Mr. Word Name and picture from twetch — not on-chain. The signature is; the profile is not.

Yeah in real life the protagonists usually lose because they’re clueless and unwilling to do what it takes

It means two distinct jigs can be called and then state rolled back on both without either jig having to support it explicitly / a priori. Reflect on the fact that you said “what do you mean” and “of course we can do it” in the same twetch.

Lately feeling like BCH is the true underdog protagonist in this BTC/BSV glowie dialectic

A BSV fork would have the same architecture as BSV which despite nobody here believing it, can do things in L1 that BSV can’t. Notice how all critical twetch state is defined by their server interpreting the twetch bsv txs?
To A your Q: it already happened

Run is great but again the key missing piece is atomic composition which is what evm is designed for

Twetch should keep all twetches on bsv but put user IDs and tokens and stuff into an EVM overlay, otherwise it’s just custodial larping

Option 1, do hard r&d to make overlay that scales as well as BSV while having the crucial properties of ETH L1 w.r.t. composability and state and such.
Option 2:

Ethereum, because of L1 composability

The eternal they

When @852 token with questionable tokenomics. Or with actual fee split share I guess, will begrudgingly accept that too

Just don’t tell creg you’re making mutually beneficial trades with informed adults without even checking if you’re violating hundred year old consumer “protection” lawr

Thanks for your honest and good-faith answer. Yes, doing something that “proves” he’s a fraud while not actually proving anything would be a good way to take heat off. I do remember stuff along the lines of “at least a fraud can see his family”.

Gotcha, so basically it would be to entice people into saying “this is proof he’s not Satoshi” when in fact it’s not proof of anything either way. So a form of 4d chess, I suppose

My mistake! Though I could have sworn it was missing for some time. Makes it even stranger that nobody has a theory why it happened!

Dang what if he brought it back but with a real / fresh signature. “The proof was there the whole time!” type of thing. Better go check

Great point! But what are your thoughts on the “fake” / reused signature?

RIP Gareth Williams
Stole fire from the gods
We know what happened
Hello analyst :^]

Craig “signed” with a Satoshi key but then people realized he just pulled a sighash from a known satoshi transaction from 2009. Then the blog post was deleted. Here’s the archive:
https://archive.is/m5euI

@292 @24 or any other local BSV thought leaders have any theories in this?

You’re on you’re own
Let’s
Maybe if this was addressed then BSV would have more devs? Craig’s actions don’t happen in a vacuum

After all if people democratically vote for congressfolks to vote to go past the 21m supply cap in BSV, well that’s the lawr. Instead we get shadow naked BTC shorts and eventual “crisis” leading to taxpayer funded bailouts. Nothing new under the sun

A lot of people care, there was public debate about it for years. People chose “censorship resistance” over L1 scalability. You can argue about whether it’s truly “the people’s choice” but to say nobody cares is mischaracterization imo

Alright BSV gang, tell me your best explanation for Creg’s fake signature post that has since been scrubbed from the blog. 4d chess to make everyone but true big block believers sell?
We are all Sartre!

Because all the smartest people want to work on the architecture that isn’t trivial parallel (EVM), because it has much more valuable properties like atomic composition / global state. They’ll figure out how to retrofit parallel validation eventually...

Blockchain transactions are logically sequential so bandwidth isn’t the limiting factor. There’s still essentially one CPU as the bottleneck. You need parallel validation strategies which few chains can achieve in theory and none in practice at the moment.

inb4 creg said inb4 you don’t get it
Creg said “make an overlay network if you want crap like that”. They all really like the idea that it’s just a message bus interpreted by a listening server. Composability is scary, who would be liable??

Not something that’s easy to answer in 256 characters, but just try making a name registry that doesn’t use off-chain indexers or oracles for on-chain spend to names. BSV folks will show you oracle based solutions and think they’re doing what ETH is doing.

We’ll make our own demand, with blackjack and hookers

The bigger inhibitor imo is that BSV people want to believe it is architecturally capable of the same kind of on chain apps as ETH. If BSV people focused on nanotransactions it could have a complementary set of apps instead of trying to copy ETH ecosystem.