/biz/ - Business & Finance

It's not about the price, but the tech.

Seriously though it will go up soon. So much is happening right now.

Court case where he well prove he is satoshi
Coingeek conference
2 GB blocks i july
Massive adoption just happened in africa
++

>>13432951

2 GB blocks, are you retarded?

2 GB * 6 blocks per hour * 24 hours * 30 days = 8.64 TB.

You'll need to buy 8.64 TB of storage per month to run a node. Not to mention you have to broadcast that to each and every node.

If you run a node for a year, you'll need 86 TB of storage alone plus you'll need to download & upload a lot more than that.

And this is what big blockers call "solving" the "scaling" problem. It doesn't fucking scale.

> It's about the tech

Pic related.

God I hope you're just a shill because the alternative is brain damage.

here's a pro tip - there are a shit load of exchanges and altcoin scam devs who hold a lot of buttcorn and have a hugely vested interest in maintaining the status quo of thousands of shitcoins being traded by addicted gamblers. BSV is a threat to their entire existence. this is why there is such coordinated fud efforts and market manipulation. just buy the dips and hold, January 2020 is only 8 months away

>>13432993
2gb is nothing. Next year they will be uncapped. That means it will be up to the miners to decide how big blocks they'll accept. You heard about miner competition before? Nope you have not, because you have not read the whitepapaer. Don't like it? STIFF

>>13433022

Yeah ok, let miners control the entire network and fuck over all the node operators.

Satoshi's vision btw. Not centralized btw.

Actually 10 IQ brainlet that thinks miners will actually mine smaller blocks. They'll mine the biggest one they can to get all the fees then push the storage cost of that block to everyone else.

I guess you can be a shill and be retarded at the same time, it doesn't have to be the one or the other.

>>13433055
>Yeah ok, let miners control the entire network and fuck over all the node operators
You what nigga? Node = miner. Do yourself a favour and read the whitepaper. If you're not mining, you are not a node. It is that simple

>>13432993
>2 GB * 6 blocks per hour * 24 hours * 30 days = 8.64 TB.

You do realise that 2gb is a cap and not every block is full, right? the absolute state of small blockers

>>13432928

Nobody likes their creators.

Can't act and be like Craig and expect shit.

Well BSV fanatics sees through that xDDDD

>>13433022

Nice inept finger.

Just like your shit for brains

xD

>>13432993

Banks wants to take over.

No nodes for the little people

Thats freeeeeeedom !

Triple KEK

>>13433005
Why not just ride the other cryptos up and then just buy some bsv in December with the gains you've made from the other cryptos?

>>13432928
shit's unraveling faster than the inimitable Mr BSv can dump a new load now. And tbf, Craig is/was fairly proficient in bullshitting

>>13433291
But the point is to have bigger blocks right, that will help with scaling? So if miners choose to do what Craig wants, which is to mine big blocks, won't that require those 80 TB per year for each miner?

>>13433487
Does the size really matter if the miners get payed? Do you hear google say, no, please don't search so much. Or do you hear facebook say oh no, please don't share so much? You are literally retarded if you don't think miners are randi for money

Probably because it got delisted off the only exchange that matters kek

STIFF

>>13432928
All the bsv spam and you didn't think they would dump on you?

>>13433291

So what you're saying is... we have this max TPS but we'll never get to that point. We're hoping we're a failure and never achieve the max TPS. If we're successful, then

2 GB * 6 blocks per hour * 24 hours * 30 days = 8.64 TB

becomes true


please brainlet, stop skipping your 2nd grade classes, you really need an education

>>13433542
The absolute state of a brainlet

On centralized systems, it makes sense. Google makes money off of every search you make, you are the product.

On a decentralized system, every bit of data you push, it goes to every system on the network.

The miners are NOT the only part of the system. You're pushing cost to all the node operators. But only BSV / BCH fags are the people are saying "fuck everyone else, miners get paid that's all that matters"

If that's the case, the system is not decentralized, especially when you're producing 2 GB max blocks which is equal to 8.64 TB per month. It's insane.

>>13432928

Because the only place that trades it s Yobit now, lmao, you fucking idiots somehow missed the delisting announcements?

>>13433291
>please don't use our network or it might crash
>it's still the future of money though

>>13432928

Because it’s fake bitcoin ran by frauds and pedos

>>13433653
>The miners are NOT the only part of the system. You're pushing cost to all the node operators
Read the fucking white paper. Node = miners. Data = money for the miners. I can't put it any simpler

0.0095
0.0095
0.0095
0.0095
THAT MEANS 0% LOOOOOOOOOOOOL

>>13433653
Bruv. Its only 8 tb of data. Calm the fuck down.

>>13433668
buy espers on yobit pls sir

>>13434451
This, 200€ a month, and it not like there are 2gb of visa transactions every ten minutes anyway
>Pic related

Watching all this struggle between corecucks and craiglets, I think the most optimal path for crypto is probably to abandon POW at all, save for stuff like Monero. Why run gigantic, indigestible blocks when proof of stake has been already proven to work. Maybe DAG too.

>>13435230

No shit.

Regardless it is competition for all

Perfecting it all for our grandchildren.

>>13435230
Monero and BAT are going to be the only cryptos that ever see any legitimate use by the general public in the future provided Monero doesn't get legislated out of existence and BAT doesn't find a better use case than tipping brappettes

>>13433055
>Yeah ok, let miners control the entire network and fuck over all the node operators.

LMAO what? A "node operator" whatever that means, is a miner. Miner's are node operators. Nodes that don't mind literally do nothing for the network, they are irrelevant.

>>13432993
>86 TB of storage
Is this supposed to be a lot? it isn't 2004 anymore grandpa

Why the fuck would anyone care if he's actually satoshi or not, the market speaks for itself

>>13433291
>spam network with trash
>see all nodes crash except (((datacenters)))

>>13435638
>insist on 1 mb blocksize
>be able to do 3 transactions per second
>mempool is flooded, fees spike to 50 dollars to do any transaction
>waiting 20 hours for your block to confirm
>we have to make sure the people who run a node on their kids Gameboy can keep up
>this is the best way to make a global payment network

The absolute state of corecucks.

How accurate is pic related? Asking for a friend

>>13435750

>>13435758
Accurate. Contrarian, aka Greg Maxwell's sockpuppet account is literally paid to create and spread lies about Craig. The entire BCH camp has been worshipping him since the hashwar back in november, without realizing that he's really a Blockstream founder LOL

>>13435782
Holy fucking shit. That is some real kikery right there. Will he go to jail?

>>/biz/thread/S13348739

BSV is FUCKED

SHORT IT WHILE YOU EVEN CAN

>>13432928
are you fucking stupid? its a fork of a fork. Worse it has a weird cult mentality around it. Craig Wright is a fraud and now the coin is basically delisted from everywhere worth trading. I'd dump that shit before it breaks below 0.009 BTC.

I've been lurking your Discord, it's fucking empty. I've been lurking the reddit, it's also empty. I watch these YouTube livestreams and they're cringe worthy.

Who the fuck is thacypha? These people must be getting paid to shill. The whole community seems like it consists of about 10 people and I think most of them are getting paid for how delusional and shilly they sound.

>>13435793
There are exchanges where you can actually short it lol

>>13435613

86 TB per year, per node + you have to transmit 86 TB * every active node on the network and if one new node comes online, you have to send it 86 TB * the number of years the blockchain is running

This is (or supposed to be) a decentralized system....

That's a lot. But then again you don't give a fuck because all your coins are on binance or some shit and you've never ran a full node in your life and you're never self-sovereign over your own coins.

Then again this is biz, they buy whatever coin makes them money and don't care or simply don't understand the technical details of a decentralized network. BNB isn't even open sourced you can't even see the code. If there's a bug in it somehow it's fucked. Yet people buy the shit out of it. It simply doesn't adhere to the standards of what an actual crypto currency is.

Remember, the cost to store a piece of information on a decentralized system is not zero because that piece of data has to be distributed, verified, stored, and re-broadcasted until the end of time.

The only way this can scale is to not broadcast every transaction, which means you go off chain. You broadcast the initial set of funds between two parties and use 2/2 multisig, let them transact however many times they want while they both sign each transaction, then broadcast the final balance between those 2 parties on chain for final settlement. That way, they can do a million or billion transactions between the 2 parites but at most it'll only put 2 transactions on chain. That's exactly what lightening is doing. It keeps the system decentralized while increasing throughput and increases privacy.

>>13435792
No lol, using sockpuppets is not illegal. He should be banned from Reddit though, but kikelords don't ban each other so fat chance of that happening.

