/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>29308410
lol ur a faggot

>>29308410
They make sure the blocks stay small and sell hopium of scaling. That and listen to thier masters.

>>29308519
why are jews behind everything everytime wtf

>>29308519
>>29308715
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard

>>29309683
Prove me wrong

taproot and schnorr this year hopefully. they release 2 major patches every year

>>29308519
It's a well known fact in high spheres in France that de Castries is nothing but a puppet of the Bogdanoff.

t.knower

AXA
https://www.axavp.com/avp/blockstream/#start

Digital Currency Group
https://dcg.co/portfolio/

>>29308410
>Seems like bitcoin never changes... Why does it have devs? wtf do they do

Just read he github?

But you're too stupid to understand it.

>>29308519
this is why u buy litecoin.

>>29308410
taproot and schnorr.

I’m gonna post here but I might make another thread if no one sees this. What happens after hyperbitcoinization and say most normal people tie their funds up on an exchange, or trust like coinbase or blockfi or GBTC? At that point “TPTB” easily control 51% of the supply. A 51% attack is inevitable in this future isn’t it?

>>29308519
Bcash schizos

>>29311873
Name what's wrong with the info. Be specific.

>>29311061
>51% of the supply
51% refers to mining power, not supply.
Also, 51% attack is largely a theoretical threat, just like a nuke, the moment it goes off the party is over for everyone including the attacker.
What people fail to realize is that BTC has been succesfully attacked via fees, RBF, Blockstream takeover and increase in price.
There were attempts at real life adoption ca. 2013 but RBF killed it.
As usual nerds have been fixated on maths and did not realize they were attacked via human factor, taking over the dev community.
RBF (replace-by-fee) means I can walk into shop, get my merchandise, "pay" with Bitcoin, and then I have 10 minute window to spend the same coins again with higher miner fee.
RBF killed Bitcoin.

>>29311061
I hate newfaggots so much

>>29312087
>RBF killed Bitcoin.
Nobody was going to consider that you "paid" for the product until your transaction got mined in the first place.

>>29308715
109 countries and counting. Latest was Guatemala

>>29312087
More why RBF is a disaster:
> walk into a car salesman who accepts BTC
> but a car
> pay 1 BTC
> 0.001 BTC miner fee
> tx goes into mempool
> 10 minute clock starts
> get into my new car
> drive to another dealer
> buy another car for 1 BTC
> 0.002 BTC miner fee
> 10 minute clock expires
> miners process the second tx only, because higher fee
> first tx gets dropped
> I now have two cars worth 2 BTC, and have spent 1 BTC only

>>29312087
>RBF (replace-by-fee) means I can walk into shop, get my merchandise, "pay" with Bitcoin, and then I have 10 minute window to spend the same coins again with higher miner fee.
That's literally not true you stupid faggot. Nobody would invest in Bitcoin if you could ACTUALLY double-spend.
You could submit "double-spend" transactions all day but the blockchain will only record 1 instance of those coins being used.

>>29312482

>>29308519
>invested in
>taken over
midwit

My dad works at Bitcoin. Apparently it's boring, basically just ensuring they get enough energy off the grid to power a few small nations.

>>29308410
every coin has a team of devs

>>29312310
Right, I'm going to wait 10 minutes at the supermarket checkout until it confirms
0-conf was a reasonable compromise between convenience and security
Mempool acted as a FIFO, you would just scan the queue beforehand to make sure there is no pending tx from the sending wallet

>>29312583
You reading ability is for shit
https://dcg.co/portfolio/

Ctrl-F for lightning, idiot

>>29312477
>>29312482
>>29312680
So collateral tokens like AMP are the future right?

>>29312477
Are you a fucking retard? Buying a car takes hours.

>>29312482
> what is 0-conf
See >>29312477
RBF means BTC cannot be used in >90% of retail scenarios
"Digital cash" my ass

"Anon check this out

$MCM

Future of crypto"

>>29312872
You're proving my point moron
BTC is useless unless you can wait 10 minutes for tx to confirm
Which means it's only useful for buying expensive shit
Also tx cost makes it prohibitive to buy anything cheaper anyway
(((They))) have literally priced out poorfags

>>29308519
Unironically this. BSV is the real bitcoin

>>29313041
In ten years every respectable merchant will be running their own lightning node, and you'll pay for shit that way. The lightning network will be massive. LIterally accepted anywhere. It will be glorious.

You're all retarded. BTC is far too expensive to be used as a currency. Everyone knows this. The current meme argument is that bitcoin is digital gold but gold doesn't require 5% of its total value to be spent on mining. Gold has industrial uses. If the internet goes down I can still spend my gold. I can't do that with BTC. If the internet goes down I'm fucked.

