ATTENTION ALL BSV-SHILLING SMARTASS PAJEETS

Normally, each byte in a transaction counts as 4 bytes of block weight. However, if a byte is part of the SegWit bitcoin witness area, then it receives a discount, and only counts as 1 byte of block weight.
For example, let's say that you've previously received some BTC to SegWit bitcoin address A, and some BTC to legacy address B. Now consider a transaction sending both of these amounts to some address C. The data unrelated to the transaction inputs are always non-witness data counted as 4 bytes/byte. In particular, address C doesn't matter, and can be SegWit, non-SegWit, or anything. The witness data related to address A will go in the SegWit witness area, and will be be counted as 1 byte/byte. The witness data related to address B is non-SegWit, and so will be counted as 4 bytes/byte.
"Witness data" is more-or-less the data that would go in a legacy transaction's scriptSig.

and then explain why it's a better idea than just increasing max block size to 2 MB.
maybe then you get where i'm going with this, dummy.
cool youtube meme tho.

Attached: football robot.gif (248x291, 2M)

now explain why all of that is a much better idea to implement instead of changing 1 line of code to achieve the same thing but without any added complexity.

Attached: how to punch yourself hard.gif (309x174, 1.93M)

I'm not going to argue whether it's better or not, but I'm just gonna say that there's evidence suggesting increasing block size results in more mining centralization.

you said in OP
>Prove me that Segwit makes BTC worse in any way. Explain how it does.

i just fucking explained it to you.

Attached: let go.gif (324x244, 1.99M)

You did not. "Increasing complexity of the code" does not make the blockchain any worse.

Besides I just gave you the main reason why increasing the block size is a worse idea.

you probably don't even realize that your precious SegWit increase blocksize (bytes on disk) AND bandwidth requirements 4 times, while only improving tx/s by a theoretical 2 times. and that's at a 100% segwit usage, which is still below 50% on BTC

meanwhile just changing 1 line of code does not increase complexity, doubles the tx/s and ONLY doubles the disk space requirements and bandwidth (not quadruples it like with SegWit).

en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weight_units#Misconceptions

Attached: hitler drink.gif (350x272, 752K)

Besides, Segwit can be done, and was done, through a soft fork, is completely backwards compatible. While to increase the block size a hard fork is required, as demonstrated as well.

There is no way a 4MB block size will ever be reached though, so that's irrelevant.

hoped you would pull this fucking card, thanks to the BTC bug in early 2018 it was proven that ALL full nodes upgraded to the latest version of bitcoin immediately.

no miner remains on old software for their million dollar mining operation. the segwit-softfork-argument is a null point.

Attached: lube up.gif (550x309, 817K)

it's relevant because if a 2.1 MB block size is reached it's still worse than just having 2 MB blocks with NO complexity increase

Attached: getting tired.png (243x200, 70K)

LN requires someone to open a payment channel and do an on-chain transaction to use.

Soon it'll be in the hundreds of dollars to open a payment channel.

BSV will always have next to 0 fees.

How is that relevant? Increasing the block size still requires a hard fork, as demonstrated historically.

Show me a BTC block that has reached anywhere near 4MB.
BSV has much larger than 4MB blocks though, so BTC is still better.

it's relevant because a hardfork is a non-issue. you're the one that brought up the softfork argument as if hardforking was something to be avoided.

maybe you should just go suck a cock?

Attached: jerry.gif (295x221, 613K)

How is a hard fork not an issue? It distributes the hashpower and makes the network less secure, as seen in the hardforks that happened.
>maybe you should just go suck a cock?
feeling rekt?

reply to me nigga

You're assuming that is how it will go, but there's no reason to think that. In fact, it could be done for years already, if some altcoin devs or some centralized service decided to use BTC for that, but we haven't seen that happen. You're also assuming LN mass adoption here.

Why is it wrong to assume fees will soon become astronomical due to the small blocksize?

BTC won't reducing fees enough with segwit which has a roof at 4MB.

BTC has also introduced new complex protocol to it's chain which reduces security,

>Why is it wrong to assume fees will soon become astronomical due to the small blocksize?
The burden of proof is on you here, since we're not seeing that and haven't seen that in the past.
>BTC has also introduced new complex protocol to it's chain which reduces security,
What protocol are we talking here and how does it reduce security?
>BTC won't reducing fees enough with segwit which has a roof at 4MB.
I agree, that scaling is an issue, but it's not nearly as important as decentralization, so I don't see increasing the block size further as a viable solution. A proper scaling solution must not sacrifice decentralization non security of bitcoin. Scaling is a secondary concern. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of a blockchain.

*decentralization nor security

We have seen that in the past. Fees went up to $50 avg last bull run.

Segwit and LN are new protocols.

