The Bitcoin War

The best economic freedom instrument in at least a generation—possibly more—is bitcoin. Since around five years ago, professional social engineers from some of the most influential corporations in the social media arena have been waging a vicious civil war that has sadly been stifling Bitcoin violently. Because of their mastery of manipulation, Bitcoiners have tended to battle among themselves rather than try to break into the data-driven business models that have the potential to completely transform the world economy. 

Three rival versions of Bitcoin (BTC, BCH, and Bitcoin SV) have formed as a result of the Bitcoin Civil War, but there have also been over 3,000 additional "cryptocurrency" ventures and tokens that have pretended to be real enterprises up to the nearly certain exit fraud. The main winner of the Bitcoin Civil War has been Ethereum, a global state machine that makes it simple to deploy tokens and smart contracts. However, the Ethereum protocol cannot scale, and only a small number of the thousands of projects launched have the potential to ever grow into successful businesses. The remaining ones are Ponzi schemes or unlawful securities offerings that benefit developers while defrauding novice investors. 

In light of this, proponents of BTC and BCH, Ethereum spokespeople, and altcoiners of all shades unite to relentlessly assault the Bitcoin protocol, which is the only one still maintained by the BSV network. An industry unified against BSV, alleging (of all things), supposed fraud and the alleged swindle that is BSV's mere existence. This business is made up virtually exclusively of crooks, fraudsters, and con artists. 

We need to question ourselves, "Why is that?" 

What distinguishes BSV most significantly? 

Why have all the thieves and thugs banded together? 

I am adamant that the fear of BSV's unique capacity to engulf the whole economy and all of the other "crypto" ventures that go along with it is what drives the engaged. Uninvolved people or those who are unaware of the potential of Bitcoin are caught up in a culture war that they do not comprehend. Understanding the forces at play and how they affect Bitcoin and the global economy is essential. 

Short History: 

In 2008, a white paper on the Cryptography Mailing List introduced Bitcoin. The person using the alias "Satoshi Nakamoto" announced a fix for the double-spending issue. The only barrier to the adoption of usable electronic cash was the double spending issue that plagued all prior electronic cash systems. Systems couldn't be trusted since it was hard to show precisely who held what financial units on their distributed ledgers, and as a result, they would wither and perish. To account for the status of the ledger in a costly way, as used by Bitcoin, there has to be an economic incentive to maintain an accurate record of everyone's holdings. This challenge was overcome by the "proof of work" principle. Because the trustworthy nodes who uphold the integrity of the ledger are compensated for their efforts with Bitcoins every 10 minutes, much like a gold miner is, this process is sometimes referred to as "mining." 

When Bitcoin first came out, it had no value, making it very simple to mine and completely free to send transactions. Theoretically, this was a vector for a denial of service (DoS) attack. When nodes are bombarded with more data than they can manage and crash, this is known as a DoS or DDoS assault. A cap of 1 MB of data for every ten minutes of transaction time was hard coded into the software because a crash like this would have been seen as a failure of the network on fledgling Bitcoin network, sowing the initial seeds of the Bitcoin civil war. The most problematic technical issue with bitcoin from 2009 until 2017 was the 1MB restriction on the total number of transactions. 

Why does it matter? 

Since a single, straightforward Bitcoin transaction only requires a tiny amount of data, 1MB per ten minutes (or 6MB per hour) works out to around seven transactions per second before the network gets too crowded. Both Satoshi Nakamoto and Gavin Andresen, who took over as the project's primary developer after him, supported Visa-level transactions. More data per block was also supported by some of the most notable early Bitcoiners, like Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik, for Bitcoin to scale and continue to function as a straightforward electronic currency system. They were "large blockers" as opposed to the "little blockers" who favored maintaining the 1MB limit on Bitcoin. 

According to small blockers, Bitcoin isn't really a payment network; rather, it's more like a decentralized Swiss bank made to hold immobile Bitcoins—a sort of digital gold vault. They sought to ensure that the 1MB block size limit would always be in place while allowing everyone to run a governing "full node" without incurring excessive hard disc space costs. As a result, transaction costs would spike during periods of congestion, but this would not be a problem because bitcoin transactions should only be made in large amounts or denominations. The network is simple to Sybil assault if it is inexpensive to join Bitcoin's governance, and I would contend that BTC is still run by Sybil today. 

Big blockers think that everyone on the planet should be allowed to use bitcoin for transactions and commerce. 

Small blocks think just a few groups of individuals should be allowed to conduct transactions, but everyone should be able to account for the ledger at home. 

After years of disputes, Bitcoin split into two distinct chains in 2017 and then again in 2018. 

