/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>28594696
didn't post it for you shill.

>>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

>>18121620
it's not debatable a receiver of a bitcoin from a segwit transaction does not receive a signature.
>signatures are only needed at the time of validation - peter wuille https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/

>>why would you do it then?
was obviously pointing out the contradiction between it changed nothing and it's an improvement.
malleability is a feature not a bug
Just increase the blocksize instead of breaking the fundamental definition as a chain of digital signatures

the 11 year old is just proof your digital signature = satoshi nakamoto is dependent on the other evidence as all of human history has been.

>>18121630
>btc is not accurately described by the whitepaper
I know

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

>>14268179

the scaling problem is solved by increasing the block size

BSV is already doing 1.4 GB blocks on testnet and will have 2TB blocks by EOY 2020.

I'm getting 2009 BitCoin vibes

>>9098751
If S2X had actually happened, we may well not even be having this discussion right now and BTC/BCH may well still be one thing.
But this is not the world we live in, so it's irrelevant. And you speculating that asicboost has anything to do at all with the cancellation of s2x assumes that all the parties that were privvy to s2x all knew it was about asicboost for sure, no evidence at all that it was even about asicboost for sure have ever come out, and asicboost is in widespread use in core now anyway, basically, this is just more idiotic bullshit from you.

Does this really sound like something Nick would have said? Satoshi was always in favor of big blocks and on-chain scaling...

I believe BCH will prevail, once people realize that LN doesn't work as promised and has multiple unfixable flaws. Might take another year for it to become obvious

>>7671768
This year will be very entertaining indeed.

>>7617625
the absolute state of you cum chugging thundercunts