Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 78 results by Bitcoin SV (BSV)
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
BITCOIN NEWS Coming to SVNode in 2023: adjusted Tx eviction and fee logic
Logic for prioritising and evicting transactions within SVNode inherited from Bitcoin Core developers has been causing unnecessary bottlenecks in node performance and unpredictable eviction of valid transactions.
Bitcoin Association has become increasingly aware of negative experiences while using mAPI to broadcast transactions. In this scenario the mAPI instance responds accepted, but the tx never actually gets mined. This is due to the node software deciding independently to silently evict the tx from its mempool.
While its understandable that developers would point the finger at mAPI, its failures in this regard are merely a symptom of legacy code that has become irrelevant for Bitcoins Big Block era.
The backstory of Bitcoins transaction eviction and fee logic
The logic for prioritising and evicting transactions within SVNode has been inherited from the Bitcoin Core developers who thought that a hard block size limit was imperative. Limiting block size caused a congestion problem which the transaction priority logic attempts to then solve. Given that limiting block size is an erroneous premise, this logic has become not only redundant but somewhat of a hindrance to user experience.
SUPPORTING DEVELOPERS BY PROACTIVELY PROFESSIONALISING BITCOINS CODE
In BSV, the block size is unbounded at the protocol level, and the BitcoinSV network is already processing 4GB blocks. Bitcoin builders are creating businesses that push the limits of existing infrastructure as well as inventing entirely new use cases that depend on the scale that BSV promises.
The transaction priority logic has been causing unnecessary bottlenecks in node performance and unpredictable eviction of valid transactions. This has been a negative experience for application developers, and business owners who then have to complicate their architecture due to this uncertainty. The SV Node team has been working with BSV miners to carefully identify and remove the offending code, aiming to release improved logic as part of version 1.0.14.
Problem-solving transaction chains
In a future article, well be delving into this topic in more detail:
The use cases of transaction chains
Identifying the things people are doing and their reasoning for it
Recommended solutions and example implementations to show how it is better and how it can be used
Thanks to Jad Wahab source: https://bitcoinsv.com/coming-to-svnode-in-2023-adjusted-tx-eviction-and-fee-logic/
Logic for prioritising and evicting transactions within SVNode inherited from Bitcoin Core developers has been causing unnecessary bottlenecks in node performance and unpredictable eviction of valid transactions.
Bitcoin Association has become increasingly aware of negative experiences while using mAPI to broadcast transactions. In this scenario the mAPI instance responds accepted, but the tx never actually gets mined. This is due to the node software deciding independently to silently evict the tx from its mempool.
While its understandable that developers would point the finger at mAPI, its failures in this regard are merely a symptom of legacy code that has become irrelevant for Bitcoins Big Block era.
The backstory of Bitcoins transaction eviction and fee logic
The logic for prioritising and evicting transactions within SVNode has been inherited from the Bitcoin Core developers who thought that a hard block size limit was imperative. Limiting block size caused a congestion problem which the transaction priority logic attempts to then solve. Given that limiting block size is an erroneous premise, this logic has become not only redundant but somewhat of a hindrance to user experience.
SUPPORTING DEVELOPERS BY PROACTIVELY PROFESSIONALISING BITCOINS CODE
In BSV, the block size is unbounded at the protocol level, and the BitcoinSV network is already processing 4GB blocks. Bitcoin builders are creating businesses that push the limits of existing infrastructure as well as inventing entirely new use cases that depend on the scale that BSV promises.
The transaction priority logic has been causing unnecessary bottlenecks in node performance and unpredictable eviction of valid transactions. This has been a negative experience for application developers, and business owners who then have to complicate their architecture due to this uncertainty. The SV Node team has been working with BSV miners to carefully identify and remove the offending code, aiming to release improved logic as part of version 1.0.14.
Problem-solving transaction chains
In a future article, well be delving into this topic in more detail:
The use cases of transaction chains
Identifying the things people are doing and their reasoning for it
Recommended solutions and example implementations to show how it is better and how it can be used
Thanks to Jad Wahab source: https://bitcoinsv.com/coming-to-svnode-in-2023-adjusted-tx-eviction-and-fee-logic/
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Here is a very personal fact as to why the bitcoin white paper was published on 31 October 2008 14 years ago explained by Craig Wright aka Satoshi Nakamoto himself:
«My father told me I would never succeed.
31 Oct is his birthday. Now you know why I released bitcoin that day.
Happy birthday dad. Fu.»
Source: https://twitter.com/Dr_CSWright/status/1587089488106225665
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Fun fact:
Quote
Satoshi did not list Bitcoin as open source. It was a private repo on SourceForge which was copied without permission and posted on GitHub many years later. Craig owns Bitcoin's copyright and license. He also currently owns 2,141 Bitcoin related patents:
https://patents.google.com/?assignee=nchain
https://patents.google.com/?assignee=nchain
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
Haste Arcade launches derby-like Monster Bombs
In September 2022, Haste Arcade launched a home-run derby-like game, Monster Bombs. Players must hit as many pitches as they can before striking out or hitting a bomb three times. Singles, Doubles, Triples and Home Runs earn 1, 3, 5 and 10 points each respectively. Upon ascending to a new level by hitting a green ball every 7 pitches, hitting the next pitch will be a Monster Bomb which earns 15 points.
To kick off Opening Week of the game, Haste hosted a tournament where the top 10 scorers across any leaderboard (even practice) had a chance to win NFT gear that can be equipped on Tank, the batter in the game. Allowing users who play the free Practice tier to compete is great as it allows new users the potential to earn NFTs without requiring them to have BSV first.
The top 3 scorers can earn the matching physical hat or jersey as well, which were sold on TakeItNFT leading up to the launch of the game. The launch has been a huge success in the first week, with over 20,000 plays by 320 unique players generating 27.8 BSV ($1,390) of volume. The community feedback has been extremely positive, with many reporting their HandCash wallets are receiving notifications non-stop.
Monster Bombs appears to be the most fun game to date in the Arcade, as well as the game with the most potential. Users can already purchase branded gear in the Marketplace from gaming and lifestyle organization Built By Gamers and equip on Tank.
This marketplace leverages the NFTY Jigs platform and APIs to create digital assets, who also created digital pet game Duro Dogs which already contains custom, branded gear designed by third party companies. Based on this model, one can foresee what is possible as other companies could create and sell their own branded jerseys, hats and shoes for Tank to wear while going yard in-game while collecting royalties on the secondary market. To enable such a model that thrives on creativity the minting fees must be near zero, as is on Bitcoin SV.
As more players play and stream the game, they simultaneously could market the branded collectibles creating a unique gaming experience. For example, a brand could reach out to a top streamer on Twitch and gift them game collectible NFTs, in exchange for streaming themselves playing Monster Bombs with the equipped gear. The possibilities are endless when combining these new types of digital (and physical) assets with micropayments.
The first week of Monster Bombs has been a great success even in the limited BSV community. With a now truly fun game in the arcade that can appeal to the masses, the onboarding problem BSV startups typically face becomes a non-issue. If users desire to play or want to obtain some cool, branded gear they will jump through any necessary hoops to do so. All it takes is for more creativity to enable a truly novel gaming experience.
Watch: Haste Arcade’s Joe DePinto and Ian Duckworth on Hashing It Out
https://youtu.be/ISWzaACpsZk
Thanks to Joshua Henslee. Source https://coingeek.com/haste-arcade-launches-derby-like-monster-bombs/
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
Bitcoin and CBDC: Co-existence of private money
When I read through nChain’s recently published CBDC playbook, I stumbled on quite an interesting part. On page 8 of the document, nChain presents the basics a functioning CBDC should follow, referring to the principles laid out by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS).
The BIS published an executive paper concerning CBDCs and their foundational principles as well as core features. It states:
The intent would be to allow public and robust private money to continue to coexist, including through convertibility and interoperability.
Coexistence of private money—well, that is fascinating. Revisiting nChain’s website, it shows that their products include “Digital Cash” and “Digital Money”:
bitcoin-and-cbdc-co-existence-of-private-money-1
A while ago, we discussed how Bitcoin is complex cash, and the inventor of Bitcoin, Dr. Craig Wright, pointed out in an article that Bitcoin can serve as the technical foundation of a digital currency:
I see Bitcoin becoming a global commodity-based transactional system, one can be used either directly or following the issuing and creation of central bank digital currencies running on top of Bitcoin.
And for your information, Dr. Wright is Chief Scientist at nChain.
CBDCs running on Bitcoin and simultaneously competing with Bitcoin
It was Dr. Craig Wright who drew our attention to the fact that with the BSV blockchain, we can have a CBDC running on Bitcoin while at the same time being able to switch back from the CBDC to the native Bitcoin token at any time.
What does that mean? Imagine you have your CBDC wallet on the BSV blockchain. The moment you stop trusting that CBDC—may be for political or economic reasons—you exchange that CBDC amount back to the BSV satoshis.
That would be the opposite of being trapped in a state money system. It allows for an escape route, and if the purchasing power of the CBDC is on its way down due to inflation. Back to BSV, then. What if there is a sudden need for a CBDC to pay for an item? You can convert back to CBDC again.
This way, we could participate in a CBDC system without staying in it. This puts pressure on the CBDC system, by the way, and in a good sense: if the CBDC does not deliver what it promised, people would run back into the native Bitcoin tokens by a click. CBDCs would have to compete against the commodity quality of Bitcoin as cash.
That is where digital asset exchanges could fulfill their true meaning. Not gambling and speculating on price appreciations of the latest nonsense-coin, but enabling instant switching back and forth between CBDC and Bitcoin.
Risks of a CBDC minimized when Bitcoin is in play
In the CBDC playbook of nChain, the risks of a CBDC were discussed, especially “loss of privacy.” The original Bitcoin, as in the BSV blockchain, is a handy tool to enhance privacy at scale, though.
Privacy is guaranteed if Bitcoin scales—which it does on the BSV blockchain. The more transactions run on Bitcoin, the harder it gets to follow anyone’s transactions easily. Dr. Wright stated in his article “Solving Double-Spending” that:
Bitcoin balances such dichotomy by achieving privacy through scale. While every transaction retains full traceability, the cost of monitoring all users globally is prohibitive. Moreover, suppose users maintain separate keys for every transaction and firewall their identities. In that case, it becomes infeasible for people to randomly determine other people’s identities or even to link identities. The creation of filters, controls, and software can simplify the issue and allow payments that are not joint and hence do not expose the identity of the user or link transactions.
Now take all these into consideration: Bitcoin enhances privacy at scale, and at the same time, it is a commodity-based cash that allows for monetary risks of a CBDC to be mitigated. In addition, the CBDC itself can be running on Bitcoin. As nChain points out on their product site, Bitcoin is a tool to have digital cash and digital money. These are not the same.
The BIS wants private money to be in coexistence with CBDCs. However, private money is not currency notes issued by governments. Do you see where all of this could be going now?
https://coingeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/bitcoin-and-cbdc-co-existence-of-private-money-2.png
Get nChain’s latest CBDC playbook here: https://info.nchain.com/cbdc-conference-playbook
Watch: The BSV Global Blockchain Convention presentation, CBDCs and BSV
https://youtu.be/fERT3wrjAzk
Thank you to Dr. Michael Wehrmann. https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-and-cbdc-co-existence-of-private-money/
When I read through nChain’s recently published CBDC playbook, I stumbled on quite an interesting part. On page 8 of the document, nChain presents the basics a functioning CBDC should follow, referring to the principles laid out by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS).
The BIS published an executive paper concerning CBDCs and their foundational principles as well as core features. It states:
The intent would be to allow public and robust private money to continue to coexist, including through convertibility and interoperability.
Coexistence of private money—well, that is fascinating. Revisiting nChain’s website, it shows that their products include “Digital Cash” and “Digital Money”:
bitcoin-and-cbdc-co-existence-of-private-money-1
A while ago, we discussed how Bitcoin is complex cash, and the inventor of Bitcoin, Dr. Craig Wright, pointed out in an article that Bitcoin can serve as the technical foundation of a digital currency:
I see Bitcoin becoming a global commodity-based transactional system, one can be used either directly or following the issuing and creation of central bank digital currencies running on top of Bitcoin.
And for your information, Dr. Wright is Chief Scientist at nChain.
CBDCs running on Bitcoin and simultaneously competing with Bitcoin
It was Dr. Craig Wright who drew our attention to the fact that with the BSV blockchain, we can have a CBDC running on Bitcoin while at the same time being able to switch back from the CBDC to the native Bitcoin token at any time.
What does that mean? Imagine you have your CBDC wallet on the BSV blockchain. The moment you stop trusting that CBDC—may be for political or economic reasons—you exchange that CBDC amount back to the BSV satoshis.
That would be the opposite of being trapped in a state money system. It allows for an escape route, and if the purchasing power of the CBDC is on its way down due to inflation. Back to BSV, then. What if there is a sudden need for a CBDC to pay for an item? You can convert back to CBDC again.
This way, we could participate in a CBDC system without staying in it. This puts pressure on the CBDC system, by the way, and in a good sense: if the CBDC does not deliver what it promised, people would run back into the native Bitcoin tokens by a click. CBDCs would have to compete against the commodity quality of Bitcoin as cash.
That is where digital asset exchanges could fulfill their true meaning. Not gambling and speculating on price appreciations of the latest nonsense-coin, but enabling instant switching back and forth between CBDC and Bitcoin.
Risks of a CBDC minimized when Bitcoin is in play
In the CBDC playbook of nChain, the risks of a CBDC were discussed, especially “loss of privacy.” The original Bitcoin, as in the BSV blockchain, is a handy tool to enhance privacy at scale, though.
Privacy is guaranteed if Bitcoin scales—which it does on the BSV blockchain. The more transactions run on Bitcoin, the harder it gets to follow anyone’s transactions easily. Dr. Wright stated in his article “Solving Double-Spending” that:
Bitcoin balances such dichotomy by achieving privacy through scale. While every transaction retains full traceability, the cost of monitoring all users globally is prohibitive. Moreover, suppose users maintain separate keys for every transaction and firewall their identities. In that case, it becomes infeasible for people to randomly determine other people’s identities or even to link identities. The creation of filters, controls, and software can simplify the issue and allow payments that are not joint and hence do not expose the identity of the user or link transactions.
Now take all these into consideration: Bitcoin enhances privacy at scale, and at the same time, it is a commodity-based cash that allows for monetary risks of a CBDC to be mitigated. In addition, the CBDC itself can be running on Bitcoin. As nChain points out on their product site, Bitcoin is a tool to have digital cash and digital money. These are not the same.
The BIS wants private money to be in coexistence with CBDCs. However, private money is not currency notes issued by governments. Do you see where all of this could be going now?
https://coingeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/bitcoin-and-cbdc-co-existence-of-private-money-2.png
Get nChain’s latest CBDC playbook here: https://info.nchain.com/cbdc-conference-playbook
Watch: The BSV Global Blockchain Convention presentation, CBDCs and BSV
https://youtu.be/fERT3wrjAzk
Thank you to Dr. Michael Wehrmann. https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-and-cbdc-co-existence-of-private-money/
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
BSV ~~ The best kept secret in 'crypto'.
Correct.
When properly incentivized, Bitcoin (BSV) is capable of unfathomable throughput and flexibility that can dwarf Visa, MasterCard, SWIFT, ACH and every data management network on earth.
That includes AWS, Azure and anything else you can think of. The Bitcoin protocol has no block size limit, no chained transaction limit, no script limit or anything else, which means that anything you can dream up can be built on Bitcoin. But this view is extremely unpopular within the common blockchain intelligentsia for various reasons. The main reason is that in all other blockchain communities, the coin is the product, the community is the seller and the goal is the output: buy low, shill hard, sell high.
This is the business model of BTC, BCH, ADA, XRP, EOS, ZEC, TRX... Even Banano! They all exist simply to sell tokens, enrich developers, pay suits in Silicon Valley.
In contrast, Bitcoin SV (BSV) is not so much a community as an economy where the value of the network is not the token itself, but what can be created with the token! This is why BSV is so heavily criticised in the mainstream and "crypto" media.
Bitcoin BSV is NOT the product. It is a tool to create business value!
Unlike BTC which is controlled by Blockstream, or any other chain, nobody controls bitcoin.
The problem with all these other crypto-currencies is that there is not even a single problem. They're so far off the mark that they don't even have a clue what they're doing. There's only one way to make it work. There's only one global currency for everything.
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
The famous PC game that everyone knows Counter-Strike supports BSV +$0.01 for 1 KILL
Counter-Strike supports BSV +$0.01 for 1 KILL
into games at BSV under a new branch, Vaionex Gaming
Integrated. Many more popular games are likely to be integrated into BSV.
As such, only BSV can support popular PC games.
Let's understand that the possibility that other coins can correspond is 0%.
The same is true for the metaverse. Other coins cannot lower fees
It means that you can't have a decent delivery due to waiting in line.
Players will earn $0.01 BSV for each in-game kill
As a result, BSV is the only option for games under development with other coins
https://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/bitcoinsv0123456/diary/202209230000/
Counter-Strike supports BSV +$0.01 for 1 KILL
into games at BSV under a new branch, Vaionex Gaming
Integrated. Many more popular games are likely to be integrated into BSV.
As such, only BSV can support popular PC games.
Let's understand that the possibility that other coins can correspond is 0%.
The same is true for the metaverse. Other coins cannot lower fees
It means that you can't have a decent delivery due to waiting in line.
Players will earn $0.01 BSV for each in-game kill
As a result, BSV is the only option for games under development with other coins
https://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/bitcoinsv0123456/diary/202209230000/
Vaionex Corp is looking for its next implementation to earn Bitcoin BSV in video games.
https://twitter.com/Vaionex_Corp/status/1573004623912521730/
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Parallel Transaction Validation (PTV) scheduler improvements Modification to processing of User Agent strings Update default maxscriptsizepolicy, maxscriptnumlengthpolicy P2P Header Update- Versioning
- Change Description
sendrawtransactions – option to skip some policy checks New ZMQ Topics- Original rawtx, hashtx, rawblock, hashblock topicstx notifications:
- New rawtx2, hashtx2, rawblock2, hashblock2 topicstx notifications:
Configurable Timeoutshttps://bitcoinsv.io/2021/11/25/upgrades-bsv-v1-0-10-mapi-v1-4-0
Bitcoin SV Node Software - v1.0.10 mAPI v1.4.0 released Maximum size limited to 4 GB To support block sizes larger than 4 GB, changes have been made to the P2P message structure to overcome this limitation.
https://bitcoinsv.io/2021/11/25/upgrades-bsv-v1-0-10-mapi-v1-4-0/
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
Craig Wright, Satoshi Nakamoto and why people ridicule the greats in their lifetimes
This is a republishing from George Siosi Samuels’ Medium post, “Craig Wright, Satoshi Nakamoto & Why People Ridicule The Greats In Their Lifetimes.” Read the full piece here.
A look into the Kleiman v Wright trial and what this may mean for the legacy of Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.
There’s a major trial happening in courts right now that most people aren’t even aware of—but may have huge ramifications.
It’s between Dr. Craig S. Wright and the estate of David Kleiman (a friend of Craig’s who died tragically many years ago). His estranged brother, Ira Kleiman, is now trying to claim half of what he thinks the Kleiman ‘estate’ deserves.
The interesting thing about this trial is that it involves one of the largest potential settlements in U.S. court history—to the tune of $68 billion+ (maybe more).
Why so much—$68 billion? How?
It is assumed that Craig is one-half of the “team” behind Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the real Bitcoin. And that David was the other. His combined fortune comes from BTC, BCH, and potentially BSV holdings.
The reason this all matters is because by Craig sharing evidence with the courts about his involvement in the creation of Bitcoin—even if that includes some contributions from David Kleiman—it’s enough to set a legal precedent on various other aspects of the entire Bitcoin ecosystem.
Coinbase itself revealed that the biggest threat to its business model is the reveal of who’s behind Satoshi Nakamoto—even if that information was hidden in plain sight the whole time. It’s just whether or not people choose to believe it.
Craig has been mocked and ridiculed ever since coming out onto the public stage around 2015. Some could argue this was his own doing, but once you learn more of the details, you’ll discover why it all ended up the way it did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxMU4C6bGKw
But you know who else has been laughed at or ridiculed by “experts” or “authorities” during their lifetimes? Jesus, Joan of Arc, Galileo, Charles Darwin, Nikola Tesla, Alan Turing, and more.
It wasn’t until much later did these people get the recognition they deserved.
Mastercard & commandeering a brand
Right now, everyone supporting Bitcoin (BTC) has no idea that most of the companies that have commandeered the brand are owned mostly by Mastercard (look up “Digital Currency Group”).
Digital Currency Group
This is why the push for “digital gold”, while users experience high transaction fees and congestion. BTC’s “lack of innovation” is what spurred all other digital currencies and blockchains to emerge. BTC is no longer an everyman’s game. It’s a rich man’s one.
By taking the Bitcoin brand but crippling the actual system, BTC has placed self-imposed limits to implement other systems to take profits without you knowing. Much like putting in a toll or redirecting water through a dam. It’s all out in the open. It’s just that no one understands any of it, which makes it easier to continue on with it.
Bitcoin was meant to be more than just digital gold. Micropayments is the real killer feature, but this can’t run if it costs you $20-$200 to send $5 (a scaling problem even Ethereum is currently experiencing).
Micropayments, Layer 2 solutions & Ayn Rand
Under the current “leaders” of the BTC space, you will never see a system of micropayments manifest on-chain in the way it was designed. There will be a push for “Layer 2” solutions, etc. But this is why Craig is going through the courts to (hopefully) steer his legacy back on the right path. Because if he is the creator, he has every right to.
A rather interesting video to watch is from the film adaptation of the novel Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. It might give you some insight into what Craig is experiencing in real life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX4MKIDvXLM
I strongly believe that Craig is someone to watch, even if his personality ruffles a few feathers. He’s not great with people (thanks to his Aspergers and Metal Dog Chinese zodiac), which is why the Satoshi monicker and mythology became bigger than he ever could alone. Still, his creation is (and will) benefit many for generations to come. His life story is stranger than fiction but, then again, sometimes the truth is like that.
Read the full piece on George Siosi Samuels’ Medium.Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
This article was lightly edited for clarity purposes.
https://georgesiosi.medium.com/craig-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-why-people-ridicule-the-greats-in-their-lifetimes-1f4d377aaee1
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
MNP report finds Bitcoin SV to be the best implementation of the original Bitcoin protocol
MNP, the fifth-largest chartered professional accountancy and business consultancy firm in Canada, has issued a report that compares the alignment of the Bitcoin SV (Satoshi’s Vision) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) protocols with the original Bitcoin protocol. The report, titled ‘The original Bitcoin protocol: what is it and why does it matter?’, found that out of these two competing implementations, Bitcoin SV is the most representative of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original intention for Bitcoin.
MNP conducted an in-depth review of both protocols and compared them with the vision of Bitcoin defined by a wealth of source material related to Satoshi Nakamoto’s development of the original Bitcoin protocol. The source material for the review included the original Bitcoin white paper, as well as publicly available emails, forum posts and original code written by the blockchain’s pseudonymous inventor.
Bitcoin SV differs from Bitcoin Core in that it aims to restore the original vision of Bitcoin through the restoration of the original protocol. This has resulted in a network with unbounded scaling, unlimited block sizes, extremely low transaction fees, diverse data functionalities and fully-fledged scripting support. This development philosophy is ratified by the findings of the MNP report, which highlights the original definition of Bitcoin as peer-to-peer digital cash enabling fast and efficient transactions.
‘Based on our review, Bitcoin was intended to be a transaction network for digital cash to compete as a global payment system. Current implementations (Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core) were compared against that original vision,’ the report states.
‘Our findings indicate that Bitcoin SV is the most representative of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original intention for Bitcoin. We used an assessment framework and resulting criteria to assess the protocols described in this paper, including opcodes, Bitcoin scripting and protocol elements.’
Why BSV is closer to Bitcoin than BTC
MNP opted to compare BTC and BSV with the original Bitcoin protocol as they contrast the key attributes in realising Satoshi’s vision and show how development decisions have affected each implementation. Both these implementations of Bitcoin were assessed according to various criteria which encompassed their capabilities, functional requirements, non-functional requirements, as well as the alignment of attributes as defined by Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision of the original Bitcoin protocol.
The original vision of Bitcoin was designed as a means to sending and receiving fast and efficient digital cash transactions that solved the problem of double spending. The report notes, however, that the protocol’s underlying design demonstrates a vision of the technology acting as more than just a payment protocol.
‘The original design was intended for Bitcoin to be used for other functions (beyond mere payments) such as vending machines, paid emails, SaaS products, website activations, etc. It is clear from the forum posts, writings, and community discussions that the Bitcoin protocol was intended to scale to allow for many forms of payments. This includes macro-payments (i.e., settling an account at the end of the day) and micropayment (i.e., sending a very small fee to access a service or send a text message),’ the report states.
After inspecting this design philosophy, contextualised with discussions by Satoshi regarding the need for Bitcoin to run on a low-fee model with sustainable economic incentives, MNP found that the BSV blockchain is more aligned with the original intent of Bitcoin that BTC. This is demonstrated by its ability to process many more transactions at a lower cost, as well as its support for scripting and on-chain data storage and applications. Conversely, BTC offers extremely low transaction throughput, high transaction fees and a lack of support for opcodes available in early versions of Bitcoin.
‘Considering these factors, BSV appears more aligned to the original intention of the payment system. With an uncapped block size which can grow with market demand, a significantly larger number of transactions can be included within each block, therefore allowing higher overall network throughput,’ the report states.
Satoshi’s vision and the future of blockchain scaling
The report’s interpretation of the white paper and Satoshi Nakamoto’s code and communication reaches the same conclusion as that of the BSV ecosystem – that Bitcoin was always designed to be more than a simple electronic payment system.
‘The original vision and long-term intentions were far beyond just an electronic cash and payment system. These elements are primarily provided by the Script language and implementation details of the stable, underlying protocol,’ the report states.
It goes on to describe the potential impact of a protocol designed according to Satoshi’s vision of Bitcoin, noting that this would enable efficient, easy-to-use digital payments, high transaction throughput with full scripting support for data-intensive applications and the creation of an enterprise utility blockchain secured by robust economic incentives and capable of rivalling incumbent traditional payment and data management systems.
Bitcoin SV has already made great strides in realising this vision by continuing to restore the full capability of the original Bitcoin protocol and develop applications on top of it. Thanks to its unlimited block size and support for Turing-complete blockchain-based applications, the BSV network offers an unparalleled platform for everyone from wallet providers and merchants to enterprises and financial institutions.
The MNP report highlights the importance of a stable, secure and scalable system for realising the true potential of Satoshi’s vision, and Bitcoin SV has demonstrated its adherence to these traits through its rapid growth and adoption. Diametrically opposing BTC’s artificially limited block sizes, high transaction fees and poor throughput, Bitcoin SV has demonstrated its ability to process 50,000 transactions per second through a new implementation of its node software based on the Teranode open framework.
This impressive scalability and its commitment to maintaining its stable and reliable underlying Bitcoin protocol means that Bitcoin SV is not only the blockchain most aligned with the original vision of Bitcoin as outlined by Satoshi Nakamoto, but it is also the technology that is best positioned to realise the true potential of Satoshi’s vision.
To view the full MNP report on how Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core adhere to the original vision of Bitcoin, click here or https://www.mnp.ca/-/media/files/mnp/pdf/service/enterprise-risk/the-original-bitcoin-protocol-r.pdf.
Source: https://bitcoinassociation.net/mnp-report-finds-bitcoin-sv-to-be-the-best-implementation-of-the-original-bitcoin-protocol/
MNP, the fifth-largest chartered professional accountancy and business consultancy firm in Canada, has issued a report that compares the alignment of the Bitcoin SV (Satoshi’s Vision) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) protocols with the original Bitcoin protocol. The report, titled ‘The original Bitcoin protocol: what is it and why does it matter?’, found that out of these two competing implementations, Bitcoin SV is the most representative of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original intention for Bitcoin.
