/biz/ - Business & Finance

it also has on-chain immutable Child Porn

>>16265381
I don't know, shit looks pretty sad right now
>>16263761

Kinda feel bad for Craig Wright desu

>>16265409
and i'm sure you uploaded it greg, tick tock.

>>16265489
who gives a shit. You put a lethal vulnerability into your system

>>16265381
Both down the same amount % wise, and BSV is a bcash fork, so you will always live in the shadow of that shit coin.

Not as much as bcash losers

>>16265504
no greg, you uploaded cp into a "police database" and i'm sure they will follow the trail to your front door

>>16265504
>who gives a shit
lol greg

>>16265618
BSV is a police database now? The only possible use case for this shitshow

>>16265646
the milk is spilled on the carpet. No reversing it you moron
>there are people defending immutable CP on BSV

>>16265686
it's a garbage dump of stale data that even miners prune the shit out of as they are in no way incentivized to keep old blocks.

>>16265504
>You put a lethal vulnerability into your system
Did you know that all large businesses are required by LAW to store their documents immutably? Once a document is archived it is a a criminal offense to remove it, EVEN IF it is illicit material. Did you not know this? This is already old stuff and even tried in court

>>16266040
That's nice. You still have CP on chain.
It's literally over - deal with it.

Nothing wrong with CP

>>16265704
You pay them to store it.
>i want it for free!
The point is that it can’t be changed, not that it can’t be deleted. Get it?
>>16265693
>garbage dump of data
They are proving that it can scale.
Go back to bashing craig that is the best fud against bsv

>>16265381
Based and red pulled, sir

>>16266087
That's nice. You still have CP on the internet.
It's literally over - deal with it.

>>16266255
this

GG real life genitalia exists out in the real world - it's literally over

>>16266266
>child porn is ok because people have genitals

>>16266100
typical BSV supporter

>>16266154
>You pay them to store it.
of course... let's assume that bullshit for a moment, and? why would the miners keep it? they already got the money no longer have a need for the tx.

>>16266255
>CP exists so you should pay to host it for everyone for free

>>16266606
You pay more if you don’t want them to prune it. Then u duplicate it later if it’s been a long time. Not talking about tx records but data storage
The value is: if it’s on the network, it hasn’t changed since it was put on. Thatd what immutable means, not that it will be there for eternity

>>16266618
>CP exists so you should pay to host it for everyone for free
wtf? are you seriously uploading cp to bitcoin? You do know that it's very easy to trace you? Why do you even spend money and time to do that. You are a literal sicko!

>>16266668
>You pay more if you don’t want them to prune it.
ok you paid more and they still pruned it then what?

>>16266668
btw if the blocks are pruned from the network the immutability of the data can no longer be ascertained. so it's definitely pointless.

>>16266698
You can get in serious legal trouble for transmitting these illegal unencrypted immutable files on the BSV chain. I don't see why anyone would want to participate in a system like that where you assume all this risk for no fucking reason.

>>16266718
they can literally charge you with distribution.
let's forget cp, somone uploads anti state propaganda in chineese to sv (legal or grey all over the world) what happens to a chinese miner or node that broadcasts it?

>>16266729
blockchains are global laws and legislation are local. bad combo very bad.

>>16265381
BitcoinSV is a fork of bitcoin cash
Prove me wrong

>>16266718
>You can get in serious legal trouble for transmitting these illegal unencrypted immutable files on the BSV chain
Then why don't you stop with this? Do you even listen to yourself. You clearly have some issues. Get help before you destroy some poor childs life irl

>>16265409
Show ya proof

>>16266100
You jews are amazing at psyops

>>16266705
Ok 51% attack and they steal your money, now what?
>>16266717
If it’s there, you can trust it hasn’t changed. If it’s not there, you don’t know anything. Make sense yet?

>>16265504

>>16265686
>BSV is for loading up CP is the use case
>BSV is as a police database is the use case

>>16266744
BTC and BCH is a fork of Bitcoin which is BSV.
Prove me wrong.

