[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 442 KB, 1080x1623, 1584951042797.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18019367 No.18019367 [Reply] [Original]

Game over, shills.

https://medium.com/@xiaohuiliu/stateful-smart-contracts-on-bitcoin-sv-c24f83a0f783

>> No.18019378
File: 16 KB, 923x713, 1528753206042.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18019378

Are they code agnostic or at least more capable than ETH?

>> No.18019461

>>18019378
nope

>> No.18019648
File: 178 KB, 682x804, noenf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18019648

>>18019378
yep
https://twitter.com/_unwriter/status/1237413442807574528

>> No.18019901

>>18019367
Great, another smart contract platform for Chainlink to provide data to.

>Contrary to popular belief, Bitcoin1 comes with smart contracting capability since its inception
Well that's wrong, we knew that, it's just that Bitcoin's smart contract capability is shit.

>> No.18019934

>>18019648
This is for crawling Bitcoin's blocks/transations without having to go through the entire chain.

How is this related to the smart contracts in OP?

>> No.18020048

>>18019367

Yet another solution searching for a problem.

Oh, that's Craig Wrong, as usual. He's still desperately trying to bruteforce those hard disks he stole from Satoshi Nakamoto because of the wallets on them.. Noone told Craig what "exponential complexity" actually means.

>> No.18020060

>>18020048
Cringe

>> No.18020126

>>18019367
lol an sv cuck that understands bitcoin script amazing. what he doesn't understand is calvin and craig just stunted the smart contract capability of sv irreparably.

>> No.18020150

>>18019934
dunno stateful deterministic smart contracts are impossible to execute trustlessly with bitcoin script. it's very much the reason ethereum was born.
the problem is the world doesn't really need this capability it's not what crypto and especially bitcoin brings to the table.

>> No.18020151

>>18019901
>Chainlink
>provide data
Nobody cares about your failed project.

>> No.18020161

>>18020048
you are assuming he has "the harddrives" and not just projecting his ego and larping

>> No.18020171

>>18020126
how's that

>> No.18020173

>>18019901
>Great, another smart contract platform for Chainlink to provide data to.

Unless chainlink completely pivots towards big block bitcoin tomorrow then they dont stand a chance in hell of competing with what's to come

>Well that's wrong, we knew that, it's just that Bitcoin's smart contract capability is shit.

You're going to be kicking yourself in a year or so from now when you realize all the experts you listened to were wrong

>>18020048
>Yet another solution searching for a problem.

This how lazy/unmotivated people think in life

>He's still desperately trying to bruteforce those hard disks he stole from Satoshi Nakamoto because of the wallets on them

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>> No.18020185

>>18020173
they're shills

>> No.18020194

>>18019901
>Bitcoin's smart contract capability is shit.
it is adequate to write meaningful smart contracts for managing your own money handle inheritance and non custodial banking.
bitcoin script can't interact with the real world autonomously in general but in a limited way you would be amazed what it can be done with it. and after taproot this will explode.

>> No.18020200

>>18020173
>Unless chainlink completely pivots towards big block bitcoin tomorrow
This makes no sense.
All it takes for Chainlink to connect to any blockchain is an adapter.

>> No.18020205

>>18020171
they removed p2sh which was the single most revolutionary development to bitcoin after it's first release. and all other revolutionary advances are built on it.

>> No.18020217

>>18020205
well at least they were supposed to with their "genesis upgrade" i don't follow sv development so closely to actually check out what they did.

>> No.18020220

>>18020205
good morning greg

p2sh is a cancer that can't be removed it can only be slowly phased out.

>> No.18020272

>>18020220
p2sh is the best thing that happened to bitcoin after it comes segwit then taproot. p2sh logically moves the burden to know the details of his smart contract to the owner. segwit removes this burden from the main block (the financial transactions) to an extension block (that only used for validation) while fixing malleability and taproot allows for it not to be fully revealed only the relevant parts that came true and drive the smart contract.

they all build on top of each other.

