I support @CobraBitcoin’s proposal to rewrite the Bitcoin (BTC) white paper. It gives the impression that BTC is cash, nodes are miners, SPV is for users, and that hash power both enforces and defines the consensus rules.
This applies only to BCH. BTC needs its own white paper.
@BashCo_ @ThomasBakketun @Bitcoin So if RBF is only "wallet level" I don't see how you are arguing that it was a part of his "original vision"... You can't have it both ways - it's either critical to the vision or it's just a wallet feature.
@BashCo_ @ThomasBakketun @Bitcoin Sure, Satoshi had it in there and later deleted it. Then Todd and Harding went against the community and implemented it. Where was the "consensus" in that decision? https://t.co/5KCbgOJoVi
@uacomment @lopp You favor censoring 54% of wallets just because, in your opinion, .001 btc is "dust"? .001 btc today is about $10, are you aware that about 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day and almost half of the world lives on less than $2.5 per day?
@LukeDashjr@mohamedmansour So not the transactions themselves? Only the smart contracts that open and close the channels will be verified by full nodes?
@LukeDashjr@mohamedmansour So each individual transaction that is performed on the Lightning Network gets encoded into the Bitcoin blockchain and verified by all the full nodes?
@LukeDashjr@mohamedmansour You say we need to run full nodes to verify our transactions, but what about when lightning network is complete? Do we only verify opening and closing channels? Not the actual transactions?