/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16202576
Retard.

Only ERD will survive.

That brit has it coming for him.

>>16202576
Well to be fair they currently have the hash too. Unfortunately for them BTC literally works worse than welfare niggers. 20k was the top. There's no utility or scale. Adoption is going to drive this market (like it did before BTC shit the bed), not moonbois.

>>16202576
wtf is segwit and core I'm only aware of Bitcoin is that another Bitcoin fork like the SV one?

>>16202623

>>16202623
BTC is Segwit. Lurk moar.

>>16202576

Kys scammer scum

>>16202623

>>16202623
>wtf is segwit
It is what made BTC not be Bitcoin anymore

>>16202628
>>16202637
>>16202650
>>16202659
you are all obviously just trying to shill this Bitcoin SV thingy and it's pretty sad. What makes it so different than all the other forks? It's obvious this SV fork is trying to csptilaze of bitcoins name, you know the one ranked number 1 in every crypto ranking website? sho sho shills

>>16202675
Who talks like this lmao

>>16202684
I am a bommer, zoomer
*sip*

>>16202698
t. Craig Wright

>>16202675

This. BSV shills are scum

>>16202675
cringe

>hi Mister!
>Some man in a van told me to put myself on the BSV blockchain!
>can you help me? I don't know what he means!

>>16202684
A blockstream tranny. Learn their language, and you can spot them instantly. 90% of them is literally just Greg maxwell switching IDs.

>>16202576
but that's wrong you retard btc ticker is given to bitcoin not the other way around

>>16202623
segwit is a wallet type with the associated tx type really. its still bitcoin despite what the discord trannies meme and rave about

>>16202775
protocol forks exactly and objectively coincide with ticker forks lol. you are trying too hard.

>>16202637
no segwit is implemented by btc there are also like 3 other wallet types on btc all functional.

>>16202659
you are wrong refer to this thread for full explanation: >>16196630


>Segwit coins are as worthless as cheques without signatures
nice meme but imagine if you kept a cheque that you already cashed in and it lacks signature instead it had a unique redeem code that cheque is worthless because it has already been paid so you can't get anything out of it anymore. you can keep it if you want or throw it away.


>a hash of a signature is not a signature
hashes are how reference lager data immutably a signature is basically a hash deep down.
it's also inconsequential. bitcoins are not signatures bitcoins are entries in a (global distributed) ledger. maintaining the ledger is what the bitcoin protocol is all about.

the future is pruing. once a block is pruned by the network there is no way to tell what was segwit and what was legacy tx. all there is is the utxo set. signatures and ultimately after a while tx-es too. they are all a technicality how a distributed trustless consensus is reached on the utxo set and how you can transact in a secure and permissionless manner.

if you think segwit changes bitcoins nature then you are a brainlet who doesn't get bitcoin. if you think bitcoin blockchain was meant to be an immutable garbage heap of stale data you are beyond saving.

>>16203952
>>16203958
>>16203970
>>16203986
>>16204048
You are totally unhinged lmao

>>16204060
i couldn't reply while the discussion was underway cause i was cooking.
but it's important that the case for bitcoin is heard while the fudsters are about spreading their lies.

>>16204073
>it's important that the case for bitcoin is heard while the fudsters are about spreading their lies
You are the one spreading lies about Bitcoin. BSV is Bitcoin, BTC is a scam. YOU are pushing a scam on newcomers. YOU should be ashamed. YOU will get the rope (in minecraft)

>>16204096
>BSV is Bitcoin, BTC is a scam
biggest pile of bullshit ever, not only it's technically and objectively incorrect it can not even be defended by the rules of formal logic and debate from any angle.

>>16204137
>not only it's technically and objectively incorrect
It is both technically and objectively correct. You are just too stupid to see it because "muh btc ticker symbole". Check the pic in these posts

>>16202628
>>16202650
>>16202659
>>16202775

>>16204162
>It is both technically and objectively correct.
no it's not. it's not about the ticker symbol...

btc is the only chain that adheres to the pre 2017 ruleset.

btc is bitcoin obviously partly because bch forked off by breaking protocol deliberately, partly because it was the larger consensus.

both segwit and rbf are opt-in features you are not required to use. if you knew the first thing about bitcoin you would realize how ridiculously weak the argument about them changing the nature of bitcoin.

bitcoin is bitcoin since the first release it's core principles never changed. the last major change to bitcoin was in 2012. the base protocol is set in stone. if you fork off you can fork right off! if you break the nakamoto consensus once there is no going back! you have no pretense at having bitcoin ever.