MNP conducted an in-depth review of both protocols and compared them with the vision of Bitcoin defined by a wealth of source material related to Satoshi Nakamoto’s development of the original Bitcoin protocol. The source material for the review included the original Bitcoin white paper, as well as publicly available emails, forum posts and original code written by the blockchain’s pseudonymous inventor.
Bitcoin SV differs from Bitcoin Core in that it aims to restore the original vision of Bitcoin through the restoration of the original protocol. This has resulted in a network with unbounded scaling, unlimited block sizes, extremely low transaction fees, diverse data functionalities and fully-fledged scripting support. This development philosophy is ratified by the findings of the MNP report, which highlights the original definition of Bitcoin as peer-to-peer digital cash enabling fast and efficient transactions.
‘Based on our review, Bitcoin was intended to be a transaction network for digital cash to compete as a global payment system. Current implementations (Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core) were compared against that original vision,’ the report states.
‘Our findings indicate that Bitcoin SV is the most representative of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original intention for Bitcoin. We used an assessment framework and resulting criteria to assess the protocols described in this paper, including opcodes, Bitcoin scripting and protocol elements.’
Why BSV is closer to Bitcoin than BTC
MNP opted to compare BTC and BSV with the original Bitcoin protocol as they contrast the key attributes in realising Satoshi’s vision and show how development decisions have affected each implementation. Both these implementations of Bitcoin were assessed according to various criteria which encompassed their capabilities, functional requirements, non-functional requirements, as well as the alignment of attributes as defined by Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision of the original Bitcoin protocol.
The original vision of Bitcoin was designed as a means to sending and receiving fast and efficient digital cash transactions that solved the problem of double spending. The report notes, however, that the protocol’s underlying design demonstrates a vision of the technology acting as more than just a payment protocol.
‘The original design was intended for Bitcoin to be used for other functions (beyond mere payments) such as vending machines, paid emails, SaaS products, website activations, etc. It is clear from the forum posts, writings, and community discussions that the Bitcoin protocol was intended to scale to allow for many forms of payments. This includes macro-payments (i.e., settling an account at the end of the day) and micropayment (i.e., sending a very small fee to access a service or send a text message),’ the report states.
After inspecting this design philosophy, contextualised with discussions by Satoshi regarding the need for Bitcoin to run on a low-fee model with sustainable economic incentives, MNP found that the BSV blockchain is more aligned with the original intent of Bitcoin that BTC. This is demonstrated by its ability to process many more transactions at a lower cost, as well as its support for scripting and on-chain data storage and applications. Conversely, BTC offers extremely low transaction throughput, high transaction fees and a lack of support for opcodes available in early versions of Bitcoin.
‘Considering these factors, BSV appears more aligned to the original intention of the payment system. With an uncapped block size which can grow with market demand, a significantly larger number of transactions can be included within each block, therefore allowing higher overall network throughput,’ the report states.
Satoshi’s vision and the future of blockchain scaling
The report’s interpretation of the white paper and Satoshi Nakamoto’s code and communication reaches the same conclusion as that of the BSV ecosystem – that Bitcoin was always designed to be more than a simple electronic payment system.
‘The original vision and long-term intentions were far beyond just an electronic cash and payment system. These elements are primarily provided by the Script language and implementation details of the stable, underlying protocol,’ the report states.
It goes on to describe the potential impact of a protocol designed according to Satoshi’s vision of Bitcoin, noting that this would enable efficient, easy-to-use digital payments, high transaction throughput with full scripting support for data-intensive applications and the creation of an enterprise utility blockchain secured by robust economic incentives and capable of rivalling incumbent traditional payment and data management systems.
Bitcoin SV has already made great strides in realising this vision by continuing to restore the full capability of the original Bitcoin protocol and develop applications on top of it. Thanks to its unlimited block size and support for Turing-complete blockchain-based applications, the BSV network offers an unparalleled platform for everyone from wallet providers and merchants to enterprises and financial institutions.
The MNP report highlights the importance of a stable, secure and scalable system for realising the true potential of Satoshi’s vision, and Bitcoin SV has demonstrated its adherence to these traits through its rapid growth and adoption. Diametrically opposing BTC’s artificially limited block sizes, high transaction fees and poor throughput, Bitcoin SV has demonstrated its ability to process 50,000 transactions per second through a new implementation of its node software based on the Teranode open framework.
This impressive scalability and its commitment to maintaining its stable and reliable underlying Bitcoin protocol means that Bitcoin SV is not only the blockchain most aligned with the original vision of Bitcoin as outlined by Satoshi Nakamoto, but it is also the technology that is best positioned to realise the true potential of Satoshi’s vision.
To view the full MNP report on how Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core adhere to the original vision of Bitcoin, click here or https://www.mnp.ca/-/media/files/mnp/pdf/service/enterprise-risk/the-original-bitcoin-protocol-r.pdf.
Source: https://bitcoinassociation.net/mnp-report-finds-bitcoin-sv-to-be-the-best-implementation-of-the-original-bitcoin-protocol/
Quote
MNP Report demonstrates why BSV is the real Bitcoin
MNP, the fifth largest chartered professional accountancy and business consulting firm in Canada, has released a report that investigates the alignment of Bitcoin SV (BSV) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) with the original vision of the Bitcoin protocol described in Satoshi Nakamoto’s 2008 white paper.
The report is titled ‘The Original Bitcoin Protocol: What is it and Why Does it Matter?’ and finds that Bitcoin SV is the blockchain implementation which stays truest to the original vision of Bitcoin.
‘Based on our review Bitcoin was intended to be a transaction network for digital cash to compete as a global payment system,’ the report states.
‘Current implementations (Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core) were compared against that original vision. Our findings indicate that Bitcoin SV is most representative of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original intention for Bitcoin.’
The report looks at various aspects of the original Bitcoin protocol based on communications and code written by Satoshi Nakamoto during the time he created and was actively involved in the development of the technology. Creating a framework from this material, it then compares the capabilities, design and performance of Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core against it.
The BTC implementation of the Bitcoin protocol has undergone numerous hard forks throughout its tumultuous development, and it has migrated from a system designed to facilitate fast and efficient peer-to-peer transactions with double spend protection to a classification as a ‘store of value’ or ‘digital gold’. Throughout its development, it has disabled several of the original opcode, or scripting, functionalities of the original Bitcoin protocol and has retained an artificial 1MB limit on the size of blocks processed by the network.
Bitcoin SV (Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision) was created by a community which aims to restore the original functionality of Bitcoin, including its support for smart contracts and fast, cheap, data-heavy transactions. To this end, BSV developers have restored much of the original scripting functionality of the Bitcoin protocol and have removed the artificial limit on block sizes, allowing the network to scale with adoption and gain substantial transaction throughput while keeping transaction fees low.
The MNP report defines several criteria based on the original protocol’s design and examines how both BTC and BSV fulfil these requirements by examining each blockchain’s protocol implementation as of March 31, 2021. The speculative valuation of each blockchain’s token, its reputation and other forks were excluded from the scope of the study due to their irrelevance when considering each protocol’s alignment with the original Bitcoin design.
The key differences
The report’s assessment encompasses a range of categories, ranging from each protocol implementation’s adherence to the security design of the original Bitcoin to their success in meeting the scaling and functional requirements posited by vision behind the original protocol.
Many of the most significant differences between Bitcoin SV and BTC when comparing them against Satoshi’s Vision arise from Bitcoin SV’s theoretically unbounded block size and BTC’s antithetical artificial block size limit – as BTC is limited to a maximum block size of 1MB, this significantly impedes its ability to scale and to offer the high transaction throughput needed to realise many aspects of Satoshi’s vision for the Bitcoin protocol.
A few of the key criteria in the report where differences were found to be most apparent are as follows:
‘The network and block size should scale dependent on network utilization’ – BTC’s artificial block size limit of 1MB imposes a maximum number of transactions that can be processed by the network daily – making it impossible to support higher transaction volumes as adoption increases. Conversely, Bitcoin SV has no default block size limit and can easily scale as transaction volume increases by increasing block sizes in relation to network market forces.
‘The network should always be available and process all valid transactions including free ones as there is still Bitcoin to be mined’ – On BTC, free transactions can be ignored by miners and may remain starved in the mempool, never being processed. On Bitcoin SV, free transactions can and do occur within blocks due to its superior scalability. There is no downtime recorded for either network.
‘The overall energy requirements will vary depending on the scale of the network’ – BTC’s overall energy consumption per transaction will increase with difficulty as the size of blocks is limited to 1MB on the network. On the Bitcoin SV network, the required amount of energy per transaction will decline significantly as block sizes increase and more transactions can be processed per block.
‘The scripting language and opcodes allow developers to create contracts’ – BTC has disabled many opcodes throughout its development, which has greatly inhibited or prevented developers from creating detailed and complex smart contracts. Bitcoin SV has re-enabled historic opcodes which enable complex scripting and the creation of stateful smart contracts.
‘The network should be able to scale meet any demand in transactions and how users adopt the network’ – BTC is unable to scale with adoption of the network due to its limited block size, which restricts usage of the network – especially as adoption increases. Bitcoin SV offers a theoretical unbounded number of transactions per block, restricted only by hardware and software limitations that are reduced as technology improves. This allows for mass adoption of payment processing and for the facilitation of micropayments on the network.
The points above, which outline Satoshi’s original ideas and the adherence of each protocol to them, are among the most salient differences between the Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin SV protocols, but there are many other areas in which they differ. It is important to note that under all the categories examined in the report, there is never an instance of Bitcoin SV failing to meet a criterion to at least the same extent that BTC does. However, there are many instances where BTC fails to meet an assessment criterion while Bitcoin SV succeeds.
Bitcoin SV best represents the original Bitcoin
The MNP report notes that Bitcoin SV stays far truer to the original design of the Bitcoin protocol than BTC, as shown by its ability to scale and process transactions on the level of modern digital payment networks, as well as its support for complex scripting functionality.
‘After examining Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision compared to the original vision set forth in the whitepaper, forum posts, emails, and other writings by Satoshi, it is our opinion that Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision is the implementation that currently best represents what Satoshi originally intended,’ the report states.
‘BSV has a theoretically unbound block size – this allows for payments to scale to the size of a Visa-like network without requiring an increase in fees to meet the economic requirements of the node operators. BSV also provides more functionality in terms of what developers can do to utilize the network for building their own transaction systems on top of the Bitcoin protocol.’
The report goes on to highlight the countless ways in which blockchain technology can have a positive impact on the future, and a blockchain that aligns with Satoshi’s original vision can enable unprecedented new industries and services, from micropayments and autonomous contracting to distributed data storage and identity management.
The infographic below shows how Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core each comply with MNP’s criteria based on the original vision of the Bitcoin protocol as described by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Source: https://bitcoinassociation.net/mnp-report-demonstrates-why-bsv-is-the-real-bitcoin
To view the full MNP report on how Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core adhere to the original vision of Bitcoin: https://www.mnp.ca/-/media/files/mnp/pdf/service/enterprise-risk/the-original-bitcoin-protocol-r.pdf
MNP, the fifth largest chartered professional accountancy and business consulting firm in Canada, has released a report that investigates the alignment of Bitcoin SV (BSV) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) with the original vision of the Bitcoin protocol described in Satoshi Nakamoto’s 2008 white paper.
The report is titled ‘The Original Bitcoin Protocol: What is it and Why Does it Matter?’ and finds that Bitcoin SV is the blockchain implementation which stays truest to the original vision of Bitcoin.
‘Based on our review Bitcoin was intended to be a transaction network for digital cash to compete as a global payment system,’ the report states.
‘Current implementations (Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core) were compared against that original vision. Our findings indicate that Bitcoin SV is most representative of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original intention for Bitcoin.’
The report looks at various aspects of the original Bitcoin protocol based on communications and code written by Satoshi Nakamoto during the time he created and was actively involved in the development of the technology. Creating a framework from this material, it then compares the capabilities, design and performance of Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core against it.
The BTC implementation of the Bitcoin protocol has undergone numerous hard forks throughout its tumultuous development, and it has migrated from a system designed to facilitate fast and efficient peer-to-peer transactions with double spend protection to a classification as a ‘store of value’ or ‘digital gold’. Throughout its development, it has disabled several of the original opcode, or scripting, functionalities of the original Bitcoin protocol and has retained an artificial 1MB limit on the size of blocks processed by the network.
Bitcoin SV (Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision) was created by a community which aims to restore the original functionality of Bitcoin, including its support for smart contracts and fast, cheap, data-heavy transactions. To this end, BSV developers have restored much of the original scripting functionality of the Bitcoin protocol and have removed the artificial limit on block sizes, allowing the network to scale with adoption and gain substantial transaction throughput while keeping transaction fees low.
The MNP report defines several criteria based on the original protocol’s design and examines how both BTC and BSV fulfil these requirements by examining each blockchain’s protocol implementation as of March 31, 2021. The speculative valuation of each blockchain’s token, its reputation and other forks were excluded from the scope of the study due to their irrelevance when considering each protocol’s alignment with the original Bitcoin design.
The key differences
The report’s assessment encompasses a range of categories, ranging from each protocol implementation’s adherence to the security design of the original Bitcoin to their success in meeting the scaling and functional requirements posited by vision behind the original protocol.
Many of the most significant differences between Bitcoin SV and BTC when comparing them against Satoshi’s Vision arise from Bitcoin SV’s theoretically unbounded block size and BTC’s antithetical artificial block size limit – as BTC is limited to a maximum block size of 1MB, this significantly impedes its ability to scale and to offer the high transaction throughput needed to realise many aspects of Satoshi’s vision for the Bitcoin protocol.
A few of the key criteria in the report where differences were found to be most apparent are as follows:
‘The network and block size should scale dependent on network utilization’ – BTC’s artificial block size limit of 1MB imposes a maximum number of transactions that can be processed by the network daily – making it impossible to support higher transaction volumes as adoption increases. Conversely, Bitcoin SV has no default block size limit and can easily scale as transaction volume increases by increasing block sizes in relation to network market forces.
‘The network should always be available and process all valid transactions including free ones as there is still Bitcoin to be mined’ – On BTC, free transactions can be ignored by miners and may remain starved in the mempool, never being processed. On Bitcoin SV, free transactions can and do occur within blocks due to its superior scalability. There is no downtime recorded for either network.
‘The overall energy requirements will vary depending on the scale of the network’ – BTC’s overall energy consumption per transaction will increase with difficulty as the size of blocks is limited to 1MB on the network. On the Bitcoin SV network, the required amount of energy per transaction will decline significantly as block sizes increase and more transactions can be processed per block.
‘The scripting language and opcodes allow developers to create contracts’ – BTC has disabled many opcodes throughout its development, which has greatly inhibited or prevented developers from creating detailed and complex smart contracts. Bitcoin SV has re-enabled historic opcodes which enable complex scripting and the creation of stateful smart contracts.
‘The network should be able to scale meet any demand in transactions and how users adopt the network’ – BTC is unable to scale with adoption of the network due to its limited block size, which restricts usage of the network – especially as adoption increases. Bitcoin SV offers a theoretical unbounded number of transactions per block, restricted only by hardware and software limitations that are reduced as technology improves. This allows for mass adoption of payment processing and for the facilitation of micropayments on the network.
The points above, which outline Satoshi’s original ideas and the adherence of each protocol to them, are among the most salient differences between the Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin SV protocols, but there are many other areas in which they differ. It is important to note that under all the categories examined in the report, there is never an instance of Bitcoin SV failing to meet a criterion to at least the same extent that BTC does. However, there are many instances where BTC fails to meet an assessment criterion while Bitcoin SV succeeds.
Bitcoin SV best represents the original Bitcoin
The MNP report notes that Bitcoin SV stays far truer to the original design of the Bitcoin protocol than BTC, as shown by its ability to scale and process transactions on the level of modern digital payment networks, as well as its support for complex scripting functionality.
‘After examining Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision compared to the original vision set forth in the whitepaper, forum posts, emails, and other writings by Satoshi, it is our opinion that Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision is the implementation that currently best represents what Satoshi originally intended,’ the report states.
‘BSV has a theoretically unbound block size – this allows for payments to scale to the size of a Visa-like network without requiring an increase in fees to meet the economic requirements of the node operators. BSV also provides more functionality in terms of what developers can do to utilize the network for building their own transaction systems on top of the Bitcoin protocol.’
The report goes on to highlight the countless ways in which blockchain technology can have a positive impact on the future, and a blockchain that aligns with Satoshi’s original vision can enable unprecedented new industries and services, from micropayments and autonomous contracting to distributed data storage and identity management.
The infographic below shows how Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core each comply with MNP’s criteria based on the original vision of the Bitcoin protocol as described by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Source: https://bitcoinassociation.net/mnp-report-demonstrates-why-bsv-is-the-real-bitcoin
To view the full MNP report on how Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Core adhere to the original vision of Bitcoin: https://www.mnp.ca/-/media/files/mnp/pdf/service/enterprise-risk/the-original-bitcoin-protocol-r.pdf
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
🔴LIVE: Thu 7:45pm EST (http://Time.is/EST)
Join the 'Lawyer You Know' @TragosLaw
& CoinGeek's Bitcoin Historian @kurtwuckertjr
discussing the Ira Kleiman vs. Craig S. Wright trial in Miami #BitcoinSV #BSV #KleimanvWright
Watch live on YT Channel:
https://youtube.com/c/LawyerYouKnow
Join the 'Lawyer You Know' @TragosLaw
& CoinGeek's Bitcoin Historian @kurtwuckertjr
discussing the Ira Kleiman vs. Craig S. Wright trial in Miami #BitcoinSV #BSV #KleimanvWright
Watch live on YT Channel:
https://youtube.com/c/LawyerYouKnow
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
Bitcoin Association
CG New York 2021 | Conference Highlights
REALISING THE PROMISE OF BLOCKCHAIN
From October 5-7, we gathered in New York City to hear why now is the time for businesses and wider society to discover BSV and realise the long-awaited value and digital revolution promised by blockchain technology.
Watch our conference highlights to relive some of the most memorable moments of CoinGeek New York, including:
Insights from talks and panel discussions
Highlights from the final round of the 4th Bitcoin SV Hackathon
Celebrities who participated in the conference such as MMA star Rory MacDonald and actor Adrian Grenier.
WATCH THE VIDEO NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWj7RnT0MAg
Check the key moments of each day below:
DAY
1
‘Time gives meaning to life. It also gives meaning to Bitcoin, and it reinforces why we believe in the Satoshi Vision because of the time it has taken for all of us to get here,' says Bitcoin Association Founding President Jimmy Nguyen in his opening speech.
The final round of the 4th Bitcoin SV Hackathon saw presentations from the three finalists: Bitcoin Phone, CATN8, and TKS Pnt.
A panel discussion on the future of technology featured the two men who laid the groundwork for blockchain: Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-1/
DAY
2
Canadian auditing firm MNP compared the energy consumption of three blockchain networks and found BSV to be significantly more power-efficient than the others, especially at larger scales.
The central theme of the panel 'How news influences digital asset markets' addressed the need to educate journalists, given the media's focus on speculative token pricing.
‘Satoshi’s blockchain is one of those technologies… that can solve not one problem but a whole range of problems,’ declared writer and technology visionary George Gilder, during his Day 2 keynote speech.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-2/
DAY
3
Bitcoin Phone won first place and $50,000 in BSV in the 4th BSV Hackathon.
A discussion on how the BSV blockchain can increase the efficiency of government services.
Technology visionary George Gilder joined an esteemed panel of experts to talk about the mechanics by which Bitcoin as a ledger creates utility that imbues it with value.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-3
Source from Bitcoin association. Big thanks to Jamie McKane and all the protagonists who made it possible for us to enjoy a great conference Coingeek has once again put technology on a level playing field, useful to all, for all! Except for BSV which is superior in every way 🚀
CG New York 2021 | Conference Highlights
REALISING THE PROMISE OF BLOCKCHAIN
From October 5-7, we gathered in New York City to hear why now is the time for businesses and wider society to discover BSV and realise the long-awaited value and digital revolution promised by blockchain technology.
Watch our conference highlights to relive some of the most memorable moments of CoinGeek New York, including:
Insights from talks and panel discussions
Highlights from the final round of the 4th Bitcoin SV Hackathon
Celebrities who participated in the conference such as MMA star Rory MacDonald and actor Adrian Grenier.
WATCH THE VIDEO NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWj7RnT0MAg
Check the key moments of each day below:
DAY
1
‘Time gives meaning to life. It also gives meaning to Bitcoin, and it reinforces why we believe in the Satoshi Vision because of the time it has taken for all of us to get here,' says Bitcoin Association Founding President Jimmy Nguyen in his opening speech.
The final round of the 4th Bitcoin SV Hackathon saw presentations from the three finalists: Bitcoin Phone, CATN8, and TKS Pnt.
A panel discussion on the future of technology featured the two men who laid the groundwork for blockchain: Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-1/
DAY
2
Canadian auditing firm MNP compared the energy consumption of three blockchain networks and found BSV to be significantly more power-efficient than the others, especially at larger scales.
The central theme of the panel 'How news influences digital asset markets' addressed the need to educate journalists, given the media's focus on speculative token pricing.
‘Satoshi’s blockchain is one of those technologies… that can solve not one problem but a whole range of problems,’ declared writer and technology visionary George Gilder, during his Day 2 keynote speech.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-2/
DAY
3
Bitcoin Phone won first place and $50,000 in BSV in the 4th BSV Hackathon.
A discussion on how the BSV blockchain can increase the efficiency of government services.
Technology visionary George Gilder joined an esteemed panel of experts to talk about the mechanics by which Bitcoin as a ledger creates utility that imbues it with value.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE https://bitcoinassociation.net/recap-coingeek-new-york-conference-day-3
Source from Bitcoin association. Big thanks to Jamie McKane and all the protagonists who made it possible for us to enjoy a great conference Coingeek has once again put technology on a level playing field, useful to all, for all! Except for BSV which is superior in every way 🚀
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
To be honest, I don't see future for BSV - positions are getting lower and lower, capitalization is not growing, and it is not visible, due to which progress can be made
We are very sorry for that. We can't hide it anymore, things really went wrong. We thank everyone who supported us. We tried our best to develop an unique project, but global crypto-community was not on our side
Please forgive us if you can
So hacking the BSV account on Bitcointalk and writing crap then blocking it makes you feel good?
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
How we are trading the 70 billion dollar lawsuit over Satoshi’s Bitcoins
Guest Contributor
This post originally appeared on the Unbounded Capital website, and we republished with permission from Jack Laskey.
TLDR; Long BSV (available on Robinhood)
Overview
A Florida civil suit over the $70+ billion Satoshi fortune that started November 1st could lead to broad market awareness that Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. This could have significant short term price impacts on Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV), a version of Bitcoin which Craig Wright is heavily associated with and endorses as “the real Bitcoin.” We believe that the market has an outdated perception of Craig Wright and the potential that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Additional scrutiny of existing evidence due to the high-profile nature of the trial as well as the potential for new evidence presented in trial could significantly change public sentiment regarding the likelihood that Craig Wright is Satoshi. We believe this could result in a rapid and significant price increase for BSV, due to its association with Craig Wright, its technical merits and market traction which have been overlooked to this point, and in part because of its accessibility to retail investors via Robinhood. BSV is also one of the most shorted cryptos, meaning that there is potential for both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze, the latter in part due to positions held by Unbounded Capital.
Background
One of the most important trials of the century begins today, Nov 1, 2021 at 10 a.m. Kleiman v Wright is a Florida civil suit over the ownership of around $70 billion dollars’ worth of Bitcoin. Not only is this a stunning sum, but the quality of these Bitcoins is also exceptional. Why? Because they are allegedly the Bitcoins that Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, mined in Bitcoin’s earliest days, from 2009-2011. Thus, the trial not only could determine the fate of Satoshi’s Bitcoins, but it could shed an extraordinary amount of light upon one of the biggest mysteries of the 21st century, the identity of the pseudonymous creator of a trillion-dollar invention.
Chances are, you probably haven’t heard about it. Why?
Both mainstream and crypto media have been shockingly quiet about this incredibly significant and intriguing case. The reason for this is that the media, most of the public, and perhaps most importantly, the market, have a major disagreement with both the plaintiff and defendant. The disagreement is whether or not Dr. Craig S Wright, the defendant in the trial and an Australian computer security expert and polymath, is the man, or one of the men behind the Satoshi pseudonym.
Ira Kleiman, the plaintiff, and Dr. Wright, however, are in agreement that Dr. Wright was involved in the creation of Bitcoin and the mining of Satoshi’s billions. The dispute is about Ira’s deceased brother, Dave Kleiman, and the degree to which his involvement in the creation of Bitcoin constitutes a partnership, and a claim on the Satoshi billions by his estate, now managed by Ira Kleiman. However, much of the crypto world thinks Craig is involved in an elaborate hoax—that he is pretending to be Satoshi. This has earned him the moniker “Faketoshi” and inspired t-shirt designs like what are pictured below.
A popular refrain “We are all Satoshi Except Craig Wright” was even made into a shirt worn by popular crypto influencers like Tone Vays
At Unbounded Capital, we believe that the “Faketoshi” narrative is out of date. Most people either formed their opinion about Dr. Wright in 2016 or inherited their opinion from someone who had. A lot has happened with Dr. Wright since then, much of it due to the ongoing discovery process in the trial. The result of this is that people have not been paying close attention to what is happening with Dr. Wright or Bitcoin SV, a fork of Bitcoin Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin.” We think the trial could change this, and we are placing our bets accordingly.
Our investment thesis behind the Satoshi trial
We think Dr. Wright is likely to both win the trial and also confirm his ownership over these Bitcoins in the process. However, what is most pertinent to our investment thesis is the possibility that the market increasingly perceives Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto due to new evidence and increased public scrutiny of existing evidence resulting from the trial. In other words, we believe the market is mispricing the probability that Kleiman v Wright will make it clear to the public that Dr. Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin.
BTC’s market cap is already over a trillion dollars. Why would a Satoshi reveal matter at this point? The answer is that Dr. Wright is perhaps the world’s biggest BTC bear. Dr. Wright has been publicly lamenting changes made in BTC which he believes cripple its functionality. Since 2017, he has supported alternate forks as “the real Bitcoin” and focused his efforts in these communities, first Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and for the last three years since its inception, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV).
In particular, Dr. Wright has impressed his stamp on BSV, both from an influence standpoint as well as a reputation standpoint. BSV has been inextricably linked to Dr. Wright and has followed the development path prescribed by Dr. Wright—to return to the original Bitcoin protocol outlined by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008-2009. Not only has Dr. Wright placed his efforts and support behind BSV, but he has also been public about his plan to liquidate Satoshi’s BTC and BCH for BSV and USD and then to use the proceeds from the sale for charitable purposes. Keep in mind that because BTC, BCH, and BSV are all forks of the same chain, Satoshi’s ~1.1M Bitcoin fortune would apply to all of these forks. In other words, Satoshi is suspected to have ~1.1M of each BTC ($66.5B total value), BCH ($0.65B total value), and BSV ($0.17B total value). Craig’s warning is that he will convert the ~$67B of BTC and BCH into BSV and USD. The current market cap of BSV is ~$3.1B.
*Note that the trial was originally scheduled for July 2020. The delays were largely due to Covid.
While the broader investing public is not aware of this, most crypto whales are. We believe that meaningful evidence presented in the trial will likely result in the market front-running the perceived inevitability of an increase in BSV price. We feel that the lack of price movement until now indicates that these whales are not correctly evaluating the likelihood that the trial will lead to this evidence, presenting a window of where there is asymmetric upside in trading on a bullish trial result for BSV.
In the rest of this article, we will present more detailed evidence in support of our thesis including existing evidence that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, positive BSV fundamentals which are being overlooked due to a clear negative media filter, more detail about the conflict of visions which may bias the crypto investing public against the possibility that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, our expectations for the trial, and how current market conditions are ripe for a sharp increase in BSV price due to revelations from the trial.
