Quote from: oblox on April 23, 2018, 01:28:22 AM

Quote from: infofront on April 22, 2018, 10:39:22 PM

Quote from: oblox on April 22, 2018, 08:48:56 PM

Quote from: infofront on April 22, 2018, 07:11:32 PM

Quote from: oblox on April 22, 2018, 03:58:07 PM

Quote from: BobLawblaw on April 22, 2018, 03:34:06 PM

Quote from: jbreher on April 22, 2018, 03:06:40 PM

Quote from: BobLawblaw on April 22, 2018, 09:38:57 AM

No. I don't EVER trust 0 confirmations. That's not how its supposed to work in Bitcorn.

Yet it did. Work, that is. Hmm.

Before I metaphorically rip you a new asshole, please show me the part in the Bitcoin white paper that tells us to trust 0 confirmation transactions.

...and the counter would be, show me in the original whitepaper where it says use LN or some other equivalent. Just because it specifically doesn't exist in the original text doesn't mean it can't in the future. 0conf acceptance is a choice and certainly reserved for those you deem "trustworthy" (friends/family) or for immaterial amounts. If you don't care to use them, don't. Having said all this, I think BCH is a joke.

Satoshi strongly implied the need for second layer solutions later on. Meanwhile, the entire fucking premise of bitcoin is based on "Don't trust, verify", but the backwards bcash 0-conf crowd is basically saying "Trust, and maybe verify. But verification isn't really needed, since we trust Jihan Wu, Roger Ver, and Craig Wright so much".

The argument was specifically as it related to the whitepaper, not what was said later on.

...further if the entire premise of Bitcoin is based on not trusting and verifying for yourself, then SPV wallets should not exist and everyone should be independently verifying transactions with their own full blockchain. Yet low and behold, plenty use SPV wallets for convenience.

If you're going to look to the whitepaper as the Word of God, then you can't ignore the New Testament. And I don't give a fuck who's using SPV wallets.

Again, Bob started this whole referencing the whitepaper bullshit. I could give two shits about what was said in a paper 10 years ago, let alone one written thousands of years ago. Tongue

Maybe you should concede on this one oblox?

It seems that you got yourself into an ambiguous position in which you are supporting bcash nonsense - with your attempt to engage with a supposedly objective analysis.

The fact of the matter is that bcashers attempt to assert that their onchain scaling is more in line with satoshi's vision.. and further the white paper then becomes relevant to their stupid-ass self-selective originalism arguments - in spite of their wanting to have their cake and to eat it too, with the zero confirmations nonsense....

Surely, zero confirmation transactions contradict satoshi's vision whether we are talking about the whitepaper itself or other implementation statements from Satoshi... and yeah, who gives a ratt's ass about satoshi, because now bitcoin has become a product of later consensus, anyhow, including the current direction with segregated witness and lightning network.

I think that bringing up the white paper is a way to use bcashers' contradictory arguments against them, even though who really cares what they are saying anyhow because they are disingenuously pursuing attacks against bitcoin and a likely failing alt that may take more 20 years to play out its ongoing attack drama.