/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16084722
btcchsv ≠ btc

saged

>>16084722
i bought over 140 of them after btc and bch forked off BitCoin protocol
this is my consolation for not pursuing gpu mining on an AMD card instead of trash nvidia back in 2012

>>16084907
jesus christ you bought this crap for $3k?

>>16084722
>real bitcoin
not i a billion years kiddo
>>16079471
>>16081409
>>16081671
>>16082011

>>16085284
?? had 15 bch after fork and ended up with 140 bsv now. fels gud mens

>>16084722
>real bitcoin
not in a billion years kiddo
>>16079471
>>16081409
>>16081671
>>16082011

>>16085310
if it feels good keep on doing it i guess.

BSV is a project built around dishonesty. The reason why I hate BSV shills is not because they're annoying, but because they're dishonest.

>>16084907
Based satoshi gives us a second chance. Dont let him down

>>16085329
>BSV is a project built around dishonesty.
indeed the root of all dishonest is this
>>16084907
>btc and bch forked off BitCoin protocol
objectively not what happened and everyone can see this stop pretending to us and yourself cucks! it's unbecoming. it would be a billion times easier to accept the existence of your shitcoin if you stopped this retardation.

bch forked off of bitcoin and then sv forked off of bch both forks would have been reorged if they didn't alter the consensus protocol in ways that made them incompatible with the longer valid chain. bch would have come to a standstill at best if they didn't readjust the difficulty (completely breaking the nakamoto consensus outlined in the 2009 whitepaper)

>>16085321
>Bitcoin: A peer to peer electronic cash system
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

>>16085350
where does it say it's okay to continue by readjusting the difficulty by a hard for on a minority chain? show me cuck!

>>16085345
>We define a coin as a chain of digital signatures.
>removes signatures

>>16085377
sorry cuck you lost this one a hundred times already. since bip16 this is no longer true anyhow. bitcoin can be spent via valid unlock script that executes to true. if the script is a checksig then it's a checksig if not then not.

>>16085361
>post bitcoin whitepaper
>btc proponent assumes it's a point against him
it's just too easy

as to the difficulty adjustment bsv restores the original next feb.
Can you say the same for segwit, calling things with no hashpower nodes, replace by fee, block limits, deactived opcodes ?

>>16084722
imagine spamming this thread multiple time a day with fraud bitcoinsv and claiming it's the og 10yrs old bitcoin when it's not. Craig faketoshi wright is not satoshi and you mentally ill cultists will be put down for scamming people of their money and thinking it's acceptable behavior

>>16085405
looked like an answer to my objection nigga. come on show us! where does the whitepaper say it's okay to curb hashrate with a hardfork and go on with a minority hash chain!

i'm seriously waiting satoshi was quiet explicit about this, he said any non-consensus split fork is an "alternative coin" as there can be no two bitcoin. there is no real and not real bitcoin it's just bitcoin and alts. and all minority forks are alts by default. especially when they break the protocol.

>>16085478
it doesn't, bsv is going back to the 2016 block difficulty adjustment in feb.

Is btc peer to peer electronic cash?

>>16085484
>Is btc peer to peer electronic cash?
to me it is. that's how i use it and it works great. about 100 to a 1000 times better than international wires.

>>16085403
>nonsensical ramblings about bip16
OH NO NO NO
>>16085478
segwit coin was the fork when they destroyed the chain of signatures you mongrel. BSV is taking it back to the original protocol.

>>16085494
so you disagree with pic related?

>>16085512
there is no segwit coin unless you want to distinguish the bitcoins on p2pk and p2pkh addresses from the ones on p2sh and segwit addresses.

>>16085494
and yes bitcoin is the best fucking electronic peer to peer cash system ever devised to date that is not only secure but also trustless and persmissionless. and with lightning it can also do a shitload of micro payments and retail purchase off chain also in a trustless non custodial manner. which is again fucking awesome.

what went wrong was the minority forks. but the honey badger deosn't give a fuck about his retarded kids.

>>16085524
i don't disagree credit cards are a given once the card companies captured the market and the cost of credit cards was priced in by vendors you have to use them to minimize your loss.

if we could all agree the ditch the shit i would gladly do so, but it's a prisoner dilemma anyone defecting would think they benefit greatly when in reality we all get the shit end of the stick.

>>16084722
is ethereum classic the real ETH? You guys can ignore the market but it's costing you sats and $.

>>16085512
>nonsensical ramblings about bip16
so you deny that all bitcoin can be spent via valid unlock script executing to true?

>>16085537
>there is no segwit coin unless you want to distinguish the bitcoins on p2pk and p2pkh addresses from the ones on p2sh and segwit addresses.
So yes there is segwit. Which contradicts >We define a coin as a chain of digital signatures.
p2sh another addition not in the original protocol, deprecated in bsv.