The market’s view on ‘Faketoshi’ is outdated
Dr. Wright was exposed as Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired in 2015. He first denied it and later admitted to being Satoshi. When the crypto community were forming their opinions about his claim to be Satoshi in 2016, there was mixed evidence including the absence of evidence thought to be essential—signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. Dr. Wright orchestrated a private signing with then BTC chief developer, Gavin Andresen, and Bitcoin Foundation head, Jon Matonis. Gavin publicly affirmed that he was satisfied with this private demonstration, as did Jon, and other individuals came forward attesting to knowledge that Dr. Wright is Satoshi.
A public demonstration was offered but never delivered. This left many skeptical. A blog post that came out in 2016 was accused of being a fake proof attempt. While it is cryptic, a close reading of the post makes it clear that it was not a proof attempt. Still, the lack of public proof combined with concerns that Craig was changing and backdating blog posts and other documents led to the consensus view that Craig was a pretender, earning him the “Faketoshi” moniker.
In our view, there was nothing completely unreasonable about this conclusion in 2016. It was a strange story with the attestation of Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis combined with the lack of a public signing and strange incidents with suspected forgeries. The evidence was unsettling, but certainly inconclusive.
However, even if the view of Dr. Wright as Faketoshi was justifiable in 2016, it has become increasingly outdated in the ensuing years. Craig’s continued actions, the actions of his professional associates, Craig’s extensive commentary on Bitcoin’s creation and design, as well as evidence that has been presented through the Kleiman vs Wright discovery plus evidence put forth by Dr. Wright outside of the trial paints a significant likelihood that Dr. Wright is actually Satoshi or at least a significant part of a potential Satoshi team. We will also explore the significant conflicts of interest which exist in crypto media which may have contributed to the continued prevalence of the “Faketoshi” narrative.
Dr. Wright and associates’ work and actions
One of the most salient, and overlooked reasons to suspect that Dr. Wright is, in fact, Satoshi are his and his business partners’ continued actions. Dr. Wright currently acts as the Chief Scientist at nChain, a Bitcoin R&D firm which has now created and sold enterprise software products utilizing BSV. Dr. Wright and nChain have filed over 1200 patents on Bitcoin related technology. nChain has over 100 employees and recently launched their first enterprise product, Kensei, a data integrity solution, which is being used by Crucial Compliance, a compliance software provider for the online gaming industry, and others. In 2016, almost none of this existed, and what did exist was not well known. Dr. Wright’s professional work since 2016 is much more in line with what one would expect from the inventor of Bitcoin than from a fraud.
The chairman of nChain’s board is Stefan Matthews, who is also the CEO of a publicly traded mining company, [ur=https://www.taal.com/l]TAAL Distributed Information Technologies Inc.[/url] (CSE:TAAL | FWB:9SQ1 | OTC: TAALF), which is focused on creating services for the BSV blockchain. Stefan is an associate of Dr. Wright’s from before Bitcoin. Stefan has previously said that Craig offered him 50,000 Bitcoins in 2009, an offer which Stefan rejected. Stefan also claims to have seen a copy of the Bitcoin whitepaper before it’s publication in 2008. Stefan has now dedicated his career to working alongside Dr. Wright on BSV. This story and Stefan’s continued commitment to Dr. Wright and BSV was not known in 2016.
Stefan is also the connection between Dr. Wright and Calvin Ayre. Calvin Ayre is a billionaire who made his fortune through Bodog, a pioneering company in offshore gambling. The Kleiman v Wright trial has revealed that Dr. Wright, at least allegedly, placed Satoshi’s bitcoins into a trust. The inability to access Satoshi’s Bitcoins in 2015 combined with tax issues resulting from the 2015 outing of Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired placed Dr. Wright in a position where he was looking for an investor.
Calvin Ayre has staked a significant percentage of his fortune and his reputation behind Dr. Wright—an ongoing investment and involvement over the course of almost seven years. Given the fact that Dr. Wright offered private proof to Gavin Andresen, it would defy common sense to think that this same proof and more was not offered to Calvin Ayre. This relationship and the degree to which Calvin would continue to invest in and back Dr. Wright was not well known in 2016.
It is also important to note that many people, including many entrepreneurs, are building in the BSV space. We will address more specifics about BSV fundamentals soon. What is notable is that there is a significant entrepreneurial community that either believes that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, or is not dissuaded by uncertainty or unconcerned about being associated with a “scammer.” In other words, even though the market has largely stuck with the “Faketoshi” thesis, many individuals have rejected it with conviction by dedicating their professional lives to BSV, a phenomenon that was not present or possible in 2016 since BSV did not exist until the end of 2018.
Evidence of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto from Kleiman v Wright
Another important post-2016 development has been the discovery process from Kleiman v Wright. Prior suspicions of forged blog posts and other documents have lured the market into a state of comfort in ignoring additional evidence made public via discovery. However, this evidence should not be overlooked, both because of its pertinence and because the massive quantity of evidence makes the possibility of an elaborate hoax more and more unlikely.
What does this evidence include? Let’s start with the premise of the case. A standard document called the “Joint Neutral Statement of Case” is submitted to lay out, in plain English, what is being disputed in the legal action. Each party, Plaintiff and Defendant, describe what they are alleging. The Joint Neutral Statement of Case for Kleiman v Wright confirms that the case is predicated on the suggestion that Dr. Wright played a central role in the creation of Bitcoin. In other words, the Kleiman family, which is 4 years and, presumably, millions of dollars into this case, is convinced that Dr. Wright is at least part of ‘Satoshi Nakamoto.’
What about documentary evidence? The extensive discovery process in Kleiman v Wright made public a trove of documentation including tax documents, loans, contracts for equity, invoices, and trust documents which paint a picture of Dr. Wright routinely dealing in large quantities of Bitcoin in its early days. These include (with links to docket submissions as well as third party summaries):
● Testimony from various witnesses (testifying on behalf of plaintiff and defendant) who place Dr. Wright talking about and sending documents pertaining to Bitcoin before and shortly after its release
● ATO (Australian Tax Office) documents and testimony about Dr. Wright’s 2009 Bitcoin R&D spend
Deposition and documentary evidence which paint a picture of a complex structure of legal entities formed between 2009 and 2015 by Dr. Wright and related parties
● 2011 IP Licensing Agreement paid for with ~3% of total BTC supply (over 200,000 BTC) (page 20)
● 2012 Deed of Loan documents collateralized by 650,000 BTC from Dr. Wright owned entities (page 11)
● 2013 contracts for equity in Bitcoin related companies in exchange for 323,000 BTC (page 1)
● 2015 email (page 12) detailing invoices between Dr. Wright related entities (DeMorgan) and Panamanian firm HighSecured for IaaS services rendered paid for with 60,000 BTC with on-chain corroboration.
● The 2017 Tulip Trust Document which owns the rights to all of Dr. Wright’s assets which he will become eligible to control after June 2020 (page 27)
The last document in this list is possibly the most consequential and will likely be central to the court case. The Tulip Trust is a 2011 Seychelles trust that purports to own the rights to over one million bitcoin and valuable Bitcoin related intellectual property. The document has allegedly been updated three times, with its most recent version dated July 6, 2017 (page 27). Portions of this trust document remain redacted but the readable portions give us the following key information:
● The trust is set up to promote the work of Dr. Craig Wright (named alongside his alias Satoshi Nakamoto), to progress the legal nature of Bitcoin, and to build a scaled financial system on top of bitcoin that can achieve over 1 trillion transactions per second
● The trust grants its trustees access to Wright International Investments and Tulip Trading Ltd assets
◇ Wright International Investments: the “Satoshi Million” Bitcoin mined before 2010 can only be spent after a full meeting of members between the dates of December 2019 and the end of 2020
◇ Tulip Trading Ltd: Any recoverable assets owned by the Dr. Wright related entities including the Bitcoin purchased in 2011 which originally capitalized the companies
● The trust has an activation date in January 2020
● The trust was set up by Dr. Wright but access to the document was explicitly withheld from him during the period of July 10 2017 until December 15 2019. Dr. Wright will be able to become a trustee by a vote of members ONLY AFTER June 2020.
A significant amount of evidence submitted in discovery has been sealed or redacted. We expect some of this additional evidence to be presented at trial, details of which will be presented later in this analysis.
There have also been multiple “motions to seal” in the discovery process. This indicates there exists evidence that has been shared with the plaintiff which may be used at trial that is not yet publicly accessible on the docket. However, descriptions of what these documents include is available in the “Trial Exhibit List”. Noteworthy exhibits we could expect to see in the coming days and weeds include Exhibit Numbers D142 and D143 titled “Multiple 2008 Receipts.” Dr. Wright has hinted in a 2019 blog post that the domain to “Bitcoin.org,” the website which hosted the Bitcoin whitepaper, was done with a credit card. If this information is produced in trial and corroborated by records from the credit card issuer, this would likely be compelling to crypto whales who have not been following post 2016 developments which ought to change their assessment of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto.
Extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and Satoshi
For many who are working in the BSV space, the most notable evidence of the past five years since 2016 is the extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and its origin. Between talks at conferences, podcast appearances, blog posts, academic papers, patents, and extended commentary in the semi-private slack group, Metanet ICU—Dr. Wright has generated thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of hours of content about Bitcoin, the underlying technology, the creation of Bitcoin, and the follies of BTC and other blockchains like Ethereum. To many, this wealth of commentary has provided numerous unique insights—many of which have facilitated the creation of BSV, both from a technical standpoint and by helping to define numerous value props for Bitcoin and blockchain technology which were previously unknown or under-explored.
While there are many ongoing, valid arguments against specific points being argued by Dr. Wright, the quantity and quality of his commentaries are exceptional, even for what one might expect from Satoshi. For a fraud, they are almost unimaginable. Virtually all of these commentaries on Bitcoin by Dr. Wright were created after 2016, although many of Dr. Wright’s arguments can trace their roots back to the original Satoshi writings.
Negative media filter against Dr. Wright
It’s understandable that the average Bitcoin investor might not be up-to-date on the information about Dr. Wright since his 2016 outing, but what explains the media, particularly the cryptocurrency media’s, lack of interest? Why, for example, are you just now hearing about the information likely to become public through this historically large trial. Put simply, the cryptocurrency media is biased against Dr. Wright and filters their reporting accordingly.
Take CoinDesk as an example. They are one of the most prominent cryptocurrency media organizations. CoinDesk is owned by Digital Currency Group which has an extensive portfolio of investments in the cryptocurrency space, the vast majority of which would suffer should the narrative around Dr. Wright shift from “kooky fraud pretending to be Satoshi” to “the inventor of Bitcoin.” Does Digital Currency Group want the inventor of Bitcoin publicly criticizing their investments? Clearly not. How has CoinDesk reported on the Kleiman v Wright story thus far? Their first reporting on the case was titled ‘Satoshi’ Craig Wright Is Being Sued for $10 Billion which outlined the case from the position of highlighting Dr. Wright’s alleged “scheme against Dave’s estate” to “seize Dave’s Bitcoin and his rights to certain intellectual property” and somewhat downplaying the implication that the Plaintiff assumes Dr. Wright played a central role in Bitcoin’s creation. In fairness, CoinDesk was doing this reporting early after the lawsuit was filed and before more newsworthy information had come out during the discovery process.
So, how did CoinDesk’s reporting evolve once this information was made public? Very little. CoinDesk’s coverage has largely stuck to the frame of “Dr. Wright is being sued for massive fraud” ignoring most of the extremely newsworthy information available for reporters to uncover in the docket. Some additional headlines from CoinDesk on this case from over the years include:
Craig Wright Ordered to Disclose Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Court Case (May 6, 2019)
Craig Wright Spars With Kleiman Lawyers in Combative Courtroom Appearance (June 28, 2019)
Judge Blasts Craig Wright’s Evidence, ‘Inconsistent’ Testimony in Kleiman Trial (August 15, 2019)
Craig Wright ‘Abusing’ Privilege to Block 11,000 Documents, Kleiman Lawyers Say (February 4, 2020)
Craig Wright Challenges Court Order Criticizing His Evidence in $4B Kleiman Case (March 26, 2020)
Craig Wright Called ‘Fraud’ in Message Signed With Bitcoin Addresses He Claims to Own (May 25, 2021)
Ex-Wife’s Testimony Suggests Craig Wright ‘Defrauded’ Court, Kleiman Lawyers Claim (August 5, 2020)
Craig Wright Must Face Trial Over Alleged $11B Bitcoin Fortune as Request for Summary Judgment Denied (September 21, 2020)
The bias of CoinDesk is easy to discern from the way they emotionally conjugate their headlines. What about more recent updates? After all, the trial starts this week. A Google advanced search for the most recent CoinDesk publications featuring the terms “Kleiman,” “Wright,” or “Trial” shows that the most recent update (at the time of writing*) is their May 10, 2021 post (over 5 months old) which notes the trial’s delay until November 1 2021.
Earlier this week, CoinDesk.tv did include a section of their “All About Bitcoin” weekly round-up video on the trial. CoinDesk’s Managing Editor of Technology, Christine Harkin, briefly summarized the trial as she understood it. This summary mentions a dispute between Dr. Wright and the Kleiman estate over IP and Bitcoins but is vague as to which Bitcoins are in question, despite the idea of “the Satoshi Million,” or a trove of dormant Bitcoin’s mined by Satoshi in its early years, being a well understood subset of Bitcoins within the cryptocurrency space. Harkin also mentions that “…of course there have been any number of other internet and Bitcoin sleuths out there who’ve been hard at work debunking so much of what Craig Wright has claimed in terms of his involvement with the development of Bitcoin.”
The apparent bias of the cryptocurrency media has a downstream effect on the reporting from the broader financial and tech media, many of whom seem to outsource a lot of their sensemaking in the blockchain space to cryptocurrency publications or thought leaders who are of the mindset outlined above. The cryptocurrency media presenting the Kleiman v Wright case as either a forgone conclusion OR something not worth much attention almost certainly has played a role in the near media blackout on what stands to be one of the largest individual civil IP disputes in US history.
*Since writing this section, CoinDesk has published an article on the case, their first significant coverage since May
Significant conflicts of interest may lead to media bias
There are significant conflicts of interest present in crypto media which may have created an incentive to paint Dr. Wright as an unreliable source, and more recently, to downplay achievements of BSV. The most prominent of these conflicts of interest is the significant investment stake that Mastercard ventures has in Digital Currency Group (DCG). DCG owns CoinDesk and has many significant investments which depend on the success of BTC. DCG is also an investor in Blockstream, an organization which has helped to set a technical direction for BTC which we think is very favorable to Mastercard whereas the vision of Bitcoin first articulated by Satoshi and now articulated by Dr. Wright and embodied by BSV represents a significant threat to Mastercard’s core business.
Mastercard and other credit cards typically charge a fee of around $0.25 and 2% per transaction. Transaction fees on BTC are typically in excess of $10 whereas transaction fees on BSV are typically under $0.001. This significant disparity is primarily due to a self-imposed limitation by BTC, restricting the maximum block size—the amount of data that can be added to the blockchain in any given period of time. By placing a cap on data, there is a cap on transactions which leads to a shortage of available transactions relative to total demand for transactions.
There is no such limitation on BSV. Miners are free to mine as large or small blocks as they choose. This has led to a consistent increase in block sizes over time as miners capabilities improve and demand for BSV blockspace has increased. Allowing blocks to grow has allowed fees to stay small. We think that a blockchain with scalable, cheap transactions is a threat to Mastercard’s business. On the other hand, an unscalable, expensive blockchain is not. We are not sure that Mastercard’s investments are designed to cripple the technical capabilities of Bitcoin, but in important ways, they have had that effect.
It is important to note that these limitations have been accepted because authoritative sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream endorse them as being necessary. Because Dr. Wright is such a vocal advocate of BSV’s unlimited block size approach, if he is recognized as Satoshi, this may supersede the authority of sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream and lead to a broad recognition of the superiority of the BSV path. The BSV path is also gaining empirical verification as the blockchain’s usage continues to increase. The market lacked this empirical evidence when decisions to pursue the Blockstream path on BTC were made. Continued adoption of BSV as a cheap payments solution could ultimately present a significant threat to Mastercard. We do not know whether or not Mastercard has interfered in the market in this way, but the presence of the conflict of interest is an important part of the story nonetheless.
Why won’t he sign? A conflict of visions
With the wealth of evidence that has emerged since 2016 pointing to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it may surprise some that he is not more widely recognized as Satoshi. What must be understood, is that for many, only one piece of evidence will suffice—a signature made with keys assumed to be controlled by Satoshi. This is in line with the crypto ethos—“Not your keys, not your crypto.” Implied by this ethos is that if you don’t prove possession of Satoshi’s keys, you are not Satoshi.
While for many, a digital signature with Satoshi’s keys will be required to prove that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, we think it is easy to understand how Dr. Wright could be Satoshi and have refrained from signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. The first reason is somewhat straightforward—we know Satoshi wanted to stay anonymous. If Dr. Wright had signed, he would be in a much more public position facing greater scrutiny. While he acknowledges that he is Satoshi, he has not been publicly acknowledged. This is in line with what one would expect to be Satoshi’s preference.
Another important motivating factor for Dr. Wright not to sign may have been his desire to improve his positioning and his ability to profit from and control the Bitcoin space. Through nChain, Dr. Wright and his partners have filed over 1200 patents and built a leading enterprise-facing blockchain organization, all while other companies like IBM were not paying attention to him or his research, instead emulating chains like Ethereum which Dr. Wright considers inferior. In this time, his and others work have led the creation of a significant industry around BSV. Importantly, BSV has also successfully restored the original Bitcoin protocol—a feat that may not have been possible with greater scrutiny. If he can later engineer a reorientation of the crypto markets around BSV, he stands to gain immensely by having laid this groundwork.
A more technical reason may exist for why Craig has not signed. The trial has revealed that the Satoshi coins were controlled by a trust. Further, we suspect that this trust may be digitally enforced by having spent the Satoshi coins into transactions which could not be re-spent until a certain point in time. While we know that Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen report to have witnessed a demonstration of a signature, it is also possible that the trustees did not allow him to publicly sign or move coins. This suggestion has been put forward by financial cryptographer Ian Grigg who was an early recipient of the Bitcoin whitepaper as a member of the cryptography mailing list in 2008, and someone who claims to have been involved with the post-outing process after Dr. Wright’s doxxing and eventual public acceptance of the Satoshi pseudonym. The trust may also have a technical enforcement mechanism which hinders Dr. Wright’s ability to move coins or sign at will.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Dr. Wright has made clear that a conflict of visions exists between him and the mainstream crypto ethos. Dr. Wright is seeking to establish judicial supremacy over Bitcoin. He wants to prove that possession of keys in Bitcoin does not equal identity or ownership, the same way possessing a key to a car does not mean one owns that car. Craig has not only maintained that signing would not prove identity, but that he seeks to leverage courts, not just to prove his identity as Satoshi, but to engineer a movement of coins triggered by an order by courts. The purpose of this court-ordered coin movement would be to set a precedent that Bitcoin does not exist outside of the scope of existing laws and law enforcement mechanisms regarding the ownership of property. The mechanics and results of this type of movement are beyond the scope of this analysis. It’s importance is to help explain why someone who is Satoshi would not seek to prove their identity by creating a digital signature, the reason here being that proving identity with a signature endorses a worldview that Dr. Wright claims to oppose.
Dr. Wright’s background: Consistent with Satoshi
Craig has an impressive track record as both an academic and as an industry leader in computer security. He has dozens of degrees and certifications including a Doctorate of Philosophy, a Master of Statistics, an LLM in international commercial law, Masters of Information Security Engineering, Information Security Management, Information System Security, Management (IT), Networking and System Administration, and at least 19 certifications from GIAC, a leading computer security certifier. He has been an adjunct lecturer at Charles Sturt University where he received many of his degrees.
He has been widely published on information security, both formally and informally on his own extensive blogs. Before becoming fully involved with Bitcoin and after a stint as a Wesleyan minister, Craig had a prolific career as a computer security expert working for OzEmail, K-Mart, ASE, Mahindra & Mahindra, Lasseter’s Online, and BDO Kendalls, all done in conjunction with his academic career. He has also consulted for various government organizations and police departments, both before and after Bitcoin’s creation. His background in computer security as well as audit map well to Bitcoin – a secure, distributed, and time-stamped audit trail used to create a digital cash system.
While Dr. Wright is clearly brilliant to anyone who takes a close look, he is not a high EQ individual. This has impaired his ability to be understood by others. Much of his poor PR can be traced to being impatient, impolite, and overly specific to the point of failing to convey meaning. Craig admits to having Autism and Aspergers. It is not surprising that someone who saw what others missed with Bitcoin would be unlike others in significant ways.
‘Faketoshi’ narrative hides strong BSV fundamentals
Part of the bull case for BSV as a result of the trial is that BSV benefits from greater market scrutiny. Because BSV is seen by many as unreputable due to its association with Dr. Wright, many have overlooked the significant technical achievements and adoption of BSV. If the trial causes investors to see Dr. Wright as Satoshi and take a closer look at BSV, we think they will conclude that BSV is a significant competitor in the blockchain space and should be valued accordingly.
The value proposition of BSV is a scalable Bitcoin with its full features restored—the same scarce 21 million Bitcoins but without high fees and limited throughput and with the original scripting language and smart contracting capabilities restored. Businesses utilizing BSV are typically taking advantage of some combination of its micropayment capabilities—instant payments as low as 1/100th of a cent, utilizing the blockchain ledger for its immutability and transparency, and the smart contracting abilities of BSV which are similar to but more scalable than blockchains like Ethereum.
BSV began operating independently in late 2018. The major restoration of the original protocol was completed in February 2020 with the Genesis upgrade. Since 2018, BSV’s achievements include
Setting world record block sizes which recently reached 2 GB (BTC has 1 MB cap)
Surpassing BTC in total blockchain size
Over 16M transactions in a block on STN
Creation of horizontally scalable node software, Teranode, and demonstrating 50,000 TPS
Maintaining low fees, even with surging volume
Restoration of bitcoin script which is deprecated on BTC
Creation of scrypt and use of advance scripting functionality to create the game of life on Bitcoin, proving it’s turing completeness
Creation of dozens of additional on-chain protocols for tokens, smart contracts, data storage, data serialization, and more
Proliferation of wallets, many of which invented or first implemented advanced functionality such as paymail, threshold signatures, and true peer-to-peer infrastructure
Creation of many useful SDKs such as Handcash Connect which have enabled the creation hundreds of applications such as Haste Arcade
Adoption by nation of Tuvalu to create a national digital ledger
Major esports organization Built By Gamers partners with BSV companies to utilize and promote BSV-based technologies
Utilization of the chain as a data storage layer by metastreme, predict ecology for ESG data
Games like cryptofights achieving daily transaction volumes in excess of total Ethereum mainnet
Twetch, a BSV based social network, having over 60,000 users
Tokenized protocol being selected by Aquantium LLC to tokenize equity and debt instruments on the BSV blockchain
Maxthon, the default browser for over 600 million users, using BSV to create new types of browser functionality only possible with BSV
Vxpass, a BSV based vaccine passport solution, used by Kingdom of Lesotho
Domineum partnership with nChain
Bitboss launching the first FDIC backed stablecoin
Kensei adopted by Crucial Compliance
Kensei adopted by Kompany
Surviving 51% attacks unscathed
VOIB (voice over Bitcoin) – using Bitcoin to make a phone call
Mintblue used by Visma Group to record invoice data on BSV blockchain
Unisot utilizing BSV to track scandinavian supply chain for fish
EHR Data using BSV as a data ownership solution for the healthcare industry
And quite a bit more!
What is notable about these achievements is not just the achievements themselves. Also important is that many of the technical achievements directly contradict claims made by technical authorities in BTC and other crypto thought leaders. The current BTC roadmap was initiated based on a belief that Bitcoin could not scale in the manner that BSV is now demonstrating. This belief that Bitcoin cannot scale was in contrast to what Satoshi wrote pseudonymously in 2010. While it is not surprising that someone who claims to be Satoshi would recommend returning to the design created by Satoshi, what is notable about BSV’s success is that it has vindicated this original design to date. In fact, BSV’s success throws the entire roadmap of BTC and crypto into question and can change the perception of what is possible and desirable in the crypto and blockchain space.
*The significant growth of the BSV blockchain relative to BTC shows the accelerating adoption and scalability of BSV compared to BTC
While BSV’s achievements are significant and numerous, the coverage of BSV, especially by prominent crypto news outlets like CoinDesk, has been extremely unfavorable, highlighting only negative events, downplaying some achievements, and generally misrepresenting the space by overblowing issues and ignoring successes. It is unclear if this is explicitly coordinated. It is possible that this misrepresentation is simply due to bias resulting from the “Faketoshi” narrative. However, it is also possible that because BSV represents a competitive threat to existing chains, the owners of major crypto media publications such as Digital Currency Group, the owner of CoinDesk, who have significant investments into BTC and ETH are attempting to suppress knowledge of BSV’s successes to protect their existing investments as well as their reputations. Regardless, the negative media filters around BSV and Dr. Wright are evident. I encourage you to attempt to find positive media coverage of any of the above achievements from a media organization that is not explicitly focused on covering the BSV ecosystem such as CoinGeek or a simple press release.
Our expectations of the trial and its importance
Because our perspective is that Dr. Wright is likely Satoshi Nakamoto based on existing evidence, we also think it is likely that Dr. Wright has additional evidence to support his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto. While significant evidence has already come out in the trial, a significant amount of evidence has been sealed. As mentioned the Exhibit List includes reference to receipts from 2008, “writings and notes” from 2007, “BOD (Board of Directors) meeting minutes” from 2007, email chains from 2008, and even potential Bitcoin predecessors like an entry titled “TimeChain v0.0.2 Alpha” from 2008. In addition to these new exhibits, we are expecting information to surface from witness testimony, perhaps most notably from Dr. Wright directly.
Allusions to the type of evidence which may come forward have been made by CSW himself. When one soberly divorces themselves from the “code is law” ethos of the broader crypto currency space which single-mindedly demands cryptographic evidence of someone being Satoshi Nakamoto, the myriad of other types of evidence that ought to exist becomes more clear. Things like the testimony of those with close relationships to Satoshi, documentation indicating interest and study in relevant domains, computer records pertinent to Bitcoin’s development, and more. In recent messages in the Metanet ICU slack, CSW has both indicated that he will bring such types of information forward AND begun to preempt likely responses from his PoSM-heavy (“proof of social media”, as opposed to Bitcoin’s “proof of work”) crowd of detractors.
Dr. Wright has also made several important predictions about the outcome of the trial. To summarize quite a few recent statements on the likely outcome of the trial, Craig is predicting his victory, that the outcome will determine that he is the creator of Bitcoin, and that the case will trigger events which will result in BTC being moved due to court orders.
In general, we think that the trial represents a turning point for Dr. Wright and his team. They have been operating in relative secrecy from the mainstream over the past few years. To meet their stated goals of making BSV a globally adopted technology and the new foundation of the internet stack, there will need to be a shift in public perception and significant investment in the BSV space. While this lawsuit was not initiated by Dr. Wright and his team, their actions and warnings paint a picture that they are using the trial as a turning point and are expecting to shift from operating in relative secrecy to step into the public mantle of being “Satoshi Nakamoto” and supporting BSV as Satoshi’s Bitcoin. They have indicated that they will go so far as to paint BTC as a “passed off” version of Bitcoin and attempt to make it illegal for institutions such as Coinbase and Robinhood to refer to BTC as Bitcoin.
While we don’t have a strong position on their likelihood for success pursuing the legal claim that exchanges like Coinbase are passing off BTC as Bitcoin, we think their attempts will increase the probability of greater public scrutiny of Dr. Wright, his claim to be Satoshi, and BSV. Also, we expect that due to Dr. Wright and his team’s broader ambitions for BSV and their legal crusade against BTC, they will be seeking media attention on the trial in general, and particularly the elements of the trial that further paint Dr. Wright as Satoshi. We think that greater scrutiny of these things will reveal a strong bull case for BSV. Accordingly, we expect whales who have already linked Dr. Wright with BSV to front-run this greater market recognition of Dr. Wright and BSV which could lead to a rapid price increase during the trial.
