The Bitcoin SV vision is to give miners a choice

The Bitcoin SV vision is to give miners a choice

To read in Chinese click here.

In one of Satoshi Nakamoto’s early writings, it was noted that “the nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.” But does that mean that not a single change can ever happen?

That was the one of the questions posed by nChain CEO Jimmy Nguyen at the recently held The Future of Bitcoin Summit Bangkok 2018 in Thailand. During the two-day summit, Nguyen, along with Chief Scientist Dr. Craig Wright, addressed an audience of miners and developers to remind everyone that the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) was birthed “to restore what Bitcoin was from BTC,” and that they pooled together because they want to create “a Bitcoin protocol that we believe will fulfil Satoshi’s vision.” The full transcription of Jimmy Nguyen and Dr. Craig Wright’s speech by user cryptomic can be read here.

“We believe it’s time for Bitcoin as an entire world and ecosystem to group up and professionalize, and that’s what we’re advocating,” Nguyen said. “And what do we mean by that? What we mean by that is a protocol that is stable.”

One of the most promising Bitcoin BCH node implementation is Bitcoin SV, a project born out of the desire to empower miners so they’ll make informed decisions about critical protocol upgrades. Contrary to widely held belief, Bitcoin SV is not a fork—it will lock the “battle-tested” Bitcoin BCH protocol in place. In turn, miners will have a choice and a voice to drive the process of restoring Bitcoin to its optimal state. That of unbounded blocks and original OP_Codes.

This November, mining nodes running Bitcoin SV will enable a short list of upgrades on the BCH network, the most important of which is increasing the default maximum block size from 32MB to 128MB.

But why is it important to scale now, and scale fast in terms of block size? After some modelling with business analysts, Nguyen said the reason is simple: There’s a direct economic need for miners.

“In two years the block reward will be split in half again to 6.25 BCH. So anyone who’s mining now will in two years receive half of what they’re receiving today. In order to maintain even current profitability, what that means is in two years they have to make up that 6.25 coins worth of value in something else, which has to come in transaction fees and which has to come in higher transaction volume,” Nguyen explained.

He added, “If we have to get anywhere near 4, 16 gigabytes in two years, we can’t wait a year from now. We have to start that process now. That’s critical because otherwise in two years mining is going to become less profitable and that threatens the whole viability and security of the network if the miners cannot make up the actual revenue they need to make up in transaction volume and fees.”

Nguyen said the advocacy to scale quickly and safely was not born out of a desire for bigger blocks.

“There is an imperative economically built into the system to do this and do it now. We want to lock the original Bitcoin protocol so that businesses can reliably build on it. Professionalize the whole process with quality assurance and security audits. Promote zero-conf security,” he said. “We want to create a pathway to rapid adoption globally, and not just for payments but by the big enterprises which will lead to the miner revenue which is critical. Unless they are being profitable and making money, miners will not continue doing this after two years, and the approach we’re advocating will also lead to premium services for them, such as data, such as this property registry type venture for which they’ll get paid more money given the data capacity needed.”

Read the full transcription of Jimmy Nguyen and Dr. Craig Wright’s speech here. Audio recordings of the two-day proceedings in Thailand are available here.

Over 200 Bitcoin BCH miners sign up ahead of SVPool’s official launch

Over 200 Bitcoin BCH miners sign up ahead of SVPool’s official launch

More than 200 Bitcoin Cash (BCH) miners have already pre-registered to join SVPool ahead of its launch later this month, a sign of a growing appetite in the community for ‘Satoshi Vision’ and the Miner’s Choice initiative.

At press time, some 233 miners and groups around the world have already signed up for SVPool. Majority of these registrants come from the United States, followed by Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, China, India, South Korea, Brazil, Japan, Germany, Malaysia, Spain, and Venezuela.

These groups are joined by miners from Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the Netherlands, Vietnam, Finland, France, Iran, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Qatar, Switzerland, Austria, Bulgaria, Cayman Islands, Chile, and Colombia. Groups from Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Portugal, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Swaziland, Taiwan, Thailand, UAE, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Belgium round up the first batch of early registrants for SVPool.

A personal initiative of nChain Chief Scientist Dr. Craig Wright, SVPool is a public Bitcoin BCH mining pool that will represent miners following the original Satoshi Nakamoto vision via the Bitcoin SV implementation of the BCH protocol. SVPool stands in solidarity with CoinGeek in the belief that BCH is the only true Bitcoin that fulfills the Satoshi Vision.

SVPool will have an initial Pay-per-last-N-Shares (PPLNS) offering when it goes live towards the end of September, while a Pay-per-share plus (PPS+) option will be added in November. SVPool, managed by CoinGeek Mining, will help and remunerate miners—large or small—to ensure BCH remains a truly trustless and decentralized system, in accordance with the original Nakamoto white paper.

