On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Lee Clagett <[1]forum@leeclagett.com>
   wrote:

     On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500
     Steven Schear <[2]schear.steve@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
     > <[3]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.:
   [4]https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-activists-suggest-hard-fork-to-bitc
   oin-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 :)

References

   1. mailto:forum@leeclagett.com
   2. mailto:schear.steve@gmail.com
   3. http://www.satoshisdeposition.com/podcast/BTCK-169-2015-09-11.mp3
   4. https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-activists-suggest-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-to-keep-it-anonymous-and-regulation-free/