/biz/ - Business & Finance

NO

Scamming is easier when market is crashing.

>>17685593
Right around BTC halving we will see the great STIFFening begin

>>17686428
indeed but it won't go like you think it will go cashie scum

>>17686517
No dirty cashie why you accuse me of such things sirs?

>>17686537
you are a cashie common cashie or curry cashie same difference

No, it's a scam.

>>17686565
I mention the stiffening and you think I'm a cashie?

>>17686428
>BTC crashes
>this is good for BSV

>>17686600
usually the word stiff is extensively used by curry cashies.

>>17686620
>BTC crashes
>BSV reigns supreme
Yes this is good

>>17686663
lmfao BSVishnus will destroy their own utxo set

>>17686663
>muh terabyte blocks
kek you faggots are hilariously deluded
right now your shitcoin is processing 4 tx / s
most of it from a fucking weather app
anytime BTC farts, BSV completely shits the bed
a crash in BTC would take BSV back down to hte $50 range where it belongs

>>17685593
BSV will never have "a time"

>>17686766
i agree and it gets worse when you look at miners reward from fees. should be absolutely horrifying for svtards. yet they still meme about the halving like it's good for them. lol.

>>17686766
I too can cherry pick tx/s times.

>>17686848
>cherrypicking
I literally went on bitcoinblocks and took a snapshot.
but even at 200 tx / s it wont support BTC miners to switch to BSV en masse. BTC has 100x the hashpower do the math you deluded faggot kek

>>17686897
the issue is not the hashpower the haspower and price ratio will not change between forks. miner profitability will even out naturally.
the issue is the ratio of tx fees per block reward. it will drastically go up for bitcoin after the halving and already is substantial. meanwhile sv gets the shit end of the stick.

BTC hashrate will plummet post halving. We will be seeing many mining operations outside of places like China shut down operations.

At current levels the halving means that BTC rewards will drop by 53692.75 USD Per block. Operations within that margin area will have no choice but to kill their operations.

The price isnt going to sky rocket because Miners decide to sell higher. There are too many traders and too much existing BTC for a block reward reduction to have this effect because traders will just keep pushing them down.

Further, these operations that shut down may actually dump stacks to cover costs and take what profit they have actually pushing the price lower not higher.

>>17685593
>looks old
>is fat
i'm not convinced

>>17687028
>BTC hashrate will plummet post halving.
yeah this time it will be different sure.
>Operations within that margin area will have no choice but to kill their operations.
not really if you were a miner you would know what other trivial options exist.
but whatever we are not going to convince each other about shit here. let's just wait and see. i'm betting on bitcoin has been since 2011. let the shitforks show what they are made of.

>>17686848
32% fucking WEATHER ... and that's not even counting the weather data hidden under 'Payments'

holy shit I didn't realise the meme was actually true

>>17687211
nah it's normally 96% weather and bullshit only 32% is indeed extraordinary.
i'm sure svtards will show us in the whitepaper where storing stale unverifiable weather data and other garbage mad a global burden is the main purpose of bitcoin blockchain.

ok I need to come clean here Im actually all in on BSV but Ive been fudding it super hard lately and Im getting to the pint where Im starting to believe my own fud because no single BSVfag could refute it. fuck
maybe I have dun goofed again

>>17687239
It's halfway down on page 8. "By creating an artificial reason to store data in bigger than necessary blocks, BitCoin becomes centralised in fewer and fewer data-centres. Once there it becomes trivial to assign what once belonged to hodlers to, for instance, australian charlatans."

>>17687239

"In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed
timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions."

>timestamp server

You're welcome

>>17687435
yeah exactly but you don't seem to understand what it means and what it's purpose. i urge you to read the entire thing a few more times. or present how you double spend weather data and why it is bad.

>>17687529

>but you don't seem to understand what it means and what it's purpose

Feel free to grasp at straws all you want, I'll be over here laughing at you

>>17687556
okay but try to read the part about the function of the timestamping server the purpose... it involves a ledger and double spends you will find it. see timestamping weather data serves no purpose. it doesn't make it authentic or true anyways. timestamping transactions to avoid doublepends in a distributed byzantine tolerant way is the purpose of the blockchain.

>>17687606
>okay but try to read the part

I did, you're wrong

You can use bitcoin for anything you want as long as you pay for it and it abides by the rules

Duh

Otherwise, good luck with your controlled/supressed economics! I'm sure it will work great, kid

>>17687681
no you didn't. the blockchain is specifically a timestamping server for transactions read again! it can't validate anything else anyhow. no offchain data can be validated onchain. it's not possible nor was in the scope. and timestamping useless junk was never in the whitepaper. unless you can show me where...

