/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>17694654
When I analyzed the technical differences between BTC, BCH, and BSV.
Honestly I still think he's lying about some part of the history... Was he only 1/3 satoshi? Is he a CIA asset now? I don't care, we're going to have 90% Bitcoin (SV) dominance in less than 2 years.

>>17694671
>>17694654
cringe, no your not.... just fucking cut your losses you smoothbrain retards

>>17694671
>When I analyzed the technical differences between BTC, BCH, and BSV.
and what was your conclusion? mine was that big blocks are stupid despite what most people think at first they don't actually work economically.

>>17694912
UTXO validates in sublinear parallel time despite what most people believe about the linear sequential validation bottleneck. Validating a block is just which is log^3(n) (parallel) time. UTXO is maximum sharding. In the long term transaction fees are the only source of revenue in the long term. What most people get hung up on is that it will lead to a very small number of gigameg nodes. They don't like that it is against the spirit of crypto. Stiff!

>>17694654
>When did it become obvious?
that hes fraud?
it was always obvious desu

>>17695015

>>17695185
> I didn't understand what you said
That sucks

>>17695015
>What most people get hung up on is that it will lead to a very small number of gigameg nodes. They don't like that it is against the spirit of crypto. Stiff!
This translates to: "The ledger becomes centralized and go fuck yourself."

>>17695242
Centralized, BIG, and FAST. And go fuck yourself!
> muh spirit of bitcoin

Big server farms... Satoshi

>>17695268
yeah but most people want a small decentralized trustless lightning fast ledger which is btc with ln

>>17695185
Why does melania's face look like a sad cat in that pic?

>>17695367
i wonder how you would look like if you were married to fucking trump...

>>17694654
For me it was August 2018

>>17694671
>90% BSV dominance
Execrable mong! Leaving you alive is an act of charity

>>17695646
a bitcoin is an utxo not a chain of anything

>>17695695
it's specification disagrees
>we define a coin as a chain of digital signatures
>a payee can verify the signature to verify the chain of ownership
not true with segwit

>>17695952
No one cares. Btc is king

>>17696123
enjoy 15% segwit attack and shit returns

>>17695952
im not talking about w word document im talking about bitcoin actual. the first release made by satoshi himself defined bitcoin as an utxo spendable by providing an unlock script executing to true.

>>17696217
there is no such thing as 15% attack

>>17695355
No they don't, they want something with fast and safe 0conf, which is supported by the government.

>>17696259
0conf is retarded if it worked safely there would be no blockchain

>>17694654
that he's a liar? oh jeez I lost track of how long ago it was but he just keeps piling up evidence he's not satoshi and he's a fraud for sure

>>17696259
Is bsv supported by any gov yet? No? Ok

>>17696221
completely false. Transactions were built as described in the whitepaper.
What about the opcodes that were in the first implementation?

I wondered when we'd reach the point when your argument it bitcoin isn't described by the whitepaper. What percentage of people do you think this will convince?

>>17696237
https://medium.com/@adam_selene/the-segwit-15-attack-b0ecbb926777

>>17694654
>in crypto
>no cryptographic proof
>JUST FAKIN BELEIVE ME YA CUNTS

Aussies are hilarious.

>>17696332
this.
Just the other day I lost ownership of my tesla as an individual stole the keys out of my satchel while I was ordering my onions frappucino. Unfortunately I was unable to verify the thief's pgp key so I could not put out an anonymous hit on him. I returned home to tell my wife but to my dismay I only found a woman at home that looked exactly like my wife but was unable to publicly sign the private key I had given her to verify our marriage, claiming it had been left in my tesla. Obviously i moved out immediately as I could not trustlessly verify the identity of this woman claiming to be my wife.

Some time passed and one day I was lucky enough to come across my tesla. Chasing down the young man who had parked it I demanded his pgp key so that i could initiate a ransomware smart contract to blackmail him into returning the private keys of my car to me. To my great relief it turned out this young man was my wife as before I could send the gas to the smart contract he publicly signed a message with my wife's private key. In the end we all laughed, I just have no idea how we ever trusted anyone before bitcoin.

>>17695411
Happy for all the money

>>17696320
>completely false.
which part you clueless moron?
that all bitcoins are utxos or that they are spent to a script since first release?

>>17696332
When he signs you'll say he stole them and make up conspiracy theories more outlandish than the conspiracy theory that he doesn't want to sign because it's not a legal proof of identity and signing before clearing Ira's lawsuit is idiotic.
Get shaken out.

