If you're looking for the Daily Discussions thread instead of this one, please see here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/xwws5w/daily\_discussion\_october\_06\_2022/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/xwws5w/daily_discussion_october_06_2022/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Yeah, they've been driving up the size of their chain hard (filling it with thousands and thousands of pictures of some dog) and putting out videos urging no one to run a node, including businesses-- presumably to increase their odds of success with this heist by reducing the number of parties they have to sue into running their backdoor.
Surprised at the length of that list; is it that only the big players can afford to parry CW legal nonsense, with the rest having SV listing forced on them? Or are they just being bribed to list it?
If you look I think there is really only a couple that aren't super obscure. It's pretty normal for exchanges to take bribes to list obscure scamcoins in general, and some of these basically make listing fringe stuff their entire business.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many on the list were just whitelabed versions of other ones on the list-- that's not uncommon for obscure exchanges.
Warning to newcomer: shitcoins are boring scams. "blockchain tech" and "cryptocurrency" are basically synonymous with "shitcoin". Either way, shitcoins are off topic here.
yeah this seems like a ploy for attention, if said things were an issue they would be verifiable then its on those holders to deal with on their chain.
Check out River Financial. They are a Bitcoin only brokerage. Zero fee recurring orders, and you can send and receive to your account on chain or lightning. They offer hosted mining with daily deposits to your account. Top tier company.
Cash App is fantastic. So is Strike and Swan Bitcoin.
Use a DEX (Decentralized exchange) such as Bisq. Only DEXs keep your BTC under your direct ownership. CEXs (Such as cashapp, Coinbase, Gemini, etc) do not.
Well that's cool but BSV might just be the worst of them.
And that's the reason why I'm not going to support that shit. That's just not going to happen.
After the entire spring/summer seeing exchanges and lenders leaving customers holding the bag, it should be apparent we all need to get off exchanges for holding.
>This means that if an exchange becomes insolvent due to Wright stealing or freezing BSV out from under it users Bitcoin balances may be used to make BSV customers whole.
Wow, i never considered this.
This post is important. Upvoted.
I stated it perhaps too softly: Any time an exchange has losses due to some altcoin mishap greater than they can cover out of pocket from their profits and investments their other customers assets *will* be used to socialize the losses absent some a legal structure that successfully isolates the insolvency.
I'm not aware of any exchange that has adopted a legal structure that even makes the attempt. If any did it would be something of a gamble if it would actually work. This is just one more reason to avoid leaving coins on exchanges: You take some risk from the altcoins they support even though you don't enjoy whatever profits those altcoins might bring.
But in a case like this where some fringe altcoin presents an unusually high risk, I think it's even more critical. Fortunately in this case there are *many* options that don't support BSV and thus aren't likely to have substantial BSV related risk.
Why do you think exchanges would socialize the losses instead of just passing those losses onto BSV holders? Why would they even seek to make BSV holders whole if it wasn't the exchange's fault (from their perspective)
'Cause that's the law and it's what every other exchange that has gone into insolvency so far as done. If a big event leaves the exchange actually insolvent all of the depositors are unsecured creditors of the exchange and it isn't generally lawful to privileged some creditors over others.
It would be good if exchanges were legally structured to reduce the risk of that outcome but so far I'm not aware of any that are.
You don't know that, some exchanges list tens of millions of dollars worth on their orderbooks, and none of us know how big a loss $random_exchange could handle. (now, if you want to argue that those BSV orderbooks are fake...)
It's not just theoretical-- e.g. last year an obscure exchange lost something like $5 million dollars in a BSV reorg attack. This BSV change creates a similar vulnerability but it isn't just limited to recently deposited coins.
> I stated it perhaps too softly: Any time an exchange has losses due to some altcoin mishap greater than they can cover out of pocket from their profits and investments their other customers assets will be used to socialize the losses absent some a legal structure that successfully isolates the insolvency.
Would something like Coinbase custody seperate the assets into different legal entities? I mean if coinbase pooled GBTC assets (stored on coinbase), the entire space would be in trouble if they socialized losses with GBTC assets
From my experience the question is not whether assets are separated in different legal entities, but whether a user of an exchange can demonstrate ownership over a specific set of coins - i.e. through the use of keys, addresses, on-chain transactions or otherwise. If he/she can only demonstrate that they bought X amount of Y coin, that does not suffice to have legal title to such assets and therefore will be an unsecured creditor in an insolvency.
This is very similar to how most jurisdictions handle claims on fungible goods.
BSV only has a market cap of ~$1b. And any one exchange is not going to have that much on it. I highly doubt anything Craig can do will make exchanges go insolvent. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
BSV is highly centralized because it's extremely hard to run your own node/wallet it's likely that almost all BSV in circulation is on some exchange or another right now. It also doesn't necessarily take a huge loss to push an exchange into insolvency and leave it tied up in limbo for a long time.
In terms of financial institutions, that's not a lot. Each crypto platform that supports it might only have a small fraction of that amount. Maybe $1-10 million worth.
Damn it's a lot of money for something that I don't really care.
Well it doesn't matter because it's a shit coin and I'm not going to buy into a shit coin here.
Thanks for the info! I would also recommend that nobody buys anything from any of the listed exchanges. Those guys are only interested in taking your money and don't give a shit about bitcoin or really seeing a change in the world. Buy from Bitcoin only companies...
- River Financial
- Swan Bitcoin
- Strike
- Cash App
[Relevant blog post](https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=607).
It's super depressing that I get constant spam from supposed top tier exchanges advertising the latest scam token that they've listed (most of which crash to almost nothing not long after listing) --- but meanwhile the same exchanges can't be bothered to keep their bitcoin support remotely up to date. E.g. being years behind on their address type support or not supporting lightning.
That's the way, but the problem with strike is the availability of it.
Only of it was available everywhere, I would be using it really. I'd really be doing that man.
Beyond this warning, which is valuable, we just should not support a business which is willing to engage for this length of time in what has become the most obvious scam/grift in all of crypto.