>>17687720
>the blockchain is specifically a timestamping server for transactions read again!

They are transactions though, you should read up on what an OP_RETURN is sometime

>no offchain data can be validated onchain.

The point is to create long-term immutable datasets that cant be tampered with and are publicly/globally accessible, if you cant see the value in that then you've still got much to learn!

>>17687802
but you include unverfiable (and unverfied) data in the tx with is not validated thus worthless. in this usecase the transaction is just a carrier and entirely self serving to put the data onchain. at which point the timestamping server only verifies the miner fee paid.

it's beyond fucking pointless and useless.

>>17687802
>The point is to create long-term immutable datasets that cant be tampered with
yeah you will store spoofed false bullshit data immutable forever. congrats! also if immutability of data is the only purpose you don't even need to put the data onchain enough if you put the digest on a sidechain that is merge mined with bitcoin or tx pegged in it's consensus protocol.

>>17687959
>enough if you put the digest on a sidechain that is merge mined with bitcoin or tx pegged in it's consensus protocol.

I didnt see that in the whitepaper, can you point it out?

>>17686663
>10 minutes inbetween blocks
>3 second max validation time
what could possibly go wrong.

>>17689002
>spam the blockchain with weather data
I didnt see that in the whitepaper, can you point it out?

>>17689002
>I didnt see that in the whitepaper, can you point it out?
no storing junk data is not in the whitepaper. but if you want to do it best do it smart.

>>17689095
>>17689085

"In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed
timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions."

>timestamp server

You're welcome

>>17685593
Never. Trash.

>>17687028

BSV hashrate will plummet post halving. We will be seeing many mining operations outside of places like INDIA shut down operations.

At current levels the halving means that BSV rewards will drop by 53692.75 ROUPIES Per block. Operations within that curry margin will have no choice but to kill their operations.

The price isnt going to sky rocket because Cows decide to sell higher. There are too many cows and too much existing BSV for a Vishnu to have this effect because pajeet bagholders will just keep shitting them down.

Further, these operations that shut down may actually dump publically to cover themselves for good health and take what streets they have; actually pushing the price lower, not higher

>>17689113
yeah but you are not reading your own sentence:
>a solution to the double-spending problem
>using a peer-to-peer distributed
timestamp server
>to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions
i hope this helps...
see transactions meaning transfer of bitcoins where the double spending would be an issue without a timestamp server... yeah reading comprehension nigga!

bitcoin doesn't actually timestamp data. you can only say that this piece of data (be it true or false who cares) already existed at this date (block height) sure. but it's a meaningless and worthless statement.

>>17689053
don't fucking tell them

>>17689053
>what is 0conf?
>oh never mind i am just a retarded core faggot

>>17689197
>bitcoin doesn't actually timestamp data.

Yes it does, here is a great example:

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f

>>17686967
>it will drastically go up for bitcoin after the halving
you think btc will pump after the halving?
lmao

>>17689277
>i dont understand difference between coinbase tx and regular tx

>>17689277
exactly see a smart contract has no way of knowing if that sentence is true or not. it can maybe only check if any utxo has had the same data before but it can't check if it's from 2009 or 1950... it can't check if there is a chancellor or if he is on the verge of a bailout or not. satoshi could have included "Armistice Day: World War I ends. At the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, the Great War ends." or "today is 2056/05/21 i sharted a nasty shart" and what wold that prove?

>>17689301
no the ratio of fees in reward would go up drastically either way as subsidy is halved.

>>17689863
>>17689863

"Blockchain as a data and framework store presents a number of advantages over the Internet or over internal stores. By way of two exemplary challenges to the AI world, we present how blockchain can address these in novel ways.
One of the biggest challenges in data science today is the collection of a proper dataset, which can be utilized for training a neural network. The pluralism of data over the Internet is enormous, but the quality is minimal due to the habit of people to post inaccurate things, mainly, because there is no control. The cryptographic inventions of digital signatures and hashes have led to a general technique for making data reliable within the context and limitations of the technical means, a characteristic called integrity. In practice this means that we can state with (cryptographic) certainty that a piece of data existed no later than a particular time, and that it remains untampered with. These cryptographic techniques need some software to deliver results. Timestamping [28] involves taking the hash of a document and placing it in a timed sequence of hashes that is kept alive essentially without limit on time. Each new document’s hash is placed in a block, which is then hashed, along with a hash of the last block and the current time. As the cryptographic hash is essentially unforgeable without the actual block, this ensures both the inclusion of the new document(s) and the proof that the last block, and by induction all previous blocks and included documents, are securely timestamped. The reliability of the stamp of time is the reliability of the recording of the time in each block, and the space between the blocks."