>>16266862
>Ok 51% attack and they steal your money, now what?
you are fucked for using an insecure chain, but it's not easy to steal funds with a 51. miner reward is not spendable for a while so it's unlikely you got ti from an exchange. a tx will be legit an replayable after a reorg. so not sure what you mean.
>If it’s there, you can trust it hasn’t changed. If it’s not there, you don’t know anything. Make sense yet?
that at least somewhat makes sense. it just sounds pointless.
you could use an immutable blockchain to store magnet uris to resources it's just less than useful if you prune heavily.

>>16266954
that's too easy. btc is the only chain that adhers to the unaltered the nakamoto consensus started by satoshi himself. it's also the majority hash and majority adoption consensus fork. sv is a retarded sitcoin.

>>16266916
you can prune data on btc but can't prune data on sv that way. ironically segwit makes it possible to prune the offending data included in a sigscript without fucking over your ability to build a complete utxo trustlessly.

>>16266982
Segwit broke consensus and I can't wait to see you make the argument about hash once SV is the dominate chain.

>>16267001
Pruning doesn't alter UTXO sets. If it did it wouldn't have been allowed in the first place.

>>16267029
>once SV is the dominate chain.
keep on dreaming
>Pruning doesn't alter UTXO sets
once a tx is pruned from a block the block is worthless because you can no longer build the correct utxo from a chain of blocks that have tx-es pruned.

>>16267029
>Segwit broke consensus
no it didn't btw. that is why a 2016 bitcoin client will sync up with btc not bch or definitely not sv. bch hardforked away from bitcoin altering it's consensus mechanism and irrevocably leaving the nakamoto consensus.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHyU7zkMUZc1dOD-oJ-lArw/videos

Ryan X Charles released yet another video 8 hours ago.
He's been uploading a lot this month.

>>16267182
Thanks. I haven't watch him in a long time but is videos are always comfy

>>16267180
>a 2016 bitcoin client will sync up with btc not bch or definitely not sv
a 2016 btc client will ONLY sync with btc. It will not sync up with bitcoin because bitcoin does not have segwit

>>16267336
so you are in serious cognitive dissonance about bitcoin and the nakamoto consensus. noted.

>>16267394
In which section of the bitcoin whitepaper is segwit described? Please be fast, I'm unironically holding my breath

>>16267467
bitch please! this is so tiresome... bitcoin is not a whitepaper it's not an essay it's not an email or a forum post. it's a network of peer to peer nodes with a living consensus.

>>16267467
also where does the bitcoin whitepaper say anything about cp being allowed on the blockchain? where does it say anything about multisig addresses? or executeable script? where does the bitcoin whitepaper mention sigscript? quickly!

>>16267641
Bitcoin is not a white paper it’s digital gold with an off chain credit card network to anonymize your tx so you’re outside the reach of the IRS

Also don’t use the off chain credit card network if you’re not willing to lose the funds. Just HODL until lambo

>>16267641
>bitcoin is not a whitepaper
Bitcoin is a protocol. The bitcoin protocol is described in the bitcoin whitepaper. The bitcoin whitepaper does not describe btc. Ergo btc is not bitcoin. Is this kind of step by step logical reasoning hard for you?

>>16267074
>can prune data and leave the integrity of the utxos, yet are unable to continue the blockchain because reason

What was Satoshi's end game with this?

>>16265381
COPE

>>16267322
he speaks well, just wish he smacked his lips a little less. also he really likes to say "in a nutshell".

>>16268395
the blocks that have pruned tx in them can not be part of the nakamoto consensus mechanism nor can they be part of the sync mechanism.

so only block headers and fully kept blocks are useful.

however, there is a solution to this, if you are interested...