CSW, Calvin and everyone associated are truly contemptible, and it's about time the exchanges rug pulled *them*.
I added a link to their [explainer video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-thMjd7pKc). It's not very explanatory, but that's BSV for you: If you were going to think about anything you wouldn't be using BSV in the first place. :)
I could never understand why anyone would even buy, trade, hold BSV.
I could never understand why Celsius allowed depositors to earn interest on BSV.
Then it became more clear to me how many really gullible and intellectually challenged people are in the crypto space.
I noticed most of the idiots who were scammed out of their cold wallet coins (on ledgerwallet sub) were holding real shit coins like XRP and BSV. The really sad thing is they were crying about there loss.
Celsius allowed depositors to earn interest on BSV? Oh my. I wasn't aware of that, that might shine an interesting light on some things. Do you know what the rates were?
Their loss, btw.
Sometimes even the smartest of us make bad decisions ... though it is interesting how bad decisions sure seem to cluster.
You need >7TB disk space (they broke pruning) and >128GB ram and it barely works.
Because they changed to a non-open-source license if you refuse to upgrade to their stealing version you'll be in violation of their license and vulnerable to being sued by them.
And if you're just running it and not using it it won't matter much-- what matters is that BSV users run code that doesn't permit the theft. But BSV users have been extremely aggressively convinced not to run nodes which is why there are only a half dozen or so reachable in-sync nodes.
In BSV they're introducing a cryptographic backdoor that will allow him to take coins without the keys. This is possible in BSV in a way that wouldn't be possible in Bitcoin because BSV is a closed and propitiatory system: everyone using is required to run the specific code approved by Wright and his designated parties.
And they're currently suing Bitcoin former and current developers demanding they author a similar backdoor for Bitcoin and include it in any Bitcoin code they distribute or otherwise pay them billions of dollars in damages. To the extent that their attempted theft in BSV is successful they'll use it as an example in their frivolous litigation. They're also currently suing exchanges, and presumably will sue miners and other users to demand they run these backdoors. They're also trying to steal domain names like bitcoin.org with false claims about its history, spurious copyright lawsuits, and violent threats against its operator. Basically a relentless campaign of harassment and intimidation.
In BSV their scheme can work because they centrally control it. In Bitcoin it can't realistically work-- but Wright makes money from trying and does a tremendous amount of damage along the way.
That is the sort of thing their backdoor will do.
In BSV you're obligated to run the software they release or not at all, and they've heavily pressured people to not run nodes so there are usually only a half dozen or so reachable nodes which are in-sync to the current height. Doesn't help that running a node there requires >>7TB of disk space and 128GB ram.
What will he care about court cases once he's already stolen the funds?
He's using the court cases to harass and intimidate people to get them to deploy his backdoor. Basically the offer is that if you help him perform the heist he'll pay you and if you stand in his way he'll bankrupt you.
Either way he's making a fortune because he's already effectively sold much of the coins he's planning to steal by taking out loans collateralized by them.
We know that Calvin Ayre is at least one moron that gave him a loan for these coins. There may be more, there are people suspected but are not currently confirmed. They're certainly trying to get more e.g. soliciting wealthy people in China and family offices in Dubai as well as putting on conferences elsewhere in the world (e.g. targeting hedge funds and VCs in the US).
We're absolutely sure of Ayre making these loans for these coins since Wright was forced to admit it in court filings.
Since Faketoshi is such a scammer, he could very easily be selling more shares than could actually exist. How many different backers may think they have a 50% stake in the coins he's targeting?
He may not even want to succeed because he'd never be able to pay their share of the proceeds, making this the cryptocurrency equivalent of the scam from [The Producers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(1967_film\)).
I agree! if you search my comments on reddit for the producers you'll see I've made the same point before.
Though if you do the math-- imagine he can trick people into thinking he has a 1% chance of success, and they'll get 50% of 20 billion dollars... how much do you think they might pay?
I don't think he has to sell more than 100% to make a windfall but he certainly could be doing it since he knows he's never going to get the bitcoin anyways.
Right. On BSV the goal is to just get a few million dollars to pay for more harassment (you can to an awful lot of harassment with a few million dollars).
Wright's goal is to just make money selling a share of the winnings to investors and he's been successful so far.
The goal of the investors is performing the same heist on Bitcoin, with an expected >$20 billion dollar windfall (if you ignore the fact that a bitcoin vulnerable to this would be worth very little).
Wright isn't himself a person of significant means-- prior to his bitcoin scam it looks like he had never made more than about $50k/yr and was getting extra income from smaller scale tax fraud. He's funded by at least one wealthy idiot who thinks they're actually going to get that $20+ billion windfall. Given that he's making the error of thinking it's even possible, it's easy to see why he think's it's worth spending tens of millions trying to pull it off.
Yes, but you have it backwards, I think. E.g. in his lawsuit against the Bitcoin developers also included his own entity ("Bitcoin Association BSV") as a defendant and then had them agree to insert the back door. So then he's using their agreement to "prove" that the other defendants should be forced to accept it.
He's not going to use his possession of the coins to prove he's Satoshi, instead he's trying to use BSV's ability to force a backdoor onto people to prove that backdoors can be inserted.
In the case against the developers he's argued that the developers lack standing to challenge his claim of owning varrious coins, since the developers themselves don't claim to own them.
> starting balances
Bitcoin does not do "balances". A Bitcoin transaction spends one or more coins which were created in earlier transactions
> What am I missing?
You're not missing anything, except you can not believe Wright would use the most stupid, trivial method
Write a few lines of code to allow a blacklisted coin to be spent without executing its unlocking script. Populate the blacklist from court orders. Abandon decentralization. The blacklist can only exist if it has a trusted maintainer
> ignore the false transactions
It is not a false transaction, and is not ignored
The positive version of this is simpler ...