>> No.18020302

>>18020272
it is the opposite of a public ledger

as is segwit.
segwit transactions mean the payee can not verify the chain of digital signatures nor are segwit bitcoins a chain of digital signatures.
Segwit allows a new attack where miners can include transactions with hashes of arbitrary signatures and they are indistinguishable to other nodes from legitimate transactions. fatal

>> No.18020344

>>18020185

Tell me about it

>>18020272

>they all build

No. Nobody is building anything, it's dead. You had your chance years ago, you blew it.

>>18020200

You're part of a cult and you're going to have to learn this the hard way. There won't be any other blockchains five years from now, and there won't be a need for "tamper proof" data when everything is on chain

>>18020302

Spoiler alert: they don't want bitcoin to be a chain of signatures

>> No.18020354

>>18020344
>You're part of a cult
Says the faggot who has no clue what he's talking about.

>and there won't be a need for "tamper proof" data when everything is on chain
And how does it get on-chain?

>> No.18020365

>>18020354
>how does it get on chain
didn't know linkies were in the physical iot business

>> No.18020375

>>18020365
They're in the middleware between physical iot and blockchain business.

>> No.18020391

>>18020375
which doesn't actually solve the problem.

>> No.18020395

>>18020391
what?

>> No.18020407

>>18020395
just go away linky https://youtu.be/mOLiwmudaws

>> No.18020443

>>18020407
>title says "threshold signatures"
>thinks that means it must compete with Chainlink

My god, imagine being this ignorant.

>> No.18020456

>>18020443
no you just have managed to get there yet despite this presentation occurring last year

>> No.18020475

>>18020354
>And how does it get on-chain?

Through a decentralized oracle (also known as a miner), duh

>> No.18020483

>>18020456
>title says "threshold signatures"
>thinks that means it must compete with Chainlink

>>18020475
>miners are oracles
Oh god what in the fuck are you talking about.

>> No.18020495

>>18020302
>it is the opposite of a public ledger
no it's not. the important part the ledger ie the utxo set is fully public.

>> No.18020498

>>18020483
no, I'm giving you shit you don't have working threshold signatures and probably won't till next year

>> No.18020506

>>18020498
haha k

>> No.18020513

>>18020344
>No. Nobody is building anything, it's dead.
rofl you have no clue but you will understand in a few years.

>> No.18020519

>>18020495
if payees don't get signatures they have to trust miners, there's no benefit to your public segwit utxo. It's like bank credit

>> No.18020557

>>18020519
>if payees don't get signatures they have to trust miners
not really you don't get it do you? past signatures have nothing to do with ownership. there is a ledger if the ledger says you have the coins you have the coins. end of story. you don't have to trust anyone. that's not how bitcoin works.
>there's no benefit to your public segwit utxo. It's like bank credit
total bullshit. the utxo just tells ""who"" has the coins and what are the requirements to spend it. that is the definition of a ledger. the witness only plays role in transaction and block validation in the consensus phase. the witness is completely useless and can be disregarded once blocks are confirmed.

>> No.18020573

>>18020557
with segwit a miner can change the utxo without the respective signature because a hash of a signature is indistinguishable from a hash of any other signature

>> No.18020602

>>18020573
that's wrong tho. no idea where you got that retarded shit but everyone builds their own utxo no miner can change anyone elses. also the witness is a signature. not a hash of a signature a fucking actual signature. and no segwit tx will be mined without that signature being validated on bitcoin. if a miner did that he would be reorged immediately as his block would be invalid.
otherwise nobody would use segwit especially not exchanges and other institutions handling huge fucking amounts. don't be silly just think for a second.

the only thing you trust with segwit is that 51% of the miners are honest and will reject illegal blocks. which is basically the nakamoto consensus. are you implying that's broken?

>> No.18020687

>>18020602
the witness is a hash of a signature. a hash of a signature is not a signature
>no segwit tx will be mined without that signature being validated on bitcoin. if a miner did that he would be reorged immediately as his block would be invalid.
no one would know unless they were looking for it.
A bitcoin transaction gives a signature to the payee, without the signature the transaction is invalid. what is the $ cost to forge a digital signature?
A segwit transaction gives the payee a hash of a signature and a hash of a signature cannot be differentiated from a hash of any other signature. What is the $ cost to produce a hash of any signature?

segwit is effectively infinitely less secure than bitcoin

>> No.18020697

>>18020687
>the witness is a hash of a signature
no man that's a blatant lie. witness is a sigscript.
>no one would know unless they were looking for it.
you fucking retarded shit all the fucking nodes that updated to sewit more than 95% of them at the fork checks it automatically.

