Literal Cope

[Anonymous No.16559539]

>No such thing as block size ever mentioned in the whitepaper.
Corecucks will defend this

[Anonymous No.16559600]

>>16559539
its in section 13 after Segwit and Lightning network is described

[Anonymous No.16559632]

>>16559600
Nice one!

[Anonymous No.16559669]

>>16559539
>Muh whitepaper
Stop drinking söylent

[Anonymous No.16559832]

>>16559669
>what is importance of a standard specification?

[Anonymous No.16559845]

>>16559539
>Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Nani? Bitcoin is a p2p hodl system

[Anonymous No.16559865]

>>16559845
Nice one!(1)

[Anonymous No.16559928]

>>16559539
21M supply cap isn't in the whitepaper either

[Anonymous No.16560017]

>>16559928
Lmao this
Increase the supply cap immediately!
We need inflation!!

[Anonymous No.16560219]

BTC need PoS and 10% inflation.

[Anonymous No.16560237]

>>16559632
>>16559600
ya.. fuck progress amirite?

[Anonymous No.16560238]

>>16560219
Absolute state of Corecucks.

[Anonymous No.16561126]

BTC needs ICOs.

[Anonymous No.16561164]

>>16559539
also it's mentioned 1 cpu 1 vote and it's not the case , so what's your point bsvtard?

Should i remind you that satoshi endorsed the block limit due to spam txs.

[Anonymous No.16561189]

>>16559539
who cares about the whitepaper it only had any significance before bitcoin went live. satoshi implemented and maintained bitcoin he didn't care to maintain the whitepaper.

[Anonymous No.16561193]

>>16561164
"TEMPORARY" block limit not forever. In future we will decrese blocks size. smaller blocks = more decentralization.

[Anonymous No.16561197]

>>16559928
lot of things are not in the whitepaper others are inaccurately described and or with archaic lingo

[Anonymous No.16561207]

>>16561193
You miss the point , conditions change, by the time the fork to upgrade should have been made btc capitalization was in the billions, the risk of a fuck up was too high , today they fork non stop , even in 2017 forks were seen as something dangerous.

Something like eth and eth 2.0 cohexisting would have been seen as a failure in 2017 because the meme was one coin one chain.

Core really did not had the will to risk everything, also luke dashjr is considered a lunatic by even other core devs.

[Anonymous No.16561210]

what bitcoin is not:
- a whitepaper
- a gargantuan garbage dump of stale data stored immutably forever
- whatever satoshi said in a forum post
- whatever faketoshi dreams up in delirium
- whatever sv jeets shrill and rave about currently

[Anonymous No.16561271]

>>16561164
>and it's not the case
The fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.16561302]

>>16561210
what bitcoin is:
- a trustless permissionless publicly auditable ledger that is also secure
- a non-custodial peer-to-peer electronic payment system
- a network of nodes enforcing a common ruleset shaping a common reality in a trustless manner
- the longest blockchain under the consensus ruleset with the largest commulative hash proven by a specific form of proof of work
- a protocol that describes how consensus is reached on ordering transactions and how difficulty and coinbase supply adjusts over time
- a greater consensus on the ruleset that governs the protocol
- a standard reference client implementation created by nakamoto and maintained as an open source project
- an unspent transaction output spendable to a script returning true

[Anonymous No.16561465]

>>16559832
it doesn't mention the 21 million coin limit either

[Anonymous No.16561482]

>>16561271
Those are asics , not cpus and those are not 1 cpu 1 vote , they are working in pools so you got millions of asics and 30 votes of pools.

But then again bsvtards don't understand how crypto really works.

[Anonymous No.16561517]

>>16561482
>But then again bsvtards don't understand how crypto really works.

Ok, Boomer. ASICs are specialized CPUs and the more you have the more voting power you have. Please spare us a reply with more of your low IQ nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16561590]

>>16561517
it's really counter intuitive to call mining voting. i understand what satoshi meant by it it just implies someone actually records and counts those votes or a decision is made based on them. also miners can change their mind. they can also keep their votes to themselves and only dump them on the network when nobody expects. altho these attacks are mostly only viable on minority hash shitcoins not bitcoin they can still theoretically happen.