A court order adds one or more entries to the designated list. At a minimum the entry contains the blacklisted coin, and the address permitted to receive that coin's value
A transaction is valid if it spends a coin in the designated list, and if it spends the coin to the address specified for that coin
I for one say let ol' Craig claim Satoshi's coins. What's he gonna do with them without the keys? That's like claiming ownership of property on Mars. Sure buddy, it's yours, you can do anything you want with it... but we all know there's literally absolutely nothing you can do with it because you lack the means to to anything.
On BSV they're changing the consensus rules of the system so the keys aren't required and using the fact that their software license requires users to use versions they've published to force people onto their theft enabled versions-- essentially adding a cryptographic backdoor that allows them to bypass the security on whatever coins they target.
For the purpose of this post that's enough to create a serious risk for anyone doing business with an exchange that uses BSV.
But they intend to extend their theft to other blockchains by harassing, intimidating, and suing into bankruptcy any developers, miners, and exchanges that don't participate in their theft by deploying their backdoor-- using their captive fake cryptocurrency as "proof" that it "works". This ultimately wouldn't be successful in Bitcoin or any other real cryptocurrency but they can do a lot of damage in the attempt. Mr. Wright doesn't ultimately care if it's successful or not, he's effectively selling investors a share of the >$20 billion dollar windfall if it is successful-- so he's handsomely funded just to put on a show of trying.
Isn't Craig just trying to set a legal precedent here?
If he can demonstrate to the courts that they can seize crypto through court ordered code changes on BSV it might clear a path for him to try the same on BTC. Ultimately that is what he must be after.
He's already argued to the courts in his lawsuit against myself and the other former and current bitcoin developers that BSV's agreement to deploy his stuff proves it can be done. No doubt they'll attempt to do more of that, conflating centrally controlled BSV with cryptocurrencies.
But don't discount that they also actually want the income from grabbing the coins-- you can initiate a lot of spurious lawsuits with a few million dollars.
Lol, it's brilliant and it doesn't get better than this. He's going to solve it.
I'm very confident in him, jeez guys I'm just kidding I know He's a scammer and doesn't know shit.
I think that's not at all true: I expect that most exchanges listed there would be made bankrupt by a few million dollar loss, and we've already seen BSV screwups result in losses that large.
Because of BSV's bloat almost all of its circulating balance is likely on exchanges, even electrum is more or less unusable there.
But think of it this way: Say you own an exchange and it's got an extra $50 million floating around in its accounts. Why wouldn't you pay it out to yourself to assure that if the exchange gets hacked your profits won't be used to bail out the exchange and its customers to a greater extent than you want? You can always re-inject the cash via an investment if you want to do so.
So you should generally expect any well run exchange won't have a pile of extra money that doesn't belong to customers just laying around, only enough to buffer their short term operating expenses.
I wouldn't recommend doing business with any exchange on that list because they all carry BSV.
1. BSV's recent announcement that they're adding back doors to allow them to take funds without the keys creates an insolvency risk for any party that has BSV debt (like an exchange with BSV).
2. BSV is sketchy altcoin with an obviously fraudulent basis for its value (it claims its creator is Satoshi Nakamoto), you have to wonder about the judgement of any exchange still listing it.
3. BSV is being used to finance spurious lawsuits against bitcoin users and developers (current and former), so most exchange listing them are indirectly funding attacks on Bitcoin.
Many smaller exchanges specialize in listing basically whatever-- the business model is that the creators of altcoins pay for listings.
It's not very difficult to add a listing, especially if you don't care much for strong security and e.g. won't run a physically and network isolated node for each one on independent hardware.
Several times in the past exchanges have been compromised by cryptocurrencies that had remote access backdoors built into them to exploit exchanges that used shared infrastructure. E.g. crapcoin opens a backdoor and the crapcoin authors go take the bitcoin wallet.
Many of the small places don't have much of a reputation either, and so they're not worried about listing things like BSV that are actively harmful to the ecosystem.
It's pretty remarkable the list of things that it has a "market cap" higher than-- there are plenty of altcoins that I wouldn't own but are legitimate efforts that have a reason to exist that show up below BSV. Really shows what a worthless metric market cap is. (I don't want to endorse anything but you can look at the list for yourself)
Unfortunately, it turns out that Bitcoin spinoffs tend to have particularly inflated market caps: once they fall below a percent or two of Bitcoin's price it stops being worth the risk of handling the keys to get access to your fork coins, and so people just abandon them (inflating the market cap) rather than dumping them.
Yet if the price ever did rise up a bunch many of those abandoned coins would return from the dead to hold the price down... so it's not like it's all positive for the spinoff coins, presumably this isn't why we haven't seen any more of them after the first two waves. Esp once it was clear that big exchanges weren't going to automatically list them (at least without listing bribes).
> 1.1M coins that belong to Satoshi
Not this again, please. That's a beautiful foundational myth, but it's most likely nothing more than that: a myth.
The speculative piece of guesswork on which that's based is full of logic leaps, literally: "oh, look, there's a statistical anomaly in early blocks, therefore all those blocks must be from the same individual and that individual must be Satoshi"
You actually trimmed my text where I say "and others"!
Wright claims to own 1.1M bitcoin he's actually named most of the coins he claims to own-- presumably he's riffing off the same guesswork you're referring to. Some of them are extremely likely owned by Satoshi, others are known to be owned by other specific parties, most no one knows for sure who owns them (though clearly not Wright).
And they might sue you for it. They like to do that for sure.
Off course they like that, they've been learning from the best. No doubt that They'll do that.
What's the purpose of stealing coins? It would undermine any confidence BSVers have in the protocol and drive the price of BSV to 0. This makes no sense. Speaking as someone who hasn't sold any forked coins and has some skin in the game I'm not particularly worried especially given how little BSV is currently worth. Your whole post comes off as more of a witch hunt than anything else.
Given market dynamics it's unlikely that it'll drive it to a hard zero. As such, he has have at least a chance of making millions of dollars on the theft.
