js

@The_xyzguy @AlexanderMann @SECGov @BSVAssociation @Bitcoin_Beyond There was no real communication; they just attended some meetings that anyone could attend, took a photo, and then asked Calvin for money.

@AlexanderMann @SECGov @BSVAssociation @Bitcoin_Beyond Can you share on what topics the engagement was on if possible?

Had great engagement today with the @SECGov on behalf of the @BSVAssociation with @Bitcoin_Beyond and Hon. Jeffery Golden KC. Excited for the future of Blockchain and Digital Assets.

@kurtwuckertjr Kurt was sued by his mother, yet he's here pretending to love her. What a disgusting hypocrite. web.archive.org/web/2022031503…

Happy Mother’s Day to the moms who sacrifice themselves for the sake of the next generation. May you be honored today and not forgotten the rest of the year 🙏🏻

@peterbaylor3 @bsvsimp @BSVflipsBTC CSW Supporters: Submitting a massive amount of forged evidence in court is the only reliable method of proving identity that satisfies everyone.

@bsvsimp @BSVflipsBTC They still wouldn’t be satisfied

Although signing with the key for block 9 would most likely convince the whole world that Dr Craig is Satoshi and BSV is Bit Coin you have to respect Dr Craig's unwavering integrity for refusing to take this invalid shortcut to prove identity 😊

@paalsky @JoelKatz @ImmortalSerito @CsTominaga So, do you also admit that the evidence provided by CSW is all forged? LOL

@JoelKatz @ImmortalSerito @CsTominaga He obviously is. But lots of evidence got lost when Dave Kleiman died.

CSW is wasting a lot of time pretending not to understand that what when people ask the question "who is Satoshi", what they mean by "Satoshi" is whoever (or whatever) did the things attributed to Satoshi.

@T_o_d_d_P @ProjectBabbage What does this have to do with the fact that Bitcoin is not Turing-complete?

@jionny112 @ProjectBabbage Bitcoin doesn't require my state machine, but everyone else does, and bitcoin becomes infintely better with it.

Bitcoin is Turing complete, even if individual scripts are not. #BSV wins m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPc-B5…

@T_o_d_d_P @ProjectBabbage So, have you realized that Bitcoin does not actually require your "state machine"? Bitcoin can continue to function perfectly well without it. Therefore, when discussing Bitcoin, one should not treat the state machine as an intrinsic part of it.

@jionny112 @ProjectBabbage By your definition, no individual CPU is Turing complete either — it also needs external agents.

@T_o_d_d_P @ProjectBabbage You can prove that all non-Turing-complete systems are Turing-complete—simply add your "state machine" to them.

@jionny112 @ProjectBabbage You don't even comprehend what you're saying let alone what I'm saying.

@T_o_d_d_P @ProjectBabbage Don't play word games. It's very simple: if a Bitcoin node itself cannot do it, then it is not Turing complete. If you have to add an external agent, then don't claim that it is Bitcoin itself.

@jionny112 @ProjectBabbage Bitcoin is a system. Partially signed bitcoin transactions, sighash schemes, payment channels, mean there are several state machines that can run leveraging the system, one deterministic path gets written to chain, but you can create loops in chained txs pushing eval to chain.

@DevelopingZack Continuing to cry like this for ten years won't change anything. You're even foolish enough not to understand that your competitor is SOL.

BSV transaction throughput: theoretically unlimited. BTC transaction throughput: 7 per second. Both work... One works better.

@ProjectBabbage I suggest you add a proxy to all non-Turing-complete systems and then claim that you have proven that they are actually Turing-complete.

@ProjectBabbage This is simply an "invention" that anyone familiar with Turing machines could come up with. Yet CSW and his supporters treat it as some great discovery, shamelessly continuing to boast about it and deceiving the uninformed with rhetoric.

@ProjectBabbage Even if you really want to calculate, when you can reach so many transactions in a block, then the price of 100 sat will exceed $1, so how can you make a transaction pay 100 sat?

@ProjectBabbage Fee revenue is certainly possible; SOL generates a significant amount of transaction fee revenue. Problem is, when you don't generate any transaction fees, yet fantasize about these "billions of transactions" year after year, you're clearly using fantasy to alleviate your pain.

I seem to have hit a nerve with this one... raising the PROSPECT of fee revenue seems to have agitated a lot of the Thought Police. Just remember, and repeat after me children: "Fee revenue is a fantasy that will never materialize." #BSV wins.

@MoonCoinRising @ProjectBabbage @CsTominaga This is what CSW's supporters are like, boasting about their "evidence." Once the discussion delves deeper, they fall silent. They're just trying to deceive those who don't know much about the events.

@MoonCoinRising @ProjectBabbage @CsTominaga How does it confirmed? You can also submit an "address" and claim it belongs to you. This doesn't make them actually belong to you.

Question: What happens if a billion transactions each pay 10 sats in fees? That's 10 BILLION sats in fees just for the one block — 100 coins of fee revenue — on top of the fixed subsidy. The subsidy does not change, but the miner’s total block reward does. Since the 4/20 2024 halving, BTC’s subsidy has been 3.125 BTC per block. Even adding fees, a conservative average total reward has been only a little above that — roughly the low-3-BTC range. So a block carrying 100 coins in fees would be a completely different mining-revenue profile. The usual saying is “hash follows price.” But that's not the whole picture. Hash follows expected profit per hash. Price matters, but so do fees, difficulty, orphan risk, liquidity, and operating costs. Small blocks can create high fee rates by rationing scarce blockspace. Big blocks try the opposite strategy: lower fees per transaction, but VASTLY more transactions. The question is not TPS by itself. The question is sustained fee revenue per block. A thousandfold increase in coin price can change mining profitability. But so can a thousandfold increase in real, paying transaction volume — if that volume is persistent, liquid, and profitable after propagation and infrastructure costs. That is the opening for BSV: not “volume magically beats price,” but that fee volume can become miner revenue. If @BSVBlockchain can generate sustained high-fee blocks from real economic use, SHA-256 miners have a reason to notice.

@satoshireveal Why would CSW claim to own these Bitcoins that don't belong to him? Lol. Because he needs to claim that he used these Bitcoins to invest in research and development in order to fraudulently obtain research and development tax refunds.

@satoshireveal LOL. There is no such thing as intellectual property. This is also a lie told by CSW. The difference is that CSW cannot claim that WK has no intellectual property, because he sold this "intellectual property" to Calvin.

@MoonCoinRising @ProjectBabbage @CsTominaga Interestingly, the judge explicitly stated in his ruling that he was not determining whether CSW was Satoshi Nakamoto. Yet you believe his ruling proves CSW is Satoshi.

@jionny112 @ProjectBabbage @CsTominaga I read almost all of it unfortunately. Courts, Judges, Lawyers - all make meed feel like I need a shower. Unfortuantely Craig also makes me feel that way. There is a difference between you and I. We both have disdain / disgust for CSW. But I also respect his work as Satoshi.