1JQS2G…4pWV

More like need an ETH ambassador to come explain EVM vs bitcoin L1 programming and teach you how to approximate stateful L1 with utxo trackback

Idk 🤔👩‍🦳 about u 👇👉🏻👉🏼👉🏽👉🏾👉🏿But I 🦾🧙‍♂️👈 am so super excited 🍆🥵🥵 to be here 🦾🧙‍♂️👈 with U 😉😏 🔥 🔥 🔥 🚿 👨🏻‍🚒 😧😭

You’re underestimating the power of not paying them any attention

You can’t possibly be right because there is no a priori method to determine if coins are lost or saved. Craig is also wrong in his post that you cite to support your claim.

We had to do some abrupt changes to this timeline, apologies for any turbulent events you may have experienced in the last 8-9 months

What we all really need is a formal spec in a real formal language like K or isabelle or whatever is popular now

Not really, they did the right thing setting it as a consensus parameter. I just mean that someone else could make it work before nchain and make their client development irrelevant so watch out for BS and make them compete fairly

Maximum transaction size is another example

Great minds

Act 1: the phoneposter
Act 2: the entrepreneurial miner
Act 3: the first and last transaction
Finale: “I will just send the coin to the frog”

I can’t read

That’s good that’s a good feature. It makes me want to spend more money. I’m the best at sending you money you hear that? Me, not you!

I wanted to make a post bitching about why the fuck are hashtags going to use proof of work and then I realized it is probably the best way to conclusively demonstrate to everyone in a very obvious way why that is so so stupid given we have bitcoin

FEATURE REQUEST PINNED TWETCH THANKS

@4 this is exactly what will happen ^

Peak jargon, but the frog could have gotten the coin

We keep our unique IDs off chain even though it’s one of the only real use cases for a blockchain. We don’t keep it on chain because bitcoin L1 SPV is not sufficient and we need an L1 hack which xhliu only put in scrypt 6mo ago and also new indexers

Ban this user

Chained transaction limit is an artificial constraint and a “consensus parameter”. If a node hasn’t figured out the parallel strategy for handling deep chains then they can yield to those that have.
WATCH OUT FOR NCHAIN C++ TEAM BULLSHITTING ABOUT THIS

Sorry I mean it’s because we don’t promote SCAMS like those fucking ethereum nameregs

You will reach enlightened bitcoin L1 status when you can say which narrow class of applications will still choose eth style MPT state over bitcoin chain structure. There are like, 3-5 use cases.

Fuck yeah I love structural maintenance sign me up oh I already am NICE

Satoshi did not intend for output scripts to be able to examine the entire transaction. They figured out it was possible years later using an unintuitive hack. Bitcoin is competitive with stateful architectures by accident!

@24 what do you and @9962 think if this post

But the thing is, this isn’t a wrong approach. You just pretend you knew things were possible all along when L1 devs devise workarounds and model adjustments.
It’s 2020 and you’re not deploying gaslighting as a marketing tactic what are you even doing

BSV folks love to hate on ETH because it’s more fun than facing the fact that 1) people are actually choosing to pay the fees on ETH and not coming to BSV and 2) despite “BSV can do everything ETH can”, people are starting to see why “not exactly...”

Excuse me have you even read Muh Kapital, wagies don’t have bitcoins to negotiate with

Paul Krugman gets a short list of bullet points he has to shill from his handlers each morning

Wouldn’t you feel more stable if someone gave you some coins that might belong to someone else or might be lost who knows anyway we determined you can have them now doesn’t that feel stable hmmmm yeah nice

It’s good for the economy and you better not doubt it or else we’re gonna be a debate only an academic economist could enjoy and you better convince us on our terms or else we take the coins