/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.17098095]

ITT: we congratulate Craig on his gold medal

[Anonymous No.17098109]

>>17098095
Why are you so obsessed with this?

[Anonymous No.17098676]

>>17098109
apologize and congratulate

[Anonymous No.17098695]

>>17098095
I think craig is just going all out since he knows he's going to jail for perjury. At this point what he does doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.17098710]

>>17098095
Kek, I unironically believe this moron got talked into funding a bunch of hacker geeks to create the sales pitchers vision of Bitcoin, and he was promised it was gonna be huge, but when it blew up in price and Craig wanted to cash out satoshis coins, the team wouldn't give him access to the private keys. It actually makes sense. He's a shmuck who got STIFFED.

[Anonymous No.17098732]

Based Satoshi

[Anonymous No.17098745]

What database is he referring to ?

[Anonymous No.17098782]

>>17098695
I mean at this point it's either a complete scam, or he's a clueless left in the dust retard who got used by the original Bitcoin team. The fact that you think either of these options means scam version will moon, makes you an idiot and you deserve what happens to you

[Anonymous No.17098849]

>>17098095
The narcissist will carry his lies and delusions to the ends of the Earth to protect his self-image - and when he can't anymore, when the house of cards finally collapses, he'll lash out in violence or suicide.

[Anonymous No.17099116]

>>17098095
Imagine legit following this crazy alcoholic boomer.

[Anonymous No.17099135]

>>17098095
I don't even hate this guy, I think he's legitimately mentally ill and can't help it. I blame the Pajeets that shit up /biz/ shilling his shitcoin though. I never hated Indians before, but the BSV "team" has ignited an intense burning hatred towards Indians for me.

[Anonymous No.17099138]

How much bsv does he hold, is it public knowledge?

[Anonymous No.17099166]

>>17099135

>Indians

[Anonymous No.17099281]

>>17099166
>Conveniently posts a picture that only happens to include mostly nameless white people

[Anonymous No.17099665]

>>17099281
Yeah cuz made up Indian profiles are much better.
>AJ Poo

[Anonymous No.17099667]

Where can I fucking short Bitcoin Sanjeet Vision?

[Anonymous No.17099670]

>>17098095
Creg is unironically wright though

[Anonymous No.17099687]

kek faketoshi getting btfo left right and center and cant prove anything. Cant wait to read the cult posts going b..but its b...bitcoin guys the r..real b..bitcoin. lol fucking homos

[Anonymous No.17099694]

>>17099687

[Anonymous No.17099698]

>>17099694
It's almost like both projects are shit LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.17099710]

>>17099694
b..but its the r..eal b..bitcoin

[Anonymous No.17099786]

>>17098745
>What database is he referring to ?
BSV is basically slow database so

[Anonymous No.17099795]

>>17099694
Dont post this. People will understand why BCH is the true coin.

[Anonymous No.17099819]

>>17099795

[Anonymous No.17099836]

>>17099694
I love this picture, perfect to fool tech illiterate morons. Segwit literally doesn't affect anything, it's just an OPTIONAL reorganization of a block. And a derivative of the signature is even kept inside.

Now I'd you'd really, really, wanted to fud it, you'd explain why segwit = bad. And I'm expecting an explanation how it makes the blockchain insecure or centralized, not that muh chain of signatures durrrr broken pfpfpfpfpffp

Eagerly awaiting your reply,
Anon

[Anonymous No.17099854]

>>17099694
> not Craig instead of Carol
missed opportunity

[Anonymous No.17099862]

>>17099836
sir fatal segwit vulnerability will be exposed on february 32st

[Anonymous No.17099863]

>>17098745

Bitcoin (BSV).

[Anonymous No.17099864]

>>17098095
>whalepanda
Why do all Bitcoiners look so disgusting?

[Anonymous No.17099878]

>>17099166
They are creg's pay pigs.
He dominates them from the screen and makes them jam kettle chips and coke up each other's ass.

