Delisting of BSV from Binance, ShapeShift and others

I am curious to hear what other people’s take is on the delisting of BSV because of Craig Wright’s behavior over the past six months or so. Let me start by saying that I understand and agree that his behavior has been egregious and detrimental to the cryptocurrency space as a whole. I personally do not agree with what he preaches, nor do I care to put my hard earned money into BSV. That being said, I do struggle with this concept of appealing to the gatekeepers to silence CSW and make it as difficult as possible for people to trade BSV. By minimizing liquidity, you are all but destroying the network.

I do find it quite hypocritical of Charles to back this movement so hardcore. In late 2017 and early 2018, Charles often used the Alex Jones example as a reason for decentralization. While most don’t agree with what Alex had to say, Charles would always stress that Alex still should have a right to speak his mind. Having centralized gatekeepers (Twitter, Apple, Google, etc) that can all shut you down and demonetize you with the flip of a switch is not a fair environment. Yet here we are, and suddenly because Charles doesn’t agree with what CSW is saying or doing, now suddenly he is a fan or centralized powers using that control and delisting BSV.

I for one am a fan of letting the market decide, and I believe that people should DYOR. Have some idea of what you are putting your money into before you buy. Bitconnect was a scam, but most people knew it. Those that did not and chose to buy it, learned a very valuable lesson, and they will likely be more careful in the future–This is how markets work.

I’m curious what other people’s thoughts are… Does BSV need to be be removed from the ecosystem in an authoritarian way, or should the market be able to decide if it has value or not?

As a thought experiment, what if we replaced CSW with Vitalik? If Vitalik was claiming to be SN and was suing people who called him a fraud, would we be okay with Ethereum being delisted despite the fact that it is a “decentralized” ecosystem?


I do think BSV is being removed in an authoritarian way…the owner of Binance decided to de-list it…that is his prerogative, he owns the exchange, he can do whatever he wants…other exchanges can list BSV if they want…should we complain if the owner of another exchange decides to list BSV in an authoritarian way?..I do not think so


Just curious: how is everyone so sure he is a fraud? He probably is, but I haven’t seen evidence why he can’t be Satoshi.

I also wonder: What if he is Satoshi? What does that really change? Personally I couldnt care less if he is or isn’t Satoshi.

They probably broke some Binance rules and therefore delisting can be justified. To me though it fellt more like a personal desciscion made by CZ, and I don’t know if I’m so happy about it. 1 man can more or less make or break your project.

It’s a man with a huge need of attention, which may contradict the essence of Satochi Nakamoto …


Because he tries to patent everything that way and sue everyone. Nobody cared about his claims until he actually started to threaten community and tech.


I didn’t think you can publish something and then try to patent it.

:slight_smile: I claim that there are green short aliens live on the Proxima Centauri b, until you unprove it, you cannot say that they’re not live there.:slight_smile:
You should study social psychology /w the relevant disciplines, so see you back in 4 to 10 years.


This one is good

I see what you’re trying to say, but basically you are saying: He could be Satoshi, but you have no clue because you were not there? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

1 Like

I stumbled onto this:

This is more or less what I was looking for. :hugs:


No, Science does not work like this.

If you claim something then you must prove it. The easiest prove would be to sign a message /w Satoshi’s private key (2 min’s prove).

The other actions just smoke and mirros to fool the people (especially the non-tech ones) and yes, statistically, he will have believers and evangelists.
You and others do not need to prove that he is not Satoshi, he must prove that he is.
The example I wrote above, is what the religions (including politics), conspiracy theories, clairvoyants etc. use to fool people, and as we can see they’re very effective on that.
These information in the link above, does not prove anything, only the Satoshi’s private key would be the real evidence. Anyway, it’s a bit more complicated…


You submit proof and try to look for ways to falsify your thesis. Preferably early so you can adjust thesis or start over again with less time invested. I think a real Satoshi would be honored to have people look into his submited proof if it could be falsified. Assuming he/she/they would want to be public.

Right, this is the part that really disproves it. If he wanted to be public, it wouldn’t look like this.


I was pleasantly surprised to see Vitalik respond to that tweet. Seems like the big players realize this is their moment to positively impact the world and they should set aside differences.

1 Like

Just making sure I follow all the logic. Decentralized DEX, exchanges are really the free options, but what about safety and security?

You are trusting the technology (and governance of the tech, if any), and a DEX like a distributed coin/token can only be as secure as the implementation is in reality, right?

So, it isn’t really DEX vs. private options, but really a comparison of the system security of each service you use. The best tech needs to maintain all of its security and other operational properties. It makes the arguments here for peer review, compliance and such more important. You can’t just say distributed is good, because it depends. You may say that lack of transparency of centralized entities makes them automatically worse.

A DEX will have a DAO. DEX is the tech platform and the DAO governs it.

Ok, but one without the other doesn’t really make sense, no? And, same point about trust/confidence, it would depend on the code (chain code for the DEX and smart contracts for the DAO). Personally, I’m not sure I’d trust a DAO that was all contracts for exchange and no governance whether expressed in contracts or other chain tech.

Sorry for being OFF again, but you both do not seem to understand what I was talking abt.
It’s like cryptography behind Proof of Work, you do not know and believe how it works, as independent nodes can validate it individually around the globe.
This is similar to this, so what he needs to do is:

  1. Provide a signing address, the Genesis block’s first (Satoshi’s) transaction
  2. Provide any message for example “I, Craig Wright is the Satoshi Nakamoto”
  3. Provide the signature( Signing the message /w the bitcoin address by using the Satoshi’s private key of that address, keep in mind other private keys won’t work)
    That’s simple, and everybody (governments, experts, nerds, etc.) could individually validate it everywhere around the world.

This has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. I’m not aware of any of the conditions you use have any factual claims associated. Ok, so presumably someone could prove something like this if they had the necessary data.

I’m saying something that is based on more human logic. If someone goes to this much trouble to hide, I can’t imagine that person would out themselves in this way. It just doesn’t make any sense. Is this any sort of formal proof? Of course not, but I claim it is pretty sound human logic.