/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.16744531]

Where is the bonded courier? Why hasn't he dumped his 1.1 million BTC?

[Anonymous No.16744571]

Why is it pumping the most in the top 50?

[Anonymous No.16744579]

>>16744571
BSV will be the longest chain.

[Anonymous No.16744591]

>>16744579
in your dreams but still it will never be the longest chain under pre-fork bitcoin ruleset. which means it will never be bitcoin. no matter what happens. shit is fucked.

[Anonymous No.16744601]

>>16744571
exit scam by calvin most likely. and or random p&d group found it.

[Anonymous No.16744703]

calvin will seize the p2sh coins when the genesis upgrade goes live

[Anonymous No.16744714]

>>16744591
>it will never be the longest chain under pre-fork bitcoin ruleset. which means it will never be bitcoin
Looks like your full of shit. Read the white paper and its "set in stone" rules:

The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.

[Anonymous No.16744739]

>>16744591
>it will never be the longest chain under pre-fork bitcoin ruleset. which means it will never be bitcoin
Looks like your full of shit. Read the white papers "set in stone" rules, segwit broke BTC:

"The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone."

[Anonymous No.16744740]

>>16744703
only if he has the hashpower
don't forget the major pools have a few 10 exahash reserve that momentarily can move to sv to reorg the shit out of calvins 1 exa.

[Anonymous No.16744756]

>>16744739
no segwit broke no rules. a soft fork is a stricter ruleset means 100% compatible with the old ruleset. you are brainwashed by a retarded propaganda. bch broke bitcoin ruleset with a minority fork and made a new alt. there is no going back ever.

[Anonymous No.16744766]

>>16744739
>the longest proof-of-work chain
and that is bitcoin aka btc. no client following the original nakamoto consensus would accept the bch chain because of the difficulty cut.

[Anonymous No.16744804]

>>16744740
Why these other miners haven't done it already? It would be economic suicide.
Bitcoin would not succeed without massive patent portfolio nChain offers to the ecosystem.

>>16744756
Stop lying sleezebag! Forking is security feature against corrupted actors, just like the white paper describes.

[Anonymous No.16744830]

>>16744804
>Why these other miners haven't done it already? It would be economic suicide.
not really no. reorg for the sake of double spend would not be worth it. sv is saved by the fact it doesn't have a mature and well established futures market where an attacker could short it ensuring his profitability.

>Forking is security feature against corrupted actors
only if it's a majority fork. bch had nor users nor hash nor business and financial services majority support. it's a minority fork that goes against protocol and more importantly the social consensus. shit is fucked and it will never be bitcoin nor will any of it's forks.

[Anonymous No.16744945]

>>16744804

[Anonymous No.16745363]

>>16744830
When BSV develops mature and well established market, miners who try to attack it would commit economic suicide.

There is no requirements saying that original scaling plan needs to be majority fork.

Who here is against protocol? Satoshi's Vision has saved Bitcoin's protocol and its features.

There is no way BTC can stay competative in terms of miner rewards, your game is over.

[Anonymous No.16745727]

>>16745363
>When BSV develops mature and well established market, miners who try to attack it would commit economic suicide.
no i explained why not. a 51% attack is completely feasible in fact trivial on a minority hash shitfork and would be extremely profitable for anyone that shorts it.

[Anonymous No.16745735]

>>16745363
>There is no requirements saying that original scaling plan needs to be majority fork.
no it's only a requirement for bitcoin that it follows the original protocol or at least forks in a consensus manner. either one is fine neither is a shitcoin in the making.

[Anonymous No.16745795]

>>16745727
>a 51% attack is completely feasible in fact trivial on a minority hash shitfork and would be extremely profitable for anyone that shorts it
You claim its trivial, and extremely profitable, yet it hasnt been done. Stop these bullshit lies already.

>>16745735
BTC does not follow the original protocol, consensus is only decided by CPU power.

[Anonymous No.16745859]

>when bsv gets adoption bla bla
Get it through your thick skulls, shills. No institution nor coorporation that matters will work with a guy with IRS and law problems that can't even legally do business in the USA and a scammer with a documented trail of forgeries, forced by courts to cough up a billion and doesn't even have it. Gtfo.