Market landscape
The current market landscape and market history of BSV further paint a bullish scenario for BSV during the trial. There is significant precedent for Dr. Wright news affecting the price of BSV. When Dr. Wright was granted the US copyright for the Bitcoin whitepaper, the price jumped 120%. Another large price surge occurred shortly after based on fake news circulating in the Chinese trading community which pointed towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi. Finally, when Dr. Wright confirmed receipt files from a bounded courier, an event detailed by the Tulip Trust, the price briefly rose around 300% before falling after it was made clear that this delivery would not immediately facilitate the movement of Satoshi’s coins. These events as well as other smaller examples paint a picture that the market may very rapidly start buying BSV upon the receipt of additional information pointing towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi.
BSV has also lagged significantly behind the rest of the crypto market over last year’s bull run, even though many significant achievements have occurred. This can be partly explained by the negative media filter around BSV. However, even negative events have not influenced BSV price, such as the block-reorg attacks over the summer. These attacks received extensive coverage even though the attacks did not disrupt network functioning, nor did they affect the price of BSV. BSV price movements have typically been in the form of sharp increases followed by long periods of decline. This increasingly uncorrelated BSV chart may be due to the very significant short volumes relative to other crypto currencies.
BSV has been one of the most heavily shorted assets, often the most shorted cryptoasset on a per capita basis. For most fund managers employing a long short strategy, BSV is a natural short pair. Until recently it had been highly correlated with BTC, and it is largely viewed as a scam or a version of Bitcoin with no chance of success. This coupled with underperformance relative to most of the cryptomarket makes it seem like one of the least risky assets to short in a market where shorting any cryptoasset comes with a large degree of risk. We think that this dynamic that has in part kept the price of BSV down relative to the rest of the cryptomarket could flip quickly if the perceived risk of a significant, uncorrelated BSV price increase occurs in the coming weeks.
We think that a meaningful BSV price increase could generate both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze. The gamma squeeze would be in part due to Unbounded Capital’s large OTM call options position with major OTC market makers in the crypto space. It is also important to note that BSV is not as liquid as other cryptoassets, in part due to delistings of BSV by major exchanges like Binance which were triggered by defamation lawsuits initiated by Dr. Wright. Controversy around Dr. Wright has kept BSV off of popular exchanges like Coinbase, although importantly, the asset is available on Robinhood. This restricted liquidity could exacerbate a significant price increase due to difficulties obtaining BSV compared to other similar assets.
Pricing in crypto is very subjective. The benchmark for BSV is clearly BTC. Currently the price ratio is around 400:1, an all-time relative high. If public perception of BSV is that it is Satoshi’s preferred version of Bitcoin, we expect that ratio to sharply decline, mainly due to an increase in BSV price.
Importantly, BSV has strong scalability fundamentals. We have recently seen a significant rise in the price of Solana, the blockchain seen as the greatest competitor to Ethereum due to it’s significantly higher scalability. We think BSV and BTC could mirror the relationship between Ethereum and Solana. One year ago, the ETH:SOL market cap ration was ~113:1. Today, it is only ~9:1. 9:1 BTC:BSV would result in a ~4000% increase in the price of BSV if BTC stayed at $61,000.
We think the major risk of negative alpha for BSV relative to the broader crypto market during the trial is that long-term holders may sell their positions if the trial does not have a significant result. However, we think for traders who are mainly speculating on the trial and do not have an independent bull case for BSV, having exposure across many years would not be a sensible approach. Rather, buying directly in advance of the trial would make the most sense. We have not seen a price run-up in advance of the trial. This is in line with our thesis that the crypto market underestimates the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. We believe that most BSV holders are bullish on the tech fundamentals in addition to price action related to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, and are therefore less likely to sell if the trial does not produce a result.
Potential trade mechanics
Unbounded Capital is primarily speculating on the trial outcome through deep OTM call options purchased OTC, an option not available to retail traders. Other trade mechanics one could consider include leveraged exposure on Bitfinex or perpetual swaps on FTX. For traders who are less advanced in general or who are not set up to trade on crypto exchanges, Robinhood is a highly accessible platform which makes taking a long position on BSV simple.
We believe that this trial does not simply represent a trading opportunity for BSV. We believe that this trial could have historical significance as a major landmark event which reveals Satoshi to the world. If so, it will have been very cool to be a part of this event, even if we are simply spectators and speculators.
Conclusion
The crypto market is operating on an outdated view of the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. Kleiman vs Wright represents an opportunity for additional evidence and greater media scrutiny to change the public and crypto market’s views on Dr. Wright. If public sentiment shifts towards recognizing Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it could cause BSV, the network Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin” which also has strong, overlooked fundamentals, to appreciate rapidly relative to its benchmark BTC. Market conditions are ripe for this type of rapid movement due to the high ratio of short exposure and potential for a gamma squeeze.
To stay up to date on the proceedings visit UnboundedCapital.com/trial for real time information from the courtroom.
CoinGeek will feature Kurt Wuckert Jr. in daily recap coverage which will be livestreamed on a daily basis at 6:30 p.m. EST on our YouTube Channel.
Watch our Day 1 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtxsbsPtiY
Watch our Day 2 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMXVtQrmVZc
New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.
Source: https://coingeek.com/how-we-are-trading-the-70-billion-dollar-lawsuit-over-satoshis-bitcoins/
Guest Contributor
This post originally appeared on the Unbounded Capital website, and we republished with permission from Jack Laskey.
TLDR; Long BSV (available on Robinhood)
Overview
A Florida civil suit over the $70+ billion Satoshi fortune that started November 1st could lead to broad market awareness that Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. This could have significant short term price impacts on Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV), a version of Bitcoin which Craig Wright is heavily associated with and endorses as “the real Bitcoin.” We believe that the market has an outdated perception of Craig Wright and the potential that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Additional scrutiny of existing evidence due to the high-profile nature of the trial as well as the potential for new evidence presented in trial could significantly change public sentiment regarding the likelihood that Craig Wright is Satoshi. We believe this could result in a rapid and significant price increase for BSV, due to its association with Craig Wright, its technical merits and market traction which have been overlooked to this point, and in part because of its accessibility to retail investors via Robinhood. BSV is also one of the most shorted cryptos, meaning that there is potential for both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze, the latter in part due to positions held by Unbounded Capital.
Background
One of the most important trials of the century begins today, Nov 1, 2021 at 10 a.m. Kleiman v Wright is a Florida civil suit over the ownership of around $70 billion dollars’ worth of Bitcoin. Not only is this a stunning sum, but the quality of these Bitcoins is also exceptional. Why? Because they are allegedly the Bitcoins that Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, mined in Bitcoin’s earliest days, from 2009-2011. Thus, the trial not only could determine the fate of Satoshi’s Bitcoins, but it could shed an extraordinary amount of light upon one of the biggest mysteries of the 21st century, the identity of the pseudonymous creator of a trillion-dollar invention.
Chances are, you probably haven’t heard about it. Why?
Both mainstream and crypto media have been shockingly quiet about this incredibly significant and intriguing case. The reason for this is that the media, most of the public, and perhaps most importantly, the market, have a major disagreement with both the plaintiff and defendant. The disagreement is whether or not Dr. Craig S Wright, the defendant in the trial and an Australian computer security expert and polymath, is the man, or one of the men behind the Satoshi pseudonym.
Ira Kleiman, the plaintiff, and Dr. Wright, however, are in agreement that Dr. Wright was involved in the creation of Bitcoin and the mining of Satoshi’s billions. The dispute is about Ira’s deceased brother, Dave Kleiman, and the degree to which his involvement in the creation of Bitcoin constitutes a partnership, and a claim on the Satoshi billions by his estate, now managed by Ira Kleiman. However, much of the crypto world thinks Craig is involved in an elaborate hoax—that he is pretending to be Satoshi. This has earned him the moniker “Faketoshi” and inspired t-shirt designs like what are pictured below.
A popular refrain “We are all Satoshi Except Craig Wright” was even made into a shirt worn by popular crypto influencers like Tone Vays
At Unbounded Capital, we believe that the “Faketoshi” narrative is out of date. Most people either formed their opinion about Dr. Wright in 2016 or inherited their opinion from someone who had. A lot has happened with Dr. Wright since then, much of it due to the ongoing discovery process in the trial. The result of this is that people have not been paying close attention to what is happening with Dr. Wright or Bitcoin SV, a fork of Bitcoin Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin.” We think the trial could change this, and we are placing our bets accordingly.
Our investment thesis behind the Satoshi trial
We think Dr. Wright is likely to both win the trial and also confirm his ownership over these Bitcoins in the process. However, what is most pertinent to our investment thesis is the possibility that the market increasingly perceives Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto due to new evidence and increased public scrutiny of existing evidence resulting from the trial. In other words, we believe the market is mispricing the probability that Kleiman v Wright will make it clear to the public that Dr. Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin.
BTC’s market cap is already over a trillion dollars. Why would a Satoshi reveal matter at this point? The answer is that Dr. Wright is perhaps the world’s biggest BTC bear. Dr. Wright has been publicly lamenting changes made in BTC which he believes cripple its functionality. Since 2017, he has supported alternate forks as “the real Bitcoin” and focused his efforts in these communities, first Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and for the last three years since its inception, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV).
In particular, Dr. Wright has impressed his stamp on BSV, both from an influence standpoint as well as a reputation standpoint. BSV has been inextricably linked to Dr. Wright and has followed the development path prescribed by Dr. Wright—to return to the original Bitcoin protocol outlined by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008-2009. Not only has Dr. Wright placed his efforts and support behind BSV, but he has also been public about his plan to liquidate Satoshi’s BTC and BCH for BSV and USD and then to use the proceeds from the sale for charitable purposes. Keep in mind that because BTC, BCH, and BSV are all forks of the same chain, Satoshi’s ~1.1M Bitcoin fortune would apply to all of these forks. In other words, Satoshi is suspected to have ~1.1M of each BTC ($66.5B total value), BCH ($0.65B total value), and BSV ($0.17B total value). Craig’s warning is that he will convert the ~$67B of BTC and BCH into BSV and USD. The current market cap of BSV is ~$3.1B.
*Note that the trial was originally scheduled for July 2020. The delays were largely due to Covid.
While the broader investing public is not aware of this, most crypto whales are. We believe that meaningful evidence presented in the trial will likely result in the market front-running the perceived inevitability of an increase in BSV price. We feel that the lack of price movement until now indicates that these whales are not correctly evaluating the likelihood that the trial will lead to this evidence, presenting a window of where there is asymmetric upside in trading on a bullish trial result for BSV.
In the rest of this article, we will present more detailed evidence in support of our thesis including existing evidence that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, positive BSV fundamentals which are being overlooked due to a clear negative media filter, more detail about the conflict of visions which may bias the crypto investing public against the possibility that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, our expectations for the trial, and how current market conditions are ripe for a sharp increase in BSV price due to revelations from the trial.
The market’s view on ‘Faketoshi’ is outdated
Dr. Wright was exposed as Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired in 2015. He first denied it and later admitted to being Satoshi. When the crypto community were forming their opinions about his claim to be Satoshi in 2016, there was mixed evidence including the absence of evidence thought to be essential—signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. Dr. Wright orchestrated a private signing with then BTC chief developer, Gavin Andresen, and Bitcoin Foundation head, Jon Matonis. Gavin publicly affirmed that he was satisfied with this private demonstration, as did Jon, and other individuals came forward attesting to knowledge that Dr. Wright is Satoshi.
A public demonstration was offered but never delivered. This left many skeptical. A blog post that came out in 2016 was accused of being a fake proof attempt. While it is cryptic, a close reading of the post makes it clear that it was not a proof attempt. Still, the lack of public proof combined with concerns that Craig was changing and backdating blog posts and other documents led to the consensus view that Craig was a pretender, earning him the “Faketoshi” moniker.
In our view, there was nothing completely unreasonable about this conclusion in 2016. It was a strange story with the attestation of Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis combined with the lack of a public signing and strange incidents with suspected forgeries. The evidence was unsettling, but certainly inconclusive.
However, even if the view of Dr. Wright as Faketoshi was justifiable in 2016, it has become increasingly outdated in the ensuing years. Craig’s continued actions, the actions of his professional associates, Craig’s extensive commentary on Bitcoin’s creation and design, as well as evidence that has been presented through the Kleiman vs Wright discovery plus evidence put forth by Dr. Wright outside of the trial paints a significant likelihood that Dr. Wright is actually Satoshi or at least a significant part of a potential Satoshi team. We will also explore the significant conflicts of interest which exist in crypto media which may have contributed to the continued prevalence of the “Faketoshi” narrative.
Dr. Wright and associates’ work and actions
One of the most salient, and overlooked reasons to suspect that Dr. Wright is, in fact, Satoshi are his and his business partners’ continued actions. Dr. Wright currently acts as the Chief Scientist at nChain, a Bitcoin R&D firm which has now created and sold enterprise software products utilizing BSV. Dr. Wright and nChain have filed over 1200 patents on Bitcoin related technology. nChain has over 100 employees and recently launched their first enterprise product, Kensei, a data integrity solution, which is being used by Crucial Compliance, a compliance software provider for the online gaming industry, and others. In 2016, almost none of this existed, and what did exist was not well known. Dr. Wright’s professional work since 2016 is much more in line with what one would expect from the inventor of Bitcoin than from a fraud.
The chairman of nChain’s board is Stefan Matthews, who is also the CEO of a publicly traded mining company, [ur=https://www.taal.com/l]TAAL Distributed Information Technologies Inc.[/url] (CSE:TAAL | FWB:9SQ1 | OTC: TAALF), which is focused on creating services for the BSV blockchain. Stefan is an associate of Dr. Wright’s from before Bitcoin. Stefan has previously said that Craig offered him 50,000 Bitcoins in 2009, an offer which Stefan rejected. Stefan also claims to have seen a copy of the Bitcoin whitepaper before it’s publication in 2008. Stefan has now dedicated his career to working alongside Dr. Wright on BSV. This story and Stefan’s continued commitment to Dr. Wright and BSV was not known in 2016.
Stefan is also the connection between Dr. Wright and Calvin Ayre. Calvin Ayre is a billionaire who made his fortune through Bodog, a pioneering company in offshore gambling. The Kleiman v Wright trial has revealed that Dr. Wright, at least allegedly, placed Satoshi’s bitcoins into a trust. The inability to access Satoshi’s Bitcoins in 2015 combined with tax issues resulting from the 2015 outing of Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired placed Dr. Wright in a position where he was looking for an investor.
Calvin Ayre has staked a significant percentage of his fortune and his reputation behind Dr. Wright—an ongoing investment and involvement over the course of almost seven years. Given the fact that Dr. Wright offered private proof to Gavin Andresen, it would defy common sense to think that this same proof and more was not offered to Calvin Ayre. This relationship and the degree to which Calvin would continue to invest in and back Dr. Wright was not well known in 2016.
It is also important to note that many people, including many entrepreneurs, are building in the BSV space. We will address more specifics about BSV fundamentals soon. What is notable is that there is a significant entrepreneurial community that either believes that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, or is not dissuaded by uncertainty or unconcerned about being associated with a “scammer.” In other words, even though the market has largely stuck with the “Faketoshi” thesis, many individuals have rejected it with conviction by dedicating their professional lives to BSV, a phenomenon that was not present or possible in 2016 since BSV did not exist until the end of 2018.
Evidence of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto from Kleiman v Wright
Another important post-2016 development has been the discovery process from Kleiman v Wright. Prior suspicions of forged blog posts and other documents have lured the market into a state of comfort in ignoring additional evidence made public via discovery. However, this evidence should not be overlooked, both because of its pertinence and because the massive quantity of evidence makes the possibility of an elaborate hoax more and more unlikely.
What does this evidence include? Let’s start with the premise of the case. A standard document called the “Joint Neutral Statement of Case” is submitted to lay out, in plain English, what is being disputed in the legal action. Each party, Plaintiff and Defendant, describe what they are alleging. The Joint Neutral Statement of Case for Kleiman v Wright confirms that the case is predicated on the suggestion that Dr. Wright played a central role in the creation of Bitcoin. In other words, the Kleiman family, which is 4 years and, presumably, millions of dollars into this case, is convinced that Dr. Wright is at least part of ‘Satoshi Nakamoto.’
What about documentary evidence? The extensive discovery process in Kleiman v Wright made public a trove of documentation including tax documents, loans, contracts for equity, invoices, and trust documents which paint a picture of Dr. Wright routinely dealing in large quantities of Bitcoin in its early days. These include (with links to docket submissions as well as third party summaries):
● Testimony from various witnesses (testifying on behalf of plaintiff and defendant) who place Dr. Wright talking about and sending documents pertaining to Bitcoin before and shortly after its release
● ATO (Australian Tax Office) documents and testimony about Dr. Wright’s 2009 Bitcoin R&D spend
Deposition and documentary evidence which paint a picture of a complex structure of legal entities formed between 2009 and 2015 by Dr. Wright and related parties
● 2011 IP Licensing Agreement paid for with ~3% of total BTC supply (over 200,000 BTC) (page 20)
● 2012 Deed of Loan documents collateralized by 650,000 BTC from Dr. Wright owned entities (page 11)
● 2013 contracts for equity in Bitcoin related companies in exchange for 323,000 BTC (page 1)
● 2015 email (page 12) detailing invoices between Dr. Wright related entities (DeMorgan) and Panamanian firm HighSecured for IaaS services rendered paid for with 60,000 BTC with on-chain corroboration.
● The 2017 Tulip Trust Document which owns the rights to all of Dr. Wright’s assets which he will become eligible to control after June 2020 (page 27)
The last document in this list is possibly the most consequential and will likely be central to the court case. The Tulip Trust is a 2011 Seychelles trust that purports to own the rights to over one million bitcoin and valuable Bitcoin related intellectual property. The document has allegedly been updated three times, with its most recent version dated July 6, 2017 (page 27). Portions of this trust document remain redacted but the readable portions give us the following key information:
● The trust is set up to promote the work of Dr. Craig Wright (named alongside his alias Satoshi Nakamoto), to progress the legal nature of Bitcoin, and to build a scaled financial system on top of bitcoin that can achieve over 1 trillion transactions per second
● The trust grants its trustees access to Wright International Investments and Tulip Trading Ltd assets
◇ Wright International Investments: the “Satoshi Million” Bitcoin mined before 2010 can only be spent after a full meeting of members between the dates of December 2019 and the end of 2020
◇ Tulip Trading Ltd: Any recoverable assets owned by the Dr. Wright related entities including the Bitcoin purchased in 2011 which originally capitalized the companies
● The trust has an activation date in January 2020
● The trust was set up by Dr. Wright but access to the document was explicitly withheld from him during the period of July 10 2017 until December 15 2019. Dr. Wright will be able to become a trustee by a vote of members ONLY AFTER June 2020.
A significant amount of evidence submitted in discovery has been sealed or redacted. We expect some of this additional evidence to be presented at trial, details of which will be presented later in this analysis.
There have also been multiple “motions to seal” in the discovery process. This indicates there exists evidence that has been shared with the plaintiff which may be used at trial that is not yet publicly accessible on the docket. However, descriptions of what these documents include is available in the “Trial Exhibit List”. Noteworthy exhibits we could expect to see in the coming days and weeds include Exhibit Numbers D142 and D143 titled “Multiple 2008 Receipts.” Dr. Wright has hinted in a 2019 blog post that the domain to “Bitcoin.org,” the website which hosted the Bitcoin whitepaper, was done with a credit card. If this information is produced in trial and corroborated by records from the credit card issuer, this would likely be compelling to crypto whales who have not been following post 2016 developments which ought to change their assessment of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto.
Extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and Satoshi
For many who are working in the BSV space, the most notable evidence of the past five years since 2016 is the extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and its origin. Between talks at conferences, podcast appearances, blog posts, academic papers, patents, and extended commentary in the semi-private slack group, Metanet ICU—Dr. Wright has generated thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of hours of content about Bitcoin, the underlying technology, the creation of Bitcoin, and the follies of BTC and other blockchains like Ethereum. To many, this wealth of commentary has provided numerous unique insights—many of which have facilitated the creation of BSV, both from a technical standpoint and by helping to define numerous value props for Bitcoin and blockchain technology which were previously unknown or under-explored.
While there are many ongoing, valid arguments against specific points being argued by Dr. Wright, the quantity and quality of his commentaries are exceptional, even for what one might expect from Satoshi. For a fraud, they are almost unimaginable. Virtually all of these commentaries on Bitcoin by Dr. Wright were created after 2016, although many of Dr. Wright’s arguments can trace their roots back to the original Satoshi writings.
Negative media filter against Dr. Wright
It’s understandable that the average Bitcoin investor might not be up-to-date on the information about Dr. Wright since his 2016 outing, but what explains the media, particularly the cryptocurrency media’s, lack of interest? Why, for example, are you just now hearing about the information likely to become public through this historically large trial. Put simply, the cryptocurrency media is biased against Dr. Wright and filters their reporting accordingly.
Take CoinDesk as an example. They are one of the most prominent cryptocurrency media organizations. CoinDesk is owned by Digital Currency Group which has an extensive portfolio of investments in the cryptocurrency space, the vast majority of which would suffer should the narrative around Dr. Wright shift from “kooky fraud pretending to be Satoshi” to “the inventor of Bitcoin.” Does Digital Currency Group want the inventor of Bitcoin publicly criticizing their investments? Clearly not. How has CoinDesk reported on the Kleiman v Wright story thus far? Their first reporting on the case was titled ‘Satoshi’ Craig Wright Is Being Sued for $10 Billion which outlined the case from the position of highlighting Dr. Wright’s alleged “scheme against Dave’s estate” to “seize Dave’s Bitcoin and his rights to certain intellectual property” and somewhat downplaying the implication that the Plaintiff assumes Dr. Wright played a central role in Bitcoin’s creation. In fairness, CoinDesk was doing this reporting early after the lawsuit was filed and before more newsworthy information had come out during the discovery process.
So, how did CoinDesk’s reporting evolve once this information was made public? Very little. CoinDesk’s coverage has largely stuck to the frame of “Dr. Wright is being sued for massive fraud” ignoring most of the extremely newsworthy information available for reporters to uncover in the docket. Some additional headlines from CoinDesk on this case from over the years include:
Craig Wright Ordered to Disclose Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Court Case (May 6, 2019)
Craig Wright Spars With Kleiman Lawyers in Combative Courtroom Appearance (June 28, 2019)
Judge Blasts Craig Wright’s Evidence, ‘Inconsistent’ Testimony in Kleiman Trial (August 15, 2019)
Craig Wright ‘Abusing’ Privilege to Block 11,000 Documents, Kleiman Lawyers Say (February 4, 2020)
Craig Wright Challenges Court Order Criticizing His Evidence in $4B Kleiman Case (March 26, 2020)
Craig Wright Called ‘Fraud’ in Message Signed With Bitcoin Addresses He Claims to Own (May 25, 2021)
Ex-Wife’s Testimony Suggests Craig Wright ‘Defrauded’ Court, Kleiman Lawyers Claim (August 5, 2020)
Craig Wright Must Face Trial Over Alleged $11B Bitcoin Fortune as Request for Summary Judgment Denied (September 21, 2020)
The bias of CoinDesk is easy to discern from the way they emotionally conjugate their headlines. What about more recent updates? After all, the trial starts this week. A Google advanced search for the most recent CoinDesk publications featuring the terms “Kleiman,” “Wright,” or “Trial” shows that the most recent update (at the time of writing*) is their May 10, 2021 post (over 5 months old) which notes the trial’s delay until November 1 2021.
Earlier this week, CoinDesk.tv did include a section of their “All About Bitcoin” weekly round-up video on the trial. CoinDesk’s Managing Editor of Technology, Christine Harkin, briefly summarized the trial as she understood it. This summary mentions a dispute between Dr. Wright and the Kleiman estate over IP and Bitcoins but is vague as to which Bitcoins are in question, despite the idea of “the Satoshi Million,” or a trove of dormant Bitcoin’s mined by Satoshi in its early years, being a well understood subset of Bitcoins within the cryptocurrency space. Harkin also mentions that “…of course there have been any number of other internet and Bitcoin sleuths out there who’ve been hard at work debunking so much of what Craig Wright has claimed in terms of his involvement with the development of Bitcoin.”
The apparent bias of the cryptocurrency media has a downstream effect on the reporting from the broader financial and tech media, many of whom seem to outsource a lot of their sensemaking in the blockchain space to cryptocurrency publications or thought leaders who are of the mindset outlined above. The cryptocurrency media presenting the Kleiman v Wright case as either a forgone conclusion OR something not worth much attention almost certainly has played a role in the near media blackout on what stands to be one of the largest individual civil IP disputes in US history.
*Since writing this section, CoinDesk has published an article on the case, their first significant coverage since May
Significant conflicts of interest may lead to media bias
There are significant conflicts of interest present in crypto media which may have created an incentive to paint Dr. Wright as an unreliable source, and more recently, to downplay achievements of BSV. The most prominent of these conflicts of interest is the significant investment stake that Mastercard ventures has in Digital Currency Group (DCG). DCG owns CoinDesk and has many significant investments which depend on the success of BTC. DCG is also an investor in Blockstream, an organization which has helped to set a technical direction for BTC which we think is very favorable to Mastercard whereas the vision of Bitcoin first articulated by Satoshi and now articulated by Dr. Wright and embodied by BSV represents a significant threat to Mastercard’s core business.
Mastercard and other credit cards typically charge a fee of around $0.25 and 2% per transaction. Transaction fees on BTC are typically in excess of $10 whereas transaction fees on BSV are typically under $0.001. This significant disparity is primarily due to a self-imposed limitation by BTC, restricting the maximum block size—the amount of data that can be added to the blockchain in any given period of time. By placing a cap on data, there is a cap on transactions which leads to a shortage of available transactions relative to total demand for transactions.
There is no such limitation on BSV. Miners are free to mine as large or small blocks as they choose. This has led to a consistent increase in block sizes over time as miners capabilities improve and demand for BSV blockspace has increased. Allowing blocks to grow has allowed fees to stay small. We think that a blockchain with scalable, cheap transactions is a threat to Mastercard’s business. On the other hand, an unscalable, expensive blockchain is not. We are not sure that Mastercard’s investments are designed to cripple the technical capabilities of Bitcoin, but in important ways, they have had that effect.
It is important to note that these limitations have been accepted because authoritative sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream endorse them as being necessary. Because Dr. Wright is such a vocal advocate of BSV’s unlimited block size approach, if he is recognized as Satoshi, this may supersede the authority of sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream and lead to a broad recognition of the superiority of the BSV path. The BSV path is also gaining empirical verification as the blockchain’s usage continues to increase. The market lacked this empirical evidence when decisions to pursue the Blockstream path on BTC were made. Continued adoption of BSV as a cheap payments solution could ultimately present a significant threat to Mastercard. We do not know whether or not Mastercard has interfered in the market in this way, but the presence of the conflict of interest is an important part of the story nonetheless.
Why won’t he sign? A conflict of visions
With the wealth of evidence that has emerged since 2016 pointing to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it may surprise some that he is not more widely recognized as Satoshi. What must be understood, is that for many, only one piece of evidence will suffice—a signature made with keys assumed to be controlled by Satoshi. This is in line with the crypto ethos—“Not your keys, not your crypto.” Implied by this ethos is that if you don’t prove possession of Satoshi’s keys, you are not Satoshi.
While for many, a digital signature with Satoshi’s keys will be required to prove that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, we think it is easy to understand how Dr. Wright could be Satoshi and have refrained from signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. The first reason is somewhat straightforward—we know Satoshi wanted to stay anonymous. If Dr. Wright had signed, he would be in a much more public position facing greater scrutiny. While he acknowledges that he is Satoshi, he has not been publicly acknowledged. This is in line with what one would expect to be Satoshi’s preference.
