/biz/ - Business & Finance

Ask Me Anything

Ask me why BSV is the real bitcoin and why I believe in Bitcoin.

>>16617336
Yes, please tell us.

>>16617343
>What is Bitcoin?

It is the system of incentives that keep miners competing to mine bitcoin blocks while users can transact without having to trust any party to be "beneficient."

BTC fails because microtransactions are not possible on the base layer, changing the network topography from a near complete graph to a hub and spokes.

BCH fails because the devs and exchanges have created a cartel which mandates what sort of protocol changes are acceptable and not.

BSV wins because the only protocol changes that are coming is to return Bitcoin to the original state.

Have a Pumpkin bump on the house.

Ask me why Craig is Satoshi Nakamoto

>>16617067
That's the single worst fucking attempt at a meme I have ever seen. Congrats on this. Seriously.

>>16617067
>Bitcoin SV is the original Bitcoin.
it's most definitely not

>>16617906
>it's most definitely not
lol why? Because someone on twitter said so? Read the whitepaper. BSV is Bitcoin and Craig is Satoshi

>>16617840
That's what you get when you pay literal pajeets to make memes for you. Totally inorganic.

The quality of my posts are better than the quality of my memes.

>>16618021
really preciate you AB

>>16618112
their banter is very low quality.

>>16618112
>AB
DO NOT USE HIS NAME IN VAIN. THIS CUNT IS MERELY A PRETENDER TO THE AB THRONE.

>>16618412
I hold no throne.

You are thinking of Daniel.

I am just an autistic anon on a ryukyuan twine twiddling forum.

>>16618498
He is thinking of assblaster the link prophet. I can't believe I once was in that cult

>>16617816
Why is he stoj?

>>16617840
How about this?

>>16618005
cope

>>16618498
>Daniel
No
>>16618519
Yes now fuck off

>>16618600
y so assblasted? lmao

>>16618021
Well they couldn't be any fucking worse
>>16618575
That's just regular terrible. You're obviously a manager over at the low budget retard shill company, which is presumably why you were brought in to "save" the thread.
OP's effort, on the other hand, is a fucking offense against eyesight. My opinion? Fire him immediately.

>>16617937
because once you break the nakamoto consensus there is no going back. you can never undo that. there is only one chain where the original nakamoto consensus started by satoshi is alive and that's btc.

>>16618773
>You're obviously a manager over at the low budget retard shill company

I'm so excited for you.

>>16618774
>because once you break the nakamoto consensus there is no going back
>segwit

>>16618786
>Posts wall of unfunny irrelevant text
I take it back about you being manager material.

>>16618793
only a brainlet would say that and mean it
btc has the original nakamoto consensus going on unbroken shitforks are meaningless
segwit is a soft fork a stricter and backwards compatible ruleset it by definition can not change the nature of bitcoin or break consensus. just fucking use your brain for once in your life!

BTC is pic related.

here is an even more autistic version

>>16618867
>>16618896
lmao

>>16618867
that actually looks like sv "no need to think just pile on every shit on top!"

>>16618799
>inability to pick up on context clues
Neat. Let me help you. You have to believe I'm paid to cope although your devs are actually owned by banking interests with no intention of scaling Bitcoin so it can't compete with credit cards which they shill relentlessly.

>>16618824
>it's a soft fork so it's not a change in protocol because its soft

Okay, retard.

>>16619067
so you want to twist the definition of words until your imbecilic agenda can be supported by a raped and mangled cult vocabulary?

>>16619398
>so you want to twist the definition of words
>a fork isn't a fork unless I agree with it

REEEEE harder, nigger.

I hear Twitter and Facebook are about to implement BTCs scaling solution.

You can only make 1 post per week, has to be uner 100 characters.

Man, how do these social media companies just let peopel pile on whatever garbage they want, and somehow scale and supply all the storage for it.

Even more strange, they somehow manage to turn astronomic profits while doing it! Wow, if only I wasn't a Core cuck and could wrap my head around this.

>>16619489
that is just basic terminology commonly accepted by devs all around the world: a soft fork is a stricter ruleset that is backwards compatible not a break of protocol like you asshats like to meme about it.
o the other hand fucking with the consensus mechanism and forking to your minority chain not gets stalled is a clear violation of the bitcoin protocol and abandonment of the nakamoto consensus.

>>16617336
Anon. Here I made this. Have it.