>>13435890
why do you think you running a raspberry pi "node" has anything to do with decentralisation?
decentralisation is all about big industrial sized bussinesses competing for the next block. It's about competition, capitalism and greed, not some basement dwelling neckbeard larping as a wizard

>>13432928
>blz buy the dip sirs. i have a family

>>13435793
How low will it go I wanna buy ze bottom
Hoping and praying for someone to market sell 100k on my exchange

>>13435983
it'll get delisted before it get to where you want it to be.

>>13435931

> decentralisation is all about big industrial sized bussinesses competing for the next block. It's about competition, capitalism and greed, not some basement dwelling neckbeard larping as a wizard

You're only looking at things from a miners perspective.

You run a full node to validate blocks and actively participates in the network and make sure the rules are followed. This is why NYA (segwit2x) failed even though the big businesses and 80%+ of the miners supported it. Segwit2x requires a hard fork, which changes the rules of bitcoin (just like BCH was a hard fork) while segwit is a soft fork, meaning it's optional and if you're still running the old bitcoin rules it'll still work. You actively defend the network if you're running a full node and for a decentralized system that is extremely important.

You don't have to use a raspberry pi, you can use whatever you want but raspberry pi is the cheapest way and uses little electricity.

The bitcoin network is fully functioning as a capitalist system. You pay a fee with your transaction so if the miner thinks the fee is good, they'll include it in the next block. You bid for your transaction to be mined and if you spam the bitcoin network with 1 sat fees, your shit won't get mined.

The big blockers (lol let's just do 2 GB blocks and assume it never be full) means that there's no reason to pay more than 1 satoshi for your transactions. It'll always be mined in the next block. That's a socialist or a communist system where everyone is equal. But even worse, the cost of storing and retransmitting blocks is then pushed to the full node operators where they HAVE to store it and they HAVE to broadcast it until the end of time.

>>13435999
Thx reddit but you need to go back, most exchange won't delist, cz and kraken are just bcashie fagboys
>>13436072
Nchain/bsv don't care about your raspberrypie, they want the likes of Amazon data centres and Google to compete with for mining, who can handle the massive blocks and data that will lead to technology advancement and more competition I.e growth.
Btc is useless as it Is, can't compete with visa. Normies don't want it. They want safety for money and btc ain't safe when you can fuck up sending something.
Bitcoin needs to be more than a currency and bsv is the answer.

>>13432928

Because it's bad tech headed by one of the most ineffective leaders ever (who is also a fraud).

>>13432993

Finally, a sensible reply. Beyond the fact that multiple block reorgs have occurred and BSV has been deemed unreliable by major entities--- why is no one talking about the insane storage costs??? inb4 nodes should be server farms. Increasing transaction speed through effective centralization does not count as scaling. Also, as you point out, network propagation is a huge issue. Increases in bandwidth have NOT kept up with Moore's law or increases in storage capacity... Ok, let's say you have the wealth and capability to buy 8.64 TB of storage every month, assuming the blocks remain at 2GB (lol, they won't at this rate). This pretty severely shrinks the pool of people capable of running nodes. Cool, let's say you can do this. Now you have to distribute and receive blocks, which means you must have a connection fast enough to do so every 10 minutes, which knocks out a pretty sizable number of the remaining node operators I imagine. Beyond keeping up with the chain, imagine trying to start running a node. You will never be able to download the ledger to have a current copy of it, as new blocks are probably being created faster than you can download them. Basically whoever has already been running a node and has never paused or stopped will be the only ones who can run nodes. No new friends.

>>13435793
so this guy shorted 50k on APR16
then he said 12BTC to add up
that's 100k+ USD

apr 16 BSV price 55 USD
apr 25 BSV price 52 USD

has kraken delisted yet?
this guy might get very rich in a couple of days

>>13436186
sorry bruh, but Ethereum already has huge blocks
blockchain is already more than a currency (as Szabo originally intended)
you are very late to the party, and putting patents on MIT license programs isn't gonna help you, sorry !

>>13436332
Ethereum can't handle hello kitty meme games
Amazon also has patent to sharding
D O N E

>>13435782
>The entire BCH camp has been worshipping him since the hashwar back in november, without realizing that he's really a Blockstream founder LOL
i'm not following the stupid cashies discussion but if that's true then holy fucking shit greg is a bigger troll than craig.

>bsv
>why is it dumping?
fucking kek

>>13436186
You say bitcoin is bad and normies don't want it because they will fuck up a transaction. But you can fuck up a transaction on BSV as well.

If you want big companies to control your money, sure but don't say you own it. They're lending you your own money. If the feds say anon can't have this money anymore, they just need to go to amazon / google and your money is gone.

Can you sue amazon? Google? Yes.
Can you sue bitcoin? Try and see what happens. Even with ETH, you can put pressure on Vitalik to do shady shit. After all, he did change the ETH blockchain so his DAO investors got their money back. ETH chain's claim of immutability died that day. That's why ETC (Ethereum classic) exists because the principal of an immutable blockchain is paramount.

I don't think you understand how important it is for something to be decentralized and minimize the cost of participating in the system. The more decentralized it becomes, the safer your money is.

If Nchain/bsv is as you described, I personally wouldn't call it a blockchain or a crypto currency because it's centralized and you significantly increase the risk of a mutable chain. Trade it all you want but for god sake don't put your wealth in it.

Then again, what you described is actually true for a lot of cryptos and ICOs. Companies come out with it, companies have control of the coins, companies that can be sued and have pressure put on them. I don't even think the word crypto and blockchain have any meaning anymore. The principles of blockchain no longer exist. Look at BNB, their "blockchain" is closed source. When there's a bug, everything comes crashing down. Guess what they're doing to do to fix it? They'll change the BNB blockchain and give refunds, just like Vitalik on ETH. And people will still call it a blockchain. What a fucking joke.

There's a reason why bitcoin has these strong principles. It is the most decentralized, permission-less, trust-less system of hard money that mankind has ever seen.

>>13436385
>There's a reason why bitcoin has these strong principles. It is the most decentralized, permission-less, trust-less system of hard money that mankind has ever seen.
correct altho a bit shoddy definition

>>13436385
>>13436072
Great insight. Thanks.

>>13436385
glad to see not only retards here

>>13436385
ty kind sir

>>13436385
Why is it not decentralised if big companies are miners? I only used Amazon and Google as examples, thousands or hundreds of thousands of entities could potentially be miners, governments, universities even security services (to catch those cp users).
Consider like netflix hosting their services, they would run a node.
Barclays bank runs a node for banking
Etc.etc.
Sto market is trillions of $, how many nodes could be ran by companies there?
Bitcoin at scale and so much more than a monetary currency to pay groceries and a "store of value".
You and most anti bsv people are locked in to thinking too small. Think bigger.

>>13436345
who cares about games, you little kid
also
>patents
LOL

>>13437546
Just don't even bother with them anymore dude, it'll be the fastest 100x in crypto history just watch

>>13432993
>he thinks this is a hurdle for miners

Yikes

>>13433055
>let miners control the entire network
They already do. Why haven't Corecucks ever read the fucking whitepaper?

because its a useless scam coin

>>13433611
>what is fiber optic and 5G
>implying storage is expensive
>doesnt know about pruning because hes never read the whitepaper

>>13433653
>what are transactions fees

You people are fucking hopeless.

>>13435983
where are you buying? i have no idea where to, i'm in the US by the way. i literally still have BSV on binance. i don't have time to deal with THIS BULLSHIT CZZZ AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>13435638
>satoshi literally describes miners becoming specialized and server farms

Read the whitepaper, read the forum posts or be poor forever.

>>13438324
if you turn on pruning you cant help sync other nodes up

>>13436072
>You actively defend the network if you're running a full node and for a decentralized system that is extremely important.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Home nodes can't do ANYTHING but watch and pray. You are not going to win this argument.

>>13436385
>The more decentralized it becomes, the safer your money is.

LOL

>>13438364
>You are not going to win this argument.
sorry you lost this argument before you had it lol

>>13437546
Anyone can mine, sure. I'm not talking about mining I'm talking about nodes, the one that enforces bitcoin's code.

The more it costs to run a node, the less nodes there will be. More of them will be put on big companies. When big companies collude and decide to change the rules, they would be able to. Imagine if no one ran nodes when NYA (segwit2x) happened. They would've won and BTC would be on segwit2x. But that didn't happen because of node operators. Because the node enforced those current rules of bitcoin. If the rich companies and rich miners decided to go to segwit2x, they would've lost because they did not have the support of the node operators as segwit2x requires a hard fork. They had 80%+ of the hashing power and many big companies behind NYA and they failed. It was proof that bitcoin can't be bought and won't be influenced by big companies. They must convince the community or else it will not work.

I don't know why you think you need companies and shit. The point of bitcoin is to say companies don't get to dictate things. You don't need companies for bitcoin to succeed.

I haven't seen a person argue that companies have to support p2p or p2p dies. That, by definition isn't what p2p is. It's called peer-2-peer for a reason.

