Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Satoshi Nakamoto
"Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone."
The bolded text is the definition of bitcoin. The rest is aiming to provide the definition with context. For further emphasis:
Bitcoin is a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power.
BTC isn't Bitcoin:
LN creates financial institutions, and BTC itself can't be cash past usage of 1 mb. We're already past this point.
BSV isn't Bitcoin:
BSV doesn't have the longest chain of hash-based proof-of-work.
BCH IS Bitcoin:
BCH is the p2p cash system with the most POW.
The rest of the whitepaper describes features and aspects of Bitcoin in action, and isn't an extension of the definition. Essays arent elongated definitions, essays just explain a concept with an underlying definition. If i write a book on economics, my book isn't an attempt at defining economics in a long and complicated manner. Its describing aspects of economics, giving my message context, examples, methods of understanding deeper, etc...
When people ask about Bitcoin, they're asking about what's always been around, they're asking about the original concept of the blockchain. When BTCers try to sell them their self-defeating ponzi scheme, which has next-to-nothing to do with the bitcoin they've heard of in the news and in articles, they are frauding people of their money. Especially bitcoin.org, which MISLEADS people and says that Bitcoin is "an innovative payment network and a new kind of money", when its actually pointing people to BTC. Its NOT a payment network, or a "money". Its an expensive settlement layer that only ever supports 1 mb of transactions. Bitcoin.org also turns around and gives people access to the bitcoin whitepaper, supporting the very definition of bitcoin which the BTC chain does not follow!
I would also like to point out that decentralization is neither an endgoal nor a defining quality of bitcoin. Its a mere feature, and a means to an end. The endgoal is a p2p electronic cash system, aka a cash system that doesn't go through intermediaries, being validated as the true version via the most resources being invested into it. You can argue that decentralized = p2p, but that's not the same definition for decentralized that BTCers will use when they tell you that BCH is centralized, they will instead pretend that it has poor hashpower distribution, and that poor hashpower distribution matters to the beingness or legitimacy of bitcoin. Its not, its simply safer to have a better miner distribution.
And finally, as its been discussed in other subreddit threads today, BTC is not even truly POW in principle. The first mb of data is governed by POW, yes, but the remainder of all future data will be governed by the lightning network, which is not a blockchain! Once more data is transmitted through the LN than the blockchain, BTC will be more POS/Non-POW than it is POW.
Furthermore, under Part 2 (Transactions) of the Bitcoin Whitepaper, it states that
"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures" Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership
And gives context to that definition with the following image.
With SegWit, you can't always verify the chain of ownership. That means that "SegWit Coins" aren't rightfully electronic coins, and that BTC when it uses SegWit isn't even an electronic coin.
For all the reasons described above, i think that Bitcoin Cash is Objectively Bitcoin, and BTC is a fraud and an attacked/compromised chain of bitcoin.
No comments:
Post a Comment