/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>13284288
lol sure, ill wait for u at the bottom

>>13284288
Thank you for your service

>>13284288
I don't get it
after the previous blue line BTC price crashed

>>13284288
But the US government can just print another 10 trillion and give everyone on earth $7000.00 or some shit

>>13284288
Bitcoin will never even reach ATH again.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/unconfirmed-transactions

>implying people could spend $9 of bitcoin in the future when fees are already $2

If you're not buying BCH then you're a complete fucking idiot.

>>13284376
Bitcoin is digital gold my friend. I don't know what it means but everyone says it over and over so I believe it

>>13284376

>da internet will never be able to carry the load of billions of images
>muh internet will never be able to stream video, it just won't scale
>b-but the internet will never be able to stream 4k HD video, these streaming services are killing it, it will collapse

>bitcoin will NEVER EVER be able to scale

"A tale as old as time..."

>>13284406
btc is refusing the scale, you absolute fucking dunce. The Core developers unironically advocate for high fees and full blocks.

>>13284406
>B-but Bitcoin isn't Tulip Mania!

>>13284381
It means you dont go to mcdonalds to buy tendies with gold. Its a store of value + you can send millions of dollars hassle free.

>>13284457
I sometimes wonder how people with such few brain cells manage to even find this place

>>13284428
his heart is in the right place, he's just confused about the coin

>>13284487
Probably from reddit, discord or other normie shitholes

LITECOIN HALVING IN AUGUST THERE WILL BE A RETARD HIGH PUMP IN THE SUMMER GET THE FUCK IN

>>13284496
Bitcoiners want us to onboard into custodial banking 2.0 so they can be rich.
Meanwhile all i want is a goddamn revolution.

>>13284531
Nothing wrong with being rich.

>>13284288
Im not saying BTC isnt going to pump. It certainly is, but its never going to be the one world currency at this point. DAG and Holochain have made blockchain completely obsolete. They require way less electricity to operate and can process many thousands of times more transactions per second.

>>13284543
This is a fight for the future of sovereignty and the small block small cock fucktards want to give that up so their investors are happy.
Fuck what BTC has become. Here since 2011 and I want to shit on Core's grave.

>>13284531
iktf

>>13284543
LN is just the updated goldsmith scam of IOUs.

>>13284544
People who support DAGs don't understand how blockchain works or why its important.

>>13284406
Its not even about if BTC CAN scale, its that there are platforms other than blockchain that already do. FFS did you not research this crypto thing at all?

>>13284544
“Muh electricity” is not an argument.

>>13284557
People who support blockchain dont understand DAGs or why they are better in literally every aspect over blockchain.

>>13284560
How is it not? If you can do the exact same thing as blockchain for half the price at 10000x the speed, why would you bother with blockchain?

>>13284544
Excuse me, i didnt know holochain was live yet. Wait a minute. It fucking isnt. Holoports arent in full commando and hot is still erc20 cash. Dag is in theory scalable. Digital gold means you hodl til inflation of traditional currency goes ape shit. Then you convert a little btc to usd.

>>13284288
I agree with you are saying 100% OP. But that chart is misleading— each unit on the right side (in usd) goes up in random values that aren’t equal to one another .

>>13284580
I never said BTC wouldnt be valuable. The first sentence in my post said the exact opposite. What I am saying is it will never be the “one world currency” OP claims it will.

>>13284559
>>13284428

Lightning network friendos. Listen, the network effect means Bitcoin has already won over Bcash. I'm sorry things haven't developed in a manner strictly adhering to your ideals, but it's a done deal. You either get on-board or the train crushes you further down the track.

Me? I'm not a tech guy. I'm here to make money. You can call me all the names you'd like, but the big boys are moving into Bitcoin, and it's how we're all going to become filthy rich. If you'd prefer to stick with philosophy over returns, I don't look down on you for it.

Oh wait yeah I do that's gay af, lol

>>13284568
DAGs sacrifice decentralization, mathematical proofs (of work) ie mathematical trust and stability for speed. There is nothing revolutionary about them other than they might make contemporary banking more efficient.

