/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>27463242
i'm going to assume that's a link to cp, so i'm not going to open it.

Stephan Molyneux uploading his videos to the Genuine Bitcoin Blockchain.
https://streamanity.com/15004@moneybutton.com

>>27463448
>moneybutton
Why does that give me a strange feeling?

Upload your podcast to the Genuine Bitcoin Block chain. It will be there forever.
https://www.castr.fm/

>>27463448
>>27463758
what a retarded concept...
>>27463711
because it's a fucking shitshow. basically it's like a paypal plugin.

>>27463711
Money Button is a mobile Genuine Bitcoin wallet.
You can send tips to anyone on BSV by sending BSV to an address like

$Names

https://www.moneybutton.com/
Money Button is like the Facebook Like Button, but with money instead of likes. It's easy for consumers to make and receive payments with Money Button just by swiping the button. And it's easy for developers to install Money Button onto websites and apps by pasting a short snippet of code.

>>27464003
you do realize in your sober moments tho that the genuine bitcoin is traded at $35k not $200 right?

I'd be far more open to the he idea of investing in bsv if not for Craig.

>>27464146
Pssst.. This is on Coinbase...
Be prepared

>>27464146
Do you realize in your sober moments that BTC has 1mb bl0ck sizes and 3-4MB transactions per second while the genuine Bitcoin has 350MB block sizes and 9000 transactions per second..

BSV has as many transactions per second as Bitcoin with 0.3% of the hash rate and the transactions are instant.

>>27464003
i like moneybutton, that bald dude is a genius
it's been very comfy using it on peergame to log in and gamble with just a few clicks

>>27464438
try 3-4 billion tx/sec with those 1mb blocks

This game is ON the Genuine Bitcoin Blockchain right now...and many more

https://www.cryptofights.io/

>>27464438
also who cares about instant if you have nonfinality? why do you think no value is transacted on sv chain? because it's a garbage heap on fire with no security.

>>27464630
what are you smoking. It has a hard limit of 7 tps

>>27464715
All lies...
It's POW with the same finality as any POW coin on the Satoshi Protocol.
While BTC relays on third parties with Segwit.

>>27464744
nope

>>27464811
Yeap.. Stop lying
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/transactions-per-second

>>27464796
thats the biggest bullshit ever no sv has no finality on the txes because the majority hashpower does not honestly participate in its consensus thus making it worthless

>>27464796
also what third parties? do you even know what segwit is?

>>27464909
You don't know what Segwit is.

>>27464858
you are so cucked its hard to believe. here is a hint:

a single lightning payment channel can do 25k tx/sec and you can make almost 150k of them per day which puts bitcoins testbench throughput to around 3.75 billion tx/sec after first day of doing so.

>>27464863
WTF are you talking about?
Are you making shit up as you go along ?
No one has majority hashpower. Many MANY MANY times in BTC groups have reached 50% and the market decides to switch. You dont understand POW

>>27464961
of course i do.

>>27464909
Do you understand Segwit ?
Legacy chains have to "TRUST" never chains..

You know the whole peer-to-peer trustless electronic cash system that BTC isn't

>>27464003
>Money Button is like the Facebook Like Button
and like facebook they will shut your shit down if they dont like what you post on the internet LMAO OH NO NO NO

>>27465151
>Legacy chains have to "TRUST" never chains..
what legacy chains are you talking about?
legacy wallets don't have to trust newer wallets either. once you have coins sent to your address confirmed under the nakamoto consensus on the longest chain it's yours.
if you can spend it it's yours. leave me alone wit that bullish about older wallets not seeing the signature. they don't need to and nobody is running older wallets because it's stupid.

>>27464979
>single lightning payment channel
Lightning isn't Bitcoin. Lightning is a Third Party that does the transaction off chain.
The IRS considered that a transaction and KYC will be required.

So if you route all your BTC transactions through NANO, that's fast as well, but it's not Bitcoin.

Once you change the protocol (Segwit) or add a third party (Lighting) or obfiscate the signatures (Schnoor), it's not Bitcoin

>>27465269
>Lightning isn't Bitcoin.
of course it is. it's just a bunch of bitcoin smart contracts enforced on layer 1.

>>27465262
Ack I meant Legacy Nodes.
New non-Bitcoin rules are wrapped into an envelope which tells legacy nodes to trust the rules enforced by newer nodes without actually validating the content within.

