Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 23, 2018, 08:52:16 PM

Quote from: jbreher on April 23, 2018, 07:48:29 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 23, 2018, 05:56:11 AM

Surely, zero confirmation transactions contradict satoshi's vision whether we are talking about the whitepaper itself or other implementation statements from Satoshi...

Surely, then, you can support your outrageous claim with quotes from the whitepaper or other implementation statements from Satoshi, which specifically show zero conf txs to be in contradiction, right?

inb4: 'I'm not going to '

Yes... You almost know what I am going to say before I say it... hahahahaha.... Wink

Manifestly. For the record:

Quote

People label you as disingenuous because you seem to be smart, so frequently, what you are asserting comes off as disingenuous, because you know better (or at least you should know better).

Accordingly, even you are aware that bitcoin is an evolving concept that is not locked into some past renditions, but is a product of what the community wants, pursuant to consensus, which does not seem to be easily achieved - yet has a process.... So, yes, do you remember mid-=2017? The little ploy from segwit2x and NY agreement folks seemed to have backfired, but allowed bitcoin to achieve segwit consensus and the lightning network pathway that follows.

Can you deal with it? Apparently not. You want to continue to pump on chain scaling and other baloney bullshit in order to attempt to assert that there is some kind of segwit/lightning network lacking that the inferior bcash proposals, such as zero confirmation transactions can deal with better.... but you and your stupid ass bcasher trolls are wrong about this, so go back to your stupid ass coin and play with your zero confirmations, rather than trying to get that sailed ship into bitcoin.. because it does not make much sense for bitcoin when bitcoin has better solutions - even if they are more sophisticated, including second layer escrowing like services.

Accordingly, even if zero confirmations may have been more acceptable in bitcoin in the past, when bitcoin was more in its test phases (lets say 2011 to 2013), currently, there is much wider adoption of bitcoin, more avenues for scammers to take advantage of vulnerabilities, such as zero confirmation, so even if you and your trusted buddies want to engage in some zero confirmation transactions on bitcoin because you trust each other, zero confirmations are no longer good to implement into bitcoin on a broader scale in which more innocent folks could end up getting screwed by such nonsense that would exist in a world of manevolent players who would like to separate you from your bitcoins.

The logic of why zero confirmations are impractical and cause too many vulnerabilities should seem so obvious on this, but you still want to argue your bcash shill talking-points to try to selectively chose some aspect of bitcoin's history and passionately argue that such practice should continue in bitcoin, as if bitcoin were locked in some past infancy status, which it is not..

Even though bitcoin is still in early adopter stages (with continuing to be quite less than 1% of world adoption), there is a considerable amount of value and confidence that should not be risked in bitcoin merely due to expediency concerns or some whining concerns of a minority who don't really seem genuine towards the better interest of bitcoin, anyhow. In other words, stop your stupid ass whining about water under the bridge because that zero confirmation ship has sailed in bitcoin and it is not really necessary, except perhaps in a narrow set of trust circumstances of sending money to your self or between trusted parties.

Failure to provide evidence of your claim is duly noted.