I START TO BELIEVE

[Anonymous No.16230326]

[Anonymous No.16230337]

... in immutable CP

[Anonymous No.16230347]

>>16217267

[Anonymous No.16230348]

>>16230337
go away 01G this is sv board from now on

[Anonymous No.16230368]

>>16230326
another bitshitv thread hidden

[Anonymous No.16230461]

>>16230368
Just wait sirs the BSV dragon will poo on you

[Anonymous No.16230776]

>>16230347
that thread is a little stupid, you don't store the ENTIRE internet on-chain and embed all data in transactions.
but you can embed encryption keys in transactions to decrypt streaming data, or embed small stuff like html pages

[Anonymous No.16230884]

R puzzle
you can buy access to server X with some data for X time for X BSV. There is no need hold all data on chain.

[Anonymous No.16230941]

>>16230776
>but you can embed encryption keys in transactions to decrypt streaming data
that's pretty fucking pointless

[Anonymous No.16230995]

>>16230941
Netflix, youtube is pointless too? Its the same. You just dont use credit card but crypto.

[Anonymous No.16231030]

>>16230337
(((first post)))

[Anonymous No.16231041]

>>16230884
>>16230995
You don't need to "embed encryption keys in transactions" for locking content. In fact, you don't need BSV. Another micropayments coin will be used or just the user's onsite balance.

[Anonymous No.16231536]

>>16230995
no posting decryption keys on a public blockchain is totally pointless.

[Anonymous No.16231571]

>>16231041
there is only one sane usecase that is data related for a public immutable blockchain (not that sv is secure or anything) and that is to record hashes (basically magnet uris) to external data for example torrents...

that makes a tiny little bit of sense, but sv tards just want to go full retard whenever they can.

[Anonymous No.16231670]

>>16231571
for example let's say you host a site where people can download apps right?

you can host the exe and display the hash to verify the download. but that is not immutable. you get a security audit then some hacker can alter the exe and the hash both. a new person seeking the download will get the malware.

one way to go around this is signatures. signing the data is a good and tried way. but still requires sort of to download bogus content before it's outed.

also if the private key ever gets compromised no download can be trusted anymore. with an immutable repository or magnet links you can still get older data from a once trusted source.

very fringe usecase but it's there.

[Anonymous No.16231745]

>>16231670
come to think of it piratebay is constantly attacked and taken offline... if anything e could make a gigantic immutable uncensorable repository of torrents on a blockchain. you would need to run an indexing app locally or join to a provider that mirrors it, but it would be nigh impossible to take down.

meanwhile seeders of illegal content can be hunted down the traditional way.

[Anonymous No.16231857]

>>16230337
>>16230347
They can't even put in the effort anymore lmao

[Anonymous No.16231886]

>>16230941
>instead of logging into websites and using personal information just use your private key to unlock content

Yea that sure is stupid!

[Anonymous No.16232207]

>>16231886
not what he said phaggot
>but you can embed encryption keys in transactions to decrypt streaming data
that's utterly retarded
>just use your private key to unlock content
that works perfectly fine without any blockchain tho. not to mention it's pretty fucking pointless.

[Anonymous No.16232262]

>>16232207
>phaggot
kys

I'm not entirely sure what he's saying, but what I said is still valid. Go ahead and use your private key to unlock Netflix without Bitcoin. I don't really see the point or how you are going to acquire the key from them without some kind of log in and payment information first, but you go right ahead. I'll use Bitcoin for media access without giving my data to some corporation for free. Plus logging in is annoying.

[Anonymous No.16232303]

>>16232262
>what I said is still valid
no it's stupid
there is nothing stopping anyone from making a billion private keys and giving them away there is nothing stopping anyone from giving away session keys for streams.

blockchain or no blockchain the idea is retarded. but you don't actually need a blockchain for it that's the sad part.

also you could log into anywhere with a private key. that's fucking easy. basically what a client cert is. sort of.

[Anonymous No.16232363]

>>16232303
>there is nothing stopping anyone from making a billion private keys and giving them away
Weird business model, but okay. Can you tell me why Netflix would give free access out?

