On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Lee Clagett <forum@leeclagett.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500
Steven Schear <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
> <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 :)