History and Future of Bitcoin with Kurt Wuckert Jr on Stackin’ Sat’s podcast

width=”562″ height=”315″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”>

Last week, Kurt Wuckert Jr. on the Stackin’ Sats podcast to talk about the history of Bitcoin, large financial involvement, the vulnerabilities of BTC, major blockers, the future of Bitcoin and much more.

Wuckert’s Bitcoin journey and some Bitcoin history

Wuckert begins by explaining his background in Bitcoin, which will be familiar to most Bitcoin SV (BSV) followers. In 2012, he was running a printing company and a client asked to pay him for a small job in Bitcoin. He accepted the offer of “video game money” and stumbled down the rabbit hole. He read the white paper, listened to Roger Ver and was fascinated by the peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

Wuckert began mining Bitcoin, unsuccessfully at first, in his own words. He noticed a huge upsurge in interest in Bitcoin and digital currencies in 2017, with many of his friends becoming interested in altcoins. He began streaming regularly to explain concepts to his friends, such as why many altcoins and initial coin offerings (ICOs) were fraudulent, and he never stopped.

Wuckert tells Plamenko that “the truth really matters,” and this is what has made him so dedicated to telling the true story of Bitcoin that so many have been eager to forget. He is dedicated to looking at and remembering what Satoshi Nakamoto said and what the white paper outlined. This is what has enabled him to see through many of the lies promoted by BTC Core today.

The Bitcoin Civil War and Untrustworthy BTC Core Developers

Speaking of the Bitcoin civil war (more accurately, the war on Bitcoin), Plamenko says that as a relative newcomer, it looked a lot like a “dirty war” with a lot of ego and underhanded tactics involved. Wuckert says this is absolutely true, and says Bitcoin’s “soft fork roadmap” is deeply corrupt.

Wuckert then makes an important but often overlooked point; a soft fork can be a bigger deal than a hard fork, and often fundamentally changes how Bitcoin works. This idea that soft forks are less serious is used to push through the agenda of what have essentially become central planners; BTC Core developers, convincing everyone that a soft fork is better than splitting Bitcoin.

“Bitcoin exists to split when you disagree with the new thing. Bitcoin is the thing, and if hard money can change, then it’s soft money,” says Wuckert, laying waste to BTC maximalist narratives. He pointed out that if Bitcoin can change itself, then you have introduced political elements to fight over how to change it, including lobbyists and financial interests to support various factions.

Answering a question about why we should not trust BTC Core developers, Wuckert replies that the idea that they are brilliant, talented software developers is just an assumption. While some are, Bitcoin is more than a software project; it is an economic system and the economic incentives must be protected.

The changes implemented by BTC Core have changed what Bitcoin is on both a software and financial level, and they dismiss any concerns by saying that non-technical people wouldn’t get it, Wuckert told his host. Even worse, the type of people who tend to be good coders are usually weak when it comes to human relations, game theory, and other important elements of Bitcoin.

Plamenko asks Wuckert if he predicted that big finance would move in and take over Bitcoin, and he answers in the affirmative. The fact that so many people continue to deny it happened makes Wuckert think they are either idiots or malicious. The host wonders if prominent people in BTC are agent provocateurs or if they just came to their own conclusions when presented with Bitcoin.

Vulnerabilities in the Bitcoin Network and Bitcoin as Global Money

Plamenko tells Wuckert that he doesn’t know enough yet to come down on one side or the other in the debate about small blocs versus big blocs. Leaning toward small blocks, he sees ingenuity in things like the Lightning Network. So far, BTC is what he has learned about and familiarized himself with.

Wuckert tells his host that in 2010 and 2013 there were catastrophic failures in the network that required rollbacks. In 2013, the error was deemed too objectionable to allow the miners to decide what the correct chain was, leading to the shorter chain with less proof of work being considered the good one. This was called out at the time by Gavin Andresen and others, but still it broke the Bitcoin rule set this way.

During the 2013 glitch, Wuckert says developers literally called miners and told them to switch to the chain they preferred. This makes him wonder if such phone calls can still be made today. In his view, every time something like SegWit is introduced, it is a failure of Bitcoin to resist a political change.

“If Bitcoin falls every time you blow on it, you probably shouldn’t build the global economy on top of it,” Wuckert says, saying he’s a proponent of doing so, but it needs to pass the right tests first.

Plamenko says he’s not sure if anything can live up to that standard and wonders why Bitcoin needs to be a global currency. Wuckert says that being able to interact with each other financially has value, and he wants to be able to do that with anyone on the globe without friction. There is a lot of value in being able to do business with someone in Seoul as easily as in South Carolina, he says.

“Andreas Antonopoulos called Bitcoin the internet of money because it’s a protocol that’s been missing from the internet,” Wuckert tells his host. He compares Bitcoin to books, a great invention that will change everything, eliminating much of the friction of doing business globally.

Who were the big blockers?

Plamenko asks Wuckert a challenging question: what’s not to say that Jihan Wu, Bitmain, Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN ) and other big blockers have no agenda to get what they want out of Bitcoin?

Wuckert points back to the New York Agreement, which influential big blockers signed and published to make known what they thought about Bitcoin. This open approach stands in stark contrast to the small block camp, which was funded by old-school interests like AXA (NASDAQ: AXAHF ) and Mastercard (NASDAQ: MA ). Yet small blockers framed it in such a way that the big block camp was the attempted corporate takeover of Bitcoin.

Wuckert encourages anyone listening to do their research, look at the history of Bitcoin and look at past charts and prices.

Is Craig Wright Satoshi Nakamoto? The case for BSV

Plamenko says he is reluctant to address the question of whether Dr. Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, but he is curious to know more about the upcoming documentary.

Wuckert says he believes Dr. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, and he acknowledges that for most people in Bitcoin, that is a controversial statement. He says he agrees that much of Dr. Wright’s life is complex and doesn’t add up, but he also expected that if Satoshi ever resurfaced, there would be a lot of complications, backstory issues, and disagreement.

When we look at the facts of Dr. Wright’s life, such as his career path and patents related to blockchain technology, some of which predate Bitcoin, we begin to see that he may well be the inventor, Wuckert emphasizes.

Finally, Wuckert takes a case for BSV. He believes Bitcoin, as originally designed, deserves to be tested. For Wuckert, it’s all about that. He wants to test Nakamoto’s statement that Bitcoin can scale beyond Visa (NASDAQ: V ) levels in its original form.

See: The very beginning of Bitcoin

width=”562″ height=”315″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”>

New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeeks Bitcoin for beginners section, the ultimate resource guide for learning more about Bitcoin – originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto – and blockchain.