The recent Bitcoin Cash hard fork resulted in two (for now) viable chains: Bitcoin Cash (following the Bitcoin Cash ABC protocol and roadmap published by bitcoincash.org) Bitcoin SV (following the Bitcoin Cash SV protocol and roadmap published by nChain) The status of each of these…
RT @krakenfx: Accounts holding Bitcoin Cash (BCH) prior to the Nov 15th fork have been credited with Bitcoin SV (BSV). Trading is now open. Funding is still being evaluated and may come later this week. https://t.co/l2orqED6gO
RT @krakenfx: Accounts holding Bitcoin Cash (BCH) prior to the Nov 15th fork have been credited with Bitcoin SV (BSV). Trading is now open. Funding is still being evaluated and may come later this week. https://t.co/l2orqED6gO
Hi [u/FlipDetector](https://www.reddit.com/user/FlipDetector), Kraken support here. We're very sorry to hear this. In case there's something we could do to assist you, please, feel free to contact us via Live Chat or by opening a support ticket here: [https://support.kraken.com/hc/en-us/requests/new](https://support.kraken.com/hc/en-us/requests/new). Our Client Engagement Team will get back to you asap.
This is the approach every exchange should take. You don't want to meddle with BSV unless you absolutely, explicitly know what you're doing. And even then, I would advise now getting involved with it, even though our service technically supports both.
We currently do not have funding enabled for bch and sv though once it is enabled the answer would be no. We will have seperate addresses generated for bch and sv. You will need to split them before depositing
Feel free to send in a support ticket if you have any further enquiries
Am I the only one who thinks it's weird that they are calling it Bitcoin SV and not Bitcoin Cash SV???? Is SV trying to separate themselves from Bitcoin Cash and align themselves more with core? I dunno, haven't kept up with this stupid drama really so excuse the ignorance.
So? If (like your article says) you held BCH on Kraken, you will have BCH and BSV on Kraken that you can trade without being able to deposit more. They are adding 3 BSV pairs. It’s a shame they don’t have BCH/BSV. Then people could move directly between them instead of having to go through two trades with USD or something.
Custodial losses taken on due to attacks originating from nChain or its affiliates will be socialized among all BSV holders on Kraken. Given the volatile state of the network and threats that have been made, Kraken cannot guarantee perfect custody of BSV.
That is not the situation. The scenario here is a centralized exchange, Kraken, acting as a central bank redistributing users funds to socialize loses.. much like what happened in USA during the financial crisis- a point that has often been pointed to by Bitcoiners as the cause for its creation
You're incorrect, because BSV activity is directly attributable to nChain and CSW who've already threatened exchainges with double spends. They're dishonest miners and these are reasonable protections made.
what good is our ideology if it is not tested?
I have seen anarchist acting very odd lately
[We have voluntarist on here advocating a poison coin attack to enlist coins onto the ABC chain in a massive conscription ](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yfs6z/suggestion_send_1_post_fork_satoshi_to_all_active/)
It seems to me there are no moral principles to be found around here and anyone will do anything to win..
This little war experiment in your own backyard has discredited your ideology and shown the supremacy of coordinated corporate state actors. This isn't Bitcoin, ABC went off and founded their own new Empire placing themselves as the new sovereign while the people run around shouting we own the means of production!
Custodial exchanges just facilitate trade of bitcoin. They are not bitcoin and you shouldn't expect to have the security guarantees of it. If you want bitcoin security you have to hold your keys. Moreover this is not about bitcoin, it is about BSV which is at best a shitty bitcoin clone.
I don't have any coins on Kraken.
Why would anyone deposit funds onto Kraken to trade when they say they will steal your coins to pay off loses.. how is that any different from what the US gov. did in response to 2008 financial crisis ? Taking money from individuals in the market to subsidize group loses. how is that even legal? why would you even begin excusing this behavior?
This post further explains our stance on the situation [https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ybznh/kraken\_be\_carefull\_bsv\_is\_some\_shady\_shit/ea0l1sg](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ybznh/kraken_be_carefull_bsv_is_some_shady_shit/ea0l1sg)
this is still not clear
I can't deposit money on an exchange that is promising to scam me..
If your system fails and you do not properly manage customer coins that is not my fault and does not give you an excuse to begin stealing from others to pay off people who made bad trades.
I do not have any coins on Kraken, the promise being made here is that if I deposit money onto Kraken and hold BSV that they will not hesitate to steal my coins and scam me in order to subsidize others loses..
