/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16541238
>Imagine owning Segwitcoin lmao
didn't segwit remove the signatures from btc transactions?

>>16541255
Yes

>>16541255
The signatures are still stored in the blockchain.

https://segwit.org/understanding-segregated-witness-905cc712c692

>>16541285
A hash of a signature isn't a signature and the law works the same way, Corenigger.

>>16541285
Isn't that like giving someone an unsigned check and saying "don't worry, I have the signature in my pocket"?

The only law-compliant platform that is going to be universally adopted is R3 Corda, your worthless garbage memecoins are all good for nothing

>>16541285
Moron
>>16541303
>>16541319
Yes

>>16541476
>Yes
so in other words btc fucked up? What's the implications?

>signatures recorded on a blockchain and smart contracts as legal documentation

>>16541492
>What's the implications?
Businesses can't use it in any applications that require digital signatures, which includes simple payments. Specifically something like a supply chain application in which there are chains of custody or something simple like a mortgage contract, BTC cannot be used. The regulators haven't caught up, but they will.

>>16541238
you do realize that this is about mes system audit trails right?

>>16541238

when $1,200 though???

>>16541574
nah that's bullshit.
you guys totally misrepresenting this news.
it's about digital or electronic signatures accepted as legal documentation instead of paper in manufacture and logistics.

it got almost nothing to do with crypto.

>>16542516
>it's about digital or electronic signatures accepted as legal documentation instead of paper in manufacture and logistics.
>it got almost nothing to do with crypto.

What do you think a smart contract is?

>>16542516
also my company and me personally made such systems for the last 10 years this is not really a new thing. electronic signatures are accepted by the fda instead of paper trail given certain criteria are met. that blockchain and sigital signatures are also included in this has a lot less practical impact than you would think. since blockchains and digital signatures are way fucking stronger - like orders of magnitudes stronger - than normal electronic signatures in a centralized system.

>>16542527
don't have to be smart contracts these are much simpler things than that.

This is bullish... For LINK

>>16542558
it's a nothingburger i mean sure it make sense and nice but don't over think this.

>>16542558

kys linkfag

>>16541303
are you this stupid or just pretend to be? the signatures still can be audited you complete dumbfuck. newfag nigger, shit thread 1/10.

>>16542552
So you don't know what a smart contract is. rofl

>>16542541
>that blockchain and sigital signatures are also included in this has a lot less practical
>blockchains and digital signatures are way fucking stronger

Aside from the massive cost savings. Why should a lawyer or business want a lower security model than Bitcoin? Doesn't even make sense.

Btcsv pajeet cucks are the worst
*Sent to you by whatsat*

Whats that? It doesnt make sense to use 1 TB blocks per message? Thats right, it doesnt, its fucking retarded.
Whats next, 100TB blocks? LUL

Face it cucks, bitcoin has natural selection, the poor get pushed off chain.

Btsv is modern urban society, nobody dies and everything gets more crammed and shittier as time passes on.

>>16542651
you can't read faggot i said these are easily much simpler things than smart contracts. i did not say you can't apply it to smart contracts.
>>16542667
what was my point is that since the way-way less secure and less robust evidence trail is already accepted (and widely used) as legal proof this has pretty much zero impact.

>>16542667
>Aside from the massive cost savings.
exactly shit snakeoil security costs nothing. so long they pass the audit they don't care. and my job is to make systems that pass the audits. i can tell you they are absolutely not secure or immutable if you have dba access. it's a joke. but the industry the authorities and all don't care so long you got the documentation saying it's secure it's secure.

>>16542827
but i can tell you fags one thing if we are ever forced to implement a system that is actually secure and provides immutable evidence trail we will sure as hell not use bitcoin or chainlink or anything like that.

we will use azure blockchain or some homecooked distributed voting timestamping system that runs on an intranet well insulated form the internet.

>>16542789
Smart contracts are retarded simple or big brain complex. It just depends on the conditions. Yes a supply chain manager will use a wide range of smart contracts to monitor and transfer value thoughout the supply chain. All of which require a digital signature. The security, cost and lead time benefit of using Bitcoin over contemporary ERP systems is massive. If you want to ignore this that's your problem, but idk why the fuck you're in crypto.

>my point is that since the way-way less secure and less robust evidence trail is already accepted
A much less secure, more costly and time draining process.

>>16542827
So you're are corrupt. No wonder you're trying to stop this kind of thing from happening. At first I was baffled someone would argue against better systems that benefit everyone, but it all makes much more sense now.

>>16542581
LINK is pumping hbu?

>>16542451
tomorrow

>>16542879
>The security, cost and lead time benefit of using Bitcoin over contemporary ERP systems is massive.
it's the other way around using bitcoin would be unacceptably expensive and prohibitive performance wise.
>A much less secure, more costly and time draining process.
no just learn to read, much less secure costs nothing has almost zero performance impact. accepted bay authorities just fine.
>So you're are corrupt.
no we are doing what our clients pay for. and it's all within the letter of regulation. if you don't like it then just have to stiff.

>>16542827
>the documentation saying it's secure it's secure.

Honestly need Bitcoin to protect us from criminally negligent people like yourself.

>>16542879
>So you're are corrupt
Or just lazy, either way though.

>>16543055
You sound like the banks before the recession you absolute retard. Ofc you’re negligent and you’re actively participating. You’re just a pawn under a boot though, so I suppose you get a pass wagie.

>>16543399
it's regulation. bitcoin ain't got to do shit with it.
>>16543411
it's more about doing what you are paid for and not doing things the client never asked for. but sure putting he least effort into any requirement just plain makes business sense.

the fact is creating an audit trail for transactions in an erp or mes system is very performance prohibitive even with rdb triggers let alone external systems or god forbid a fucking blockchain.

you fags never dealt with systems like that and that shows in your naivete. the amount of data a single small to medium production company produces in electronic evidence trail is in the 100gb per years magnitude. there are about 200 million companies worldwide. which would add up to about 20 exabyte annually if you tried to put it on a global blockchain. the entire public internet is in the few exabytes range.

shit is retarded all the way. your idiotic dreams about companies putting everything on a shitty blockchain with 10 min confirmation time will never come to pass.

>>16543563
>it's regulation. bitcoin ain't got to do shit with it.
Bitcoin is all about regulation. It's really an auditors wet dream.

>the fact is creating an audit trail for transactions in an erp or mes system is very performance prohibitive

The fact is Bitcoin is very efficient at these things.

>muh data
The tools being developed now are plugins for SAP. There are tons of things Bitcoin can do for supply chains that doesn't require every bit of data. For someone who claims to work in with this stuff you seem to know literally nothing about it. Also transactions aren't free. Miners are compensated to handle things at scale. This is what Bitcoin does. You're going to be so fucking assblasted when the world moves on without you. Especially since you have corrupt practices that won't survive Bitcoin integration. Sucks to suck, nigger.

>>16544194
>Bitcoin is all about regulation.
no it's not. you fags are completely out of your mind.
>The fact is Bitcoin is very efficient at these things.
hell no you must be trolling at this point.

SAP outperforms your shitcoin by a few million tx/s

>>16544332
>no it's not
>noo you can't regulate me

Live stream the suicide for us.