>>13284581

>>13284544
Besides holochain and dag are scalable dapplatforms not digital gold. Theyre perfect for hosting the new internet not money. Bitcoin is good, hard money. Gold and silver is physical money that is always a good buy. If China bans mining, expect the bottom around $1k per btc.

>>13284597
I have an exercise for you. Re-read satoshi's original whitepaper. Then re-read the lightning network whitepaper.
Then tell me if they are anywhere the same caliber of thought.

>>13284607
Ok buddy. More money for me.

>>13284597
>the network effect means Bitcoin has already won over Bcash

haha omfg. If that's your argument, then its you that has lost.

https://1ml.com

Bitcoin has to go through an entirely new adoption phase with LN and LN is unstable, loses people money, requires you to be online to receive money, becomes a centralized hub and spoke where all channels go to high liquidity sources (banks), there are many hops opening it up to Sybils, its not at all easy to use, the list goes fucking on and on....

LN is unironically a worse shitcoin than xrp. Take a look at those stats in the link I posted. LN only has 5 million liquidity for the entire fucking network. Its got a lower cap than almost all shitcoins.

sir

do you really believe the bear run has ended when there are so many hopeful speculations going on here?

wait for it wwaaaaait for it
RED DICK OF DENIAL

>>13284595
I agree bitcoin most likely will be like physical gold but globally transferrable. Nothing more. The higher the price without increasing the blocksize means high tx fees. Bch or cregs bsv is better choice for digi cash.

I have 4 whole bitcorns.

>>13284614

Again, that's awesome and great and I'm sure you're right that there are major problems with Lightning. But as a speculative investor, what am I meant to believe? That Bitcoin, with all its momentum and with its burgeoning network, with the largest pool of developers from which to draw, is going to be overtaken by Bcash in marketcap any time soon? I mean what's the proposition here? How the hell is this going to fail when you have Wall Street moving in, with retail close behind once an ETF gets approved? When Fidelity is launching a crypto custody service?

Even if fees are high, it still works fine as digital gold. It doesn't need to become a world currency to reach insane levels of valuation.

>>13284625
Lighting network is shit but it also isnt required to utilize bitcorn. It's just some gay side project.

>>13284622
No im holding holochain too fren. Art and eric are underground legends. Feetcoin ftw!

>>13284428
btc does not refuse to scale but some of the devs take spam as a personal insult for some reason and hashpay was suposed to get rid of spam it is their instinct if there is a lot of spam the transactions are too cheap

>>13284614
I also have an exercise for you: Study comp sci and math for 6+ yrs , then rethink your decision

>>13284288
>7 transactions per second
>global digital currency
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

>>13284339
likely to repeat now

>>13284288

>not just buying 10 ETH and then dumping when it inevitably hits 0.1BTC a pop then

>>13284644
Its btc's scaling solution. Its absolutely required to utilize bitcoin. If you think things are bad now, you weren't here during ATH. ATH was just a taste of how bad things would be if bitcoin gained actual adoption and a higher price. Talking fees in the 100s if not 1000s and wait times of weeks.

https://bitcoinfees.info/


>>13284653
>pay transaction fee
>spam

Its using the network. They're refusing to scale because they want something like LN where the powers that be can stay in control. Thank fucking god LN is a Frankenstein solution that doesn't work and nobody wants. btc will fail, just a matter of time.

>>13284473
its also uncofiskateable without borders or juristictions

>>13284428
BTC doesn’t need to scale yet; it’s more important that the tech is right than the cavernous blocks are empty. And given BTC has 30x the value of the nearest big block shitcoin, I’d say they’re on the right track

>>13284683
no lightning is not btc scaling solution its trusstless instant micropayments and retail solution not completely permissionless tho like the base layer

>>13284683
>btc will fail, just a matter of time.
this has been said a million times abd btc just keeps on getting stronger

>>13284683
It's not required to use bitcoin. Bitcoin functions without lightning network. You not liking how it functions does not mean it doesn't function.

>>13284711
the problem is right now routing is shit ln performs as intended at the individual channel level and its really a network issue partly meaning it had to find a useful shape and size and maybe it needs a 3rd layer if the routing persists to be problematic.

