/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.16141525]

Defend this.

[Anonymous No.16141965]

>>16141525
A blessing in disguise to bring us back to the genesis.

[Anonymous No.16141972]

>>16141525
scaling

[Anonymous No.16141983]

>>16141525
Breaking the protocol

[Anonymous No.16141988]

>>16141972

[Anonymous No.16141995]

>>16141525
I like it it's not bad. Original chain goes faster before segwit I remember it was like 10% transaction fees

[Anonymous No.16141997]

>>16141525
Based. Absolutely Elegant at the protocol level.

[Anonymous No.16142006]

>>16141972
>scaling
Why the fuck complicate it with a seperate system. Why not just scale onchain like in BitCoin? Cheaper, easier, cleaner.
SegWit Coin is fucked

[Anonymous No.16142009]

>>16141525
Pretty based if you‘re not a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16142014]

>>16142006
oops, I conflated a little bit with LN there. SegWit is even worse as it obliterates what Bitcoin is supposed to be. I takes away the signatures. Would you accept a check without a signature? Neither would anyone else

[Anonymous No.16142117]

>>16141525
no need it miners defend it.

[Anonymous No.16142126]

>>16141983
your mother is breaking the ass to mouth protocol by taking it in the pussy in-between.

[Anonymous No.16142161]

>>16142126
absolutely based!

[Anonymous No.16142209]

>>16142009
> Pretty based if you‘re not a brainlet.
Very good, Comrade.

[Anonymous No.16142211]

>>16141525
It's potentially quadrupled the effective blocksize without a full commitment to one scaling solution but big blockers still complain about it because they don't realize that true onchain scaling is a one way street.

[Anonymous No.16142244]

best BitCoin accumulation strategy in history

[Anonymous No.16142252]

>>16142211
> they don't realize that true onchain scaling is a one way street.

routed payment channels operate more efficiently with larger blocks but ok

opportunity cost exists, anon. communists do not understand this.

[Anonymous No.16142253]

>>16142244
meant to post this

[Anonymous No.16142266]

>>232123502

[Anonymous No.16142269]

>>16141525
Does Craig Wright hate it? Yes? Then it's great

[Anonymous No.16142285]

>>16142253
yes and the irony is that sv needs segwit more than btc rofl.

[Anonymous No.16142307]

>>16142285
nope segwit breaks bitcoin.

a hash of a signature is not a signature.
you can't tell what key made a signature form a hash of that signature

[Anonymous No.16142312]

>>16142126
KEK BASED
CHECKEd

[Anonymous No.16142332]

>>16142307
>nope segwit breaks bitcoin
it doesn't you are just stupid and willfully ignorant regurgitating craigs diarrhea

[Anonymous No.16142341]

>>16142307
also not how it works read up a bit on sigscript...

[Anonymous No.16142357]

a shitty attempt to bandaid fix an outdated coin that's only #1 in marketcap because the media only talks about BTC or Libra

[Anonymous No.16142403]

>>16142341
it's not a signature.

segwit bitcoins are worth as much as an unsigned cheque

[Anonymous No.16142419]

>>16141525
it reduces transaction size and prevent asicboost mining centralization.

[Anonymous No.16142430]

>>16142403
that's just wrong you fucking retard. once a transaction is in the block confirmed it is immutable. it's like a cheque you cashed out a long time ago and keep it for fucks sake. it's worth fucking nothing because it has already been fulfilled.

[Anonymous No.16142436]

>>16142252
At the time, miners believed the opportunity cost of segwit was lower, especially considering the eventuality of regular blocksize increases as a solution to temporary throughput issues. Don't get me wrong, I'm hedged into both solutions. It just seems to me that big blockers are unwilling to recognize that there there is a sincere, cautious argument for segwit.

[Anonymous No.16142455]

> if you split your UTXOs you're retarded
> if you didn't you have nothing to worry about
> if you're here post-fork i look forward to dumping my heavy bags on you to buy productive assets instead of hodling do-nothing shittokens with 0 utility

gl senpai

[Anonymous No.16142468]

>>16142253
Wait so all Segwit transactions are just a hash of a signature?

>>16142285
Why?

[Anonymous No.16142506]

>>16142430
Yeah but if its signed with a hash instead of a signature isn't there potential problems authenticity or even security risks? If not then why didnt SN just create Bitcoin to run like this in the first place? Seems stupid to add bulk for no reason when there is no downside.

[Anonymous No.16142510]

>>16142430
>code is law!
>miner changes the utxo set with a hash of signature from a key that doesn't control bitcoins
>this is ownership
you people don't live in the real world

ownership is a legal construct
signatures are a legal construct
that is why satoshi structured transactions that way

[Anonymous No.16142513]

>>16142468
>Why?
because they intend not only to let people post all kinds of junk on their blockchain but also want to be able to delete illegal content and practice other forms of censorship.

which requires the separation of the financial transaction from the sigscript so that the correct utxo set can be built from a block chain. there are other ways but segwit makes it a child's play. mind you segwit could have been implemented otherwise the particular implementation btc has with the soft fork is just one non trivial way to do it.

[Anonymous No.16142525]

>>16142510
retard... you need to learn about how bitcoin works seriously. and fuck off with the legal construct, you don't have the keys not your coins!