>>16232303
>blockchain or no blockchain the idea is retarded
Do you have a better system to distribute access to content with a single pseudonymous transaction?

>>16232303
>also you could log into anywhere with a private key

I don't think that's true. Pretty sure if someone creates content and distributes access on BSV I'm going to need to be granted access unless they're giving it away for free.

[Anonymous No.16232397]

>>16232363
>Weird business model, but okay. Can you tell me why Netflix would give free access out?
that's my point you can't lock in access to anyone with your idea. one guy pays $2 and the whole world can watch it? hah.
>Do you have a better system to distribute access to content with a single pseudonymous transaction?
not using blockchain. use your pk for session key negotiation and stream the data directly from the provider. he can immediately detect if more than one client requests fragments and cut the stream and terminate your subscription.
>I don't think that's true.
why would it not be true? that's what public key cryptography is for.
you give them your public key and can decode the session key with your private key and their public key. that's like crypto 101.

[Anonymous No.16232405]

>>16230326
>being 50/50 on LINK and BSV

feels comfy knowing I'm going to be rich as fuck no matter what

[Anonymous No.16232466]

>>16232397
>that's my point you can't lock in access to anyone with your idea. one guy pays $2 and the whole world can watch it? hah.
Why do people use Netflix then? How is that any different?

>not using blockchain. use your pk for session key negotiation and stream the data directly from the provider. he can immediately detect if more than one client requests fragments and cut the stream and terminate your subscription.
How did you get the private key in the first place? Did they just send you a valid pk for free? How did you get access without first creating an account and using your credit card?

>why would it not be true? that's what public key cryptography is for.
>you give them your public key and can decode the session key with your private key and their public key. that's like crypto 101.
idk what you're even talking about anymore. When I'm making a standard payment to a public address, I'm not also getting a color coin licence to unlock some content using my pk.

[Anonymous No.16232483]

>>16232466
>How did you get the private key in the first place?
you generate it nigga wtf?
>idk what you're even talking about anymore
cryptography m8 standard run of the mill cryptography. there is no need to complicate things.

[Anonymous No.16232491]

>>16232466
i would also like to add what you need to use the blockchain like any decent human being is PAYMENTS that's all.

[Anonymous No.16232556]

>>16232483
>you generate it nigga wtf?
Okay so generate some key like a PGP or something. How are you now getting access using that key. You still won't answer me. For them to give you access you'd have to give them a copy of your public address first, actually no you'd need to create an account first, then pay them using your credit card. So what was the point of even using the pk in your example? In Bitcoin I just make a payment and start streaming.

>>16232483
>cryptography m8 standard
No, I can't use my pk to gain access to things I don't have the privileges to. That's actually standard cryptography m8.

>>16232491
I'm using the blockchain for payments and a smart contract in what I'm talking about. You're the one railing against it lmao.

[Anonymous No.16232605]

>>16232556
>No, I can't use my pk to gain access to things I don't have the privileges to.

[Anonymous No.16232634]

>>16232556
>How are you now getting access using that key.
simplest scenario?
you generate a pk (bitcoin) you send funds to that address you pay for a service from that address, they have your pubkey now along with the payment. you specify in the tx the nature of your subscription or the resource you bought access to.

then as your streaming client requests access you will authenticate yourself ie get your session key with your private key as described here: >>16232397

[Anonymous No.16232673]

>>16232634
kys dude. The entire time I've been describing how to use Bitcoin and a pk to gain access to content. You said it was stupid and now you're trying to pretend you were talking about generating a pk using bitcoin to access content. the whole time, when literally in the last post "blockchain like any decent human being is PAYMENTS that's all".

Keep hodling BTC OGcuck.

[Anonymous No.16232685]

>>16232673
i said it's stupid to involve the blockchain for anything besides the FUCKING PAYMENT! it makes no sense whatsoever!!
why complicate a simple thing?