Differences: 

BTC: 

With the shortest block size and the largest hashing power, for now, BTC is the most expensive cryptocurrency. Unfortunately, it is controlled by software engineers and Sybils who deploy cunning malware dubbed a "forward compatible soft fork" to influence consensus and subvert Bitcoin's rules. They manipulate the rules of transactions using this authority, lying to the nodes and instructing them to validate the transactions nevertheless. I strongly advise you to read Mike Hearn's cautions on the risks associated with "soft forks" here. The whole BTC culture revolves around purchasing BTC to hold onto it until a future time when it will be sold. Transactions of any type, including payments made with bitcoin, are frowned upon. 

BCH: 

A network based on Bitcoin called BCH thinks blocks should be a little bit bigger, but they also have developers in charge of the regulations, much like BTC, and they think Bitcoin should only be used for retail transactions and nothing else. Every six months, the network modifies its policies. Non-retail transactions are seen negatively. 

  

BSV: 

BSV is a restored version of the original bitcoin protocol that has all settings left unlocked so that trustworthy nodes can reach consensus through proof of work as stated in the bitcoin white paper! The protocol is rigidly enforced so that software engineers cannot change the guidelines. This enables businesses to confidently invest and establish long-term strategies for using the network. The commerce of any form is encouraged on BSV as it is the only network for bitcoin that is totally permissionless. The use of social networks, scientific research with meteorological data, and network uptime intelligence testing are also encouraged. Any type of smart contract may be easily deployed without restrictions, including retail payments and tokenization. There are no restrictions on Bitcoin SV except than those imposed by the human intellect and the size of the world's economy. 

And it is the source of the animosity toward BSV. 

Small blockers have staked their reputations and means of subsistence on the idea that scaling Bitcoin is impossible. Many people were led to believe for years by so-called experts that limiting the block size to 2MB, 8MB, or 22MB would essentially kill Bitcoin. Based on these erroneous beliefs, they have ferociously staked their reputations. So, BSV has had a lot of blocks larger than 100MB. In reality, a handful has exceeded 300MB, disproving claims made by minor blockers on the network's capacity. But the control over the Bitcoin narrative is threatened by this awareness. Since Dr. Craig Wright first entered the scene in 2015 and said that there were NO restrictions on bitcoin, the tiny block intelligentsia has been in a tremendous uproar. The thought leaders of the time were being compensated to hold boot camps and speak at conferences where they gave erroneous explanations of Bitcoin as nothing more than a provably scarce store of wealth with no other use. Dr. Wright was discussing the network's limitless size, Turing completeness, and other (at the time) incomprehensible ideas regarding Bitcoin. Smears and jeers greeted his enthusiasm and expertise. Instead of talking about Bitcoin, they concentrated on criticizing his persona. 

The little blockers now use this as one of their main attack strategies. When major blockers describe Bitcoin's capabilities, they are derided as charlatans and the conversation is invariably diverted away from technical considerations. Similar to how social justice warriors participate in cancel culture against their political adversaries, they go through personal information and hunt for ways to quiet Bitcoin's major blockages. Naturally, I make it a point to draw attention to it. 

 

Who is Craig Wright, and what does he do?    

If you didn't know, Craig Wright leads a team of 150–200 computer scientists at nChain, a Bitcoin research firm based in the United Kingdom. Craig is in charge of the group that investigates Bitcoin's outer bounds and global applications. One of the most qualified digital forensics professionals in the world, he holds titles such as GSE CISSP, CISA, CISM, CCE, GCFA, GLEG, GREM, and GSPA in addition to SANS and GIAC certifications. In addition, he is a multidisciplinary postgraduate polymath who holds master's degrees in statistics and international commercial law in addition to his doctorate in computer science, economics, and theology. 

 

He was also identified in 2015 as Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the Bitcoin white paper, in a joint article published by WIRED and Gizmodo. After this information became public, his supporters inside the bitcoin project had their Github access keys removed within days, and many others were immediately called out. The Australian Tax Office opened an inquiry into Craig because they believed he had likely misaccounted for his bitcoins. With a massive army of small blockers organized on Reddit and BitcoinTalk and freshly sponsored by venture capital from the little blocker firm dubbed "Blockstream," the aftermath was violent and quick. Their message was very clear: The little blockers own Bitcoin. Anyone who is close to Craig Wright will be bullied into conformity by a horde of nameless, faceless Twitter accounts, and Bitcoin is simply that which cannot scale. Big blocks were thoroughly removed from all development and communication routes. 

 

Ira Kleiman, the dead Dave Kleiman's brother, sued Craig Wright for his share in the so-called "Satoshi Nakamoto Partnership" over the following several years, alleging that Dave was more active than he actually was. The lawsuit is still pending, and a conclusion isn't anticipated until about 2021. Ira Kleiman, who thinks Craig is Satoshi and has made incalculable investments as well as acquired outside investors' funds to continue the lawsuit seemingly indefinitely, believes that Craig is Satoshi. Clearly, Craig is Satoshi in the eyes of Ira's financial backers. 