I think you're in it for the money and you want BTC or whatever coin to pump. Bitcoin was born out of the banking crisis and it has certain values it adheres to. All that bad stuff that lead up to the banking crisis, bitcoin's values are built around that so people have an option to escape it when another crisis like that happens again.

If you care about any of bitcoin's values and what makes it valuable, read "the bitcoin standard", it's a good book

>>13436072
>he thinks anyone besides miners validate transactions and propagate blocks

READ. THE. FUCKING. WHITEPAPER.

>>13438387

"There is such a thing as a 'fully participating node'

What is a "fully participating node"? Remember, Bitcoin is a competitive system. It is not egalitarian. Someone always makes a profit, whether that be in transaction processing, the block reward, or the transaction in the first place. This means it is not possible to define 'full participation' in the security model, because someone is always doing 'more' than the other in order to win business.

Often the term full node is used as a reference for a node that downloads, verified, stores and distributes the full blockchain. However, this node is not fully participating, since it isn't mining at all, let alone winning. A node is either a wallet, holding and spending bitcoin, or a merchant, earning bitcoin by selling goods or providing services. There aren't any other types of nodes, as every participant in the ecosystem is either looking to make money or to spend it. Miners count as service providers, and developers can sit on either side."

>>13438387
>>13438404

A 'fully participating node' could more accurately be defined as a miner who both earns and spends bitcoin for all its economic activity. At a protocol level, individual roles aren't specifiable. That's the reason for the Proof of Work game. It creates a definition of participation as solving a problem that meets the specified level of difficulty for the hash rate, meaning that all incentives of any particular node have some way of mapping back down to hash rate, whether that's improving the ability to command and control the hash power directly, or convincing others with hash power to mine in your favour. I like to use the term 'fully sacrificial' node. The only real way to define a node as being 'full' is that it has given everything within its power to protect the network. If you're a wallet that means selling all your Bitcoin for hashpower. This is an extremely irrational act, and really one of martyrdom. Defining it in such a way makes it easier to understand why it's the last thing you'd ever want to do, and why participation is measured by hashrate."

>>13438387

"A security model dependent on 'full-nodes' who don't mine is in contradiction to bitcoin having value. Because for it to have value, it needs a network effect of people who believe it has value, and will do two things: validate transactions they receive and report them to the network if they're invalid, or validate miners blocks and produce a new candidate block if they're invalid. As typically defined, a 'full node' is not a wallet or a miner. It's a node that 'validates transactions' / 'secures the network' yet its costs of operation are not compensated in-protocol. This is a contradiction. To believe that full nodes are required in order to maintain protocol security, we'd also have to believe that miners won't check each others' work and users won't validate their incoming transactions. If we believed those things, then bitcoin would have no value, as its entire value is derived from the belief in its resilience and utility by its users and investors. If bitcoin has no value, nothing will hold it together. Without supply of security (hashrate) and demand for security (transactions), and an ability for the provider of the security to profit, then it will cease to exist."

>>13436278
>multiple block reorgs have occurred and BSV
You mean the Chinese devs that did a stress test that uncovered a bug to fix?

>>13436385
tl:dr

The left can't meme.

>>13438357
I know you've never read this before, but

"8. Simplified Payment Verification
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep
a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying
network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch
linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for
himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it,
and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it"

>>13438346
Bittrex, they have usd pairs as well as usdt
Check cmc for more exchanges
>>13437956
People sending txs care when the network is clogged for weeks by retards buying virtual cats you moron
How new are you

>>13438394
Only miners enforce rules. Read the whitepaper.

>>13438404
>>13438410
>>13438416
does this retard sreiously argue te bitcoin network is made up of 20 nodes total?

>>13438364
This is completely wrong. The real world example is NYA where they had 80%+ of the hashing power and huge exchanges that supported segwit2x. All that money and all that hashing power, yet they still failed. Why?

Because at the time, the full nodes enforced bitcoin's rules at the time. segwit2x (a hard fork) would've not followed bitcoin's rules. If the miners decided to fork any way, the blocks produced would've been rejected by the full nodes and it wouldn't not been propagated by the network. They would've mined segwit2x blocks for nothing, wasting electricity and time.

Real decentralized P2P networks gives power to the individual, it doesn't let big companies and big money force you into rules you don't want to follow.

I encourage you to understand bitcoin's technology more. In fact a lot of people don't seem to understand why things are they way they are.

>>13438443
pruning and spv nodes are not the same wtf

>>13438464
UASF or UAHF are literally just a protest. These nodes DO NOT have an actual say in forks. Just because the miners cucked doesnt make it so.

>>13438478
THEY HAVE THE SAME FUCKING FUNCTIONALLY.

Miners can literally prune as well and continue to validate transactions and propagate blocks. The only difference is the decision to store or not store transactional history.

>>13438403

Let's define miners as people running asics or something extremely powerful and the purpose is to find the next block. Yes, they validate blocks. Yes, a miner is a full node.

A full node, as I've described, are systems that aren't dedicated to mining. They can mine (but with very small hash rate). You download bitcoin's core software and it lets you mine on your computer. Is it efficient? Not anymore. Hence why there's dedicated miners.

However, a full node, still validates and propagates blocks. You don't need full ASICs to validate blocks & propagate data on the network. You can have a ASIC to validate blocks but you don't have to.

In short, it is not a requirement to have an ASIC to be a full node, that validates and propagates blocks. There's no rule that says you need this much hashing power to validate and propgate blocks.

https://bitcoinist.com/6-reasons-run-bitcoin-full-node/

> full nodes enforce the consensus rules no matter what. However, lightweight nodes do not do this. Lightweight nodes do whatever the majority of mining power says. Therefore, if most of the miners got together to increase their block reward, for example, lightweight nodes would blindly go along with it.

If what you say is true, then why didn't miners just force NYA and go segwit2x? 80% signaled for it.

>>13438562
>They can mine (but with very small hash rate).
And for that reason, you'll never be able to enforce rules. If someone is doing bad shit, you and your lack of any meaningful hashpower means you effectively do nothing. It requires ACTUAL miners who find blocks to enforce rules and btfo cheaters.

>>13438562
>If what you say is true, then why didn't miners just force NYA and go segwit2x? 80% signaled for it.
See>>13438506


Voting = HASHPOWER

>>13438394
Corporations don't collude bro, they fight. Look at the mobile industry, Apple and Samsung. Lawsuit after lawsuit. Competition and growth. Always trying to beat the other leads to technology advancement tons of cash pumped into rnd to develop the next gen
It likely wouldn't be feasible for collusion anyway potentially due to all the different industries

>>13438464

You have absolutely no idea how powerful and versatile bitcoin actually is as an economic system if you think the UASF was a good thing and not a complete embarrassment.

https://markwilcox.com/articles/fundamental-misconceptions/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvI73jJ6uc

>>13438562
>propagates blocks

LOL

>>13432993
This can't be scaling because miners have to pay for storage... Oh noes. If there's enough fees to reimburse them for that cost then who gives a fuck? They already pay through the nose for electricity what's another couple hundred a month for storage and bandwidth? If they orphan a block then step up your game and get better connectivity. All you fucking retards acting like you love capitalism but when it comes along in its purest form you all start kvetching about muh decentralisation. Do you know the best way to maximise efficiency And security of the network without subsidising neckbeard hobbyists...? Competition.

>>13438630
UASF is literally just as destructive as giving everyone the right to vote in the US. Voting rights are to be restricted to those with skin in the game. Otherwise it's just a bunch of niggers and women voting for retarded shit they don't understand.

>>13438605

No, that's incorrect. Higher hash rate just means you have a better chance at finding the hash (number of leading zeros) to be the next block.

However, you can't just put whatever you want in that block. For example, you can't put in a transaction in the block that doesn't have the valid signatures. Those are not valid transactions. If you do this and you broadcast it to the bitcoin network, it'll be rejected by full nodes.

Same thing with block size. You can't put a 100 MB block into the bitcoin blockchain. Why? Because it is NOT in the bitcoin's consensus rules and it'll be rejected by full nodes. So this 100 MB block will not propagate in the network. There's nothing stopping you from making 100 MB blocks but you'll be wasting your time because that block will be rejected. Hence, that's why you need a hard fork (aka updating the consensus rules to get bigger blocks so bigger blocks won't be rejected by full nodes).

Like I said in the previous post, you don't seem to understand why NYA failed even with big money and 80%+ of the hash rate. If what you said is correct, the miners would've just did segwit2x on their own and that'd be that. But that did not happen. I'm trying to explain to you what happened.

>>13438668
UASF was BIP 148. It was a soft fork that ran on full nodes (note the difference between a soft fork and a hard fork, that's actually important). The change there was to say we'll accept segwit blocks regardless. You have to remember, the old consensus always stays if the new consensus can't be met. By default, if you ran BIP 148, nothing would've changed as miners couldn't force segwit2x (new consensus can't be met so the default consensus rules are still in place).