A node with no mining power doesn't add security. Mining is the only thing that secure the chain and it's very centralized for both BTC and BSV.

but we are mooning with the SV. the Bitcoin Core is shitcoin. that is how it's worse. Don't you like making money OP?

>e have seen that in the past. Fees went up to $50 avg last bull run.
Did the fees stay that way? No. Also, the user dictates the fee, not the miners. If you want, you can offer a 1c fee, that will just mean your transaction will be confirmed slower. It is a compromise between transaction quickness and cost.
I agree it is a problem, but increasing block size is a shitty solution. We should be looking for a better solution instead of going the easy route that compromises decentralization.
>Segwit and LN are new protocols.
Demonstrate how any of them reduce the security of the main chain?
You can think of LN as an altcoin system that uses BTC as its basis, it does not compromise BTC in any way, nor does it interact with it directly.
>A node with no mining power doesn't add security. Mining is the only thing that secure the chain and it's very centralized for both BTC and BSV.
A node does increase security, but that's besides the main point. BSV mining is far more centralized than BTC mining is. Look here:
hugeblock.info/miners

As opposed to BTC:
blockchain.com/pools

Sorry, not into pump and dump schemes. :)

If you don't believe me or don't get it, I dob't have time to explain it to you.
Have a nice life.

Attached: image.png (416x716, 306K)

Fuck off with your memes, Pajeet, we're trying to have a discussion here.

BSV-tards BTFO

Attached: 1546775311106.jpg (584x894, 51K)

then you need to drop Bitcoin Core and hold some of the real bitcoin.

the fees didn't stay that way because usage went down. In the future there will be much more usage. You're denying something that is just a simple truth. There isn't enough room in 4MB blocks to allow for cheap payments.

It's not that they reduce the security of the mainchain. It's that a large proportion of BTC users are going to be using those protocols and those protocols are very complex, new and less secure. It doesn't matter if the main-chain remains secure if no one uses the main-chain for their transactions.

Nodes without mining power do not increase security. They're useless. BSV mining is fundamentally the same as BTC. If it wins obviously it's hashrate will increase and miner centralization will be the same as BTC.

>the fees didn't stay that way because usage went down. In the future there will be much more usage. You're denying something that is just a simple truth. There isn't enough room in 4MB blocks to allow for cheap payments.
I agree, but again. Sacrificing decentralization/security for transaction cost/speed like BSV is a terrible idea. Might as well just use legacy systems at that point. We need to look for a good solution for the scaling problem that does not reduce decentralization.
>It's not that they reduce the security of the mainchain. It's that a large proportion of BTC users are going to be using those protocols and those protocols are very complex, new and less secure. It doesn't matter if the main-chain remains secure if no one uses the main-chain for their transactions.
That's not how it works. LN is effectively an alt-coin, BTC users may or may not switch some of the volume to it, it's very much optional and irrelevant to this point. The same as any other altcoin, hot wallet, whatever. It does not change how the actual BTC works.
>Nodes without mining power do not increase security. They're useless. BSV mining is fundamentally the same as BTC. If it wins obviously it's hashrate will increase and miner centralization will be the same as BTC.
That's obviously false, explain how a single mining pool has 60% of BSV hashrate if mining is fundamentally the same as BTC?

>That's obviously false, explain how a single mining pool has 60% of BSV hashrate if mining is fundamentally the same as BTC?
As the network grows and price goes up, more miners will be attracted and the decentralization increases. You realize Satoshi was the only miner on BTC in the early days right? "ZOMG BTC IS 100% CENTRALIZED ONE MAN CONTROLS IT ALL". Yes he did, until the network grew and more miners started participating.

BSV is nowhere near the early days of BTC though. The price is massive compared to that and commercial mining of BSV exists long ago. Therefore if the protocol was efficient at maintaining decentralization, it wouldn't be centralized right now.

It has literally only existed as a separate network for 7 months. So yes, it is still early.

The time is irrelevant. What is relevant is the price and commercial mining already being a thing.

Unlike early BTC however, there is no genuine organic volume around BSV.

Look, lets be honest pajeet. There is a looming $8.5B default judgement looming in federal court....with any sane financial instrument, prices would be depressed pending outcome. This is 100% proof the current price is purely driven by calvin wash-trading and laundering is illegal gambling money. You can't have it both ways pajeet: (a) We are a real organic currency, (b) We never react to real world events.
Hope you get zeroed out nChain fag.

Not sure what you're on about, but I agree that BSV is trash.
Still means the mining is centralized and unlikely to get better.

Segwit changes incentives by making pruning of signature data possible, allowing for losing of records (this is something Core devs actually want). It opens the door for cartels and miners to collude to collapse the system due to the way it was implemented.