It should be mentioned that both incidents happened to Wright, and it is evident that he didn't want to get involved in either case. Nevertheless, opponents frequently refer to Wright's highly public doxxing and public litigation as significant tarnishings of Wright's character. 

Craig is a fervent supporter of the large-block Bitcoin vision, which calls for the professionalization, legality, and adoption of Bitcoin at all levels of trade. In reaction to Craig's fervor and his assertions, others have attacked his reputation and publicized the nickname "Faketoshi" online. When mere intimidation against Dr. Wright proved unsuccessful, the attacks intensified to challenge his multiple degrees, petition colleges to look into him for plagiarism in a variety of publications, including Ph.D. theses, and more. Wright even alleges that threats have been made on the lives of his family members, and there is ample proof that, in the words of cryptography legend Ian Grigg, "people killed for Bitcoin, guys, people died," 

 

Attacks Ongoing: 

It cannot be emphasized enough that the tiny blocker community is based on skilled social engineering individuals and techniques. Gregory Maxwell, a co-founder of the small blocker "Mecca" Blockstream, was trained in the art of social engineering. He employed it so slyly as a tool of propaganda during his time as a high-level, paid moderator for the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's non-profit branch, that he was ultimately fired from his position at Wikipedia, with the admin logs listing a long list of offenses, including: 

• “Maxwell did engage in sockpuppetry…” – Alhutch 00:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 
• “threats, rude insults, impersonations of an admin,” -Husnock 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 
• “His behavior is outrageous. Frankly, he is out of control at this stage. This bullying behavior of his has to stop.” – FearÉIREANN (can't) 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) 
• “His contribs list is beyond the pale. It’s vandalism. It’s the behavior I’d expect from an editor on a rampage, which, frankly, Gmaxwell is.” – Splashtalk 20:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) 
• “pretends to be an admin, threatening to block people who disagree with him, regularly makes personal attacks” – SlimVirgin (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC) 

He has been caught pretending to be multiple accounts while participating in lengthy technical discussions on Reddit with the intention of overwhelming newcomers with what appears to be intellectual criticisms of bitcoin, but which are actually just Maxwell himself building enormous backlogs that can be used in the future as proof of danger or fraud in relation to the BSV narrative. He spends a lot of time spreading fear about the risks of big blocks on Reddit and other forums. 

Who Else is Attacked? 

The wealthy leader of the Ayre Group empire, Calvin Ayre, is the other frequent target of the anti-BSV war machine. In the early years of the internet boom, Calvin, a Canadian/Antiguan entrepreneur, founded an online incubator in Vancouver. Ayre, a mogul-turned-pig farmer's son, is most recognized outside of the Bitcoin economy for founding and institutionalizing the online gaming sector. By pushing the boundaries of the grey markets that exist where American funds are used across borders to participate in legally complex businesses like gambling, Ayre most famously assisted in modernizing complex and antiquated U.S. financial rules while operating under the Bodog brand. His activity in this field earned him a little sum of money and put him on the list of Americans who need to be apprehended for money laundering. Small blocks like to emphasize this issue, but they do so entirely out of context. Although Calvin finally chose to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, he was instrumental in modernizing American rules and regulations that are now included in today's fully operational and transparent white markets. He is regarded for his contributions to charities, the media, and the gaming business. Despite the frequently repeated and out-of-date claim that Calvin is some sort of brazen bandit, he is most definitely welcome in the United States. 

Ayre is well-known in the Bitcoin community for hosting trustworthy nodes for years under the CoinGeek and TAAL names. He also invests in nChain and other BSV businesses. Even though he is probably the biggest investor, he is not the monolith that detractors may assume based on the minor blockages. It's critical to realize that significant portions of the BSV ecosystem exist without any connection to him. 

For instance, the BSV ecosystem's independently owned and run company Twetch is well known for its digs at centralized social media. Even worse, they have been known to make fun of companies who take payments from Ayre by making jokes about Calvin owning everything but Twetch. That is obviously untrue. The independent investor and businessman Jack Liu, a former executive at Circle and OKEX, is another excellent example. In addition to owning key assets in the BSV sector including RelayX, Streamanity, Output Capital, FloatSV, and Timely, Liu also controls the CambrianSV brand of hackathons. 

Other important players include MatterPool Mining and their Mattercloud ecosystem, a collaboration between independent BSV ecosystem players like the Emperor Daniel Krawisz, Josh Petty, and Attila Aros, with loose ties to independent BSV developers "Libs" and "Synfonaut" and direct connections to the BoostPOW and 21e8 protocols. There are, of course, worthwhile Ayre-funded brands as well. These include investing in and owning a portion in HandCash, Centi, TonicPow, and Planaria Corp. of Unwriter. 

