[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 448 KB, 638x964, 1586388625952.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18388937 No.18388937 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

daily reminder that btc is not bitcoin and the lightning network and segwit aren't in the whitepaper.

>> No.18388945

Neither is Craig Wright

>> No.18388994
File: 94 KB, 2850x1193, bitcoinwhitepaper.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.18389020
File: 84 KB, 536x699, 1571535467147.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Anyone can make a claim you fucking tool
I seriously can't tell anymore if you fools LARP for luls or are actually retarded
Either way no one in their right mind takes BSV seriously

>> No.18389029
File: 185 KB, 1502x244, 3A27A449-CCAD-452D-8424-0A974D4A8B28.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yes, umm. I hope Calvin has increased your pay Sandeep - these are crazy times!

>> No.18389032

yes craig wright isn't bitcoin?

>> No.18389083
File: 296 KB, 1302x651, 98u298ru23ru8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

what about this?
got any more wild theories?
craig has been calling himself satoshi well before 2018 and the nour post...

>> No.18389133

>why no denounce
Satoshi was protecting a random guy with the last name Satoshi, not denouncing a scammerfag
Conversely, why not just sign?
Oh right, because he can't.

>> No.18389151

Your 2018 comment is also fabricated, so you're just a loser

>> No.18389215
File: 289 KB, 582x925, Satoshi.Nakamota.Heading.Into.Battle.Edition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

dunno about that anon, posting the word nour which means light after the bsv fork kinda indicates something don't you think?
he already has signed, a few times, for andreson for one and really the evidence is right in front of you, if you aren't retarded it's pretty obvious.
it's right here in pic related.
why would satoshi not denounce a scammer? oh but he has and often, CZ, greggles et al.
then there is the whole court case issue, with mountains of evidence all about satoshi's coins.
occam's razor...it's Craig.
anything else...it's just full on cope and denial.

>> No.18389236

>for andreson
the signing for andreesen was faked you imbecile

>> No.18389253


There it is, have fun.

>> No.18389262
File: 1.06 MB, 2062x1292, people who believe craig is satoshi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


what about matonis?

>> No.18389282

Yeah, I'm thinking you're SCF

>> No.18389291

Daily reminder that metanet and faggotry are not in the whitepaper either

>> No.18389294

that's a conman

>> No.18389333

metanet isn't part of the protocol brainlet

>> No.18389341

get a load of this newfag

>> No.18389347


>> No.18389358

sorry I don't invest in fags
only kikes and pedos

>> No.18389364

gavin later said he might have been bamboozled right the fucking satoshi affair article or this one
i swear you faggots are just insufferable with your lies and half truths

>> No.18389387

Lightning is?

>> No.18389392
File: 27 KB, 956x186, 344343.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>posting that link in favor of your lie

hello greg

>> No.18389405

the fact of the matter is still that craig pulled some fuckery in the private signing and even Gavin Andreesen had his doubts with it. for more details read the satoshi affair. this was NOT the conclusive evidence you lying faggots try to dress it up as

>> No.18389425

no but segwit is

>> No.18389439


>> No.18389460

there's zero evidence of that. Gavin is saying it's possible he was fooled as in it's possible gravity will invert tomorrow

>conclusive evidence
Ironically you are the retards claiming a signature is conclusive evidence

>> No.18389461

Crypto is a tallest midget contest. You're all equally retarded.

>> No.18389507
File: 123 KB, 1444x786, 5656665.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

means you're a piss ant

>> No.18389554

neither is op_piushdata or scripting or the genesis block hash

>> No.18389583

proper non reusable signature is evidence or rather proof of knowledge of the private key which may prove identity under certain circumstances like when we know who a pubkey belongs to and have no reason to suspect it has been compromised.
sign or gtfo that simole.

>> No.18389596

This. Kys faggot worshipping pajeets

>> No.18389604
File: 140 KB, 705x515, 1585300198628.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

it's like core read the first sentence of each section and aimed to make the opposite true for btc

>peer to peer electronic cash
btc is peer to miner to peer electronic gold
>chain of digital signatures
btc has segwit
>a node does work
btc says non mining nodes are nodes
>you don't need to run a node to verify transactions
btc says you need to run a node to verify transactions

>> No.18389639
File: 102 KB, 1736x262, 5656665.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

you claim the only way someone can prove they are satoshi is to sign which is genuinely retarded.

of course signing is evidence

>> No.18389663

it's funny you keep talking about the whitepaper but the whitepaper is not bitcoin. it's a thesis. and introduction. bitcoin was also released by nakamoto and it was a working living system. it's uniqueness stems from it's history and the way and reason people agree on what bitcoin is.

