Thread by @kurtwuckertjr

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler It was 2017, in Hong Kong & New York, two miner meetings with developers ended in them agreeing to raise the block size limit of BTC to 2mb after two years of developers discussing.

Early on, everyone agreed on bigger blocks. Adam is the leader of the small blockers today.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler Then, after the roadmap had been agreed upon and most miners were signaling to upgrade, a social media campaign started a couple months before the upgrade saying that “the community” wanted small blocks forever.

They all got matching hats in military style.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler You’ll see references to this when people talk about “proof of hat,” as deciding consensus instead of proof of work.

So these guys started saying they could govern the chain & that the miners just “work for the community.” But that the chain is owned by wallets that don’t mine.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler They started threatening to collectively reject blocks bigger than 1mb forcing any miners off “their” chain that mined anything opposed to their rules which they established through a social media campaign with “UASF” branding.

The miners didn’t understand social engineering.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler So they crowed for months about bigger blocks being a “corporate takeover of bitcoin,” and sufficiently threatened miners with loss of funds in a costly war with social media influencers who can push the price around collectively.

Miners started to back down.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler Since BTC has all these non-mining wallets clogging the network & threatening to force a hard fork if miners mined bigger blocks, the miners proactively split bitcoin away from UASF because they all knew bitcoin needed bigger blocks to survive the 2020 halving.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler They assumed the market would follow the version of the chain that could scale, but it all happened at the beginning of the bull run, & the social media campaign owned the narrative that anything other than 1mb blocks wasn’t bitcoin.

The bigger block version had no PR campaign.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler After the split, Roger Ver finally stepped up to say that everyone always agreed on the big block roadmap until the UASF nonsense, so BCH followed the roadmap and the governance model while BTC underwent a coup. But it was too little, too late. People are obsessed with fiat price

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler So the hash power decided to run two chains side by side, but the small block chain had more value so the exchanges, rather than the miners or the white paper decided that the higher value version of the chain got to keep the name and the BTC ticker.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler But that’s because UASF, Lightning Network, Bitfinex and Tether (to pump the price at the right time) were all funded by the same entity who coordinated the marketing, the narrative and the nature of the naming and ticker politics: Blockstream.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler They successfully subverted 3 years of planning, the entire governance model, billions of dollars of mining investment and fooled the entire market with coordinated social engineering that controls the narrative to this day because they control the front end interfaces.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler After some time, BCH attracted more and more of the burned devs, miners and researchers who left (or were forced out of) BTC's economy. Groups like nChain and CoinGeek, supporters like Gavin Andresen and Emin Gun Sirer... It seemed the old gang was getting back together.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler Bitcoin Unlimited, BitcoinXT & Bitcoin Classic joined up to come into consensus with Bitcoin ABC, which was the BCH reference client. Roger Ver and others started focusing on the narrative that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin," and things progressed with development, stress testing...

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler Then, Bitcoin Unlimited's Peter Rizun started publicly criticizing nChain's Craig Wright on social media - straining their business relationship. Vin Armani had a public spat with Craig around the same time and @ari_cryptonized started publicly criticizing the Bitcoin Cash Fund

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler @ari_cryptonized Citing problems with their fundraising and the cost of their give-aways. Then folks like Jihan Wu (a major player in BCH) started saying things like this in conflict with a large portion of the BCH community:

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/928756075108511744

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler @ari_cryptonized By August 2018, Amaury Sechet, Bitcoin ABC Lead Developer, with backing from ViaBTC and Bitmain desiring to pay devs out of the block reward wrote an article about the need for pre-consensus; harshly dividing the community into the "BCH is Bitcoin" vs "BCH is a progressive coin"

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler @ari_cryptonized This is when Craig Wright & a large portion of the BCH community announced that they would be creating a new reference client in order to maintain the base UTXO set from the Genesis block and stay on oath in consensus with the ruleset in the bitcoin white paper.

Amid criticism,

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler @ari_cryptonized Bitcoin SV Node was released, & the majority of BCH hash power began signaling that they would abide by the SV rule set of bitcoin to stop the ABC ruleset from establishing a roadmap of preconsensus, a new network topology called "CTOR," and a new Op_code called "Datasigverify."

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler @ari_cryptonized The SV miners signalled honest hash early showing their intent to mine the chain with the conservative ruleset, and it seemed Nakamoto Consensus was clearly going to bring all BCH nodes into consensus with the original white paper as the vanguard of the roadmap. Unfortunately...

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler @ari_cryptonized The miners and devs from Bitcoin ABC colluded with various exchanges much the same way Core did in 2017 to award the ticker & the name prematurely to Bitcoin ABC. After weeks of honest signal from CoinGeek and SV nodes, a massive influx of hash from Bitmain & BitcoinDotCom...

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler @ari_cryptonized was pulled from BTC & moved onto ABC to make sure that for just a few hours there would be enough hash to stop the SV miners from being able to come into consensus. Additionally, ABC's devs added Checkpoints & Deep Reorganization Protection to stop consensus with SV at all costs.

@LitecoinFam @Poetry4Bitcoin @ecurrencyhodler @ari_cryptonized This created a permanent split in ABC and BSV by subverting the process of Nakamoto Consensus, abdicating BCH as "bitcoin," and leaving only BSV with the genesis block and an unbroken relationship with the governance model and the white paper as a whole.