>>29313160
BWAHAHAHAHA
There was working 0-conf Point-of-Sale software back in 2013
And there's a ton of other systems (XRP, XLM, NANO, HBAR, ...) which can deliver this now.
Why the fuck would anybody wait until 2030 to support the retarded Lightning scheme?

>>29313611
You can still use BTC without confirmations, what's your point? You can double spend now and you could double spend with 0-conf.

>>29312087
>>29312477
This is retarded. The easy solution to this is vendors waiting for a threshold of # of confirms to ensure the Tx is going to be recorded on the chain and won't be subject to any RBF replacement Txs. With the checkout counter example this is impossible because of time and that's why other Cryptos will suit that use case and likely never Bitcoin. But your car example is shit. Dealers can easily wait 30 minutes for confirms to come in before letting you drive off the lot. It's still way faster than ACH and wire transfers.

>>29313867
Go look here
https://bitcoinblocks.live/

Each tick at the top is a confirmation.
Any new spend is checked against this before anything goes into the mempool.

As fast as you see a tick, is as fast as finality happnes

>>29313867
> you could double spend with 0-conf
If mempool is a simple FIFO it's trivial for the node to check if there is a conflicting tx waiting, because the assumption is that this tx will be commited anyway.
With RBF mempool is a swamp.

>>29313158
Ah yes 2GB blocks. Your chain will be so big you will have one single node in a masive data center.
The download and verification time for blocks will lead to a single mining pool.
So decentralized.

>>29312588
my dad works at bitcoin your dad is telling the truth

>>29314248
>mempool is a simple FIFO
How? How does one implement a completely decentralized FIFO queue?

>>29313160
>>29313377
>>29313611
>>29313867
>>29313937
>>29314288
Seriously, how does AMP not solve this problem?

>>29313937
>This is retarded. The easy solution to this is vendors waiting for a threshold of # of confirms to ensure the Tx is going to be recorded on the chain and won't be subject to any RBF replacement Txs.
You don't get it.
The BTC blocks are mined every 10 minutes.
RBF means you pay higher fee to move your tx ahead in the queue before being mined.
You can literally scam people in scenarios where waiting 10 minutes is not an option.
Using higher fees on later txs allows you to reverse tx order.
That literally negates the core principle of distributed ledger protocol.

>>29314288
BSV already does as many transactions as BTC..
Keep trying..

It's 2017! 2 MB Blocks will 100% for sure break Bitcoin and everyone will lose their money!!!!!

So you think that WHERE the information is finally stored makes something centralized ?
It's the checkpoints that make something centralized and the number of miners.
You seriously think that ALL the past transactions will end up on ONE hard rive owned by one company ? Come on man. Use your brain.

>>29308410
>bitcoin
>he doesn't know what's bsv and bch and why they exist
>maybe gmi

Go check for yourself
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master

>>29314894
its mostly incremental improvements.

There was the Taproot upgrade recently, new address type that's supposed to be marginally better for privacy

>>29313158
>>29314737
Bruders.

>>29308519
I fucking hate jews so fucking much

>>29314700
You say it like there used to be a single FIFO queue for all BTC nodes but all nodes always had a different "queue".

>>29314573
Normally
How do you think miners know what to commit to blocks?
All miners see all txs
Let's say you have two miners A and B
Miner A sends his txs to B and vice versa
Yes, shit can be /slightly/ out of order, but /slightly/ means within ping time between miners
So txs within 1 second of each other can be swapped, but that's all
Now RBF literally allows you to reorder txs within the entire 10 minute window
WORSE
If the first tx has low enough fee, then you can make sure it's dropped by spamming txs with high fee
This is how CIA defused Assange's deadman switch BTW
His script was sending txs with data, they spammed mempool with high fees until his txs were dropped

>>29312477
not true idiot.

rbf works only if deposit address is the same.
two differrent car dealers wont have the same deposit addresses.

>>29315099
and what are they doing right now ?
Mastercard is rolling out a way for you to use your bitcoin instantly with Mastercard.

>>29315128
Different, but not THAT different
See >>29315208

The devs sit around all day posting on Twitter. All OG bitcoin whales pay large amounts of money to the media to shill Bitcoin. It's basically a large ponzi at this point kek. Get in and get out and repeat that.

>>29308410
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/doc/release-notes

>>29308519
>>29310009
Blockstream isn't doing programming for BTC. A few core developers are also employees of Blockstream, but most aren't.

Also nice Glenn Beck impersonation with the retarded graph there

>>29315264
>rbf works only if deposit address is the same.
Oh cool
So I send the car seller 1BTC tx with 0.001 BTC fee
Then I send him 0 BTC tx with 0.002 BTC fee
The 0 BTC tx finalizes, the 1 BTC does not
I have both car and Bitcoin
See how retarded this is?

