/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16196630
Hi cutie

>>16196630
Hello

Hi

>>16196630
hi

>>16196630
>>16196794
>>16196799
>>16196823

Hi.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5DCAC1j2HTY

Remember this?

> “I am about to demonstrate a signing of a message with the public key that is associated with the first transaction ever done on bitcoin”

I don’t understand why is he saying recently “I will sign after proving in court” or “I refuse to sign as satoshi” lol. lol. Wasn't that bbc fake stunt supposed to be real? hahaha

> “I don’t want money! I don’t want fame! I don’t wan adoration”

> “I will never do an interview ever again!”

right.

seems legit right goys?

Here the guy from bbc with his impressions, he was face to face with that clown: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxMU4C6bGKw

> there will be no split
bch splits

> i will destroy bch
bch not destroyed

> btc will be $0 eoy 2018
btc $4000 eoy 2018

> i am satoshi
can’t sign a simple fucking message

> says I will sign after proving in court or “i refuse to sign” but... wasn't the bbc stunt supposed to be a real signature? LOL

> submits a list of addresses of some fake tulip trust bullshit to court...
one of the addresses he claimed was signed by the real owner with a message saying the address is not belonging to this craig clown

> unlawfully registers a copyright on btc white paper and code in a stunt to cause a dump on btc
btc doesnt flintch

> next day copyright office confirms they didnt confirm this clown is satoshit and reaffirms that anyone can register anything with them
ultra fail

> gets sued over 1 Million bitcoins that never existed from some made up fake tulip trust shit using a dead guys name in the process

> loses the lawsuit and now has billions of dollars to pay to the dead guy brother of bitcoins that never existed

> some brainlets compare this piece of trash with trump, but trump is a winner
this clown is a loser

This fakethosi clown is a fucking scam a pure and simple trash bag for everyone to see.

I don't want CP. Go away creep

>>16196630
> immutable child porn on the blockchain
> cries in court while being told that his position is not credible because he refuses to prove anything, even in his own district court contempt hearing
> goes broke paying for shitcoin spampaigns, but at least ayre got his 'stiff' $100m mansion

LMAO, BSV fags saying that you'll go "to jail" for shitting up their blockchain don't realize.how easy it is to get clean coins. Illicit content on chain, on the other hand, stays there FOREVER

Airdrop me your fake bitcoin pls

>>16196630

>>16196630
that face...

>>16197424
>

>>16197510
segwit is awesome fuck off

>>16197547
>these people exist

fucking pajeets paid by calvin GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!

>>16197572
it's fantastic. i mean i was not a particular fan of the soft fork they introduced it with but it makes a lot of sense in retrospect.

all in all it solves problems and only introduces one theoretical vulnerability we are not even sure possible to exploit. a lot if it depends on the miners. if you presume most btc miners are here to stay and got long term plans with their equipment and operation it will be fine.

>>16197637
LOL

>>16197637
a hash of a signature is not a signature.
you can't tell what key made a signature form a hash of that signature.

Segwit coins are as worthless as cheques without signatures

>>16198191
>a hash of a signature is not a signature
hashes are how reference lager data immutably a signature is basically a hash deep down.
but it's inconsequential. you are trying to argue with semantics and pretend the how changes the what. it doesn't. bitcoins are not signatures bitcoins are entries in a ledger. maintaining the ledger is what bitcoin is all about.

not to mention the future is pruing. once a block is pruned by the network there is no way to tell what was segwit and what was legacy tx. all there is is the utxo set. which is just an other way of saying it's inconsequential. signatures and ultimately after a while tx-es too. they are all a technicality how a distributed trustless consensus is reached on the utxo set and how you can transact in a secure and permissionless manner.

if you think segwit changes bitcoins nature then you are a brainlet who doesn't get bitcoin. if you think bitcoin blockchain was meant to be an immutable garbage heap of stale data you are beyond saving.

>>16198255
Reorgs will be pretty fun if the blockchain will gets pruned by storing UTXOs in every particular block..

>>16198191
>Segwit coins are as worthless as cheques without signatures
also nice meme but imagine if you kept a cheque that you already cashed in and it lacks signature instead it had a unique redeem code (but was still fully paid you got the money alright) i mean this is all retarded nonsense allegory but that cheque is worthless because it has already been paid so you can't get out of it anymore. you can keep it if you want or throw it away.

>>16198255
>bitcoins are not signatures bitcoins are entries in a ledger.