[Anonymous No.16745941]

>>16745795
>consensus is only decided by CPU power
>BTC has 120Eh/s
>BSV has 1Eh/s
Yes you are right, BTC is the real BTC

[Anonymous No.16745956]

>>16745941
>"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures."
>removes signatures

[Anonymous No.16745965]

>>16745956
>implement it as UTXO

[Anonymous No.16745987]

>>16744766
BTC is not Bitcoin. There is no segwit in Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16746001]

>>16744531
It turned out to be a bondage courier. Craig ordered the wrong kind. Very sad, but sadly true

[Anonymous No.16746015]

>>16744531
BSVishnus getting dunked on rn
Tulip Trust was just a meme, lmao
most likely going to hear some excuses and push the date forward, kekekek, you know its true

[Anonymous No.16746058]

>>16746015
Not even excuses any more. Just pure word salad.

[Anonymous No.16746078]

>>16744804
>>16744945

[Anonymous No.16746081]

>>16745987
right, BTC is bitcoin cash per subreddit tards

inb4 back to plebbit

[Anonymous No.16746083]

>>16744531

[Anonymous No.16746097]

>>16745859
This, they are so dumb that it's funny.

[Anonymous No.16746101]

>>16744579
All these patents are just so Calvin and Craig can patent troll for the rest of their lives, maintaining their lifestyle of never working or accomplishing anything of real value

[Anonymous No.16746167]

Do you know why BSV fags believe in this bullshit? Peer reinforcement. They have a tight-knit community of Twitter femboys (periodically raiding /biz/) and they just keep virtue-signalling to each other relentlessly.

[Anonymous No.16746197]

>>16746167
>virtue-signalling
circlejercking

[Anonymous No.16746223]

>>16746167
This, uh, is a very similar dynamic to how real Bitcoin started.

[Anonymous No.16746226]

>>16746223
t. Twitter femboy

[SatoshjN !!10gqEJw60kl No.16746269]

>>16746001
but craig is gay af

[Anonymous No.16746500]

>>16745956
This

[Anonymous No.16746571]

This man will be the death of me - nothing more than an eccentrically versed migraine.
His claims are made for no purpose other than monetary gain. You followers will feel shame when you realize his truths.
I will never reveal my original self. To do so is insanity that I refuse to accept.
This site has fallen.
I will never post here again. Accept your terms.

[Anonymous No.16746790]

>>16744945
Thank you. This guy gets it.
Vote bitcoincashSV if you want to support a failing scam which wants everything centralized.
Support bitcoin core if you want to continue with stability into a future with decentralized crypto.

[Anonymous No.16746804]

>>16746571

>>16746790

Hi O1G

[Anonymous No.16747552]

Someone build $btc atop of $bsv so the the deluded hodlers finally can wake up

[Anonymous No.16747593]

>>16746571
Gregory?

[Anonymous No.16747611]

>>16746571
you need rest O1G lmao

[Anonymous No.16747624]

>>16746804
>>16747611
traumatized and pooper pained

[Anonymous No.16747646]

>>16746078
kek i do think btc is more than that but the energy use and co2 figures per tx make me extremely unsure. i mean even if you increased the tx throughput a 100 fold it would still be unsustainable long term. 2nd layer solutions must blow this thing up exponentially or we are all fucked.

[Anonymous No.16747679]

>>16747646
talking about this

[Anonymous No.16747722]

>>16746083
holy momma if this is real

[Anonymous No.16747750]

>>16747679
completely fake news, show source

[Anonymous No.16747892]

>>16747679
This is disingenuous because the energy expenditure is not correlated to transactions per second, so trying to say that a transaction uses x amount of energy is just plain wrong

[Anonymous No.16747942]

>>16747892
we got a moving average on btc tx count per sec and the energy consumption it's pretty simple math. nothing disingenuous about it. my problem is even if btc went big blocks this picture would still be catastrophic enough for a world wide ban in the future. bitcoin gonna get gretaed unless it starts actually scaling by magnitudes upon magnitudes.

[Anonymous No.16747952]

>>16747750
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
it's not like source was not in the filename but i'm prepared to reason with low iq people when i enter these threads.

