/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16112556

>>16112556
man likes his trannies that's for sure.

Craig Wright facilitates
Immutable Child Pornography
on BSV

>>16112638
Fire facilitates witch burning

>>16112556
Well those women look very happy to be there and definitely aren't being compensated for their time. Nope.

>>16112664
cope

>>16112638
posting this on every thread doesn't make it real greg, your connections to epstein however...

>>16112695
rofl you literally fit two photos together in paint as ""evidence"" this is beyond ridiculous even by sv cuck standards.

>>16112691
Yes yes I'm coping hard, Madhavaditya.

>>16112720
guess who else was at the mindshift conference held on epstein's island?
>gregory

>>16112723
Is this you?

https://www.instagram.com/madhavaditya/

>>16112695
>>16112734

>>16112720
>in paint
Prove it. That he used paint

>>16112734
>>16112741
Oh fuck, this is new to me
The plot thickens

>>16112741
>>16112751
it's pretty obvious if your IQ is >100

>>16112741
>>16112762
the judge overseeing craig wright's case registered his LLC out of the same office as Epstein's lawyer.

>>16112780
Craig is so based, taking down pedos and criminals and stupid neets all at once

>>16112734
>ai shekel

>>16112780
This BSV + Pedophilic material connection pops out everywhere. There's no smoke without fire you know

>>16112734
oh well if they were on the same piece of land... i guess that means they are hole brothers. fucking brainlets...

>>16112556
Those women look jewy as fuck

>>16113114
the ironic part is small blockers probably put it there lmfao

>>16113156
It would happen sooner or later. The whole concept of metanet was just begging for it

>>16113156
it's important to prove your point.

>>16113414
who would have the most to gain by trying to bring downcsw and bsv? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>16113443
dunno man nobody tries to bring it down as it is literally a non-threat. it's the shilling that is getting on our nerves here. 50 sv threads today alone... fuck you!

also we are still waiting for craig to demonstrate how he will remove the cp from the blockchain via his "double hash solution"... cause shit ain't work like that.

literally
fucking
who

>>16113153
What are you trying to get at by saying "jewy" ?

>>16113171
and retarded pedos who post shit on BSV go to jail, miners prune illegal material. Everybody wins.

>>16113516
>cause shit ain't work like that

>>16113675
either explain yourself or fuck off with the stupid faces make them to your mummy!

>>16112556
i'd fuck both of those trannies.

hell, i'd probably fuck him too.

>>16113686
He's trying to say that you sound retarded, bro.

>>16113686
You talk like a nigger. I figured the greentext made it obvious.

>>16112556
I calculated expected BSV gains by Feb 2020...41000% enjoy anons.

>>16113846
that would be nice ;)

>>16113732
still waiting for an explanation... let's say sv nodes stop serving parts of the blocks that contain illicit material like a tx here and there. only serve the tx hash right... that's what craig was ranting about. so you can build the merkle root and validate the longest chain with this.

what you can't do is build the correct utxo set. you have to trust the miners to serve it to you. basically you introduced trust into a trustless system. good job!

>>16113890
Pruning is in the whitepaper. Nothing was ever introduced that wasn't already a part of Bitcoin.

>>16113890
makes the entire blockchain pointless basically. might as well go back to paypal.

>>16113939
pruning is in the whitepaper yes, it's just nobody ever bothered to make it work properly. 10 years man it boggles my mind how come nobody worked on trustless pruning network...

>>16113945
>pruning is the same as mutability

>>16113957
>nobody ever bothered to make it (pruning) work

What in the actual fuck are you talking about?

>>16113957
Boggles my mind we have an opportunity to buy the real Bitcoin for ~$125

>>16113970
pruning works but not like what we are talking about here. and a network of pruning noses can't build the correct utxo set trustlessly.

>>16113999
*nodes

>>16113999
>a network of pruning noses
Pruning is not the same as running a pruning node. jfc

>>16114028
obviously like i said:
>not like what we are talking about here.
it's similar in the problems it presents tho.

if you prune any part of the blockchain the utxo set is no longer trustless for new nodes. i'm sure this can be solved it's just didn't happen in 10 years.

>>16114044
>if you prune any part of the blockchain the utxo set is no longer trustless for new nodes
What are you talking about?

>>16114089
i'm talking about how you build the utxo set when you sync up. you start at the genesis block of which the hash is hardcoded in the client and add blocks and build the utxo from the tx-es. if there are holes in this you can not simply build the correct utxo set. if you receive the missing 'records" from someone that you can't verify (because you never got the actual tx) then you have to trust him on his word/authority.

it's even worse if a network of pruning clients run say they prune everything older than 100 blocks. on bitcoin network everything older than that is ancient history there is no way it ever gets reorged. so it would make sense to only keep the last 100 blocks and the block headers for the entire chain. however like i said thee is no way to sync new nodes into this network trustlessly. same problem only my issue is much more pronounced.

