/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.18388937]

daily reminder that btc is not bitcoin and the lightning network and segwit aren't in the whitepaper.

[Anonymous No.18388945]

>>18388937
Neither is Craig Wright

[Anonymous No.18388994]

>>18388945
umm?

[Anonymous No.18389020]

>>18388994
Anyone can make a claim you fucking tool
I seriously can't tell anymore if you fools LARP for luls or are actually retarded
Either way no one in their right mind takes BSV seriously

[Anonymous No.18389029]

>>18388994
Yes, umm. I hope Calvin has increased your pay Sandeep - these are crazy times!

[Anonymous No.18389032]

>>18388945
yes craig wright isn't bitcoin?

[Anonymous No.18389083]

>>18389020
>>18389029
what about this?
got any more wild theories?
craig has been calling himself satoshi well before 2018 and the nour post...

[Anonymous No.18389133]

>>18389083
>why no denounce
Satoshi was protecting a random guy with the last name Satoshi, not denouncing a scammerfag
Conversely, why not just sign?
Oh right, because he can't.

[Anonymous No.18389151]

>>18389083
Your 2018 comment is also fabricated, so you're just a loser

[Anonymous No.18389215]

>>18389133
dunno about that anon, posting the word nour which means light after the bsv fork kinda indicates something don't you think?
he already has signed, a few times, for andreson for one and really the evidence is right in front of you, if you aren't retarded it's pretty obvious.
>>18389083
it's right here in pic related.
why would satoshi not denounce a scammer? oh but he has and often, CZ, greggles et al.
then there is the whole court case issue, with mountains of evidence all about satoshi's coins.
occam's razor...it's Craig.
anything else...it's just full on cope and denial.

[Anonymous No.18389236]

>>18389215
>for andreson
the signing for andreesen was faked you imbecile

[Anonymous No.18389253]

>>18388937
Atlantis=Thoth=Pyramids=Jesus=ThePlan=USA=OldMajestic=Cicada=Satoshi=Qanon=Majestic12=TimeTravelers.

There it is, have fun.

[Anonymous No.18389262]

>>18389236
nope

what about matonis?

[Anonymous No.18389282]

>>18389215
Yeah, I'm thinking you're SCF

[Anonymous No.18389291]

>>18388937
Daily reminder that metanet and faggotry are not in the whitepaper either

[Anonymous No.18389294]

>>18388937
that's a conman

[Anonymous No.18389333]

>>18389291
metanet isn't part of the protocol brainlet

[Anonymous No.18389341]

>>18389151
get a load of this newfag
>>18389236
cringe

[Anonymous No.18389347]

>>18389333
Checked

[Anonymous No.18389358]

>>18388937
sorry I don't invest in fags
only kikes and pedos

[Anonymous No.18389364]

>>18389341
>>18389262
gavin later said he might have been bamboozled right the fucking satoshi affair article or this one
https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/
i swear you faggots are just insufferable with your lies and half truths

[Anonymous No.18389387]

>>18389333
Lightning is?

[Anonymous No.18389392]

>>18389364
>posting that link in favor of your lie

>insufferable
hello greg

[Anonymous No.18389405]

>>18389392
>durr
the fact of the matter is still that craig pulled some fuckery in the private signing and even Gavin Andreesen had his doubts with it. for more details read the satoshi affair. this was NOT the conclusive evidence you lying faggots try to dress it up as

[Anonymous No.18389425]

>>18389387
no but segwit is

[Anonymous No.18389439]

>>18388994
umm?

[Anonymous No.18389460]

>>18389405
there's zero evidence of that. Gavin is saying it's possible he was fooled as in it's possible gravity will invert tomorrow

>conclusive evidence
Ironically you are the retards claiming a signature is conclusive evidence

[Anonymous No.18389461]

Crypto is a tallest midget contest. You're all equally retarded.