The distribution of hash power is a crucial parameter to take into account. While Ayre-owned companies once accounted for a large portion of the bitcoin hash rate, BSV is now mostly mined by rival miners from Binance, F2Pool, OKEX, and ViaBTC—none of which are in any way "friends" of BSV or Ayre. However, these miners do highlight how BSV is open and permissionless, allowing everyone to join. 

  

Ayre is an important role in the BSV economy but by no means is the one who decides how the chain or the individual enterprises will develop. 

But why is Craig suing everyone? 

The distribution of hash power should be taken into account as another crucial measure. BSV is mined in large part by rival miners from Binance, F2Pool, OKEX, and ViaBTC—none of which are in any way "friendly" to BSV or Ayre—even though historically, Ayre-owned enterprises have represented a considerable portion of the hash on bitcoin. These miners do, however, emphasize how BSV is open and permissionless, allowing anybody to join. 

Ayre is an important role in the BSV economy, but she is by no means in charge of determining the course of the chain or the independent companies. 

The #DelistBSV movement, which was mostly driven by "CZ," the flamboyant CEO of Binance exchange, emerged during this period of service. The toxicity of Dr. Wright for filing libel suits against Hodlonaut and McCormack was cited by well-organized small blockers who voted en masse to delist BSV from their exchanges. Other exchanges, such as Shapeshift and Kraken, also posted public polls on their websites asking whether they should follow suit. Ultimately, Binance, ShapeShift, and Kraken removed BSV from their lists. In the aftermath of the public drama, Coinbase and Gemini also made it known publicly that they will not be supporting the fork in any way. 

As time went on, Roger Ver, the creator of Bitcoin.com, also released a video calling Wright a liar. After secretly collaborating with Bitcoin ABC programmers to include rolling checkpoints into the ABC Bitcoin Cash software, Roger permanently separated the Bitcoin network for the second and last time. Other displaced parties are suing him for this crime in Florida. Although Roger was also served with a summons to appear in court and prove Wright's fraud or else face fines for public libel, the public condemnation of Ver for libeling Dr. Wright remained despite Ver's warning that similar legal trouble would come to his home. He just become a citizen of Antigua & Barbuda, where his case is still pending. 

So what's next? 

We now know the background of Bitcoin, the civil war, and the widespread criticism of Wright, Ayre, and BSV. As of the time of writing, we may reflect on the criticisms of Jimmy Wales, Tim Draper, and Thomas Lee for having any association with BSV. Despite the peer pressure, Lee's Fundstrat study gave BSV's stable protocol and indefinite scalability a positive rating. Even after the backlash from the public, Lee and Wales were delighted to appear at prior CoinGeek gatherings. 

To pressure speakers Gary Vaynerchuk, speakers from Prime Trust, and speakers from Fireblocks to withdraw from the Conference with "known frauds," McCormack, Hodlonaut, "Arthur Van Pelt," and other players, including BTC pumper Dan Held from Kraken and cacophony of anonymous Twitter trolls, used their experience in Bolshevik-style cancel culture for the 2020 CoinGeek Conference in NYC. This social onslaught on BSV, Dr. Wright, Ayre, and the other companies who use the BSV network may turn out to be a massive instance of consumer fraud. They aggressively mislead people into thinking that Bitcoin SV's fixed protocol and limitless scalability make it insecure, whereas, in reality, neither the protocol nor the network is vulnerable to any assaults other than their particular brand of social engineering. 

A top-tier patent portfolio has been used in the professional development of Bitcoin SV. Independent companies utilize it to make money and a decentralized network of honest nodes that compete with one another mines it on the open market. Small company owners and international venture capitalists have invested in the network, which is stable and secure and is expanding. The BTC and BCH communities, who are worried about the widespread usage of BSV as a tool for commerce and what it would imply for their mouse traps, are behind the vast smear effort used to support the false claims to the contrary. These agitators and their networks, which are supported by the likely scams of the offshore bitcoin exchanges, will not fare well in history. the pump and dump economy that supports the 95% false volume of trade throughout the whole BTC economy, the (possibly) fraudulent Tether stablecoin. 

A civil war is occurring. There will always be casualties, but BSV wants to make the world freer, more sovereign, and better able to work together on the global ledger of truth so that entrepreneurs can engage in large-scale business or simple nano-services that are only possible with Bitcoin, while BTC and BCH concentrate on rumors and illegal trade. Bitcoin is a test of intellect. Over time, clever people will be able to see through the reality distortion fog being produced to deceive others and identify this for what it is, a well-coordinated commercial campaign to restrict cutting-edge technology.