Another important motivating factor for Dr. Wright not to sign may have been his desire to improve his positioning and his ability to profit from and control the Bitcoin space. Through nChain, Dr. Wright and his partners have filed over 1200 patents and built a leading enterprise-facing blockchain organization, all while other companies like IBM were not paying attention to him or his research, instead emulating chains like Ethereum which Dr. Wright considers inferior. In this time, his and others work have led the creation of a significant industry around BSV. Importantly, BSV has also successfully restored the original Bitcoin protocol—a feat that may not have been possible with greater scrutiny. If he can later engineer a reorientation of the crypto markets around BSV, he stands to gain immensely by having laid this groundwork.
A more technical reason may exist for why Craig has not signed. The trial has revealed that the Satoshi coins were controlled by a trust. Further, we suspect that this trust may be digitally enforced by having spent the Satoshi coins into transactions which could not be re-spent until a certain point in time. While we know that Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen report to have witnessed a demonstration of a signature, it is also possible that the trustees did not allow him to publicly sign or move coins. This suggestion has been put forward by financial cryptographer Ian Grigg who was an early recipient of the Bitcoin whitepaper as a member of the cryptography mailing list in 2008, and someone who claims to have been involved with the post-outing process after Dr. Wright’s doxxing and eventual public acceptance of the Satoshi pseudonym. The trust may also have a technical enforcement mechanism which hinders Dr. Wright’s ability to move coins or sign at will.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Dr. Wright has made clear that a conflict of visions exists between him and the mainstream crypto ethos. Dr. Wright is seeking to establish judicial supremacy over Bitcoin. He wants to prove that possession of keys in Bitcoin does not equal identity or ownership, the same way possessing a key to a car does not mean one owns that car. Craig has not only maintained that signing would not prove identity, but that he seeks to leverage courts, not just to prove his identity as Satoshi, but to engineer a movement of coins triggered by an order by courts. The purpose of this court-ordered coin movement would be to set a precedent that Bitcoin does not exist outside of the scope of existing laws and law enforcement mechanisms regarding the ownership of property. The mechanics and results of this type of movement are beyond the scope of this analysis. It’s importance is to help explain why someone who is Satoshi would not seek to prove their identity by creating a digital signature, the reason here being that proving identity with a signature endorses a worldview that Dr. Wright claims to oppose.
Dr. Wright’s background: Consistent with Satoshi
Craig has an impressive track record as both an academic and as an industry leader in computer security. He has dozens of degrees and certifications including a Doctorate of Philosophy, a Master of Statistics, an LLM in international commercial law, Masters of Information Security Engineering, Information Security Management, Information System Security, Management (IT), Networking and System Administration, and at least 19 certifications from GIAC, a leading computer security certifier. He has been an adjunct lecturer at Charles Sturt University where he received many of his degrees.
He has been widely published on information security, both formally and informally on his own extensive blogs. Before becoming fully involved with Bitcoin and after a stint as a Wesleyan minister, Craig had a prolific career as a computer security expert working for OzEmail, K-Mart, ASE, Mahindra & Mahindra, Lasseter’s Online, and BDO Kendalls, all done in conjunction with his academic career. He has also consulted for various government organizations and police departments, both before and after Bitcoin’s creation. His background in computer security as well as audit map well to Bitcoin – a secure, distributed, and time-stamped audit trail used to create a digital cash system.
While Dr. Wright is clearly brilliant to anyone who takes a close look, he is not a high EQ individual. This has impaired his ability to be understood by others. Much of his poor PR can be traced to being impatient, impolite, and overly specific to the point of failing to convey meaning. Craig admits to having Autism and Aspergers. It is not surprising that someone who saw what others missed with Bitcoin would be unlike others in significant ways.
‘Faketoshi’ narrative hides strong BSV fundamentals
Part of the bull case for BSV as a result of the trial is that BSV benefits from greater market scrutiny. Because BSV is seen by many as unreputable due to its association with Dr. Wright, many have overlooked the significant technical achievements and adoption of BSV. If the trial causes investors to see Dr. Wright as Satoshi and take a closer look at BSV, we think they will conclude that BSV is a significant competitor in the blockchain space and should be valued accordingly.
The value proposition of BSV is a scalable Bitcoin with its full features restored—the same scarce 21 million Bitcoins but without high fees and limited throughput and with the original scripting language and smart contracting capabilities restored. Businesses utilizing BSV are typically taking advantage of some combination of its micropayment capabilities—instant payments as low as 1/100th of a cent, utilizing the blockchain ledger for its immutability and transparency, and the smart contracting abilities of BSV which are similar to but more scalable than blockchains like Ethereum.
BSV began operating independently in late 2018. The major restoration of the original protocol was completed in February 2020 with the Genesis upgrade. Since 2018, BSV’s achievements include
Setting world record block sizes which recently reached 2 GB (BTC has 1 MB cap)
Surpassing BTC in total blockchain size
Over 16M transactions in a block on STN
Creation of horizontally scalable node software, Teranode, and demonstrating 50,000 TPS
Maintaining low fees, even with surging volume
Restoration of bitcoin script which is deprecated on BTC
Creation of scrypt and use of advance scripting functionality to create the game of life on Bitcoin, proving it’s turing completeness
Creation of dozens of additional on-chain protocols for tokens, smart contracts, data storage, data serialization, and more
Proliferation of wallets, many of which invented or first implemented advanced functionality such as paymail, threshold signatures, and true peer-to-peer infrastructure
Creation of many useful SDKs such as Handcash Connect which have enabled the creation hundreds of applications such as Haste Arcade
Adoption by nation of Tuvalu to create a national digital ledger
Major esports organization Built By Gamers partners with BSV companies to utilize and promote BSV-based technologies
Utilization of the chain as a data storage layer by metastreme, predict ecology for ESG data
Games like cryptofights achieving daily transaction volumes in excess of total Ethereum mainnet
Twetch, a BSV based social network, having over 60,000 users
Tokenized protocol being selected by Aquantium LLC to tokenize equity and debt instruments on the BSV blockchain
Maxthon, the default browser for over 600 million users, using BSV to create new types of browser functionality only possible with BSV
Vxpass, a BSV based vaccine passport solution, used by Kingdom of Lesotho
Domineum partnership with nChain
Bitboss launching the first FDIC backed stablecoin
Kensei adopted by Crucial Compliance
Kensei adopted by Kompany
Surviving 51% attacks unscathed
VOIB (voice over Bitcoin) – using Bitcoin to make a phone call
Mintblue used by Visma Group to record invoice data on BSV blockchain
Unisot utilizing BSV to track scandinavian supply chain for fish
EHR Data using BSV as a data ownership solution for the healthcare industry
And quite a bit more!
What is notable about these achievements is not just the achievements themselves. Also important is that many of the technical achievements directly contradict claims made by technical authorities in BTC and other crypto thought leaders. The current BTC roadmap was initiated based on a belief that Bitcoin could not scale in the manner that BSV is now demonstrating. This belief that Bitcoin cannot scale was in contrast to what Satoshi wrote pseudonymously in 2010. While it is not surprising that someone who claims to be Satoshi would recommend returning to the design created by Satoshi, what is notable about BSV’s success is that it has vindicated this original design to date. In fact, BSV’s success throws the entire roadmap of BTC and crypto into question and can change the perception of what is possible and desirable in the crypto and blockchain space.
*The significant growth of the BSV blockchain relative to BTC shows the accelerating adoption and scalability of BSV compared to BTC
While BSV’s achievements are significant and numerous, the coverage of BSV, especially by prominent crypto news outlets like CoinDesk, has been extremely unfavorable, highlighting only negative events, downplaying some achievements, and generally misrepresenting the space by overblowing issues and ignoring successes. It is unclear if this is explicitly coordinated. It is possible that this misrepresentation is simply due to bias resulting from the “Faketoshi” narrative. However, it is also possible that because BSV represents a competitive threat to existing chains, the owners of major crypto media publications such as Digital Currency Group, the owner of CoinDesk, who have significant investments into BTC and ETH are attempting to suppress knowledge of BSV’s successes to protect their existing investments as well as their reputations. Regardless, the negative media filters around BSV and Dr. Wright are evident. I encourage you to attempt to find positive media coverage of any of the above achievements from a media organization that is not explicitly focused on covering the BSV ecosystem such as CoinGeek or a simple press release.
Our expectations of the trial and its importance
Because our perspective is that Dr. Wright is likely Satoshi Nakamoto based on existing evidence, we also think it is likely that Dr. Wright has additional evidence to support his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto. While significant evidence has already come out in the trial, a significant amount of evidence has been sealed. As mentioned the Exhibit List includes reference to receipts from 2008, “writings and notes” from 2007, “BOD (Board of Directors) meeting minutes” from 2007, email chains from 2008, and even potential Bitcoin predecessors like an entry titled “TimeChain v0.0.2 Alpha” from 2008. In addition to these new exhibits, we are expecting information to surface from witness testimony, perhaps most notably from Dr. Wright directly.
Allusions to the type of evidence which may come forward have been made by CSW himself. When one soberly divorces themselves from the “code is law” ethos of the broader crypto currency space which single-mindedly demands cryptographic evidence of someone being Satoshi Nakamoto, the myriad of other types of evidence that ought to exist becomes more clear. Things like the testimony of those with close relationships to Satoshi, documentation indicating interest and study in relevant domains, computer records pertinent to Bitcoin’s development, and more. In recent messages in the Metanet ICU slack, CSW has both indicated that he will bring such types of information forward AND begun to preempt likely responses from his PoSM-heavy (“proof of social media”, as opposed to Bitcoin’s “proof of work”) crowd of detractors.
Dr. Wright has also made several important predictions about the outcome of the trial. To summarize quite a few recent statements on the likely outcome of the trial, Craig is predicting his victory, that the outcome will determine that he is the creator of Bitcoin, and that the case will trigger events which will result in BTC being moved due to court orders.
In general, we think that the trial represents a turning point for Dr. Wright and his team. They have been operating in relative secrecy from the mainstream over the past few years. To meet their stated goals of making BSV a globally adopted technology and the new foundation of the internet stack, there will need to be a shift in public perception and significant investment in the BSV space. While this lawsuit was not initiated by Dr. Wright and his team, their actions and warnings paint a picture that they are using the trial as a turning point and are expecting to shift from operating in relative secrecy to step into the public mantle of being “Satoshi Nakamoto” and supporting BSV as Satoshi’s Bitcoin. They have indicated that they will go so far as to paint BTC as a “passed off” version of Bitcoin and attempt to make it illegal for institutions such as Coinbase and Robinhood to refer to BTC as Bitcoin.
While we don’t have a strong position on their likelihood for success pursuing the legal claim that exchanges like Coinbase are passing off BTC as Bitcoin, we think their attempts will increase the probability of greater public scrutiny of Dr. Wright, his claim to be Satoshi, and BSV. Also, we expect that due to Dr. Wright and his team’s broader ambitions for BSV and their legal crusade against BTC, they will be seeking media attention on the trial in general, and particularly the elements of the trial that further paint Dr. Wright as Satoshi. We think that greater scrutiny of these things will reveal a strong bull case for BSV. Accordingly, we expect whales who have already linked Dr. Wright with BSV to front-run this greater market recognition of Dr. Wright and BSV which could lead to a rapid price increase during the trial.
Market landscape
The current market landscape and market history of BSV further paint a bullish scenario for BSV during the trial. There is significant precedent for Dr. Wright news affecting the price of BSV. When Dr. Wright was granted the US copyright for the Bitcoin whitepaper, the price jumped 120%. Another large price surge occurred shortly after based on fake news circulating in the Chinese trading community which pointed towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi. Finally, when Dr. Wright confirmed receipt files from a bounded courier, an event detailed by the Tulip Trust, the price briefly rose around 300% before falling after it was made clear that this delivery would not immediately facilitate the movement of Satoshi’s coins. These events as well as other smaller examples paint a picture that the market may very rapidly start buying BSV upon the receipt of additional information pointing towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi.
BSV has also lagged significantly behind the rest of the crypto market over last year’s bull run, even though many significant achievements have occurred. This can be partly explained by the negative media filter around BSV. However, even negative events have not influenced BSV price, such as the block-reorg attacks over the summer. These attacks received extensive coverage even though the attacks did not disrupt network functioning, nor did they affect the price of BSV. BSV price movements have typically been in the form of sharp increases followed by long periods of decline. This increasingly uncorrelated BSV chart may be due to the very significant short volumes relative to other crypto currencies.
BSV has been one of the most heavily shorted assets, often the most shorted cryptoasset on a per capita basis. For most fund managers employing a long short strategy, BSV is a natural short pair. Until recently it had been highly correlated with BTC, and it is largely viewed as a scam or a version of Bitcoin with no chance of success. This coupled with underperformance relative to most of the cryptomarket makes it seem like one of the least risky assets to short in a market where shorting any cryptoasset comes with a large degree of risk. We think that this dynamic that has in part kept the price of BSV down relative to the rest of the cryptomarket could flip quickly if the perceived risk of a significant, uncorrelated BSV price increase occurs in the coming weeks.
We think that a meaningful BSV price increase could generate both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze. The gamma squeeze would be in part due to Unbounded Capital’s large OTM call options position with major OTC market makers in the crypto space. It is also important to note that BSV is not as liquid as other cryptoassets, in part due to delistings of BSV by major exchanges like Binance which were triggered by defamation lawsuits initiated by Dr. Wright. Controversy around Dr. Wright has kept BSV off of popular exchanges like Coinbase, although importantly, the asset is available on Robinhood. This restricted liquidity could exacerbate a significant price increase due to difficulties obtaining BSV compared to other similar assets.
Pricing in crypto is very subjective. The benchmark for BSV is clearly BTC. Currently the price ratio is around 400:1, an all-time relative high. If public perception of BSV is that it is Satoshi’s preferred version of Bitcoin, we expect that ratio to sharply decline, mainly due to an increase in BSV price.
Importantly, BSV has strong scalability fundamentals. We have recently seen a significant rise in the price of Solana, the blockchain seen as the greatest competitor to Ethereum due to it’s significantly higher scalability. We think BSV and BTC could mirror the relationship between Ethereum and Solana. One year ago, the ETH:SOL market cap ration was ~113:1. Today, it is only ~9:1. 9:1 BTC:BSV would result in a ~4000% increase in the price of BSV if BTC stayed at $61,000.
We think the major risk of negative alpha for BSV relative to the broader crypto market during the trial is that long-term holders may sell their positions if the trial does not have a significant result. However, we think for traders who are mainly speculating on the trial and do not have an independent bull case for BSV, having exposure across many years would not be a sensible approach. Rather, buying directly in advance of the trial would make the most sense. We have not seen a price run-up in advance of the trial. This is in line with our thesis that the crypto market underestimates the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. We believe that most BSV holders are bullish on the tech fundamentals in addition to price action related to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, and are therefore less likely to sell if the trial does not produce a result.
Potential trade mechanics
Unbounded Capital is primarily speculating on the trial outcome through deep OTM call options purchased OTC, an option not available to retail traders. Other trade mechanics one could consider include leveraged exposure on Bitfinex or perpetual swaps on FTX. For traders who are less advanced in general or who are not set up to trade on crypto exchanges, Robinhood is a highly accessible platform which makes taking a long position on BSV simple.
We believe that this trial does not simply represent a trading opportunity for BSV. We believe that this trial could have historical significance as a major landmark event which reveals Satoshi to the world. If so, it will have been very cool to be a part of this event, even if we are simply spectators and speculators.
Conclusion
The crypto market is operating on an outdated view of the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. Kleiman vs Wright represents an opportunity for additional evidence and greater media scrutiny to change the public and crypto market’s views on Dr. Wright. If public sentiment shifts towards recognizing Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it could cause BSV, the network Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin” which also has strong, overlooked fundamentals, to appreciate rapidly relative to its benchmark BTC. Market conditions are ripe for this type of rapid movement due to the high ratio of short exposure and potential for a gamma squeeze.
To stay up to date on the proceedings visit UnboundedCapital.com/trial for real time information from the courtroom.
CoinGeek will feature Kurt Wuckert Jr. in daily recap coverage which will be livestreamed on a daily basis at 6:30 p.m. EST on our YouTube Channel.
Watch our Day 1 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtxsbsPtiY
Watch our Day 2 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMXVtQrmVZc
New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.
Source: https://coingeek.com/how-we-are-trading-the-70-billion-dollar-lawsuit-over-satoshis-bitcoins/
[/quote]
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
How we are trading the 70 billion dollar lawsuit over Satoshi’s Bitcoins
Guest Contributor
This post originally appeared on the Unbounded Capital website, and we republished with permission from Jack Laskey.
TLDR; Long BSV (available on Robinhood)
Overview
A Florida civil suit over the $70+ billion Satoshi fortune that started November 1st could lead to broad market awareness that Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. This could have significant short term price impacts on Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV), a version of Bitcoin which Craig Wright is heavily associated with and endorses as “the real Bitcoin.” We believe that the market has an outdated perception of Craig Wright and the potential that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Additional scrutiny of existing evidence due to the high-profile nature of the trial as well as the potential for new evidence presented in trial could significantly change public sentiment regarding the likelihood that Craig Wright is Satoshi. We believe this could result in a rapid and significant price increase for BSV, due to its association with Craig Wright, its technical merits and market traction which have been overlooked to this point, and in part because of its accessibility to retail investors via Robinhood. BSV is also one of the most shorted cryptos, meaning that there is potential for both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze, the latter in part due to positions held by Unbounded Capital.
Background
One of the most important trials of the century begins today, Nov 1, 2021 at 10 a.m. Kleiman v Wright is a Florida civil suit over the ownership of around $70 billion dollars’ worth of Bitcoin. Not only is this a stunning sum, but the quality of these Bitcoins is also exceptional. Why? Because they are allegedly the Bitcoins that Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, mined in Bitcoin’s earliest days, from 2009-2011. Thus, the trial not only could determine the fate of Satoshi’s Bitcoins, but it could shed an extraordinary amount of light upon one of the biggest mysteries of the 21st century, the identity of the pseudonymous creator of a trillion-dollar invention.
Chances are, you probably haven’t heard about it. Why?
Both mainstream and crypto media have been shockingly quiet about this incredibly significant and intriguing case. The reason for this is that the media, most of the public, and perhaps most importantly, the market, have a major disagreement with both the plaintiff and defendant. The disagreement is whether or not Dr. Craig S Wright, the defendant in the trial and an Australian computer security expert and polymath, is the man, or one of the men behind the Satoshi pseudonym.
Ira Kleiman, the plaintiff, and Dr. Wright, however, are in agreement that Dr. Wright was involved in the creation of Bitcoin and the mining of Satoshi’s billions. The dispute is about Ira’s deceased brother, Dave Kleiman, and the degree to which his involvement in the creation of Bitcoin constitutes a partnership, and a claim on the Satoshi billions by his estate, now managed by Ira Kleiman. However, much of the crypto world thinks Craig is involved in an elaborate hoax—that he is pretending to be Satoshi. This has earned him the moniker “Faketoshi” and inspired t-shirt designs like what are pictured below.
A popular refrain “We are all Satoshi Except Craig Wright” was even made into a shirt worn by popular crypto influencers like Tone Vays
At Unbounded Capital, we believe that the “Faketoshi” narrative is out of date. Most people either formed their opinion about Dr. Wright in 2016 or inherited their opinion from someone who had. A lot has happened with Dr. Wright since then, much of it due to the ongoing discovery process in the trial. The result of this is that people have not been paying close attention to what is happening with Dr. Wright or Bitcoin SV, a fork of Bitcoin Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin.” We think the trial could change this, and we are placing our bets accordingly.
Our investment thesis behind the Satoshi trial
We think Dr. Wright is likely to both win the trial and also confirm his ownership over these Bitcoins in the process. However, what is most pertinent to our investment thesis is the possibility that the market increasingly perceives Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto due to new evidence and increased public scrutiny of existing evidence resulting from the trial. In other words, we believe the market is mispricing the probability that Kleiman v Wright will make it clear to the public that Dr. Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin.
BTC’s market cap is already over a trillion dollars. Why would a Satoshi reveal matter at this point? The answer is that Dr. Wright is perhaps the world’s biggest BTC bear. Dr. Wright has been publicly lamenting changes made in BTC which he believes cripple its functionality. Since 2017, he has supported alternate forks as “the real Bitcoin” and focused his efforts in these communities, first Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and for the last three years since its inception, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV).
In particular, Dr. Wright has impressed his stamp on BSV, both from an influence standpoint as well as a reputation standpoint. BSV has been inextricably linked to Dr. Wright and has followed the development path prescribed by Dr. Wright—to return to the original Bitcoin protocol outlined by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008-2009. Not only has Dr. Wright placed his efforts and support behind BSV, but he has also been public about his plan to liquidate Satoshi’s BTC and BCH for BSV and USD and then to use the proceeds from the sale for charitable purposes. Keep in mind that because BTC, BCH, and BSV are all forks of the same chain, Satoshi’s ~1.1M Bitcoin fortune would apply to all of these forks. In other words, Satoshi is suspected to have ~1.1M of each BTC ($66.5B total value), BCH ($0.65B total value), and BSV ($0.17B total value). Craig’s warning is that he will convert the ~$67B of BTC and BCH into BSV and USD. The current market cap of BSV is ~$3.1B.
*Note that the trial was originally scheduled for July 2020. The delays were largely due to Covid.
While the broader investing public is not aware of this, most crypto whales are. We believe that meaningful evidence presented in the trial will likely result in the market front-running the perceived inevitability of an increase in BSV price. We feel that the lack of price movement until now indicates that these whales are not correctly evaluating the likelihood that the trial will lead to this evidence, presenting a window of where there is asymmetric upside in trading on a bullish trial result for BSV.
In the rest of this article, we will present more detailed evidence in support of our thesis including existing evidence that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, positive BSV fundamentals which are being overlooked due to a clear negative media filter, more detail about the conflict of visions which may bias the crypto investing public against the possibility that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, our expectations for the trial, and how current market conditions are ripe for a sharp increase in BSV price due to revelations from the trial.
The market’s view on ‘Faketoshi’ is outdated
Dr. Wright was exposed as Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired in 2015. He first denied it and later admitted to being Satoshi. When the crypto community were forming their opinions about his claim to be Satoshi in 2016, there was mixed evidence including the absence of evidence thought to be essential—signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. Dr. Wright orchestrated a private signing with then BTC chief developer, Gavin Andresen, and Bitcoin Foundation head, Jon Matonis. Gavin publicly affirmed that he was satisfied with this private demonstration, as did Jon, and other individuals came forward attesting to knowledge that Dr. Wright is Satoshi.
A public demonstration was offered but never delivered. This left many skeptical. A blog post that came out in 2016 was accused of being a fake proof attempt. While it is cryptic, a close reading of the post makes it clear that it was not a proof attempt. Still, the lack of public proof combined with concerns that Craig was changing and backdating blog posts and other documents led to the consensus view that Craig was a pretender, earning him the “Faketoshi” moniker.
In our view, there was nothing completely unreasonable about this conclusion in 2016. It was a strange story with the attestation of Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis combined with the lack of a public signing and strange incidents with suspected forgeries. The evidence was unsettling, but certainly inconclusive.
However, even if the view of Dr. Wright as Faketoshi was justifiable in 2016, it has become increasingly outdated in the ensuing years. Craig’s continued actions, the actions of his professional associates, Craig’s extensive commentary on Bitcoin’s creation and design, as well as evidence that has been presented through the Kleiman vs Wright discovery plus evidence put forth by Dr. Wright outside of the trial paints a significant likelihood that Dr. Wright is actually Satoshi or at least a significant part of a potential Satoshi team. We will also explore the significant conflicts of interest which exist in crypto media which may have contributed to the continued prevalence of the “Faketoshi” narrative.
Dr. Wright and associates’ work and actions
One of the most salient, and overlooked reasons to suspect that Dr. Wright is, in fact, Satoshi are his and his business partners’ continued actions. Dr. Wright currently acts as the Chief Scientist at nChain, a Bitcoin R&D firm which has now created and sold enterprise software products utilizing BSV. Dr. Wright and nChain have filed over 1200 patents on Bitcoin related technology. nChain has over 100 employees and recently launched their first enterprise product, Kensei, a data integrity solution, which is being used by Crucial Compliance, a compliance software provider for the online gaming industry, and others. In 2016, almost none of this existed, and what did exist was not well known. Dr. Wright’s professional work since 2016 is much more in line with what one would expect from the inventor of Bitcoin than from a fraud.
The chairman of nChain’s board is Stefan Matthews, who is also the CEO of a publicly traded mining company, [ur=https://www.taal.com/l]TAAL Distributed Information Technologies Inc.[/url] (CSE:TAAL | FWB:9SQ1 | OTC: TAALF), which is focused on creating services for the BSV blockchain. Stefan is an associate of Dr. Wright’s from before Bitcoin. Stefan has previously said that Craig offered him 50,000 Bitcoins in 2009, an offer which Stefan rejected. Stefan also claims to have seen a copy of the Bitcoin whitepaper before it’s publication in 2008. Stefan has now dedicated his career to working alongside Dr. Wright on BSV. This story and Stefan’s continued commitment to Dr. Wright and BSV was not known in 2016.
Stefan is also the connection between Dr. Wright and Calvin Ayre. Calvin Ayre is a billionaire who made his fortune through Bodog, a pioneering company in offshore gambling. The Kleiman v Wright trial has revealed that Dr. Wright, at least allegedly, placed Satoshi’s bitcoins into a trust. The inability to access Satoshi’s Bitcoins in 2015 combined with tax issues resulting from the 2015 outing of Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired placed Dr. Wright in a position where he was looking for an investor.
Calvin Ayre has staked a significant percentage of his fortune and his reputation behind Dr. Wright—an ongoing investment and involvement over the course of almost seven years. Given the fact that Dr. Wright offered private proof to Gavin Andresen, it would defy common sense to think that this same proof and more was not offered to Calvin Ayre. This relationship and the degree to which Calvin would continue to invest in and back Dr. Wright was not well known in 2016.
It is also important to note that many people, including many entrepreneurs, are building in the BSV space. We will address more specifics about BSV fundamentals soon. What is notable is that there is a significant entrepreneurial community that either believes that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, or is not dissuaded by uncertainty or unconcerned about being associated with a “scammer.” In other words, even though the market has largely stuck with the “Faketoshi” thesis, many individuals have rejected it with conviction by dedicating their professional lives to BSV, a phenomenon that was not present or possible in 2016 since BSV did not exist until the end of 2018.
Evidence of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto from Kleiman v Wright
Another important post-2016 development has been the discovery process from Kleiman v Wright. Prior suspicions of forged blog posts and other documents have lured the market into a state of comfort in ignoring additional evidence made public via discovery. However, this evidence should not be overlooked, both because of its pertinence and because the massive quantity of evidence makes the possibility of an elaborate hoax more and more unlikely.
What does this evidence include? Let’s start with the premise of the case. A standard document called the “Joint Neutral Statement of Case” is submitted to lay out, in plain English, what is being disputed in the legal action. Each party, Plaintiff and Defendant, describe what they are alleging. The Joint Neutral Statement of Case for Kleiman v Wright confirms that the case is predicated on the suggestion that Dr. Wright played a central role in the creation of Bitcoin. In other words, the Kleiman family, which is 4 years and, presumably, millions of dollars into this case, is convinced that Dr. Wright is at least part of ‘Satoshi Nakamoto.’
What about documentary evidence? The extensive discovery process in Kleiman v Wright made public a trove of documentation including tax documents, loans, contracts for equity, invoices, and trust documents which paint a picture of Dr. Wright routinely dealing in large quantities of Bitcoin in its early days. These include (with links to docket submissions as well as third party summaries):
● Testimony from various witnesses (testifying on behalf of plaintiff and defendant) who place Dr. Wright talking about and sending documents pertaining to Bitcoin before and shortly after its release
● ATO (Australian Tax Office) documents and testimony about Dr. Wright’s 2009 Bitcoin R&D spend
Deposition and documentary evidence which paint a picture of a complex structure of legal entities formed between 2009 and 2015 by Dr. Wright and related parties
● 2011 IP Licensing Agreement paid for with ~3% of total BTC supply (over 200,000 BTC) (page 20)
● 2012 Deed of Loan documents collateralized by 650,000 BTC from Dr. Wright owned entities (page 11)
● 2013 contracts for equity in Bitcoin related companies in exchange for 323,000 BTC (page 1)
● 2015 email (page 12) detailing invoices between Dr. Wright related entities (DeMorgan) and Panamanian firm HighSecured for IaaS services rendered paid for with 60,000 BTC with on-chain corroboration.