https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/11/8/170/htm

>>17689998
>but the quality is minimal due to the habit of people to post inaccurate things
of course but no blockchain gonna change that magically by handwavium
>this means that we can state with (cryptographic) certainty that a piece of data existed no later than a particular time
what i said yes and it's worthless and meaningless in itself

there is nothing not already discussed in there. the conclusion of that document is part daydreaming part bullshitting par wishful thinking and ignoring the harsh reality. we have absolutely no way to validate offchain data onchain. and that's the end of it.

which is why chainlink is utterly worthless even tho they put a billion times more effort into this crap than any svtard.

and here is one more thing to consider:
bitcoin to act as a "timestamping server" doesn't need to store the blockchain and the provably unspendable utxos (op_return data).

there are no incentives to do so. it only adds cost with no benefit. the blockchain and the utxo set will be heavily pruned in the future. which makes this entire bullshit about storing data absolutely moot.

just saying. the future is bitcoin as hard money. not bitcoin as a garbage dump of stale unverified data.

>>17690455
>the blockchain and the utxo set will be heavily pruned in the future.

(Citation needed)

>>17691117
it's the natural evolution of the protocol. there is absolutely no need to keep all that junk. if bitcoin ever experienced a 100 deep reorg then it's already in deep enough shit to consider it a failed project. as for the utxo again why ever would anyone keep provably unspendable utxos? it's junk.

all we need to keep is the chain of block headers and the last 100 blocks and the part of the utxo that can be actually spent. it's the future.

>>17686633
No. STIFF
t. 146.7 BSV future whale

Just stiff it and keep it immutable!

>>17685593
I love how many staged photos Craig has trying to make him seem badass.

He's a fat piece of shit and a bad liar.

>>17691240
you will be stiffed alright

where can you even buy this great fork of a coin? im asking unironically

>>17691204
>it's the natural evolution of the protocol. there is absolutely no need to keep all that junk. if bitcoin ever experienced a 100 deep reorg then it's already in deep enough shit to consider it a failed project. as for the utxo again why ever would anyone keep provably unspendable utxos? it's junk.

>all we need to keep is the chain of block headers and the last 100 blocks and the part of the utxo that can be actually spent. it's the future.

Yeah, good luck with that!

>>17692259
there is only one problem with this right now and it's completely solvable. if you don't keep the blocks nodes have no way of building or updating their utxo trustlessly. that's the singular reason why this is not yet the standard practice.

the solution is simple, serialize the previous utxo set before a block make a digest and include it in the coinbase tx. alter consensus protocol to reject blocks without it checking out. then alter the network protocol so that nodes can request utxo sets by hash. and that's it. you can delete the entire fucking blockchain only keep the top part that participates actively in consensus maybe a few archiving nodes can keep the full thing why not. it's not like they have to be trusted or relied on.

>>17692564

Feel free to add a pull request to Bitcoin Core I guess

>>17692634
i will. i need to finish an other project first but will start working on this eoy as latest. unless someone beats me to it.

also obviously when serializing the utxo you only include spendable or at least non 0 outputs otherwise optional pruning the utxoset becomes problematic.

Is this shit still alive? Does no bitcoin fork in this space ever die? Holy

>>17692828
BTC is the fork. BSV is the original. buy BSV

>>17692828
BTC is the fork. BSV is the original. buy BSV

>>17692828
BTC is the fork. BSV is the original. buy BSV

ETH is the fork. BAT is the original. buy BAT

>>17692940
>>17692979
>>17693752
BTC is the fork. BSV is the original. buy BSV

>>17693809
That isn't true BAT for you

>>17685593
no

>>17685593
BSV hardly mentioned on social media.
Craig in jail soon.
BSV is dead.
Rest in war.

>>17694166
Look at how cute this anon is. He still believes in herd mentality for his ideas for investments

>>17694674
If you mean adoption and demand with "herd mentality" yes, but hey feel free to enjoy the stack of your ultra rare adavnced investment.

>>17692940
>BSV is the original
about as original as ad1d0s to adidas

Crypto is decoupling from stocks rape-idly

>>17692979
BTC is the fork. BSV is the original. buy BSV

>>17686663
> 1.68 GB per second
13.44 gbit/s

>>17694166
>hardly mentioned on social media
as we know the true metric of success for any blockchain kek

>>17694864
didn't say that, just one factor among many, or wtf are you posting here?

>>17687211
>>17687239
Cope.

>>17694979
Back to le leddit where you can circlejerk in your deluded echochamber about muh social media lmfao

>>17694166
muh proof of social media

>>17695468
lol, is this leddit narrative still a thing? or just a 4chan kids circlejerk?