LN is effectively a strangler fig network that sucks the life out of BTC, if it were to actually work. It centralizes into hubs at scale, and as it also loses records, puts KYC requirements on every transaction.

>Segwit changes incentives by making pruning of signature data possible, allowing for losing of records (this is something Core devs actually want). It opens the door for cartels and miners to collude to collapse the system due to the way it was implemented.
I call bullshit on this one. Please explain how it allows for losing of records.
>LN is effectively a strangler fig network that sucks the life out of BTC, if it were to actually work. It centralizes into hubs at scale, and as it also loses records, puts KYC requirements on every transaction.
LN only affects bitcoin as much as any altcoin, hot wallet, whatever other centralized service would. It does not impact it in any direct way.

Seems like you're talking out of your ass trying to confuse the readers.

u wot? weathersv alone had over a million tx already. and if CSW loses the court case it would literally confirm hes satoshi.

it is not sacrificing decentralization when there's bascially already a monopoly in mining.

That is how it works. The BTC chain is unusable. Making users use a less secure alt coin to transaction their BTC is just as bad as having an insecure BTC chain.

Explain to me what is different about BSV and BTC mining. Trick question. There is 0 difference. Both have the exact same code. Hash rate and miner centralization are just variables that change around for each.

>There is a looming $8.5B default judgement looming in federal court...

You realize that if Craig loses the case and has to pay Kleiman bitcoins from the early addresses, it confirms that he is Satoshi right?

Core cucks are so dumb

Attached: 1559291196106.jpg (229x221, 13K)

How will you cope in January 2020 when it turns out there's no trust?

>it is not sacrificing decentralization when there's bascially already a monopoly in mining.
This is false. Show me how anyone has a monopoly on BTC mining. If that were the case though, that would mean the coin is essentially useless.
>That is how it works. The BTC chain is unusable. Making users use a less secure alt coin to transaction their BTC is just as bad as having an insecure BTC chain.
No one is making anyone use anything. LN is just an option, and each user decides whether to use it or not. It has absolutely nothing to do with security of BTC.
>Explain to me what is different about BSV and BTC mining. Trick question. There is 0 difference. Both have the exact same code. Hash rate and miner centralization are just variables that change around for each.
The difference is that big blocks promote mining centralization, because the entry barrier for mining is higher. If BSV mining was the same, it wouldn't be centralized at this point, since there are plenty of people interested in mining it for profit already.

Segwit stands for "segregated witness" where the witness (signature) data is separated. It turns the blockchain from a chain of signatures (the whitepaper) into a hashchain, which is totally different. Signature data is NOT required for validation under SegWit. A miner could strip out the signature data and you wouldn't be able to prove who signed for it. As this is a backwards compatible 'soft fork' it means that nodes using the old rules will see this as an "anyone can spend" transaction, and if miners don't like SegWit, they are actually encouraged to collapse it. This was actually part of Craig's plan to end SegWit before Jihan betrayed him and formed Bitcoin Cash (Craig never wanted BCH in the first place -- he wanted to form a pool to encourage miners to defect and end segwit)

SegWit is ALL about losing records and enabling BS like Lightning Network. You see, Core viewed the shutdown of silk road as a failure on Bitcoin's part, and sought to modify it to create a crime (dark) coin that could be made anonymous and lose records.

As far as Lightning, it takes power away from miners (and Bitcoin) by stealing their transaction fees. It is not a "2nd layer" in any real sense but a completely separate protocol and network disguised as a scaling solution. It does not depend on BTC and if it were to scale, would end up collapsing the original network. It is a protocol change and change to proof of stake, in disguise. Very insidious.

INSTANTLY move the goalpost. Now THAT is a cope if i have ever seen one hahahaha

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

Are you coping with pepe smiles that hard? The whole myth of him being Satoshi is based on that one trust. You faggots are gonna be humiliated.

Wow there's a lot of incorrect information to unpack here.

Well first of all I don't see why you would discourage privacy features from bitcoin. They are clearly very much desirable for a crypto.

>As far as Lightning, it takes power away from miners (and Bitcoin) by stealing their transaction fees. It is not a "2nd layer" in any real sense but a completely separate protocol and network disguised as a scaling solution. It does not depend on BTC and if it were to scale, would end up collapsing the original network. It is a protocol change and change to proof of stake, in disguise. Very insidious.
That is absolute nonsense. Going by your logic you would go and protest every altcoin that is out there, as well as every other financial service for "stealing the transaction fees from BTC miners". Absolute crock of shit.

Everything else you said is a conspiracy theory without any evidence.

>while only improving tx/s by a theoretical 2 times
source for this claim?

Privacy in Bitcoin is the POLAR opposite of Anonymity. The more you lose records the LESS privacy you get, not more. Wrap your head around this and you will understand Bitcoin a lot better.