>>16204185
>it's not about the ticker symbol
No we are getting somewhere.
Now go read the whitepaper and see how it only describes Bitcoin SV. BTC is no longer Bitcoin

>>16204162
also worth noting that when you break the nakamoto consensus and the social consensus at the same time TWICE in a row, you should just shut the fuck up about originals... it's the smartest thing to do.

>>16204192
you taking the cowards way out? not even reading my post pretending it doesn't btfo every bullshit on those meme pics?

>>16204192
The whitepaper says any additional rules can be enforced by consensus, no?

>>16204205
Everything you said is hot dung from a cows asshole.

Update your script NPC

>>16204209
>It doesn't say additional
>He doesn't know what Enforce means.

Are you just pretending to be retarded?

>>16204209
it works pretty well for soft forks if that's what you mean then yes. and in case of the 2017 forks this is exactly what happened. bitcoin made a consensus soft fork and bch did a non-consensus hard fork. severing ties with bitcoin protocol forever and creating an altcoin.

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

>>16204236
It says "any needed" which means "needed in the future". Otherwise it would have said "any current rules"

>>16204209
>The whitepaper says any additional rules can be enforced by consensus, no?
It says the miners enforce the existing rules. Look up what enforce means. If the rules are changed, then it is no longer bitcoin. It is okay to want to make a system with different rules, just don't lie to people and tell them it is bitcoin

>>16204224
so you have no arguments. noted.

>>16204251
>It says the miners enforce the existing rules.
In the English language, the phrase "any needed" refers to future needs. Not the existing ones.

>>16204249
>which means "needed in the future".

No you just made that up.

I'd also like you to clarify to me what enforce means. You are free to use a dictionary.

>>16204249
>It says "any needed" which
He is talking about the POW in general terms and how it can be used to enforce rules in a system. Learn how to read academic writings. In Bitcoin the rules are clearly set out in the whitepaper and they are enforced by the POW mechanism

>>16204279
>>16204283
Satoshi said, "any needed rules and incentives". In the English language, the phrase "any needed" denotes uncertainty and means something that might be needed in the future. He was not talking about a fixed set of rules. He was saying that more might be "needed".

>>16204283
>In Bitcoin the rules are clearly set out in the whitepaper and they are enforced by the POW mechanism
actually the pow is primarily a mechanism to timstamp or more accurately order trasnactions in a trustless manner. the nature of the system is such that it also enforces the ruleset while doing so as long as hashpower is distributed enough.

but bitcoins hardfork history orchestrated by nakamoto himself clearly shows the protocol can be changed while keeping the chain of pow intact. and so long there is a consensus changing the rules does not result in the birth of an altcoin.

>>16204337
What do you not understand. It is an academic paper where he describes how his pow consensus mechanism can be used to enforce any needed rules. That sentence is about the pow system general terms. Literally the rest of the paper describes what the rules of bitcoin are that the miners are to enforce with bitcoin. He is in no way saying the rules of bitcoin are to be changed. He even says it specifically in pic related post
>The core design was set in stone for the rest of the lifetime

You are conflating POW and Bitcoin. He tells you that the POW mechanism can be used to enforce any needed rules in a system. The system he created is called Bitcoin and the rules for Bitcoin are clearly describe in the whitepaper. If it changes, it is no longer bitcoin but another system.

I no longer think you are a brainlet, but you are making some mistakes in the way you interpret the whitepaper. An honest mistake

>>16204283
wait... let's clear something up shall we?
are you stating here that bitcoin protocol and the miners enforce the rules set out in the bitcoin.pdf released in 2008? as opposed to the rules coded in c++ and released in 2009?

>>16204421
>bitcoin protocol and the miners enforce the rules set out in the bitcoin.pdf released in 2008? as opposed to the rules coded in c++ and released in 2009?
Exactly right

>>16204406
>He is in no way saying the rules of bitcoin are to be changed.
yet he did several times. called them hardfork tuesdays i imagine.

>>16204429
then you are a tech illiterate moron and satoshi would spank you for being stupid

>>16202675
i dont have my pepes on hand but please allow me to say i think we need more gentlemen of you intelligence around these parts, good sir.