>> No.18020715

>>18020687
>segwit is effectively infinitely less secure than bitcoin
it's bitcoin it's not less or more secure than bitcoin it's exactly as secure as bitcoin. the only issue with segwit has been outlined in 2017 by peter rizun and others that it theoretically allows miners to pervert incentives and a minority force the majority off from enforcing segwit rules. however the truth is miners would be pissed to nine hells if someone tried this and they would reorg the living shit out of him. at least that is what practice shows. because so far the only segwit tx-es that were misspent happened on the shitforks.

>> No.18020734

>>18020697
the payee does not receive a signature.

a segwit node accepts a hash of a signature. The whole purpose of segwit was that you retards thought the signature was only necessary as it was being transacted. Which is true if miners where immutably honest entities but they're not they're profit seeling entites and you reduced the cost of invalid transactions by hundreds of years

>> No.18020764

>>18020734
>the payee does not receive a signature.
yes he does because it's all part of the transaction and public in the extension block.
but, the payee doesn't need no signature from somone else to spend anything. you have bticoin if you can spend it.
you you are double retarded. you imagine a problem that doesn't exist and wouldn't be a problem either.

>> No.18020782

>>18020734
>a segwit node accepts a hash of a signature.
that's just bullshit. sorry. segwit nodes reject tx-es from _standard_ segwit addresses without signatures. it's just the tx is structured slightly differently. the thing about signatures is they are optional in bitcoin script. but usually nobody uses an address that doesn't require a signature to spend. at least that's not normal.

>> No.18020805

>>18020764
*so you are double retarded lol
i have constant distractions here and the site is fucking with me also.

>> No.18020809

>>18020764
no he doesn't he receives a witness which is a hash. a hash is not a signature.
>he doesn't need one
a payee needs a signature because it's mathematical proof the miners aren't colluding to give him invalid transactions
>>18020782
they do until they don't, which isn't possible on bsv because the payee needs to receive a signature for the transaction to be valid

>> No.18020810

Y’all on a new level. Which bitcoin do I buy to make money?

>> No.18020822

>>18020810
buy the one that isn't at full capacity at 144mb/day

>> No.18020834

>>18020810
None because even though BSV is the real bitcoin it's still insanely overvalued and relies entirely on speculation. Also have to factor is that btc runs the shows and that's going to be a slow decent to 0.

>> No.18020869

>>18020834
I don’t want ure response I got purples now I need blues!

>> No.18020884

>>18020810
Blockchains are a dime a dozen these days, buy whatever will enable the next step forwards: mainstream smart contracts.

That way you're ahead of the curve, and it doesn't matter which blockchain(s) win or lose.

>> No.18020931

>>18020809
you are totally retarded sorry you have bitcoin if you can spend it. nothing else matters. your ability to spend it is the only ownership bitcoin knows. signatures are a technicality and not mandatory by the bitcoin protocol. it's just retarded not to use them. but not impossible.

if you received a miner block reward to your address or a miner spent to your address an anyone can spend tx you have that bitcoin even tho there is no "signature from previous owner". that's just utter bullshit that you need it or need to check it. no you don't you have the bitcoin if you can spend it end of story.
>a payee needs a signature because it's mathematical proof the miners aren't colluding to give him invalid transactions
most retarded shit i heard from an svtard. no that's just totally wrong and not bitcoin protocol. please get a lobotomy!

>> No.18020940

>>18020869
Well he's not responding so let me simulate his brain inside of mine to give you a good response.

Bitcoin cannot be confiscated and is a digital store of value, a digital gold persay. These are not traits that I have projected onto this technology because of my political beliefs and a general lack of understanding of the real world. These are real and even though I'm slowly getting proven wrong day after day I will continue to "believe them". 100k EOD.

>> No.18020970

>>18020931
you can't forge signatures profitably but you can broadcast hashes of arbitrary signatures profitably.
segwit is irreversible and fatally flawed. good luck

>> No.18020988

>>18020970
and who would accept your segwit tx-es without checking signature? go ahead spend coinbase's segwit wallets to yourself!