It's trusting a third Party because they cant validate.

>>27465269
>Lightning is a Third Party that does the transaction off chain.
is this truly what you brainlets believe?
jesus christ...
>Once you change the protocol (Segwit) or add a third party (Lighting) or obfiscate the signatures (Schnoor), it's not Bitcoin
so long the nakamoto consensus is intact from the genesis block it's bitcoin.

>>27465371
Read the Whitepaper. NO third parties ever.
Lightning is a side chain.

>>27464979
that's not bitcoin that's lightning network, a clusterfuck 'many moving parts' piece of shit that can never scale

>you must stay online to transact unless third-party
>paying a btc fee to open a channel with your boss so you can send HIM money

stupid economic illiterate faggot, you will never fit trillions of transactions into a 1mb block

>>27465405
WHAT LEGACY NODES?? why would anyone run legacy nodes? and what difference it makes for them? none. bitcoins rules for utxos are simple, if you can spend it it's yours. no trust is involved.

Check out tdxp.app based BSV exchange fee almost 0.

>>27465455
Lightning Network is still in a perpetual beta phase wrought with bugs, CVEs and frequent zero-day attacks that Bitcoin was created to solve in 2008. It's a Layer 2 off-chain protocol network. It's dangerous.

>>27463242
Based, also reminder bsv is the most shorted crypto, huge potential squeeze opportunity

>>27465405
>It's trusting a third Party because they cant validate.
they can validate that they have the utxo on the longest valid chain. stop smoking weird shit!
even before segwit you could have made a tx without a signature. if you made an anyone can spend address and sent it to your friend your friend would have received a transaction with no signature but if a miner confirmed that tx he had perfectly normal bitcoins in his wallets.

there is nothing sinister here. what happened is that older nodes don't enforce segwit ruleset in the blocks they receive but they don't have to trust anyone about their balance. because bitcoin is trustless.

>>27465664
and yet it showcases bitcoins ability to scale exponentially with block size not linearly like the retarded big block chains.
it already allows for insane theoretical tx/secs as is right fuckin now and taproot is not even rolled out to mainnet.

>>27465533
>WHAT LEGACY NODES??
Really ?
Legacy (P2PKH): addresses start with a 1.
I'm sure you are not that dumb

>>27465670
HUGE

>>27465672
Sinister is EXACTLY what segwit is
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money

>>27464979
SPV can do any numer you like.

>>27465731
>and yet it showcases bitcoins ability to scale exponentially with block size not linearly like the retarded big block chains.
No it shows Lightning's NETWORK ability to scale.
It's a different network.

>>27465664
>It's a Layer 2 off-chain protocol network. It's dangerous.
one day maybe you understand what that sentence actually means.
dangerous as in the receiver has offline risk.
but you as a sender have no added risk and 99% of the people will only send. business will be able to afford the infrastructure and also watchtower services.

lightning is only off-chain until it's settled. you can think of it as a transaction that the receiver witholds from blockchain because it can be bumped later on. he can release it any time he chooses. or let it get superseeded by a new balance. that is not evil that requires no added trust. but it allows for you to run a sidechain off-chain between two (or more) parties without the limitations of the blockchain.

there is no black magic involved in lightning. it's bitcoin balance plain and simple locked in a smart contract.

>>27465755
but new nodes can use legacy addresses i have a bunch... what are you talking about?
>>27465828
stop smoking weird shit! nobody is using pre segwit clients on bitcoin. nobody.

>>27465930
>and 99% of the people will only send
Dude BSV can do zero confirmations right now today and does them all day long everyday.

>business will be able to afford the infrastructure and also watchtower services.
Sounds JUST like peer-to-peer trustless cash to me.... NOT

BSV is boring. BO-RING.

>>27465988
I'm talking about legacy nodes cannot validate segwit nodes, they have to "TRUST" the segwit node.
What do you not understand about TRUSTless peer to peer cash.

>>27463242
too expensive and don't look like game changing

>>27465849
no man do you even know what spv is?
spv is a way for you to check if a tx (one you allegedly received) is included in the longest valid chain without trusting a server. however it only works in a trustless manner on bitcoin not on the bch forks because it requires the nakamoto consensus to function as designed.

it does not allow for more scaling it allows you not to download the blockchain or even the utxo set. basically a more lightweight client than pruning clients. but there are several reasons why spv is totally overblown in importance it's cool and all but not at all useful unless for mobile wallets.