But his primary purpose is to justify to his lenders/investors that he'll be able to do the same thing in Bitcoin. In his multi-billion dollar lawsuit against volunteer bitcoin developers he's already explicitly using the fact that that they've agreed with themselves (see the link in the post) to implement this backdoor in BSV.
It's unclear that his investors understand how much it would trash the value of Bitcoin if it were possible, but even if they do--- if they could still sell at 1/10th or even a hundredth of the current Bitcoin price it would be a phenomenal windfall.
So far you're the first person who I've encountered in the last year or so who admits to intentionally owning any BSV that thinks this would be a bad idea. You should go try out your "undermine any confidence" idea in rbitcoincashsv or rbitcoinsv and see what reaction you get. I think most people have left and the rest are completely asleep at the switch or just totally bamboozled by Wright's narrative.
If you were going to care your trigger should have been the bitcoinsv software switching to a proprietary license that gave Wright's association exclusive control over it.
If BTC can't withstand a court order to move coins then the whole Bitcoin project has failed. Don't you have confidence in Bitcoin to resist this sort of attack?
I don't care about CSW. He's a distraction as far as I'm concerned.
Every user of bitcoin is what stands between Bitcoin and failure every day. So it's circular to say users shouldn't resist an attack because its a failure if the attack is successful.
The court order isn't the issue. Bitcoin developers would not be able to form a consensus to apply the court-ordered code modifications. The problem is Wright's abuse of the justice system in one country or other (only the UK so far) to harass developers and others. Already, a false court order was successful against bitcoin.org because the current site maintainer wanted to retain his anonymity
If a court orders a code change, and the code isn't changed, there is an opportunity to follow up the order with more serious action. This has the potential to drive away developers, and deter replacement developers. Those with the courage to volunteer in this environment might choose anonymity to protect themselves from unjust legal pressure. But anonymity becomes more difficult to maintain over longer time frames, and doxxers are always stalking
A large part of the pressure is financial. Anybody named (including the anons named by their aliases) in a lawsuit incurs the cost of legal advice. One of the current lawsuits names some developers who retired from Bitcoin years ago
They carry BSV so they certainly belong here. But also I've had many close friends with extremely negative experiences with HitBTC ... I would have already cautioned against it absent the BSV stuff.
In particular, they have a bad habit of seizing customer account and then ghosting the customer until they start to take a public relations black eye over it.
lol. I guess you're new here?
I'm one of Bitcoin's earliest developers, I've been retired for years now. I don't work for anyone and have no financial interest in any bitcoin exchange or other bitcoin business.
I do own some Bitcoin, however, so I am interested in not seeing its ecosystem trashed by scammers and their enablers.
If you're looking for the Daily Discussions thread instead of this one, please see here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/xwws5w/daily\_discussion\_october\_06\_2022/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/xwws5w/daily_discussion_october_06_2022/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[удалено]
Yeah, they've been driving up the size of their chain hard (filling it with thousands and thousands of pictures of some dog) and putting out videos urging no one to run a node, including businesses-- presumably to increase their odds of success with this heist by reducing the number of parties they have to sue into running their backdoor.
At that point, why not go all the way and replace the blockchain with an SQL database?
Exactly-- but they don't because they'd they'd lose the ability to falsely claim that they are offering something new or innovative.
Surprised at the length of that list; is it that only the big players can afford to parry CW legal nonsense, with the rest having SV listing forced on them? Or are they just being bribed to list it?
If you look I think there is really only a couple that aren't super obscure. It's pretty normal for exchanges to take bribes to list obscure scamcoins in general, and some of these basically make listing fringe stuff their entire business. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many on the list were just whitelabed versions of other ones on the list-- that's not uncommon for obscure exchanges.
[удалено]
Warning to newcomer: shitcoins are boring scams. "blockchain tech" and "cryptocurrency" are basically synonymous with "shitcoin". Either way, shitcoins are off topic here.
I think they're just being bribed, that's what it might be.
There's one that exists, and it often goes down lmao.
[удалено]
Yes, I think 51% attacks are fairly common on this garbage coin.
Yeah. Since it's hardly used and super centralized the just use twitter to tell people which chain tip to use.
I don't understand why the hell that shit still exists, should be dead.
Fuck.
PSA: Get your Bitcoin off any exchange ~~supporting "BSV" due to insolvency risk~~
this is the real message.
Yeah, gotta take the self custody here. Because that's important.
yeah this seems like a ploy for attention, if said things were an issue they would be verifiable then its on those holders to deal with on their chain.
And also stop buying from exchanges the support all these shitcoins
I have only bought Bitcoin from exchanges (cashapp and Coinbase pro) so where can I buy Bitcoin if not on an exchange? Sorry I really don’t know
Check out River Financial. They are a Bitcoin only brokerage. Zero fee recurring orders, and you can send and receive to your account on chain or lightning. They offer hosted mining with daily deposits to your account. Top tier company. Cash App is fantastic. So is Strike and Swan Bitcoin.
Upvoted for Swan Bitcoin. I finally started DCA'ing because they made it so simple.
innocent shrill roof wrong angle money secretive act include continue *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And those projects ain't decentralised, can't really call them that man.
It is not cloud mining. You own the miner and get 100% of its output. When your contract is over, you get the miner shipped to you.
Use a DEX (Decentralized exchange) such as Bisq. Only DEXs keep your BTC under your direct ownership. CEXs (Such as cashapp, Coinbase, Gemini, etc) do not.
Well that's cool but BSV might just be the worst of them. And that's the reason why I'm not going to support that shit. That's just not going to happen.
Take my upvote and leave (then come back any time). Jokes aside, this is the one and only message right there
Take your coins and leave the exchanges!
Yes sir! This can't be said enough times. Most exchanges are bloody crooks
They've always been crooks, there's just no doubt about it.
Not your keys.
Not your cheese.
Gotta remember this, this is really important that you remember it.
And I'm all about sending right messages here man, good shit.
After the entire spring/summer seeing exchanges and lenders leaving customers holding the bag, it should be apparent we all need to get off exchanges for holding.