>We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Corecucks at max cognitive dissonance

>>16198274
obviously you will keep a few blocks like the last 10 to 100 blocks. if btc receives a 100 deep reorg it's over. that shit can't happen unless there is some reality shattering black swan discovery. so anything past the last 100 blocks is safe to discard by everyone.

>>16198281
i can only say what bitcoin (released and developed further by nakamoto himself) actually is. it's a distributed ledger.

>>16198294
hole Metanet will also have to be discarded as well then, lul

>>16196630
helo sir

>>16198322
yes sv miners are all running pruning nodes as far as we know. at least all the ones interviewed do.

>>16198346
Until there is a necessity of having the entirety of the blockchain even at one place for validation reasons, the project is unmarketable.

>>16198376
international organizations my run archiving nodes (for btc nobody will for sv imo) for example blockstream, major tech companies governments research agencies and financial authorities and intelligence agencies...

but the miners and financial nodes can all prune the shit out of it. end users can prune the shit out of it even more. bitcoin could fit on a few hundred megabytes (definitely on an old school cd) nothing a phone can't handle.

as for the utxo set, i see two ways to secure it
1) extend the bitcoin header with the previous blocks utxo set (deterministically serialized) hash but this is a hard fork
2) include the previous utxo hash in the input part of the coinbase transaction (it has no role the coinbase has no source) which can be a soft fork

>>16198442
come to think of it... extending the header makes less sense we won't ever need an utxo set from before the last un-purned block. it's just junk data. keeping the chain of proof of work via the block headers is a necessity. let's not add any more to that burden...

>>16198442
>international organizations my run archiving nodes...
They can, but it still makes the project unmarketable - it's a blockchain that requires CP to function (can't fully validate without it).

>>16198509
yeah i think the incentives are totally off for bsv even if you ignore them going full retard with the metanet meme. math doesn't work out but hey kudos for them to try no? we can calculate and speculate all we want but if they prove it on their own expense that it's working it will be hard to argue with that. if it works it works if not the market will sort it out eventually.

>>16198255
>once a block is pruned by the network there is no way to tell what was segwit and what was legacy tx

Holy fuck I didn't even consider this. BTC is more screwed than I originally thought.

>>16198346
>yes sv miners are all running pruning nodes
This nigger things pruning something on the blockchain is the same as running a pruning node. Actually he knows the difference because I've btfo on this before, he's just muddying the waters because he's a faggot.

>>16198619
Bitcoin doesn't have pruning

>>16198721
Not yet, its implementation is suggested in the whitepaper though. But it's really just a diskspace optimization in the client and has no impact on the protocol.

>>16198721
>corecucks

>>16198729
wtf do you mean suggested? You can do it now and always have been able to do it.

>>16198738
merkle trees aren't pruning from the global state needed for full validation

>>16198798
Yeah, nobody was talking about removing merkle trees retard. Learn how this shit works, acquire some terminology and then come back.

>>16198837
So you can't prune it after all? Thank you for affirming my initial assertion ... RETARD

enjoy your immutable Child Pornography

>>16198883
The illicit material is scrubbed and the merkel root is unaffected. The blockchain is still valid. Otherwise Satoshi is a fucking moron.

>>16198721
it has partially any node can prune but the network can't sync up trustlessly if it consisted of pruning nodes. half of the work is done. some little tweaking is still required.

>>16198883
i don't think there is a point to pruning inside a block. you can do it, but it has consequences that make it superfluous.

>>16199049
basically if you can't build the next utxo state from a block the entire block is garbage if you are wondering... so pruning should be done by discarding blocks and keeping only block headers.

while spv clients can verify payments in a trustless manner via block header chain and merkle trees in a very cost efficient manner but this only makes sense for recent blocks.

>>16199115
>propagating and pruning at the same time

Here we go again...

>>16199115
>pruning should be done by discarding blocks and keeping only block headers
Can't fully validate the chain if the chain is pruned out of everything BUT the headers.

You BSV tards are so ignorant it's hilarious.

>>16199207
lol i'm the exact opposite of an sv tard.
and yes you can, i have explained how.

>prune old blocks that have no chance in hell of getting a reorg
>keep the last pruned blocks utxo set
>extend protocol so that every block references the previous utxo set immutably
>a node that wants to sync up will first get all block headers and verifies longest chain of pow
>node starts asking for full blocks at n depth
>node will also ask for the utxo set for n-1
>block n has the hash for utxo set n-1
>everything is verified and validated from that point like normal
>pow in longest chain and the tx-es validity for the received utxo base all verifies the node buit the correct ledger
>trustless permissionless secure publicly auditable
>bitcoin as intended

>>16199165
if you got any arguments lay them out m8