>>27463242
can your bitcoin be 51% attacked for $7000 an hour?
https://www.crypto51.app/

>>27466014
>Dude BSV can do zero confirmations
any chain can but only idiots on bsv think it's a smart thing
>>27466069
like i said nobody is ruining pre-segwit nodes on bitcoin and no they don't have to trust anyone as they can check their own balance without trusting anyone under the old ruleset.

the only thing they have to trust is the nakamoto consensus. same as before.

BSV has it's own Twitter on chain and you get paid to post real time.
I made $10 today. it's kinda fun

https://twetch.app/welcome

>>27466147
Go ahead and try. We'll wait

>>27466216
>any chain can but only idiots on bsv think it's a smart thing
Like Satoshi Nakamoto ?

The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate. When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first. If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.

A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1 0
4 1
16 4
64 16
80% 20%

So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.

The payment processor has connections with many nodes. When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends. If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad. A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it. The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.

--Satoshi Nakamoto BitcoinTalk 17 July 2010, 15:29:13

>>27466320
it will happen no question. happened to etc as well. minority hash shitforks running naked pow are worthless. which is why bch moving towards hybrid mining with pos preconsensus using avalanche.
that's actually smarter than sv which is the ostrich tactic of pushing your head in the sand when there is a problem.

>>27466434
satoshi wrongly theorized that on a distributed mesh network a payment provider would spot a double spend attempt quickly.

however we know since that the mempool can be split easily and because of the geographical nature of the interenet node distances and limitations inherent from light speed communication the network can easily be split so that a payment provider sees new tx and miners that are most likely to mine a new block see an other.

>>27466216
>like i said nobody is ruining pre-segwit nodes on bitcoin
You are on drugs right ?

>>27466618
which is why the practice of not propagating "double spend" tx-es and attempting a preconsensus in mempool is actually a bad strategy that makes everything worse.

>>27466512
>it will happen no question.
Listen this is simple. BSV is the most shorted Coin BY far. That takes billions of dollars to do..

but they can't afford 7k to show the world.

>>27466681
you do realize that segwit enabled clients can use legacy addresses right? i mean i have been running the newest nodes but i use legacy addresses out of habit.

>>27466724
what can you short sv against? what's the pair? and on what exchange?

>>27466734
So show the proof that "No one" is using legacy nodes.
The fact that even one node has to trust a segregated witness makes it not trust-less by definition.

Go ahead do double spend on BSV. Its so simple right?

>>27464979
>a single lightning payment channel can do 25k tx/sec and you can make almost 150k of them per day which puts bitcoins testbench throughput to around 3.75 billion tx/sec after first day of doing so
BSVtards btfo they cant refute this keep coping BSVtards but BTC can scale to infinity and nobody cares about your little cregcoin

>>27466791
FTX is one of many
So you're wrong ...again

>>27466887
No one is saying that Lightning can't work. But that's not Bitcoin.
That's Bitcoin plus segregates witness + a third party.

These are the same exact people that in 2017 where screaming from the mountaintop that scaling the Bitcoin blcoksize to 2MB was mathematically impossible.

>>27466830
before segwit was activated 95% of the nodes updated to segwit compatible client.
3 years after activation i doubt even 0.1% remains that is pre-segwit. but yeah we should have some statistics about client version distribution somewhere.

>>27466898
against what? if you can short with a usd balance shit is going to end badly for you. the problem with a btc pair is idiots panicking may dump bitcoin if a bitcoin fork is violently reorged without understanding which this attack doesn't translate to bitcoin...

>>27467007
>But that's not Bitcoin.
and that's bullshit stemming from the fact that you have no clue what segwit of lightining is. because you are a tech illiterate moron and drank the wrong cool-aid and trusted some idiots that tried to subvert bitcoin ip but failed.

>>27467007
>No one is saying that Lightning can't work
for a long time thats EXACTLY what bsvtards would say
OH no no it cant scale it will never work
and now, just like that, theyre moving the goalpost
oh ok maybe it can work but its not bitcoin nooo oh noo creg has to sign off on it we only worship creg
here I made a little infograph to explain the situation to you Cregcoiners

>>27467148
against USD

>>27467236
>for a long time thats EXACTLY what bsvtards would say
>OH no no it cant scale it will never work
No one ever said that.
Lightning can scale BTC can't. A scaling solution that is not ON chain is by definition OFF-Chain
Not a hard concept really.