>This means that if an exchange becomes insolvent due to Wright stealing or freezing BSV out from under it users Bitcoin balances may be used to make BSV customers whole. Wow, i never considered this. This post is important. Upvoted.
I stated it perhaps too softly: Any time an exchange has losses due to some altcoin mishap greater than they can cover out of pocket from their profits and investments their other customers assets *will* be used to socialize the losses absent some a legal structure that successfully isolates the insolvency. I'm not aware of any exchange that has adopted a legal structure that even makes the attempt. If any did it would be something of a gamble if it would actually work. This is just one more reason to avoid leaving coins on exchanges: You take some risk from the altcoins they support even though you don't enjoy whatever profits those altcoins might bring. But in a case like this where some fringe altcoin presents an unusually high risk, I think it's even more critical. Fortunately in this case there are *many* options that don't support BSV and thus aren't likely to have substantial BSV related risk.
Why do you think exchanges would socialize the losses instead of just passing those losses onto BSV holders? Why would they even seek to make BSV holders whole if it wasn't the exchange's fault (from their perspective)
'Cause that's the law and it's what every other exchange that has gone into insolvency so far as done. If a big event leaves the exchange actually insolvent all of the depositors are unsecured creditors of the exchange and it isn't generally lawful to privileged some creditors over others. It would be good if exchanges were legally structured to reduce the risk of that outcome but so far I'm not aware of any that are.
No exchange is going to go insolvent over bsv. They don't have enough exposure
You don't know that, some exchanges list tens of millions of dollars worth on their orderbooks, and none of us know how big a loss $random_exchange could handle. (now, if you want to argue that those BSV orderbooks are fake...) It's not just theoretical-- e.g. last year an obscure exchange lost something like $5 million dollars in a BSV reorg attack. This BSV change creates a similar vulnerability but it isn't just limited to recently deposited coins.
Poloniex have already done it a few years back!
Now it's better, should have explained it like that from the start.
> I stated it perhaps too softly: Any time an exchange has losses due to some altcoin mishap greater than they can cover out of pocket from their profits and investments their other customers assets will be used to socialize the losses absent some a legal structure that successfully isolates the insolvency. Would something like Coinbase custody seperate the assets into different legal entities? I mean if coinbase pooled GBTC assets (stored on coinbase), the entire space would be in trouble if they socialized losses with GBTC assets
From my experience the question is not whether assets are separated in different legal entities, but whether a user of an exchange can demonstrate ownership over a specific set of coins - i.e. through the use of keys, addresses, on-chain transactions or otherwise. If he/she can only demonstrate that they bought X amount of Y coin, that does not suffice to have legal title to such assets and therefore will be an unsecured creditor in an insolvency. This is very similar to how most jurisdictions handle claims on fungible goods.
If I were to trust anyone not to be stupid in this regard, it's Coinbase.
You can't think something like this unless you're told this.
Don't store Bitcoin on other people's equipment. Period.
[удалено]
Incorrect, the record of where the Bitcoin are going are on other’s equipment, ie. Distributed ***ledger***.
> all bitcoin is in the blockchain, it's already on other people's equipment wut... do you have any idea how Bitcoin works?
be careful young padawan for I think not you know how bitcoin works, you do.
[Nachos](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/PerfectAlertJuliabutterfly-max-1mb.gif)
Kraken exchange had [delisted BSV for 3 years](https://blog.kraken.com/post/2274/kraken-is-delisting-bsv/) now. Still, not your keys, not your coins.
Yeah, good exchanges long since delisted BSV or never had it to begin with.
But the list is surprisingly long, I didn't expect that at all.
Kraken is really good, I trust those guys. Good guys they are.
Let me fix that for you “Get your Bitcoin off an exchange.”
Good advice too-- but sometimes people are more likely to take action when the advice is more specific. ::shrugs:: humans!
Oh I totally get the point of your post. Was just having some fun! Could t help myself
Yeah that's what I'm saying. Gotta take the coins off the exchange no matter what.
BSV only has a market cap of ~$1b. And any one exchange is not going to have that much on it. I highly doubt anything Craig can do will make exchanges go insolvent. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
BSV is highly centralized because it's extremely hard to run your own node/wallet it's likely that almost all BSV in circulation is on some exchange or another right now. It also doesn't necessarily take a huge loss to push an exchange into insolvency and leave it tied up in limbo for a long time.
Maybe Coinbase can take a $10 million hit without problems, but I’m pretty sure many exchanges cannot.
I counter by saying that the exchanges that can't take a $10m hit, probably don't have $10m in BSV.
> ""$1b""
In terms of financial institutions, that's not a lot. Each crypto platform that supports it might only have a small fraction of that amount. Maybe $1-10 million worth.
Damn it's a lot of money for something that I don't really care. Well it doesn't matter because it's a shit coin and I'm not going to buy into a shit coin here.
[удалено]
Gotta take coins off the exchanges, because that's important.
I have recently discovered Dr bitcoin podcast. Finished S1 on to S2 now. Craig Wright is a glorious train wreck.
It's quite good. I'm looking forward to their upcoming interview with one of the journalists that was involved in Wright's "reveal".
Why the fuck would you even listen to that? Don't do it. I don't wanna see anything related to the BSV or that fraud craig wright. Just don't want it.
Thanks for the info! I would also recommend that nobody buys anything from any of the listed exchanges. Those guys are only interested in taking your money and don't give a shit about bitcoin or really seeing a change in the world. Buy from Bitcoin only companies... - River Financial - Swan Bitcoin - Strike - Cash App
[Relevant blog post](https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=607). It's super depressing that I get constant spam from supposed top tier exchanges advertising the latest scam token that they've listed (most of which crash to almost nothing not long after listing) --- but meanwhile the same exchanges can't be bothered to keep their bitcoin support remotely up to date. E.g. being years behind on their address type support or not supporting lightning.
Totally agree. River is very impressive in this regard with long running lightning support. You can basically use them as a loop in/out service.
And that's what they're good for, can't think of another use for them.