>>13284722
Maybe it was meant to be like this, and it was supposed to be cost prohibitive in order to reduce network spam?

>>13284683
Are you fucking stupid? Bitcoin works without lightning. Lightning is built on top of bitcoin as a layer. Its not bitcoin. Bitcoin is bitcoin. It needs miners to confirm transactions that get mined from each block. Lightning network is being forced out as the main layer to scale visa size tx's per second. Its offchain. When alice sends to bob she can go through charlie if he has the same amount of what is being sent to bob. They all have to host a lightning node. Any of them can close the channel when the btc is sent. Good layer but still centralized trusted setup.

You actually think the powers that be will allow bitcoin to flourish. You simpletons have so much to learn about the L33T.

>>13284731
no ln definitely underperforms right now but its in its infancy give it time! the betwork will adapt but if we gonna loke what it evolves to or not is a different question.

>>13284698
>BTC doesn’t need to scale yet;
tf you talking about? How am I suppose to take this shit seriously?

>>13284701
>LN is trustless
>but its not permissionless

>>13284710
>btc just keeps on getting stronger
https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage

>>13284711
>>13284734
I know what LN is you stupid fucks. Its absolutely required for anyone who lacks the ability to pay outrageous fees or wait a week for their transactions to clear.
>inb4 it only cost $3 now and you only have to wait 1-3 blocks
Its like you people have no foresight at all.

Oh btw PSA:

Everyone donate to the Cashshuffle team. They implemented privacy into BCH wallets so now you don't have to go to a 3rd party to mix your coins and pay for their service. Instead you can just click Cashshuffle in your wallet and your coins will mix like you were using a 3rd party tumbler service without the 3rd party and fees. Pretty great stuff. Been using it all night and experimenting. Also because BCH fees are so fucking low I can just move funs and play around with these features willy nilly.

>>13284762
Forgot link

https://cashshuffle.com/

>>13284762

>Also because BCH fees are so fucking low I can just move funs and play around with these features willy nilly.

that's why most popular coins have a testnet lol

>>13284793
BCH has a testnet.

>>13284771
I need more of this

>BTC
>NANO
>HOT
>LINK
I only have about 0.5 btc though. Probably not going to up my stake desu

>>13284373
>Hyperinflation

>>13284803
BCH IS a testnet.

>>13284762
>outrageous fees
like 20 cents?

>>13284962
in a way i suppose but that's too kind towards cashies

>>13284288
I was prepared long ago

>>13284967
>like 20 cents?
https://bitcoinfees.info/

Hi Newfag. Look at the chart, I know you probably bought the top and haven't moved your coins from Coinbase, but for the rest of us who use the tech this shit is actually important.

Also:
>Its like you people have no foresight at all.
Seriously, just fucking try and think this stuff through.

Cold storage w/ input consolidation is your fren

>>13284531
Of you have gone of money you won’t give a shit about the revolution.

>>13284984
you think that's outrageous? have you ever tried to pay with wire? last time i did it it cost me $10 for just to initiate a transfer and there was also a % fee on the sum. i felt anally raped even tho i made a bank on avoiding vat.

>>13285111
this was an interstate sepa transfer i think or swift don't remember.

>>13284428
SMALL BLOCKS MEAN YOU CAN MINE BTC YOURSELF WITHOUT NEEDING AN INVESTMENT IN POWERFUL HARDWARE

God you people are fucking helpless. You are advocating against your own rights.

Should've got a CS degree so your brain would actually function

>>13285166
i just hope you are trolling but this place is so infested with retards one can never be sure.

>>13284762
>How am I suppose
Ah, you want spoon-feeding; BTC's not for you: have a look at BCH or BSV

>>13284625
>ln only got 5 million

Three months ago it was <100k.
LN is growing exponentially.

Youre in denial.

>>13284762
This guy thinking that every fucking 20 cent bubblegum purchase he's making should be stored on a database on 50k+ computers for eternity.

If you calculate the hard disk space and the amount of energy needed to propagate your nigger purchase to 50k pc's and store it forever it costs more than what you've spent.