>>29315307
Okay. How would you deal with someone just spamming the mempool with his transactions then?

At least now, people can pay a higher fee and get their transaction through. If we still had the FIFO mempool then Bitcoin would be probably dead now because it would be possible to clog up BTC indefinitely with cheap transactions.

>>29315556
why would dealer give you a car before transaction settles?

>>29315832
See >>29313041

>>29315437
>Also nice Glenn Beck impersonation with the retarded graph there
Tell me what is wrong with the graph.

So who is implementing Lightning ?
Would that be Lighting Networks ?
Owned by AXA ? The Insurance company that is on control of more derivatives on planet earth than any other private entity ?

Oh and they own Coinbase, Brave Browser, Coindesk, Etherscan. Genisis, Greyscale, Gyft, Kraken, Ledger, Ripple, Shapeshift,Z-Cash

etc etc etc...

Head in Sand mate

>>29315620
Ask NANO devs how they did it
Staying within orginal protocol, the simplest way is to increase block size/frequency
A 1TB drive costs, what $100?
That's enough to hold 1 million 1MB blocks, at the cost of 0.1 cents per block
1 block per second means such drive can hold 12 days of data
And no, you don't need to keep old shit indefinitely, it's literally in the whitepaper.

>>29316554
What's stopping me from making even more bullshit transactions? You can increase block size 100 times or decrease the interval all you want. I'll just buy 100 AWS servers and clog up your FIFO queue with my cheap transactions.

>>29316132
>Tell me what is wrong with the graph.
OK, starting from the top:
>Henri de Castries CEO of AXA
false
>AXA Strategic Ventures
it doesn't exist anymore
>invested $55 million in Blockstream
false, the whole funding round in 2016 was worth $55 million, only a fraction of that is from AXA group. they are a minority shareholder, controlling around 10% of Blockstream shares
>Blockstream does programming of BTC core
false which is easy to check by commits in GitHub, core devs employed by Blockstream rarely contribute. so now you deflect by pretending like it's about Lightning network
>Blockstream crippled BTC with high fees
[citation needed]

and so on. take your meds schizo

>>29314700
I do get it, I addressed exactly what you are talking about, you just need to wait for confirms, and yes buying coffee makes that impossible and BTC won't meet that use case. You are just repeating your first post, useless.

>>29317103
>>29317103
Kek
You just wrote that you need 100 AWS servers to DDoS a system which can be run using a laptop as a node
And let's say that tx fee is 1 cent, how long can you afford to spend $86400 per day on your DDos?
Do even realize the absurdity of your argument?

>>29317799
>yes buying coffee makes that impossible and BTC won't meet that use case.
Which is also the most important use case.
Everything else is bullshit.

>>29311061
If I controlled 51% of a massive global value network, why would I want to attack and devalue the network? Let me know

>>29314288
Unbounded blocks, actually. However if you mined a block too large, the rest of the network would reject it and you would lose money. The blocksize is dynamically capped by the economics at play rather than some top down decision.

>>29317260
>>Henri de Castries CEO of AXA
>false
Huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Castries
> Henri de La Croix de Castries (born 15 August 1954) is a French businessman. He was chairman and CEO of AXA until retiring from both roles on 1 September 2016.
Blockstream takeover was around 2015.

>>29317870
>100 AWS servers to DDoS a system which can be run using a laptop as a node
You mean thousands of laptops all around the world + miners using special hardware?

>And let's say that tx fee is 1 cent, how long can you afford to spend $86400 per day on your DDos?
Why would it be 1 cent if the space is so abundant and there is no incentive to pay a higher fee?

>>29317260
>OK, starting from the top:
>>Henri de Castries CEO of AXA
>false
Oh we are gonna play the Jew pilpul game now are we ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Castries#Career
At the time of the Segwit fork he WAS the CEO of AXA and the Head of the Bildeberger Group.

>>AXA Strategic Ventures
>it doesn't exist anymore
Oh that changes everything!
AXA still exists.
>>invested $55 million in Blockstream
>false, the whole funding round in 2016 was worth $55 million, only a fraction of that is from AXA group.
Total lie. They committed 55 million in a series A.
>they are a minority shareholder, controlling around 10% of Blockstream shares
Another lie. Total funds ever raised until today was 80 million.

>>Blockstream does programming of BTC core
>false which is easy to check by commits in GitHub, core devs employed by Blockstream rarely contribute. so now you deflect by pretending like it's about Lightning network
more pilpul. Over 25 % of commits wer emade by the 50 Blockstream Devs.
On top of that people can't just "commit" nilly -willy. It has to be ok'd by someone.. Guess who that is ?

