On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Lee Clagett <fo...@leeclagett.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500 > Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > And now some politics... > > > > *Here is why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Is The Real Bitcoin* > > > > *It is the original bitcoin* > > It was hijacked from Gavin Andresen very surreptitiously by Adam Back > > (back in the day, Adam and I worked on hashcash and digital > > cash-related projects) with his Sidechain > > <http://www.satoshisdeposition.com/podcast/BTCK-169-2015-09-11.mp3> > > proposal. It was a "Trojan Horse" and together with the help of > > Blockstream, Theymos and the Core developers the process was > > completed. We, the original community, have finally regained control > > of the Bitcoin project, except that we have lost control of the name. > > This position is about to be redressed. > > > > *It does not have Segwit.* > > If you look at a Bitcoin file as AD. A being the address and D being > > the data, Segwit removes the address portion A, It is reduced to a > > hash and the original signature is discarded after it is verified. So > > if your "fingerprint" is the hash of all your signatures, the > > signatures are discarded after being checked, and only the > > "fingerprint" is kept. This is in effect what Segwit does. > > > > The signatures are stored on another chain, but not the main chain. > > Some nodes will keep signatures, some only keep partial records, some > > will discard them entirely. If you ever need to refer back to the > > transaction to check on the signatures all you have is the hash. "The > > fingerprint". Satoshi's original design of bitcoin being an unbroken > > record of signatures is violated. > > It has been possible to "prune" old transactions from a local copy of > the blockchain with Bitcoin Core for some time before Segwit was ever > merged. You cannot realistically force someone to store the entire > blockchain for you. The ability to prune old signatures while keeping > the core transaction is actually a benefit - every transaction is > necessary to verify that no double-spending has occurred or that miners > did not create more coins than allowed. So even if the entire network > dumped all segwit information, some critical checks of the system can > be done by newcomers (but only if at least one person stores the > entirety of the transaction information). > Accessing information from another's blockchain db is a privacy issue. That's why running your own full, private, node is such a good idea. Its not practical to do so in your mobile so an appliance is good solution. A few years back some cypherpunks write a paper with controversial suggestions on improving the Bitcoin blockchain. I think its still worth a read. Here's the coverage article. There's a link inside to the paper on scribd.: https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-activists-suggest-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-to-keep-it-anonymous-and-regulation-free/ Key suggestions: 1. Use forced mixing (like ZeroCoin/ZCash) to improve transaction privacy 2. Enforce a limited, regular-sized, block chain 3. Ability to choose miners of payments Steve > > > > [...] > > > > Steve > > > > Lee > -- Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio. Shameless self-promoter :)