>>16619898
>abandonment of the nakamoto consensus
You mean like Segwit? All we're doing is keeping the protocol intact. It's a lot work because so many parties want Bitcoin to fail. Requires removing retarded shit Core added and re-enabling vital shit Core removed. That's it. The only thing we don't have is hashpower, but that will change. Set stone February. I really don't care if you like what BSV is doing or not.

>>16617067
SILLY JUDGE
I
L
L
Y

FUCK YOU all blockstream shills. SATOSHI or not, BSV wins in the end.

FUCK YOU

Bsv didn't restore the protocol lol it toally changed it

>>16620126
>t. guy who wasn't around before segshit

>>16620126
wrong
it is closest to the original design

CLOSEST FAGGOT

BSV is the original incentives system. >>16620126

BTC is just the bug in the incentive system.

(Early stage of halving schedule created perverse incentives for hobbyist anarchist neckbeards to take over)

>>16620074
>You mean like Segwit?
i just explained to you why segwit couldn't possibly break the nakamoto consensus. no like forking down the difficulty so your shitfork does not stall. exactly like that.

>>16620074
>Requires removing retarded shit Core added
>re-enabling vital shit Core removed
rofl you can't be serious... you call p2sh retarded shit and lshift and rshift is vital??? fucking imbeciles man... they just don't know when to quit.

>>16620173
you need stop posting that retarded bunch of falsehoods

>>16620915
Changed transactions, pleb. Read the whitepaper. Hash of a sig isn't a sig. Cope harder, your shitcoin doesn't scale and it's days with dominate hash are numbered.

>>16620929
>more cope

>>16620305
Its a fork of bcash you dumbass pajeet

They cant fork from BTC segwit shitcoin.

>>16617067
so say we get multi-gb blocks going for a couple years. Wouldn't it start being really damn difficult to sync up new node at that point without pruning? But then you can't prune cuz then why would anyone store anything on-chain.

>mfw no link to previous thread

You've broken the time chain anon, this thread is an illegal fork.

>>16621485
Mea culpa

>>16621425
There will be different services for different users.

>>16620957
>Changed transactions, pleb.
it literally didn't a soft fork can't change anything fundamentally it wouldn't be backwards compatible.

also a bitcoin is an utxo not a chain of signatures. nor was it ever since first release. satoshi wrote that paper in 2007 but in the first release he already added scripting and smart contract support.
>digital coin is defined as a chain of digital signatures
>Segwit breaks the chain of digital signatures
is a coinbase a bitcoin or not?
because based on that definition it's not bitcoin. but that's evidently wrong.
>We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures
then https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/9b0fc92260312ce44e74ef369f5c66bbb85848f2eddd5a7a1cde251e54ccfdd5
is not bitcoin. there is no chain of signatures it's just an utxo

the blockchain is part of the consensus mechanism but represents zero value in itself all the records stored on it are absolutely and completely worthless if they don't help you in building your utxo.

>>16623241
also maybe i was not very clear on my stance but the witness is the most worthless part of a confirmed transaction. it doesn't help you in building your utxo in any ways. it's literal garbage which is why segwit put it outside the block but of course also tx malleability.

until a tx is confirmed the witness is very important also in determining block validity. but a block confirmed 10 deep is completely improbable to be invalid unless the entire system is fucked and broken (like sv). so there is absolutely no need to keep witness to old tx-es on bitcoin.

>>16621425
yup that's the basic contradiction of sv nobody is incentivized to keep data in fact miners are incentivized to prune heavily but the chain makes no sense without humongous amount of data stored on it immutably forever it doesn't propose to offer anything else.

>>16621425
>>16623625

Many talk about data being stored on the blockchain forever, but this is optional for miners since op return data does not affect the block header. Hence miners are free to prune op return data. Did I get that correctly?
I propose a solution: some sort of smart contract where users promise to pay x bsv every y months for z years. Or a one-time-fee that pays for x amount of storage time guarantee. This could help with blockchain bloating and stale data.

Storage-specialized-miners (storage nodes) could prove they still have the data (verified by hashes) and be paid monthly per document. Storage-nodes could compete for fees, and be incentivized to keep data.

However flawed my proposal might be, the impermanence of OP_Return data needs to be communicated, discussed, and addressed.

Paying per document per time interval would be a real use-case of micropayments.

Isn't this something like what CSW means when he talks about miner specialization? Some hash, others propagate, others store.