>>16112556
Calvin is not based he's a degenerate.
The sooner BSV can distance themselves from him the better.

>>16114118
You don't need the actual transaction to verify. In fact you only need the fucking blockheaders. Besides pruning, even pruning nodes keeps the UTXO set. Even the most restrictive pruning nodes keep the UTXO set. You're thinking of SPVs.

>>16114139
Chads only
https://youtu.be/xwRZgtTEH08

>>16114118
my original idea was to include hash of a canonically ordered (deterministic digest) utxo set for a block in the extended header...

however this is a hard fork which is always risky.

now i think you could actually include this in the coinbase transaction as data. this would be a soft fork and miners could reject blocks where the coinbase tx does not hold the correct utxo hash.

in fact you could include the previous blocks utxo hash as from the last full block the new one can always be built.

so this would mean that the last full block no matter which it is a node gets includes the digest of the utxo before it, and so if that is also received upon request the transactions can now be validated.

still doesn't really solve the issue about the unpruned blocks pruned tx-es but it kinda makes it a not so important issue.

>>16114207
>Even the most restrictive pruning nodes keep the UTXO set
if they could sync from the beginning and nothing is kept from them yes can't you just fucking read the posts you reply to?

>>16114207
>You're thinking of SPVs.
no spvs can't build the utxo set they have to trust a service. the only thing they can do is check if a specific tx was indeed included in a specific block trusltessly. everything else is given to them by a provider.

>>16114257
>if they could sync from the beginning
What difference is there from a node that has been there the entire time with a pruned transaction vs one that came online today? They'll both have the exact same data.

>>16114269
>no spvs can't build the utxo set
No shit, Sherlock.

>>16114293
>They'll both have the exact same data.
right now with uncensored unpruned blockchains sure. but we are talking about permanent pruning blocks or at least tx-es.

>>16114308
Again, it's still valid. So I have no fucking clue what you keep going on about. If every miner on the planet today pruned a transaction I made yesterday the chain would still be valid and absolutely nothing from the money I spent to the security of the network would have been effected.

>>16114340
>So I have no fucking clue what you keep going on about.
i can see that. let's say you sent 5000 bitcoin to coinbase... and the miners and every node pruned that tx. someone comes online skipping that day, and tries to build his utxo set. he will see you still have those coins. while everybody else sees coinbase has it. so you can sell that poor sod 5000 btc otc unless he trust someone else with updating his utxo.

>>16114379
funnily enough segwit solves this issue by separating the actual transaction from the data included in a tx (scriptsig) you can "cast away" the unlock script (and the proverbial cp included) and retain your ability to build an utxo trustlessly... oh the irony.

>>16114379
>so you can sell that poor sod 5000 btc
How? Do you normally accept payment based on the contents of someone's wallet or when you receive the payment? holy fucking shit

Imagine having a decentralized database run by people who are competing to verify the entire thing for money and you go with what your laptop tells you is true vs events that actually happen on chain. The absolute state.

in my example it was pretty unrealistic that only 1 person would see it as yours in reality it would be half or more than half of the network that gets it wrong. don't try to exert your brain it was clearly no made for it.

>>16114458
No moron. Every node that is online has the updated UTXO set. If you decide to make a financial decision based on your laptop """node""" that has been offline for a few days, you're the idiot.

>>16114436
also basically if you effectively remove a tx from the blockchain via censorship that's no longer part of the "decentralized database" the state of the coins is in limbo some would assume they were spent some would assume they were unspent you had a clear and neat system without such ambiguity until you started going full retard with censorship.

>>16114489
>Every node that is online has the updated UTXO set.
yes but nobody that wasn't online has it nor do new nodes. you just fucked up the blockchain unmade it's purpose.

>>16114495
lol where do you get this shit from?

>>16114502
>yes but nobody that wasn't online has it
They wouldn't have had it anyway. THEY WERE OFFLINE.

i remember last year's halloween BCH party

it was before i stopped giving a shit about bitcoin

>>16114510
>They wouldn't have had it anyway.
they would have had it when they sync up. as every tx was in an immutable blockchain forever. before you went full retard with censorship.

the Greg costume is still good

>>16114535
>they would have had it when they sync up
It's no different with pruning, retard.

>>16114544
yes which was my problem to begin with if you remember (or read anything). current pruning nodes only sync from non-pruning nodes and they build their utxo up before discarding old blocks.

>>16114567
How many fucking times we need to go over this. Pruning does not delete or invalidate the utxo sets and pruning is not the same thing as a pruning node.