>>17695563
whatever, dead craig is dead

>>17695602
cope more

>>17695602
You wish

>>17695793
based af

>>17692979

>>17694023
>>17694166
>>17694816
BTC is the fork. BSV is the original. buy BSV

>>17696502
objectively true

>>17696584
objectively based

>>17695602
>He's a dead man I tells you
lmao seething

>>17695575
Fuck off outsider holy crap you are pathetic

>>17686663
>it will cost $150 an hour in hard drive hardware just to run a full node
lllooooooooooooooooooooooolll

>>17698444
checked

>>17686663
That's $1.3mil btw.

>>17699556
so what? large datacenters already grow much faster and scale bigger than this. these goals are all feasible with hardware available at a relatively low cost (to an enterprise) years ago.
stop thinking raspberry pi. electronic cash for the world doesn't run on your hobby hardware.
not to mention miners are businesses. if there is an exorbitant cost to run the network miners will make the investment in order to compete, or they will leave.
this is probably what taal bought all those used servers for, to make some sort of ceph-esque distributed storage backend for sv node to store data at a lower cost than their competitors.

>>17699653
That's not to mine you retard. It's $1.3mil/year to even use the network.

>>17699680
>he doesn’t realize miners spend millions on asciis that burn out after 6 months

Retard

>>17699680
i didn't say that was the cost to mine. my point was that that cost will be negligible for the people who need to run a node and used miners as an example.
you do not need to run a node to use the network. that is a lie you have been sold or are selling.
>The design supports letting users just be users.

>>17699742
only miners should run full node. Read WP

>>17699720
>>17699742
How is it any different from Visa if nobody can run a node? Craig never read the bitcoin whitepaper, or else he would understand the risk of 51% attacks.

>>17700011
those are nice digits anon. it is incredible to me that any honest poster could begin with
>How is it any different from Visa
then go on to reference the whitepaper in the next sentence. have a good night.

>>17700011

>>17700011
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

>>17689053
when you get rid of RBF good things can happen my dear

>>17701456
then don't use it its an optional flag
rbf is not good or bad it just is unconfirmed transactions however been double spent before rbf so there is that

>>17699653
its not technically impossible with increased centralization its just counter incentivized

>>17701585
rbf is essentially sanctioned double spending
combined with smol block ideology the btc core sabotage should be quite obvious
combine that with the fact that blockstream said it will make its money from "sidechains". the incentives aligned. also show bobs

>>17701642
like i said optional flag as a merchant you can accept txes with no rbf flag set if you want but its retarded

>>17701642
also read this the entire thing because you are clueless about the nature of rbf and double spends
https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/

>>17687118
>this time
First halving post forks, fren.

>>17687273
Wot fud m8? I'd refute anything u got.

>>17686663
The absolute state of boomers.

>>17702687
enlighten this brainlet
>>17701715

Its over
Craig is going to jail

https://cointelegraph.com/news/judge-slams-craig-wright-for-forged-documents-and-perjured-testimony/amp

BTC - 8028 live nodes with 97% reached consensus
BSV - 309 live nodes with 68% reached consensus
Source: blockchain.com

The guys who forked it from bitcoin cash claim it is the Original bitcoin, but.. the source code hilariously contains the exact same data in the 'ChainParams.cpp' that I added following a 'how to clone bitcoin' thread on bitcon talk. Namely the 'CreateGenesisBlock' function. Looks like they didn't really use that though, and instead opted to simply fork instead of creating their own chain (which would have given their claim more credibility?).
It also contains mostly identical source code from very recent versions of bitcoin without giving them the credit of a 'Fork' on github. So it appears the 'developers' are just copying code from source and claiming as their own. Generally this is bad practice.

>>17700011
>>17700332
>>17700358
Read the second paragraph of your owm god damn post you flaming retards. >>17700332 If everyone depends on the coingeek datacenter for verification, you've put 100% trust in coingeek to follow the rules and not double spend or mess with peoples' balances. At that point you've just created a really shitty, really ineffecient version of Visa.

>>17703702
>WE MUST STOP CREG RITE!

KYS greg.

>>17703855
>BTC - 8028 live nodes with 97% reached consensus
how many of those are mining nodes?

WHY THE FUCK IS IT CRASHING?

>>17701608
yep

>>17703855
you an actual bitcoin dev?
can we talk somewhere?

>>17703855
you are jtimon right?
could you give me a few pointers how one gets started as a bitcoin developer? most importantly where and how can one informally then formally run ideas through the dev community?

looks like i may have a lot of time on my hand after this fall.