>>13285567
it is called blockchain pruning
but of course BTC is so far behind everything
you are so fucking dumb

>>13284288
It's going down to 2k, then the BULL RUN will start.

>>13285610
>blockchain pruning
Pruning the chain so that you can use a fucking phone wallet has nothing to do with this. When I'm talking about 50k ppl I'm talking about full nodes.
Someone still needs to store the full version of the chain for someone else to enable pruning, incel.

>>13285657
no it does not
you take a snapshot of the state and hash it
that is it
if the hash is valid it is ok and it can be forgotten
bu we still will have volunteers that will have the complete history

>>13285662
All btc node operators are volunteers, wtf are you saying? If you can't validate the blockchain then its not good at all. Only idiots are OK with "trust me, this address has this much btc, I promise it's pruned correctly"

>>13285685
there is no trust involved
snapshot has > hash it > agree that is the correct hash
move the fuck on
have 100 000 confirmations

>>13285690
lmao what a giant fag

enjoy losing your money

>>13285706
I can't lose anything cause I don't have BTC

>>13285711
>I don't have BTC

>>13285690
Let's say I start a node.

Do I download the entire blockchain or no? If I don't and I just get a pruned version, then how do I know it is correct because all transaction history is gone except for the addresses that hold a balance.

BTW hashing doesn't prove authenticity. It just says it hasn't been changed. I can add a transaction and say I own 100 btc and I hash it. It doesn't mean I suddenly have 100 btc.

How can you acknowledge that you need nodes that have the full blockchain, something that is essential to the network, then say yeah it needs to store my 20 cent transactions on chain forever but at the same time I don't want to pay any fees. That can only happen off chain, which is what lightening is for.

>>13285751
you get the most recent snapshot
that snapshot's hash is rehashed with every block
than means you have to have malicious block produces ever since it occurred
currently the block caries the hash of the previous block
we just add a snapshot to be carried
snapshots will be produced and verified by whatever means to ensure they are true it will require lots of blocks and validators
it is done once an year or so

you just need to keep that of who owns what, that is easy
you don't really need to know the translation history

>>13285768
>that snapshot's hash is rehashed with every block
>than means you have to have malicious block produces ever since it occurred,

And what prevents a faggot sitting at an isp streaming false blocks to you? Mr, fag?

>>13284288
WARNING.

You have ONE AND A HALF MONTHS remaining to sell your BITCOIN. If you do not sell your BTC by June, you will never again be able to sell at prices this high. You will have to explain to your children and grandchildren they're poor because you didn't have the foresight to sell digital meme money before it became completely worthless.

>>13285798
peers
if you don't have peers what prevents you from being fed false history now cuck

>>13285805
Are you an idiot or smth the isp got you by the balls he also simulates peers nigga

>>13284288
sell signal. see you at the 3k re-test, where you'll panic sell, and i get out again at 4.5K before the drop to $2,250

>>13285814
you can get the hash of the snapshot
use smoke signals or a QR code
and compare it to a snapshot in a library or tattooed one on a BTC maniac

>>13285823
I can also punch it into your face in binary

Any good and trustworthy resource on how to buy?

>Tfw don't even have 0.1

For fucks sake I'm going to miss it again

>>13285828
if you punch me in the LN the punch might never arrive and you still will be changed a fee

>>13285768
> than means you have to have malicious block produces ever since it occurred

what the fuck does this even mean?

>you get the most recent snapshot

??? snapshot of what?

>currently the block caries the hash of the previous block

that's the idea of a blockchain, not a snapshot

You know a block on the blockchain only contains the most recent confirmed transactions right? It doesn't contain all transactions that has a balance. You can only know what addresses have a balance if you have the full blockchain, not just one block. Furthermore, you can validate a balance for an address by looking at all the transactions.

> snapshots will be produced and verified by whatever means to ensure they are true

please describe this. How are you going to "verify by whatever means to ensure it's true" besides downloading the entire blockchain then validating it.