Bump for good luck in 2020

>>16624077
stop asking questions

Craig and Calvin are both scammers on the run. What does that tell you about BSV?

BSV is also the blockchain used by pedophiles to host CP. What does that tell you about BSV?

Op return impact on the block header BUT do not store any amount of BitCoin.
This imply, the nodes have no need to store them to verify transactions in the following blocks..
You can verify (if you have the relevant data - the tx with the Op return and the relative Merkle Proof) the Op return was included in block N.

>>16623241
>soft fork can't change anything fundamentally
>changes something fundamentally anyway

Woah

let say craig is satoshi, what lead to btc going to shit in the first place?

>>16625211
(((them)))

>>16624180

Keep up the lies while you can. Nobody believes you anymore. We all know you're part of Blockstream.

>>16625211
People who have incentive to keep basically all contemporary payment and settlement systems intact snuck in and crippled BTC so they wouldn't be made irrelevant. There is a ton of power at stake here.

>>16625373
Also the spun up a ton of shitcoins to dilute the space. Literal divide and conquer strategy. BSV is the threat to all of it.

>>16625230
>>16625373
god I hate kikes so much. Imagine being a kid and having your foreskin taken from you. then you grow up knowing that you had your foreskin taken from you and that you will be forever naked. Seriously, is there bigger rape than that?
No way you ever become a normal individual after such injustice, but there is nothing you can do about it, so in the end, you have no choice but to listen to the jew. You are NOT getting your foreskin back, NEVER. You have only one option, and it's to follow the entity that removed it from you, cause he is the almighty and you are not getting your foreskin back. There is pretty much no other option than bending the knee before them.
Those kikes know this since forever, and they grew a tightly knit empire, not of free individual, but a collective following the jewish god, and we all know that's satan.

>>16625373
No, BSV will not become the NWO coin instead, no matter how much you repeat "government-friendly" and suck up to the elites.

>>16625409
BSV = forced collectivism ("everyone MUST be forced to use our coin!")
R3 Corda = the new institutional internet (created by bitcoin OGs to prevent the subversion of crypto)

You can't compete, you lost. How does it feel that Craig's NWO dream has been destroyed?

>>16625468
Kikes have power over the money system. If you have power over the money system you have power over all human society. Bitcoin removes that power.

>>16625627
>R3 Corda = the new institutional internet (created by bitcoin OGs to prevent the subversion of crypto)

SPAM
and go fuck yourself retard

>>16625691
No.

>>16624180
This is correct.

These fools don't realize that governments, institutions and enterprises will never touch their conman-led chain no matter what scalability claims they make. R3 Corda killed Craig's dream so decisively while offering so much more.

>>16625717

>GOES ON SPAMMING

YEAH, YOU CAN FUCK OFF NOW

>>16625104
it didn't tho you are just retarded and ell for cashie fallacy.

the big one is coming faggots hope youre all strapped in
>>16625877

>>16624077
>since op return data does not affect the block header. Hence miners are free to prune op return data.
not really because it's included in tx hash (which malleability stems from) so the tx can not be validated and the block can not be validated if you don't have segwit and drop op_return. if you prune the tx then the utxo can't be built and your block is now worthless except for the header.
shit is bad for sv no matter what angle you look at it from.

>>16624077
>Isn't this something like what CSW means when he talks about miner specialization? Some hash, others propagate, others store.
don't listen to that semi tech illiterate memester! your brain will rot.

>>16625920

>>16625931
nah i like them keep talking and diggint their own graves. sv cucks can't engage in technical debate and it shows. i like how it's evident for all lurkers here how they are just jeet shitposters spamming pre-forged bullshit they can't defend.

>>16625942
>can't engage in technical debate
>every time this Hungarian faggot is proven wrong he changes definitions

Neat

>>16625959
>a fork isn't a fork
>a change in protocol isn't a change of protocol
>digital coins aren't a chain of digital signatures as described in the whitepaper
>nodes aren't miners

Probably tons more that I'm not remembering.

>>16625959
you can't prove me wrong and it shows
sorry for your loss

>>16624180
People do bad things with their money. Bitcoin is an immutable evidence trail.
Do you hate truth?

>>16625992
i'm not sure where you get the "fork isn't a fork thing" but i have provided ample proof and in depth technical explanation for my arguments. something sv cucks could never match so far.
they just keep posting cope and stiff and soon basically.

