NChain is going to fuck you all so hard lol

nChain is going to fuck you all so hard lol

Attached: IMG_20190417_022935.png (1760x1850, 614K)

Other urls found in this thread:

1ml.com/
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Bump for global shitcoin assrape

im gonna laugh so hard when their patents are all thrown put on the ground that they describe previously published know or used techology.

>t. Guy who hasn't read a single one

>reads your white paper
>copy and pastes, rewords it
>send to patent office
>be awarded patent
>sue every shitcoin into bankruptcy

What an absolutely devious plan by the based csw

How is any of this enforceable? Technically speaking something like BCH or XMR isn't a for profit endeavor or even commercial.

i actually did

its just patent trolling intimidation extortion

Liar. You barely type English properly much less have the capability to understand the validity of a patent.

Shut the fuck up babydick whiner.

rofl sorry to burst your bubble kiddo

Sorry for being a brainlet, but isn't those patents already granted?

its not that hard hard part that's just putting down cash. hard part is to uphold them in court when a patent is filed on 2018 about a tech described in and since 1996 in multiple whitepapers and used worldwide since 2013 for example. it will get tossed like the proverbial salad.

fuck phone keyboard also

>muh blockstream g-guys
>b-blockstream taking over guys
>BLOCKSTREAM BIG TAKEOVER MUMMY BUY SATOJ VUSION!! QUICK MUMMY BUY BIG CREG COIN
>CREG GOOD NCHAIN BIG NICE PATENTS MAKE PEE PEE BIG HARD MMMMMMMMM YEAH MUMMY NCHAIN GOOD GOOD GOOD
>CREG IS SATOJ UNIROCNIALCY
>CREG MAKE PEEE PEEE PEEE NCHAIN YEAH MUMMY

This

He patented a "Blockchain Exchange" lol

Had me chuckle

The absolute state of bizlets defending someone who took it upon himself to become a patent troll in the bitcoin space...

Am I incorrect in thinking these patents only pertain to niggerChain usage? It has nothing to do with anything sin-niggerChain. Correct?

So anyone can patent anything if you just pay the patent fee? That's a fucked up system

None of this makes Blockstream not Jewish.

how is blockstream "jewish"?

Limiting btc for the purpose of on-boarding users to a shitty banking 2.0 2nd layer. The best part is it doesn't work, nobody wants/uses it and adoption is dropping.

1ml.com/

you fags are way too early in burying ln. the network still trying to find it's shape. it's basically an open beta. we will see in 5-10 years if it works or not. i don't like segwit one bit, but i kind of find the concept of ln cool. if it will scale on it's own or need a 3rd layer we will see. it's definitely a solution to trustless retail payments, personally i wouldn't trust 0conf but even there we need to keep an open mind and see how it is. despite having a pretty good idea how you can double spend a 0conf system (and even satoshi said it's not a good idea if you believe he knew what he was talking about that's a strong argument) it's possible it will not be easy and practical enough to do more harm than theft already does. let's see in 5 years which one catches on! until that just speculate on your usual p&d shitcoins!

oh and despite what anyone thinks rbf is totally manageable so if we wanted we could do 0conf on btc. fss rbf is not making double spends any easier than no rbf. full rbf makes double spends child play but i'm fairly certain a consensus could be reached about abandoning it if 0conf gains mainstream acceptance (like ln truly turns out to be a failure which i wouldn't bet on).

>i don't like segwit one bit
Might be the smartest thing you've said.

>2.Transactions We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.

>even satoshi said it's not a good idea
Where did Satoshi say 0-conf was to be avoided? Sauce me please. Because the only thing I've seen out of him is defending its use. Double spending a 0-conf is almost impossible. Its more secure than any credit card. If I were a merchant I would gladly accept 0-conf. If you're talking large sums of cash, yeah wait for confirmation, but otherwise its pretty goddamn secure.

>rbf
Absolute garbage and actually should be avoided.

Attached: 1555459975111.png (1400x1297, 1.99M)

bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819
i remember he also said "i don't think accepting zero-conf transactions will ever be a good idea" or something like that, but i did not save the source and i have to dig it up

>Absolute garbage
no it's not it's for getting transactions unstuck. the only problem is fss-rbf is problematic if you sent everything you have. so long you have change you should be able to increase the fee without creating a risk for anyone else.

>Because the only thing I've seen out of him is defending its use.
i only know of one instance
>"If you’re selling digital goods and services, where you don’t lose much if someone gets a free access, and it can’t be resold for profit, I think you’re fine to accept 0 confirmations."

obviously if it's an online purchase (or online service) the lack of confirmation makes order cancellation trivial.

retail is a totally different animal tho.

LMAO fucking rekt shill

Watch out, he's going to berate you from 6 different IPs with his easily recognizable 70 IQ butthurt rhetoric.

Attached: 482472322.jpg (1024x957, 71K)

no worries child i don't give a fuck about your butthurt tantrums

You're so persuasive

Attached: 1555000883432.png (470x753, 490K)

The post you linked is him defending it lol. He's saying a double spender has almost no chance of propagating the network before the original transaction occurred. Its one of those things that are "technically" possible but extremely unlikely. Maybe not as unlikely as a bitcoin key collision, but you get the idea...

nah its actually garbage. The original protocol goes by "first seen" (which allows for 0-conf in the first place). The only reason rbf EVER came to be is because the developers wanted congestion on the network to force people off the blockchain and onto what is essentially a banking layer. Otherwise rbf makes no sense at all. Your transactions only get "stuck" when users have to compete for block space ie. paying higher fees to get onto the next block before the other guy. The only people who are suppose to be competing in the incentives scheme of bitcoin are the miners.

Online retail has less reason to use 0-conf than brick and mortar. If I walk into Home Depot and pick up $300 worth of supplies, when I go to checkout both me and Home Depot are going to want to use 0-conf. Otherwise customers are going to have to sit around for 10 minutes to an hour (sometimes blocks don't propagate fast) for the payment to settle. As I said before, you're more likely to get fraud from a credit card user than you are someone using 0-conf and that isn't because latter are just good people, its because its harder to pull off.

Attached: All Peers lead to Hubs.png (1765x957, 1.21M)

read on

>Online retail has less reason to use 0-conf than brick and mortar.
if its a game or stream makes sense if its delivery it only makes the process slightly more user friendly.

>latter are just good people
based on the scammers here lol no also bitcoin is all about removing trust

>that isn't because latter are just good people

Read on what?

This is a nitpick.

Basically everything in my post was valid.

cant deal with a wall of text like that with my left hand walking but i will point by point

You must also source the technical documentation.

Opens Friday

Fuck your mother if you want fuck.