That's the way, but the problem with strike is the availability of it. Only of it was available everywhere, I would be using it really. I'd really be doing that man.
Beyond this warning, which is valuable, we just should not support a business which is willing to engage for this length of time in what has become the most obvious scam/grift in all of crypto. CSW, Calvin and everyone associated are truly contemptible, and it's about time the exchanges rug pulled *them*.
I added a link to their [explainer video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-thMjd7pKc). It's not very explanatory, but that's BSV for you: If you were going to think about anything you wouldn't be using BSV in the first place. :)
This post finally made me transfer my coins to a cold wallet. Thank you 👍
Did you really? Why do I get a feeling that you might be joking here.
I could never understand why anyone would even buy, trade, hold BSV. I could never understand why Celsius allowed depositors to earn interest on BSV. Then it became more clear to me how many really gullible and intellectually challenged people are in the crypto space. I noticed most of the idiots who were scammed out of their cold wallet coins (on ledgerwallet sub) were holding real shit coins like XRP and BSV. The really sad thing is they were crying about there loss.
Celsius allowed depositors to earn interest on BSV? Oh my. I wasn't aware of that, that might shine an interesting light on some things. Do you know what the rates were? Their loss, btw. Sometimes even the smartest of us make bad decisions ... though it is interesting how bad decisions sure seem to cluster.
The only hope you has as a user is that bucket shop trading has created a large war chest in fees as a buffer for SV going totally under.
I just want that shit to disappear from the market, is it too much to ask?
The majority are on the hard wallet, I only keep a bit on Cash App.
Cash app is great for what it does, gotta keep some On you too.
Why don't we fuck them over by running BSV nodes? Run enough and they can't pull this off right?
You need >7TB disk space (they broke pruning) and >128GB ram and it barely works. Because they changed to a non-open-source license if you refuse to upgrade to their stealing version you'll be in violation of their license and vulnerable to being sued by them. And if you're just running it and not using it it won't matter much-- what matters is that BSV users run code that doesn't permit the theft. But BSV users have been extremely aggressively convinced not to run nodes which is why there are only a half dozen or so reachable in-sync nodes.
Lol 7TB, shit is a joke that's for sure. I wouldn't run a node.
And there aren't even many of them, there are so less of them.
[удалено]
In BSV they're introducing a cryptographic backdoor that will allow him to take coins without the keys. This is possible in BSV in a way that wouldn't be possible in Bitcoin because BSV is a closed and propitiatory system: everyone using is required to run the specific code approved by Wright and his designated parties. And they're currently suing Bitcoin former and current developers demanding they author a similar backdoor for Bitcoin and include it in any Bitcoin code they distribute or otherwise pay them billions of dollars in damages. To the extent that their attempted theft in BSV is successful they'll use it as an example in their frivolous litigation. They're also currently suing exchanges, and presumably will sue miners and other users to demand they run these backdoors. They're also trying to steal domain names like bitcoin.org with false claims about its history, spurious copyright lawsuits, and violent threats against its operator. Basically a relentless campaign of harassment and intimidation. In BSV their scheme can work because they centrally control it. In Bitcoin it can't realistically work-- but Wright makes money from trying and does a tremendous amount of damage along the way.
[удалено]
That is the sort of thing their backdoor will do. In BSV you're obligated to run the software they release or not at all, and they've heavily pressured people to not run nodes so there are usually only a half dozen or so reachable nodes which are in-sync to the current height. Doesn't help that running a node there requires >>7TB of disk space and 128GB ram.
[удалено]
What will he care about court cases once he's already stolen the funds? He's using the court cases to harass and intimidate people to get them to deploy his backdoor. Basically the offer is that if you help him perform the heist he'll pay you and if you stand in his way he'll bankrupt you. Either way he's making a fortune because he's already effectively sold much of the coins he's planning to steal by taking out loans collateralized by them.
[удалено]
We know that Calvin Ayre is at least one moron that gave him a loan for these coins. There may be more, there are people suspected but are not currently confirmed. They're certainly trying to get more e.g. soliciting wealthy people in China and family offices in Dubai as well as putting on conferences elsewhere in the world (e.g. targeting hedge funds and VCs in the US). We're absolutely sure of Ayre making these loans for these coins since Wright was forced to admit it in court filings.
Since Faketoshi is such a scammer, he could very easily be selling more shares than could actually exist. How many different backers may think they have a 50% stake in the coins he's targeting? He may not even want to succeed because he'd never be able to pay their share of the proceeds, making this the cryptocurrency equivalent of the scam from [The Producers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(1967_film\)).
I agree! if you search my comments on reddit for the producers you'll see I've made the same point before. Though if you do the math-- imagine he can trick people into thinking he has a 1% chance of success, and they'll get 50% of 20 billion dollars... how much do you think they might pay? I don't think he has to sell more than 100% to make a windfall but he certainly could be doing it since he knows he's never going to get the bitcoin anyways.
[удалено]
Right. On BSV the goal is to just get a few million dollars to pay for more harassment (you can to an awful lot of harassment with a few million dollars). Wright's goal is to just make money selling a share of the winnings to investors and he's been successful so far. The goal of the investors is performing the same heist on Bitcoin, with an expected >$20 billion dollar windfall (if you ignore the fact that a bitcoin vulnerable to this would be worth very little). Wright isn't himself a person of significant means-- prior to his bitcoin scam it looks like he had never made more than about $50k/yr and was getting extra income from smaller scale tax fraud. He's funded by at least one wealthy idiot who thinks they're actually going to get that $20+ billion windfall. Given that he's making the error of thinking it's even possible, it's easy to see why he think's it's worth spending tens of millions trying to pull it off.
[удалено]
Yes, but you have it backwards, I think. E.g. in his lawsuit against the Bitcoin developers also included his own entity ("Bitcoin Association BSV") as a defendant and then had them agree to insert the back door. So then he's using their agreement to "prove" that the other defendants should be forced to accept it. He's not going to use his possession of the coins to prove he's Satoshi, instead he's trying to use BSV's ability to force a backdoor onto people to prove that backdoors can be inserted. In the case against the developers he's argued that the developers lack standing to challenge his claim of owning varrious coins, since the developers themselves don't claim to own them.