>>16625060
Good technical post
>>16625211
Criminals who wanted silk road to be the next amazon.
>>16625627
Anything that is not Bitcoin is not going to win. Because we are already here. >>16625717
What?
>>16625900
Double dubs?
>>16625992
Bitcoin core is open source.

>>16626153
>in depth technical explanation
You mean long winded ramblings of stretching definitions to validate your argument?

Remember everyone, this is the same guy who will defend Lightning to the death, tell you Bitcoin isn't cash and that a hash of a digital signature is the same thing as a digital signature.

>>16626175
>Good technical post
really? really faggot? you call that one good? jesus fucking christ.
read this and try comprehend: >>16625910
pruning just parts of a block makes zero sense as it makes the rest worthless. the only thing that makes sense i pruning whole blocks.

>>16626180
i try to explain simple and self evident things to people who are willfully retarded. but i will try to up my game i constantly work on my arguments to clarify and structure them when i have the time.

>>16626180
>Remember everyone, this is the same guy who will defend Lightning to the death, tell you Bitcoin isn't cash and that a hash of a digital signature is the same thing as a digital signature.
i said a digital signature is an encrypted hash basically and hashes are how you reference binary data immutable. but almost correct.

>>16620932
you're a fucking retard delet your picture its fake news without any facts.
Check picrelated is the historical facts with dates.

>>16627105
i have been looking for this pic actually i will check it out

Why are corekeks so terrified of Satoshi?

>>16626199
>is saying his reasoning is flawless and self evident
>routinely argues that users should have to compete in a bidding war for blockspace.

>>16626208
Great, then we can agree a hash of a digital signature is invalid for a variety of reasons. Primarily contracts.

Suck cock corecucks

>>16623625
I mean everything would work fine if bsv just focused on being a world currency without all the metanet and data storage crap. Then pruning should sort everything out. Although i guess it could just work out that way since noone will bother with data if its just gonna be pruned

>>16626180

His name is O1G and you can break him by insisting that the 1MB block size limit will never be raised (which is true).

>>16628350
>bsv just focused on being a world currency
BSV is just focusing on scale and functionality. What people do with that is up to them. Most so far has built applications that use microtransactions.

>>16628407
Oh I know, I can recognize him.

>>16628350

>I mean everything would work fine if bsv just focused on being a world currency without all the metanet and data storage crap.

You're just confused because you're witnessing a paradigm shift and spent too much time listening to fake experts lecture you about sound money.

The most recent crypto correlations data show that BTC is highly correlated with ETH, BCH, LTC, and ETC — more so than it has been in recent times. It is notably less correlated with BSV (0.695 BTC:BSV correlation, compared with ~0.9 correlation between BTC and all other tracked cryptoassets). All cryptoassets remain largely uncorrelated with gold and the S&P 500.

Paradigm shift incoming

>>16628522
CHECKED

>>16623278
If legacy nodes don't include witness data in the block hash, how can segwit nodes have the same hash on that block that includes the witness data?

>>16628600

Crickets...

>>16628226
no we can't agree in that at all
p2sh is the most significant development bitcoin saw after first release and segwit is right behind it both are absolutely awesome and very useful.

>>16628350
yeah also segwit would benefit sv more than it does btc ironically

>>16628600
it doesn't that's why it works segwit separated the witness and its not directly part of the block hash which is why you could throw it away safely after n confirmations
but a piece of the puzzle is still missing. syncing up for new nodes that enforce segwit rules as is can not be done if you throw away witness.

>>16630061
>both are absolutely awesome and very useful
Segwit is pure technical debt. P2SH basically is too. Both only exist because of removed functionality as a work around and retarded limits on scale which make no sense at all. Well, unless you follow the money.

lmao this shit is so tiresome. No business or industry will ever incorporate your shitcoin. Contemporary powers tried to stop Bitcoin because it beats out current payment and settlement methods, but there is so many more Bitcoin use cases they ignored that make it attractive and after years of stagnation we're finally making progress in that direction.

>>16630105
no they add functionality and you flags are too wilfully retarded to acknowledge that. but by all means tell me more about that removed functionality...

>>16630124
>no they add functionality
Yeah as work arounds for the the functionality that was removed. As I literally just said. What does it matter, man? You have digital hodl. I'm using an electronic cash system. Two different coins, clearly. You might have a banking network for you digital hodl at some point, but I doubt it. I think it's going to continue to be theoretical. At least you can still hodl.

>>16630135
what functionality was removed you talking about? specifically!

>>16617067
Soon ;)