[Anonymous No.18389507]

>>18389461
means you're a piss ant

[Anonymous No.18389554]

>>18388937
neither is op_piushdata or scripting or the genesis block hash

[Anonymous No.18389583]

>>18389460
proper non reusable signature is evidence or rather proof of knowledge of the private key which may prove identity under certain circumstances like when we know who a pubkey belongs to and have no reason to suspect it has been compromised.
sign or gtfo that simole.

[Anonymous No.18389596]

>>18389020
This. Kys faggot worshipping pajeets

[Anonymous No.18389604]

it's like core read the first sentence of each section and aimed to make the opposite true for btc

>peer to peer electronic cash
btc is peer to miner to peer electronic gold
>chain of digital signatures
btc has segwit
>a node does work
btc says non mining nodes are nodes
>you don't need to run a node to verify transactions
btc says you need to run a node to verify transactions

[Anonymous No.18389639]

>>18389583
you claim the only way someone can prove they are satoshi is to sign which is genuinely retarded.

of course signing is evidence

[Anonymous No.18389663]

>>18389604
it's funny you keep talking about the whitepaper but the whitepaper is not bitcoin. it's a thesis. and introduction. bitcoin was also released by nakamoto and it was a working living system. it's uniqueness stems from it's history and the way and reason people agree on what bitcoin is.

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

one more thing to consider:
litecoin adhered to the bitcoin whitepaper 100% in fact most of the source code was the same. but nobody ever considered it bitcoin. if you accept the cashie definition of bitcoin then litecoin is bitcoin

[Anonymous No.18389673]

>>18389604
>btc says you need to run a node to verify transactions
also no on btc spv works as intended on the shitforks spv is not trustless because they are no byzantine fault tolerant. therefore on the shitforks bch and bchsv you have to run your own validating node meanwhile spv is fine on bitcoin just not very useful for services.

[Anonymous No.18389681]

also we finally see what hashrate calvin truly has.
0.8% just as i said many times over the years. less than 1%. rofl.

[Anonymous No.18389704]

>>18389663
litecoin has segwit so no
btc is unironically the garbage dump, moving coins between exchanges is not of value
iv'e spent more time viewing weather data than the btc chain

[Anonymous No.18389716]

>>18389663
>btc is not defined by the whitepaper it's defined by 4channel post
I know, that's my point.

I don't care if you want to make 144mb/day digital gold but that is not Bitcoin; a peer to peer electronic cash system a chain of digital signatures with nodes that solve hash puzzles and users do not need to run a node to verify transactions and pic related

>>18389673
lol
you literally need to trust miners on btc to not create invalid transactions with hashes of arbitrary signatures because segwit nodes only need a hash of a signature for a transaction to be considered valid.
what does a block header even signify if you don't get the signature from the previous owner
spv can never work on btc even if craig hadn't patented it to bsv

which is all irrelevant because the whole reason you limited the blocksize to 1mb was to make non mining nodes cheap to run. Don't need spv if you're never gonna do more than 1mb/10min

[Anonymous No.18389729]

>>18389681
>>18389673
>>18389663
>>18389639
>>18389604
>>18389583
>>18389341
>>18389262

[Anonymous No.18389736]

>>18388937
lol @ this entire thread

the man has patents. dumb not to add to your portfolio.

and check the hash rates compared to BCH

[Anonymous No.18389860]

>>18389729
just imagine for a minute the possibilities
being able to view george soros's transactions on the blockchain
and see the people smuggling NGOs in the lonian sea receiving his donations
it would be beautiful and we could finally lock him and them up with their shipping data immutably stored on the bsv blockchain

[Anonymous No.18389894]

>>18389860

[Anonymous No.18389922]

>>18389860
just imagine believing you can tell who owns a private key belonging to a pubkey
can you tell my name?
>>18389704
litecoin had no segwit when it began and you could always make a litecoin fork that has no segwit. still wouldn't be bitcoin. even if you make a coin that 110% adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper and call it the "honest to god real bitcoin satoshis original vision" it still wouldn't be bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.18389944]

>>18389716
>you literally need to trust miners on btc to not create invalid transactions
so you have no clue how the nakamoto consensus works? you have to trust the majority to follow the rules and reorg those that don't. that was true from the beginning. from day1 the possibility of a 51% attack was real. altho if the majority of miners mined an illegal block the chain would fork and the minority chain would mine according to bitcoin ruleset. which would be a clusterfuck but all the other nodes exchanges and financial nodes would see only that the honest blockchain stalled or slowed down.