Also, running a full node isn't voting. Running a full node means I agree with the current consensus of bitcoin. That's it. You can add more rules to your full node if you want, but all other nodes would reject your new rules. The only way to get your new rules in place is to have a new consensus.

>>13435890
Where are your citations that datacenters competing won't confer adequate security to the network? Peer reviewed research on small worlds graphs and highly interconnected networks says decentralisation for the sake of decentralisation doesn't improve the network in any meaningful way. Why are you just listening to people qho are imagining problems into existence then using kikery and subsidies to solve these imaginary problems. I don't understand why you cucks have such a problem with GLOBAL MONEY being run out of datacenters rather than 1 meg gregs grandmas wifi dialysis machine.

>>13438729
You're retarded. If all your fake and gay nodes decide to reject all transactions for some reason, but the miners don't the chain will continue as if nothing happened. Read the whitepaper.

>>13438739
No, faggot. Voting = hashpower. If none of the miners accepted segwit transactions, segwit transactions would not exist on btc.

>>13438750
I'm not saying they definitely will, but the probability increases significantly. As a decentralized network, different full nodes in different places (as many as possible) makes the network stronger. It's less prone to failure and less prone to government control.

It's the saying "don't put all your money in one basket" or something like that. You can, but it's not smart to do so.

There's no "security to the network" in a sense of any physical security or anything like that. What secures the network is the consensus algorithm and PoW. The more distributed the consensus that's being runned and the more hashing power there is, the more secure it is. You can go into a datacenter and try to edit the blockchain file but that won't do anything.

> I don't understand why you cucks have such a problem with GLOBAL MONEY being run out of datacenters rather than 1 meg gregs grandmas wifi dialysis machine.

I guess for your example, "1 meg gregs grandmas wifi dialysis machine" but times 100k running all over the world is better than "GLOBAL MONEY being run out of datacenters"

>>13438729
>>13438739

You're the one missing the most crucial aspect to the entire PoW game, which is that NOBODY BUT MINERS CAN CREATE BLOCKS. Think about that really hard, ok? Take it to its logical conclusion. Try to think like a capitalist.

What happens when all the miners leave? What will your toy nodes do?

>>13435931
>It's about competition, capitalism and greed
If that's the case, wouldn't that result in all BSV miners turning to mine Bitcoin instead. After all, Bitcoin is more profitable to mine, so why exactly do BSV miners mine BSV?

>>13438820
>different full nodes in different places (as many as possible) makes the network stronger. It's less prone to failure and less prone to government control.
You keep saying full node, but I know you're not talking about miners. If all of your non miner nodes went offline today, nothing would change.

>>13438831
The ability to see past the next quarter.

creg is satoj brown id confirms it

>>13438851
They could mine Bitcoin and purchase BSV if that was the case, so why don't they do that?

>>13438793

Miners are running full nodes or at least lightweight nodes.

Listen. I told you what I defined miners and full nodes as.

miners = mainly caring about hashing, they don't really care about acting as a full node. As long as they get their block reward they're happy, and they can only do this if they conform to bitcoin's consensus rules. Otherwise, it'll be rejected by full nodes.

If my hashing power is 0.00000000001 hashes per minute but I only use my full node to validate blocks, do you consider me as a miner?

If my hashing power is 9999999999999999 hashes per minute but I don't run a full node (aka I don't know or try to confer to bitcoin's consensus rules, am I a miner?)

Like I said, you can run a full node to just validate & propagate blocks. You can also "mine" on it, but it doesn't matter if you're mining 0.00000000001 hashes per minute or 9999999999999999 hashes per minute. The only difference is full nodes' purpose isn't to mine but ASIC miners are made to mine.

If what your saying is true, then there's a minimum hashrate required to validate & propogate blocks. How can that be true? What's that minimum limit? If I'm below that limit, it means I can't mine? There's 0 chance?

>>13438885

Do you know how long it takes on average for a home node to "propagate" a block? 40 seconds. In that time, the miners have already moved on.

> The only difference is full nodes' purpose isn't to mine but ASIC miners are made to mine.

Then what are they really doing?

>>13438945
Sweet Fu k all that's what, these people are stupid

>>13438821

Miners can create blocks, but they can't create any arbitrary block. You can't put any transaction you want on there. If I have your bitcoin wallet's address and I was a miner, can I just say you sent all your money to me and put it in the next block? If that's the case, only miners would have money because all transactions are public. Is that the case? No. If you tried to broadcast some bogus shit in bitcoin's network (which anyone can do), it'll be rejected because it won't follow bitcoin's protocol. Miners will not put bogus and wrong shit in that block they're trying to mine or they've wasted a lot of time and electricity.

Once again, you can mine blocks (aka you can decide to put what's inside that block) but what goes inside the block MUST AGREE TO BITCOIN'S PROTOCOL.There's nothing stopping you from making a 100 MB block. Why don't miners just put all the transactions in 1 block and say fuck the block limit? Because IT DOES NOT AGREE WITH BITCOIN'S PROTOCOL and therefore, YOU CANNOT REACH CONSENSUS with the FULL NODES. YOUR 100 MB BLOCK WILL NOT BE PROPAGATED BY THE NETWORK. You wasted your time and electricity mining a block that DOES NOT CONFORM WITH BITCOIN'S CONSENSUS RULES. A hard fork, which means changing the consensus rules is the ONLY way to get bigger blocks or if you want to do anything that changes the consensus rules. NYA called for a hard fork of bitcoin's protocol and that failed to reach consensus. Segwit was a soft fork (not a hard fork) meaning segwit is backwards comparable. You can still use non-segwit transactions right now. So, segwit was added as an option, not a requirement. That's the difference between a soft fork and a hard fork.

The miners don't control everything and they can't do whatever they want. What they do are verified before it's propagated throughout the network. The verification is done by the full nodes and yes, those full nodes could be ASIC miners but they don't have to be.

>>13438880
There won't be a next quarter or next year if the network isn't secured and battle tested.

>>13438885
>miners = mainly caring about hashing, they don't really care about acting as a full node
You really are retarded. All miners must be connected to a node to broadcast to the network and receive other blocks from other miners to work on. How smooth is your brain?

>inb4 the gotcha pool miners
They're still connected to a node, niggerfaggot.

>If my hashing power is 0.00000000001 hashes per minute but I only use my full node to validate blocks, do you consider me as a miner?
No. You will never be able to find a block and thus NEVER be able to enforce rules. Your argument is "well I technically have a chance in a billion years to mine a block so that counts". Its nigger tier logic. Its the same reason you don't have any actual voting rights.

>>13438945

What do you even mean. You think people with faster internet can do whatever they want and just randomly add blocks or transactions to a confirmed block?

If you're a miner and you mine some bullshit or try to increase the block size, you broadcast that block to your peers. Those peers will check if everything is correct. Those peers, are called FULL NODES (yes, they can also have a big ass ASIC chip attached to it). Those full nodes validate your work. If it's not valid (like you try to mine a 100 MB block), it is REJECTED and it will NOT be propagated across the network.

You do not have to have an ASIC to validate blocks or participate in the bitcoin network. All you need is the consensus rules of bitcoin, some CPU power to validate and networking to propagate.

>>13438885
Also stop writing walls of text. If you can prove your point by being concise, its an obvious tell you're being a sophist.

>>13439024

> You really are retarded. All miners must be connected to a node to broadcast to the network and receive other blocks from other miners to work on. How smooth is your brain?


Holy fuck you can't read or something.
See >>13438562 where I said

Let's define miners as people running asics or something extremely powerful and the purpose is to find the next block. Yes, they validate blocks. Yes, a miner is a full node.

A full node, as I've described, are systems that aren't dedicated to mining. They can mine (but with very small hash rate). You download bitcoin's core software and it lets you mine on your computer. Is it efficient? Not anymore. Hence why there's dedicated miners.

I've given you many scenarios where if what you said is true, miners can do whatever they want but they don't. I keep asking, if you say this is true, then this can happen but it doesn't. Why? You don't answer. I'm trying to explain to you how bitcoin works.

>>13439046

The wall of text is me explaining to you how things work because you don't understand. I wouldn't type any of this if you understood.

I'll leave you to it. I've already answered all your questions but you can't seem to answer any of mine. If you still can't understand I'm wasting my time trying to help out a bro on biz.

>>13438446
thanks based anon. account just verified. do i still need to use coinbase as an on ramp?
where is everybody else buying BSV? where are you keeping it? handcash app recommended?

>>13439076
You have no argument. All you're saying is your node that has limp dick hashpower is important, when its not. If you want to matter and make a difference on the network get some fucking hashpower. Otherwise stfu because nobody is taking the bait.