what bitcoin is:
- a trustless permissionless publicly auditable ledger that is also secure
- a non-custodial peer-to-peer electronic payment system
- a network of nodes enforcing a common ruleset shaping a common reality in a trustless manner
- the longest blockchain under the consensus ruleset with the largest commulative hash proven by a specific form of proof of work
- a protocol that describes how consensus is reached on ordering transactions and how difficulty and coinbase supply adjusts over time
- a greater consensus on the ruleset that governs the protocol
- a standard reference client implementation created by nakamoto and maintained as an open source project
- an unspent transaction output spendable to a script returning true

what bitcoin is not:
- a whitepaper
- a gargantuan garbage dump of stale data stored immutably forever
- whatever satoshi said in a forum post
- whatever faketoshi dreams up in delirium
- whatever sv jeets shrill and rave about currently

one more thing to consider:
litecoin adhered to the bitcoin whitepaper 100% in fact most of the source code was the same. but nobody ever considered it bitcoin. if you accept the cashie definition of bitcoin then litecoin is bitcoin

>> No.18389673

>btc says you need to run a node to verify transactions
also no on btc spv works as intended on the shitforks spv is not trustless because they are no byzantine fault tolerant. therefore on the shitforks bch and bchsv you have to run your own validating node meanwhile spv is fine on bitcoin just not very useful for services.

>> No.18389681

also we finally see what hashrate calvin truly has.
0.8% just as i said many times over the years. less than 1%. rofl.

>> No.18389704

litecoin has segwit so no
btc is unironically the garbage dump, moving coins between exchanges is not of value
iv'e spent more time viewing weather data than the btc chain

>> No.18389716
File: 121 KB, 1000x600, 1585302176803.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>btc is not defined by the whitepaper it's defined by 4channel post
I know, that's my point.

I don't care if you want to make 144mb/day digital gold but that is not Bitcoin; a peer to peer electronic cash system a chain of digital signatures with nodes that solve hash puzzles and users do not need to run a node to verify transactions and pic related

you literally need to trust miners on btc to not create invalid transactions with hashes of arbitrary signatures because segwit nodes only need a hash of a signature for a transaction to be considered valid.
what does a block header even signify if you don't get the signature from the previous owner
spv can never work on btc even if craig hadn't patented it to bsv

which is all irrelevant because the whole reason you limited the blocksize to 1mb was to make non mining nodes cheap to run. Don't need spv if you're never gonna do more than 1mb/10min

>> No.18389729
File: 98 KB, 599x832, 1581629264399.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.18389736

lol @ this entire thread

the man has patents. dumb not to add to your portfolio.

and check the hash rates compared to BCH

>> No.18389860

just imagine for a minute the possibilities
being able to view george soros's transactions on the blockchain
and see the people smuggling NGOs in the lonian sea receiving his donations
it would be beautiful and we could finally lock him and them up with their shipping data immutably stored on the bsv blockchain

>> No.18389894
File: 72 KB, 884x482, DwkcTOsV4AENmSe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.18389922
File: 231 KB, 1125x606, w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

just imagine believing you can tell who owns a private key belonging to a pubkey
can you tell my name?
litecoin had no segwit when it began and you could always make a litecoin fork that has no segwit. still wouldn't be bitcoin. even if you make a coin that 110% adheres to the bitcoin whitepaper and call it the "honest to god real bitcoin satoshis original vision" it still wouldn't be bitcoin.

>> No.18389944

>you literally need to trust miners on btc to not create invalid transactions
so you have no clue how the nakamoto consensus works? you have to trust the majority to follow the rules and reorg those that don't. that was true from the beginning. from day1 the possibility of a 51% attack was real. altho if the majority of miners mined an illegal block the chain would fork and the minority chain would mine according to bitcoin ruleset. which would be a clusterfuck but all the other nodes exchanges and financial nodes would see only that the honest blockchain stalled or slowed down.

>> No.18389973
File: 703 KB, 1477x563, 1573518899435.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

tick tock corecucks and stinky linkies, your time is up

>> No.18389980

the majority follows the rules because it is profitable to do so.
segwit makes it very cheap to attack btc by the factor of the cost of faking a digital signature.
It's not a 51% attack

>> No.18390034

you are stupid. here are 5 easily verifyable facts for you:
1) segwit transactions contain a signature in the witness part and it is verified for the input to be spendable
2) bitcoin network enforces segwit ruleset miners that don't 100% adhere to the bitcoin ruleset will be reorged same as if they tried to spend a normal output without proper signature
3) even if 51% of the miners made a longest chain with invalid segwit transactions the rest of the network would still not consider that valid
4) financial nodes and exchanges run their own fully validating nodes so there is no way to profit from mining invalid blocks
5) you are willfully stupid and don't understand how bitcoin works nor do you understand the nakamoto consensus

>> No.18390067

also that article just regurgitates peter rizuns objection to fucking with the established incentive system pre-segwit.

this fud is from 2017 we are still waiting for a single incident where not observing segwit rules happened on bitcoin blockchain. but you can't produce one can't you? on the shitforks that don't enforce segwit rules this is obviously a problem but not on bitcoin where it's integral part of the consensus.

>> No.18390072

a segwit transaction requires a hash of a signature not a signature.
a dishonest miner can hash a signature of any signature and broadcast the transaction because you can not tell what key made a signature from a hash of that signature
segwit makes it cheaper to attack the network.

a bitcoin transaction is not valid unless the payee recieves a signature. a hash of a signature is not a signature

>> No.18390107

false and idiotic a standard segwit transaction contains a signature and that signature is received by every segwit aware client to verify

>> No.18390116
File: 405 KB, 448x531, 1581648584365.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

If it's so easy to get the US copyright for Bitcoin code and whitepaper, why has no one else gotten it then? Even if just to make a point. It's been like a year that Creg's held it.
Because they didn't invent it, and they know they'll get BTFO'd in court by Creg.