>btc is the best fucking electronic peer to peer cash system
bsv can do everything btc can do better plus more
>lightning ... off chain
not bitcoin

>>16085524
Don't help them, these idiots think BTC should be spent like dollars. Do they print trillions of BTC every year? I'll keep my nerd coins, and they can spend BSV or BCH or XRP.
Bitcoin is for holders only, too volatile in small timeframes

>>16085572
look anon you can try and weasel your way out of this one all day but facts are facts. segwit breaks the chain of digital signatures and segwit coin is not bitcoin as defined in the whitepaper anymore. also that you try and claim bitcoin is still p2p electronic cash when even the developers have given up on that shows how disingenious you are.

>>16085590
without use there is no incentive to mine as a sha256 coin competing with fixed transaction capacity will become permanently less profitable than an otherwise identical sha256 coin with unlimited transaction capacity.

If no one mines btc it has no security

>>16085593
bitcoin since the very first release was spent to unlock script. nakamoto never released a version where you spend to digital signatures directly. the whitepaper was obviously made before he added the script support. and this don't invalidate either the whitepaper or the actual bitcoin protocol.

>>16085609
nice pilpul shlomo but there really is no discussion to be had here. bitcoin is defined as a chain of digital signatures, segwit breaks that chain. BTC is not bitcoin as defined in the whitepaper, end of story.

>>16084722
This is so stupid. "real bitcoin" not need to remain to people "look,this is the real bitcoin". You suckers failed at the start with your shitcoin.

>>16085609
the absolute state

>>16085586
>p2sh another addition not in the original protocol, deprecated in bsv.
i respect that sort of retardation if you got that way just go full retard! god speed anon!

>>16085586
>bsv can do everything btc can do better plus more
No it can't, BTC has a decade of exposure and billions of dollars pumped into. BSV leeches off of BTC's gains. You can't put BSV in a time machine and have it fork before Szabo made BTC.
I have one question for BCH and BSV holders What price will you guys give in at?
10 years of BTC going up and you bought a copy?

>>16085620
>>16085629
what the whitepaper says and what satoshi released are not literally the same i know this is hard to digest. but bitcoin is evidently what he implemented in the end. it's the working netwok and blockchain. not his dev notes. not his essay. you cucks lost this fight before it began.

>>16085640
>i know this is hard to digest
yeah because its all bullshit you try this pilpul every once in a while in BSV threads and you get utterly BTFO every single time. why dont you just give up rabbi and buy some BSV its pretty cheap right now.

>>16085637
>szabo made btc
lol

>>16085640
the level of cope
>we define a coin as a chain of digital signatures
>satoshi wanted to remove signature data

I bet you disagree with the definition of node here>>16085405

>>16085620
did they make the whitepaper immutable? You guys act like it's the declaration of independence. Satoshi failed with bitgold before bitcoin struck for him. things change and evolve over time, autists will forever hold onto the ecash meme.
>Oh no BTC can't be spent so easily
So hold you dumbfuck

>>16085675
>bitcoin isn't defined by the whitepaper
there it is, maximum corecuck

>>16085571
BSV is going up in price though moron, it has more utility than BTC.
ETC just ignored a single transaction reversal that a ETH hard fork caused that should have never happened, and while ETC had good intentions, a single, one-time transaction reversal doesn't impact its utility for most users.
False comparison, why didn't you buy BSV when it was only ~$50?

>>16085648
>pilpul
wtf is that supposed to be?

>>16085648
>and you get utterly BTFO every single time
things that never happened.
i mean maybe in your delusional head... i don't know.
>>16085671
>the level of cope
it's not cope anon, if the bitcoin implementation released by satoshi is not bitcoin then we never had bitcoin. if it is then btc is bitcoin.

if you take the first client released, update the message format, increase the bdb lock count and spoof the version to 2016 or something, it would sync up with the btc chain. because the nakamoto consensus is unbroken only on the btc chain. but this is only half of the truth. it's the one you can't do anything about so you try to ignore it. even if bitcoin made a hardfork that invalidated the chain for backwards compatibility so long it was the majority fork it would still be bitcoin. but you don't even get that small victory.

>>16085705
btc is not bitcoin

block limits
segwit
store of value/digital gold not peer to peer electronic cash
"full nodes"
replace by fee
op codes disabled
no spv
lightning network

bsv is bitcoin
https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/04/17/the-roadmap-to-genesis-part-1/
https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/07/13/quasar-upgrade-24th-july-recommendations-roadmap-to-genesis-part-2/
https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/07/26/utxo-height-based-activation-roadmap-to-genesis-part-3/
https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/07/27/the-return-of-op_return-roadmap-to-genesis-part-4/

>>16085685
no it's not obviously. the whitepaper was presentation of an idea. the implementation was bitcoin and the consensus that accepts the implementation (more precisely the ruleset) and changes to the implementation (and ruleset) is what makes bitcoin bitcoin.

there is no way around this. either we never had bitcoin or btc is bitcoin.