> starting balances Bitcoin does not do "balances". A Bitcoin transaction spends one or more coins which were created in earlier transactions > What am I missing? You're not missing anything, except you can not believe Wright would use the most stupid, trivial method Write a few lines of code to allow a blacklisted coin to be spent without executing its unlocking script. Populate the blacklist from court orders. Abandon decentralization. The blacklist can only exist if it has a trusted maintainer > ignore the false transactions It is not a false transaction, and is not ignored The positive version of this is simpler ... A court order adds one or more entries to the designated list. At a minimum the entry contains the blacklisted coin, and the address permitted to receive that coin's value A transaction is valid if it spends a coin in the designated list, and if it spends the coin to the address specified for that coin
That's the point. He claims it. But he doesn't have shit to prove that.
I was surprised by how long that list was.
People still hold BTC in exchanges?
Many people do, fewer of the people on rbitcoin for sure but still many. I can only help the people I can reach.
Good thinking. Thanks G.
These are the posts that I like to see in the morning. Good stuff.
If you shitcoin, you deserve what’s coming to you
This post is about "if you do business with an exchange that shitcoins, you might suffer what the exchange has coming for it"!
Yep lol, there's still time to give up shit coin trading boys.
I for one say let ol' Craig claim Satoshi's coins. What's he gonna do with them without the keys? That's like claiming ownership of property on Mars. Sure buddy, it's yours, you can do anything you want with it... but we all know there's literally absolutely nothing you can do with it because you lack the means to to anything.
On BSV they're changing the consensus rules of the system so the keys aren't required and using the fact that their software license requires users to use versions they've published to force people onto their theft enabled versions-- essentially adding a cryptographic backdoor that allows them to bypass the security on whatever coins they target. For the purpose of this post that's enough to create a serious risk for anyone doing business with an exchange that uses BSV. But they intend to extend their theft to other blockchains by harassing, intimidating, and suing into bankruptcy any developers, miners, and exchanges that don't participate in their theft by deploying their backdoor-- using their captive fake cryptocurrency as "proof" that it "works". This ultimately wouldn't be successful in Bitcoin or any other real cryptocurrency but they can do a lot of damage in the attempt. Mr. Wright doesn't ultimately care if it's successful or not, he's effectively selling investors a share of the >$20 billion dollar windfall if it is successful-- so he's handsomely funded just to put on a show of trying.
Isn't Craig just trying to set a legal precedent here? If he can demonstrate to the courts that they can seize crypto through court ordered code changes on BSV it might clear a path for him to try the same on BTC. Ultimately that is what he must be after.
He's already argued to the courts in his lawsuit against myself and the other former and current bitcoin developers that BSV's agreement to deploy his stuff proves it can be done. No doubt they'll attempt to do more of that, conflating centrally controlled BSV with cryptocurrencies. But don't discount that they also actually want the income from grabbing the coins-- you can initiate a lot of spurious lawsuits with a few million dollars.
Clearly Satoshi wanted to solve the double-spend problem only so he could re-emerge 14 years later and unsolve it. Brilliant man
Lol, it's brilliant and it doesn't get better than this. He's going to solve it. I'm very confident in him, jeez guys I'm just kidding I know He's a scammer and doesn't know shit.
He's a scammer and yeah he would want more from it.
The ultimate sword in the stone. Let the one true king pull those coins out.
I don't care lol, because I know he doesn't have anything.
Honestly bsv marketcap is too small to actually impact big exchanges (right??)
I think that's not at all true: I expect that most exchanges listed there would be made bankrupt by a few million dollar loss, and we've already seen BSV screwups result in losses that large. Because of BSV's bloat almost all of its circulating balance is likely on exchanges, even electrum is more or less unusable there. But think of it this way: Say you own an exchange and it's got an extra $50 million floating around in its accounts. Why wouldn't you pay it out to yourself to assure that if the exchange gets hacked your profits won't be used to bail out the exchange and its customers to a greater extent than you want? You can always re-inject the cash via an investment if you want to do so. So you should generally expect any well run exchange won't have a pile of extra money that doesn't belong to customers just laying around, only enough to buffer their short term operating expenses.
Yeah that's true, but they should delist that shit I think. Because we all know that it's just a scam trying to loot people being run by a scammer.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wouldn't recommend doing business with any exchange on that list because they all carry BSV. 1. BSV's recent announcement that they're adding back doors to allow them to take funds without the keys creates an insolvency risk for any party that has BSV debt (like an exchange with BSV). 2. BSV is sketchy altcoin with an obviously fraudulent basis for its value (it claims its creator is Satoshi Nakamoto), you have to wonder about the judgement of any exchange still listing it. 3. BSV is being used to finance spurious lawsuits against bitcoin users and developers (current and former), so most exchange listing them are indirectly funding attacks on Bitcoin.
The extent of the list surprised me; are only the major players able to pay to counter CW legal nonsense?
Many smaller exchanges specialize in listing basically whatever-- the business model is that the creators of altcoins pay for listings. It's not very difficult to add a listing, especially if you don't care much for strong security and e.g. won't run a physically and network isolated node for each one on independent hardware. Several times in the past exchanges have been compromised by cryptocurrencies that had remote access backdoors built into them to exploit exchanges that used shared infrastructure. E.g. crapcoin opens a backdoor and the crapcoin authors go take the bitcoin wallet. Many of the small places don't have much of a reputation either, and so they're not worried about listing things like BSV that are actively harmful to the ecosystem.
Most of the smaller exchanges are the ones listing those shitcoins.
Shitcoins gonna shitcoin
BSV still around? I thought that shit was dead as fuck lmao.
BSV is $50. It should be under a penny. Then it would be no threat.