[Anonymous No.17099884]

>>17099878

That's just profane...

[Anonymous No.17099890]

>>17099854
>Craigs Private Key
??? - nah.

[Anonymous No.17099906]

>>17099864

I would bet good money that this guy turns out to be an actual pedophile

[Anonymous No.17099922]

>>17099836
a hash of a signature is not a signature, Segwit introduces a new vulnerability for no benefit.
A miner can attack the network by moving utxo's with hashes of signatures not associated with the utxo they're changing without a hard fork. It reduces the security by making it cheaper to attack the network because miners can stop signaling acceptance of segwit take segwit coins without a hard fork. In the context of competing sha256 coins some with limited capacity some not miners eventually become more and more incetivised to attack the limited segwit chain killing it and switching to the unlimitied stable alternative.
https://medium.com/@adam_selene/the-segwit-15-attack-b0ecbb926777
Craig said he was going to do this attack in may, obviously remains to be seen. If 50% of blocks are not bitcoin core in may I would not be holding any segwit bitcoins https://coin.dance/blocks/historical

transaction malleability is a feature not a bug.
Additionally signatures are legal objects that prove ownership. Removing this from transactions instead of just increasing the block limit is ridiculously risky.
https://www.coindesk.com/the-risks-of-bitcoins-segregated-witness-problems-under-us-contract-law

Segwit is also just another fundamental reason why btc is not bitcoin (pic related).
>We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures
It's hard to find a more specific sentence as to why

[Anonymous No.17099946]

>>17099786

Okay so since bsv has giant blocks , it's only feasible for centralized data centers to store the data... how is that satoshis vision ?

[Anonymous No.17099958]

>>17099946

[Anonymous No.17099973]

>>17099958
>>>17099946

[Anonymous No.17099982]

>>17099973
>definition of node

[Anonymous No.17100001]

>>17099946

Are you fucking joking? That's literally been Satoshi's vision all along.

>The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
>—Satoshi Nakamoto, 2010

[Anonymous No.17100102]

>>17099922
> It reduces the security by making it cheaper to attack the network because miners can stop signaling acceptance of segwit take segwit coins without a hard fork.

No. If you take segwit coins, your block is invalid. Whatever coins you take are no longer BTC they are just some trash fork that nobody cares about (a bit like BSV).

> transaction malleability is a feature not a bug.

What even? The thing that caused Mt Gox to lose 750k is a feature?

> Additionally signatures are legal objects that prove ownership. Removing this from transactions instead of just increasing the block limit is ridiculously risky.

Signatures are not removed from transactions. How do you think transactions are validated?

BSV confidence men BTFO

[Anonymous No.17100171]

>>17100102
you can't tell what signature made the signature from a hash of that signature.
A segwit transaction is valid if there is a hash of a signature
If someone wants to attack the network it is now cheaper to do so because they can put any old hash in the transaction and other nodes see this as valid. The attack is only possible because of segwit and the more adoption of segwit there is (or value stored in utxos changed by segwit transactions) the more incentivised miners are to conduct the attack.

>mt gox fucked up
yes it did.
transaction malleability has uses in on chain payment channels

>Signatures are not removed from transactions.
signatures are there when the sender sends the transaction but not afterwards there is no chain of digital signatures, a receiver of a segwit bitcoin does not get a signature as they do in a BitCoin transaction.
As I said above you have to trust miners to only accept properly signed transaction because a segwit transaction only requires a hash of a signature to be valid whereas they have to fork off to move a bsv because transactions without signatures are not accepted

[Anonymous No.17100270]

>>17099946
How is it NOT Satoshi's Vision?

How much more does he need to spell it out for you fucking retards?

BITCOIN WAS DESIGNED FOR LARGE DATA CENTERS FROM DAY FUCKING ONE

Disgraceful cunts.

[Anonymous No.17101088]

>>17099836
sirs there is fatal flaw in segwit, craig will destroy it in november buy bsv corekek.