[Anonymous No.16748460]

>>16747942
You're thinking about this wrong. Energy is used to mine blocks, not to process transactions (comparatively, very little energy is used for tx processing). Blocks will happen regardless of transactions as the main source of mining revenue is the block reward, so a transaction on bitcoin isn't actually using much extra energy. Now you could argue that full blocks have a higher chance of orphaning which is wasted work (and therefore wasted energy) but the orphan rate in bitcoin is like 0.5% so that's pretty insignificant.
Tl;dr transactions on bitcoin don't consume energy, blocks do.

[Anonymous No.16748569]

>>16748460
my point is the popular opinion will easily be swayed to look how that picture describes it. sure a block with 1 tx or a 1000 takes the same energy to make. but people will look at the cost/transaction when they judge worthiness. because the blocks and the blockchain are not the useful part of bitcoin but the necessary evil. the useful part is the ledger and transactions.

[Anonymous No.16748589]

>>16748569
and by the way the miner subsidy is to blame for this interesting situation. without miner subsidy the tx fee has to cover the costs of a transaction simple math. you could say the subsidy is the extra environmental cost placed on the ecosystem.

i don't like it either but it's kinda true.

[Anonymous No.16748620]

>>16744591
tick tock

[Anonymous No.16748629]

>>16748620
>bloated chain is good

[Anonymous No.16748634]

>>16744531
STOP DONALD WRIGHT .COM

[Anonymous No.16748639]

>>16744601
>exit scam
> Bitcoin

[Anonymous No.16748655]

>>16744756
>no massa segwit a gud boi hash of a signature dindu nuffin

[Anonymous No.16748673]

>>16748620
blockchains are not tossed on a scale for mb nigga post the chart about cumulative pow if you dare!

[Anonymous No.16748677]

>>16745941
from the whitepaper
>The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.
now see pic related
>>16748620
and current blockheight
bsv
>616,181
btc
>611,364

[Anonymous No.16748694]

>>16748629
>>16748673
bsv is outpacing btc as per the whitepaper outlined by satoshi
cope harder cucks

[Anonymous No.16748706]

>>16748639
no idea what you are ranting about sv never gonna be bitcoin.
>>16748655
enough of the nigger talk segwit was a perfectly fine fork that makes perfect sense and also perfectly opt-in. it did not break protocol in a philosophical or technical definition.
the cashie fallacy is completely undefendable in a technical discussion as it has been proven by countless threads about this (you can read them on warosu).

[Anonymous No.16748725]

>>16748694
most definitely not.

[Anonymous No.16748765]

>>16748694
>The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.

this is only true within and unbroken nakamoto cosnensus.
obviously if you adjust down the difficulty with a fork it can easily outpace in block count or block size the bitcoin chain. that makes it bitcoin? heh hell no as it has absolutely no meaning outside bitcoin ruleset and difficulty adjustment.
chcek-mate you brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16748794]

>>16748765
>>16748765
>absolutely no meaning outside bitcoin ruleset and difficulty adjustment.
can't wait for the halving
you'll learn

[Anonymous No.16748820]

>>16746226
you are the only faggot here acting like a twitter fag. KYS

[Anonymous No.16748828]

>>16748725
>MOST DEFINITELY NOT

[Anonymous No.16749094]

>>16748794
https://coin.dance/blocks/proofofwork
you seriously think sv (assuming anyone would accept it's chain legit under bitcoin protocol which is absurd) can make up for 3000 yottahashes? you are just fucking trolling.

[Anonymous No.16749105]

>>16748828
brainlet read before you try to meme. educate yourself! saves you a lot of embarrassment.

[Anonymous No.16749124]

>>16749094
you have smolbrain and can't see the potential and lack of any for btc
sucks to be you

[Anonymous No.16749141]

>>16749124
oh so we are down to insults. what did i expect... same fucking clueless brainlets in every thread that have no idea wtf bitcoin or consensus is. you forgot posting STIFF imbecile!