> you just need to keep that of who owns what, that is easy

You know bitcoin uses UTXOs right? When you make a transaction it looks to see if someone paid you to your address and if you have enough btc in that UTXO to send to someone else. It doesn't keep a list of every balance for every address on chain. You only know how much balance an address has by validating the blockchain and looking at the transactions in every block.

> you don't really need to know the translation history

You're literally saying you don't need a blockchain. A block on the bitcoin network only contains transactions and some header information. If you don't need to know the transaction history you don't need blocks, and therefore you don't need a blockchain.


It's good that you don't own any bitcoin because you clearly don't understand it. But it's annoying to make these suggestions of "just prune it" as it sounds like you have no idea what's even in a block on the blockchain.

>>13285883
snapshot , every block after it, it includes hash of the snapshot, meaning if you are 1000 block from the snapshot all those 1000 blocks had to be malicious for you to be fed false snapshot

snapshot of who owns what, not the transaction bloating, making the current state of blockchain less than 1GB

you have wallets that on a certain time will take the snapshot and the miners will compete on hashing it then miners will propagate the state

btc brainlets

i have 0.05 btc and that's the maximum level of risk i'm willing to take
bitcoin is just not secure from a governance point of view, with the blockstream takeover and the LN push; and it's not mature technologically compared to ethereum
any amount of BTC you have is lost opportunity to own more ETH
if through some weird turn of events bitcoin actually becomes world currency, i'll buy what i need to use just like i trade my euros for dollars when i travel to the states. but there's no point in gambling on the digital gold meme when all the retail investors are already aware of it

Shill alert.

Believing bitcoin will become the one true universal currency is like cavemen believing that rocks will be the best bartering currency forever

>>13285906
and then of course if you have snapshots you increase the block size and decrease the block time
BTC will never do any of that, what a shitcoin

>>13285906

So you're saying get all the addresses that has a balance and make a list. That is a snapshot.

First of all, that's not how BTC operates. Again, it looks at UTXOs of the blockchain to determine if you have enough btc to spend.

That means a hard fork is required. To introduce a "snapshot" and to have to blockchain adapt to it. Continuing my thoughts after the following quote:

> you have wallets that on a certain time will take the snapshot and the miners will compete on hashing it then miners will propagate the state

First of all, wallets don't take snapshots. The purpose of a wallet is to sign transactions and broadcast it to the network. If you're running a full node, you could theoretically take a snapshot of all balances.

Now, the question is, how do you ensure that the snapshot is correct? The way you're describing miners / mining is what's already happening on the blockchain. Miners are able to mine a block when they find a nounce such that the hash of the entire block starts with a certain amount of zeros and that transactions (not balances) are valid with their public key for that address. Are you going to use the same method for validating the snapshot?

If a miner can find a nounce such that there's a certain number of zeros when you hash it, they can say their list of all BTC addresses and their balance is valid? That's very stupid as miners literally control every single bitcoin as they can just randomly assign btc balance to whatever address they want. Once again, hashing doesn't prove authenticity.

I don't know why you keep bringing up mining. Mining blocks is mining transactions. It has nothing to do with a snapshot that you described.

I don't think you understand the technical aspects of bitcoin but you want to seem like you do. There's no way to produce a list of all btc addresses and their balances without validating the blockchain. Again, it's good that you don't hold BTC.

>>13286018
of course it requires a hard fork
you will have BCH and LTC and others do it first
while you are forced to meme trough LN because you cannot fork for any reason
of course this is not how BTC work at the moment brainlet
you are hopeless, them bags are gonna get so heavy

>>13286018
continued

Let me give you an example, let's say it's time to make a snapshot

you take all the transactions of previous blocks and generate a list of all btc addresses with balances

How do you ensure that this is a correct list? With what you're saying, miners find a nounce such that it produced the necessary required 0's.

Let's say the current list looks like this:
nounce: 323345
a - 30 btc
b - 20 btc
hashed list has the correct preceding 0's for it to be valid.

But a malicious miner can do this:
nounce: 194827282
c - 50 btc
hashed list has the correct preceding 0's for it to be valid.