I am a new customer who recently got verified with the intention of depositing money when I go to the bank. Luckily I did not make it in last week because I would be stuck with the mistake of having to deal with my funds being held hostage and stolen in the future
if your chain is not as secure as you thought because *checkpoint* then don't blame yourself for not following nakamoto consensus, blame the ones that are ! We will privatize the profits to you and socialize the losses to them. That sounds like what the central bank or a socialist dictator would do ? no no no, because you are the one going to benefit from it, thus you should put all morality aside and accept it with open hands. You never had the chance to do all the evil things the central banks do, now you can. That's bitcoin's spirit baby ! Satoshi would be proud
SV lost by every metric. They lost by hashwar. They lost by not having any nodes supporting their network. They lost by not even having any software support such as wallets.
People like you need to realise that SV was a horrible proposal, and would have lead to a weaker network that is less capable of scaling. The stress test even showed this.
Lost? Is the war over? Is the SV chain dead?
Wallets? What do you make of handcash and centbee.. That's "not even any wallet" to you?
What do you make of "longest accumulated hashpower"... You know, how Satoshi defined bitcoin.
The ABC chain IS weak and will get reorg'd... But wait... Amaury just added some more checkpoints (true, check their github) so I guess that's secure now?
Proof of Amaury adding more checkpoints everyday. Is that what ABC relies upon for security now?
How is this not total centralization? Is total centralization secure? It did worked very well with the core team and the 1mb blocksize cap right?
I am telling you : you are in an illusion. I did my best to warn you. ABC will get reorg'd and will freeze because of attacks. Those who only hold ABC coins will loose everything. It is not secure. Checkpoints were never for securing a war in a contentious fork.
But go on. If you cannot listen because your illusion is too strong, real life will teach you the lesson in a more painful way. I don't care, I just want to be able to show how I predicted what is going to happen and tried to warn people.
Yes the war is over. The SV fork wont be able to reorg the BCH fork. As Coingeek has had over 51% hash on that fork for days it is losing value. If it was only for a short bit it would not matter, but when it is coming from a hostile entity that has threatened exchanges and companies it is a big deal.
The BCH chain is safe. The BSV miners are not capable of attacking BCH, as we have already seen. Good luck with your fork. Let's see how long it lives.
Not really, as BCH came out more prepared for a fork with walkers and software and such. We knew we were forking off of BTC.
Also BCH came out more scalable than BTC, and has always had a stronger network capability. BCH has beaten BTC in terms of scaling.
The only metric that BTC outperforms BCH is is the price of the coin, which really is a secondary issue.
> Not really, as BCH came out more prepared for a fork with walkers and software and such. We knew we were forking off of BTC.
Not really. SV has a wallet and multiple exchanges that are trading it. They knew they where forking off BCH. The BCH ecosystem was poor for at least a month after the work, with occasionally only a few blocks mined per 12 hour period due to broken difficulty adjustment algorithm.
> Also BCH came out more scalable than BTC,
SV is more scalable than BCH. You know the blocks are bigger, right?
> and has always had a stronger network capability.
> BCH has beaten BTC in terms of scaling.
> The only metric that BTC outperforms BCH is is the price of the coin, which really is a secondary issue.
No, the only metric by which BCH outperforms BTC is your personal preference. The price is an important metric to gauge the preference of others.
SV is a shitcoin, but let's not pretend that BCH was any less shit when it was first forked.
BCH actually fixed the difficulty adjustment algorithm. Yes they knew that with less hash it would take a bit, but it was fixed. BSV benefitted from this improved algorithm with their lower hashrate.
There is more to scaling than blocksize. SV may advertise a larger blocksize, but not the ability to use larger blocks. ABC can more smoothly handle larger blocks, and fit more txs/MB than SV. This was all shown in the stress test that followed the fork.
You laugh, but the evidence is there. BCH can process far more transactions than BTC, and has. Even after many years of waiting LN is still failing to scale. Now they are using an even worse Bitcoin Liquid which is a centralised trusted system.
LBTC and LN are the kind of systems Bitcoin was intended to replace. Not be the backbone of. That said I have no problem with BTC being the institutional coin. They want to be a banking backbone then that is their deal. Probably better for that then Ripple.
BCH fixed the difficulty algorithm a month after the fork, but now you are complaining about poor state of SV software three days after the fork. That is seriously biased.
ABC doesn't fit more tx/MB than SV at all. Are ABC tx smaller? No, they are the same size. Is a ABC optimized better than SV? No, it's a fork of the same software. The stress test didn't show anything.
ABC cannot process more transactions than BTC, unless you are talking about on-chain transactions only. Even if you are talking about on-chain transactions only, BTC generally processes more transactions than ABC. LN isn't "failing to scale", it's beta software that can [scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalability) with better scaling characteristics than on-chain.
If others want to use liquid that's their choice, that is permissionless development. Liquid has use cases that are impossible to implement with classic on-chain transaction.
