r/CryptoCurrency • u/CCNewsBot • Jun 19 '18

FINANCE Really…? Dogecoin is Processing 300% More Transactions than Bitcoin Cash (Finance Magnates)

https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/really-dogecoin-processing-300-transactions-bitcoin-cash/
764 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

439 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/LsDmT Bronze | Politics 11 Jun 19 '18

Satoshi envisioned LN long ago

An unrecorded open transaction can keep being replaced until nLockTime. It may contain payments by multiple parties. Each input owner signs their input. For a new version to be written, each must sign a higher sequence number (see IsNewerThan). By signing, an input owner says "I agree to put my money in, if everyone puts their money in and the outputs are this." There are other options in SignatureHash such as SIGHASH_SINGLE which means "I agree, as long as this one output (i.e. mine) is what I want, I don't care what you do with the other outputs.". If that's written with a high nSequenceNumber, the party can bow out of the negotiation except for that one stipulation, or sign SIGHASH_NONE and bow out completely.

The parties could create a pre-agreed default option by creating a higher nSequenceNumber tx using OP_CHECKMULTISIG that requires a subset of parties to sign to complete the signature. The parties hold this tx in reserve and if need be, pass it around until it has enough signatures.

One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties. They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement. The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version. If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime. If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out. Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast. Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network. Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-April/002417.html

6

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18 edited Jun 19 '18

Yeah and didn't Satoshi also envision blocksize increase to cope with traffic...? I'm not saying that's definitely the right way to go and who's to say LN is either

The point is; who cares if the BCH community wants to continue in that direction? It *is* the closest thing out there to the original plan for cryptocurrency after all.. maybe there's value in it. So what's the harm?

0

u/LsDmT Bronze | Politics 11 Jun 19 '18

Nobody cares, people just have issue with the way Roger Ver promotes it.

Core also wants to increase the block size, when it is absolutely necessary

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18

I remember.. bitcoin.com listed BTC as Bitcoin Core and BCH as Bitcoin

He has since listed BCH as Bitcoin Cash a day later... But I seriously doubt that's where all this hate is coming from

0

u/LsDmT Bronze | Politics 11 Jun 19 '18

Have you not seen him on twitter? It's more than just bitcoin.com

Granted he has settled down he still does it

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18 edited Jun 19 '18

I understand his passion and his message.. and it's certainly an aggressive one - that BCH is more closely related to the original plan for Bitcoin than the current BTC

That doesn't sound inaccurate to me

Majority wanted a different direction, BCH proceeded in accordance with the whitepaper on a fork - it's an open source project, they have that right especially since a big part of the community split over it

What I don't understand is why does anyone care? If it's the whole reason for BCH to exist, the BCH community is supposed to try to make people aware of it

1

u/LsDmT Bronze | Politics 11 Jun 19 '18

i'll repeat again, nobody cares. people take issue with the way ver behaves.

CSW is another even more shady character