Once you allow this to happen, the entire blockchain is fucked. That's why BTC looks at transactions history and the UTXO. It's valid when it's on the blockchain and the miners confirmed it because the transaction was signed by that addresses' public key.

>>13286037

Hard forking isn't a technical issue. It's how you're going to validate the snapshot that's the problem. Especially since you have no technical knowledge of how BTC works.

I like how you miss the entire point of the post but pick on "hard fork" even though I mentioned it's a requirement, which is true. I never said they shouldn't hard fork, I'm challenging how you're going to validate this snapshot because the way miners mine blocks can't apply to how you're going to validate the snapshot.

>>13286048
in 2 phases
you produce a file a list
you produce a hash of that file
you include the hash in the next block

the other nodes can produce a file too
the other nodes can hash it too

if the hashes mach it is valid

>>13286048
Dude you are overestimating his intellectual abilities

i only have 0.5

>>13284625
Bought 50k of LC at £25.59

Sold at £71

>Losing money

Maybe if you buy high and sell low like yourself

>>13286037
I have to ask multiple times how you're going to validate this snapshot but your answers make no sense. You keep bringing up mining but miners mine blocks which contain transactions, not a snapshot. Each transaction is signed with sender's public key so you can ensure it's valid for that transaction.

I don't know why you're talking about LN either as it has nothing to do with on chain snapshots. LN takes the bulk of transactions off chain but the transaction themselves are also signed with 2/2 multisig. They are again, transactions, not snapshots. The 2 transactions that go on chain is the one opening the LN channel and another closing it. But again, I don't know why you're bringing it up.

>>13286101
on block 100001
make a snapshot in this format
address - value
wait for new valid block with valid not only block hash but valid snapshot hash

>>13286074
That makes no sense. See >>13286048

The miner that get the correct nounce first gets to put it on the blockchain. Validation is also done on that block by looking at the public key of that address to make sure it is that person that signed it and sent the coins. This is a transaction and that happens for every mined transaction.

Address, amount, signature, for every transaction, contained in every block.

A list of BTC addresses and their balances have no keys associated with it. Therefore, if you want it to be trust-less, you need proof that this address actually has that balance. So again, how are you going to do this in a trustless manner? How are you going to prove that this snapshot is valid?

I don't know why you keep bringing miners into this. Miners find the correct nounce and get lucky. Are you going to use luck to say how much BTC each address has?

>>13286112
see

>>13286152

>>13286152
>How are you going to prove that this snapshot is valid?
because my node made it too
and my node hashed it too
and ultimately you can manually audit it
you are dumb as fuck woman

>>13286168

> because my node made it too
> and my node hashed it too

Your node, that has what information exactly? The full blockchain right? That's the only way you can make that list and have it be valid. What hash? The hashes are on the blockchain produced by miners, not node operators.

> and ultimately you can manually audit it
aka you download the full blockchain and validate it, which is what happens on the BTC network

Like I said, you don't understand blocks, blockchain or bitcoin in general. You also don't understand general cryptography of hashes and signatures and their purpose on the bitcoin network. If you don't understand general cryptography you can't really understand crypto.

But I think insulting people automatically hides your lack of knowledge on the subject and makes you 10 times smarter. Good job anon.

fuck grandpa bitcoin, im all in LINK!

>>13286219
I have the complete chain before the snapshot or the history from the last snapshot and the last snapshot

woman

>>13286231
As you've said, the snapshot has no history. It only contains the list of BTC addresses and their balances.

Suppose this is the first snapshot on the BTC network. I will ask one last time, how do you make sure that this snapshot is valid when you only have addresses and their amounts?

Going further per your suggestion, you say based off luck (generating the correct nounce), the miner gets to say how much btc is in each address without offering any proof? The only proof that exists for how much BTC is in each address is in the previous blocks (containing transactions and signatures for each transaction) before the snapshot and that gets "pruned" aka deleted.

If you think your bank balance is wrong, you call up your bank and ask what happened, they just say "trust us this balance is correct. No, we won't give you a list of past transactions lol, we pruned it" you'd be happy with this? And that's in a trusted network, it's way more important in a trust-less network.