Want to help Bitcoin BCH realize its full potential? Pre-register now for SVPool.

Bitcoin BCH – The value proposition







Bitcoin.com的首席执行官罗杰·弗尔(Roger Ver),在最近与Bitcoin Core的吉米·宋(Jimmy Song)进行的一场现场辩论中指出了这一事实。比特币现金内部的分化是一个迹象,证明了不同阵营需要竞争并投资,让他们的首选客户决定共识的规则。群龙无首,这也是争斗如此激烈的原因。有趣的是,在这场辩论中,非常自信的吉米·宋是通过读稿开始他的辩驳,但渐失阵脚,到最后开始支吾着胡言乱语。我跑题了。










  • 当前的这套操作码能否实现同样理想的输出?
  • 所建议的功能是否以任何方式影响现金用况?
  • 该功能是否影响网络拓扑?
  • 该功能是否影响系统内置奖励机制?
  • 我们是否能以任何其他方式实现相似的功能?



nChain的赖特博士(Dr Wright)关于协议需要稳定性的说法绝对不是信口雌黄。这个立场具有合理性和学术严谨性,且受到绝大多数安全性研究人员的支持。

布鲁斯·施内尔(Bruce Schneier)是一名广受尊敬的密码学家和安全研究者,曾著有大量相关论作。他总结道:“复杂性是安全的最大敌人”。

根据相关数据图表显示,一个程序越大,攻击面就越大。这其中涉及若干原因。麦凯布(McCabe)所著《越复杂=越不安全:漏掉一个测试路径你就会遭到黑客袭击(原题:More Complex = Less Secure: Miss a Test Path and You Could Get Hacked)》的学术论文中剖析了下列关键原因:

  • 复杂的系统有更多的代码行数,因此有安全漏洞。
  • 复杂的系统有更多的互动,因此有更多的安全漏洞。
  • 复杂的系统更难测试,所以更有可能存在未经测试的部分。
  • 复杂的系统更难被安全设计、安全执行、安全配置和安全使用。
  • 复杂的系统更难被用户理解。

这就是以太坊遭到了如此多黑客袭击的关键原因,从The DAO大劫案(导致当时15%的流通以太币失窃),到Parity冻结(造成五十万以太币被冻结)。以太坊当然强大……它图灵完备,让我们能够创建几乎任何链上应用,但也有诸如量测性、可用性方面的缺陷,重要地是,它安全性上的缺陷更让人担忧。


施内尔在一篇题为《呼吁简化(原题:A Plea for Simplicity)》”的帖子中写道:









Bitcoin BCH – The value proposition

Bitcoin BCH – The value proposition

To read in Chinese click here.

When Bitcoin split into two chains in August of 2017, it did so because the original roadmap for Bitcoin was hijacked, and there existed an economic pressure to see the fulfilment of the original vision. This economic pressure not only resulted in the rebirth of Bitcoin in BCH but was also the cause of the sudden increase in value among numerous cryptocurrencies, which we have collectively come to refer as “alt-coins.” The fact that BTC’s congested chain ‘helped’ the market cap of many of these alt-coins is rather difficult to dispute. Certainly, the timed correlation of events between BTC blocks ‘becoming full’ (therefore limiting BTC usage), and having transactional utility (and market cap) grow in alts cannot be overlooked.

Original Bitcoin doesn’t mean that we need to strip back a hundred thousand lines of code to go back to the original three thousand lines Satoshi had in his first release. It is the design concept. That is—simple, electronic cash.

I say simple because simplicity is a fundamental key to a secure, stable system. Every hardened software engineer with years of experience under their belt knows precisely what this means. Certainly, the vast majority of security researchers understand this. Complexity is no friend to security.

ABC’s controversial ordering change CTO, and subsequently, CoinGeek and nChain’s move to create a competing client designed to continue in the restoration of the original Satoshi implementation, have caused the Bitcoin BCH ecosystem to become divided.

Such division within a decentralized system is not only possible but bound to happen. And almost certainly, there will be many repeats of divisions of this nature.

Roger Ver, CEO of, recently pointed out this very fact during a live debate with Bitcoin Core’s Jimmy Song. The division within BCH is evidence that teams have to fight and invest to have their preferred client decide the rules of consensus. There is no leadership, and this is why the struggle is real. Amusingly in this very debate, we did see a very confident Jimmy Song who started out his debate by reading from a script, slowly become relegated into a mumbling mess by the end of it. I digress.

No matter what outcome in November, one team will get their way, and the other team, sadly, will not. But BCH development will continue. And assuredly, another challenge will come from another competing client at some point. There is a reason we call these “competing” clients. At some point, they intend to mount some challenge over the code.

