/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.16079455]

Imagine thinking SegWit Coin (BTC) is Bitcoin just because 'they' managed to nab a three letter ticker symbol. Then when Satoshi returns to tell people they're being scammed, they crucify HIM as the scammer. It is literally a rerun of the story of Jesus. It is peak stupidity and peak evil. Don't go down in history as a Judas, join the side which bring light and honesty to the world.
Nour

[Anonymous No.16079471]

>>16079455
bitcoin is bitcoin nothing you say gonna change that. just accept that your shitcoin will never be called bitcoin by sane people.

[Anonymous No.16079477]

>>16079455
Imagine having nothing more original to contribute to the world than reposting this spam shit for a scam 10 times a day

[Anonymous No.16079551]

>>16079455
the cope jej

[Anonymous No.16080298]

>>16079471
>He doesn't know

[Anonymous No.16080407]

>>16080298
sorry cuck you never gonna be able to justify a minority fork with the whitepaper let alone two.

[Anonymous No.16080479]

>>16080407
I don't need to justify anything. You will soon learn that the only protocol that matters is the one described in the white paper, i.e Bitcoin.

Exchange ticker BSV.

[Anonymous No.16080609]

>>16080479
if bitcoin was only a protocol we would have 50 to 500 bitcoins by now. because it takes like 30 seconds to fork the code. bitcoin is first and foremost consensus. this is the thing you cashies never understood. you think you now what consensus is but you wouldn't recognize it if it bit you in the ass.

[Anonymous No.16080640]

>>16079455
>bcashie fork
>muh they get the ticker
DELUSIONAL

[Anonymous No.16080643]

>>16080609
>bitcoin is first and foremost consensus

Categorically false. Where do you find this fake definition of Bitcoin? Oh that's right you just made it up.

The Bitcoin protocol, as described in the white paper, was never meant to be changed.

[Anonymous No.16080735]

>>16080643
you can change the code without changing it's cre design or nature. all you have to do is change the genesis block hash. and you have a perfectly same bitcoin protocol with a perfectly separate chain. which one is the real then? the one people agree on. that's right. motherfucking consensus.

[Anonymous No.16080831]

>>16080735
You don't understand what a protocol is. It is a set of rules that make up a system. You can refine the code and still maintain the same protocol. What you can't do, is change the rules of the system. Then you have a different protocol altogether, which is not Bitcoin. This is what Segregated Witness, RBF and other changes did on BTC; they changed the rules, and the system functions very differently.

Therefore, BTC is not Bitcoin.

Let me repeat my question: Where do you find your fake consensus definition of Bitcoin?

[Anonymous No.16080953]

>>16080831
>You don't understand what a protocol is.
of course i do, i'm a dev after all.
you are both technically and philosophically wrong on who changed the protocol.

btc is the only chain that adheres to the pre 2017 ruleset.

btc is bitcoin obviously partly because bch forked off by breaking protocol deliberately, partly because it was the larger consensus.

both segwit and rbf are opt-in features you are not required to use. if you knew the first thing about bitcoin you would realize how ridiculously weak the argument about them changing the nature of bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16081066]

>>16080953
Total nonsense. Pre 2017 ruleset? What a load of crap. What about the 2009 ruleset ordained by the creator for Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto?

SegWit and RBF fundamentally changed the protocol. It is not part of Bitcoin and never were. Once forked, a new system was created i.e. SegWitCoin.

Let me repeat my question because you refuse to answer it: Where do you find your fake consensus definition of Bitcoin?

[Anonymous No.16081132]

>when the real opportunity isn't buying bitcoin it's shitposting for freedom

[Anonymous No.16081291]

>>16081066
>What about the 2009 ruleset ordained by the creator for Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto?
that's an interesting question no fork alive today is fully compatible with that. since 2012 and probably before bitcoin changed many times that made the new forks incompatible with the first release. most of these were done by nakamoto himself or gavin for example.

but we always knew what bitcoin was. it was the majority/consensus fork. and so it is now.

[Anonymous No.16081297]

>>16081066
>Let me repeat my question because you refuse to answer it
i'm not refusing to answer it, it's an obvious axiom. direct consequence of the nature of markets and bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16081367]

>>16081291
also even if you somehow managed to circumvent the different message formats and find a fast enough machine to try sync up at around 2013 apparently the original client would stop working anyhow.