>>16268563
>also he really likes to say "in a nutshell".
Maybe it's a fraudian slip and he want someone to nut (put sperm) inside his shell (skull/mouth)
i dunno, just a theory, but I'm not a psychotrist

>>16268368
what bitcoin is:
- a trustless permissionless publicly auditable ledger that is also secure
- a non-custodial peer-to-peer electronic payment system
- a network of nodes enforcing a common ruleset shaping a common reality in a trustless manner
- the longest blockchain under the consensus ruleset with the largest commulative hash proven by a specific form of proof of work
- a protocol that describes how consensus is reached on ordering transactions and how difficulty and coinbase supply adjusts over time
- a greater consensus on the ruleset that governs the protocol
- a standard reference client implementation created by nakamoto and maintained as an open source project

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

>>16268368
also you did not answer this question! how can anything be called bitcoin if it implements things not in the whitepaper? if you want to go that way...
>>16267670

bitcoin is a living chain started by satoshi nakamoto himself and it's nature haven't changed since the first release. nor did it's consensus mechanism. bch altered this mechanism and started mining blocks illegal under bitcoin ruleset. this is an undeniable fact. then sv did the same to bch after losing big on the hash war which is also an undeniable fact.

>>16268671
>how can anything be called bitcoin if it implements things not in the whitepaper?
segwit is not in the whitepaper. That's a fact and it makes btc something other than bitcoin. BTC stopped being bitcoin the moment they forked off with adding segwit

>>16268645
SV is going to 2TB blocks and beyond and there's nothing that corecucks like you can do about it except charge high fees for your shitcoin.

To make matters worse. lightning is just a shitcoin built on top of a shitcoin. SV is the closest to the real thing.

>>16268709
>segwit is not in the whitepaper.
nor is anything else i mentioned.
since it's first release bitcoin paid for a script executing to true. do you try to deny this fact?

>>16268754
>SV is going to 2TB blocks
excellent m8!

>>16268758
>nor is anything else i mentioned.
Non of the three chains are purly bitcoin, but bsv is the only one that's working on restoring it back to the original protocol. It is already the purest form of bitcoin and with the genesis upgrade in feb it will once again follow the original protocol. BTC and BCH is doing the oposit. They are deviating more and more

>>16268589
>the blocks that have pruned tx in them can not be part of the nakamoto consensus

Why not? It's still valid.

>>16268619
that's very insightful, thank you

>>16268890
you can't validate a pruned block. imagine if the pruned tx was illegal under your ruleset! if so the block is illegal even tho it looks legal.

no the best practice is to prune blocks altogether once you are reasonably sure you will never get a reorg so deep. like 100 deep for btc 10000 deep for sv. then you need to solve the trustless sync of the network. which can be done by including the previous utxo deterministic digest in the blocks. this requires a stricter nakamoto consensus ruleset ie a soft fork.

>>16268833
>and with the genesis upgrade in feb it will once again follow the original protocol
not the original consensus. sv can never return to that. only btc kept the original consensus going. an unbroken chain of proof of work validating under bitcoin consensus ruleset. while anyone can fork the bitcoin codebase under 5 minutes, bitcoin is unique. because it is not just a technology not just a protocol not just an idea not just a brand it's a living immutable consensus so strong and durable that it got the nickname "the honey badger".

>>16269168
I literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about. If I prune a block from say 5 blocks ago or w/e, I haven't invalidated anything and people syncing to my node are also valid. So what the actual fuck are you talking about?

>>16269638
no you can't serve the block if you pruned it. nor can pruning nodes help other nodes to sync up and build their own utxo set trustlessly.

but that's okay.

>>16269252
Just realize you are losing blockstream

>>16270465
losing? heh...

>>16270455
>no you can't serve the block if you pruned it
What are you trying to say here? If I pruned data I can no longer provide the data I pruned? Are you being fucking serious? NO SHIT, NIGGER! Yet the chain is still valid and no rules have been broken.

>>16270455
>pruning nodes
>just interject node subsets because I don't know the difference between a pruning node and a node that prunes

Absolute state of you segshit shills.

>>16270555
a pruning node is a node that prunes same shit.
only non pruning nodes can help nodes to sync up so far.

>>16270555
>NO SHIT, NIGGER
Unironically very based
Also checked

>>16270576
No, you nigger. If a node prunes something, that node doesn't automatically become a pruning node. Pruning nodes are a very specific subset of nodes. You're trying to muddy the waters you little OGnigger bitch.

>>16270596
if a node doesn't keep the full blockchain it's a pruning node.

>>16270617
lmao alright. Then all nodes are pruning nodes and Satoshi didn't understand the system he was creating.