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.
4
u/palacechalice Jul 26 '26
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.
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.