[Anonymous No.16749145]

>>16749141
STIFF

[Anonymous No.16749340]

>>16749145
thank you
now i can go to sleep

[Anonymous No.16749367]

>>16749340
cya tomorrow greg for the next thread

[Anonymous No.16750403]

>>16744579
>Patents

[Anonymous No.16750450]

>>16746167
>Peer reinforcement
BTC has the most of this, so you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.16750462]

>>16748629
>bloat
>pays miners

[Anonymous No.16750465]

>>16748706
>sv never gonna be bitcoin
SV always was Bitcoin, pleb. Enjoy your digital hodl

[Anonymous No.16750469]

>>16750403
>laws don't apply to Bitcoin

[Anonymous No.16750470]

>>16745795
>You claim its trivial, and extremely profitable, yet it hasnt been done.
There's not enough volume to make it worth the 51% attack.

[Anonymous No.16750663]

>>16750469
>Laws

Kek bitcoin was created to bypass the middlemen and fucking laws.
I am sure the phone companies did not like the internet stealing their clients even if laws forced communication companies to be regulated and still tech advanced and whatsapp fucked international calls no matter what the regulations or laws said.

[Anonymous No.16750665]

>>16744531
the judge reaffirmed that Craig Wright was indeed acting in bad faith in court. The judge rejected Wright’s testimony, found that he perjured himself, found him in contempt of court, and found that he falsified documents, according to court documents.

[Anonymous No.16750689]

>>16750663
If you think Bitcoin was designed to skirt laws then I sincerely hope you're breaking all the laws you can on the public ledger ran by massive data centers subject to government raids.

[Anonymous No.16751017]

>>16750663
>woke
>>16750689
>broke
nobody can seize anything you dumb retard, full nodes are spread all over the world and in different jurisdictions
make a giant blockchain that contains terabytes of trash and you will see bsv full node count dropping to sub-10

[Anonymous No.16751090]

>>16746571
lmfao I think he's really going to lose it, lads

[Anonymous No.16751094]

>>16744531
>Be Bonded Courier
>Have bond
>Pay insurance premium for said bond
>See you have a package to deliver to Craig
>Open up package
>Become billionaire
IT WAS STOLEN FROM HIM!!!
Its the ONLY way this didn't happen!

[Anonymous No.16751110]

>>16750665
Don't you see its a conspiracy! (((They))) want to defame him, that way BTC will remain under their control. They can't have BSV succeed, even though it is made 100% by Satoshi.

[Anonymous No.16751375]

>>16744531
Why are corekeks so afraid of Satoshi?

[Anonymous No.16751417]

>>16751375
Cos they are losing everything, not even bsv stacks can save them from eternal shame.

[Anonymous No.16751425]

>>16744531
OHNONONO BSV PAJEETS ON SUICIDE WATCH

[Anonymous No.16751461]

>>16751425
BSV will be the longest chain.

These Blockstream kikes are sour because BitCoin is protected by blockchain patents.

[Anonymous No.16751518]

>>16751461
read >>16748765
>>16749094
simply can't be the "longest chain" in any meaningful way even if it becomes longest in block height that doesn't mean anything.
anyone can produce a fork of bitcoin that has larger block height than btc. it takes about 5 to 30 minutes for an average coder. but it would never in a billion years be bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16751586]

>>16751518
You have been talking bullshit earlier in this thread.
Please show everyone how you economically outcompete Bitcoin's original scaling plan with sha256, you are free to use more than 30 minutes.

[Anonymous No.16751825]

>>16744531
>he
Thats a woman on the pic though, anon

[Anonymous No.16751892]

>>16751586
https://cryptoservices.github.io/blockchain/consensus/2019/05/21/bitcoin-length-weight-confusion.html
just educate yourself!

[Anonymous No.16751901]

>>16751586
also i have no idea who circlejerked those numbers together but the sad reality is big blocks don't transfer value at all. bitcoin has the potential to transfer billions of dollars in a single tx. about 2 to 10 billion usd is sent every day over the bitcoin network.

all your stupid shit been easily rekt and you still pushing.

[Anonymous No.16751924]

>>16751892
Still waiting you to prove those bullshit claims.
Show us how trivial and extremely profitable it is to crash BSV.
What about that 30 min bitcoin fork which can economically outcompete original scaling plan?

[Anonymous No.16751947]

>>16751901
Are you really this dumb? It clearly says comparison of potential processing capacity.