>>17696320
>bitcoin isn't described by the whitepaper.
more like there could be a billion implementation of the whitepaper but only one bitcoin because its not only more specific than the whitepaper but the whitepaper inaccurately describes bitcoin protocol also. so no bitcoin is definitely not a whitepaper any more than a car is a concept sketch of its model.

>>17696545
>which part
the part where you say the first release's transactions weren't as described in the whitepaper

>>17696546
we will never know because he can't fucking sign anyways

>>17696626
oh really what if i showed you bitcoins that were not chains of signatures but undoubtedly utxo? would you fuck off?

>>17696546
>When he signs you'll say he stole them and make up conspiracy theories
Nobody will say that. Nice cope.
>doesn't want to sign because it's not a legal proof of identity
We’re not a fucking court, we are people who use logic and reason. There is no law in crypto you fucking cuck.

>satoshi's vision

One cpu, one vote.

>>17696674

>>17696674
Regardless of how powerful the cpu is?

>>17696622
btc disagrees with every aspect of the whitepaper and has disabled most of the op codes (like oppushdata4 which allowed 4gb to be put on the stack)

>peer to peer electronic cash
btc is digital gold and not peer to peer
>we define a coin as a chain of digital signatures
>a payee can verify the signature to verify the chain of ownership
not possible with segwit
>a node works
btc thinks something without hashpower is a node
>you do not need to run a node to verify transactions
btc believes you need to run a non mining node to verify transactions

I have no problem with a cryptocurrency aimed at being digital gold that has 144mb/day adoption limit, no chain of signatures, no op codes, segwit, replace by fee, pay 2 script hash, high fees, no 0 confirmation security but it's not bitcoin.
You even agree btc is not described by the whitepaper

>>17696661
they're defined as that in the whitepaper
they were structured that way since the beginning.
they are on bsv.
they're not on btc because you get no signature as a payee.

>>17696674
What I have 10 trillion CPUs

>>17696735
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/9b0fc92260312ce44e74ef369f5c66bbb85848f2eddd5a7a1cde251e54ccfdd5
show me the signature then!

>>17696706
>btc disagrees with every aspect of the whitepaper
that's just like your opinion also bullshit

>>17696784
>coinbase
is not a transaction it's mining,
there is no owner prior to it being mined

>>17696706
>You even agree btc is not described by the whitepaper
i saidbitcoun is inaccurately described by the whitepaper but your shitforks don't fit any better in fact worse. also show me scripting and opcodes in the whitepaper lol

>>17694654
When cringedude patented something unenforcable for the 1000th time, just like Satoshi patented blockchain, the Bitcoin whitepaper and sued litecoin for royalties.

>>17696830
its a transaction and an utxo are you blind?

>>17696861
>bitcoin is inaccurately described by the whitepaper
btc is not

>>17696878
>a coinbase transaction is the same as a peer transaction.
no it's not. thinking a coinbase transaction can have a signature is like thinking a mountain can sign you a receipt after mining gold from it.
We are not arguing about coinbase we are arguing about pic related >>17695646
a segwit transaction does not give the payee a signature while a bitcoin transaction does

scripting an opcodes were in the original implementation which core have disabled

>>17696959
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/b9936a6fa3f1e92833864b56557a2d0bf99592bbd4c870d214e2eece7d6b273f


all bitcoins are utxo but not all bitcoins have signature. this is fact you lose.

>>17696959
>scripting an opcodes were in the original implementation which core have disabled
are you retarded nobody disabled scripting only a few useless opcodes

>>17696662
Literally everyone will say it. It's an endless ride. Just like there are never trumpers, there are never creggers. These people exist only to hate and lose at life.

>>17697046
>we fucked up bitcoin
yes you did

>>17697077
imagine not comprehending what i said

Bitcoin is defined by the whitepaper.
If you disagree with this then we'll just have to agree to disagree

>>17696959
>>17697077
btw im glad you finally understood that bitcoin is an implementation a very specific implementation of the whitepaper baby steps... next learn about th3 nakamoto cinsensus and how bitcoin blockchain is selected! its also hinted in the whitepaper btw

>>17697111
>Bitcoin is defined by the whitepaper.
its not there is nothing in the whitepaper that specifies any of the existing forks over a new one or a thousand new one.

>>17697170
>>17696706