BTGBTC
Bitcoin Gold / Bitcoin
crypto Composite

Awesome! I wish there where more people like you in crypto. I have recently thought about how to unambiguously define Bitcoin, and this is what I think is a very reasonable definition.
**Rule 1**: Bitcoin follows the clear intent of the Bitcoin Whitepaper (to eliminate trusted third parties). No action is taken that would be technically conformant with the Bitcoin consensus, but re-introduces trusted third parties. As a hypothetical example, it would be possible to limit blocksize to an unreasonably small transaction throughput, preventing adoption as hard money because most could not use Bitcoin, and so herd people back into custodial/centralized solutions.
> **Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System**
>
> A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
>
> What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.
**Rule 2**: It follows the economic and mining consensus that Satoshi programmed Bitcoin as, specifically:
- Is PoW based (sha256)
- 21m cap
- Satoshis coin emission schedule
- No transaction censorship
**Rule 3**: represents an unbroken chain of blocks originating at block hash 0x000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f known as Satoshis Genesis block from January 3rd. 2009, the one in which satoshi embedded the message:
> The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
— [Satoshi, Bitcoin Genesis Block, January 3, 2009](https://bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/genesis-block)
What do you think? How would you say the major forks of Bitcoin (BTC, Doge, BCH, LTC, XEC, BSV and BTG) are doing on that metric?

Awesome! I wish there where more people like you in crypto. I have recently thought about how to unambiguously define Bitcoin, and this is what I think is a very reasonable definition.
**Rule 1**: Bitcoin follows the clear intent of the Bitcoin Whitepaper (to eliminate trusted third parties). No action is taken that would be technically conformant with the Bitcoin consensus, but re-introduces trusted third parties. As a hypothetical example, it would be possible to limit blocksize to an unreasonably small transaction throughput, preventing adoption as hard money because most could not use Bitcoin, and so herd people back into custodial/centralized solutions.
> **Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System**
>
> A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
>
> What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.
**Rule 2**: It follows the economic and mining consensus that Satoshi programmed Bitcoin as, specifically:
- Is PoW based (sha256)
- 21m cap
- Satoshis coin emission schedule
- No transaction censorship
**Rule 3**: represents an unbroken chain of blocks originating at block hash 0x000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f known as Satoshis Genesis block from January 3rd. 2009, the one in which satoshi embedded the message:
> The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
— [Satoshi, Bitcoin Genesis Block, January 3, 2009](https://bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/genesis-block)
What do you think? How would you say the major forks of Bitcoin (BTC, Doge, BCH, LTC, XEC, BSV and BTG) are doing on that metric?