>> No.18020989

>>18020884

>please buy my token

>> No.18021023

>>18020989
Not necessarily "my" token, anything that enables the next big step forward: mainstream smart contracts.
Trying to bet on which blockchain will win is idiotic.

Like trying to bet on which asphalt company will "win" in the early 20th century instead of investing in Ford.

>> No.18021034
File: 694 KB, 1710x1356, 1584423940880.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18021034

>>18020988
segwit nodes only look for a hash. The question is who would broadcast transactions with a hash of a signature not corresponding to the utxo; a miner attacking the network.
why would a miner attack the network; for profit

>> No.18021082

>>18021034
wrong why don't you actually read about segwit?
the witness is a signature no standard segwit tx is valid without signature. you won't be able to spend someone else's bitcoins without a signature. only non segwit enforcing nodes would accept your bullshit. and you are shit out of luck.

>> No.18021108
File: 451 KB, 986x1164, 1534521435242.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18021108

Core keks grasping, Linkies seething. The way I like it.

>> No.18021146

>>18021082
we've already been through this.
the witness is a hash of a signature. The payee does not receive a signature.
a hash of a signature is not a signature because you can not derive a signature from a hash of said signature.

>> No.18021170

>>18021034
>why would a miner attack the network; for profit
if i was a miner i would attack sv easiest thing in the world to fucking short it in a down trend and do a series of 51% attacks to push down the price hard all the way to $5. you only need like 1-3% of bitcoins total hashrate to do this depending on how you do it.

>> No.18021190

>>18021146
>the witness is a hash of a signature.
you said that a lot but you are totally wrong (or lying) why not look it up?
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/segwit-segregated-witness.asp
>Segregate means to separate, and Witnesses are the transaction signatures. Hence, Segregated Witness, in short, means to separate transaction signatures.
segwit structures the tx differently does not remove signatures or the need for signatures at all. why do you insist on this retarded bullshit?

>> No.18021212

>>18021146
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SegWit
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segregated_Witness
witness is a literal sigscript if has to execute to true and only does if a proper signature is provided as parameter. there is no way to alter it or remove it. the block would be invalid and rejected.

>> No.18021225

>>18021170
it's funny how that hasn't happened, almost like miners don't think a network that can't do more than 144mb a day is worth the hundreds of millions they spend on hardware.
>>18021190
come on that argument is lower than you.
The reason a hash of a signature is not a signature is because a hash is a one way mathematical/trapdoor function where the whole point of a signature is you have something provably derivable of something (in our case the private key associated with the utxo you just received a bitcoin from)

>> No.18021240

>>18021212
once again the payee does not receive a signature.

>> No.18021279

>>18021082
>>>/biz/thread/S16264677#p16270493
FATAL
FLAW
WITNESS CAN LIE
>binance sent these tx and clogged the mempool
did they?

>> No.18021326

>>18020272
This is why software engineering is cancer.
It is filled with cancerous faggot like you that can only over-engineer for the sake of engineering

>> No.18021339

>>18021225
>it's funny how that hasn't happened
it depends on your ability to short sv safely in usd and with large amounts that offset your opportunity cost. because the markets are unpredictable.

but it will happen eventually. it should. easy as fuck.

>>18021225
read again retard witness is a sigscript this is an objective fact. dunno wher e you got the hash of a signature thing. p2sh pays to a script with a specific hash. and segwit is p2sh yes. but they doesn't mean there is no signature.

>> No.18021352

>>18021279
that was my post yes. i can sign with the genesis block reward address (but so can anyone else lol)

>> No.18021354

>>18021339
the. payee. does. not. receive. a. signature

>> No.18021360

>>18021108
>Linkies seething over an additional back-end for Chainlink
lmao

>> No.18021369

>>18021240
he does but he doesn't need it. why can't you just fucking look this shit up instead of parrotting idiotic lies? it's okay i you don't believe me just do a little research!