>>Blockstream crippled BTC with high fees
>[citation needed]
1mb blocksize, the quote...

leave my thread plz

>>29318594
no

>>29308410
Satoshi Nakamoto was black

>>29318114
Blockstream "takeover" (as in: obtaining 10% of shares kek) was in 2016 while he was still the CEO, sure. But he isn't anymore, so the claim on the graph that somehow Bilderberg Group controls BTC is literally retarded. Not only don't they have any relation at the moment, but also even in 2016 the only thing connecting them was this one guy who happened to be part of both of those organizations and AXA had minority shares in Blockstream (which IS NOT in control of BTC core).

Gain, take your meds

>>29312895
Visa and Mastercard have 90 and 60-day confirmation times respectively. Zero-conf is the norm.

>pay for my coffee via nfc
>contest the transaction from my banking app, claim my phone was stolen by niggers
>cancel card, generate new one
>free coffee

>>29318279
>You mean thousands of laptops all around the world + miners using special hardware?
Miners using special hardware is another retardation of BTC protocol. There is zero reason to burn gigawatts of power securing txs.

> Why would it be 1 cent if the space is so abundant and there is no incentive to pay a higher fee?
Miner's profit.
Also, under free market your spamming would probably drive up the tx price, at which point you are locked in a spending war with the rest of the network.
Inability to quickly and dynamically adjust prices is another retardation in BTC protocol. IIRC it has like two weeks lag in this regard, kek.
Usage goes up, prices go up, miners use cash to upgrade hardware, prices fall.
The important part is that everyone pays the same price.

>>29318960
Yeah, and how many times are you going to pull this off before the bank takes notice?
But nothing stops you from generating a new wallet and doing an exchange withdrawal before each scam.

>>29309683
>In the 20th century, other antisemitic canards alleged that Jews were responsible for the propagation of Communism and trying to dominate the news media.

idk about the communism thing, but isn't the news media domination part undeniably true? They literally hold every top position for every major north american media/entertainment outlet. Like, literally every single one.

>>29319002
>Miners using special hardware is another retardation of BTC protocol. There is zero reason to burn gigawatts of power securing txs.
Yeah, zero reason... except for controlling the interval at which blocks are mined.

>Also, under free market your spamming would probably drive up the tx price, at which point you are locked in a spending war with the rest of the network.
If it's a FIFO queue then tx fee does not matter. Miners are not allowed to pick the most profitable transactions and put them in a block, they have to to it in order. Exact opposite of a free market.

>>29319192
This is so easy to solve that it's a total non-issue.
Require 1 blocks conf for new wallets
Zero-conf only for amounts small relative to balance on used wallets.
Report wallets that revert broadcast transactions except by RBF.

Viola, problem solved. Just like banks cancel you for cheating, anyone can cancel your wallet for cheating just by running a node and watching for non-rbf transactions that revert other ones.

>>29318586
>At the time of the Segwit fork he WAS the CEO of AXA and the Head of the Bildeberger Group.
Sure, he was part of both of those organizations then, how is that supposed to prove Bilderberg (not "Bilderberger") controls Blockstream or BTC?

>Total lie. They committed 55 million in a series A.
[citation needed]
Here's mine: A series was a total of $55 million and AXA was one of multiple investors, but not the major one (which was Horizons Ventures):
https://www.horizonsventures.com/blockstream-announces-55-million-series-a-investment-bringing-total-capital-raised-to-76-million/

>Another lie. Total funds ever raised until today was 80 million.
It was $76 million after series A 5 years ago. Then in 2017 DG Daiwa Ventures invested additional $25 million and became the biggest shareholder.

>Over 25 % of commits wer emade by the 50 Blockstream Devs.
So over 25% of commits (which I'd need to see some stats for, but whatever) mean total control over the project? wow.

>On top of that people can't just "commit" nilly -willy. It has to be ok'd by someone.. Guess who that is ?
The Jews I'm sure, alternatively Hillary Clinton and her secret ring of pedophiles

>>29308410
they are busy programming the moon

>>29319385
> Miners are not allowed to pick the most profitable transactions and put them in a block, they have to to it in order. Exact opposite of a free market
The miner sets the tx fee.
Client asks miner for current tx cost, miner responds with an offer which is valid for 1 minute or so.
Txs too expensive, txs fall, prices fall.

>>29314248
I can easily set up two bcash nodes and force each to connect to a different set of outgoing nodes. Then I send a different transaction through each on my nodes and now I've partitioned the network. Only one will confirm but half the network will have different transactions in their mempool.
Mempools are not consensus, because there is no way to enforce that they share the same transactions. There is no such thing as a single global mempool
0 conf is fundamentally not secure and it is impossible to do so, simply due to time delay across separate internet connected devices. RBF is just the formalization of this fundamental property into something useful for users of bitcoin.

