He thinks that remembering $40,000 out of pocket, for a fresh adult to only argue with the "expert" about basic math, is narcissism. 🤦🏻‍♂️🙄 How foolish! Study to show thyself approved. ✅

1. Rumors exist that he mishandled $2M originating from the church's tithes. 2. The Bible clearly says not to make carved images of anything, above, in, or under the earth. 3. City on seven hills matches the description of the prophecy of the woman riding the beast.

I would say it is an example of how often someone is treated when right. They stand up for something for good reason and the crowd doesn't want to allow it for their own personal convenience. Do you think the other students were motivated to have correct answers or just points?

censored, but it also allows a transaction focused data center to auction its near complete block with remaining fees to be added to the final block and collected by the nonce finders in the market which is focused on energy consumption instead of storage.

to establish themselves over time with reputation to the other nodes. Individuals can still do nonce checking and solve a lottery with room heaters, for example, because the double hashing not only allows for illicit data to be ignored with hash trails as proof of what data is

than one with more edges, less hops and less hashpower. Hashpower cannot falsify signatures or hashes. It can only attempt to spam and invalid spam is filtered out regardless of the hashpower associated with the nonce. Hence, free market communication exists and nodes are able

The effect of hashpower is not standalone for security, it combines with the network structure: edges and hops to give it an effect, and it ultimately costs energy which means high hashpower with less edges or more hops actually provides less security for unit of electricity used

This makes a typical 2 or 3 hop distance, thus reducing the effect of potential double spend spams. Again, Bitcoin security has 3 aspects and only 1 of them depends on hashpower: not the block hash, not the ECDSA signature, just the nonce hash, and that combines with edge count.

connections between each other. It's easier to cut or spam a network from two different sources if it has many nodes but many hops and few edges. If you only have 5K airports, or large block transaction verifiers, they can be connected each to over 50% of the others directly.

assumption that blocks need to be small for them to be properly verified in a decentralized network. This isn't true if your definition of 'decentralization' respects graph theory and minimal cuts. Airports are less than homes in number, but they can maintain high bandwidth

chains of hashes work. It is not necessary to have a full block to check specific chains of hashes and match them to a proof of work block. This is SPV and it is described in its own section of the original Bitcoin whitepaper published in 2008. Small block support makes the false

spends are checked. You do not need blocks to verify transactions. That is done with pinging one or more reputable nodes with an inquiry about whether a transaction is considered to be accepted. Also, audits can be done by small apps without all block information because of how

I just randomly picked part of the video to see any facts. "I would like to see smaller blocks faster." Says that he things the system is faster if blocks come faster. 1:19:00 This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how transactions are processed. He doesn't even get how double

You do realize that using BSV compared to BTC is like: 1. A Honda Civic compared to a car which requires 10 million gallons of gasoline to go only one mile. 2. Asking airport vs. your grandma over the landline to verify with all homes if you can turn your plane to the right 10°

Lightning is a fantasy. Gas fees are a fantasy. Thinking that Craig Wright, who I only found out about in 2023, was wrong in 2015 about scaling, Turing completeness, and traceability is a fantasy. I studied my math and computer science before I learned about BSV. What about you?

Unlike BTC supporters, we don't need to whine and complain about why we feel that we believe in our technology. It proves itself in design and experimentally. Also note that, if someone else misunderstands algorithms, it doesn't mean the one who does understand is a narcissist.

I told my CS professor in 2008 ~"you think the answer is C, but it is D" during a quiz He thought that the number of additions in a binary tree of adding pennies was log(n) instead of n and I called it He later simulated it then told the class Not misunderstood: simply correct