>It is a protocol change and change to proof of stake
That's nonsense, LN doesn't change BTC protocol in any way. Like you said yourself, it's a completely separate thing.

do you realize that if he loses the case and has to pay Kleiman he will just have to admit to lying on court since he DOESN'T have that money and he doesn't have those bitcoins?

>Lose records
No records are lost from the blockchain. It's a good thing if you can't tell who makes transactions though. Even if Segwit does not accomplish that in reality, that would be a desirable feature.

lmao you resorted to insults since you can't find a block with 4MB on core?
that's pretty sad, aren't you India's top BSV shill? You're at least one of the few we can have a conversation with, although you don't know how to make a secure tripcode yet

>Be BSV
>1d checkers
They literally cant 2 moves ahead.

>Lightning Network
>let's use Bitcoin by not using Bitcoin

This space is fucking gay.

Segwit doesn't require the signature data to be hashed into the ongoing chain. This means the historical signature data can eventually be lost. It changes Bitcoin from the whitepaper to a hashchain. See the following diagram. They are different.

Importantly, the motivations behind Segwit are to modify the Bitcoin protocol into something opposite of the original system, a system designed to work outside of law and to eventually lose records, while at the same time allowing a small group of devs to control the protocol. This is the true purpose behind Lightning and Segwit.

Attached: bitcoin-core-0-18-0-bets-on-segwit-adoption-and-hints-at-offline-tx-signing.png (1024x506, 92K)

Understand that the success of Lightning is the detriment of Bitcoin. It is separate, but parasitic, network.

medium.com/@craig_10243/lightning-is-malleable-steel-is-not-4e68bfdef31

>be btc bagholder
>huge fud occurs (like craig moving his tulips in jan 2020)
>everyone sends their btc to sell
>suddenly huge amount of tx
>fees rocket
>wait 3 weeks for your tx to be confirmed because massive backlog with 5 tx per block
get justed
>same thing with bsv
>be easily sold cus huge blocks can take 100k+ transactions per

Attached: 149238764826.jpg (460x460, 15K)

>hard fork scary

I'm so happy Corecucks will fight tooth and nail to prevent any hard forks, preventing any blocksize increases.

That's retarded. It hides its increased block size by changing the definition of a block to be measured as one million "units" instead of bytes. The "witness" signature data would be separated from the Merkle tree record of who is sending or receiving the bitcoin. The "witness" data is moved to the end, and each byte of it would only count as one quarter of a "unit". The overall effect would be changing the average block size to about 1.8 MB instead of 1. This means the existing bitcoin protocol doesn't change, allowing it to work without as much upgrading of software.
It also addresses signature malleability, by moving signatures out of the transaction data, making them impossible to change. The transaction ID is no longer malleable. This makes bitcoin safer to use with Lightning Network, a way to speed up small payments by bundling them and only writing to the blockchain at the beginning and end of their execution, which would be (slightly) risky while the malleability problem still exists.

That's not true. If it is not efficient, no one will use it anyway. If it works, then there's no problem. It is a completely irrelevant development.

>The burden of proof is on you here, since we're not seeing that and haven't seen that in the past.
Hi, newfag.

Malleability fix is not required for payment channels.

The original Bitcoin had the ability to do payment channels. These are simple IP-to-IP (not a mesh network like lightning) and actually requires malleation to work properly.

Fortunately Lightning is a major fail so you are correct in that no one will use it, but if it could be made to work it would be a different system than what the average BTC "HODLer" is imagining. It would be highly controlled and much more centralized than they can imagine; effectively SWIFT 2.0

Lightning already exist and is perfectly functional. Its called "alt-coins". Dip in/out from BTC to any of the dozens of fast cheap alts and dip back out into BTC as savings account.

Its the one thing coreletts miss...they are fighting a pointless battle trying to invent what already exist. Related, its show how pointless the gay BTC/BCH fight is...if there were any adults present they would jointly realize they solve each others problems and move on hand in hand.

It is simpler to just have BitCoin that actually scales... then no alts are needed

The whole existence of alts is the result of the failure of BTC

Stfu kek. CSW is going to exploit the fatal segwit flaw SOON. He’s playing 6D chess. It makes no sense to expose the flaw now, he’s going to do it around the time three tulip trust reaches maturity and satoshi coins are in his complete control. First He is going to transfer 1 million btc to bsv and tank btc. Then he will expose the critical flaw and that will be the nail in the coffin. Btc will go to zero and original BitCoin SV will be >$100,000k / coin. Then metanet.

Are you guys really too deluded to understand this?

Cope

>stealing their transaction fees
This. Completely destroys the incentives and security structure.

kek OP got rekt

Humanity has been multi-currency since the inception (gold, silver, copper).