[Anonymous No.18389973]

tick tock corecucks and stinky linkies, your time is up

[Anonymous No.18389980]

>>18389944
the majority follows the rules because it is profitable to do so.
segwit makes it very cheap to attack btc by the factor of the cost of faking a digital signature.
https://medium.com/@adam_selene/the-segwit-15-attack-b0ecbb926777
It's not a 51% attack

[Anonymous No.18390034]

>>18389980
you are stupid. here are 5 easily verifyable facts for you:
1) segwit transactions contain a signature in the witness part and it is verified for the input to be spendable
2) bitcoin network enforces segwit ruleset miners that don't 100% adhere to the bitcoin ruleset will be reorged same as if they tried to spend a normal output without proper signature
3) even if 51% of the miners made a longest chain with invalid segwit transactions the rest of the network would still not consider that valid
4) financial nodes and exchanges run their own fully validating nodes so there is no way to profit from mining invalid blocks
5) you are willfully stupid and don't understand how bitcoin works nor do you understand the nakamoto consensus

[Anonymous No.18390067]

>>18389980
also that article just regurgitates peter rizuns objection to fucking with the established incentive system pre-segwit.

this fud is from 2017 we are still waiting for a single incident where not observing segwit rules happened on bitcoin blockchain. but you can't produce one can't you? on the shitforks that don't enforce segwit rules this is obviously a problem but not on bitcoin where it's integral part of the consensus.

[Anonymous No.18390072]

>>18390034
a segwit transaction requires a hash of a signature not a signature.
a dishonest miner can hash a signature of any signature and broadcast the transaction because you can not tell what key made a signature from a hash of that signature
segwit makes it cheaper to attack the network.

a bitcoin transaction is not valid unless the payee recieves a signature. a hash of a signature is not a signature

[Anonymous No.18390107]

>>18390072
false and idiotic a standard segwit transaction contains a signature and that signature is received by every segwit aware client to verify

[Anonymous No.18390116]

>>18389020
If it's so easy to get the US copyright for Bitcoin code and whitepaper, why has no one else gotten it then? Even if just to make a point. It's been like a year that Creg's held it.
Because they didn't invent it, and they know they'll get BTFO'd in court by Creg.

[Anonymous No.18390126]

>>18390107
no they receive a witness which is a hash of a signature not a signature.

[Anonymous No.18390129]

>>18390107
only pre 2017 legacy clients don't see the signature they only receive an but nobody should run those fucking retarded shit

[Anonymous No.18390139]

>>18390129
do you think the payee receives a signature?

[Anonymous No.18390141]

>>18390126
no you need to fact check this idiotic nonsense the witness is a full on sigscript its the old sigscript field in the tx that only contains a hash of the sigscript.

[Anonymous No.18390145]

>>18390139
everyone does that runs a segwit aware node. not just the payee every fucking body.

[Anonymous No.18390155]

>>18390145
completely false

[Anonymous No.18390189]

>>18388937
OGN and ZANO are good ways to improve your BTC.

Decentralized marketplace and privacy!

[Anonymous No.18390207]

>>18390155
nope if you ever bothered checking out how segwit actually works you would know this and not embarrass yourself here.

segwit moved the signature to an other field in the tx structure. and referenced this witness by a hash in the original sigscript field so that clients knew which witness to check against which input.

[Anonymous No.18390217]

>>18390207
the payee does not receive a signature

[Anonymous No.18390285]

21M supply cap isn't in the whitepaper either you absolute faggot. Let's just do away with that too

[Anonymous No.18390313]

>>18390217
wrong and retarded also the payee doesn't need to validate any signature to spend the coins he got.
if you ever received a bitcoin from an anyone can spend address without signature what would you do throw it away as invalid? i don't believe you.