Actually I talked about the poor state of SV software before he fork. That was why I predicted them losing. What they proposed was weaker.
According to the results of the stress test the BCH fork does outperform in terms of tx/MB. Deny the numbers all you want.
BCH has already been shown to outperform BTC. On chain is the only real solution, but that said the BCH on chain scaling still outperforms the off chain LN as well. Why deny the numbers?
BCH also had poor software before the fork. Much more poor than SV, I'd say. They even made changes 3 days before the fork and it took a a few day before anything was confirmed due to the slow mining.
I don't give a damn about the numbers. You need to give me a plausible explanation how BCH processes more tx per byte than SV. I guarantee you that the numbers you see are completely dependent on the type of transaction in the block and not because BCH is more efficient per byte. If I generate a few MB-large transactions for BCH, does that mean that BCH is less efficient than SV per byte? No of course not, you can do that on SV as well.
You also don't seem to understand what "scaling" means. A system is said to scale well if the amount of resources required grows slowly as the data size increases (the computer science definition). The lighting network scales linearly with number of transactions. on-chain scaling scales quadratic with the number of transactions and users.
I'm sure there are reasons to prefer BCH over BTC or SV, but not these reasons.
You dont care about the numbers... well then you dont care about facts.
It is funny to see you try to cherry pick the topic of scaling. Scaling included adding resources, as well as making the system more efficient in terms of resources required for the same operation. BCH scales both ways better than BTC.
LN is not a BTC scaling solution. It is a side project. LN is a bad idea, and working on that was done at the expense of actual work on BTC.
Scalability is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work, or its potential to be enlarged to accommodate that growth. For example, a system is considered scalable if it is capable of increasing its total output under an increased load when resources (typically hardware) are added. An analogous meaning is implied when the word is used in an economic context, where a company's scalability implies that the underlying business model offers the potential for economic growth within the company.
Scalability, as a property of systems, is generally difficult to define and in any particular case it is necessary to define the specific requirements for scalability on those dimensions that are deemed important.
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
This shit still? What the fuck does a checkpoint in a BCH client have to do with the unreliable nature of BSV? What has Nakamoto consensus have to do with _anything_ between BCH and BSV?
The potential for losses due to attacks by nChain and their affiliates is in regards to Kraken's custody of BSV. They are legitimately concerned that nChain might attack BSV and BSV holders. They're warning you that not only has BSV failed to be recognized as a continuation of BCH, it is also going to get absolutely shit on by the market and the predators who constructed the whole farce are probably going to try to fuck every last one of their bag-holding victims on the way out.
Kraken is afraid of a reorg which will happen if SV wins the hash war. Maybe you are smarter than Kraken ?
If you own SV and ABC at this point the odds are that you will lose most or all of your money.
>Kraken is afraid of a reorg which will happen if SV wins the hash war.
Just making shit up now. BSV can't reorg BCH. The miners could _potentially_ reorg BCH by becoming BCH miners, but that's nothing new.
no relation. Just that everyone here was claiming that the war has ended because ABC won by using a checkpoint.
And now you realize that this is not true as the checkpoint adds 0 security and Kraken just admitted they expect some reorgs.
Kraken is not at all concerned that nChain might attack SV holders, read again:
>**Custodial losses taken on due to attacks originating from nChain or its affiliates will be socialized among all BSV holders on Kraken.**
They are saying that if SV attacks ABC or any chain, and ABC users loose their coin, they will socialize the losses among SV holders. A pure socialist regime program, now in bitcoin for the benefit of all ABC people !
But go on, saying you "won" a war just because of a checkpoint when your chain can still get reorg'd seems great since you are all cheering.
PS I used to be totally neutral and still am, but the amount of hypocrisy and lies I see in this sub in the last few days makes me crazy. Maybe now even more than Craig's threats and dickish behavior
Just for somebody else reading this. A checkpoint is like moving the genesis block forward in time, and you can't reorg past the genesis block. When an entire network is running software with a check point and somebody tried reorg past it, even if they'd have 99% of the hash the other 1% can't accept that chain as valid cause the hashes of the blockheaders won't match the ones in the checkpoint.
Of course you strip the context from that quote.
>Custodial losses taken on due to attacks originating from nChain or its affiliates will be socialized among all BSV holders on Kraken. **Given the volatile state of the network and threats that have been made, Kraken cannot guarantee perfect custody of BSV.**
coyote7u2Redditor for less than 60 days8 months ago
It is, production of a psycho who claims to be the god of crypto, what could we say?
Damn. That's pretty aggressive language. It's clear Kraken is expecting some shady shit if their warning they will socialize losses among BSV holders.