[Anonymous No.16081376]

>>16081297
>but we always knew what bitcoin was. it was the majority/consensus fork. and so it is now.

This is nothing but political newspeak. You just change technical definitions to match your agenda.

BTC is not Bitcoin, sorry.

[Anonymous No.16081409]

>>16081376
>This is nothing but political newspeak.
you are absolutely wrong.

see the technical consensus was always backed up with the social consensus and all ruleset changes were backed up by the social consensus. if we could reach a social consensus effectively at every block we wouldn't need the proof of work anyhow. but that's impossible. however the technical consensus is worthless without the social one, as the miners reward is determined by the social consensus.

the market price discovery is the most capitalist thing ever invented it is also the purest form of consensus. so fuck off with the /pol/ tier bullshitting...

[Anonymous No.16081551]

>>16081409
i know this is supposed to be a joke but it demonstrates consensus pretty well.
mind you what happened in 2017 was the opposite of this, but don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

[Anonymous No.16081607]

>>16081409
You still haven't provided any evidence that Bitcoin is social consensus. You literally pulled that straight out of your ass. A diesel engine is not a social consensus, just like Bitcoin is not a social consensus, it is a technical protocol described in the Bitcoin white paper. You can't just make definitions up as you go along to make sure you are always right.

>so fuck off with the /pol/ tier bullshitting...

You mean like, truth? After all this pilpul, you just come out and admit you are a kike. Look at how surprised I am.

[Anonymous No.16081655]

>>16081607
>You still haven't provided any evidence that Bitcoin is social consensus.
it's absolutely self evident nigga. do you know why miners mine? if you answer that question you will see.

[Anonymous No.16081671]

>>16081607
1. social consensus on the ruleset
2. technical consensus by the ruleset

you cashies try to pretend the first doesn't exists but that just makes you look retarded. without the first the second has no value.

[Anonymous No.16081676]

all these fanatical cultlike zealots shilling fake bitcoin bitcoin sv as the OG 10yrs ago bitcoin that started it all. top tier keks with you mentally ill scam spam shillers

[Anonymous No.16081681]

>>16079455
They won't stop us, love will prevail.

[Anonymous No.16081711]

>>16081607
first of all i was referring to the recurring theme among sv cucks that they like to call consensus "communism" for some unfathomable reason. but the observed widespread anti-semitism and general /pol/-ish attitude and lingo among sv crowd got reinforced by your retarded ass nicely. not sure why it is so but i think it is linked to the low iq contrarian nature and self destructive behavior of that group.

[Anonymous No.16081725]

>>16081711
... which resonates well with craigs usual public performance and sophistication and technical depth of his arguments.

[Anonymous No.16081763]

>>16081655
I do in fact, I was hoping you would bring it up. Consensus is only mentioned in the white paper once:

Section 12
>Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

So do you want me to tell you what the word enforce means? Protocol rules are enforced by consensus. Like a referee enforcing rules in basketball. Or like a policeman enforcing laws that are already on the books.

The referees, the policemen and the miners don't CREATE or CHANGE rules. They make sure that rules that are already in place are adhered to.

>en‧force /Jnˈfɔːs verb [transitive] - 1 to make people obey a rule or law

Bitcoin is NOT social consensus - that is total bullshit straight from your dilated trannyhole.

[Anonymous No.16081825]

>>16081763
you don't get it still. why do miners mine? what's in it for them?

[Anonymous No.16082009]

>>16081825
Bitcoin BSV

[Anonymous No.16082011]

>>16081763
>The referees, the policemen and the miners don't CREATE or CHANGE rules. They make sure that rules that are already in place are adhered to.
that's fairly accurate btw yes the miners enforce the ruleset via the nakamoto consensus. the ruleset is however agreed upon by social consensus and enforced via natural incentives.

the miners reward received in the native crypto asset ensures miners enforce the consensus ruleset as the price of said asset and thus their profitability is determined by social consensus.

its all very neat and logical.

[Anonymous No.16082714]

bsv threads are getting sad
just a reminder, you guys better not visit /biz/ in january, we are going to bully you hard