>>16084722
If this was satoshis vision then why didn't he make it this way in the first place. OP I know this is a larp but some of the idiots here might believe you

>>16085648
>yeah because its all bullshit you try this pilpul every once in a while in BSV threads and you get utterly BTFO every single time. why dont you just give up rabbi and buy some BSV its pretty cheap right now.
BSV always brings the pajeets, scammers gonna scam i guess. That word choice bro
>>16085671
Could you imagine being Szabo and you invented Bitgold, which is the closest precursor to Bitcoin. Then retarded manchild CSW tries to act like he knows crypto better than you.
Szabo has fucking crypto writings dating back to the 90's.
He's the most used author in the nakamoto institutes posts. Stylometry and the NSA aren't wrong on this, look it up because I feel bad outing Szabo but fuck BSV shills deserve to bleed in sats.

>>16085733
delusional, technically and objectively everything in your post is false. why do sv cucks feel the need to constantly lie?

>>16085745
>Then retarded manchild CSW tries to act like he knows crypto better than you.
CSW does know better because he's Satoshi, and Bitcoin worked while bit gold didn't, brainlet

>>16085738
>changes to the implementation (and ruleset) is what makes bitcoin bitcoin.
wrong. what makes bitcoin bitcoin is that it enforces the original set of rules

>>16085750
what in that post is a lie?

>>16084843
>calling it btcchsv
>imagine being like this

>>16085782
"Any needed rules and incentives" = "needed in the future" = additional rules. In English, you don't use the phrase "any needed" when talking about what you already have, it's used to refer to future needs.

Satoshi was saying that additional rules can be enforced by consensus.

>>16085782
you ignored the consensus part neatly the consensus is what makes bitcoin bitcoin consensus on ruleset and changes to the ruleset the nakamoto consensus is the leser consensus that ensures enforcing the greater consensus ruleset.

>>16085603
>without use there is no incentive to mine
incentive to mine will always be there with BTC. BTC gets used all the time but Eth gets used more, How's ETH doing in 2019? Or anything not BTC?>>16085284
>bought this crap for $3k?
I sold my forked BCH at $2,500
>>16085685
Fuck core and CSW and even Szabo himself. I invest for profit you idiot. You really think I care what nerd coin wins? I just follow the money, duh. If you obsess over the whitepaper some more maybe BSV will become BTC. Or you'll just be focused on the wrong thing and stay poor.>>16085733
>btc is not bitcoin
no one gives a fuck, even if your psychobabble was right. We're all still greedy lil fucks and we buy BTC to get rich, no one but you BSV/BCH shills care about the whitepaper. Ok BCH is a better currency, so go spend it and see how high price climbs with Bforks that no one is holding.>>16085740
the BSV shills are another level
>>16085776
shut up craig! go to bed! Dumb aussie
>>16085782
>wrong. what makes bitcoin bitcoin is that it enforces the original set of rules
no one but BSV holders believes this and it keeps you fucks out of BTC gains, thank god, BSV going to bleed>>16085894
>Satoshi was saying that additional rules can be enforced by consensus.
he designed it to be upgraded in this way but these idiots wont get it they can't grasp a crypto that changes with time>>16085929
said it better than I did.

>>16085929
also worth noting that if the nakamoto consensus were the greater consensus that defines the ruleset (which is obvious bollocks) instead of existing on the ruleset bch and sv could not exist. the irony... your own shitcoins existence btfos your argument.

>>16085692
Classic pilpul

>>16085983
>Classic pilpul
Haha I was just about to reply with the same

>>16085603
too bad btc miners get a 1000 times more $ from fees than sv miners

>>16085310
Oh, it's not 1:1 bch/btc:bsv? Also how do you claim these shitcoins? Want to dump them eventually since theyre crap

>>16086225
That's a strange question to ask. You're supposed to know how to import private keys if you hold pre-fork bitcoins.

>>16085705
>things that never happened.
you tried the EXACT same bip16 gibberish you tried ITT last week in another BSV thread and every time you get btfo because facts are facts. but keep trying rabbi.

>>16086374
See >>16085782, >>16085894

>>16086374
you never had a decent counter argument that could be accepted by formal logic or rules of debate

>>16086396
btw i just explained to you why the nakamoto consensus can't enforce the ruleset consensus. if it could you wouldn't have your shitcoin.
the nakamoto consensus ensures the validity of the blockchain itself within the ruleset and makes sure transactions are ordered in a trustless permissionless yet secure manner.

the pitfall of a soft fork is actually that stricter ruleset can be enforced by the nakamoto consensus without the greater consensus having a clear say in it. while hardforks are tricky and can easily backfire.

>>16085671
wow a tweet? he got him!
wait...
https://archive.is/TEykO
https://archive.is/TEykO
https://archive.is/TEykO
https://archive.is/TEykO

>>16085745
>Bitgold was bitcoin before bitcoin
Galaxy-level cope