[Anonymous No.16751953]

>>16751924
like i said if you have the ability to short it properly. then it's trivial for a few exahash to switch from btc to sv and start mining blocks to max size filled with absolute junk. most of the nodes will crash instantly some will crash when the hdd is filled a few may not crash but give up due to the chain becoming useless as no legit tx goes through no miner has any profit. price would start to drop the moment a 51% attack is confirmed.

the attacker can prevent other pools from joining in the fray simply by shadow mining for quiet a few blocks reorging that would require more hash than what the entire btc network has after a while and there would be no incentive to do so on a failing shitcoin with plummeting price.

roughly...

[Anonymous No.16751957]

>>16751901
So the cost of fees and the value of transactions are both lower. BSV is working as intended- fucking cash you absolute pleb. BSV can and will eventually complete hundreds of thousands or millions of txs per day immutably, securely and this will likely include transfers worth millions or billions. BTC is a joke and used for money laundering. Fingers crossed this is the year that joke of a ponzi finally goes to zero.

[Anonymous No.16751961]

>>16751947
but that's bullshit and i explained why. the only theoretical limit bitcoin has on sent value is derived from total market cap.

[Anonymous No.16751968]

>>16751957
if it doesn't transfer value it's worthless and pointless. it has no real adoption just a bunch of spam. that's what that picture proves.
>Fingers crossed this is the year that joke of a ponzi finally goes to zero.
rofl just play the fucking lottery! better chances.

[Anonymous No.16751969]

>>16744531
The idea that Craig is Satoshi depends on whether he is a threat to the criminal network hiding their capital in BTC. He is clearly not a threat. He is not Satoshi.

[Anonymous No.16751985]

>>16751953
>if you have the ability to short it properly. then it's trivial
This was not your intial claim dipshit, "ability" in this context means billions of dollars, so its not trivial or extremely profitable.

[Anonymous No.16752005]

>>16751953
timing is crucial tho you execute this attack to best effect the moment they announce that sv protocol is locked in and they are done forking. and it's also very important to note that unless you can short it properly with a mature and reliable futures market it's extremely risky as the attack itself can only cost you a lot. you lose the bitcoins you would have mined and sv price will plummet instantly not that it would support your attack in any way.

[Anonymous No.16752013]

>>16751461
The longest turd more like amirite lads? Eh?

[Anonymous No.16752018]

>>16751985
it would be if sv was not an absolute shitcoin. and no it doesn't require billions of dollars. assume the attacker already has the hardware he only has the alternative cost of bitcoins not mined.

let's say the attacker uses 2 exahash, so that's $9k per hour.

[Anonymous No.16752035]

>>16744804
brainlet here.
please explain,
if someone with a few $million wants to spam the network,
can he grow the blockchain by a few terabytes in a few days?

[Anonymous No.16752036]

>>16752018
>he doesnt know that calvin sits on 2,800 petahash that can jump on BSV at any minute

[Anonymous No.16752037]

>>16744756
this guy gets it

[Anonymous No.16752044]

>>16752018
let's say the attacker uses only 20 bitcoins to short sv and he shadow mines for only a day then pushes out his blocks and violently reorgs the chain, this will cost him 200k and his potential minimum gain is a short on 1.4m assuming safe 10x leverage to start. but of course as the price reacts he can safely increase his leverage before most people desperately try to cash out. it's actually quiet easy you don't even need to be a whale or anything. but to be massively profitable you would want to short with thousands of bitcoins. that would really be worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.16752046]

>>16752005
Your initial claim was that "51% attack is trivial and extremely profitable for anyone that shorts it". Stop the bullshit already.

>>16752013
Fuck the whitepaper eh?

>>16752018
Your assumptions are dead wrong, but please show us how to kill BitCoin with mere 9k$ per hour. When you are ready with that 30 min bitcoin fork that can economically outcompete original scaling plan?

[Anonymous No.16752054]

>>16744756
>no segwit broke no rules
it literally destroyed bitcoin as defined in the whitepaper imagine being this retarded lmao

[Anonymous No.16752055]

>>16752036
no he doesn't but let's assume that he does, what he gonna do? try to reorg an attacker with a day head start? impossible. he would have to wrestle him for control on the attackers chain. that would be extremely costly as sv and possibly bch would plummet like shitcoin never before.

but if the attacker uses 3 exa then he only needs to spend $12k per hour on the attack. so like you can't fucking win this.

you have to realize how absolutely retarded minority shitforks are.