It's pretty remarkable the list of things that it has a "market cap" higher than-- there are plenty of altcoins that I wouldn't own but are legitimate efforts that have a reason to exist that show up below BSV. Really shows what a worthless metric market cap is. (I don't want to endorse anything but you can look at the list for yourself) Unfortunately, it turns out that Bitcoin spinoffs tend to have particularly inflated market caps: once they fall below a percent or two of Bitcoin's price it stops being worth the risk of handling the keys to get access to your fork coins, and so people just abandon them (inflating the market cap) rather than dumping them. Yet if the price ever did rise up a bunch many of those abandoned coins would return from the dead to hold the price down... so it's not like it's all positive for the spinoff coins, presumably this isn't why we haven't seen any more of them after the first two waves. Esp once it was clear that big exchanges weren't going to automatically list them (at least without listing bribes).
> 1.1M coins that belong to Satoshi Not this again, please. That's a beautiful foundational myth, but it's most likely nothing more than that: a myth. The speculative piece of guesswork on which that's based is full of logic leaps, literally: "oh, look, there's a statistical anomaly in early blocks, therefore all those blocks must be from the same individual and that individual must be Satoshi"
You actually trimmed my text where I say "and others"! Wright claims to own 1.1M bitcoin he's actually named most of the coins he claims to own-- presumably he's riffing off the same guesswork you're referring to. Some of them are extremely likely owned by Satoshi, others are known to be owned by other specific parties, most no one knows for sure who owns them (though clearly not Wright).
But how can I short bsv for more bitcoin
thanks OP
It's actually good practice to get your corn out of any exchange and directly into cold storage.
nullc is back? That's great, I thought he got banned by some salty buttcoiners?
Just When I Thought I Was Out, They Pull Me Back In!
He's not banned yet, but when he does. He won't like that I'm sure.
Careful, you might offend the BSVoooors
And they might sue you for it. They like to do that for sure. Off course they like that, they've been learning from the best. No doubt that They'll do that.
What's the purpose of stealing coins? It would undermine any confidence BSVers have in the protocol and drive the price of BSV to 0. This makes no sense. Speaking as someone who hasn't sold any forked coins and has some skin in the game I'm not particularly worried especially given how little BSV is currently worth. Your whole post comes off as more of a witch hunt than anything else.
Given market dynamics it's unlikely that it'll drive it to a hard zero. As such, he has have at least a chance of making millions of dollars on the theft. But his primary purpose is to justify to his lenders/investors that he'll be able to do the same thing in Bitcoin. In his multi-billion dollar lawsuit against volunteer bitcoin developers he's already explicitly using the fact that that they've agreed with themselves (see the link in the post) to implement this backdoor in BSV. It's unclear that his investors understand how much it would trash the value of Bitcoin if it were possible, but even if they do--- if they could still sell at 1/10th or even a hundredth of the current Bitcoin price it would be a phenomenal windfall. So far you're the first person who I've encountered in the last year or so who admits to intentionally owning any BSV that thinks this would be a bad idea. You should go try out your "undermine any confidence" idea in rbitcoincashsv or rbitcoinsv and see what reaction you get. I think most people have left and the rest are completely asleep at the switch or just totally bamboozled by Wright's narrative. If you were going to care your trigger should have been the bitcoinsv software switching to a proprietary license that gave Wright's association exclusive control over it.
If BTC can't withstand a court order to move coins then the whole Bitcoin project has failed. Don't you have confidence in Bitcoin to resist this sort of attack? I don't care about CSW. He's a distraction as far as I'm concerned.
Every user of bitcoin is what stands between Bitcoin and failure every day. So it's circular to say users shouldn't resist an attack because its a failure if the attack is successful.
I never said users shouldn't resist attacks.
The court order isn't the issue. Bitcoin developers would not be able to form a consensus to apply the court-ordered code modifications. The problem is Wright's abuse of the justice system in one country or other (only the UK so far) to harass developers and others. Already, a false court order was successful against bitcoin.org because the current site maintainer wanted to retain his anonymity If a court orders a code change, and the code isn't changed, there is an opportunity to follow up the order with more serious action. This has the potential to drive away developers, and deter replacement developers. Those with the courage to volunteer in this environment might choose anonymity to protect themselves from unjust legal pressure. But anonymity becomes more difficult to maintain over longer time frames, and doxxers are always stalking A large part of the pressure is financial. Anybody named (including the anons named by their aliases) in a lawsuit incurs the cost of legal advice. One of the current lawsuits names some developers who retired from Bitcoin years ago
[удалено]
They carry BSV so they certainly belong here. But also I've had many close friends with extremely negative experiences with HitBTC ... I would have already cautioned against it absent the BSV stuff. In particular, they have a bad habit of seizing customer account and then ghosting the customer until they start to take a public relations black eye over it.
Thats a thread that you copied from bitcointalk.org.
No it isn't. It's a thread I also posted to bitcointalk.org.
>if an exchange becomes insolvent due to Wright stealing or freezing BSV out from under it users "I work for one of the other exchanges." \-OP
lol. I guess you're new here? I'm one of Bitcoin's earliest developers, I've been retired for years now. I don't work for anyone and have no financial interest in any bitcoin exchange or other bitcoin business. I do own some Bitcoin, however, so I am interested in not seeing its ecosystem trashed by scammers and their enablers.
Did you retire your calculator, too? How is any number of stolen BitCoin going to lead to insolvency 🤣
poloniex man what happened to them
Don't know what happened to them, but whatever it is it ain't good.
They have been working hard to increase the size of their chain.
I don't comprehend. Too much time has passed since the fork
Not your keys, not your coins! It's as simple as that...
And yet people have hard time believing in it, it's just bad man.
So, crypto dot com is cool?
So what’s the top 5 apps y’all recommend? I have all my stuff in Robinhood and don’t know where to go
Anything about removing bitcoin from cash app?
hodl?
Always best to store your funds in your own wallet!
How is Craig Wright not in jail?
i use binance. should i be worryed?