>I've given you many scenarios where if what you said is true, miners can do whatever they want but they don't
I never said miners can do w/e they want. Keep strawmaning me, niggerfaggot. You obviously don't understand the incentives scheme behind bitcoin or how the whole system is made trustless in the first place.

>>13439002

>What do you even mean. You think people with faster internet can do whatever they want and just randomly add blocks or transactions to a confirmed block?

No, I think those with faster internet that also happen to have found the block will propagate it faster than the ones with slower internet.

>Let's define miners as people running asics or something extremely powerful and the purpose is to find the next block. Yes, they validate blocks. Yes, a miner is a full node.

A mining *pool* is a full node.

"The perpetually propagated idea that the Bitcoin system is something you can "trust" is a direct attack against its security. Bitcoin working "because math" or "because decentralisation" results in lower participation in securing the system.

Market caps are one of the key negative contributors. People tend to correlate a higher market cap with reliability or security. But an irrationally high market cap signals instability

The more activity Bitcoin has "off chain", the less stable it becomes, because the information associated with the economic activity of the system is not evenly distributed between the participants who secure it

This is because the security of the chain looking forward is determined by the miners impressionability -- those mining the chain today, and those who could potentially join in the future

The idea that you can "trust" bitcoin is a narrative designed to confuse you about the value and security of a Bitcoin and the bitcoin system.

To disincentivise future miners from joining, and to move economic incentives over miner behaviour away from the protocol towards politics

This ultimately makes Bitcoin less stable and predictable, and it means that a long term history of protocol stability means absolutely nothing for future stability

If someone's node isn't making them money from mining, they're making money some other way. That's why it's a confusion attack. Don't trust, verify.

>>13439284
Lightning literally kills the security and incentives structure of Bitcoin. Its extremely shortsighted and foolish or malicious. I'm going with the latter. These people aren't dumb, they understand what they're doing to Bitcoin.

>ITT

>>13439389

Love it

>>13439115

"Remember, miners are not government contractors who can get sweet deals by cosying up to some politician. Their only way of making money is by mining valid, honest blocks. There is zero incentive to game the network."

so can anyone explain in simple terms what happebs when a block is made?

im confused, why would a miner have to wait for a bunch of crappy nodes to "sync" up and approve their block?

by the time they found the block, they are already on to the next one..

>>13439621

When a block is found, that miner sends it out to other miners, who have an incentive to accept it because they want to move on to the next block. Eventually, about 30 seconds later, all non-economic spectator nodes will have received it. There is no point at which miners validate against the spectator nodes, because they are confident enough to push out and move on... because they played by the rules. Does that make sense?

>>13439621
>so can anyone explain in simple terms what happebs when a block is made?
Miners receive broadcasted transactions from peers on the network. All transactions are timestamped and digitally signed. The miner then adds the transaction to the block he is trying to solve. Blocks are solved with Proof of Work. PoW is essentially computers solving very complex math problems. The first miner to solve this problem completes the block and then broadcasts it to the rest of the network. The other miners can verify the block and that the miner didn't cheat. Then they begin to work on the next block. The goal of the miners is to complete blocks so they can get paid. It just so happens the work they do to validate transactions and propagate blocks secures the network. Miners aren't doing this just because they're such swell guys, they want that delicious bitcoin.

>im confused, why would a miner have to wait for a bunch of crappy nodes to "sync" up and approve their block?
Other miners can verify a valid block within seconds and begin working on the next block.

>by the time they found the block, they are already on to the next one..
On average it takes 10 minutes to find a new block. So sometimes a new block can be found within a couple of minutes, other times it can take an hour. But most of the time it takes 10 mins.

As for the other nodes on the network who are not mining, they have absolutely nothing to do with this entire process. The only utility they provide for the network is for themselves. What they can do is verify transactions that there was no fraud (double spend). The sad part is this utility is next to none on BTC because they got rid of 0-conf. Meaning you have to wait until a miner confirms on BTC before the payment can be accepted. This is because BTC has rbf (replace by fee). Tiny block size and users have to compete against each other to get onto the next block by paying a higher fee, which can take hours to days.

>>13439621
Read the whitepaper. You might not pick up on everything right away, but it should help you get a general idea of how sophisticated and impressive this whole system actually is.

chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf?

ITT: "read the whitepaper"

>>13440009
Which you should.

>>13438885

I appreciate your patience in explaining this to everyone here while some call you "faggot" and "retarded". I'm not sure why people don't get what you mean or have the patience to explain their side with some civility.

>>13439904
>>13439925

>When a block is found, that miner sends it out to other miners, who have an incentive to accept it because they want to move on to the next block.

>Other miners can verify a valid block within seconds and begin working on the next block.

I should have clarified this part because it's really important and why home nodes are utter bullshit. At no point does the home node come into this equation, because propagation and consensus are achieved by the most densely connected players. Think about it. If a block goes out and another miner wants to alter it, they must also propagate it before anyone else sees the original, which is absurd and becomes exponentially more difficult the longer they take to push it out. A dishonest miner never stands a chance of winning, because they're never a step ahead of anyone else. If a miner wants to censor a certain tx, it's too bad because by the time he's received the tx, so has everyone else. That's Nakamoto Consensus, and this is what Satoshi meant by "the longest chain wins," he was referring to block propagation.

>>13440442
>If a miner wants to censor a certain tx, it's too bad because by the time he's received the tx, so has everyone else. That's Nakamoto Consensus, and this is what Satoshi meant by "the longest chain wins," he was referring to block propagation.
God, Satoshi is based af.

>>13438394
>mining I'm talking about nodes
Node = miner
How hard can it be to understand? If you don't mine you don't do shit. You mining blocks is the only way to vote for the last blocks validity. As other anons say, with I raspberry pi you can watch the network, but you are not part of it and you don't do shit other than wasting time and energy. Read the whitepaper

>>13440500
I guess that's why 2x was such a big success, huh anon?.... What's that? You would like to change the subject?

>>13440524
Already covered in the thread. UA anything is a protest, not actual voting. Just because the miners cucked doesn't mean it's a real thing. Read the whitepaper.

>>13440583
>n-no, you s-see the miners WANTED to g-get cuked
>muh 2D chess
Hahahahahahahaha

>>13440605
Yikes

>>13440524
>2x
LOL that's nothing. Try 128x. It's already working fine on bitcoin SV

>>13440621
And there is no Segwit.

>>13440615
Yeah exactly, you don't have a fucking thing to say now you little bitch.

>>13440621
>fine
>reorgs are fine

>>13440641
I've already explained consensus ad infinitum in this thread.

>>13440657
>Haven't read the section in the whitepaper about orphaning
It is literally the most important mechanism in bitcoin, but you don't know that because you never read the whitepaper

>>13440657
They are. Everything goes into the right chain, there's no more risk of double spends than there is at other times and the miner learns to invest in bandwidth so they get the reward next time.

>>13440665
Explain how fucking embarrassed you were when your chink mining farm got btfo by those raspbi pis you hate so much?
>>13440670
>reorgs are fine
>it says so in the whitepaper

>>13440688
Are you kidding me? I'm fucking glad 2x didn't happen. Otherwise the obvious flaws on btc wouldn't be so glaring. BTC will never scale up its blocksize and that's good for SV.

>>13440462

It's crazy how people have ignored or misinterpreted all this, block propagation is a really nuanced thing, I mean look at this shit-
>>13439034

>If you're a miner and you mine some bullshit or try to increase the block size, you broadcast that block to your peers. Those peers will check if everything is correct. Those peers, are called FULL NODES (yes, they can also have a big ass ASIC chip attached to it). Those full nodes validate your work. If it's not valid (like you try to mine a 100 MB block), it is REJECTED and it will NOT be propagated across the network.

This is what people actually think happens. Absurd.

>>13440524
>>13440605
>>13440688
>>13440728

Are you talking about Segwit/UASF or Segwit2x? Segwit2x didn't happen because of bad code that didn't activate and was negotiated before the BCH split. It had nothing to do with raspberry pi spectator nodes.

If you're talking about UASF... lol. It never would have happened without miners. If no miners ran BIP-148 software, it never would have happened. Literally just a single miner accepting Segwit was enough for it to activate properly.

"As shown above, despite having “user-activated” in the name, the actual fork still is triggered by a miner. At least one miner needs to be running BIP-148 software to fork. In fact, short of a switch to proof-of-stake or something similar, there really isn’t a way for any sort of fork to be triggered by anyone but a miner.

This is an important point, because despite all the rhetoric, BIP-148 still needs miners to have any chance of success. Essentially, BIP-148 is creating a new consensus rule for its chain, namely, signaling for Segwit."

>>13440896
Segwit is a poison pill as well. Removing signatures from transactions defeats the validity of transactions. If BTC were ever to get into smart contracts or even be used in business legally speaking the transactions are void. Aside from scaling Segwit is a primary reason for the fork to bch.