[Anonymous No.16232733]

>>16232685
It's not even complicated. Doesn't require anything that doesn't already exist on Bitcoin. Make a payment and be granted access to content address that made the payment. You're just booty bothered because this kind of thing can easily be done on BSV and will never happen on BTC because it's a complete shitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16232793]

>>16232733
>Make a payment and be granted access to content address that made the payment.
that's what i was talking about it's simple as that any crpyto can do it.
>You're just booty bothered because this kind of thing can easily be done on BSV
any crpyto can do it
>and will never happen on BTC because it's a complete shitcoin.
rofl keep on deluding yourself.

what i said all along and you just couldn't understand is that there is no need for any convoluted shit like smart contracts or recording anything on the blockchain from the providers part. absolutely fucking pointless. read >>16230941

gaining access with a private key is the most natural thing in the world. however streaming companies will have to make sure you are past 18 and all kinds of legislative requirements which is why hey will insist on you registering with your identity anyhow. so it's not about hard to do it's about they can't be assed to do it right.

and only legal companies with serious muscle will have the infrastructure to actually stream the high bitrate data. so your ancap dreams are probably fucked.

[Anonymous No.16232860]

>>16232793
The only crypto capable of doing it is BSV. BTC has no functionality, BCH might be able to to do it? Neither of these options scale and all other cryptos are almost without exception scams or not hard money. The only real exception I can think of is Monero, but it'll never have the legal status to be adopted by business.

>>16232793
>what i said all along and you just couldn't understand is that there is no need for any convoluted shit like smart contracts or recording anything on the blockchain from the providers part
Smart contract just executes agreements onchain. It's not really convoluted. As for storing things, well that's up to the market. Data that is profitable to keep on chain will be on chain.

Identity requirements are speculative and it depends entirely on what you're buying.

[Anonymous No.16232987]

>>16232860
>BTC has no functionality
what i described is perfectly doable with btc
even more so, you can make the micropayments offline
>open payment channel to RSC (random streaming company)
>suddenly want to watch movie
>press start, client displays you need to pay 10 cents worth of bitcoin per quarter hour for the category.
>press play.
>payment is sent off-chain as needed.
>you settle or re-balance every month.
>no need for a fuckton of tx
>no need to wait for confirmation
>just fucking press PLAY!
that simple
>Smart contract just executes agreements onchain.
there is no added value in this case (which i was pretty clear about)
>Data that is profitable to keep on chain will be on chain.
no such thing whatsoever. it also makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.16233094]

>>16232987
>you can make the micropayments offline
Nope, pic related. You MUST be online for micropayments on BTC.

lmao at your channel example. First of all you're going to need to setup a payment channel with the provider which is going to take at least three confirmations, all the while paying high fees to get there more so than your 10 cent payment. Sure does suck if you decide you hate the movie you picked an need to close the channel and make another slow high fee transaction to get out of it.

On Bitcoin the case is much differen't. I could setup a payment channel if I wanted, but since I'm only paying 1/10th of a cent anyway I probably won't bother and at scale it'll probably be more like 1/100 or 1/1000th of a cent to make a simple transaction. Also I get access to content instantly since Bitcoin has 0-conf. No need to wait for confirmation first like BTC.

>there is no added value in this case
>implying automated systems aren't more efficient and cheaper

>no such thing whatsoever. it also makes no sense.
Just because you're small brained and can envision people utilizing a blockchain for creative and innovative things doesn't mean entrepreneurs can't.

[Anonymous No.16233151]

>>16233094
i wanted to say off-chain not online, but the sender doesn't need to remain online actually he has no risk associated with being offline.

just admit defeat dud even at your stupid unrealistic games bitcoin beats the shit out of your shitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16233185]

>>16233151
>no risk associated with being offline
Unless you're the one receiving payment.

>j-just admit defeat
>m-my entirely broken, expensive and slow shitcoin i-is the future of c-commerce

[Anonymous No.16233188]

>>16233094
>three confirmations
2 enough for bitcoin for most providers (coinbase accepts 2 they know their business) because it's actually secure. doing that as an initial subscription is fine as the alternative of registering with your legal identity and paying via credit card or god forbid bank transfer.

i'm okay with that. what you descibe an on-chain exchange of tx data and or smart contracts gonna take about 20 confirmations (on an insecure shitcoin like sv). every time you want to watch a movie. rofl.