>>16202684
cultured men

>>16204431
>yet he did several times. called them hardfork tuesdays i imagine
No citations

>then you are a tech illiterate moron
>spank you for being stupid
What is this? Is it your way of "scoring points" with someone trying to have an honest discussion and you have no arguments left? Remember this is not about your or mine honor, we don't discuss to win or defend our honor. It is about. It is about getting to the facts of things. You seriously need to grow up

>>16204406
Do you know what the core design means? He didn't say "the complete design", "the full design", "the end design", he said "the core design" which is a different thing altogether, a very different shade of meaning.

And the phrase "any needed rules and incentives" was not used in reference to the POW model alone. He said it at the end, in the Conclusion section. It referred to "a system for electronic transactions", the network as a hole, that is Bitcoin. It's Bitcoin that he though might need more "rules and incentives".

>>16204484
You are still lost, but I hope I at least got you to rethink your position. I feel I have done enough to help you for now

>>16204484
i agree with that post but there is a limit to what changes can the nakamoto consensus enforce.
it can only enforce stricter rules ie soft forks. and only as long as the hashrate is distributed enough. whatever nakamoto meant, however much i respect him, the truth is consensus is much bigger more multifaceted and more subtle than miners voting. but if you say most of the time the miners will vote to adhere to the greater consensus that i believe is true because they are naturally incentivized to do so and this is by design of satoshi intentional or not.

i have to do some work so i will not be posting for a wile so i will just leave my notes here, feel free to try and debunk any of them i would be interested to read.


what bitcoin is:
- a trustless permissionless publicly auditable ledger that is also secure
- a peer to peer network of nodes enforcing a common ruleset shaping a common reality in a trustless manner
- the longest blockchain under the consensus ruleset with the largest commulative hash proven by a specific form of proof of work
- a protocol that describes how consensus is reached on ordering transactions and how difficulty and coinbase supply adjusts over time
- a greater consensus on the ruleset that governs the protocol
- a standard reference client implementation created by nakamoto and maintained as an open source project

what bitcoin is not:
- a whitepaper
- a gargantuan garbage dump of stale data stored immutably forever
- whatever satoshi said in a forum post
- whatever faketoshi dreams up in delirium
- whatever sv jeets shrill and rave about currently

>>16204599
BTC is electronic cash. Sewit coin is not and its second layer solution is a joke.

>>16204599
You still trust miners.
segwit is consensus?? It's FORK!!
Ok Satoshi was wrong and Blockstream DEV are this smart guys

what Segwit Coin(BTC) is:
- a trustless permissionless publicly auditable ledger that is also secure
- a peer to peer network of nodes enforcing a common ruleset shaping a common reality in a trustless manner
- the longest blockchain under the consensus ruleset with the largest commulative hash proven by a specific form of proof of work
- a protocol that describes how consensus is reached on ordering transactions and how difficulty and coinbase supply adjusts over time
- a greater consensus on the ruleset that governs the protocol
- a standard reference client implementation created by nakamoto and maintained as an open source project

what Segwit Coin(BTC) is not:
- a whitepaper (Satoshi is Wrong)
- a gargantuan garbage dump of stale data stored immutably forever (Satoshi is Wrong)
- whatever satoshi said in a forum post (Satoshi is Wrong)
- whatever faketoshi dreams up in delirium (Satoshi is Wrong)
- whatever sv jeets shrill and rave about currently (Satoshi is Wrong)

>>16202605
t. newfag that doesn't understand the importance of having the longest proven security and largest hash rate by far

>>16204770
>You still trust miners.
no you don't there is no single authority that you have to trust for bitcoin to function the miners are naturally incentivized to play by the rules so long the hashpower is distributed enough. you only have to trust that hash will be well enough distributed in the future.
>Ok Satoshi was wrong
he is/was just a man he made mistakes especially in terminology and definitions we have greatly advanced from his era. but his idea was sound and bitcoin follows it like a shining beacon.
craig however is definitely not satoshi. it's imbecilic shitposting to imply such a thing especially without any proof whatsoever. especially considering, that craig wright is the only person on earth who demonstrated inability to sign as satoshi multiple times.

>>16204720
>BTC is electronic cash.
only if you use it that way. only if people accept it as such. then it is.
>Sewit coin is not
that's just repeating easily debunked onliner memes. if you can demonstrate this go for it! if not then fuck off!

>>16204720
also educate yourself:
>>16204048
>>16204185
the bullshit about segwit changing anything about bitcoins core principles or breaking protocol or altering what a bitcoin (asset) is has been voiced many times and was not once successfully defended.