No he said we should never have to do a centralized checkpoint. Listen to it again, he lists the reasons. All of crypto is full of scams and cleansing is necessary even if people are to naive to understand. Who are the pyschopath? Since all i c from SV team is sticking 2 wp.
-
-
Replying to @BsvDawg @rogerkver and
Correct we should never have to do a centralized checkpoint and STILL NEVER HAVE. They do not activate unless bitcoin is attacked with 51% attacks from bad actors. Going to exchanges and telling them "how to activate" if needed was a very sad day in bitcoin's history.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @toomuch72 @rogerkver and
And since ALL SIDES have stuck to the WP I don't think the fact they didn't follow through with their threats other than to sue...not very WP like, but statist have no other option than to run to government when they lose the WP battle.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @toomuch72 @rogerkver and
The narrative has changed to fit abc bias. 51% attack is changing the protocol (exactly what ABC is doing) and SV is defending. The lawsuit comes from those in rogers pool that didnt approve of him taking their hashpower. Calvin and others are simply supporting their rights.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BsvDawg @rogerkver and
WTF are you talking about a 51% attack is a majority miner reorging the chain and taking tx bitcoin for themselves. Only Calvin and CSW threatened these attacks. The protocol has changed many times over bitcoin's existence however the core design of p2p electronic cash does NOT.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @toomuch72 @rogerkver and
Relax buddy this is twitter. CTOR, DSV, wormhole, avalanche being eventually implemented changes ABC from being bitcoin thus SV were trying to prevent that from happening making them defender of the rules. We can agree to disagree, as i mentioned before reality is malleable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BsvDawg @rogerkver and
In no way changes Bitcoin,adding features to bitcoin was something even Satoshi Nakamoto did until version 0.3. As long as the core design of p2p electronic cash & the whitepaper guideline remain intact it is very much bitcoin, Even Segwit didn't change bitcoin(high fees maybe?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @toomuch72 @rogerkver and
and NO "We can agree to disagree, as i mentioned before reality is malleable." in no way is reality Malleable - facts are facts and if you ignore both sides "fud" you will see very clearly where the fact stand. DYOR.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @toomuch72 @rogerkver and
Ive read the whitepaper, so have you im assuming, and our interpretation of it is completely different thus reality becomes malleable. Segwit does change and cripple bitcoin. I dont claim to be an expert and most that do are being proven wrong. Time will tell who is correct.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ra_The_Great @rogerkver and
it isn't malleable tho, if you read the whitepaper, and every forum post and email that is publicly available that came from Satoshi as well as his actions through the first 3 version implementations - you know clearly where he stood. You instead are reading the WP and adding
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
data from WHO YOU THINK SN is today. If you removes the words of @proffaustus, @CalvinAyre , @rogerkver or @deadalnix and replace it with JUST FACTS you will first be confused at what you once believed and what that reality and Bitcoin's history has already shown us
-
-
Replying to @toomuch72 @rogerkver and
Seriously study the REAL HISTORY OF BITCOIN a lot more than SN and a couple billionaires are just scratching the surface.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.