[Anonymous No.16752064]

>>16752046
and i proved my claim. it's easy and trivial and cheap enough. your profitability depend on your ability to short it. but you can make sure your attack does maximum damage with more consideration and timing.
>Your assumptions are dead wrong, but please show us how to kill BitCoin with mere 9k$ per hour.
i showed how you kill sv with $9k an hour you just have to read it.

[Anonymous No.16752067]

>>16752055
*ahem*
https://squiremining.com/squire-agrees-to-purchase-companies-with-cloud-computing-assets-totaling-approx-2982-petahash-to-become-one-of-the-worlds-largest-public-blockchain-computing-companies/

[Anonymous No.16752069]

I'm just tired of the obvious shilling. The BSV Pajeets make really cringe memes about Craig's dick and insert the claim that he's Satoshi awkwardly and clumsily into any possible sentence as if there are people on this board who don't yet know that he claims he is Satoshi. Even if he WAS Satoshi, which he's clearly not, fuck that piece of shit, hes a fucking liar, conman, scammer and fraud, with delusions of grandeur and egomania. Too bad nobody on this board even knows what BSV is supposed to do, the paid shills are too busy talking about Craig's dick to even properly shill their product. It's obvious that it was never about disagreements on what direction Bitcoin should go, it's only been about Craig and his need for copious amounts of attention and narcissistic supply and masturbating his egomania.

[Anonymous No.16752071]

>>16752054
no it didn't. segwit changes nothing really. you structure your tx differently that's all. it opens up possibilities and changes no fundamentals. quiet brilliant.

[Anonymous No.16752077]

>>16752067
yes yes but nothing came of it and squire still didn't receive a single 10nm fpga miner from samsung they pushed the date to 2020 when everyone and their mother doing 7nm miners. it's all bullshit and squire is near bankruptcy.
if calvin has a single exahash i will eat my fucking hat.

[Anonymous No.16752093]

>>16752064
You havent proven anything with dead wrong assumptions kiddo.

Where is that 30 min bitcoin fork that was outcompeting other sha256 versions in block height?

[Anonymous No.16752110]

>>16752071
bitcoin is definied as a chain of digital signatures in the whitepaper. segwit breaks that chains. who do you think youre playing with here lmao
>>16752077
*AHEM*
https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2018/12/squire-mining-to-acquire-coingeek-making-it-the-largest-publicly-traded-bitcoin-miner/
squire was on track to being the biggest bitcoin miner on the planet even BEFORE That takeover, calvin is a literal billionaire and they are prepared to mine at a loss until 2025 if they have to. just give it up corekeks, youve already been checkmated and none of your whinging will save you.

[Anonymous No.16752115]

>>16744531
>he
anon, I... uh

[Anonymous No.16752160]

>>16752110
>bitcoin is definied as a chain of digital signatures in the whitepaper.
a bitcoin is an utxo not a chain of signatures. nor was it ever since first release. satoshi wrote that paper in 2007 but in the first release he already

added scripting and smart contract support.
>digital coin is defined as a chain of digital signatures
>Segwit breaks the chain of digital signatures
is a coinbase a bitcoin or not?
because based on that definition it's not bitcoin. but that's evidently wrong.
>We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures
then https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/9b0fc92260312ce44e74ef369f5c66bbb85848f2eddd5a7a1cde251e54ccfdd5
is not bitcoin. there is no chain of signatures it's just an utxo
the blockchain is part of the consensus mechanism but represents zero value in itself all the records stored on it are absolutely and completely

worthless if they don't help you in building your utxo.

here is a multi choice question:
what can you spend as per the bitcoin protocol?
a) signatures, bitcoin is a chain of signatures so i can spend signatures with signatures
b) an unspent transaction output provided you add a valid unlock script that executes to true
c) i'm a cashie retard so the whitepaper!

also squire haven't acquired any hash. if you research a bit, you will see later announcements about pushing out the deadline and still testing their design when it's already obsolete.

[Anonymous No.16752171]

>>16752110
>squire was on track to being the biggest bitcoin miner on the planet
where did you get that fucking nonsense? squire had less than 2% of bitcoin hashrate and now has less than 1%. they are a tiny mouse at best.