Locking down the protocol

CoinGeek and friends have already stated that they wish to “lock down the protocol.” This has received some mixed, some positive, and some violent opposition. I want to address the meaning behind this statement, and the motivation.

Firstly, let’s do away with the rumours. Locking down the protocol translates to a desire for a stable protocol that does not change at the whim of every developer. It does not in any way, mean that the protocol must not change under any circumstance. Such a move would be very foolish.

So what changes are welcome?

Two words: risks & opportunities. Over time, coders, testers, and well-meaning individuals may very well find and disclose vulnerabilities. Depending on the criticality of an issue, a change may be executed rather quickly.

Opportunities on the other hand need to be evaluated more critically. Unlike risks, opportunities do not present a ‘ticking time-bomb,’ and can afford the luxury of considerable time, research and testing.

Stability of code is mightily important when dealing with security. In fact, numerous studies have already confirmed the long-suspected correlation between complexity and security reduction.

CoinGeek is not closed to protocol improving opportunities. But CoinGeek does believe in employing stringent measures on any change that is not deemed a fix to an underlying vulnerability. These stringent measures involve questions such as:

  • Can the current suite of opcodes achieve the same desired output?
  • Does the function proposed affect the cash use case in any way?
  • Does the function affect the network topology?
  • Does the function affect the inbuilt incentives of the system?
  • Can we achieve a similar function safely in any other way?

These are some of the questions that CoinGeek would like to see sufficiently addressed before considering opportune changes to protocol. Further, there needs to be a substantial benefit without introducing any risk.

Why these measures?

nChain’s Dr. Wright, stating that the protocol needs to be stable isn’t some misplaced comment. It is a sound, research-backed position that a vast majority of security researchers agree with.

Bruce Schneier, a respected cryptographer and security researcher, who’s written volumes of information on the subject, concludes: “complexity is the worst enemy of security.”

The bigger a program, the bigger the attack surface. At least, that’s how the correlated graph goes. There are a number of reasons for this. A research paper from McCabe titled “More Complex = Less Secure: Miss a Test Path and You Could Get Hacked” lists the following points as key reasons:

  • Complex systems have more lines of code and therefore security bugs.
  • Complex systems have more interactions and therefore more security bugs.
  • Complex systems are harder to test and therefore, more likely to have untested portions.
  • Complex systems are harder to design securely, implement securely, configure securely and use securely.
  • Complex systems are harder for users to understand.

This is actually a key reason why Ethereum has suffered so many hacks, from the DAO hack (which resulted in the theft of 15% of all Ether in circulation at the time) to the parity freeze which saw half a million Eth frozen. Ethereum sure is powerful… It is Turing complete, enables us to create practically any application on-chain, but also has drawbacks in scalability, usability, and importantly, security.

Bitcoin has over 100,000 lines of code. Ethereum on the other hand has well over a million lines of code. Given the complex architecture of, not just Ethereum itself, but of the smart contracts built on top of it, it is no wonder that Ethereum’s strength, is also its weakness.

In a post titled ‘A Plea for Simplicity’ Schneier once wrote:

“We’ve seen security bugs in almost everything: operating systems, applications programs, network hardware and software, and security products themselves. This is a direct result of the complexity of these systems. The more complex a system is–the more options it has, the more functionality it has, the more interfaces it has, the more interactions it has–the harder it is to analyse. Everything is more complicated: the specification, the design, the implementation, the use. And everything is relevant to security analysis.”

Many developers overlook the significant importance of testing. Many will test various functions, and run simulations across a range of inputs. Rarely is every path tested. And rarely do some testers ever even look at binary analysis.

Every opcode we add over time results in an increased complexity. This in no way shutting down future opportunities for improvement. And CoinGeek may choose to welcome profoundly opportune changes that can catapult BCH utility. But CoinGeek and friends choose to err on the side of caution.

Let it be re-stated that locking down the protocol does not equate to never touching the protocol again. Moreover, in a decentralized environment where at any point a new miner can take the lead, consensus over the protocol can change at any point.

The killer-app

It’s easy to become excited and consumed by the latest gadget or idea that we often lose sight of the forest for the trees. Bitcoin is the only Proof of Work based cryptocurrency that can scale to global adoption, and it has the community and the drive to do so. The killer-app is money, and CoinGeek seeks to propel BCH to become not only the most dominant crypto-currency in the market but also become world-wide global cash.

CoinGeek’s position on seeking a stable protocol may upset some people, but the position is backed by studies and by some of the most well-respected security researchers. Bitcoin Satoshi Vision intends to resurrect original Bitcoin, uncapped, with all opcodes enabled. This move isn’t scary, nor is it dangerous. It is in fact, the original value proposition of Bitcoin. CoinGeek supports the roadmap that first seeks to restore the original implementation first and foremost, before making considerations for other changes.