>>29319790
>Horizons Ventures
So now ask yourself this....

Why does Blockstream who you say does very very very little in terms of BTC commits need
85 million dollars to operate ? What did they need to raise those funds for ?
Wasn't Bitcoin working in 2009-2017 ?
8 Years with no millions at thier disposal ? Weird no. How could it be done if they needed 55 million in 2017 ?

Easy, control
Segwit - Keep the blocks low and control the flow
Lightning - Centralize the shit out of the chain.

Who owns lighting labs ?
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money

Wow just sold all my real bitcoin and bought shitoshi vishnu instead

>>29320249
>Client asks miner for current tx cost, miner responds with an offer which is valid for 1 minute or so.
Yeah, that's not how it works. I'm not going to argue against some imaginary Bitcoin implementation in your head.

FIFO clearly does not work.

>>29320380
So you just disregard the fact that you've been caught telling multiple lies and just deflect by just ASKING QUESTIONS "why are those Jews jewing so much?"

I honestly don't give a fuck about BTC because it's a failed project with no real utility at this point, but the fact that you schizos see Jewish conspiracy everywhere is just depressing

>>29315208
You don't understand bitcoin.

The rules of bitcoin specify that blocks are consensus, which are created with proof of work. The proof of work is the solution to the byzantine generals problem. Simply submitting a transaction to a mempool does not have those assurances by definition of bitcoin consensus, because the mempool does not have any proof of work. Therefore it is not possible for there to be a global mempool with consensus. The blocks are the only way, which is why you must wait for confirmation.

Bitcoin has been out for 12 years now, and you still don't understand how it works. Get it together dude

>>29320376
>I can easily set up two bcash nodes and force each to connect to a different set of outgoing nodes. Then I send a different transaction through each on my nodes and now I've partitioned the network.
Why are you assuming nodes in both groups won't share your txs?
BTC implementation is really this retarded? Jesus.

>>29314653
Shh, I need a week or so

>>29312135
I love that I ignited this with my retarded question

>>29320774
You are so fucking stupid dude, at this point you should just be quiet and try to learn more.

Of course both nodes will try to share transactions, but how do they decide which of the two is "valid"? The truth is that they both are if they have a valid signature. Different parts of the network will receive a different transaction first due to natural latency.

This is the fundamental reason why we have proof of work. Blocks are what we consider valid, not whatever is in a mempool. Mempools are not consensus, and it is completely normal for everyone to have a different set of transactions within it.

0conf is not safe and cannot be made safe.

>>29320675
No I haven't I'm just not willing to play the pilpul game.
Tell me why Blockstream who by your own admission does almost no commits need 55 million dollars in 2017, yet Bitcoin need zero dollars from 2009-2017 ?

See whether you play the pilpul game with AXA and Digital Currency group owning the entire BTC sphere and claim they don't.. it doesn't really matter. there is no reason that Blockstream needed 55 million in 2017.

Except for the funny fact that those devs went from supporting big blocks to all of a sudden HATING big clocks and saying they would break bitcoin. Enter AXA and all of a sudden Segwit is the answer and now the answer is Lighting.

https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7d02ee/some_thoughts_about_the_possible_bitcoin_segwit/

>>29320717
>Simply submitting a transaction to a mempool does not have those assurances by definition of bitcoin consensus,
Of course it does not.
However if there was a reasonable expectation (>99.9%) that a correctly submitted tx would be mined, that expectation would be enough for buying coffee and groceries. And this shit worked fine in 2013 before Blockstream devs took over.
In other words, if the system acts predictably, this is enough for people to use it based on trust. This is why in business setting setting copies of outgoing bank transfers is usually enough to release shipment without waiting for the international transfer to clear, which can take days.
RBF introduces inpredictability and voids trust in the system.

>>29321422
Nigger I just explained you why that doesn't work. Someone will clog up your FIFO mempool and bitcoin is done.

>>29308519
The amount of (you)s this fake shit gets everytime its posted since 3 years ago makes me realize just how many newfags and tourists /biz/ churns out daily.

>>29321670
Nice way to say NUH UH

>>29308410
I don't understand why the bitcoin holders don't collectively elect new devs. Have every bitcoin address vote on whoever they trust

>>29321115
>Of course both nodes will try to share transactions, but how do they decide which of the two is "valid"? The truth is that they both are if they have a valid signature. Different parts of the network will receive a different transaction first due to natural latency.
Let me see.
We have 1BTC wallet.
2 nodes have in FIFO 2 txs sending this 1 BTC to 2 different addresses, except in different order.
Thus both nodes can determine that something shady is happening and drop both txs.
The only situation the scam works is if you manage to submit both txs on different sides of block boundary... which is trivially preventable by randomizing block time.
However if both txs pass this simple heuristic, then the order does not matter.
Also: the receiving node should timestamp incoming txs and any timestamp fuckery should result in blacklisting such node
NTP was invented 30 years ago and achieves <1ms coherence worldwide on commodity hardware

>>29321422
There is no such thing as a "correctly submitted transaction". Once again, whether you have RBF or not, your can connect to different nodes and send out different transactions spending the same utxo at the same time. There is nothing to stop you from doing this, then it is basically a crapshoot on which one will get confirmed. You could wrap it up inside a wallet with nice interface and now all of a sudden every 0conf transaction has a 50% chance of being spent back to an address you control and not the vendor.

