CCN is expanding. Are you our next full-time journalist on the West Coast of the USA? Send us your CV and examples here.
An explosive Medium.com article by pseudonymous developer _unwriter, who works primarily on two Bitcoin cash infrastructure projects called BitDB and BitSocket, both of which are important to multiple Bitcoin cash community outfits, a series of serious allegations against this Bitcoin ABC development team as well as Bitcoin.com and Bitmain. The article is to be read from the heart, if one wants to understand the viewpoint of the Bitcoin SV.
Over the course of several paragraphs ( we rewrite, unless the quotation is in block or quotes ), _unwriter explains the following points:
- Bitcoin Cash ABC has been used by any of its intentions Control points centralized after the hard crotch.
- Bitcoin Cash ABC stormed a spate of stains after the crotch, potentially causing irreversible damage.
- Bitcoin is defined by how it scales and how it is backed up. If these things are not both in the chain and in the rules of the work record, which he continues to refer to as the "way of life", then they are not Bitcoin.
- Bitcoin maximalism is a common sense approach to development.
- "I do not want to invest my time and resources in a platform that can undermine my 'unlicensed innovation' at any time. For example, if you build something that competes with the wormhole, you should expect it to be subtly put on the page in various subtle ways, so subtle that you will not even notice it until it's just you in the form of an ABC. Protocol updates. "
- After all, Bitcoin Cash ABC is no longer a viable platform on which to evolve.
He or she used the following video as proof that Bitcoin ABC contingents openly celebrated the use of "possibly illegal" (paraphrase)) checkpoints in their predatory race to "win the ticker" or the BCH symbol to keep the stock markets, a move particularly demanded by the billionaire crypto-investor and CoinGeek owner Calvin Ayre, who asked that both chains rename themselves to the trading symbol.
"Zero Moral Hazard"
The anonymous contributor is sincere and committed to his sincerity. He begins the article by stating that he has never personally met developers and was never influenced by anyone. He simply wants to be "building what Bitcoin needs" and "judging by what he builds".
It seems as if the development of Bitcoin Core reached a dead-end in terms of block size – across which the industry was split – it chose Bitcoin Cash I believe it's the truest interpretation of the Bitcoin vision. Later, he appears to be resisting those who, in his view, would pervert a pure vision of Bitcoin. Although he claims to have remained essentially unpolitical until now, the play is extremely polemical overall. For example:
In the past, you may have heard that some anti-Bitcoin cash people are criticizing how "the development of Bitcoin cash is being centralized." To be clear, this was never the case, at least until this "hash war". […] To this day nobody can deny the reality that the only customer who has the ultimate power in Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin ABC. All others are so decimated that they simply act as "follower client". ABC does not even have to discuss anything with the other teams. You can easily add and remove new functions without permission.
To make this clear, he notes that Bitcoin Cash ABC has released multiple versions in a very short time, breaking the network and making it unreliable.
This article is not intended to summarize the source article in any way, and the author does not want to fully understand all the technical capabilities of the modern bitcoin implementations discussed. However, for a deeper understanding of the SV perspective, the author recommends the source article.
According to _unwriter, there are a number of things that are deeply wrong in the Bitcoin Cash ABC community. In essence, he fears that the centralization of the "exchange cartel," combined with the power of the Bitmoin-backed Bitcoin ABC development team, will provide an unapologetic level of centralization and the potential for a network outage in the future. He does not say so directly, but the essence of his charges is that the protocol is relevant only to the advocates of Bitcoin ABC, as long as it fits their business interests – and may change in the future. In addition, as he states in the middle of the article:
The interesting thing about this centralized checkpoint is that it provides both the ground and the resources for a powerful adversary who can turn off the network in the future. All you have to do is attack the associated ABC cartel and use the central checkpoint to do the trade-off of what it wants in the chain. And you do not even know what happened as a user.
He also expresses sympathy for Bitcoin Unlimited, the lone peacenik of implementations who is seriously trying to keep up with the changes on both sides of the fork:
Second These changes have added unnecessary technical debts and serious security holes, causing them patches for patches to fix the bugs they had previously introduced with the patch. The reckless Rapid Fire releases caused the network to be split into multiple nodes, each with different versions of rules (I'm talking about ABC clients only) imagine what this means for other clients like Bitcoin Unlimited, Those who need to keep up with these patches every day to stay in the game, and as far as I know, Bitcoin Unlimited was the only customer who even tried to track the continuous delivery of ABC.
I think these followers Node Developer (Bitcoin Unlimited, etc.) I may have an irrational hope that this power dynamic will somehow change in the future, but this time it's different, you've lost the moment when you have ABC updated with a centralized checkpoint system and conspiring with external actors to achieve their goal, they did not give ABC power, but external centralized actors.  He completes his article with two bombastic statements. The first is: "The inventor of Bitcoin is Adam Smith." Second, the evidence of labor is not just an algorithm, but a way of life.
He uses the first statement to mute the discussion about the Satoshi white paper and really deviates from it Other SV supporters do not seem to care about who invented them. As he is anonymous, Satoshi was Nakamoto. His point is, "The proof of work concept is simply an algorithm that implements Adam Smith's first free market capitalism."
There are those who argue that public blockchains are inevitably economically agnostic, but exchanging all goods ends up in a socialist category of one kind or another. In addition, the incentive for me is not always the acquisition of wealth; There are occasions when even the selfish miner performs the civil service at a loss. Perhaps the most damning evidence against Bitcoin's "independent, free-thinking, supercapitalist" interpretation is the need for a functioning network that actually obeys consensus laws. This was the controversy of the most prudent bitcoin (bitcore) maxims from day one: there is no consensus for block size increases, so no block size increases. Consensus is expressed by miners. It may be true that the economic majority is not enough to express itself, but Bitcoin is not a democracy, no matter what it is. There are even those who believe Bitcoin has gone from a technology to a philosophy.
Nonetheless, _unwriter does not want to win anyone over, even if his rhetoric inadvertently reveals the right questions about Bitcoin's Bitcoin brand:
I do not have to be friends with any company or miner. All I have to do is build, and people will use it. As long as you build something useful, you will be judged by what you build, rather than by the one you know.
Such sentiments resonate at the core of every crypto-believer, and whether he likes it or not, he has made plenty of friends through the virtues of his work and even the rigidity of his strongly held ideals. Whether one or both or multiple networks thrive or sprout is for the future to decide. But from the point of view of his writer his fate was right when he threw it to Bitcoin SV. He said, "is the real Bitcoin" and further emphasizes his point of view by saying that this is a clear fact. Last but not least, the article shows that both sides committed serious, sincere elements, as did both sides of the original Bitcoin fork.
Selected image from Shutterstock.
Get an exclusive cryptanalysis from professional traders and investors at Hacked.com. Sign up now and get the first month for free. Click here.