We believe that in order to become global money and see BCH reach global adoption, we need to prove that the platform is indeed stable and that businesses can ‘trust’ that protocol development will not impede their actions. BTC has a history of tampering with the code in a manner that kills business. Consistency is important, stability is important, and the electronic cash use case comes first.

Eli Afram

‘Satoshi Vision’ Public Mining Pool prepares for launch

‘Satoshi Vision’ Public Mining Pool prepares for launch

SVPool is almost ready for launch later this month as a brand new competitive, public BCH mining pool to represent miners following the original Satoshi Nakamoto vision via the Bitcoin SV implementation of the BCH protocol. SV Pool is a personal initiative of Dr. Craig S. Wright, one of the world’s most prominent Bitcoin scientists and thought leaders. Currently, pre-registration for SVPool is available to all Bitcoin BCH miners large or small.

The full site and SVPool will be launched towards the end of September with an initial Pay-per-last-N-Shares (PPLNS) offering, with the Pay-per-share plus (PPS+) option being added in November. BCH is the only true Bitcoin that adheres to the original Satoshi White Paper, namely, a low transaction fee, electronic cash system.

SVPool is managed by CoinGeek Mining, and stands in solidarity with Coingeek in our steadfast belief that BCH is the only true Bitcoin that fulfills the Satoshi Vision. SVPool will help, and remunerate, miners of all sizes to ensure BCH remains a truly trustless and decentralized system, again, as the original White Paper demanded.

If that’s your vision, then pre-register and let’s make BCH realise its potential.


CoinEx produces a confusing and misleading statement about supposed Bitcoin Cash fork

Yesterday morning, CoinEx, a company whose CEO, Haipo Yang of ViaBTC, supports Bitmain on the ABC stance, issued the following statement concerning the Bitcoin Cash hard fork in November:

The statement has caused confusion among investors, who were otherwise led to believe by Bitcoin SV supporting teams that the competing client would not produce a split.

nChain and CoinGeek, two of the biggest mining backers of the Bitcoin SV client, categorically deny any willingness or attempt to create an alternate fork chain, and will instead be competing over Bitcoin BCH directly, by the very definition of ‘Nakamoto consensus’. That is, the consensus mechanism inherently built into Bitcoin, as referenced in the founding whitepaper.

CoinGeek has noted a number of factually incorrect statements and issues the following responses:

“Bitcoin-SV (BSV) is the altered version of Bitcoin Cash protocols.”

This point is blatantly false. CoinGeek would like to request from CoinEx, a definition of ‘Bitcoin Cash protocols’. By implying that Bitcoin SV introduces an altered set of protocols, then by definition, so does ABC with their November hard-fork. Any upgrade would be effectively doing this.

Interestingly, ABC lead dev also made a remark in similar vain, stating the following:

We are therefore led to believe the only possible explanation to this statement is that CoinEx believes that ABC holds literal ownership of the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) brand.

This is not too dissimilar to a time in 2015, when Bitcoin XT, a competing client to the ‘BitcoinCore’ client was incorrectly labelled an alt-coin. Despite being an optional fork of the client with slightly different network protocols, Bitcoin XT was misleadingly branded an alt-coin on all BitcoinCore backed websites and forums. We fear the implication here is similar.

The next point on CoinEx’s statement follows on:

“BSV is likely to bring a potential fork of Bitcoin Cash by causing incompatibility with Bitcoin Cash network and therefore create a new cryptocurrency asset – Bitcoin-SV (Token: BSV)”

If Nakamoto consensus rules that Bitcoin SV is the dominant client, then there is no “incompatibility”. In fact in such a scenario, the only incompatibility will come from non Bitcoin SV compliant nodes in that case, which would mean ABC in this case.

Fundamentally it is premature to specify which client is “incompatible” and which client will be majority or minority. Nakamoto consensus determines this, not exchanges. Bitcoin is not democratic. The vote isn’t 1 vote per person, but 1 vote per CPU (hash).

In response to the statement, CEO of nChain Group, Jimmy Nguyen makes the key point that “Bitcoin SV is not intending nor trying to fork off from Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin SV is not intending to create a new coin or token. Instead, as stated in its announcement, Bitcoin SV is a professionally-driven implementation of the Bitcoin full node software for use on BCH, and is intended to provide a clear BCH implementation choice for miners who support Bitcoin’s original vision. Bitcoin SV intends to compete for miners’ votes (under Nakamoto consensus) to be the winning BCH chain”.

It is worth also noting, that recently, yet another team announced a new BCH implementation, like Bitcoin SV, it intends to fulfill the original Satoshi vision. This is called “Protocol Client” and its github repository can be found here:

CoinEx has made no mention of “Protocol Client” however, despite this being another client with different rules.

Eli Afram

Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.