/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>19058816

>>19051797
the irony with this narrative is that it would be possible to do this on segwit because you only need a hash. and a hash of one signature isn't differentiable from a hash of any other signature.
whereas on bsv you need a signature

>>19034953
>i would argue that you have to be a 100 times more careful about changing bitcoin than say bcash.
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
>We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures
implements segwit

>>18469390
#anyonebutcraig
#anythingbutbitcoin

https://youtu.be/K1N9yE_I1ng
https://youtu.be/QJ1DTeexpvA
https://medium.com/@Stas33496115/bitcoin-script-engineering-part-ii-ba8095f093c0

>>18390313
payee does not get a signature. Literally no one believes the payee gets a signature in a segwit transaction
segwit makes it cheaper to attack bitcoin

>>18120986

btc does 0, is defined by 0 and it is going to 0

I love all the twitter retards saying 1btc still equals 1btc when it's been completely debased.

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
>we define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures
reminder 1 segwit coin equals 0 bitcoins

>>17531679
>bitcoin isn't specified by it's whitepaper

>bsv needs to trust miners
the irony is it's only with segwit and a lack of spv is there a need to trust miners

you need to trust miners to not make segwit transactions with hashes of arbitrary signatures.
you need to trust miners because without spv your transaction aren't peer to peer they're peer to miner to peer

>>17530339
>btc is not described by the whitepaper

>segwit did not removed signatures
a payee does not receive a signature from the previous owners private key with a segwit transaction

>segwit enforcing nodes verify the signatures
that's right you literally have to trust miners because you don't get the signature yourself

>>17530362
no he does not, that was the entire point of segwit
>signatures are only needed at the time of validation - peter wuille https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/

>>17364852
>it has the btc ticker!
>it must be bitcoin

>>17099687

>>17087531
same

>>17087078
thinking btc is bitcoin is the only thing that is ridiculous

>>17085470

>>17086673
yes it was.

btc is the scam pic related.

>>16974160
screenshot for may

btc is the fraud

>>16859083
reduced the incentive to mine honestly by making it cheaper to attack the network because a segwit transaction only needs a hash of a signature not a signature. Miners can stop signaling acceptance of segwit and take segwit, sell and short btc bitcoins and not destroy themselves because competing sha256 chain exists with unlimited capacity. It wouldn't be illegal because there is no chain of digital signatures to prove ownership of segwit bitcoins

https://medium.com/@adam_selene/the-segwit-15-attack-b0ecbb926777

>>16845570

>>16834446
>people want bitcoin
segwit is not bitcoin