/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16160481
>checks 10 year chart
you'd have to be stupid not to be all in BTC

>>16160481
>BTC removed signatures from transactions which was the most fundamental aspect of Bitcoin
>They openly say fuck the Whitepaper
>They openly say Satoshi is not relevant
>They push for off-chain transactions on the LN
>They say BTC is not for small transactions
>They promote BTC as something to hoard and hodl rather than use as cash
>
>Yet they insist on calling themselves Bitcoin.
>How come? What am I missing?

>have car
>add seatbelt
>WOW IS IT EVEN A CAR ANYMORE? I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO DIE IN LOW SPEED ACCIDENTS

>>16160481
- The most fundamental aspect of Bitcoin is sending money without a third party.
- The whitepaper isn't a full specification of the protocol. It doesn't even mention the 21 million limit.
- Satoshi disappeared almost a decade ago.
- Great. What don't you understand about this?
- Container ships, not parcels. You're taking the security of the Bitcoin network for granted if you think it was created as a replacement to Venmo.
- Because bitcoin is going to $1million a coin. It's good investment advice.

>>16160524
>>16160547
>>16160586
>>16160635
All these seething retards only response is larping pathetic green text.

>>16160481
They are pretty much right

>>16160481
dont use it and use your choice of any of the shitcoins from the buffet of shitty forks. why are you complaining

>>16160671
Really shot yourself in the foot on this one

>>16160586
Except they did the opposite
They removed the seatbelts, the engines, the wheels. It is just the empty shell left, yet they larp as it is something fantastic. Just like pic related

>>16160481
Perhaps you can point us to the PR which was approved and merged where they removed this signature validation code? Bitcoin is open source after all.

>>16160891
It's called SegWit

>>16160913
>>16160827
If you claim it's been removed then simply show us the code change where it's been removed that you have issues with. It's not that difficult really.

Such strong opinions for such little detail.

>>16161003
Read about how SegWit work. I can't do the reading for you

>>16161045
You can't even reference the changes you're talking about. All you had to do was provide a link or two. But you can't do that. You've exposed yourself as a LARPing as an expert. Worthless unsubstantiated discarded.

>>16160481
>BTC removed signatures from transactions which was the most fundamental aspect of Bitcoin
not true

>>16161095
the most fundamental aspect of bitcoin is ordering transactions and building a distributed trustless permissionless and secure ledger. everything else is a technical detail. everything else is "how?" not "what?" sv cucks eternally btfo.

does SegWit in any way harm the security of bitcoin?
in which way does SegWit harm bitcoin?

segwit segregates the signatures in a different part of the block. That is why is called segregated witness and not eliminated witness.

Fucking brainlets

>>16162498
Unironically correct. Consider translating this into Hindi for the satoj pajeets.

>>16160481
You are missing a lot of things because besides being technically and monetarily illiterate, you are also delusional enough to think that you can make up for being late in Bitcoin by propagating a centralized scam fork.

>>16162498
yeah it's a cashie fallacy that segwit breaks bitcoin protocol. not only it's technically not true it's not true in the deepest philosophical sense.

bitcoin is a ledger and a consensus on that ledger and a way to transact in a trustless permissionless way and a way to secure that ledger via natural incentives instead of authority or trust.

and only btc does it truly and fully. segwit makes a lot of sense it solves multiple problems in one fell swoop.

insisting on keeping the blockchain with all it's block forever is moronic. it hinders adoption hinders scaling a general nuisance and unnecessary. even satoshi wrote about pruning the blockchain as a natural measure to take. however once a block is fully pruned by the network who can tell what was a segwit or a legacy tx? there is no difference whatsoever.

and even unpruned if you want to build the correct utxo set you can always build it without the witness data if you got the longest valid chain validated by the proof of work and the nakamoto consensus. the financial transaction records are fully there until pruned. and that's all that really matters to the network. that's all that matters to new nodes.

this segwit bullshit became a dogma in the cashie camp even tho it requires severe cognitive dissonance to maintain it beside their other tenets. not to mention cashie claims about segwit are technically incorrect for obvious reasons.