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

>for andreson
the signing for andreesen was faked you imbecile

Atlantis=Thoth=Pyramids=Jesus=ThePlan=USA=OldMajestic=Cicada=Satoshi=Qanon=Majestic12=TimeTravelers.

There it is, have fun.

nope

what about matonis?

Attached: people who believe craig is satoshi.png (2062x1292, 1.06M)

Yeah, I'm thinking you're SCF

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

that's a conman

metanet isn't part of the protocol brainlet

get a load of this newfag
cringe

Checked

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

gavin later said he might have been bamboozled right the fucking satoshi affair article or this one
ccn.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/
i swear you faggots are just insufferable with your lies and half truths

Lightning is?

>posting that link in favor of your lie

>insufferable
hello greg

Attached: 344343.png (956x186, 26.77K)

>durr
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 but segwit is

umm?

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

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

means you're a piss ant

Attached: 5656665.png (1444x786, 123.28K)

neither is op_piushdata or scripting or the genesis block hash

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.

This. Kys faggot worshipping pajeets

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

Attached: 1585300198628.png (705x515, 139.85K)

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

of course signing is evidence

Attached: 5656665.png (1736x262, 102.33K)

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

>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.

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

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

>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

lol
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

Attached: 1585302176803.jpg (1000x600, 120.78K)

Attached: 1581629264399.jpg (599x832, 97.75K)

lol @ this entire thread

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

and check the hash rates compared to BCH

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

Attached: DwkcTOsV4AENmSe.jpg (884x482, 72.14K)

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.

Attached: w.jpg (1125x606, 230.66K)

>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.

tick tock corecucks and stinky linkies, your time is up

Attached: 1573518899435.png (1477x563, 702.62K)

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.
medium.com/@adam_selene/the-segwit-15-attack-b0ecbb926777
It's not a 51% attack

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

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.

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

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

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.

Attached: 1581648584365.png (448x531, 405.43K)

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

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

do you think the payee receives a signature?

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.

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

completely false

OGN and ZANO are good ways to improve your BTC.

Decentralized marketplace and privacy!

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.

the payee does not receive a signature