Bitcoin SV Analysis

The Flippening – Part 6

Bitcoin SV stands for Satoshi Vision.

Stemming from Bitcoin Cash, BSV is a hard fork (community-activated update to the protocol or code) established as distinct from BCH after the network upgrade scheduled for November 15th, 2018 resulted in a hash war determining the chains would be split. According to their website, the Bitcoin SV project is primarily backed by CoinGeek Mining with development work by nChain.

Long story short, BTC was compromised by two competing factions of crypto engineers. The factions working on the protocol couldn’t come to an agreement on how to scale the BTC blockchain. The disagreement led to BTC being forked resulting in Bitcoin Cash. But, the factions continued to disagree which resulted in Bitcoin Cash being forked. The fork created BCHABC and BSV. The disagreements put the ‘Nakamoto Consensus’ to the ultimate test.

Nakamoto consensus is a name for Bitcoin’s decentralized, pseudonymous consensus protocol. It is considered as Bitcoin’s core innovation and its key to success. The consensus protocol doesn’t require any trusted parties or pre-assumed identities among the participants.

Consensus can be reached by selecting the “longest” chain of valid blocks. In the Bitcoin whitepaper, and some other documentation, it is indicated that the honest chain grows the longest, assuming that 51% or less of the miners are malicious. Therefore, the longest chain can be considered to be the chain with the most invested Proof-of-Work:

In short, Miners use their hash to vote on the Blockchain. BCHABC will move their hash to mine its Blockchain. Miners supporting BSV will move their hash to mine its Blockchain.

Before the Fork, the BSV camp had over 70% of Miners hash.

Recently, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) personalities proposed a 12.5% tax on mining rewards that would ostensibly go to funding network development.

Cointelegraph reported last week on the proposed tax published by Btc .top CEO Jiang Zhuoer. The “infrastructure funding plan” would have miners send 12.5% of mining rewards to an entity in Hong Kong. The co-signing entities repped 27% of hashrates. Most controversially, the proposal included “orphaning” non-compliant miners — the practice of removing blocks from the chain that resembles a 51 percent attack.

Critics underscored the routing of funds to a CORPORATION instead of a nonprofit and the absenting of a voting procedure, which would mean COMPANY OWNERS would control BCH development. Other complaints included CHINESE government interference and profitability since the tax would affect miner revenues.

BCHABC’s fate will be determined by Economics.