● The 2017 Tulip Trust Document which owns the rights to all of Dr. Wright’s assets which he will become eligible to control after June 2020 (page 27)
The last document in this list is possibly the most consequential and will likely be central to the court case. The Tulip Trust is a 2011 Seychelles trust that purports to own the rights to over one million bitcoin and valuable Bitcoin related intellectual property. The document has allegedly been updated three times, with its most recent version dated July 6, 2017 (page 27). Portions of this trust document remain redacted but the readable portions give us the following key information:
● The trust is set up to promote the work of Dr. Craig Wright (named alongside his alias Satoshi Nakamoto), to progress the legal nature of Bitcoin, and to build a scaled financial system on top of bitcoin that can achieve over 1 trillion transactions per second
● The trust grants its trustees access to Wright International Investments and Tulip Trading Ltd assets
◇ Wright International Investments: the “Satoshi Million” Bitcoin mined before 2010 can only be spent after a full meeting of members between the dates of December 2019 and the end of 2020
◇ Tulip Trading Ltd: Any recoverable assets owned by the Dr. Wright related entities including the Bitcoin purchased in 2011 which originally capitalized the companies
● The trust has an activation date in January 2020
● The trust was set up by Dr. Wright but access to the document was explicitly withheld from him during the period of July 10 2017 until December 15 2019. Dr. Wright will be able to become a trustee by a vote of members ONLY AFTER June 2020.
A significant amount of evidence submitted in discovery has been sealed or redacted. We expect some of this additional evidence to be presented at trial, details of which will be presented later in this analysis.
There have also been multiple “motions to seal” in the discovery process. This indicates there exists evidence that has been shared with the plaintiff which may be used at trial that is not yet publicly accessible on the docket. However, descriptions of what these documents include is available in the “Trial Exhibit List”. Noteworthy exhibits we could expect to see in the coming days and weeds include Exhibit Numbers D142 and D143 titled “Multiple 2008 Receipts.” Dr. Wright has hinted in a 2019 blog post that the domain to “Bitcoin.org,” the website which hosted the Bitcoin whitepaper, was done with a credit card. If this information is produced in trial and corroborated by records from the credit card issuer, this would likely be compelling to crypto whales who have not been following post 2016 developments which ought to change their assessment of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto.
Extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and Satoshi
For many who are working in the BSV space, the most notable evidence of the past five years since 2016 is the extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and its origin. Between talks at conferences, podcast appearances, blog posts, academic papers, patents, and extended commentary in the semi-private slack group, Metanet ICU—Dr. Wright has generated thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of hours of content about Bitcoin, the underlying technology, the creation of Bitcoin, and the follies of BTC and other blockchains like Ethereum. To many, this wealth of commentary has provided numerous unique insights—many of which have facilitated the creation of BSV, both from a technical standpoint and by helping to define numerous value props for Bitcoin and blockchain technology which were previously unknown or under-explored.
While there are many ongoing, valid arguments against specific points being argued by Dr. Wright, the quantity and quality of his commentaries are exceptional, even for what one might expect from Satoshi. For a fraud, they are almost unimaginable. Virtually all of these commentaries on Bitcoin by Dr. Wright were created after 2016, although many of Dr. Wright’s arguments can trace their roots back to the original Satoshi writings.
Negative media filter against Dr. Wright
It’s understandable that the average Bitcoin investor might not be up-to-date on the information about Dr. Wright since his 2016 outing, but what explains the media, particularly the cryptocurrency media’s, lack of interest? Why, for example, are you just now hearing about the information likely to become public through this historically large trial. Put simply, the cryptocurrency media is biased against Dr. Wright and filters their reporting accordingly.
Take CoinDesk as an example. They are one of the most prominent cryptocurrency media organizations. CoinDesk is owned by Digital Currency Group which has an extensive portfolio of investments in the cryptocurrency space, the vast majority of which would suffer should the narrative around Dr. Wright shift from “kooky fraud pretending to be Satoshi” to “the inventor of Bitcoin.” Does Digital Currency Group want the inventor of Bitcoin publicly criticizing their investments? Clearly not. How has CoinDesk reported on the Kleiman v Wright story thus far? Their first reporting on the case was titled ‘Satoshi’ Craig Wright Is Being Sued for $10 Billion which outlined the case from the position of highlighting Dr. Wright’s alleged “scheme against Dave’s estate” to “seize Dave’s Bitcoin and his rights to certain intellectual property” and somewhat downplaying the implication that the Plaintiff assumes Dr. Wright played a central role in Bitcoin’s creation. In fairness, CoinDesk was doing this reporting early after the lawsuit was filed and before more newsworthy information had come out during the discovery process.
So, how did CoinDesk’s reporting evolve once this information was made public? Very little. CoinDesk’s coverage has largely stuck to the frame of “Dr. Wright is being sued for massive fraud” ignoring most of the extremely newsworthy information available for reporters to uncover in the docket. Some additional headlines from CoinDesk on this case from over the years include:
Craig Wright Ordered to Disclose Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Court Case (May 6, 2019)
Craig Wright Spars With Kleiman Lawyers in Combative Courtroom Appearance (June 28, 2019)
Judge Blasts Craig Wright’s Evidence, ‘Inconsistent’ Testimony in Kleiman Trial (August 15, 2019)
Craig Wright ‘Abusing’ Privilege to Block 11,000 Documents, Kleiman Lawyers Say (February 4, 2020)
Craig Wright Challenges Court Order Criticizing His Evidence in $4B Kleiman Case (March 26, 2020)
Craig Wright Called ‘Fraud’ in Message Signed With Bitcoin Addresses He Claims to Own (May 25, 2021)
Ex-Wife’s Testimony Suggests Craig Wright ‘Defrauded’ Court, Kleiman Lawyers Claim (August 5, 2020)
Craig Wright Must Face Trial Over Alleged $11B Bitcoin Fortune as Request for Summary Judgment Denied (September 21, 2020)
The bias of CoinDesk is easy to discern from the way they emotionally conjugate their headlines. What about more recent updates? After all, the trial starts this week. A Google advanced search for the most recent CoinDesk publications featuring the terms “Kleiman,” “Wright,” or “Trial” shows that the most recent update (at the time of writing*) is their May 10, 2021 post (over 5 months old) which notes the trial’s delay until November 1 2021.
Earlier this week, CoinDesk.tv did include a section of their “All About Bitcoin” weekly round-up video on the trial. CoinDesk’s Managing Editor of Technology, Christine Harkin, briefly summarized the trial as she understood it. This summary mentions a dispute between Dr. Wright and the Kleiman estate over IP and Bitcoins but is vague as to which Bitcoins are in question, despite the idea of “the Satoshi Million,” or a trove of dormant Bitcoin’s mined by Satoshi in its early years, being a well understood subset of Bitcoins within the cryptocurrency space. Harkin also mentions that “…of course there have been any number of other internet and Bitcoin sleuths out there who’ve been hard at work debunking so much of what Craig Wright has claimed in terms of his involvement with the development of Bitcoin.”
The apparent bias of the cryptocurrency media has a downstream effect on the reporting from the broader financial and tech media, many of whom seem to outsource a lot of their sensemaking in the blockchain space to cryptocurrency publications or thought leaders who are of the mindset outlined above. The cryptocurrency media presenting the Kleiman v Wright case as either a forgone conclusion OR something not worth much attention almost certainly has played a role in the near media blackout on what stands to be one of the largest individual civil IP disputes in US history.
*Since writing this section, CoinDesk has published an article on the case, their first significant coverage since May
Significant conflicts of interest may lead to media bias
There are significant conflicts of interest present in crypto media which may have created an incentive to paint Dr. Wright as an unreliable source, and more recently, to downplay achievements of BSV. The most prominent of these conflicts of interest is the significant investment stake that Mastercard ventures has in Digital Currency Group (DCG). DCG owns CoinDesk and has many significant investments which depend on the success of BTC. DCG is also an investor in Blockstream, an organization which has helped to set a technical direction for BTC which we think is very favorable to Mastercard whereas the vision of Bitcoin first articulated by Satoshi and now articulated by Dr. Wright and embodied by BSV represents a significant threat to Mastercard’s core business.
Mastercard and other credit cards typically charge a fee of around $0.25 and 2% per transaction. Transaction fees on BTC are typically in excess of $10 whereas transaction fees on BSV are typically under $0.001. This significant disparity is primarily due to a self-imposed limitation by BTC, restricting the maximum block size—the amount of data that can be added to the blockchain in any given period of time. By placing a cap on data, there is a cap on transactions which leads to a shortage of available transactions relative to total demand for transactions.
There is no such limitation on BSV. Miners are free to mine as large or small blocks as they choose. This has led to a consistent increase in block sizes over time as miners capabilities improve and demand for BSV blockspace has increased. Allowing blocks to grow has allowed fees to stay small. We think that a blockchain with scalable, cheap transactions is a threat to Mastercard’s business. On the other hand, an unscalable, expensive blockchain is not. We are not sure that Mastercard’s investments are designed to cripple the technical capabilities of Bitcoin, but in important ways, they have had that effect.
It is important to note that these limitations have been accepted because authoritative sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream endorse them as being necessary. Because Dr. Wright is such a vocal advocate of BSV’s unlimited block size approach, if he is recognized as Satoshi, this may supersede the authority of sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream and lead to a broad recognition of the superiority of the BSV path. The BSV path is also gaining empirical verification as the blockchain’s usage continues to increase. The market lacked this empirical evidence when decisions to pursue the Blockstream path on BTC were made. Continued adoption of BSV as a cheap payments solution could ultimately present a significant threat to Mastercard. We do not know whether or not Mastercard has interfered in the market in this way, but the presence of the conflict of interest is an important part of the story nonetheless.
Why won’t he sign? A conflict of visions
With the wealth of evidence that has emerged since 2016 pointing to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it may surprise some that he is not more widely recognized as Satoshi. What must be understood, is that for many, only one piece of evidence will suffice—a signature made with keys assumed to be controlled by Satoshi. This is in line with the crypto ethos—“Not your keys, not your crypto.” Implied by this ethos is that if you don’t prove possession of Satoshi’s keys, you are not Satoshi.
While for many, a digital signature with Satoshi’s keys will be required to prove that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, we think it is easy to understand how Dr. Wright could be Satoshi and have refrained from signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. The first reason is somewhat straightforward—we know Satoshi wanted to stay anonymous. If Dr. Wright had signed, he would be in a much more public position facing greater scrutiny. While he acknowledges that he is Satoshi, he has not been publicly acknowledged. This is in line with what one would expect to be Satoshi’s preference.
Another important motivating factor for Dr. Wright not to sign may have been his desire to improve his positioning and his ability to profit from and control the Bitcoin space. Through nChain, Dr. Wright and his partners have filed over 1200 patents and built a leading enterprise-facing blockchain organization, all while other companies like IBM were not paying attention to him or his research, instead emulating chains like Ethereum which Dr. Wright considers inferior. In this time, his and others work have led the creation of a significant industry around BSV. Importantly, BSV has also successfully restored the original Bitcoin protocol—a feat that may not have been possible with greater scrutiny. If he can later engineer a reorientation of the crypto markets around BSV, he stands to gain immensely by having laid this groundwork.
A more technical reason may exist for why Craig has not signed. The trial has revealed that the Satoshi coins were controlled by a trust. Further, we suspect that this trust may be digitally enforced by having spent the Satoshi coins into transactions which could not be re-spent until a certain point in time. While we know that Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen report to have witnessed a demonstration of a signature, it is also possible that the trustees did not allow him to publicly sign or move coins. This suggestion has been put forward by financial cryptographer Ian Grigg who was an early recipient of the Bitcoin whitepaper as a member of the cryptography mailing list in 2008, and someone who claims to have been involved with the post-outing process after Dr. Wright’s doxxing and eventual public acceptance of the Satoshi pseudonym. The trust may also have a technical enforcement mechanism which hinders Dr. Wright’s ability to move coins or sign at will.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Dr. Wright has made clear that a conflict of visions exists between him and the mainstream crypto ethos. Dr. Wright is seeking to establish judicial supremacy over Bitcoin. He wants to prove that possession of keys in Bitcoin does not equal identity or ownership, the same way possessing a key to a car does not mean one owns that car. Craig has not only maintained that signing would not prove identity, but that he seeks to leverage courts, not just to prove his identity as Satoshi, but to engineer a movement of coins triggered by an order by courts. The purpose of this court-ordered coin movement would be to set a precedent that Bitcoin does not exist outside of the scope of existing laws and law enforcement mechanisms regarding the ownership of property. The mechanics and results of this type of movement are beyond the scope of this analysis. It’s importance is to help explain why someone who is Satoshi would not seek to prove their identity by creating a digital signature, the reason here being that proving identity with a signature endorses a worldview that Dr. Wright claims to oppose.
Dr. Wright’s background: Consistent with Satoshi
Craig has an impressive track record as both an academic and as an industry leader in computer security. He has dozens of degrees and certifications including a Doctorate of Philosophy, a Master of Statistics, an LLM in international commercial law, Masters of Information Security Engineering, Information Security Management, Information System Security, Management (IT), Networking and System Administration, and at least 19 certifications from GIAC, a leading computer security certifier. He has been an adjunct lecturer at Charles Sturt University where he received many of his degrees.
He has been widely published on information security, both formally and informally on his own extensive blogs. Before becoming fully involved with Bitcoin and after a stint as a Wesleyan minister, Craig had a prolific career as a computer security expert working for OzEmail, K-Mart, ASE, Mahindra & Mahindra, Lasseter’s Online, and BDO Kendalls, all done in conjunction with his academic career. He has also consulted for various government organizations and police departments, both before and after Bitcoin’s creation. His background in computer security as well as audit map well to Bitcoin – a secure, distributed, and time-stamped audit trail used to create a digital cash system.
While Dr. Wright is clearly brilliant to anyone who takes a close look, he is not a high EQ individual. This has impaired his ability to be understood by others. Much of his poor PR can be traced to being impatient, impolite, and overly specific to the point of failing to convey meaning. Craig admits to having Autism and Aspergers. It is not surprising that someone who saw what others missed with Bitcoin would be unlike others in significant ways.
‘Faketoshi’ narrative hides strong BSV fundamentals
Part of the bull case for BSV as a result of the trial is that BSV benefits from greater market scrutiny. Because BSV is seen by many as unreputable due to its association with Dr. Wright, many have overlooked the significant technical achievements and adoption of BSV. If the trial causes investors to see Dr. Wright as Satoshi and take a closer look at BSV, we think they will conclude that BSV is a significant competitor in the blockchain space and should be valued accordingly.
The value proposition of BSV is a scalable Bitcoin with its full features restored—the same scarce 21 million Bitcoins but without high fees and limited throughput and with the original scripting language and smart contracting capabilities restored. Businesses utilizing BSV are typically taking advantage of some combination of its micropayment capabilities—instant payments as low as 1/100th of a cent, utilizing the blockchain ledger for its immutability and transparency, and the smart contracting abilities of BSV which are similar to but more scalable than blockchains like Ethereum.
BSV began operating independently in late 2018. The major restoration of the original protocol was completed in February 2020 with the Genesis upgrade. Since 2018, BSV’s achievements include
Setting world record block sizes which recently reached 2 GB (BTC has 1 MB cap)
Surpassing BTC in total blockchain size
Over 16M transactions in a block on STN
Creation of horizontally scalable node software, Teranode, and demonstrating 50,000 TPS
Maintaining low fees, even with surging volume
Restoration of bitcoin script which is deprecated on BTC
Creation of scrypt and use of advance scripting functionality to create the game of life on Bitcoin, proving it’s turing completeness
Creation of dozens of additional on-chain protocols for tokens, smart contracts, data storage, data serialization, and more
Proliferation of wallets, many of which invented or first implemented advanced functionality such as paymail, threshold signatures, and true peer-to-peer infrastructure
Creation of many useful SDKs such as Handcash Connect which have enabled the creation hundreds of applications such as Haste Arcade
Adoption by nation of Tuvalu to create a national digital ledger
Major esports organization Built By Gamers partners with BSV companies to utilize and promote BSV-based technologies
Utilization of the chain as a data storage layer by metastreme, predict ecology for ESG data
Games like cryptofights achieving daily transaction volumes in excess of total Ethereum mainnet
Twetch, a BSV based social network, having over 60,000 users
Tokenized protocol being selected by Aquantium LLC to tokenize equity and debt instruments on the BSV blockchain
Maxthon, the default browser for over 600 million users, using BSV to create new types of browser functionality only possible with BSV
Vxpass, a BSV based vaccine passport solution, used by Kingdom of Lesotho
Domineum partnership with nChain
Bitboss launching the first FDIC backed stablecoin
Kensei adopted by Crucial Compliance
Kensei adopted by Kompany
Surviving 51% attacks unscathed
VOIB (voice over Bitcoin) – using Bitcoin to make a phone call
Mintblue used by Visma Group to record invoice data on BSV blockchain
Unisot utilizing BSV to track scandinavian supply chain for fish
EHR Data using BSV as a data ownership solution for the healthcare industry
And quite a bit more!
What is notable about these achievements is not just the achievements themselves. Also important is that many of the technical achievements directly contradict claims made by technical authorities in BTC and other crypto thought leaders. The current BTC roadmap was initiated based on a belief that Bitcoin could not scale in the manner that BSV is now demonstrating. This belief that Bitcoin cannot scale was in contrast to what Satoshi wrote pseudonymously in 2010. While it is not surprising that someone who claims to be Satoshi would recommend returning to the design created by Satoshi, what is notable about BSV’s success is that it has vindicated this original design to date. In fact, BSV’s success throws the entire roadmap of BTC and crypto into question and can change the perception of what is possible and desirable in the crypto and blockchain space.
*The significant growth of the BSV blockchain relative to BTC shows the accelerating adoption and scalability of BSV compared to BTC
While BSV’s achievements are significant and numerous, the coverage of BSV, especially by prominent crypto news outlets like CoinDesk, has been extremely unfavorable, highlighting only negative events, downplaying some achievements, and generally misrepresenting the space by overblowing issues and ignoring successes. It is unclear if this is explicitly coordinated. It is possible that this misrepresentation is simply due to bias resulting from the “Faketoshi” narrative. However, it is also possible that because BSV represents a competitive threat to existing chains, the owners of major crypto media publications such as Digital Currency Group, the owner of CoinDesk, who have significant investments into BTC and ETH are attempting to suppress knowledge of BSV’s successes to protect their existing investments as well as their reputations. Regardless, the negative media filters around BSV and Dr. Wright are evident. I encourage you to attempt to find positive media coverage of any of the above achievements from a media organization that is not explicitly focused on covering the BSV ecosystem such as CoinGeek or a simple press release.
Our expectations of the trial and its importance
Because our perspective is that Dr. Wright is likely Satoshi Nakamoto based on existing evidence, we also think it is likely that Dr. Wright has additional evidence to support his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto. While significant evidence has already come out in the trial, a significant amount of evidence has been sealed. As mentioned the Exhibit List includes reference to receipts from 2008, “writings and notes” from 2007, “BOD (Board of Directors) meeting minutes” from 2007, email chains from 2008, and even potential Bitcoin predecessors like an entry titled “TimeChain v0.0.2 Alpha” from 2008. In addition to these new exhibits, we are expecting information to surface from witness testimony, perhaps most notably from Dr. Wright directly.
Allusions to the type of evidence which may come forward have been made by CSW himself. When one soberly divorces themselves from the “code is law” ethos of the broader crypto currency space which single-mindedly demands cryptographic evidence of someone being Satoshi Nakamoto, the myriad of other types of evidence that ought to exist becomes more clear. Things like the testimony of those with close relationships to Satoshi, documentation indicating interest and study in relevant domains, computer records pertinent to Bitcoin’s development, and more. In recent messages in the Metanet ICU slack, CSW has both indicated that he will bring such types of information forward AND begun to preempt likely responses from his PoSM-heavy (“proof of social media”, as opposed to Bitcoin’s “proof of work”) crowd of detractors.
Dr. Wright has also made several important predictions about the outcome of the trial. To summarize quite a few recent statements on the likely outcome of the trial, Craig is predicting his victory, that the outcome will determine that he is the creator of Bitcoin, and that the case will trigger events which will result in BTC being moved due to court orders.
In general, we think that the trial represents a turning point for Dr. Wright and his team. They have been operating in relative secrecy from the mainstream over the past few years. To meet their stated goals of making BSV a globally adopted technology and the new foundation of the internet stack, there will need to be a shift in public perception and significant investment in the BSV space. While this lawsuit was not initiated by Dr. Wright and his team, their actions and warnings paint a picture that they are using the trial as a turning point and are expecting to shift from operating in relative secrecy to step into the public mantle of being “Satoshi Nakamoto” and supporting BSV as Satoshi’s Bitcoin. They have indicated that they will go so far as to paint BTC as a “passed off” version of Bitcoin and attempt to make it illegal for institutions such as Coinbase and Robinhood to refer to BTC as Bitcoin.
While we don’t have a strong position on their likelihood for success pursuing the legal claim that exchanges like Coinbase are passing off BTC as Bitcoin, we think their attempts will increase the probability of greater public scrutiny of Dr. Wright, his claim to be Satoshi, and BSV. Also, we expect that due to Dr. Wright and his team’s broader ambitions for BSV and their legal crusade against BTC, they will be seeking media attention on the trial in general, and particularly the elements of the trial that further paint Dr. Wright as Satoshi. We think that greater scrutiny of these things will reveal a strong bull case for BSV. Accordingly, we expect whales who have already linked Dr. Wright with BSV to front-run this greater market recognition of Dr. Wright and BSV which could lead to a rapid price increase during the trial.
Market landscape
The current market landscape and market history of BSV further paint a bullish scenario for BSV during the trial. There is significant precedent for Dr. Wright news affecting the price of BSV. When Dr. Wright was granted the US copyright for the Bitcoin whitepaper, the price jumped 120%. Another large price surge occurred shortly after based on fake news circulating in the Chinese trading community which pointed towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi. Finally, when Dr. Wright confirmed receipt files from a bounded courier, an event detailed by the Tulip Trust, the price briefly rose around 300% before falling after it was made clear that this delivery would not immediately facilitate the movement of Satoshi’s coins. These events as well as other smaller examples paint a picture that the market may very rapidly start buying BSV upon the receipt of additional information pointing towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi.
BSV has also lagged significantly behind the rest of the crypto market over last year’s bull run, even though many significant achievements have occurred. This can be partly explained by the negative media filter around BSV. However, even negative events have not influenced BSV price, such as the block-reorg attacks over the summer. These attacks received extensive coverage even though the attacks did not disrupt network functioning, nor did they affect the price of BSV. BSV price movements have typically been in the form of sharp increases followed by long periods of decline. This increasingly uncorrelated BSV chart may be due to the very significant short volumes relative to other crypto currencies.
BSV has been one of the most heavily shorted assets, often the most shorted cryptoasset on a per capita basis. For most fund managers employing a long short strategy, BSV is a natural short pair. Until recently it had been highly correlated with BTC, and it is largely viewed as a scam or a version of Bitcoin with no chance of success. This coupled with underperformance relative to most of the cryptomarket makes it seem like one of the least risky assets to short in a market where shorting any cryptoasset comes with a large degree of risk. We think that this dynamic that has in part kept the price of BSV down relative to the rest of the cryptomarket could flip quickly if the perceived risk of a significant, uncorrelated BSV price increase occurs in the coming weeks.
We think that a meaningful BSV price increase could generate both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze. The gamma squeeze would be in part due to Unbounded Capital’s large OTM call options position with major OTC market makers in the crypto space. It is also important to note that BSV is not as liquid as other cryptoassets, in part due to delistings of BSV by major exchanges like Binance which were triggered by defamation lawsuits initiated by Dr. Wright. Controversy around Dr. Wright has kept BSV off of popular exchanges like Coinbase, although importantly, the asset is available on Robinhood. This restricted liquidity could exacerbate a significant price increase due to difficulties obtaining BSV compared to other similar assets.
Pricing in crypto is very subjective. The benchmark for BSV is clearly BTC. Currently the price ratio is around 400:1, an all-time relative high. If public perception of BSV is that it is Satoshi’s preferred version of Bitcoin, we expect that ratio to sharply decline, mainly due to an increase in BSV price.
Importantly, BSV has strong scalability fundamentals. We have recently seen a significant rise in the price of Solana, the blockchain seen as the greatest competitor to Ethereum due to it’s significantly higher scalability. We think BSV and BTC could mirror the relationship between Ethereum and Solana. One year ago, the ETH:SOL market cap ration was ~113:1. Today, it is only ~9:1. 9:1 BTC:BSV would result in a ~4000% increase in the price of BSV if BTC stayed at $61,000.
We think the major risk of negative alpha for BSV relative to the broader crypto market during the trial is that long-term holders may sell their positions if the trial does not have a significant result. However, we think for traders who are mainly speculating on the trial and do not have an independent bull case for BSV, having exposure across many years would not be a sensible approach. Rather, buying directly in advance of the trial would make the most sense. We have not seen a price run-up in advance of the trial. This is in line with our thesis that the crypto market underestimates the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. We believe that most BSV holders are bullish on the tech fundamentals in addition to price action related to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, and are therefore less likely to sell if the trial does not produce a result.
Potential trade mechanics
Unbounded Capital is primarily speculating on the trial outcome through deep OTM call options purchased OTC, an option not available to retail traders. Other trade mechanics one could consider include leveraged exposure on Bitfinex or perpetual swaps on FTX. For traders who are less advanced in general or who are not set up to trade on crypto exchanges, Robinhood is a highly accessible platform which makes taking a long position on BSV simple.
We believe that this trial does not simply represent a trading opportunity for BSV. We believe that this trial could have historical significance as a major landmark event which reveals Satoshi to the world. If so, it will have been very cool to be a part of this event, even if we are simply spectators and speculators.
Conclusion
The crypto market is operating on an outdated view of the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. Kleiman vs Wright represents an opportunity for additional evidence and greater media scrutiny to change the public and crypto market’s views on Dr. Wright. If public sentiment shifts towards recognizing Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it could cause BSV, the network Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin” which also has strong, overlooked fundamentals, to appreciate rapidly relative to its benchmark BTC. Market conditions are ripe for this type of rapid movement due to the high ratio of short exposure and potential for a gamma squeeze.
To stay up to date on the proceedings visit UnboundedCapital.com/trial for real time information from the courtroom.
CoinGeek will feature Kurt Wuckert Jr. in daily recap coverage which will be livestreamed on a daily basis at 6:30 p.m. EST on our YouTube Channel.
Watch our Day 1 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtxsbsPtiY
Watch our Day 2 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMXVtQrmVZc
New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.
Source: https://coingeek.com/how-we-are-trading-the-70-billion-dollar-lawsuit-over-satoshis-bitcoins/
Guest Contributor
This post originally appeared on the Unbounded Capital website, and we republished with permission from Jack Laskey.
TLDR; Long BSV (available on Robinhood)
Overview
A Florida civil suit over the $70+ billion Satoshi fortune that started November 1st could lead to broad market awareness that Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. This could have significant short term price impacts on Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV), a version of Bitcoin which Craig Wright is heavily associated with and endorses as “the real Bitcoin.” We believe that the market has an outdated perception of Craig Wright and the potential that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Additional scrutiny of existing evidence due to the high-profile nature of the trial as well as the potential for new evidence presented in trial could significantly change public sentiment regarding the likelihood that Craig Wright is Satoshi. We believe this could result in a rapid and significant price increase for BSV, due to its association with Craig Wright, its technical merits and market traction which have been overlooked to this point, and in part because of its accessibility to retail investors via Robinhood. BSV is also one of the most shorted cryptos, meaning that there is potential for both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze, the latter in part due to positions held by Unbounded Capital.