[Anonymous No.16142544]

>>16142513
I don't see how Segwit adds any benefits here. Signature data is nothing compared to what they intend to add to their chain and idk if a hash of an electronic signature is as dead to rights as a full signature legally speaking. Making it harder to convict pedos. I just don't see it.

[Anonymous No.16142546]

>>16142525
obviously you need to learn >>16142253

here's the whitepaper
>Bitcoin: A peer to peer electronic cash system
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

not a store of value or digital gold

[Anonymous No.16142549]

>>16142506
>Yeah but if its signed with a hash
it's not signed with the hash that hash doesn't mean anything in retrospect. it's pay to script hash, which means you can spend it if you present the correct script for the hash and it evaluates to true. but once it's done and validated and confirmed the witness part has no use. the only important part is the inputs and outputs. and those are fully included.

[Anonymous No.16142565]

>>16142546
i feel sorry for you brainlets... truly. you keep thumping your holy text without understanding it's purpose.

[Anonymous No.16142576]

>>16142549
>it's not signed with the hash
So it's not signed at all, even with a hash of the signature?

[Anonymous No.16142578]

>>16142544
junk data is included in the unlock script. it is the majority of data if you use a blockchain as a garbage dump. financial transactions updating the ledger can be lower than 1% of the block size in the sv vision.

[Anonymous No.16142597]

>>16142576
dude you are off your script... what do you want with the witness data? the miners have it the miners have a consensus on it. according to sv lore you can't validate shit on the blockchain anyhow. so what's the butthurt about?

[Anonymous No.16142614]

>>16142578
I really don't understand how Segwit is suppose to optimize this.

[Anonymous No.16142618]

>>16142565
so you think bitcoin is not meant to be peer to peer electronic cash?

[Anonymous No.16142621]

>>16142597
I'm trying to learn, fuck you then.

[Anonymous No.16142623]

>>16141525

> soft fork
> opt-in
> de facto block increase (witness adds size)
> txid malleability solved
> allows presigning tx depending on future txids (payment channels, vaults, ...)
> elegant
> breaks copyrighted ASICboost (would bring centralization around Antminer, could make empty blocks faster to mine fucking the network)
> activated by users and economically relevant nodes against a cabal of chink miners

[Anonymous No.16142627]

>>16142618
imagine unironically arguing with cuckstream paid shills

[Anonymous No.16142629]

>>16142614
>I really don't understand how Segwit is suppose to optimize this.
you can delete (stop propagating in the network) the offending data without deleting the actual tx. noone can vlaidate the sigscript anymore but if a tx is already confirmed deep that has zero consequence.

[Anonymous No.16142638]

>>16142618
of course it is, no question. not a garbage/cp dump that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.16142639]

>>16141525
> a thread literally died for this
If you don't like core and it doesn't align with your vision of peer to peer electroinc cash then buy BCH or BSV.

[Anonymous No.16142650]

>>16142621
sorry so many ids to keep track of... i get mixed up who is the hostile or curious.

[Anonymous No.16142653]

>>16142638
why limit adoption to 144mb a day then?

[Anonymous No.16142697]

>>16141525
It was purposely orchestrated to bring chaos and confusion to crypto. The puppet masters create a problem in order to enforce their planned solution - BSV. Yeah, BSV does have the brightest future for whatever positive aspects a crypto may bring, but this also comes at a price of the chain being 100% controlled and a wet dream for big brother. The flood of alt coins was deliberate in order to make a need for regulation. You first need to have a highly centralized economy of the 4th industrial revolution before there can be a NWO. I don't care what people say, but I'm 100% right.

[Anonymous No.16142744]

>>16142653
i know why they did it but it's a shitty reason. partly out of fear what a hardfork can do to bitcoin partly to force segwit adoption because a lot of second layer solutions need it. they also try to shed the parasites by making the transactions expensive (this also translates to miners fee rewards positively btw) and the blokchain manageable in size. obviously the blocksize will get increased the only question is when. and no i don't think it's a very good idea to continue like this indefinitely.

that all however doesn't change the fact that minority forks are retarded unsafe and definitely not bitcoin by any measure.

[Anonymous No.16142841]

>>16142744
>force segwit adoption for second layer solutions
exactly. second layer solutions are not bitcoin. segwit is not bitcoin.
>they also try to shed the parasites by making the transactions expensive
sounds like communism. define parasites
>this also translates to miners fee rewards positively btw
false, given two sha256 coins identical besides an adoption limit the coin with no adoption limit has more capacity to incentivise miners
>blokchain manageable in size
define manageable

[Anonymous No.16142937]

>>16142841
>second layer solutions are not bitcoin
that depends but mostly of course they are if two way pegged with main-chain in a deterministic trustless manner.
>sounds like communism
everything does to poltards
>false, given two sha256 coins identical
wat? no i mean the fees fro tx-es. btc fees per block are a 1000x higher in usd even tho it's the same size as sv.
>define manageable
it's different for everyone to me personally it's under 500 MB for now. that's about the utxo set and the last 100 blocks + headers.

[Anonymous No.16143067]

>>16142841
>define parasites
i meant mainly parasitic chains of course that anchor to btc the wrong way like veriblock. or any service that uses it for non financial reasons. you can't just tell people to stop doing retarded shit. unless there is a price that is too steep they will keep doing it.

[Anonymous No.16143189]

>>16142623
based