Curtis Ellis | NextCash
@KarlTheProgrmr
Followers
827
Following
23K
Media
279
Statuses
9K
NextCash Bitcoin Software/Protocol Developer
Bozeman, MT
Joined August 2017
A Bitcoin wallet needs a few things: A source of block headers. A source of merkle paths for transactions it creates. A mechanism to transmit transactions it creates to the miners. With these things a wallet can choose which chain to follow and can mathematically prove
1
5
18
To use Lightning non-custodially you must run a full node and an "always on" monitor of the chain data. If it goes down or is disconnected for too long then the other sides of your channels can maliciously close the channels and steal bitcoin from you. You have to lock bitcoin
1
1
3
BTCers trust node developers or auditors of node software but they don't trust proof of work or economics. Could they be any less Bitcoin?
0
0
6
Does anyone consider PayPal to be decentralized because they have a lot of users? If they made their ledger public and a lot of users verified it, would you then consider them decentralized? Isn't the distribution of those who write the ledger the appropriate measure of
2
1
9
BTC is socialist because they tell you that every user node is equal whether they participate with proof of work consensus or not. They pretend that the ignorant collective of user nodes control the network without the competition of proof of work.
Gold cannot save you from socialism. Bitcoin will.
1
0
2
Almost ready!
A wallet to send and receive Bitcoin SV (BSV, Not BTC). This wallet is supported by open protocol micro-transaction funded services like messages and paymail to prevent lock in and walled gardens. Biometrics are required to secure the keys. Keys are derived from a mnemonic phrase
0
0
2
Some people still think that nearly all miners will collude to waste hash power and commit fraud to fool an SPV user into believing a large payment is valid when it isn't. If enough miners aren't in on the fraud to maintain an honest competing branch then that branch without the
@pr1234321 @KarlTheProgrmr @zbingeldac @EricChennells What you've with goes against the big-block philosophy (or narrative), they say non-mining nodes are completely useless. You're starting to understand. SPV is okay for small transactions (except it doesn't work https://t.co/3alqh5HsI2), but for any significant amount of
2
1
5
Satoshi never claimed to be removing all trust from the world. He was just saying that if the third party is decentralized (the Bitcoin network) then it is a whole different mechanism than when it is a centralized third party. Pretending like using a full node literally removes
@KarlTheProgrmr @zbingeldac @EricChennells How do SPV users ever know without have to trust (believe) some third party? Let's see what Satoshi says in the whitepaper abstract about trusting third parties.
1
1
6
BTCers claim that running your own Bitcoin node is trustless because you can audit the software, but think that using SPV requires absolute trust because users can't understand evidence of fraud provided by an honest miner outside of node software. How many people can audit
1
3
4
How does someone prove that a node software release is not enforcing the rules that it claims?
@pr1234321 @KarlTheProgrmr @zbingeldac @EricChennells > A miner would notify the network How would "the network" know that miner is telling the truth? What if it's a malicious actor trying to spread FUD?
1
0
1
BTCers pretend that SPV requires too much trust, but ignore the idea of most users running software that they don't understand. Nothing is free. Users running software they don't understand doesn't secure money. Restricting economic usage to support that software doesn't provide
@LarryRuane @zbingeldac @EricChennells Yes, users would be evaluating claims from different parties to decide which chain to follow. You can call that trust if you want, but that's not what the whitepaper is talking about. It actually specifically says alerts can be sent out to notify SPV users when there is a
1
0
2
This is the only way user nodes are relevant to the Bitcoin network. They are pretending to be nodes and interfering with the network operations. That is a textbook Sybil attack.
@Seanismacro @johncalhooon @DocumentingBTC Do you really think user nodes can prevent miners from communicating?
0
0
7
There is a massive gap between users running nodes and miners being able to change rules in secret. There are a lot of levels in between, most importantly miner decentralization fueled by economic usage. SPV users just depend on the rules not being changed without them knowing.
3
0
6
People have gotten used to things on the Internet being free. That's simply because there wasn't any other way to easily do small transactions before. Businesses had to track and sell user data to cover costs. It will not be easy to convince them that paying small amounts for
2
2
3
If mining is "centralized" then you need to grow the economy to "decentralize" it.
If you make mempools retarded, you get spontaneous moderation at the mining level. Mempools are decentralized, mining isn't. So the latter is capable of actual censorship and capable of introspection that nodes aren't. There are tradeoffs here, but filtering *all known
0
1
4
NextCash wallet is a BitcoinSV wallet. The guts are built using golang, with modules that can be easily reconfigured based on use case. The UI can be built on Android or IOS by building a port package and compiling for them. It can also be plugged into a service implementation.
2
9
54
Requests to receive payment are much better than requests to send payment. Requesting to send a payment is a three step process. 1. Send request to pay. 2. Receive response with payment destination information. 3. Send payment transaction. Requesting to receive payment is a two
1
1
10
@Lavader_ Capitalism assumes that people will do what is in their own best interest. When information and interactions are open and uninhibited that leads to the best outcomes for everyone. That is not what is happening now. The government pays for the research and decides what to make
0
1
4
BTC trolls claim that they are "concerned" about Bitcoin being "trustless". I think this goes a long way to address what Satoshi meant by "trustless". It is saying that you don't want to trust that someone paying you hasn't already spent those coins so you have a consensus
1
2
11