As for 2x, these cucks think they pulled one over on the miners, but as you say it's still ultimately up to the miners to fork or not. The best part is with their inflated egos, they think this is a win. When Jihan and others had OBVIOUS reasons to not up the blocksize at all. These people forget that miners are on all 3 chains. Even without moving miners from bch or sv they can block any HF to increase blocksize on btc.

It's a dead fucking coin. Don't even get me started on LN lol.

>>13440442
>>13439966
>>13439925
>>13439904
>>13440896

thanks, so where do the "rules" come into play? I dont see why a miner would ever want to push out a 100mb block in the first place, it would just be a huge waste of money and none of the other miners would accept it. i cant think of an actual example where someone would need a full node... like if a business ran a node to detect double spends at their store, why would it matter anyways since 0-conf was taken out like you said.

>At no point does the home node come into this equation, because propagation and consensus are achieved by the most densely connected players. Think about it. If a block goes out and another miner wants to alter it, they must also propagate it before anyone else sees the original, which is absurd and becomes exponentially more difficult the longer they take to push it out

so wouldnt a regular electrum wallet be just as good at the end of the day?

i guess i do need to read the whitepaper more, thanks, you guys have cleared up a lot though, this is so complicated lol

>>13440993
>I dont see why a miner would ever want to push out a 100mb block
Fees. The more data in a transaction the higher the fees. Eventually the last bitcoin will be mined and there will be nothing but fees to pay the miners with.

btc has no long term future. Business will use a node to check 0-conf on bch or sv.

>>13440986

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b5p7d3/i_found_a_600k_bch_theft_that_has_gone_unnoticed/

Funny how the miners made the most $$$ off Segwit ultimately by forking.

>>13432928
>He then gets to the real heart of the matter, defending Binance, Kraken and Shapeshift’s decisions to delist Bitcoin SV (BSV). For him, those companies are allowed to delist BSV and that’s not censorship, but quite inconsistently, Wright legally defending himself against claims that he is a fraud is somehow censorship.

>>13441031
Wtf. I've never seen this. Just how buggy can one "soft" fork be?

>>13441071

From Core's perspective, it was insurance against forking more or less.

BSV miners also got to scoop up a bunch of free Segwit.

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/decentralised-or-just-inefficient-1eefecec03ff

New CSW medium, think he reads biz/this thread? :p

>>13441748
I fucking hope so. When the dust has finally settled on this I would like some kind of acknowledgement from him to the shitposters who tirelessly defended Bitcoin and the whitepaper.

>>13441813
i would have a word with that gay ass boomer drunkard faketoshi too

>>13440986

> Segwit is a poison pill as well. Removing signatures from transactions

You are misinformed. Segwit puts signature data somewhere else but it's still on the blockchain. It does not remove signatures. If the signature data is completely removed as you say, anyone can say this person is making a payment to this person, without having to sign it. The miners can literally say everyone is sending money to my wallet address and try to mine that block (because no signature is required). That doesn't happen. You should take the time to see why this can't happen. You have all this time shit posting on this board but you won't actually go and learn what segwit does.

I've said many times segwit was a soft fork. Soft fork means it's an addition feature that's optional, not a requirement. That means backwards compatibility with bitcoin's previous consensus rules, the same rules that ran bitcoin forever. If you hard fork, you're changing the consensus rules. That's what BCH did. If there's a hard fork and there's a soft fork, by definition, the soft fork is the closest to the original / previous consensus rules. So BTC right now, is more close to the original bitcoin's consensus rules than BCH an BSV. This is simply a technical fact.

Your knowledge of LN is abysmal and you've only gathered bits and pieces from biased sources. Read the lightening paper at least.

If you're too lazy, a general overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrr_zPmEiME

You'll note that at every transaction / lightening transaction, everything is signed by both parties. There is no instance where signatures are removed.

>>13441912
>You are misinformed.
yes he is but not the way you think, bip16 p2sh removed the need for signatures for spending segwit just moved the witness data outside the 1mb block and uses bip16 to make the transaction valid for old nodes. bip16 changed bitcoin more than segwit and is active on cash and sv also.

>>13441912
Seriously drop the walls of text, you absolute retard.

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

>>13441928
>bip16 p2sh removed the need for signatures for spending
Did 01G tell you that? He's a retard as well. P2SH allows for extra conditions to be set to RECEIVE funds. Not spend, you absolute moron.

>>13441936
technically you are kinda right you spent the coins the moment you transferred them to a p2sh address.

>>13441936
btw
>To spend bitcoins sent via P2SH, the recipient must provide a script matching the script hash and data which makes the script evaluate to true.
please educate yourself!

>>13441946
The sender digitally signs the transaction. P2SH allows the sender to set parameters for the recipient to unlock the funds, such as a password or timelock. Once the funds are unlocked in order to be spent by the recipient, he will have to sign the transaction.

>>13441953
The funds are signed and sent with a locking script. On the other end the recipient uses an unlocking script to gain access. None of this involves bypassing signing the transaction.

Otherwise source up or shut up.

>>13441958
>>13441966
>The sender digitally signs the transaction.
like i said it depends on how you look at it
but once the coins are on a p2sh address you no longer need to provide a signature to spend. it depends on the script itself.

>>13441912

You don't know what consensus means. Go read my post on block propagation very carefully:

>>13440442

>I've said many times segwit was a soft fork. Soft fork means it's an addition feature that's optional, not a requirement.

Segwit has nothing to do with consensus or the state of the UTXO set. It also would have never activated if none of the miner nodes ran the BIP-148 upgrade. It did not need to reach "consensus," it just needed a single altruistic/stupid miner to agree to run the software, and they did, and bitcoin was worse off for it.

Lightning is bad because it forces a buffer between users and miners. Miners are the only thing actually protecting the chain. Again, read my post up there, it lays it out very simply.

>A dishonest miner never stands a chance of winning, because they're never a step ahead of anyone else. If a miner wants to censor a certain tx, it's too bad because by the time he's received the tx, so has everyone else. That's Nakamoto Consensus, and this is what Satoshi meant by "the longest chain wins," he was referring to block propagation.

>>13441982
>once the coins are on a p2sh address you no longer need to provide a signature to spend
Source

>>13441936

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

It is signatures. It's just put elsewhere but still on the blockchain. If what you say is true, then all the miners can just pay themselves from the biggest BTC wallets. There's no point to mine anything else besides that, why even look at the mempool?

There's literally a BIP on it, BIP 143 titled "Transaction Signature Verification for Version 0 Witness Program"

But it's a wall of text so I'm guessing you're not going to read it?

You talk about all these things like "there's no signatures anymore" but segwit and even lightening have been running for awhile now. Please, email miners and tell them about your brilliant plan. Tell them they can just add any transaction they want to the blockchain (because you don't need signatures anymore) and include it in the next block. See how that works out. You'll be rich and you won't have to shit post on biz anymore.

>>13442005
>It is signatures. It's just put elsewhere but still on the blockchain
>Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin

Just stop.

>>13441991
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/91c8b08f305d895d6bc8f43bbdd36dcbc7f1d998e3df5e8f13dd9cdeebf15cb5?show_adv=true

>>13442017
>Input Scripts
>ScriptSig

J U S T S T O P

>>13442017
Just for (You)

https://bico.media/f3064cd65d5fac5790b89ffda132554f090d0ca50c7087619199cd7a736c9375

>>13442022
you are a sore loser

>>13442005

https://twitter.com/DrSammyD/status/1081467513840357378
https://twitter.com/bryceweiner/status/1081434134264725504?lang=en
https://twitter.com/malkavianbilbao/status/1081529379459616768

Segwit is fucked lol

>>13442011

Maybe a picture will help you understand.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weight_units

This is talking about weights and stuff but the transaction format is there for you in a nice picture. They even colored it blue for the witness data. Note that witness data (aka signature data) is not removed but just moved in a segwit transaction.

>>13442028
>doesn't know what ScriptSig means
Pathetic

>>13442022
this is what a scriptSig looks like when it has signature in it...
ScriptSig: PUSHDATA(71)[30440220352df3e57e57e362b281e3f4f5c78b288089cea42bd1a431c916e8fa193c624f022029e9555612a8204eeae7695a0846b08184100149241eb1cd6148c0b961af2b7201] PUSHDATA(33)[02f3a9feb0de90ce7b1f7d178f603828db1825f407e59ec7c6d5f03d3d8dad6878]

>>13442037
nigga it's just a string displayed in this case doesn't mean a fucking thing see >>13442038

>>13442029

That guy in the twitter post doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Please, don't take what he says as a fact.

You can generate wallets as you wish. You generate wallets at the very beginning of bitcoin, you generate wallets on BCH and BSV.