[Anonymous No.18390354]

>CRAIG bad!
>unrelated shitcoin shill
>BTC bad!
>BSV bad!
>BTC bad!
>unrelated shitcoin shill
>BSV bad!
>CRAIG is satoj!
>BTC bad!
>CRAIG bad!
>BSV bad!
>unrelated shitcoin shill
>BSV bad!
>BTC bad!
>CRAIG bad!
>BSV bad!

this entire thread

[Anonymous No.18390393]

>>18390313
payee does not get a signature. Literally no one believes the payee gets a signature in a segwit transaction
segwit makes it cheaper to attack bitcoin

[Anonymous No.18390412]

CREG IS BITCOIN
BAG IS BAD
BTC IS BSV

[Anonymous No.18390429]

>>18388937
Reminder that the human joke known as craig wright is a fraud.

[Anonymous No.18390575]

>>18390313
Imagine supporting a chain that was deliberately crippled to prevent mass adoption.

>Pic related is you

[Anonymous No.18390635]

>>18388937
Neighter is wheater data on chain, gigameg blocks and the metanet. get rekt

[Anonymous No.18390656]

>>18390575
This is true and the real psyop is that they get blatant scammers and lunatics to scream this truth the loudest so that people won't believe it. BTC and BSV work hand in glove, keeping people away from financial freedom.

[Anonymous No.18390716]

>so I have a new crypto
>yeah?
>it's like bitcoin
>alright
>but with apps
>omg I love apps!!!

[Anonymous No.18390743]

Btc is running this place. BSV might have pumps but it dumps when Btc dumps, it moves with Btc. It will never ever get above Btc, Everything is trading against btc, almost nothing is trading against BSV. No network effect and poor indian shills on top + a serial scammer as a media figure. i would rather buy anything else than touching that with a 100ft poll. buy link

[Anonymous No.18391044]

>>18390743
you are the exact type of person that tells me its time to buy bsv

[Anonymous No.18392216]

>>18390393
jesus man you still don't get it? just look this shit up! look into the code! look for the signature! it's there. i have looked into the code. segwit tx-es are signed and the signature is checked for it to be valid.

[Anonymous No.18392258]

>>18390393
>segwit makes it cheaper to attack bitcoin
there is a theoretical attack that has never been proven to be actually workable that involves delaying the witness part of a block by a minorty gang of miners trying to lead the majority into abandoning enforcing segwit rules.
it's not something miners would go for it silently they would either raise hell or more likely gladly reorg the retards that don't propagate their block fully and take their reward.
so long the majority plays by the rules bitcoin remains secure. this has always been so.

[Anonymous No.18392269]

>>18390716
Imagine being this upset about a drawing.

[Anonymous No.18392539]

>>18392216
also since i know that blithering retard will not believe me for the rest of you check it out yourself
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/sign.h
line 65:
CScriptWitness scriptWitness; ///< The scriptWitness of an input. Contains complete signatures or the traditional partial signatures format. scriptWitness is part of a transaction input per BIP 144.

the tx contains a signature in the witness part. end of story.

however you as a receiver of a payment do not need to even check that. because you got the bitcoins when the ledger is updated and most importantly when you can spend them. you only have the bitcoins you can spend.

so no validating a signature from the sender does not play a role in determining if you received a payment or not. because of the nakamoto consensus if a tx is listed in a confirmed block in the longest chain it is valid for the network and outputs are spendable.

there is no way a confirmed tx let's say 2 to 6 deep is gonna turn up with a bogus signature suddenly. that can only happen on the bch shitforks.

[Anonymous No.18392558]

also $187 kek we soon gonna dust off the DOUBLE DIGIT SHITCOIN memes...

[Anonymous No.18393793]

A big fuckoff to corecucks, study picrel if you want to make it.