>build their utxo up before discarding old blocks
So what?

>>16114598
>Pruning does not delete or invalidate the utxo sets
the fuck are you smoking? who said they were?
>and pruning is not the same thing as a pruning node
it's the same shit pruning nodes prune.
>So what?
SO THEY NEED THE ENTIRE FUCKING BLOCKS WITHOUT HOLES IN THEM
everybody does that want's to build their utxo trustlessly. and that's the point. it's doable but it hasn't been done. everybody fucks around with useless shit ranging from storing files and junk weather data on chain to cash shuffle and off chain solutions. everything just what the protocol needs actually.

>>16114694
There are no holes in it. The ledger is completely valid, verified and coins are where they're suppose to be. Just because you're an idiot and accept payment based off offline and unsynced nodes doesn't mean everyone else is as stupid as you.

>>16114728
>There are no holes in it.
there are if you start censoring tx-es how fucking retarded can you be? this is not a difficult concept. i always forget sv jeets are all sub 70 iq maggots.

>prost fucker
>based
he's fucking retarded
his whole endeavor is nonsense that will never turn a profit

>>16115005
It's not censored, you obviously still don't know what pruning means. It still exists. The event occurred clear as day on the blockchain. No rules broken, shit is in the fucking whitepaper. These things were always and will always be the nature of Bitcoin.

I'm getting sick of the sophistry though.

>>16112741
delet this

>>16115084
jesus christ do you even know how bitcoin works?
there is no clear us day universal truth unless the nodes can sync. each and every node has to build his own reality and only way they can do it if they get all the information. if you start removing tx-es from the blocks as you propagate them then that information is lost.
>No rules broken, shit is in the fucking whitepaper
pruning in the whitepaper is not considering a censorship scenario nor does it deal with trustless sync up of new nodes on a pruning network.

>>16115084

>>16115084
>sophistry
fuck are you talking about? this shit is simple like 2x2. it's not my fault you can't fucking understand how the trustless p2p bitcoin network works.

you can only prune blocks that you fully received. end of story.

>>16115382
i know that feel just replace jews with sv jeets.

>>16115373
>there is no clear us day universal truth unless the nodes can sync
They still sync.

>start removing tx-es from the blocks as you propagate them
Who made this argument? Illicit material would likely be 100s if not 1000s of blocks deep before it's found and dealt with, maybe longer. I never said anything about pruning data while propagating a block, go fuck yourself.


Pruning in the whitepaper is not considering anything, nigger. It's just saying that you can do it. Nowhere does it say that it cannot be used for something.

>>16115386
>you can only prune blocks that you fully received

NO SHIT KYS

>>16115440
>I never said anything about pruning data while propagating a block
doesn't really matter when it happens once a node requests that block and you serve it without a tx it's fucked can no longer sync up.

but sure the longer timeframe passes the less this likely to cause an issue. but then again that means everyone who was interested in the material already got it... so why remove it? you can't eat the cake and keep it just decide if you want censorship or not.
>NO SHIT KYS
finally you get it. good. now you pretend you got it all along? hahahahahah brainlet.

>>16115560
>once a node requests that block and you serve it without a tx it's fucked can no longer sync up
This is an outright lie. The transaction is still 100% valid whether they have the transaction itself or not.

>but then again that means everyone who was interested in the material already got it
I'm saying 100s if not 1000s of blocks because investigations take time. A thousand blocks is like what a week? If something is posted on Bitcoin it isn't automatically detected for illicit use via voodoo.

>finally you get it.
No I never said you can prune a block while propagating. Fucking idiot.

>>16115604
>The transaction is still 100% valid whether they have the transaction itself or not.
you no longer have it, you can't verify the hash you can't check it truly fits to the merkle tree you don't know if you have the correct utxo set. i thought we made progress here but you went back to stubborn retardedness.
>while propagating
you think that is a temporaly isolated event but it's not. that's your problem your brain is too limited by your everyday experience.

>>16115616
>you don't know if you have the correct utxo set
But that's wrong, you retard.

>you think that is a temporaly isolated event
What event are you even talking about?

>>16115627
>But that's wrong, you retard.
you don't get this simple thing and i'm the retard? rofl.
>What event are you even talking about?
you think something happens and then it's done. but the blockchain doesn't work like that. bitcoin doesn't work like that. it kinda does in a probabilistic way overall but not for the individual nodes. nope.

>>16115659
>you think something happens and then it's done. but the blockchain doesn't work like that
Really? Mine the Genesis block or send the first transaction.

>>16115700
that's too easy anyone can do that, reorging bitcoin even 2 deep is a quadrillion times harder.

>>16112602
Underrated