>>13285768
bcash cucks are fucking hilarious.
you idiots cant stop bitching about how segwit destroyed btc because its not a blockchain anymore, just because it MOVED some data from one place to another, while you advocate for fucking REMOVAL of blocks from the blockchain.
so according to you retards:
>moving some data = destroying blockchain
>deleting blocks = totally fine and dandy

>>13286299
>snapshot is valid when you only have addresses and their amounts
because it was included in a valid block produced by a miner

you can validate the block the normal way
and you can compare the has to the proposed file, the file that you will produce too
so you have the file that is 200mb lets say and the hash that is a sting

>>13286329
I own 0 BCH or LTC
I used those as a literal mockery, that those are better than BTC and will adopt new things

>>13286331
Assuming we're still talking about the snapshot, hashing doesn't make it authentic.


if all you know in your snapshot is:

a - 100 btc
which produces a hash of
1d765007c1523546049cc401559b5abfe0e45b43

vs

b - 100 btc

which produces a hash of
cc7645d571f50a8b60dbf8b907f21f053f84047b

how do you know which one is correct? The only way is to look at previous transactions associated with "a" and "b" and count up the transactions to address "a" and "b". The hash does nothing to prove if either snapshot is correct. You need the entire blockchain.

> because it was included in a valid block produced by a miner
So the only way to validate that is to have the entire blockchain. To find the list of all BTC addresses with a balance isn't the hard part, the hard part is to get everyone to trust that list.

>>13286331
ffs, dude, youre beyond retarded. stop, and get some help.
as >>13286219 already said, you have no clue how even simple cryptography and hashing works.
you still havent answered how the fuck you make the utxo "list" without having full blockchain.
youre talking about hashing, but youre unable to grasp this >>13285751 simple concept: hashing only proves that the file hasnt been changed, it cannot prove that the hashed data is actually valid.

>>13286414
yes it is not 100%
but we can use very good algorithms and we have the file
the file will be hosted on peers, you can compare bit by bit the entire file too
the hash re hash of the hash will be used in blocks to point to that file

>>13286423
eat shit and die

>>13286466
you end up with
snapshot + history
until the next snapshot
that way you keep the chain small
and you can afford big blocks and smaller block time
and that is how you scale it

>>13284339
crashed? all I see is a 100x if u didnt sell low

>>13286231
>>13286299
>>13286329
>>13286331
>>13286337
>>13286423
>>13286466
And this is why I stay away from BTC, every single time, I've never regreted my decision once. All in LINK if you faggots actually want to get rich.

>>13284288
Bitcoin is a fail project with zero use case

>>13286466
I don't understand why you keep saying hash. The purpose is to prove that the snapshot is valid (aka, every address and their balance is correct). You can't do this with a hash, see >>13286414 as the example

The way the bitcoin network proves transactions are valid is that the person making the transaction signs the transaction and you can prove it's valid with their public key and looking at the UTXO to make sure it has enough balance. This is a transaction, not a balance for any wallet. If you remove the transactions and the public key of the sender, then you can no longer prove a balance for the receiving address.

Once you prune, you literally get rid of all evidence to prove if a certain address truely has that much BTC. This is the equivalent of saying trust me and then at the same time destroy the proof (destroying the transactions and signatures that's needed to validate the balance of an address). That simply doesn't work in a trust-less, decentralized network. Even trusted, centralized network keep full transaction histories of their users.

>>13284288
I don't want buttcoin

>>13286488

I'm discussing the technical aspects of BTC to someone that doesn't seem to understand it and doesn't own it. Not sure why that discourages you but ok.

I understand people here just want to make money which is fine but for me, understanding the technical implementation is important to see if the devs are bullshitting or not.

>>13286489
>>13284665

this.

bitcoin is over decade old obsolete booer technology. theres already better techs out there. only late adopter zoomers/boomers thinking delusionally that btc going to 100k.

btc wont go ever 20k$ ever again.

>>13286582
you don't get dumb ass
the hash is a way to backwards check the integrity of something
you can hash anything with any algo
the idea is to have a shortened pointer

>>13284288

>>13284522
checked but you probably just wanted to use that gif