Background
One of the most important trials of the century begins today, Nov 1, 2021 at 10 a.m. Kleiman v Wright is a Florida civil suit over the ownership of around $70 billion dollars’ worth of Bitcoin. Not only is this a stunning sum, but the quality of these Bitcoins is also exceptional. Why? Because they are allegedly the Bitcoins that Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, mined in Bitcoin’s earliest days, from 2009-2011. Thus, the trial not only could determine the fate of Satoshi’s Bitcoins, but it could shed an extraordinary amount of light upon one of the biggest mysteries of the 21st century, the identity of the pseudonymous creator of a trillion-dollar invention.
Chances are, you probably haven’t heard about it. Why?
Both mainstream and crypto media have been shockingly quiet about this incredibly significant and intriguing case. The reason for this is that the media, most of the public, and perhaps most importantly, the market, have a major disagreement with both the plaintiff and defendant. The disagreement is whether or not Dr. Craig S Wright, the defendant in the trial and an Australian computer security expert and polymath, is the man, or one of the men behind the Satoshi pseudonym.
Ira Kleiman, the plaintiff, and Dr. Wright, however, are in agreement that Dr. Wright was involved in the creation of Bitcoin and the mining of Satoshi’s billions. The dispute is about Ira’s deceased brother, Dave Kleiman, and the degree to which his involvement in the creation of Bitcoin constitutes a partnership, and a claim on the Satoshi billions by his estate, now managed by Ira Kleiman. However, much of the crypto world thinks Craig is involved in an elaborate hoax—that he is pretending to be Satoshi. This has earned him the moniker “Faketoshi” and inspired t-shirt designs like what are pictured below.
A popular refrain “We are all Satoshi Except Craig Wright” was even made into a shirt worn by popular crypto influencers like Tone Vays
At Unbounded Capital, we believe that the “Faketoshi” narrative is out of date. Most people either formed their opinion about Dr. Wright in 2016 or inherited their opinion from someone who had. A lot has happened with Dr. Wright since then, much of it due to the ongoing discovery process in the trial. The result of this is that people have not been paying close attention to what is happening with Dr. Wright or Bitcoin SV, a fork of Bitcoin Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin.” We think the trial could change this, and we are placing our bets accordingly.
Our investment thesis behind the Satoshi trial
We think Dr. Wright is likely to both win the trial and also confirm his ownership over these Bitcoins in the process. However, what is most pertinent to our investment thesis is the possibility that the market increasingly perceives Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto due to new evidence and increased public scrutiny of existing evidence resulting from the trial. In other words, we believe the market is mispricing the probability that Kleiman v Wright will make it clear to the public that Dr. Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin.
BTC’s market cap is already over a trillion dollars. Why would a Satoshi reveal matter at this point? The answer is that Dr. Wright is perhaps the world’s biggest BTC bear. Dr. Wright has been publicly lamenting changes made in BTC which he believes cripple its functionality. Since 2017, he has supported alternate forks as “the real Bitcoin” and focused his efforts in these communities, first Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and for the last three years since its inception, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV).
In particular, Dr. Wright has impressed his stamp on BSV, both from an influence standpoint as well as a reputation standpoint. BSV has been inextricably linked to Dr. Wright and has followed the development path prescribed by Dr. Wright—to return to the original Bitcoin protocol outlined by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008-2009. Not only has Dr. Wright placed his efforts and support behind BSV, but he has also been public about his plan to liquidate Satoshi’s BTC and BCH for BSV and USD and then to use the proceeds from the sale for charitable purposes. Keep in mind that because BTC, BCH, and BSV are all forks of the same chain, Satoshi’s ~1.1M Bitcoin fortune would apply to all of these forks. In other words, Satoshi is suspected to have ~1.1M of each BTC ($66.5B total value), BCH ($0.65B total value), and BSV ($0.17B total value). Craig’s warning is that he will convert the ~$67B of BTC and BCH into BSV and USD. The current market cap of BSV is ~$3.1B.
*Note that the trial was originally scheduled for July 2020. The delays were largely due to Covid.
While the broader investing public is not aware of this, most crypto whales are. We believe that meaningful evidence presented in the trial will likely result in the market front-running the perceived inevitability of an increase in BSV price. We feel that the lack of price movement until now indicates that these whales are not correctly evaluating the likelihood that the trial will lead to this evidence, presenting a window of where there is asymmetric upside in trading on a bullish trial result for BSV.
In the rest of this article, we will present more detailed evidence in support of our thesis including existing evidence that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, positive BSV fundamentals which are being overlooked due to a clear negative media filter, more detail about the conflict of visions which may bias the crypto investing public against the possibility that Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, our expectations for the trial, and how current market conditions are ripe for a sharp increase in BSV price due to revelations from the trial.
The market’s view on ‘Faketoshi’ is outdated
Dr. Wright was exposed as Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired in 2015. He first denied it and later admitted to being Satoshi. When the crypto community were forming their opinions about his claim to be Satoshi in 2016, there was mixed evidence including the absence of evidence thought to be essential—signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. Dr. Wright orchestrated a private signing with then BTC chief developer, Gavin Andresen, and Bitcoin Foundation head, Jon Matonis. Gavin publicly affirmed that he was satisfied with this private demonstration, as did Jon, and other individuals came forward attesting to knowledge that Dr. Wright is Satoshi.
A public demonstration was offered but never delivered. This left many skeptical. A blog post that came out in 2016 was accused of being a fake proof attempt. While it is cryptic, a close reading of the post makes it clear that it was not a proof attempt. Still, the lack of public proof combined with concerns that Craig was changing and backdating blog posts and other documents led to the consensus view that Craig was a pretender, earning him the “Faketoshi” moniker.
In our view, there was nothing completely unreasonable about this conclusion in 2016. It was a strange story with the attestation of Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis combined with the lack of a public signing and strange incidents with suspected forgeries. The evidence was unsettling, but certainly inconclusive.
However, even if the view of Dr. Wright as Faketoshi was justifiable in 2016, it has become increasingly outdated in the ensuing years. Craig’s continued actions, the actions of his professional associates, Craig’s extensive commentary on Bitcoin’s creation and design, as well as evidence that has been presented through the Kleiman vs Wright discovery plus evidence put forth by Dr. Wright outside of the trial paints a significant likelihood that Dr. Wright is actually Satoshi or at least a significant part of a potential Satoshi team. We will also explore the significant conflicts of interest which exist in crypto media which may have contributed to the continued prevalence of the “Faketoshi” narrative.
Dr. Wright and associates’ work and actions
One of the most salient, and overlooked reasons to suspect that Dr. Wright is, in fact, Satoshi are his and his business partners’ continued actions. Dr. Wright currently acts as the Chief Scientist at nChain, a Bitcoin R&D firm which has now created and sold enterprise software products utilizing BSV. Dr. Wright and nChain have filed over 1200 patents on Bitcoin related technology. nChain has over 100 employees and recently launched their first enterprise product, Kensei, a data integrity solution, which is being used by Crucial Compliance, a compliance software provider for the online gaming industry, and others. In 2016, almost none of this existed, and what did exist was not well known. Dr. Wright’s professional work since 2016 is much more in line with what one would expect from the inventor of Bitcoin than from a fraud.
The chairman of nChain’s board is Stefan Matthews, who is also the CEO of a publicly traded mining company, [ur=https://www.taal.com/l]TAAL Distributed Information Technologies Inc.[/url] (CSE:TAAL | FWB:9SQ1 | OTC: TAALF), which is focused on creating services for the BSV blockchain. Stefan is an associate of Dr. Wright’s from before Bitcoin. Stefan has previously said that Craig offered him 50,000 Bitcoins in 2009, an offer which Stefan rejected. Stefan also claims to have seen a copy of the Bitcoin whitepaper before it’s publication in 2008. Stefan has now dedicated his career to working alongside Dr. Wright on BSV. This story and Stefan’s continued commitment to Dr. Wright and BSV was not known in 2016.
Stefan is also the connection between Dr. Wright and Calvin Ayre. Calvin Ayre is a billionaire who made his fortune through Bodog, a pioneering company in offshore gambling. The Kleiman v Wright trial has revealed that Dr. Wright, at least allegedly, placed Satoshi’s bitcoins into a trust. The inability to access Satoshi’s Bitcoins in 2015 combined with tax issues resulting from the 2015 outing of Satoshi by Gizmodo and Wired placed Dr. Wright in a position where he was looking for an investor.
Calvin Ayre has staked a significant percentage of his fortune and his reputation behind Dr. Wright—an ongoing investment and involvement over the course of almost seven years. Given the fact that Dr. Wright offered private proof to Gavin Andresen, it would defy common sense to think that this same proof and more was not offered to Calvin Ayre. This relationship and the degree to which Calvin would continue to invest in and back Dr. Wright was not well known in 2016.
It is also important to note that many people, including many entrepreneurs, are building in the BSV space. We will address more specifics about BSV fundamentals soon. What is notable is that there is a significant entrepreneurial community that either believes that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, or is not dissuaded by uncertainty or unconcerned about being associated with a “scammer.” In other words, even though the market has largely stuck with the “Faketoshi” thesis, many individuals have rejected it with conviction by dedicating their professional lives to BSV, a phenomenon that was not present or possible in 2016 since BSV did not exist until the end of 2018.
Evidence of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto from Kleiman v Wright
Another important post-2016 development has been the discovery process from Kleiman v Wright. Prior suspicions of forged blog posts and other documents have lured the market into a state of comfort in ignoring additional evidence made public via discovery. However, this evidence should not be overlooked, both because of its pertinence and because the massive quantity of evidence makes the possibility of an elaborate hoax more and more unlikely.
What does this evidence include? Let’s start with the premise of the case. A standard document called the “Joint Neutral Statement of Case” is submitted to lay out, in plain English, what is being disputed in the legal action. Each party, Plaintiff and Defendant, describe what they are alleging. The Joint Neutral Statement of Case for Kleiman v Wright confirms that the case is predicated on the suggestion that Dr. Wright played a central role in the creation of Bitcoin. In other words, the Kleiman family, which is 4 years and, presumably, millions of dollars into this case, is convinced that Dr. Wright is at least part of ‘Satoshi Nakamoto.’
What about documentary evidence? The extensive discovery process in Kleiman v Wright made public a trove of documentation including tax documents, loans, contracts for equity, invoices, and trust documents which paint a picture of Dr. Wright routinely dealing in large quantities of Bitcoin in its early days. These include (with links to docket submissions as well as third party summaries):
● Testimony from various witnesses (testifying on behalf of plaintiff and defendant) who place Dr. Wright talking about and sending documents pertaining to Bitcoin before and shortly after its release
● ATO (Australian Tax Office) documents and testimony about Dr. Wright’s 2009 Bitcoin R&D spend
Deposition and documentary evidence which paint a picture of a complex structure of legal entities formed between 2009 and 2015 by Dr. Wright and related parties
● 2011 IP Licensing Agreement paid for with ~3% of total BTC supply (over 200,000 BTC) (page 20)
● 2012 Deed of Loan documents collateralized by 650,000 BTC from Dr. Wright owned entities (page 11)
● 2013 contracts for equity in Bitcoin related companies in exchange for 323,000 BTC (page 1)
● 2015 email (page 12) detailing invoices between Dr. Wright related entities (DeMorgan) and Panamanian firm HighSecured for IaaS services rendered paid for with 60,000 BTC with on-chain corroboration.
● The 2017 Tulip Trust Document which owns the rights to all of Dr. Wright’s assets which he will become eligible to control after June 2020 (page 27)
The last document in this list is possibly the most consequential and will likely be central to the court case. The Tulip Trust is a 2011 Seychelles trust that purports to own the rights to over one million bitcoin and valuable Bitcoin related intellectual property. The document has allegedly been updated three times, with its most recent version dated July 6, 2017 (page 27). Portions of this trust document remain redacted but the readable portions give us the following key information:
● The trust is set up to promote the work of Dr. Craig Wright (named alongside his alias Satoshi Nakamoto), to progress the legal nature of Bitcoin, and to build a scaled financial system on top of bitcoin that can achieve over 1 trillion transactions per second
● The trust grants its trustees access to Wright International Investments and Tulip Trading Ltd assets
◇ Wright International Investments: the “Satoshi Million” Bitcoin mined before 2010 can only be spent after a full meeting of members between the dates of December 2019 and the end of 2020
◇ Tulip Trading Ltd: Any recoverable assets owned by the Dr. Wright related entities including the Bitcoin purchased in 2011 which originally capitalized the companies
● The trust has an activation date in January 2020
● The trust was set up by Dr. Wright but access to the document was explicitly withheld from him during the period of July 10 2017 until December 15 2019. Dr. Wright will be able to become a trustee by a vote of members ONLY AFTER June 2020.
A significant amount of evidence submitted in discovery has been sealed or redacted. We expect some of this additional evidence to be presented at trial, details of which will be presented later in this analysis.
There have also been multiple “motions to seal” in the discovery process. This indicates there exists evidence that has been shared with the plaintiff which may be used at trial that is not yet publicly accessible on the docket. However, descriptions of what these documents include is available in the “Trial Exhibit List”. Noteworthy exhibits we could expect to see in the coming days and weeds include Exhibit Numbers D142 and D143 titled “Multiple 2008 Receipts.” Dr. Wright has hinted in a 2019 blog post that the domain to “Bitcoin.org,” the website which hosted the Bitcoin whitepaper, was done with a credit card. If this information is produced in trial and corroborated by records from the credit card issuer, this would likely be compelling to crypto whales who have not been following post 2016 developments which ought to change their assessment of Dr. Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto.
Extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and Satoshi
For many who are working in the BSV space, the most notable evidence of the past five years since 2016 is the extended commentary by Dr. Wright on Bitcoin and its origin. Between talks at conferences, podcast appearances, blog posts, academic papers, patents, and extended commentary in the semi-private slack group, Metanet ICU—Dr. Wright has generated thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of hours of content about Bitcoin, the underlying technology, the creation of Bitcoin, and the follies of BTC and other blockchains like Ethereum. To many, this wealth of commentary has provided numerous unique insights—many of which have facilitated the creation of BSV, both from a technical standpoint and by helping to define numerous value props for Bitcoin and blockchain technology which were previously unknown or under-explored.
While there are many ongoing, valid arguments against specific points being argued by Dr. Wright, the quantity and quality of his commentaries are exceptional, even for what one might expect from Satoshi. For a fraud, they are almost unimaginable. Virtually all of these commentaries on Bitcoin by Dr. Wright were created after 2016, although many of Dr. Wright’s arguments can trace their roots back to the original Satoshi writings.
Negative media filter against Dr. Wright
It’s understandable that the average Bitcoin investor might not be up-to-date on the information about Dr. Wright since his 2016 outing, but what explains the media, particularly the cryptocurrency media’s, lack of interest? Why, for example, are you just now hearing about the information likely to become public through this historically large trial. Put simply, the cryptocurrency media is biased against Dr. Wright and filters their reporting accordingly.
Take CoinDesk as an example. They are one of the most prominent cryptocurrency media organizations. CoinDesk is owned by Digital Currency Group which has an extensive portfolio of investments in the cryptocurrency space, the vast majority of which would suffer should the narrative around Dr. Wright shift from “kooky fraud pretending to be Satoshi” to “the inventor of Bitcoin.” Does Digital Currency Group want the inventor of Bitcoin publicly criticizing their investments? Clearly not. How has CoinDesk reported on the Kleiman v Wright story thus far? Their first reporting on the case was titled ‘Satoshi’ Craig Wright Is Being Sued for $10 Billion which outlined the case from the position of highlighting Dr. Wright’s alleged “scheme against Dave’s estate” to “seize Dave’s Bitcoin and his rights to certain intellectual property” and somewhat downplaying the implication that the Plaintiff assumes Dr. Wright played a central role in Bitcoin’s creation. In fairness, CoinDesk was doing this reporting early after the lawsuit was filed and before more newsworthy information had come out during the discovery process.
So, how did CoinDesk’s reporting evolve once this information was made public? Very little. CoinDesk’s coverage has largely stuck to the frame of “Dr. Wright is being sued for massive fraud” ignoring most of the extremely newsworthy information available for reporters to uncover in the docket. Some additional headlines from CoinDesk on this case from over the years include:
Craig Wright Ordered to Disclose Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Court Case (May 6, 2019)
Craig Wright Spars With Kleiman Lawyers in Combative Courtroom Appearance (June 28, 2019)
Judge Blasts Craig Wright’s Evidence, ‘Inconsistent’ Testimony in Kleiman Trial (August 15, 2019)
Craig Wright ‘Abusing’ Privilege to Block 11,000 Documents, Kleiman Lawyers Say (February 4, 2020)
Craig Wright Challenges Court Order Criticizing His Evidence in $4B Kleiman Case (March 26, 2020)
Craig Wright Called ‘Fraud’ in Message Signed With Bitcoin Addresses He Claims to Own (May 25, 2021)
Ex-Wife’s Testimony Suggests Craig Wright ‘Defrauded’ Court, Kleiman Lawyers Claim (August 5, 2020)
Craig Wright Must Face Trial Over Alleged $11B Bitcoin Fortune as Request for Summary Judgment Denied (September 21, 2020)
The bias of CoinDesk is easy to discern from the way they emotionally conjugate their headlines. What about more recent updates? After all, the trial starts this week. A Google advanced search for the most recent CoinDesk publications featuring the terms “Kleiman,” “Wright,” or “Trial” shows that the most recent update (at the time of writing*) is their May 10, 2021 post (over 5 months old) which notes the trial’s delay until November 1 2021.
Earlier this week, CoinDesk.tv did include a section of their “All About Bitcoin” weekly round-up video on the trial. CoinDesk’s Managing Editor of Technology, Christine Harkin, briefly summarized the trial as she understood it. This summary mentions a dispute between Dr. Wright and the Kleiman estate over IP and Bitcoins but is vague as to which Bitcoins are in question, despite the idea of “the Satoshi Million,” or a trove of dormant Bitcoin’s mined by Satoshi in its early years, being a well understood subset of Bitcoins within the cryptocurrency space. Harkin also mentions that “…of course there have been any number of other internet and Bitcoin sleuths out there who’ve been hard at work debunking so much of what Craig Wright has claimed in terms of his involvement with the development of Bitcoin.”
The apparent bias of the cryptocurrency media has a downstream effect on the reporting from the broader financial and tech media, many of whom seem to outsource a lot of their sensemaking in the blockchain space to cryptocurrency publications or thought leaders who are of the mindset outlined above. The cryptocurrency media presenting the Kleiman v Wright case as either a forgone conclusion OR something not worth much attention almost certainly has played a role in the near media blackout on what stands to be one of the largest individual civil IP disputes in US history.
*Since writing this section, CoinDesk has published an article on the case, their first significant coverage since May
Significant conflicts of interest may lead to media bias
There are significant conflicts of interest present in crypto media which may have created an incentive to paint Dr. Wright as an unreliable source, and more recently, to downplay achievements of BSV. The most prominent of these conflicts of interest is the significant investment stake that Mastercard ventures has in Digital Currency Group (DCG). DCG owns CoinDesk and has many significant investments which depend on the success of BTC. DCG is also an investor in Blockstream, an organization which has helped to set a technical direction for BTC which we think is very favorable to Mastercard whereas the vision of Bitcoin first articulated by Satoshi and now articulated by Dr. Wright and embodied by BSV represents a significant threat to Mastercard’s core business.
Mastercard and other credit cards typically charge a fee of around $0.25 and 2% per transaction. Transaction fees on BTC are typically in excess of $10 whereas transaction fees on BSV are typically under $0.001. This significant disparity is primarily due to a self-imposed limitation by BTC, restricting the maximum block size—the amount of data that can be added to the blockchain in any given period of time. By placing a cap on data, there is a cap on transactions which leads to a shortage of available transactions relative to total demand for transactions.
There is no such limitation on BSV. Miners are free to mine as large or small blocks as they choose. This has led to a consistent increase in block sizes over time as miners capabilities improve and demand for BSV blockspace has increased. Allowing blocks to grow has allowed fees to stay small. We think that a blockchain with scalable, cheap transactions is a threat to Mastercard’s business. On the other hand, an unscalable, expensive blockchain is not. We are not sure that Mastercard’s investments are designed to cripple the technical capabilities of Bitcoin, but in important ways, they have had that effect.
It is important to note that these limitations have been accepted because authoritative sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream endorse them as being necessary. Because Dr. Wright is such a vocal advocate of BSV’s unlimited block size approach, if he is recognized as Satoshi, this may supersede the authority of sources like CoinDesk and Blockstream and lead to a broad recognition of the superiority of the BSV path. The BSV path is also gaining empirical verification as the blockchain’s usage continues to increase. The market lacked this empirical evidence when decisions to pursue the Blockstream path on BTC were made. Continued adoption of BSV as a cheap payments solution could ultimately present a significant threat to Mastercard. We do not know whether or not Mastercard has interfered in the market in this way, but the presence of the conflict of interest is an important part of the story nonetheless.
Why won’t he sign? A conflict of visions
With the wealth of evidence that has emerged since 2016 pointing to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it may surprise some that he is not more widely recognized as Satoshi. What must be understood, is that for many, only one piece of evidence will suffice—a signature made with keys assumed to be controlled by Satoshi. This is in line with the crypto ethos—“Not your keys, not your crypto.” Implied by this ethos is that if you don’t prove possession of Satoshi’s keys, you are not Satoshi.
While for many, a digital signature with Satoshi’s keys will be required to prove that Dr. Wright is Satoshi, we think it is easy to understand how Dr. Wright could be Satoshi and have refrained from signing publicly with Satoshi’s keys. The first reason is somewhat straightforward—we know Satoshi wanted to stay anonymous. If Dr. Wright had signed, he would be in a much more public position facing greater scrutiny. While he acknowledges that he is Satoshi, he has not been publicly acknowledged. This is in line with what one would expect to be Satoshi’s preference.
Another important motivating factor for Dr. Wright not to sign may have been his desire to improve his positioning and his ability to profit from and control the Bitcoin space. Through nChain, Dr. Wright and his partners have filed over 1200 patents and built a leading enterprise-facing blockchain organization, all while other companies like IBM were not paying attention to him or his research, instead emulating chains like Ethereum which Dr. Wright considers inferior. In this time, his and others work have led the creation of a significant industry around BSV. Importantly, BSV has also successfully restored the original Bitcoin protocol—a feat that may not have been possible with greater scrutiny. If he can later engineer a reorientation of the crypto markets around BSV, he stands to gain immensely by having laid this groundwork.
A more technical reason may exist for why Craig has not signed. The trial has revealed that the Satoshi coins were controlled by a trust. Further, we suspect that this trust may be digitally enforced by having spent the Satoshi coins into transactions which could not be re-spent until a certain point in time. While we know that Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen report to have witnessed a demonstration of a signature, it is also possible that the trustees did not allow him to publicly sign or move coins. This suggestion has been put forward by financial cryptographer Ian Grigg who was an early recipient of the Bitcoin whitepaper as a member of the cryptography mailing list in 2008, and someone who claims to have been involved with the post-outing process after Dr. Wright’s doxxing and eventual public acceptance of the Satoshi pseudonym. The trust may also have a technical enforcement mechanism which hinders Dr. Wright’s ability to move coins or sign at will.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Dr. Wright has made clear that a conflict of visions exists between him and the mainstream crypto ethos. Dr. Wright is seeking to establish judicial supremacy over Bitcoin. He wants to prove that possession of keys in Bitcoin does not equal identity or ownership, the same way possessing a key to a car does not mean one owns that car. Craig has not only maintained that signing would not prove identity, but that he seeks to leverage courts, not just to prove his identity as Satoshi, but to engineer a movement of coins triggered by an order by courts. The purpose of this court-ordered coin movement would be to set a precedent that Bitcoin does not exist outside of the scope of existing laws and law enforcement mechanisms regarding the ownership of property. The mechanics and results of this type of movement are beyond the scope of this analysis. It’s importance is to help explain why someone who is Satoshi would not seek to prove their identity by creating a digital signature, the reason here being that proving identity with a signature endorses a worldview that Dr. Wright claims to oppose.
Dr. Wright’s background: Consistent with Satoshi
Craig has an impressive track record as both an academic and as an industry leader in computer security. He has dozens of degrees and certifications including a Doctorate of Philosophy, a Master of Statistics, an LLM in international commercial law, Masters of Information Security Engineering, Information Security Management, Information System Security, Management (IT), Networking and System Administration, and at least 19 certifications from GIAC, a leading computer security certifier. He has been an adjunct lecturer at Charles Sturt University where he received many of his degrees.
He has been widely published on information security, both formally and informally on his own extensive blogs. Before becoming fully involved with Bitcoin and after a stint as a Wesleyan minister, Craig had a prolific career as a computer security expert working for OzEmail, K-Mart, ASE, Mahindra & Mahindra, Lasseter’s Online, and BDO Kendalls, all done in conjunction with his academic career. He has also consulted for various government organizations and police departments, both before and after Bitcoin’s creation. His background in computer security as well as audit map well to Bitcoin – a secure, distributed, and time-stamped audit trail used to create a digital cash system.
While Dr. Wright is clearly brilliant to anyone who takes a close look, he is not a high EQ individual. This has impaired his ability to be understood by others. Much of his poor PR can be traced to being impatient, impolite, and overly specific to the point of failing to convey meaning. Craig admits to having Autism and Aspergers. It is not surprising that someone who saw what others missed with Bitcoin would be unlike others in significant ways.
‘Faketoshi’ narrative hides strong BSV fundamentals
Part of the bull case for BSV as a result of the trial is that BSV benefits from greater market scrutiny. Because BSV is seen by many as unreputable due to its association with Dr. Wright, many have overlooked the significant technical achievements and adoption of BSV. If the trial causes investors to see Dr. Wright as Satoshi and take a closer look at BSV, we think they will conclude that BSV is a significant competitor in the blockchain space and should be valued accordingly.
The value proposition of BSV is a scalable Bitcoin with its full features restored—the same scarce 21 million Bitcoins but without high fees and limited throughput and with the original scripting language and smart contracting capabilities restored. Businesses utilizing BSV are typically taking advantage of some combination of its micropayment capabilities—instant payments as low as 1/100th of a cent, utilizing the blockchain ledger for its immutability and transparency, and the smart contracting abilities of BSV which are similar to but more scalable than blockchains like Ethereum.
BSV began operating independently in late 2018. The major restoration of the original protocol was completed in February 2020 with the Genesis upgrade. Since 2018, BSV’s achievements include
Setting world record block sizes which recently reached 2 GB (BTC has 1 MB cap)
Surpassing BTC in total blockchain size
Over 16M transactions in a block on STN
Creation of horizontally scalable node software, Teranode, and demonstrating 50,000 TPS
Maintaining low fees, even with surging volume
Restoration of bitcoin script which is deprecated on BTC
Creation of scrypt and use of advance scripting functionality to create the game of life on Bitcoin, proving it’s turing completeness
Creation of dozens of additional on-chain protocols for tokens, smart contracts, data storage, data serialization, and more
Proliferation of wallets, many of which invented or first implemented advanced functionality such as paymail, threshold signatures, and true peer-to-peer infrastructure
Creation of many useful SDKs such as Handcash Connect which have enabled the creation hundreds of applications such as Haste Arcade
Adoption by nation of Tuvalu to create a national digital ledger
Major esports organization Built By Gamers partners with BSV companies to utilize and promote BSV-based technologies
Utilization of the chain as a data storage layer by metastreme, predict ecology for ESG data
Games like cryptofights achieving daily transaction volumes in excess of total Ethereum mainnet
Twetch, a BSV based social network, having over 60,000 users
Tokenized protocol being selected by Aquantium LLC to tokenize equity and debt instruments on the BSV blockchain
Maxthon, the default browser for over 600 million users, using BSV to create new types of browser functionality only possible with BSV
Vxpass, a BSV based vaccine passport solution, used by Kingdom of Lesotho
Domineum partnership with nChain
Bitboss launching the first FDIC backed stablecoin
Kensei adopted by Crucial Compliance
Kensei adopted by Kompany
Surviving 51% attacks unscathed
VOIB (voice over Bitcoin) – using Bitcoin to make a phone call
Mintblue used by Visma Group to record invoice data on BSV blockchain
Unisot utilizing BSV to track scandinavian supply chain for fish
EHR Data using BSV as a data ownership solution for the healthcare industry
And quite a bit more!