You can create BCH/BSV/BTC (non-segwit) addresses and search for one that has a collision, then steal the funds when there's a match. This is otherwise known as brute forcing for a private key.

As anyone that's familiar with crypto, brute forcing private keys are extremely difficult. If I have to explain to you why, you shouldn't be in crypto.

>>13442038
>>13442040
Dude, a ScriptSig literally contains a signature. Are you trying to tell me there was no input at all? How come you can't find any article that covers exactly what you're talking about?

>>13442029
>Finding collision
>Efficiently
Like several billions years?

>Be Bryce Wainer
>Use a shitty private key present in hundreds of stealer bot
>Your funds get stolen
>Muh SegWit flaw
It’s not a SegWit flaw, if you use a shitty private key, it’s brain deficiency.
Please not this shit again.
If SegWit has flaws why BSVtards are not exploiting it?
Protip: cause they can’t

>>13442083
>Are you trying to tell me there was no input at all?
i'm telling you all you need is a script with the correct hash and it evaluating to true to spend. and that script may or may not check one or more signatures. of course if you write a script that doesn't check signatures just say reveals a secret a miner will just fucking take it.

>>13442097
not just BSVtards, anyone in crypto or not in crypto. ETHfags, chainlink fags, BCH fags, miner fags, all the fags.

They didn't get their way and they claim all these flaws but they don't exploit these flaws, they just peddle falsehoods. If they were actually flaws, they could just exploit them and be rich.

Yet segwit and even lightening has been chugging along without issues. They are cryptographically sound.

>>13442100
Dude, if it were an unlocking script maybe. This literally a ScriptSig. Give me a fucking article that confirms what you're talking about.

>>13442125
>Yet segwit and even lightening has been chugging along without issues. They are cryptographically sound.

This is bait.

>>13442217

If you believe otherwise, go exploit it. You'll make a lot of money and you'll be famous, not just in crypto but in the computer security field in general.

You will be the one that finally ((makes)) it from biz.

>>13442038
>>13442032

This is all trivia, you're fools for ignoring the bigger systemic issues brought about by Segwit and Lightning.

If you place a buffer between the user and the miner, you've already lost. They will leave your chain.

>>13442059
>>13442097

You're missing the point. Segwit creates an assymetry in the address space. It doesn't link to ECDSA in the same way as 1addr, and it doesn't require actual signatures, which means it's unsafe as fuck on a long-enough timeline.

"With segwit or malfix, the transaction tree is only secured by PoW, which is many, many orders of magnitude less secure than ECDSA. This is important in a PoW compromise or 51% attack scenario."

>>13442254
>make contract viability literally zero with Segwit
>remove fees from the chain onto a buggy banking layer that loses people money

In the long run LN bankrupts the blockchain of security because miners will stop mining. This will happen well before new bitcoin stop being mined. Fees need to start making up more and more of the block reward with every halving.

>>13442258
>If you place a buffer between the user and the miner, you've already lost. They will leave your chain.
except with 1 meg blocks not even lightning can scale to demand so the miners get their due anyhow. 1 meg blocks are unsustainable long term. there is no way around that. the only question is when will core increase and how. it can be done with a soft fork. but that's kinda disgusting. it can also be done by putting all segwit transactions to a separate block keeping the main 1mb block reserved for legacy transactions. but even that is just pussying around.

>>13442291
And with Lightning miners become decentivized to mine. The whole fucking thing comes down from the inside out. Miners have a vested interest in btc not succeeding at this point. There will never be a blocksize limit increase.

Where's my article?

>>13442291

By the time Core raises the 1mb limit, it will be too late.

>>13442258
>Segwit creates an assymetry in the address space. It doesn't link to ECDSA in the same way as 1addr, and it doesn't require actual signatures, which means it's unsafe as fuck on a long-enough timeline.
that's not true until segwit rules are enforced by consensus. the problem with segwit is not this, but that it fucks with miner incentives in an insidious way that allows for a minority of malicious miners to push the majority to abandon segwit rule enforcement from others. peter rizun talked about this at length.

however miners can't make money without the economic nodes and the economic nodes are themselves network nodes are separated from them by a mesh of network nodes all enforcing the rules. this makes miners more reluctant to defect as it may result in them being unable to cash out on their efforts.

in the end we will see if segwit does have a problem that can be practically exploited or not but remember if there is an exploit there will be a fix. buy the dip!

>>13442307
>And with Lightning miners become decentivized to mine.
why ever would you think that? channels need maintenance creating and settling all onchain transactions.

>>13442307
>Where's my article?
sorry i'm not some drunk ass boomer faggot who is in the habit of writing ""articles""

>>13442312
yes that is possible that much i must admit. core development is a clusterfuck but 1meg greg leaving is actually bullish to me.

>>13442336
>here we go again with non-miners enforcing rules again

Its all so tiresome.

>>13442343
>at scale, settling literally hundreds of thousands of transactions in one transaction
>vs millions of transactions happening independently a day doing many different things from paying bills to data storage

Nah, its going to collapse in on itself.

>>13442350
That's because you're talking out your ass, 01Gnigger. It is not possible to send a transaction without first signing it.

>>13442362
>Its all so tiresome.
yes you think a miner can cash out without other nodes? then you are a moron.
>It is not possible to send a transaction without first signing it.
anyone can sign a transaction. you can take a transaction alter it and sign it.

>>13442258
who's they?

Lightening already exists and tx count right now is at an all time high. Who left?

> Segwit .... doesn't require actual signatures

What does this even mean? If you don't have signatures with your transactions, then anyone can take money from a segwit account arbitrarily because miners can just try to include it in the next block. Why isn't this happening right now? Are you saying the miners are behaving even though they supported NYA and there have been many miners and many ASIC companies that want to shit on bitcoin in the hopes BCH / BSV takes over?

> "With segwit or malfix, the transaction tree is only secured by PoW, which is many, many orders of magnitude less secure than ECDSA. This is important in a PoW compromise or 51% attack scenario."

Where is this quote from? And where's the analysis that leads to these conclusions?

The transaction tree, aka the blockchain, has always been secured by PoW and full nodes (yes, miners are also full nodes). Is segwit transactions no longer secured by full nodes (aka nodes that enforce the bitcoin protocol)? That's a big statement. It essentially says full nodes (aka nodes that validate & propagate the blockchain) just says "oh this is segwit transaction? cool, i'll let it pass (without verifying and validating it), miners will never lie"

Furthermore, full nodes never needed to update at all to support segwit (yet they did). Just all the miners need to update. Miners can do whatever fuck they want at this point. So why didn't they just do segwit2x when they had 80%+ of the hash rate? Last I checked, 80%+ is > 51%. Furthermore, why aren't they exploiting this flaw now? They still have 80% of the hash rate.

>>13442373
>cash out without other nodes
What the fuck does that even mean?

>you can take a transaction alter it and sign it
>immutable ledger
Alter this one
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/88ca80045c39c1403b219296b59e8c0df9c4b8dbb496f9b1e43f44895b22a088

>>13442029
???????????????
you know what 2^256 means right?

>>13442374
>So why didn't they just do segwit2x when they had 80%+ of the hash rate?
Because miners didn't enforce it. Nodes without hashpower can't enforce a fucking thing for the billionth time.

Also read
>>13440986
>When Jihan and others had OBVIOUS reasons to not up the blocksize at all. These people forget that miners are on all 3 chains. Even without moving miners from bch or sv they can block any HF to increase blocksize on btc.

Miners have no incentive to increase btcs blocksize, they want it to fail.

I gotta go to bed, but I'll leave this here:

chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf?

>>13442387
like this?
"out":[
{
"spent":false,
"tx_index":440446787,
"type":0,
"value":0,
"n":0,
"script":"fa3301"
},
{
"spent":true,
"spending_outpoints":[
{
"tx_index":440446926,
"n":0
}
],
"tx_index":440446787,
"type":0,
"addr":"16Hgy8zt8stgcrkbZXw4ETHfBND3pf3EWS",
"value":12142045,
"n":1,
"script":"76a9143a00a5d7eac8692b25ec4e19a5b2a03a2507356888ac"
}
],

but of course the input is already spent and confirmed so i have no idea what the fuck are you talking about here.

>>13442400

> Because miners didn't enforce it. Nodes without hashpower can't enforce a fucking thing for the billionth time.

That makes no sense. 80% of miners wanted segwit2x but you're saying they don't want to enforce what they want?

I've said many times, miners (the ones with the ASICs) don't dictate the consensus protocol of bitcoin. They can't add whatever blocks they want, just like they can't add 100 MB blocks to bitcoin's blockchain because that breaks consensus and their 100 MB block won't be propagated by the full nodes. The miners don't do it because they CAN'T, not because they didn't want to do it. If they could, they would, as their block reward for 100 MB block is much higher than what they get now.