>>27463242
Real question should be
Can bsv do this?
other than that you're posting on a finance board, so take your tech questions to /g/ where they belong

>>27467293
>No one ever said that.
thats literally what BSVtards said for years oh no it wont work its broken its crap
and now theyre backpedalling to their usual tech mumbo jumbo oh noooo its not bitcoin look at the whitepaper no no no you cant scale exponentially while we are stuck on our shitty cregcoin
keep coping BSVfrens

>>27467220
blah blha blah..and 2mb blocks are theoretically impossible.
WE were supposed to be buying coffee with our peer-to-peer cash but you'd rather play silly buggers with AXA and give control to the second most powerful company on planet earth while paying $150 transaction fees.
The tech will win in the end.

>>27467085
0.13 and higher is segwit compatible, this somehow includes cash nodes as well so that's a mess.

>>27467438
>The tech will win in the end.
yeah because markets are rational
*inhales*
AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA just give up already bsvfrens when will you pack it up? when bitcoin hits 100k? 200k? 500k?
have fun staying poor

>>27467438
>WE were supposed to be buying coffee with our peer-to-peer cash
there are millions of shitcoins and other currencies and currency substitutes that buy you coffee.
none of them can do what bitcoin can do tho. can't believe we still have such bluepilled morons like you in 2021.

>>27467417
Nothing shitty about BSV except the suppresed price. Technically it is 20 years ahead of BTC.
Lightning isn't a solution.

On January 21st a transaction from one set of addresses showed in both blocks with outputs of 0.00062063 and 0.00014499 BTC (total 0.00076562 BTC). The sending addresses had a total of 0.00071095 BTC only.

"What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributedtimestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions"
--Satoshi Nakamoto (Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System)

Using a third party (Lightning)
Having a Double spend
Not raising the block size all equal it IS not Bitcoin.

Guess where that double spend came from?
England....

>>27467085
bro I get you and feel you and it's amazing how much effort you put into refuting that raging faggot OP that is absolutely clueless about the topic at hand. I just want to tell you that I admire your effort. Maybe OP just doesn't want to get it. Other anons sure profit from your posts because they won't get fudded by OP into a scam coin. However, maybe retards like him also need to be ignored.

>>27467516
You think that Genuine Bitcoin players dont also hold fake Bitcoin ?
I'll never be poor...Ever

>>27467620
it's a never ending fight i usually wage while i should be working. it's my way of procrastinating.

but yeah some people can't be saved but letting idiocy run in the wild unchecked is not a good idea.

>>27467578
>whales are suppressing the price
>Creg is Qanon trust the plan

If BTC is not p2p because of Segwit then according to the whitepaper it is not BitCoin. It is very simple to understand. BSV is actually BitCoin because it is p2p. Obviously SV is an intelligence test at this point.

>>27467648
Good, cause from the looks of it no one's buying your bags.

>>27467578
>On January 21st a transaction from one set of addresses showed in both blocks with outputs of 0.00062063 and 0.00014499 BTC (total 0.00076562 BTC). The sending addresses had a total of 0.00071095 BTC only.
and? bitcoin worked exactly as designed by satoshi.

there is no double spend on the bitcoin blockchain there was an alternate tx on an orphaned block that is not part of the longest valid chain. but that's completely normal.

what satoshi refers to as doubles spend is actually spending the same utxo twice thus creating inflation. that didn't happen. we had a momentary chain split which solved itself naturally.

>>27467844
this meme is so true

useless data shoved inside the chain?

welcome
to bsv

At least they provide good comedy.

need your grocery shopping list online?
just upload it
to bsv

>>27467913
>and? bitcoin worked exactly as designed by satoshi.
No it didn't not.
Someone who received a transaction and had a block confirmation had their transaction reversed,

photos of nigger prostitutes twerking in Antigua?
just shove them inside the blockchain
inside bsv

>>27468065
this is gold imma save this

weather data?
midget porn data?
gypsy suicide cult data?

onchain
on bsv

Nice

>>27468157
yes it did. this is what satoshi wanted.
>Someone who received a transaction and had a block confirmation had their transaction reversed,
there is no order between transactions before they hit a block and there is no finality until a block is confirmed n deep.
bitcoin never had 1 block finality. ever. in fact for a very long time, for most of bitcoins lifetime 2 confirmations were not accepted you needed 6.

only imbeciles accept 1 confirmation or 0.