[Anonymous No.16561608]

>>16561517
>ASICs are specialized CPUs
they are most definitely and categorically not cpus. application specific integrated circuit just read it out loud if you don't get it at first. they are not processors they can only do a single trick.

[Anonymous No.16561671]

>>16561608
well of course technically there is a pic or processor in every miner unit that handles the network communication coordination and the work distribution.

so while asic chips are not cpus bitcoi miners probably fit that description. however here is the tricky part. do miners have a vote? no they don't. they do the pools bidding. the pool has as many votes as many miners it has (for simplicity sake forget the hashrate differences). so 1 cpu has many cpus delegated voting power. so that would imply 1 cpu 1 vote is not true. but if the pool abuses the trust of the miners the owners switch pools thus revoking their voting right delegation. which still means 1 miner 1 vote.

fuck if one can make sense of this mess objectively.

[Anonymous No.16561686]

>>16561608
jfc, dude. CPU's are an integrated circuit. ASICs are specialized (hence application specific). It isn't a general use processor. It does one thing and does it well and its exactly what Satoshi said would happen as Bitcoin scales.

[Anonymous No.16561694]

>>16561686
asics are not processors period. they are closer to fpgas except the technology used to make the circuitry is different.

the funny thing is you could burn a cpu architecture on a sufficiently advanced fpga chip but not on an asic obviously.

[Anonymous No.16561752]

>>16561590
>>16561608
>>16561671
>>16561694
you should post with an autism card

[Anonymous No.16561859]

>>16561671
here is antminer s1 control board it looks like a mini-pc can't find exact specs but it's an obvious guess.

[Anonymous No.16561937]

>>16561671
More hash = more voting power. It's pretty simple.

>>16561859
idk why you're expecting (or surprised) a thing that is specifically designed to solve hashpuzzles to also process other things.

[Anonymous No.16562197]

>>16561937
not surprised i just pointed out the obvious distinction between a computer with a cpu and an asic chip or asic board which has no cpu.

[Anonymous No.16562215]

>>16561937
>More hash = more voting power.
yeas but that's not the 1 cpu 1 vote satoshi described.
also it's weird in a way because in propagation and not mining it is 1 cpu 1 vote every node decides for itself if a block is valid or not and what is the longest valid chain.
so it's really ambiguous valid arguments can be made pro and contra people who think they know the answer are probably just too biased and suffer from tunnel vision.

[Anonymous No.16562221]

>>16559539
the code came before the white paper
block size was discussed with satoshi here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

[Anonymous No.16562249]

>>16562221
>the code came before the white paper
nah the whitepaper is from 2007 published it in 2008 and the code was released to the public in 2009 he evidently worked on it in 2008 but i don't know about any evidence it actually predates the drafting of the whitepaper.

[Anonymous No.16562265]

>>16562215
>yeas but that's not the 1 cpu 1 vote satoshi described
>Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote

It's a simplification. He clearly states "CPU power" many times throughout the whitepaper. To take it completely at face value is to ignore everything else he said and how Bitcoin actually works. Otherwise nobody would be investing millions into R & D and instead just buy as many dirt fucking cheap CPUs they could get their hands on.

[Anonymous No.16562311]

>>16562265
exactly my point m8 you can't take the whitepaper my other point is the reference implementation satoshi released and maintained trumps the whitepaper which is just a slightly related thesis by orders of magnitude it's not even funny.

what satoshi implemented is bitcoin. the whitepaper is not. you could fork 10 billion forks from the code they would still have the same whitepaper but only 1 would be bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16562322]

>>16562311
>you can't take the whitepaper
*too literally

[Anonymous No.16562323]

>>16560017
inflation is actually, unironically a good thing.
bitcoin's pow has to be paid for - either through transaction fees, or through mining rewards.
transaction fees specifically target people who actually use bitcoin, while mining rewards hit everyone equally.