Edit: For anyone that wants a tldr:
"Custodial losses taken on due to attacks originating from nChain or its affiliates will be socialized among all BSV holders on Kraken. Given the volatile state of the network and threats that have been made, Kraken cannot guarantee perfect custody of BSV."
> Custodial losses taken on due to attacks originating from nChain or its affiliates will be socialized among all BSV holders on Kraken. Given the volatile state of the network and threats that have been made, Kraken cannot guarantee perfect custody of BSV.
That’s the one sentence that doesn’t make sense and I’m guessing they didn’t think it through... if any affiliate of nChain attacks any blockchain they penalize BSV holders on kraken? nChain wouldn’t attack their own chain, so I’m not sure how else to interpret that.
>nChain wouldn’t attack their own chain,
Wight has threatened changes to BSV that would allow miners to "recover" coins associated with addresses that spend in unapproved ways on either BSV or BCH. Who knows what new rules will be applied on a whim.
They expecting nchain to blacklist users withdrawals and deposits. Csw threatened this as he doesnt want you dumping your coins. Kraken are basically letting the community decide (and take all the risk) what happens.
Without explicitly saying they think this is s scam they are doing everything possible to fuck over Csw. Its in their interests. They want to help the space legitimise and nutcases like csw who threaten to manipulate the market are always gonna be an easy reason for it to be considered a market area for scammers not people who genuinely wanna change world finance. They give csw the option of being kept there if they show they are legit
That really needs some clarification. "Socialized" in proportion to BSV holdings only? Or not proportional at all? Or in proportion to total account balance? Or are they going to try to sue you for holding BSV on their exchange?
This isn't like some exchange that has been robbed and is making up the rules after the fact. If you expect losses and have the foresight to add these kinds of warnings, make them explicit.
I'm sure somewhere in their terms of service they say they are under no obligation to support any hard fork where a new token is created. I'd be surprised if it wasn't there.
I also think it is clear that they said it would be socialized FROM BSV holders.
Given that: they deem socialized losses are necessary to support the coin at the current time. If you don't like that, you should have either a) withdrawn from an exchange with a unclear policy before the fork, or b) withdraw your funds onto an unstable network when they support transfers. Being unhappy with their response, sadly, falls upon the user having funds there that are impacted.
This is not similar to the bitfinex hack. The only real similarity is "socialized", beyond that just about everything else is different.
I personally don't see anything egregious about this. It's a pretty clusterfuck'y situation.
Just my take, but I thought it was clearly from BSV holdings only. So if 1000 of Kraken's BSV on deposit were blacklisted by nChain, they would deduct them proportionally from the BSV holdings on the exchange.
So I have no money on Kraken today.. if I buy BSV they are promising to scam me and "deduct" whatever proportionally to "subsidize" other traders?
I can't imagine anyone else ever coming up with the same idea except for governments and central banks
If you buy or hold BSV on an exchange then **nChain are threatening to steal it**.
Kraken is just telling you that you are taking a risk by buying or holding this coin on their exchange and that it's not their fault if you leave your BSV there and it is stolen by nChain.
If any BSV is stolen, they will deduct the stolen BSV proportionally from the balance of all the BSV holders on their site. Other users will be unaffected.
If you buy BSV there and don't like these terms then you had better withdraw your BSV as soon as possible. Or you could use a different exchange, but I imagine most exchanges will have the same conditions whether they explicitly state them or not.
jespowJesse Powell - CEO, Kraken Exchange8 months ago
I absolutely love them. Just place the buy order from a laptop and your ok. I will tolerate the slowness, they are playing a long game and you know your funds are safe. To me them and coinbase are the only two exchanges I would actually trust
nChain are criminals, they will try to steal from other criminal exchanges that are greedy and want to profit from BSV trading. Scam the scammers.
edit: To be fair, other than lying they have not done anything illegal yet. But if they do reorg attack against exchanges like how CSW said they would ... well that's absolutely criminal.
>surprised the exchange didn't try to sugar coat it.
Or, worse still, deliberately mislead their customers by creating new ticker symbols for BCH and SV, implying that ABC and SV are equally valid. \*cough\* Binance Poloniex Bitfinex \*cough\*.
On the flip side, those exchanges will be the best places to dump BSVision tokens.
> implying that ABC and SV are equally valid
they made it clear from the start that
> WARNING: Bitcoin SV does NOT meet Kraken’s usual listing requirements. It should be seen as an extremely high risk investment. There are many red flags that traders should be aware of:
I don't remember the specific link but CSW said lots of times that they will bankrupt exchanges for various reasons.
Here's an example where he threatens to bankrupt exchanges if they use the BCH ticker to list the original BCH (this would apply to Kraken):