core developer increase block size limit to ridiculous big number[1] or add stealing confiscation feature[2]. So my answer is no.

The Core devs have already increased the data size limit to a "ridiculous big number" to more than 1000 times the previous limit.
That is more than enough to do permanent damage to bitcoin's long-term security while destroying community trust.

As reminder, fake pubkey or OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF inside witness data are more harmful than what OP_RETURN does.

They couldn't do it with the blocksize so they did it through the op_return.
There is more than one way for bad actors to do damage to bitcoin.
And I would not be surprised that a future Core upgrade would include blowing
open the block size limit as they have now done with op_return.

I doubt it, when in past Bitcoin community reject block size that involve hard fork. Various spam method on Bitcoin blockchain simply give more reason to reject block size increase.

[PepeLapiu]

As reminder, fake pubkey or OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF inside witness data are more harmful than what OP_RETURN does.

The big problem with your simplistic logic is that you don't fix spam by creating more ways of spamming the chain.
If the spammers has 4 buckets to put their filth in, and you provide them with an other bucket to put their filth in, if you don't take away previous buckets, they now have 5 buckets to put their shit in.

Since segwit activation, the spam only gets worst everty day. Now the chain is made up of 30% filth and spam. And core has done nothing to fight it all that time.

But now, not only are they doing nothing and pretending those are valid users, not attackers, they blow up the op_return limit?

[ABCbits]

As reminder, fake pubkey or OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF inside witness data are more harmful than what OP_RETURN does.

The big problem with your simplistic logic is that you don't fix spam by creating more ways of spamming the chain.

My previous reply did not say anything about fixing spam.

If the spammers has 4 buckets to put their filth in, and you provide them with an other bucket to put their filth in, if you don't take away previous buckets, they now have 5 buckets to put their shit in.

What? I don't remember Bitcoin Core increase block size limit by 25%.

[Astt12]

No, Bitcoin (BTC) has not been converted to BSV. They are two completely different cryptocurrencies.BTC (Bitcoin): The original Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto. The main chain and the main network.BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision): It was created by forking from Bitcoin Cash (BCH) in 2018, and follows its own goals and principles. BSV emphasizes large block sizes and scaling.BTC is the original and the main, most recognized in the market.
BSV is a separate chain, for those who want large transaction capacity. BTC is still BTC; BSV is a different fork.

[melinoe]

That is true, bsv will never be btc. Most hard forks won't achieve the popularity of btc. It is like imitation of btc so to speak.

Any imitation won't go as far as BTC itself, simply because there would be not as much trust and idealism behind it.

[toryn388]

You're right that Bitcoin's losing its identity. It used to be about trustless sound money, but lately, it's been drifting towards becoming a playground for devs and NFT wannabes. The more data that's allowed, the further it gets from its original purpose.

[PepeLapiu]

You're right that Bitcoin's losing its identity. It used to be about trustless sound money, but lately, it's been drifting towards becoming a playground for devs and NFT wannabes. The more data that's allowed, the further it gets from its original purpose.

Join the fight, run a Knots node!