[Anonymous No.16752180]

>>16752160
>but in the first release he already
>added scripting and smart contract support
wait, so according to bsv shills satoshi can't be satoshi?

[Anonymous No.16752186]

>>16752180
dunno what's going in their minds still exploring possibilities.

[Anonymous No.16752192]

>>16752160
This is concise and insightful.

[Anonymous No.16752204]

>>16752192
this is more concise

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

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

cashies are willfully ignorant of the fact that bitcoin protocol is a billion times more specific than the whitepaper. and often mapping the two to each other requires some lax and creative interpretation from the get go.

you could make countless implementations that never contradict the whitepaper and none of them would ever be bitcoin. thus we can conclude the whitepaper is evidently not bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16752220]

Craig has publicly stated that BTC is enabling crimes against humanity. In court he described a humanitarian crisis involving human and organ trafficking, sexual abuse of minors, drug trafficking, assasination markets, and threats on national security via hacking and ransomware. Why has he chosen to prolong this crisis?

Put humans before your bags just once and it is obvious, he is a fraud. He wept for these people in court and now he wants to prolong their pain and allow more people to be victims for financial gain? Try to think like a human and not a bugman.

[Anonymous No.16752256]

>>16752204
they just highjacked btc github and removed isntant transactions and introduced segwit which breaks chain retard

[Anonymous No.16752262]

>>16752204
>bitcoin is trustless
Read the WP dipshit, it mentions trust 14 times.

I assume your claims of that 30 min bitcoin fork econonically outcompeting longest chain was also bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16752280]

>>16752262
>Read the WP dipshit, it mentions trust 14 times.
based retard

[Anonymous No.16752282]

>>16752204
>bitcoin is trustless
Read the WP dipshit, it mentions trust 14 times.

I assume your claim of that 30 min bitcoin fork economically outcompeting longest chain was also bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16752314]

>>16752256
as the whitepaper is not bitcoin the github repo is not bitcoin either. even the source code is not necessarily bitcoin.

bitcoin is a consensus and a ruleset a completely new implementation of the bitcoin ruleset in a different language altogether would still be bitcoin.

don't be stupid think a bit about this try to dig to the fundamentals. how can you define bitcoin that actually stands up to a malicious test?

>>16752282
i still have no idea what 30min bitcoin fork you are talking about. you should expand on this i ignored it because it sounds like random brainfart to me.

[Anonymous No.16752344]

>>16752256
also nobody "removed instant transactions" 0-conf assuming it's what you are talking about was always a bad idea but was always possible to accept.

if you don't use rbf flag which is completely opt-in you can still use legacy 0-conf transactions but only a fool would accept them. double spends were pretty easy before rbf it just made them more trivial. timing on topology attacks are also rather uncomplicated on both shitforks.

[Anonymous No.16752353]

>>16752282
the WP uses the word trust 14 times to say that trust is the problem and it needs to be removed.

[Anonymous No.16752406]

>>16752314
"anyone can produce a fork of bitcoin that has larger block height than btc. it takes about 5 to 30 minutes for an average coder. but it would never in a billion years be bitcoin"
You are full of bullshit, but feel free to prove otherwise by outcompeting BSV.

[Anonymous No.16752407]

>>16752344
are you retarded? 0conf is essential part of bitcoin, without it it's no longer bitcoin you dumbfuck
greg go get life

[Anonymous No.16752436]

>>16752406
ah that one, yeah it would take about 5 to 30 mins to fork satoshis original code replace the genesis block (which is not in the whitepaper) compile it and start it.

[Anonymous No.16752438]

>>16747593
>>16747611
>>16746804
>>16751090
You morons I was larping as the real satoshi. Stop caring about random schizos enough to know their names

[Anonymous No.16752446]

>>16752407
again it has not been removed it's just stupid. bitcoin protocol as a timestamping server exist because 0-conf is prone to double spend. satoshi never ever claimed 0-conf is a good idea if your end is not trivially reversible like online orders or movie ticked bookings.

[Anonymous No.16752478]

>>16752436
Im waiting for you to show us fork which is economically better sha256 alternative than the original scaling plan.

