/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>18772156
You can lose your USD value to the same typo, anon...

btc is peer to miner to peer

only bsv is peer to peer

>>18772175
I hear BSVfags say it does literally everything, even run peer to peer neural-nets. Never once read a word about the mechanisms that might enable that. What gives?

>>18772156
Fuck a typo I go acappella

>>18772226
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334907824_Artificial_Intelligence_Implementations_on_the_Blockchain_Use_Cases_and_Future_Applications

here you go anon

>>18772226
its all bollocks

>>18772156

>>18772156
>typo
nigger it's literally ctrl+c -> ctrl+v
how is this so hard?

>>18772175
What? In bsv the network is centralized controlled by creg miners instead of user nodes who look at the network. Miners can do whatever they want but in BTC the network is secure thanks to the nodes (miners would fork off if they wanted to change something). On bsv miners can mint new tokens and dump it on exchanges without users knowing first lmao

>>18773180
no. btc network is secure because it has the hashpower honestly participating. nodes especially financial nodes running their own full validating implementation add to this security tho because if miners break bitcoin ruleset their blocks become nonexistent for the network at large. basically in case of a 51% attack where illegal blocks are mined the network would see that no new blocks are found and the miners just split off to an alt only they see.

a network where everyone runs spv and only miners validate don't have this insulation. also spv doesn't work on a network trustlessly that doesn't have the majority of hash participating because it's not byzantine fault tolerant the nakamoto consensuses simply meaningless on a minority hash shitfork.

>>18773180
you may want to read this to see what a node is

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

>>18773284
satoshi very clearly called all bitcoin clients nodes mining or not mining a few dozen times. he sometimes called them network nodes to distinguish from mining nodes.

>>18773734
Satoshi very clearly outlined how you do not need to run a node to verify transactions in section 5.
Non mining nodes do nothing

>>18773763
Section 8 not 5

>>18773763
nodes are nodes you don't get to redefine terminology existing for 40 years to suit your shitty agenda.

>>18773763
also spv only works as designed if the network is byzantine fault tolerant (which shitcoin sv is not)

>>18772156
>I mean the fact that you can lose your balance because of a typo should be something someone is working on right?
Yes it’s the fault of technology that people make mistakes

>>18772156
>How can it be improved such that it can get as big as Facebook?
look at NANO.

>>18773851
The only chain thats going to get attacked is btc.
Thanks to segwit you only need 15% of the hashpower to do it https://coin.dance/blocks/summary

>>18773908
>The only chain thats going to get attacked is btc.
good luck with that one rofl

>>18773908
also you forget that "15% attack" is theoretical and requires the majority of hashrate to capitulate from enforcing segwit rules. which won't happen. the majority will just reorg the shit out of the attacking miners with contempt.

>>18774228
I wont be taking the risk.
Will be interesting to see which miners invested millions of dollars in a network that cant do more than 144mb a day

YoU CaN bE yOuR oWn BaNk!!11

>>18772226
Sir, there's a Vishnu in the blockchain. Buy Bsv now, many rupees.

>>18772156
You can send money to the wrong persons bank account, hence lose your money by making a typo on their bank details

>>18774281
>I wont be taking the risk.
it's a risk that is inherent in bitcoin consensus algo. if the majority does not reject the attacking miners blocks the entire shit is worthless.
basically if you think the majority of miners are not honest and will break the rules you should be out of crypto altogether.

>>18774939
That's not the situation though. Miners can attack segwit and short it making money without damaging the worth of their mining investment because a competing sha256 with unlimited capacity is there.
That risk doesnt exist in bsv because a transaction requires the payee to recieve a signature

>>18773284
>>18773763
who the hell cares about satoshi and whitepaper anymore and treat it like religion except for creg tryharding to make npc's think he is satoshi and that they need to listen to him?
That's right, no one in their right mind.

>>18775158
No one cares if you want to make 144mb per day digital gold, high fee, turing incomplete, segwit, replace by fee, lightning network. Its not bitcoin though

>>18772156
Is this normanposting?

>>18775075
nope minority hash of miners can not do shit to segwit. this attack does not exists.
what exists is they can try to lure the majority into abandoning segwit rules and then attack. but this would be so transparent that they would quickly give up after their costs pile up and their reward suffers.

>That risk doesnt exist in bsv because a transaction requires the payee to recieve a signature
that's two wrong in one sentence:
the payee receives a signature with a standard segwit tx (everyone does) but it has nothing to do with security for the payee. at all.
the second wrong is on shitcoin sv and bch any medium small bitcoin miner can easily reorg the chain and alter it's history, so a payee can validate all the signatures he wants he can still get fucked out of his money. he has no security.