>> No.18021391

>>18021369
imaging arguing with paid troll army of ((Kikestream)))

>> No.18021411

>>18021369
he doesn't and you know he doesn't.
like you said iT's nOt neCeSsAry >>18020764

>> No.18021429

>>18021391
imagine not seeing every lie as an inverted truth

>> No.18021436

>>18021354
you. fucking. lie. that. is. not. true.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ad0cbd3ef88e64050b9df565224dc2af482cc9a0b5e3589f52667a1b3bee03a2
see the witness part? that's the real signature. right fucking there!

>> No.18021449
File: 43 KB, 650x650, 1520510009490.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18021449

>>18021360
BSV makes LINK obsolete and has patented smart contract technology anyway. LINK $0 EOY.

>> No.18021459

>>18021411
it's not because only the outputs are required to check if you got coins.
if a coin was spent to your address and confirmed in a block it's yours. you don't need to check signatures. that's the way bitcoin works. if the tx is unconfirmed you may opt to check the signature yourself and accept an unconfirmed tx like a retard. you can do that with segwit also because IT HAS FUCKING SIGNATURE ALSO just stored differently in the witness part.

>> No.18021465

>>18021449
Really? It has its own decentralized oracles?

>> No.18021468

>>18021391
regardless, redpill me on the coronavirus

>>18021436
no signatures there

>> No.18021473

>>18021465
the bsv blockchain IS the decentralized oracle

>> No.18021490

>>18021459
oh wait I waned your opinion of covid19

have you seen the cfr has gone 112% in 67 days

>> No.18021493

>>18021468
>no signatures there
of course it's a signature it's the sigscript that doesn't contain the signature you are completely retarded confusing shit like no other retard on this board.

>> No.18021502

>>18021473
>it's stored on a decentralized system, so that means it got there in a decentralized way

You people are clueless.

>> No.18021504

>>18021490
>covid19
it's a shitcoin that will go to zero like all other p&d shitcoins

>> No.18021528

>>18021493
the receiver of a segwit transaction does not receive a signature from the previous owners private key

>>18021504
yeah but elaborate, justify

>> No.18021626

>>18021326
just because you fail to see the insane potential in p2sh segwit and taproot... (even for fucking sv what sv tries to do would greatly benefit from these techs ironically). but svtards on average are too brainlet to understand these concepts. they don't even understand how bitcoin actually works. and the few smart ones are too butthurt and indoctrinated in this cultish culture to consider it.

real sad that they try to pass devolution off as progress.

>> No.18021640

>>18021626
what did satoshi mean by op pushdata4

>> No.18021643

>>18021528
>the receiver of a segwit transaction does not receive a signature from the previous owners private key
still not true. even if you say it a thousand times you lust lie a thousand times. i have posted sources now it's your turn. show me how you spend from a segwit tx without signature! show me the tx!

>> No.18021675

>>18021643
>show me how you spend from a segwit tx without signature!

By being a bunch of miners who form a cartel because the pot got too big

>> No.18021683

>>18021643
> show me how you spend from a segwit tx without signature!
be dishonest miner
short btc
broadcast transactions with hashes of arbitrary private keys
achieve 15% of blocks
rest of miners join in

>> No.18021702

>>18021643
what about qanon, what do you think of her?

>> No.18021743

>>18021640
same as OP_PUSHDATA1 and OP_PUSHDATA2 nothing magical about it. none of them are necessary strictly speaking.

>> No.18021757

>>18021743
i heard it let you put 4gb on the stack

>> No.18021783

>>18021675
51% attacks are possible with or without segwit however honest nodes would reject them and would see the network stalling. show me a tx without signature that spends from standard segwit address!

>> No.18021798

>>18021757
and? you don't need any pushdata in script. nor you need 4gb of junk in a tx.

>> No.18021883

>>18021798
yeah but what about qanon

>> No.18021987

>>18019367
I have 1 BSV. will I make it?

>> No.18021994

lmao the writing is on the wall. The tx/s and block size along with micro tx are game changers.

>> No.18022038
File: 36 KB, 221x246, kermit5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18022038

>>18019648
so did _unwriter reveal his identity like he said he would do?
or was it "just for a closed group"? (meaning he didn't do it if it hasn't been leaked by now)

>> No.18022263

>>18022038

It's out there if you know where to look.

>> No.18022402
File: 1.09 MB, 723x1023, 127.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18022402

>>18022263
i see you're utilizing the regular unhelpful bullshit BSV reply