"SV" is capitalist. "sv" is lowercasist. "Sv" is a melting pot of cases.
lol nice one :P
How so? In the general sense that it's still early days, or is there something specific about that product?
I'll pass on SV. Reclaiming funds by mining is theft and fraud. The end.
So dramatic :P What do you mean reclaiming by mining? How does that work? The method I outlined does not use mining hardware.
I never suggested otherwise. This is the part where you now try to continue justifying theft of funds "because someone will eventually steal it anyway." 🙄
This is much better for the currency as a whole than to let them go to whoever or fall out of circulation forever.
I never suggested otherwise. This is the part where you now try to continue justifying theft of funds "because someone will eventually steal it anyway." 🙄
It's not theft if you allow the owners to come forward and claim them. In fact, the miners are the best people to run such a system. They have the integrity of the currency in mind.
Here is a tx ID for 50 BCH unprotected by Hash160. Good luck: b0e585927e1737d07bd8157a2ba9f7615ef8ecd2af6d03523e51b4d23e134b6a
Wait, do you acknowledge that the cryptography in the protocol will eventually have to be updated?
The 160 bit hash is just an extra layer to protect against a potential flaw in secp256k1. When you transact, you reveal the public key anyway (that's why we have change addresses).
Yes, even if the private key is lost. It should be untouched. This is like asking Apple to put a backdoor into iOS “just for the good guys.”
It doesn't matter what 'should' be done. There is money up for grabs, it's nuts to think people will just leave it there. Given that people WILL try to claim it, how should that go?
And I trust mathematics/physics. You are and will be unable to brute the private keys with current tech.
No kidding. I'm not talking about current tech. How long will the 160 bits hold? not forever, and we'll have to upgrade. If someone doesn't upgrade what do you do?
lol @ that clown getting mad that people aren't using his made up terminology.
Neither. If there is a compelling reason, everyone will move funds to newer secure addresses. https://allkeys.cash
Even if they're dead? Keys can be mined with computing power, miners run data-centers, it makes sense that miners will claim old keys since anyone can do it.
There are no such uses. This is lunacy, theft, and fraud. The very basis of Bitcoin is holding the private key and an immutable ledger.
The private keys CAN be brute forced, in the future it will be economical to do so in some cases. Who would you rather give an insecure private key to, a miner or a crook?
Satoahi invented blockchain, which is made using PoW mining. The two are the same thing. Later others invented PoS, which is only for niche cases.
This is nonsense. Blockchains existed before Bitcoin, whether you know about it or not. Satoshi may have coined the term though.
There is no mining, and no PoW, without a blockchain.
Yes, Bitcoin uses a blockchain but didn't come up with the design the novel invention was the POW mining game. A blockchain without POW mining is only useful in niche cases.
Blockchain was the invention of Satoshi that solved an old computer science problem. It gave you a digital asset that could not be copied and pasted. Blockchain is what makes Bitcoin.
No, POW mining is what makes Bitcoin. This is the difference between BCH and SV. SV believes in POW mining, BCH believes the whitepaper ends at pg 2.
The decision making behind it was pretty simple though. Since there was the threat of attack from dishonest miners, they imeneted some protection. It is an old concept in blockchain.
I want nothing to do with "Blockchain" I want new digital money.
Now, the ABC fans are busy redefining what the checkpoint was. Look for them to attach softer and more pleasant words to it over time, appeal to morals, etc.
The potential attacker defined the attack this time. It was the miners who defended against this attack. The checkpoint was only a minor defense.
You're just characterizing the checkpoint, not addressing the decision making behind it.
Devs cannot enforce miners to run their software.
We've seen this a few times already early forks were overruled by Core instead of POW, segwit was soft forked in and you have to run it now. You're in denial.
Checkpoint was first used by Satoshi years ago. Nothing wrong with increasing blockchain security.
I'm referring to the decision making process. If under attack give power to devs. Who defines an attack?
For me the checkpoint change was rushed, but I understand BCH was under threat. Most of the concern comes from BCV supporters: they want a chain more easy to attack.
So BCH is an economy run by the generals?
Big blocker, as if this was another big vs small block battle. Satoshis Vision is itself just a slogan as well. Since CSW pretends he is Satoshi.
Oh I thought you were talking about the whitepaper.
Sounds nice, but it doesnt. People pretend it is all about the white paper, but it isn't. He just used what seemed like nice slogans to pull in the gullable.
Interesting, what slogans are you referring to?