>>27463448
don't kid yourself, the real Stephan Molyneaux doesn't even know BSV exists

this
this is what satoshi wanted

gigabyte block?
no problem
no problem for bsv

if you can't see the power of big blocks
I'm afraid you're missing out
on bsv

Core itself admits that "SegWit allows avoiding downloading the signatures" - which is the total opposite of when Satoshi said that the signatures are what defines Bitcoin.

So you can't have it both ways.

Either you download (and validate) the signatures and you have a Bitcoin as defined by Satoshi's whitepaper.
Or you use this totally different system invented by Core, which allows not downloading and not validating the signatures - so you have a SegWit Coin (but you do not have a Bitcoin).

So, the difference between Bitcoin and SegWit could not be more extreme. After all, the only reason Bitcoin is secure is because it's based on cryptographic signatures. That's the security that has made the value of a bitcoin go from less than 0.01 USD to over 2500 USD in 8 years. And that's the same security which Core's alt-coin called SegWit allows you to "avoid dowloading" (and avoid validating). This is Core's words - not mine


"Segregating the signature data allows nodes to avoid downloading it in the first place, saving resources."

~ Core

>>27468157
btw if you scroll down in the whitepaper near the end you will find satoshis computations about transaction finality and confirmations.

it's pretty clear that he considered bitcoin transaction to have probabilistic finality only. their finality at all hinges on a few assumptions which don't apply to bch and bchsv because they are minority hash shitforks.

>The figure of 6 blocks is completely arbitrary. It is based on the assumptions that the attacker will not amass more than 10% of the network hashrate, and that a negligible chance of 0.1% for successfully double-spending is acceptable.

>>27468273
>not showing the up-to-date chart
jesus christ you BSV shills are really getting sloppy
youre getting BTFO even by the cashies keep coping BSVtards

>>27468622
>Core itself admits that "SegWit allows avoiding downloading the signatures"
why would you want to validate signatures in confirmed blocks?

either you trust the nakamoto consensus or don't. if you don't gtfo of bitcoin, find some pos shitcoin and go long on it. if you do trust it then abandon the cash forks with the speed of lightning because they are a mockery of satoshi's vision.

Digital Cash, that's not controlled by corruptible authorities, in a digital world should be going exponential especially where the rules that governed the old system are being abused to create inflation that benefits a tiny minority, Bitcoin has had 10 years to prepare for this inevitable moment where people look for better cash solution.

>>27463242
I mean if I wanted my blockchain to also be a cloud service provider, shouldn’t I also want it to work via proof of stake to be cheaper at least?

>>27468674
Bitcoin is supposed to be ZERO confirmation compatible
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

>>27468846
Why would that make it cheaper ?

>>27468888
nope. it wasn't even supposed to be considered final on 1 confirmation. read >>27466618

>satoshi wrongly theorized that on a distributed mesh network a payment provider would spot a double spend attempt quickly.

he had no idea about how the network would look like today. his mental model was a geographically distributed mesh.

but it's okay he got so many things right...

>>27469234
also note that nodes not relaying a "double spend" tx make things worse not better for satoshis argument.

if every tx is relayed to the whole network a merchant will spot the double spend faster and timing mempool split attacks are not practically feasible.

but cashies went full retard here too.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15139#msg15139

>>27469234
left this part out. He is telling the guy to wait for the next wallet.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306.0

>>27469699
man that's not related to what we are talking about in 0-conf... what satoshi is saying is even tho you could spend coins you still have the client didn't let you before his patch.

>>27468776
Once the Tx is verified, the signature is removed from that Tx and is no longer attached to it, so that information is no longer there, but it should be there (its one of the main rules of Bitcoin system, which BTC is no more).
If you read the Bitcoin white paper second section... you would read that the "COIN" is defined as CHAIN OF DIGITAL SIGNATURES, meaning every UTXO (which is what "coin" is, must have this digital signature tied to it, in another words, be part of the Tx.

>>27469894
Anyway, gotta go. Fun debate.