[Anonymous No.16752484]

>>16752438
>You morons I was larping as the real satoshi
>i was larping
>why won't you believe me
>morons

[Anonymous No.16752495]

>>16752484
Stay frantic

[Anonymous No.16752568]

>>16752478
dude are you retarded? what does that have to do with anything in that debate? read
https://cryptoservices.github.io/blockchain/consensus/2019/05/21/bitcoin-length-weight-confusion.html

if you want to produce a longer chain than btc all you have to do is fuck with the difficulty adjusting algo. start your own chain remove difficulty adjust let it rip with a 1 TH/s btc miner, it would overcome bitcoin blockheight in less than a week.

[Anonymous No.16752591]

>>16752568
and that is precisely why bch is not bitcoin. when you fuck with the difficulty algo you fork off the bitcoin protocol and your block height is meaningless. your block weight is absolutely meaningless as it's practically free to make.

the only thing that makes the nakamoto consensus started by satoshi meaningful is the cumulative hashrate. which is above 3000 yottahash on btc.

that's the only thing you can never catch up to.

[Anonymous No.16752596]

>>16752568
>if you want to produce a longer chain than btc all you have to do is fuck with the difficulty adjusting algo. start your own chain remove difficulty adjust
How is this economically better alternative than the original scaling plan? Jusr admit being wrong and apologize already.

[Anonymous No.16752645]

>>16752591
i mean if you do then bitcoin is dead and the fork probably inherits the name even tho the nakamoto consensus it carries is not unbroken. it would be extremely disgraceful and lame, but sure if you get the largest cumulative hash you will have the longest chain according to the whitepaper.

chances of this are close to non-existent tho. but go on prove me wrong. you got about 40 years before i die.

[Anonymous No.16752661]

>>16752596
where did i say that? i mean an argument could be made obviously but fuck if i'm gonna bother. i said you can make a technically longer chain that is not bitcoin. thus block height is meaningless as a metric to the longest chain as described in the whitepaper.

and i see you have no counter arguments to this so you try to move the goalpost.

[Anonymous No.16752672]

>>16752596
>Jusr admit being wrong and apologize already.
rofl yeah right after craig signs publicly and you actually manage to prove me wrong i will.

[Anonymous No.16752674]

>>16752645
>i mean if you do then bitcoin is dead and the fork probably inherits the name even tho the nakamoto consensus it carries is not unbroken. it would be extremely disgraceful and lame, but sure if you get the largest cumulative hash you will have the longest chain according to the whitepaper

[Anonymous No.16752686]

>>16752674
well like i said you got 40 years dude have at it!
i won't hold my breath if it's all the same to you.

[Anonymous No.16752769]

>>16752661
Then what the fuck was your point in claiming _anyone_ could achieve longest chain if its clearly not economically feasible? BSV will economically outcompete others because it follows the original scaling plan.

[Anonymous No.16752958]

>>16752769
could make and being economically feasible are two different things. economic feasibility is an externality to the developer. it depends on consensus.

[Anonymous No.16752972]

>>16752769
>BSV will economically outcompete others because it follows the original scaling plan.
no it doesn't and no it won't
the original scaling plan was never to store junk data that is unverifiable immutably forever.

no the original scaling plan was naturally growing with real demand. not junk weather data not parasitic chain not whatever bullshit people come up with. but real value transacted on the blockchain. btc will do that. sv will suck dick.

[Anonymous No.16752982]

>>16752958
So you admit being wrong, apologize.
Not anyone could or should achieve longest chain as you claimed, thats socialist bullshit. Your developers are retarded if they do not consider economic feasibility.

[Anonymous No.16752985]

>>16752972
>53 posts by this ID
Greg you are fucked, m8

[Anonymous No.16752991]

>>16752972
>the original scaling plan was naturally growing with real demand
Paid traffic is real demand dipshit

[Anonymous No.16753154]

>>16752982
>So you admit being wrong
of course not
anyone can make a longer chain than bitcoin that's what i said and it's true. it requires slightly more work if you actually want to scam some retards into supporting you obviously.
>>16752985
you too
>>16752991
real demand is economic transaction made for transacting value not posting bullshit for the sake of posting bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16753363]

>>16753154
>real demand is economic transaction made for transacting value not posting bullshit for the sake of posting bullshit.
I don't think socialism actually works