Bitcoin does not operate on the good will of miners, bitcoin operates because the consensus rules are enforced by the full nodes (yes, miners can also be full nodes but they are not the only full nodes). Miners can't deviate from the consensus protocol.

>>13442400
> Miners have no incentive to increase btcs blocksize, they want it to fail.

What? lol.... So let's say miners want BCH to succeed. Can miners suddenly add whatever transactions they want to the BCH chain without signatures? Can they make 1 TB blocks and add it to the BCH blockchain and have that be valid (because you think miners dictate the consensus rules?)


Again, if what you say is true, just contact the BTC miners and tell'em your idea. Tell them to exploit it because they have 80% of the hash rate and tell them they can do whatever they want. Especially since you say they want BTC to fail. Link them the bitcoin pdf and say "here's my proof guys, now make it happen".

>>13442400
>Nodes without hashpower can't enforce a fucking thing for the billionth time.
of course they can, bitcoin would immediately fork if some miners defected and all the nodes economic and network nodes would stick with the miners who keep consensus. irrelevant of hashrate.

>>13442336

"By using “AnyOneCanSpend” addressing, SegWit therefore opens the door to a corrupt miner mining a block to subvert transactions, and instead redirect them to the miner’s own address. The value of such an illicit attack would grow every day SegWit is used. Over time, the more people use bitcoin, the more SegWit transactions are added to the blockchain, and the more funds are locked up with SegWit aspects of bitcoin, the more valuable this form of cartel attack becomes. A defecting miner could access historical funds that have not been redirected from SegWit to a traditional bitcoin address. Hence, the longer a SegWit system runs, the more likely it is that a cartel will form to steal funds.

Under SegWit, miners are not likely to form a cartel to recover an individual double spent transaction – even if it is a large single transaction. Rather, it is the sum of all SegWit transactions (at least in blocks mined by cartel members) which provides a large enough treasure chest worth pirating. If 51% of miners that signal for SegWit secretly support cartelisation of the protocol, it is only a matter of time before transactions are stolen."

Do you get it now? Probably not, but let me explain it simply. Miners are not economically incentivized to screw with individual transactions because that's all they can do as a malicious actor. With SegWit, they can fuck up *all* of the Segwit tx in a single block.

Segwit addresses are not derived from pure ECDSA. This is called an attack vector, bud.

>yes, miners are also full nodes

Still wrong, POOLS are full nodes.

>by full nodes (aka nodes that enforce the bitcoin protocol)

The only one "enforcing" anything are those that can issue vetos, which can only be done by issuing a competing block. A non-mining spectator node has never in the history of Bitcoin issued one.

>So why didn't they just do segwit2x when they had 80%+ of the hash rate?

I already went over this. Nobody wanted 2x after the Bitcoin Cash fork.

>>13442387
>immutable ledger
transactions are not immutable until they are 6 (100 for sv) deep confirmed.

kiss bye bye to 50USD

>>13442466

>Bitcoin does not operate on the good will of miners

No, but it is secured by their investment.

>bitcoin operates because the consensus rules are enforced by the full nodes (yes, miners can also be full nodes but they are not the only full nodes).

If you can't issue new blocks, you can't veto bad ones either. You aren't going to win this argument because of a user activated soft fork.

>Miners can't deviate from the consensus protocol.

They never had the incentive in the first place. Trying to deviate would mean losing a massive amount of money going on a fool's errand trying to beat the propagation game.

>>13442481
Hi O1G why the name change?

>>13442478
>"By using “AnyOneCanSpend” addressing, SegWit therefore opens the door to a corrupt miner mining a block to subvert transactions, and instead redirect them to the miner’s own address.
that's bip16 what i have been talking about all day long. bip16 changed bitcoin forever.
>If 51% of miners that signal for SegWit secretly support cartelisation of the protocol, it is only a matter of time before transactions are stolen.
not so simple if 51% of the miners desert the remaining 49% going to have a field day with block rewards they can actually spend.

it's also unlikely for the majority of miners to try attacking their own livelihood. but as i said segwit has problems with twisting incentives for miners being diligent about what their fellows do until there is no actual attack at which point they may stand there with pants down.

but what would happen at a time like this is btc would not get new valid blocks as far as network nodes and economic nodes are concerned. mempool would get clogged and everybody would talk about the attack. price would tank on exchanges but eventually shit would clear up as at least 20% of the miners come to their senses and start enforcing segwit rules again and start mining new blocks on the longest valid chain.

>>13442503
because o1g doesn't mean anything to non-hungarians and i'm sick and tired of my countrymen.

>>13442510
A race traitor and a core cuck like fucking poetry

>>13441832
Same. I have defended him relentlessly in biz and bought his coin (the real bitcoin). I hope at leas I will meet him someday and get his autograph and kiss him on his pecker.

>>13442515
they betrayed themselves and me a 100 times. i no longer give a fuck. i will bounce as soon as i'm financially free. and good luck trying to stop my wealth at the border! btc doens't give a fuck.

>>13442466

Holy fuck, I imagined the scenario of you talking to the miners.

anon: "hey miners, did you now you have all the power and you can do whatever you want to the BTC chain? Just read the BTC white paper"

miners: "no way anon, I've never seen this BTC paper in my life. Holy fuck, you understand bitcoin more than us even though we've poured hundreds of millions into getting as much BTC as possible"

anon: "thanks miners, I am super smart. All you have to do is not follow bitcoin's consensus rules"

I would love to see the actual conversation. Take screenshots and post it here.

>>13442498
They never had the incentive in the first place. Trying to deviate would mean losing a massive amount of money going on a fool's errand trying to beat the propagation game.

What? If you can mine a 10 MB block on bitcoin, you collect more fees in that block. So yes, there's incentive to deviate from the consensus rules. How is that not incentive?

> If you can't issue new blocks, you can't veto bad ones either.

lol wut.... god damn what the fuck am I reading. Let's say a pool like antpool mines a block. They by your definition have veto power. Now the next block is mined by slushpool. Does antpool no longer have "veto" power? But you're going to say, well, you you don't have mine every block to have "veto" power. Then, any miner with a hashing power > 0 will have veto power. A raspberry pi or even a person with a pencil and paper has hashing power > 0. 0.0000000000001 hashes per minute is > 0.

> Trying to deviate would mean losing a massive amount of money going on a fool's errand trying to beat the propagation game.

But the miners can do whatever they want anon. What propagation game are you talking about? Oh? You mean the ones where a full node decides to propagate a block or not by looking at the bitcoin's consensus rules?

>>13442534
>Name

>>13442543

Further reading

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node

>>13438244
100×

>>13442543


When a block is found, that miner sends it out to other miners, who have an incentive to accept it because they want to move on to the next block. Eventually, about 30 seconds later, all non-economic spectator nodes will have received it. There is no point at which miners validate against the spectator nodes, because they are confident enough to push out and move on... because they played by the rules.

At no point does the home node come into this equation, because propagation and consensus are achieved by the most densely connected players. Think about it. If a block goes out and another miner wants to alter it, they must also propagate it before anyone else sees the original, which is absurd and becomes exponentially more difficult the longer they take to push it out. A dishonest miner never stands a chance of winning, because they're never a step ahead of anyone else. If a miner wants to censor a certain tx, it's too bad because by the time he's received the tx, so has everyone else. That's Nakamoto Consensus, and this is what Satoshi meant by "the longest chain wins," he was referring to block propagation.

A miner can never do anything but collude to commit cheap double-spends with their own money. They can NEVER censor a transaction.

>>13432993
Doesn't realize capacity of new & future microsd cards yet. (pic related)

How much physical space & costs to maintain can it be?

The old "it doesn't scale because of storage", simply isn't true.

>>13443035
It's because of bandwidth, retard.

>>13442534
This much salt is not good for your heart. Why are you so emotionally attached to core coin?

Thread never dies
Gems inside

>>13433055
Si you are a basedboy that wants a raspberry pi that LARPS as a node?. That's the kind of cuckness that brought us to 10 YEARS OF 0 ADOPTION and HODL LMAO.
You may as well be a trannie with all that estrogen

>>13442543
based anon.
you're wasting your time.
those retards don't have a fucking clue what a full node is.

WTF MY THREAD IS STILL UP?

>>13432951
2GB BLOCKSIZE KEK!

>>13432928
Just HODL.

BSV IS BITCOIN

>>13443697
its pumping.

>>13443686
OMG...

I fucking LOVE Biz memes.

Biz is soooo fucking based lol. Craig = le god.

We need to meme him into emperor status lol, how frickin based would that be guys?

It's like... he's just as based as Trump and MoonMan. I think its because he's so sassy and non-sequitorious.

This is TOTALLY the next, most epic and righteous BASED meme.... get this:

He's on the internet...

He's contrarian to what seems reasonable and admirable...

Controversial...

Quite silly and ironic...

But actually a super fun and great guy.