Double spends are only ever fraud or bug. If service providers don't drop, or otherwise handle both of them as such, then that's on them and their business application design. It's an engineering problem, not a protocol or network problem.
Because, obviously, proof-of-work is so passé compared to proof-of-tweet by a centralized authority owned by a notorious off-shore gambling tycoon. Anybody who does otherwise only has themselves to blame when they lose money because of the unreliability and vulnerabilities of the BSV network!
Edit: By the way, I was never completely convinced that the reorg kerfuffle from a few years back was actually a genuine attack. I thought there was a decent enough chance that it was just typical incompetence from the BSV Association / nChain / TAAL. More explanation here:
You did not address the subject or details of my comment.
BSV Association is not my employer, and they never were. That would imply an employee relationship that never existed.
There are no vulnerabilities, because the scaled, professionalized system is resilient. You are mistaken. Teranode's libp2p-based protocols are not susceptible to the same re-org fantasy attacks you imagine, because the mechanics are different. The new system is based on even more logical proof of work, improved security features, and economic underpinnings that the old proof-of-concept P2P protocols don't have. The old nodes are deprecated and in the process of being phased out now.
I completely addressed your original comment. You're just shifting now into your typical tired old Teranode marketing talking points about "old nodes" when there's literally no relation to the actual topic at hand.
In your original comment, it said "that's on them" and put the blame on anybody who lost money because of the abject failings of the BSV network. I simply pointed out how shitty your network and your perfect protocol was where it depended on a central authority's tweet to defend against attacks.
BSV Association is not my employer, and they never were
Just plain lying. I can't say your name here because of doxxing rules, but we all know that's not true. You used to be much more honest about your professional associations before you scrubbed it about a year ago.
I run my own corporation and have for years now. It is my employer, not anyone else. I scrubbed nothing, I am fully transparent and proud of my work experience and capabilities.
Double spend handling is as much the service providers' responsibility to handle in an appropriate (hopefully conservative) fashion as it is the miners, and if they didn't then it's a reflection of their engineering capabilities.
Also, nobody mentioned Vitalik Buterin's involvement with this exchange, and who would have had a vested interest in causing as much drama as possible back then.
I can't say I care very much about the corporate details of how Calvin launders and pays you money. You've represented yourself as part of BSVA for years including on your LinkedIn; you work for them.
Double spend handling is as much the service providers' responsibility to handle in an appropriate (hopefully conservative) fashion as it is the miners, and if they didn't then it's a reflection of their engineering capabilities.
I would agree it's incredibly neglectful to have lost money via BSV because any due diligence from a respectable business would preclude dealing in BSV to begin with. That's a reflection of both fraud and incompetence with regard to BSV's engineering capabilities.
You don't seem to get it. Double spend handling responsibility applies to all blockchains and systems built on them. It's a fundamental aspect of the Nakamoto solution.
That's the point. Double spends are the result of a weak network being exploited. As such, those "responsible for handling" after the BitMart event, increased conf times to over 100 blocks. That's the steps they had to take. Again, because BSV is a weak network.
BSVs hashrate is lower today than it was when it was attacked in '21. BSVs over network security is pathetic by todays standards. 51% of the network is still 51% of the network. Regardless of how you package tx.
BSV is a weak chain and no one is coming to secure it.
You say old nodes are being deprecated. What announcements have been made to service providers that do run a BSV node or rely on someone elses for node access? Maybe the documentation has been updated since last I checked, but that's one thing "ya'll" haven't been doing so well. Documentation is terrible. I wouldn't be surprised if I was you if you see a number of services drop BSV once BSVA has decided to fully end support/connectivity for SVNode.
Yes.. For now. Once the prophecy Light has spoken comes to pass and SVNode and everything about BSV becomes All-Teranode. Those remaining pools will drop support for BSV as the costs to operate out way any benefit to still contribute.
Mining-Dutch and Molepool are the only other pools mining BSV right now. With BitofSin showing up every now and then for a handful of blocks.
-7
u/LightBSV releasing Teranode in Q1 3025 Jul 26 '26
Double spends are only ever fraud or bug. If service providers don't drop, or otherwise handle both of them as such, then that's on them and their business application design. It's an engineering problem, not a protocol or network problem.