Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

Lee Clagett forum at leeclagett.com
Tue Aug 22 20:34:58 PDT 2017


On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500
Steven Schear <schear.steve at 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).


> [...]
> 
> Steve
> 

Lee


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list