[Anonymous No.16233197]

>>16233185
>Unless you're the one receiving payment.
yes, but 99% of the people will just use it like a cc. the rest will use a watchtower service or their bitcoin bank as part of the package.

[Anonymous No.16233202]

>>16233188
>2 enough for bitcoin
>implying 0-conf isn't enough for bitcoin

>bank transfer
>implying bitcoin is similar to a bank wire and not electronic cash

[Anonymous No.16233213]

>>16233197
>the rest will use a watchtower service
>b-bitcoin is at it's b-best when it requires 3rd parties to monitor for f-fraud

[Anonymous No.16233220]

>>16233202
you said smart contracts and two way exchange you can't do that as 0-conf not how smart contracts work. you just keep back-paddling and moving the goalpost and get btfo every turn still can't stop.

[Anonymous No.16233237]

>>16233213
if you are a business it's the cost of doing business. for anyone paying with it this is no concern. absolutely not a fucking problem. it's only better than the current system not worse. it actually scales and is practical and fucking secure. it beats the living crap out of credit cards which is what will matter to the absolute vast majority of the population.

[Anonymous No.16233254]

>>16233220
>you can't do that as 0-conf not how smart contracts work
Yeah, on fucking ethereum.

>>16233237
Businesses will literally never adopt BTC.

[Anonymous No.16233259]

>>16233213
>requires
your choice really... it does not require it, you can just be online if you are a business or ensure your interest by paying a watchtower service that is insured to represent you in case you get an outage or other technical malfunction.

you can keep pretending this is bad or a big deal but i can see you are straining.

[Anonymous No.16233275]

>>16233254
no on anywhere. you need to put the smart contract on-chain or it's worthless that means confirmation. on a hashlet insecure crapheap that means at least 10 maybe a 20 confirmations.
>Businesses will literally never adopt BTC.
we will see nigga i wouldn't ever bet against bitcoin if i was you tho.

since it was first rolled out it was capable of more than your shitcoin ever will be.

[Anonymous No.16233307]

>>16233275
>nigga
Stop saying this retarded shit OGnigger.

>i wouldn't ever bet against bitcoin
That's exactly what you're doing.

>since it was first rolled out it was capable of more than your shitcoin ever will be.
BTC is the one with functionality removed, not BSV. Either its delusion, denial or something else, but figure it out.

[Anonymous No.16233318]

>>16233307
>That's exactly what you're doing.
no that is what you are doing.
btc is bitcoin it always was and always will be. your sorry ass hashlet chain can't fucking compare it's envisioned use-case is retarded and we will see if it survives 2020 at all.

btc is capable of infinitely more than sv because it is actually secure. you can't compare a retarded minority hash insecure scamtoken to fucking bitcoin THE crypto.

[Anonymous No.16233366]

>>16233318
>you can't compare a retarded minority hash insecure scamtoken to fucking bitcoin THE crypto
I can when the coin in question is nothing like Bitcoin. Hash is the only THE ONLY thing it has going for it. Or maybe I should say price, either one. Speculators tried to push the tech as far as they could, but in the end (and really the whole time) what drives these cycles is adoption. BTC will maybe hit 20k again from pure speculation, but it has no long term viability no added adoption to drive it.

[Anonymous No.16233384]

>>16233366
cope harder nigga! bitcoin is the only chain keeping the nakamoto consensus unbroken since satoshi started it with his genesis block.
THE ONLY ONE MOTHERFUCKER

[Anonymous No.16233394]

>>16233366
i need to go to sleep but this was fun... a bit frustrating but fun.

[Anonymous No.16233410]

>>16233384
Nah, Segwit was a break of consensus. Besides you only btfo yourself once BSV has dominate hash.

[Anonymous No.16233420]

>>16233394
sleep tight