You cannot solve this problem in the mempool. Proof of work is what solves it.

Guess what also never changes? Gold.

>>29321996
Because the holders have no vote.
The miners have vote.
And the miners like expensive bitcoin and high fees.
"Peer-to-peer electronic cash", more like "miner-to-banker electronic gold", now with fractional reserve (lighting network)
Same shit, different era

>>29322435
>now with fractional reserve (lighting network)
you are such an idiot

>>29321422
>voids trust in the system
Mempools never had any trust to begin with because they do not solve the byzantine problem. This is the entire nature of bitcoin. You are supposed to treat everything as suspect until it shows up in a block. It's how we get consensus between a group of computers that can connect to each other permissionlessly and relay or withhold whatever data they want

>>29318053

because you only need to control 51% of the hashing for a short period of time. lots of computing power available for rent.

>>29322350
> Once again, whether you have RBF or not, your can connect to different nodes and send out different transactions spending the same utxo at the same time
Trivially preventable using NTP and rate limiting.
Ensure all new shit sits in FIFO for at least 2 block times, if there is any duplicate utxo drop both txs and blacklist.
But that requires actual engineering instead of jerking off to a 12-year-old paper, as groundbreaking as it might have been in its time.

>>29322072
You cannot prove that all mempools have dropped your transactions, and in fact a miner may decide they like the fee on one of them and include it in a block anyway whether your personal mempool has evicted something or not.

Anyone can run a node that will continually relay all transactions and not drop any, and a miner may pick one of them up at any time. In fact, a miner would have massive incentive not to evict any transactions from their mempool, regardless of whatever the default node software has in it. The mempool is not consensus. Proof of work is consensus.

>>29322435
Miners can't vote on anything. If the miners try to push an invalid block, everyone's code will automatically reject it.
The problem with bitcoin as that NO ONE gets a vote. But we could change that.
If the majority of people who actually invested money in bitcoin vote on a change, that change becomes legitimate.

>>29322966
Dude, I don't know what you're smoking but ntp cannot solve this problem. First of all you will not achieve less than 1ms like you said in another post, remember that the bitcoin network is global and you can easily connect to many nodes all over the world. The idea of "first" is simply not possible.

The blocks themselves are the time (originally called timechain) because my definition it is the only thing we can agree on. The laws of physics themselves prevent you from having a globally agreed upon time on connected internet devices

>>29308519
this is quality fud. i mean it could be true. could be bullish either way

"so you are telling me bitcoin is backed by the rothchilds? moon confirmed"

>>29308410
do not post this you dumb cunt

>>29322987
>You cannot prove that all mempools have dropped your transactions, and in fact a miner may decide they like the fee on one of them and include it in a block anyway whether your personal mempool has evicted something or not.
And then the nodes which dropped both txs receive the mined block and see the decoherence.
You are forgetting the core idea from the whitepaper: the collective of miners acts as a DISTRIBUTED TIMESTAMP SERVER. Nothing more.

>>29312477
you are gonna have to go back fren

>>29312482
thanks someone needed to tell him

>>29312573
what is this

>>29312439
That was just a small indigenous village. It hardly counts.

>>29319790
Your main argument against that graphic is that its incorrect now. Was there ever a point in time when the points brought up on that graphic were true? If so, then the graph isn't necessarily false, its merely outdated.


>On top of that people can't just "commit" nilly -willy. It has to be ok'd by someone.. Guess who that is ?
>The Jews I'm sure, alternatively Hillary Clinton and her secret ring of pedophiles
Who brought up Hillary? Now see, this sort of snide and evasive remark makes you, and by extension your entire argument, look bad.

>>29323557
https://coingeek.com/responding-to-antonopoulos-on-the-btc-double-spend-analysis/

>>29311873
If anything this is why I'm betting on BTC as zoomer gold. Crypto in general is part of the NWO agenda. Play with the jews. I'm kinda worried whether this is bad for the soul... Is there a schizo that can answer me this?

