Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

Steven Schear schear.steve at gmail.com
Wed Aug 23 12:26:43 PDT 2017


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

> 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).
>

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 :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4859 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170823/a672263e/attachment.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list