>> No.18390126

no they receive a witness which is a hash of a signature not a signature.

>> No.18390129

only pre 2017 legacy clients don't see the signature they only receive an but nobody should run those fucking retarded shit

>> No.18390139

do you think the payee receives a signature?

>> No.18390141

no you need to fact check this idiotic nonsense the witness is a full on sigscript its the old sigscript field in the tx that only contains a hash of the sigscript.

>> No.18390145

everyone does that runs a segwit aware node. not just the payee every fucking body.

>> No.18390155

completely false

>> No.18390189

OGN and ZANO are good ways to improve your BTC.

Decentralized marketplace and privacy!

>> No.18390207

nope if you ever bothered checking out how segwit actually works you would know this and not embarrass yourself here.

segwit moved the signature to an other field in the tx structure. and referenced this witness by a hash in the original sigscript field so that clients knew which witness to check against which input.

>> No.18390217

the payee does not receive a signature

>> No.18390285

21M supply cap isn't in the whitepaper either you absolute faggot. Let's just do away with that too

>> No.18390313

wrong and retarded also the payee doesn't need to validate any signature to spend the coins he got.
if you ever received a bitcoin from an anyone can spend address without signature what would you do throw it away as invalid? i don't believe you.

>> No.18390354

>CRAIG bad!
>unrelated shitcoin shill
>BTC bad!
>BSV bad!
>BTC bad!
>unrelated shitcoin shill
>BSV bad!
>CRAIG is satoj!
>BTC bad!
>CRAIG bad!
>BSV bad!
>unrelated shitcoin shill
>BSV bad!
>BTC bad!
>CRAIG bad!
>BSV bad!

this entire thread

>> No.18390393
File: 231 KB, 986x452, 1580894807082.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

payee does not get a signature. Literally no one believes the payee gets a signature in a segwit transaction
segwit makes it cheaper to attack bitcoin

>> No.18390412


>> No.18390429

Reminder that the human joke known as craig wright is a fraud.

>> No.18390575
File: 82 KB, 842x792, 0mfay069y0x01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Imagine supporting a chain that was deliberately crippled to prevent mass adoption.

>Pic related is you

>> No.18390635

Neighter is wheater data on chain, gigameg blocks and the metanet. get rekt

>> No.18390656
File: 279 KB, 1800x948, bitcoin-fork-comparison.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

This is true and the real psyop is that they get blatant scammers and lunatics to scream this truth the loudest so that people won't believe it. BTC and BSV work hand in glove, keeping people away from financial freedom.

>> No.18390716
File: 46 KB, 917x599, 542.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>so I have a new crypto
>it's like bitcoin
>but with apps
>omg I love apps!!!

>> No.18390743

Btc is running this place. BSV might have pumps but it dumps when Btc dumps, it moves with Btc. It will never ever get above Btc, Everything is trading against btc, almost nothing is trading against BSV. No network effect and poor indian shills on top + a serial scammer as a media figure. i would rather buy anything else than touching that with a 100ft poll. buy link

>> No.18391044

you are the exact type of person that tells me its time to buy bsv

>> No.18392216

jesus man you still don't get it? just look this shit up! look into the code! look for the signature! it's there. i have looked into the code. segwit tx-es are signed and the signature is checked for it to be valid.

>> No.18392258

>segwit makes it cheaper to attack bitcoin
there is a theoretical attack that has never been proven to be actually workable that involves delaying the witness part of a block by a minorty gang of miners trying to lead the majority into abandoning enforcing segwit rules.
it's not something miners would go for it silently they would either raise hell or more likely gladly reorg the retards that don't propagate their block fully and take their reward.
so long the majority plays by the rules bitcoin remains secure. this has always been so.

>> No.18392269

Imagine being this upset about a drawing.

>> No.18392539

also since i know that blithering retard will not believe me for the rest of you check it out yourself
line 65:
CScriptWitness scriptWitness; ///< The scriptWitness of an input. Contains complete signatures or the traditional partial signatures format. scriptWitness is part of a transaction input per BIP 144.

the tx contains a signature in the witness part. end of story.

however you as a receiver of a payment do not need to even check that. because you got the bitcoins when the ledger is updated and most importantly when you can spend them. you only have the bitcoins you can spend.

so no validating a signature from the sender does not play a role in determining if you received a payment or not. because of the nakamoto consensus if a tx is listed in a confirmed block in the longest chain it is valid for the network and outputs are spendable.

there is no way a confirmed tx let's say 2 to 6 deep is gonna turn up with a bogus signature suddenly. that can only happen on the bch shitforks.

>> No.18392558

also $187 kek we soon gonna dust off the DOUBLE DIGIT SHITCOIN memes...

>> No.18393793
File: 117 KB, 1059x952, 1560932080659.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

A big fuckoff to corecucks, study picrel if you want to make it.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.