>>29323326
>Dude, I don't know what you're smoking but ntp cannot solve this problem. First of all you will not achieve less than 1ms like you said in another post, remember that the bitcoin network is global and you can easily connect to many nodes all over the world. The idea of "first" is simply not possible.
If the network is synced to 1ms then limiting every utxo to 1tx every 100ms and waiting 300ms for any conflicting txs resolves the problem.

> The laws of physics themselves prevent you from having a globally agreed upon time on connected internet devices
National reference clocks worldwide have been kept in sync sub-us since 1959.

>>29308410
they work on taproot and assume-utxo mainly

>>29323849
This shit is gold.

> Andreas explains that “During a re-organization, there is a chance for someone to attempt a ‘double spend.’ This is not a double spend from the perspective of the blockchain as a whole. Only one spend survives, therefore no double spends happen.” Yes, there is only 1 chain that survives, only 1 transaction that survives, but as he points out later, it can by all means be the wrong transaction that survives. And that’s the whole point! Whenever we talk about double spends, or a 51% attack it is always a re-write of the blockchain, and rarely in the context of a coin spent twice within the same chain. Not too long ago over US$5 million was double spent on the Ethereum Classic network. This too only ended up with 1 history of events and 1 transaction. The transaction that lost out was orphaned. Granted this was a major re-org that was exceptionally deep for ETC.
> Compounding matters however, are the implications that this could have for Lightning Network channels and settlements, as noted by nChain’s chief scientist Dr. Craig S Wright. Dr. Wright, the inventor Bitcoin, states that “if you double spend a Lightning Network settlement, you effectively break the entire system. Watch towers are all about putative spends, no inputs, no punishment… By definition what happened was a double spend.”

> “if you double spend a Lightning Network settlement, you effectively break the entire system"
BWAHAHAHA

>>29324030
Schizo checking in. Yes, there is kabbalistic mysticism at play. Its material form are coins (2 sided of godman/state as a single entity); so any attraction, nagging, excitement etc to the crypto coin are negatively influences. The entire world is pretty much based on abrahamic tenets and the Talmud is "read between the lines" gray area that kabbalah came from (how to read between the lines of what is natural and ineffable to enact sorcery) so there's that with lawyers and doctors in medicine. But anyway the body wasn't born sterile, it's the mileu. Your mind is apart of nature. Humans try to fight nature, you don't have to but you can still remain human. To cleanse yourself just find inner calm. Everything changes. Desire to holding on causes suffering. Change will always cause suffering. Turn inward do you feel something there? If you reside there you feel peace and clean your crypto sins

>>29324816
Read the alchemy of finance by George soros to learn more. The reader edition sucks

>>29317953
>being able to transfer millions of dollars in 30 minutes is useless when wires take 1 day and ACH takes 3 days and checks take a few days and have a risk factor

>>29324523
why would the system be broken from a bad close on a lightning channel? someone loses a bit of money that's all.

>>29325008
>being able to transfer millions of dollars in 30 minutes is useless when wires take 1 day and ACH takes 3 days and checks take a few days and have a risk factor
Impressive in 2009? Yes. Today? No.
SEPA clears in 15 minutes during business hours.
https://support.paysera.com/index.php?/payseraeng/Knowledgebase/Article/View/1099/89/727-sepa-clearing-times-non-urgent-transfers-in-eur-to-sepa-countries
XML/XRP/NANO needs what, seconds?

>>29325218
> why would the system be broken from a bad close on a lightning channel? someone loses a bit of money that's all.
> someone loses a bit of money that's all.
Just read what you wrote that again.
A payment system losing money... seriously?
IN FUCKING SETTLEMENT AT THE END OF DAY?

>>29325621
wow fucking up has consequences who would have thought?

>>29324105
You have many fundamental misunderstandings about how bitcoin works. I recommend you stop posting and instead just study more about how bitcoin works.

A bitcoin transaction does not even contain a timestamp, and it doesn't even have to be relayed immediately. You cannot just sync the whole network to a single time source, and even if you could, you would have to somehow change the way transactions are signed to somehow commit this time into the signature. But this is impossible without centralizing bitcoin and trying to force consensus into mempools. Satoshi elegantly solves all of these problems by requiring proof of work, and defining consensus to simply be the longest chain. It is the very essence of bitcoin itself that you squirming around and trying to sidestep

>>29326103
YOU don't understand that bitcoin network is a timestamp server, except a very shitty one with 600s precision.

> A bitcoin transaction does not even contain a timestamp,
What is a block number

>You cannot just sync the whole network to a single time source,
What is NTP. What is UTC.

> Satoshi elegantly solves all of these problems by requiring proof of work, and defining consensus to simply be the longest chain.
Correct, except 600s block time means the system is impractical for everyday application.

