Stateful smart contracts on BSV

Game over, shills.

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

Attached: 1584951042797.jpg (1080x1623, 441.78K)

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/_unwriter/status/1237413442807574528
youtu.be/mOLiwmudaws
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

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

Attached: 1528753206042.png (923x713, 16.36K)

nope

yep
twitter.com/_unwriter/status/1237413442807574528

Attached: noenf.png (682x804, 177.69K)

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.

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?

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.

Cringe

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.

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.

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.

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

Tell me about it

>they all build

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

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

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

>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?

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

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

which doesn't actually solve the problem.

what?

just go away linky youtu.be/mOLiwmudaws

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

My god, imagine being this ignorant.

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

>And how does it get on-chain?

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

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

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

>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, I'm giving you shit you don't have working threshold signatures and probably won't till next year

haha k

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

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

>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.

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

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?

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

>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.

>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.

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

>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.

>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.

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

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
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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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

>please buy my token

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.

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

Attached: 1584423940880.png (1710x1356, 693.51K)