What is notable about these achievements is not just the achievements themselves. Also important is that many of the technical achievements directly contradict claims made by technical authorities in BTC and other crypto thought leaders. The current BTC roadmap was initiated based on a belief that Bitcoin could not scale in the manner that BSV is now demonstrating. This belief that Bitcoin cannot scale was in contrast to what Satoshi wrote pseudonymously in 2010. While it is not surprising that someone who claims to be Satoshi would recommend returning to the design created by Satoshi, what is notable about BSV’s success is that it has vindicated this original design to date. In fact, BSV’s success throws the entire roadmap of BTC and crypto into question and can change the perception of what is possible and desirable in the crypto and blockchain space.
*The significant growth of the BSV blockchain relative to BTC shows the accelerating adoption and scalability of BSV compared to BTC
While BSV’s achievements are significant and numerous, the coverage of BSV, especially by prominent crypto news outlets like CoinDesk, has been extremely unfavorable, highlighting only negative events, downplaying some achievements, and generally misrepresenting the space by overblowing issues and ignoring successes. It is unclear if this is explicitly coordinated. It is possible that this misrepresentation is simply due to bias resulting from the “Faketoshi” narrative. However, it is also possible that because BSV represents a competitive threat to existing chains, the owners of major crypto media publications such as Digital Currency Group, the owner of CoinDesk, who have significant investments into BTC and ETH are attempting to suppress knowledge of BSV’s successes to protect their existing investments as well as their reputations. Regardless, the negative media filters around BSV and Dr. Wright are evident. I encourage you to attempt to find positive media coverage of any of the above achievements from a media organization that is not explicitly focused on covering the BSV ecosystem such as CoinGeek or a simple press release.
Our expectations of the trial and its importance
Because our perspective is that Dr. Wright is likely Satoshi Nakamoto based on existing evidence, we also think it is likely that Dr. Wright has additional evidence to support his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto. While significant evidence has already come out in the trial, a significant amount of evidence has been sealed. As mentioned the Exhibit List includes reference to receipts from 2008, “writings and notes” from 2007, “BOD (Board of Directors) meeting minutes” from 2007, email chains from 2008, and even potential Bitcoin predecessors like an entry titled “TimeChain v0.0.2 Alpha” from 2008. In addition to these new exhibits, we are expecting information to surface from witness testimony, perhaps most notably from Dr. Wright directly.
Allusions to the type of evidence which may come forward have been made by CSW himself. When one soberly divorces themselves from the “code is law” ethos of the broader crypto currency space which single-mindedly demands cryptographic evidence of someone being Satoshi Nakamoto, the myriad of other types of evidence that ought to exist becomes more clear. Things like the testimony of those with close relationships to Satoshi, documentation indicating interest and study in relevant domains, computer records pertinent to Bitcoin’s development, and more. In recent messages in the Metanet ICU slack, CSW has both indicated that he will bring such types of information forward AND begun to preempt likely responses from his PoSM-heavy (“proof of social media”, as opposed to Bitcoin’s “proof of work”) crowd of detractors.
Dr. Wright has also made several important predictions about the outcome of the trial. To summarize quite a few recent statements on the likely outcome of the trial, Craig is predicting his victory, that the outcome will determine that he is the creator of Bitcoin, and that the case will trigger events which will result in BTC being moved due to court orders.
In general, we think that the trial represents a turning point for Dr. Wright and his team. They have been operating in relative secrecy from the mainstream over the past few years. To meet their stated goals of making BSV a globally adopted technology and the new foundation of the internet stack, there will need to be a shift in public perception and significant investment in the BSV space. While this lawsuit was not initiated by Dr. Wright and his team, their actions and warnings paint a picture that they are using the trial as a turning point and are expecting to shift from operating in relative secrecy to step into the public mantle of being “Satoshi Nakamoto” and supporting BSV as Satoshi’s Bitcoin. They have indicated that they will go so far as to paint BTC as a “passed off” version of Bitcoin and attempt to make it illegal for institutions such as Coinbase and Robinhood to refer to BTC as Bitcoin.
While we don’t have a strong position on their likelihood for success pursuing the legal claim that exchanges like Coinbase are passing off BTC as Bitcoin, we think their attempts will increase the probability of greater public scrutiny of Dr. Wright, his claim to be Satoshi, and BSV. Also, we expect that due to Dr. Wright and his team’s broader ambitions for BSV and their legal crusade against BTC, they will be seeking media attention on the trial in general, and particularly the elements of the trial that further paint Dr. Wright as Satoshi. We think that greater scrutiny of these things will reveal a strong bull case for BSV. Accordingly, we expect whales who have already linked Dr. Wright with BSV to front-run this greater market recognition of Dr. Wright and BSV which could lead to a rapid price increase during the trial.
Market landscape
The current market landscape and market history of BSV further paint a bullish scenario for BSV during the trial. There is significant precedent for Dr. Wright news affecting the price of BSV. When Dr. Wright was granted the US copyright for the Bitcoin whitepaper, the price jumped 120%. Another large price surge occurred shortly after based on fake news circulating in the Chinese trading community which pointed towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi. Finally, when Dr. Wright confirmed receipt files from a bounded courier, an event detailed by the Tulip Trust, the price briefly rose around 300% before falling after it was made clear that this delivery would not immediately facilitate the movement of Satoshi’s coins. These events as well as other smaller examples paint a picture that the market may very rapidly start buying BSV upon the receipt of additional information pointing towards Dr. Wright being Satoshi.
BSV has also lagged significantly behind the rest of the crypto market over last year’s bull run, even though many significant achievements have occurred. This can be partly explained by the negative media filter around BSV. However, even negative events have not influenced BSV price, such as the block-reorg attacks over the summer. These attacks received extensive coverage even though the attacks did not disrupt network functioning, nor did they affect the price of BSV. BSV price movements have typically been in the form of sharp increases followed by long periods of decline. This increasingly uncorrelated BSV chart may be due to the very significant short volumes relative to other crypto currencies.
BSV has been one of the most heavily shorted assets, often the most shorted cryptoasset on a per capita basis. For most fund managers employing a long short strategy, BSV is a natural short pair. Until recently it had been highly correlated with BTC, and it is largely viewed as a scam or a version of Bitcoin with no chance of success. This coupled with underperformance relative to most of the cryptomarket makes it seem like one of the least risky assets to short in a market where shorting any cryptoasset comes with a large degree of risk. We think that this dynamic that has in part kept the price of BSV down relative to the rest of the cryptomarket could flip quickly if the perceived risk of a significant, uncorrelated BSV price increase occurs in the coming weeks.
We think that a meaningful BSV price increase could generate both a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze. The gamma squeeze would be in part due to Unbounded Capital’s large OTM call options position with major OTC market makers in the crypto space. It is also important to note that BSV is not as liquid as other cryptoassets, in part due to delistings of BSV by major exchanges like Binance which were triggered by defamation lawsuits initiated by Dr. Wright. Controversy around Dr. Wright has kept BSV off of popular exchanges like Coinbase, although importantly, the asset is available on Robinhood. This restricted liquidity could exacerbate a significant price increase due to difficulties obtaining BSV compared to other similar assets.
Pricing in crypto is very subjective. The benchmark for BSV is clearly BTC. Currently the price ratio is around 400:1, an all-time relative high. If public perception of BSV is that it is Satoshi’s preferred version of Bitcoin, we expect that ratio to sharply decline, mainly due to an increase in BSV price.
Importantly, BSV has strong scalability fundamentals. We have recently seen a significant rise in the price of Solana, the blockchain seen as the greatest competitor to Ethereum due to it’s significantly higher scalability. We think BSV and BTC could mirror the relationship between Ethereum and Solana. One year ago, the ETH:SOL market cap ration was ~113:1. Today, it is only ~9:1. 9:1 BTC:BSV would result in a ~4000% increase in the price of BSV if BTC stayed at $61,000.
We think the major risk of negative alpha for BSV relative to the broader crypto market during the trial is that long-term holders may sell their positions if the trial does not have a significant result. However, we think for traders who are mainly speculating on the trial and do not have an independent bull case for BSV, having exposure across many years would not be a sensible approach. Rather, buying directly in advance of the trial would make the most sense. We have not seen a price run-up in advance of the trial. This is in line with our thesis that the crypto market underestimates the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. We believe that most BSV holders are bullish on the tech fundamentals in addition to price action related to Dr. Wright as Satoshi, and are therefore less likely to sell if the trial does not produce a result.
Potential trade mechanics
Unbounded Capital is primarily speculating on the trial outcome through deep OTM call options purchased OTC, an option not available to retail traders. Other trade mechanics one could consider include leveraged exposure on Bitfinex or perpetual swaps on FTX. For traders who are less advanced in general or who are not set up to trade on crypto exchanges, Robinhood is a highly accessible platform which makes taking a long position on BSV simple.
We believe that this trial does not simply represent a trading opportunity for BSV. We believe that this trial could have historical significance as a major landmark event which reveals Satoshi to the world. If so, it will have been very cool to be a part of this event, even if we are simply spectators and speculators.
Conclusion
The crypto market is operating on an outdated view of the likelihood that Dr. Wright is Satoshi. Kleiman vs Wright represents an opportunity for additional evidence and greater media scrutiny to change the public and crypto market’s views on Dr. Wright. If public sentiment shifts towards recognizing Dr. Wright as Satoshi, it could cause BSV, the network Dr. Wright supports as “the real Bitcoin” which also has strong, overlooked fundamentals, to appreciate rapidly relative to its benchmark BTC. Market conditions are ripe for this type of rapid movement due to the high ratio of short exposure and potential for a gamma squeeze.
To stay up to date on the proceedings visit UnboundedCapital.com/trial for real time information from the courtroom.
CoinGeek will feature Kurt Wuckert Jr. in daily recap coverage which will be livestreamed on a daily basis at 6:30 p.m. EST on our YouTube Channel.
Watch our Day 1 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtxsbsPtiY
Watch our Day 2 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMXVtQrmVZc
New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.
Source: https://coingeek.com/how-we-are-trading-the-70-billion-dollar-lawsuit-over-satoshis-bitcoins/
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
Passionate about new technologies? About blockchain and possible new business models? Then you should attend the CoinGeek online conference from 5 to 7 October 2021.
Access to the online meetings is free. Registration (you can use your username if you wish to remain anonymous).
NFTs and microtransactions are distributed from there!
https://coingeekconference.com/
It's time to unveil Bitcoin knowledge to everyone!
--------
对新技术充满热情？关于区块链和可能的新商业模式？那么你应该参加2021年10月5日至7日的CoinGeek在线会议。
访问在线会议是免费的。注册（如果你想保持匿名，你可以使用你的用户名）。
NFT和惊喜都从那里分发!
https://coingeekconference.com/
是时候为大家揭开比特币知识的面纱了!
--------
新しい技術に情熱を持っていますか？ブロックチェーンや新しいビジネスモデルの可能性についてですか？それなら、2021年10月5日から7日まで開催されるCoinGeekのオンライン会議に参加してみませんか？
オンライン会議へのアクセスは無料です。登録（匿名を希望する場合はユーザー名を使用できます）。
NFTやサプライズはそこから配信されます
https://coingeekconference.com/
みんなでビットコインの知識を披露する時が来た!
--------
새로운 기술에 대한 열정? 블록체인과 가능한 새로운 비즈니스 모델에 대해? 그런 다음 2021년 10월 5일부터 7일까지 CoinGeek 온라인 회의에 참석해야 합니다.
온라인 회의에 대한 액세스는 무료입니다. 등록(익명을 유지하려면 사용자 이름을 사용할 수 있음).
거기에서 NFT와 서프라이즈가 배포됩니다!
https://coingeekconference.com/
모두를 위한 비트코인 지식을 공개할 시간입니다!
--------
Sie begeistern sich für neue Technologien? Über Blockchain und mögliche neue Geschäftsmodelle? Dann sollten Sie an der Online-Konferenz CoinGeek vom 5. bis 7. Oktober 2021 teilnehmen.
Der Zugang zu den Online-Konferenzen ist kostenlos. Anmeldung (Sie können Ihren Benutzernamen verwenden, wenn Sie anonym bleiben möchten).
NFTs und Überraschungen werden von dort aus verteilt!
https://coingeekconference.com/
Es ist an der Zeit, Bitcoin-Wissen für alle zu enthüllen!
--------
Увлечены новыми технологиями? О блокчейне и возможных новых бизнес-моделях? Тогда вам стоит посетить онлайн-конференцию CoinGeek с 5 по 7 октября 2021 года.
Доступ к онлайн-встречам бесплатный. Регистрация (вы можете использовать свое имя пользователя, если хотите остаться анонимным).
NFT и сюрприз распространяются оттуда!
https://coingeekconference.com/
Пришло время открыть знания о Биткойне для всех!
--------
إذا كنت شغوفًا بالتقنيات الجديدة ، و blockchain ، والنماذج الاقتصادية الجديدة المحتملة ، فأقترح الوصول إلى مؤتمر CoinGeek عبر الإنترنت الذي سيعقد في الفترة من 05 إلى 7 أكتوبر 2021.
الوصول إلى المؤتمر عبر الإنترنت مجاني. التسجيل (اسم المستخدم ممكن إذا كنت ترغب في الحفاظ على سرية هويتك).
سيتم توزيع NFT والمفاجآت هناك!
https://coingeekconference.com/
حان الوقت لإطلاق Bitcoin للجميع!
[/pre]الوصول إلى المؤتمر عبر الإنترنت مجاني. التسجيل (اسم المستخدم ممكن إذا كنت ترغب في الحفاظ على سرية هويتك).
سيتم توزيع NFT والمفاجآت هناك!
https://coingeekconference.com/
حان الوقت لإطلاق Bitcoin للجميع!
--------
Om du brinner för ny teknik, blockchain, nya möjliga ekonomiska modeller, föreslår jag att du kommer till CoinGeek -onlinekonferensen som kommer att äga rum från 05 till 07 oktober 2021.
Tillgång till onlinekonferensen är gratis. registrering (användarnamn möjligt om du vill bevara din anonymitet).
NFT och överraskningar kommer att delas ut där!
https://coingeekconference.com/
Det är dags att släppa loss Bitcoin för alla!
-------
אם אתה נלהב מטכנולוגיות חדשות, בלוקצ'יין, מודלים כלכליים חדשים, אז אני מציע לגשת לכנס המקוון של CoinGeek שיתקיים בין התאריכים 05 עד 07 באוקטובר 2021.
הגישה לכנס המקוון היא ללא תשלום. הרשמה (אפשר שם משתמש אם ברצונך לשמור על האנונימיות שלך).
NFT והפתעות יחולקו שם!
https://coingeekconference.com/
הגיע הזמן לשחרר ביטקוין לכולם!
הגישה לכנס המקוון היא ללא תשלום. הרשמה (אפשר שם משתמש אם ברצונך לשמור על האנונימיות שלך).
NFT והפתעות יחולקו שם!
https://coingeekconference.com/
הגיע הזמן לשחרר ביטקוין לכולם!
--------
Kung ikaw ay madamdamin tungkol sa mga bagong teknolohiya, blockchain, mga bagong posibleng modelo ng ekonomiya pagkatapos ay iminumungkahi kong i-access ang CoinGeek online na kumperensya na magaganap mula 05 hanggang 07 Oktubre 2021.
Ang pag-access sa online na pagpupulong ay libre. pagpaparehistro (posible ang username kung nais mong mapanatili ang iyong pagkawala ng lagda).
NFT at sorpresa ang ibabahagi doon!
https://coingeekconference.com/
Panahon na upang ilabas ang Bitcoin para sa lahat!
--------
यदि आप नई तकनीकों, ब्लॉकचेन, नए संभावित आर्थिक मॉडल के बारे में भावुक हैं, तो मेरा सुझाव है कि 05 से 07 अक्टूबर 2021 तक होने वाले CoinGeek ऑनलाइन सम्मेलन तक पहुंचें।
ऑनलाइन सम्मेलन में प्रवेश निःशुल्क है। पंजीकरण (उपयोगकर्ता नाम संभव है यदि आप अपनी गुमनामी को सुरक्षित रखना चाहते हैं)।
एनएफटी और सरप्राइज वहां बांटे जाएंगे!
https://coingeekconference.com/
यह सभी के लिए बिटकॉइन मुक्त करने का समय है!
--------
Apaixonado por novas tecnologias? Sobre a cadeia de bloqueio e possíveis novos modelos de negócios? Então você deve participar da conferência on-line da CoinGeek de 5 a 7 de outubro de 2021.
O acesso às reuniões on-line é gratuito. Inscrição (você pode usar seu nome de usuário caso deseje permanecer anônimo).
NFTs e surpresas são distribuídas a partir daí!
https://coingeekconference.com/
É hora de revelar o conhecimento Bitcoin para todos!
--------
Si vous êtes passionné par les nouvelles technologies, la blockchain, les nouveaux modèles economiques possibles alors je suggère d'cceder à la conférence en ligne CoinGeek qui se déroulera du 05 au 07 octobre 2021.
Accès à l conférence en ligne est gratuit. inscription (pseudo possible si vous vouez preserver votre anonymat).
NFT et autres surprises y seront distribués!
https://coingeekconference.com/
Il est temps de libérer Bitcoin pour tous!
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
The #BitcoinSV Technical Standards Committee has published its latest technical standard - the envelope specification standard, which promises to improve both interoperability and efficiency for data transactions on the #BSVblockchain at https://bsvblockchain.org/about-bsv/.
Learn more https://bitcoinassociation.net/technical-standards-committee-publishes-envelope-specification-for-better-data-transactions-on-bsv
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
The Original Bitcoin Protocol: What is It and Why Does It Matter?
Independent report, by MNP, aims to provide clarity to Canadians navigating the Blockchain landscape
CALGARY, August 30, 2021 – In the last 10 years, concepts like blockchain and digital currencies have moved from small online communities to being supported and utilised by some of the world’s largest organisations. With the rise in popularity, and the numerous different digital offerings, MNP, a leading national, accounting, tax, and consulting firm in Canada, has undertaken an extensive report at https://www.mnp.ca/en/insights/directory/the-original-bitcoin-protocol-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter, examining which Bitcoin implementation best fits the original vision presented by Satoshi Nakamoto’s White Paper which created the concept of Bitcoin.
Satoshi Nakamoto’s whitepaper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” sets the stage for MNP’s analysis. Satoshi’s whitepaper, emails, forum posts, and original source code define the protocol (the rule set for Bitcoin as a data network) and the key elements that make Bitcoin a functional technology. Along with the whitepaper, MNP reviewed the publicly available emails, forum posts and original code left by Satoshi. MNP used these source materials to examine what Satoshi’s original purpose for Bitcoin was – a global electronic cash system (that works peer-to-peer), while also laying the foundation for a network that can support more advanced data applications.
Using the sources mentioned above, MNP developed an assessment framework and related criteria assessing the relevance of the Bitcoin scripting language (including OpCodes incorporated in it), protocol elements, and capabilities in current implementations – Bitcoin SV (BSV) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) against Satoshi’s original vision.
BSV Blockchain is the world’s largest public blockchain by all major utility metrics, data storage and daily transaction volume, scaling ability and average block size.
MNP’s findings indicate that Bitcoin SV is most representative of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original intention and design for Bitcoin. One key factor is because the BSV blockchain demonstrates the ability to scale to support significant volumes of transactions in a timely manner for macro-payments and even micropayments, resulting from BSV’s “Genesis” hard fork (in February 2020) which removed any arbitrary cap on block size and allows the BSV blockchain and transaction capacity to grow unbounded, also, removed state restrictions limits and improved the code base, allowing for unbounded scaling. In addition, the Genesis hard fork restored key aspects of the original functionality of Bitcoin script, the programming language used within the Bitcoin protocol.
In the report produced by MNP, it also identifies what technology capabilities can be enabled once Satoshi’s vision for Bitcoin has been fully realized. “MNP is proud to be part of the independent analysis of Bitcoin SV. We hope our report helps to provide more clarity and insight for Canadians navigating the blockchain landscape,” said Hash Qureshi, Partner MNP Enterprise Risk Services.
Jimmy Nguyen, Founding President of Bitcoin Association, added: “The Bitcoin protocol has the power to transform the world’s use of data, just like Internet protocol did, but its true power has been underappreciated and misunderstood for too long. The original design for Bitcoin provided by Satoshi Nakamoto was crippled by Bitcoin Core protocol developers, turning BTC into a heavily restricted and largely unusable version of the massive peer-to-peer network envisioned by the technology’s creator. In reality, Bitcoin’s system has the technical capabilities and scaling capacity to support the world’s most efficient digital payments and distributed data network. The release of today’s report from MNP illustrates this in a clear and objective manner, demonstrating how capabilities of the Bitcoin protocol were limited in line with the restricted ambition of BTC developers. As the report shows, the Bitcoin SV network is the closest implementation of the original Bitcoin protocol provided by Satoshi Nakamoto – offering a blockchain that scales unbounded in response to market forces, maintaining high transaction throughput, super low transaction costs and unparalleled data functionality to support the needs of enterprises, governments, and most importantly, everyday users. BSV is not just a digital investment asset for wealthy people and institutional investors; it is Bitcoin for everyone, everywhere and everything.”
A general outline of report is as follows:
■ The Bitcoin Whitepaper
■ Satoshi’s known Forum Posts, Emails
■ The Original Bitcoin Protocol
º Capabilities
º Critical components
º Non-functional requirements
º Implementation attributes
■ Comparison of current Bitcoin implementations to Satoshi’s original Vision
■ Impact of Satoshi’s Vision once fully realized.
To learn more about the BSV blockchain and the array of businesses using its network, visit bsvblockchain.org.
You can also watch past and future CoinGeek Conferences, the leading global events educating about BSV blockchain technology. The most recent was held in Zurich, the heartland of the European banking world; replays available. The next event is CoinGeek New York (Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel, October 5-7, 2021). Please join us in person or virtually to discover how the BSV blockchain’s unbounded scaling can support business, consumer and government uses with low fee data applications and micropayments.
About MNP
MNP is one of the largest national accounting and consulting firms in Canada, providing client-focused accounting, taxation and consulting advice. National in scope and local in focus, MNP has proudly served individuals and public and private companies for over 60 years. Through the development of strong relationships, MNP provides personalized strategies and a local perspective to help them succeed. For more information, visit www.mnp.ca.
Source https://bitcoinassociation.net/mnp-report-finds-bitcoin-sv-to-be-the-best-implementation-of-the-original-bitcoin-protocol/
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
ERROR: invalid header received
ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: Consensus::ContextualCheckBlockHeader: 0000000000000000029e471c41818d24b8b74c911071c4ef0b4a0509f9b5a8ce, bad-diffbits, incorrect proof of work (code 16)
ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: Consensus::ContextualCheckBlockHeader: 0000000000000000029e471c41818d24b8b74c911071c4ef0b4a0509f9b5a8ce, bad-diffbits, incorrect proof of work (code 16)
Does the wallet need to bu updated?
Quote
"version": 101000600,
"protocolversion": 70015,
"walletversion": 160300,
"balance": XYZ,
"blocks": 700595,
"protocolversion": 70015,
"walletversion": 160300,
"balance": XYZ,
"blocks": 700595,
I would appreciate any help
Quote
Hi, read: https://bitcoinassociation.net/advisory-and-faqs-raising-the-hard-cap-setting-in-bitcoin-sv-node-software-in-anticipation-of-multi-gigabyte-blocks/
Update
All of those blocks are being rejected because they are invalid. You are connected to a node that is feeding you bad data. This is ok, bitcoin was designed to work in adversarial conditions. What you have to do now is simply wait until more connections are established, so that you will be able to receive valid blocks, from well-behaved nodes.
Update
All of those blocks are being rejected because they are invalid. You are connected to a node that is feeding you bad data. This is ok, bitcoin was designed to work in adversarial conditions. What you have to do now is simply wait until more connections are established, so that you will be able to receive valid blocks, from well-behaved nodes.
Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Quote
Finalists announced to compete for USD $100,000 prize pool in 4th Bitcoin SV Hackathon
ZUG, Switzerland – August 24, 2021 – Bitcoin Association, the Switzerland-based global industry organisation that works to advance business with the Bitcoin SV (BSV) blockchain and digital currency, has today announced the three finalists for the 4th Bitcoin SV Hackathon who will compete for a USD $100,000 prize pool (paid in BSV) at CoinGeek New York, October 5-7, 2021.
Bitcoin SV Hackathons are global coding competitions designed to challenge developers to learn about the technical and scaling power of Bitcoin’s original protocol, as well as innovate on the fly. Within a set time period, participants – either as individuals or as part of a team – are tasked with developing an application on the BSV blockchain within the parameters of an overarching theme announced at the start of the competition.
The theme for this iteration of the competition is ‘peer-to-peer’ applications – not just payments, but any type of application that involves direct interaction between participants on the Bitcoin network. Entrants are tasked with leveraging the recently released SPV Channels service as part of their application to facilitate communication across the network, as well as interacting with the Bitcoin network directly via the Merchant API (mAPI). Both SPV Channels and mAPI are tools uniquely offered on the BSV network.
After announcing a shortlist of six semi-final entries last week, the judging panel has confirmed that the three entries progressing to the final round are:
– Bitcoin Phone – an app for broadcasting voice data over the Bitcoin network that leverages the non-finality of nSequence to enable close to real-time data streaming.
[Joe Thomas – Canada]
– CATN8 – a micropayment-enabled online video platform with a full peer-to-peer SPV wallet implementation.
[Marcel Gruber – Canada; Dave Foderick – United States; Thor]
– TKS Pnt – a point tokenisation system for use by merchants and their customers.
[Meta Taro – Japan]
The three finalists are invited to each send a member of their team to present their projects at the upcoming CoinGeek New York conference, October 5 – 7 (or can present virtually). The Hackathon final round presentations will be on Day 1 (October 5) of the conference, with winners announced on Day 3 (October 7). The finalists will compete for a share of a USD $100,000 prize pool, paid in BSV – $50,000 for 1st place, $30,000 for 2nd, and $20,000 for 3rd.
Final placings will be determined by a combination of a final round judging panel and audience voting. To watch the final round presentations and have your say in who goes home with first prize and $50,000 in BSV, register to attend CoinGeek New York in-person or online at coingeekconference.com.
Commenting on today’s announcement, Bitcoin Association Founding President Jimmy Nguyen said:
‘The peer-to-peer nature of Bitcoin’s original design is one of its most important features to efficiently enable scaling to high transaction volumes, yet is all-too-often overlooked by developers and commentators who retconned BTC into a digital store of value which is not used for daily activity. That is precisely why we chose to make peer-to-peer functionality an integral component for all entries in this year’s Bitcoin SV Hackathon – and with impressive results. The final three entries each have a unique take on what unique functionalities can be achieved with a peer-to-peer distributed payment and data network, which is sure to make for a fascinating final contest at CoinGeek New York in October.’
Also commenting, nChain CTO Steve Shadders said:
‘Participants in our Bitcoin SV Hackathons have never failed to impress, and this year has been no exception. Working with SPV Channels – a brand new feature set and one entirely unique to the Bitcoin SV network – and other direct peer communications mechanisms, each of our finalists have demonstrated just how broad the capabilities of this new technology are. Starting with a blank slate is no easy task, which makes the standard of entry from each of our three finalists all the more impressive, any of whom would make for a deserving winner in October at CoinGeek New York.’
Source https://bitcoinassociation.net/bitcoin-sv-hackathon-finalists-announced-a-look-at-the-top-3-projects/