> But this is impossible without centralizing bitcoin and trying to force consensus into mempools.
BSV miners operate on FIFO basis, not RBF basis. Obviously can be done making 0conf reasonably secure.

>>29319246
The communism thing is true. Whether youre full commie or ancap theres no denying it

>>29326743
>BSV
You don't have anything better to do than make up angry technically flawed flamewars on Sunday?

>>29326743
Of course I understand that blocks have timestamps you fucking moron. I've said that satoshi solves the asynchronous nature of the network by requiring proof of work. I even mentioned that it was originally called a timechain. FIFO and NTP and all this other bullshit about mempools is pointless and hacky attempt at solving something that Satoshi already covered with proof of work.

You are the one that doesn't understand. YOU CANNOT ACHIEVE CONSENSUS ON THE MEMPOOL. ONLY BLOCKS HAVE CONSENSUS.

0CONF IS NOT SAFE. RBF IS JUST A NATURAL EXTENSION OF THAT FACT.

0CONF IS NOT SAFE. 0CONF IS NOT CONSENSUS. BLOCKS EVERY 600 SECONDS ARE CONSENSUS.

>>29315208
>This is how CIA defused Assange's deadman switch BTW
I know this is offtopic, but where can I read more about this? This is the first time I've heard of that.

>>29327074
I find this level of triggering interesting.
Satoshi or no, CSW knows how to make a better Bitcoin, and this makes the fanboys seethe.
Interesting.

is BTC planning to move to PoS consensus?

>>29312087
kek

>>29327425
no but bch is with adopting avalanche

>>29327425
>>29327826
i think they call it operation snowglobe or some faggy name like that.

>>29312087
nobody will give you shit unless you have at least 2 confirmations. about a 100 on bsv.
>>29312680
no you will realistically use lightning

>>29327225
> I've said that satoshi solves the asynchronous nature of the network by requiring proof of work.
Nope. PoW solves the Byzantine Generals problem, not the asynchronous problem.
The asynchronous problem is solved by broadcasting the mined blocks.
It's elegant on paper, but pretty shitty technically when you have NTP.

> 0CONF IS NOT SAFE.
Driving is not safe, so there is no point in wearing seatbelts, because in case of crash you will be dead anyway.
This is RBF logic.

>>29327991
>no you will realistically use lightning
No, I'll use XRP

>>29328128
lol good luck with that!

>>29328046
there was never any chance of a consensus tx ordering in mempool for bitcoin. that's a cashie delusion.
bch is trying to use avalanche for it i'm very skeptical.

>>29327419
Yeah, he managed to get the white paper hosted for the first time by a USA city municipal government, Google and Facebook. Good publicity.

>>29312477
The first car dealer just wouldn't give you the keys until the transaction was confirmed. If they were dumb enough to let you leave and you did that they could report you to the police.

>>29327419
no craig knows how to milk tech illiterate imbeciles for money. that he knows well.

>>29323849
>https://coingeek.com/responding-to-antonopoulos-on-the-btc-double-spend-analysis/

think this was debunked. btw that transaction was for $21. so if true, they kinda fucked up

>>29319246
Both are undeniably true anon

>>29328414
I have worked professionally on clock sync protocols, lack of understading of these issues in crypto community is interesting.
Incidentally the first altcoin with high throughput was made by a guy with this type of background (NANO/RAIBLOCKS, coded by ex-NI employee).
Exchange exitscam notwithstanding, back in 2017/8 it was groundbreaking tech.

>>29328354
See >>29324523 and >>29323849

>>29329237
then you would know that there is no order between transactions before they hit a block.

>>29329388
> then you would know that there is no order between transactions before they hit a block
There is no GUARANTEED order, it does not mean txs should be reshuffled at will, and allowing the client to reshuffle txs ex post via fee is beyond retarded.

>>29312477
>I now have two cars worth 2 BTC, and have spent 1 BTC only
>Get sued by car dealer #1 because you breached their 'no double spend you stupid nigger' clause in the contract of sale
nigger nigger poopy nigger poopy nigger poopy poopy nigger!¬!!!!!!!

>>29315208
Give our tell us more about assange

>>29308410
the bitcoin core dev's jobs are to make sure that nothing changes

Are they at least discussing quantum resilience?

>>29330007
no the only clock in bitcoin protocol is the blockchain. it's what gives a truly decentralized and trustless system any connection to physical time.

>>29331486
Mate... if quantum computers happen every government, institution, any and all information, everything is exposed. It’s not just Bitcoin. Every bank account will be drained.

>>29331907
not necessarily. almost no crypto protocols today securing such use key sizes of only 256 bits.
adding to the number of qbits is the greatest challenge in quantum computing.

>>29331486
yes signature aggregation makes it impossible to recover a pubkey from a signature. which means you can't run shor's on it to get the private key.