How could evidence of personal identity have anything whatsoever to do with evidence of protocol change?
Back at ya.
See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No?
Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness.
SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise.
Quote
I'm not sure if you're trolling or trying to be serious.
Back at ya.
See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No?
Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness.
SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise.
I am pretty confident the white paper doesn’t say anything about Turing completeness, legally enforceable smart contracts, token protocols, large data storage capability and all the other shit in Bitcoin SV marketing
Yet interestingly, all fully supported in the 0.1 version of the Bitcoin protocol. You know, before the Cripple Rangers took control of the codebase. SegWit, on the other hand...
Funny, eh?
So what's the point you are trying to make?
My mistake. I couldn't see any evidence of them in the white paper. Thank you for clarifying that it doesn't matter whether something is mentioned in the whitepaper.
That is not what I said at all. Are you really that blind that you do not see what I am getting at? Even with your introduction of demonstrably flawed sidebars?
The initial implementation of Bitcoin - 0.1 supports all the features you list. Without recourse to explicit enabling code.
The initial implementation of Bitcoin -- and including up to and through the SegWit Omnibus Changeset Release -- did not support SegWit. Neither explicitly nor as an external implementation. Indeed, the implementation of SegWit was predicated on the most egregious change to the Bitcoin protocol ever enacted.
The features you list did not / do not require a change to the Bitcoin protocol.
SegWit did / does require a change to the Bitcoin protocol.
So when you say "it doesn't matter whether something is mentioned in the whitepaper", you're neither right nor wrong. What matters is the protocol itself. SegWit was undeniably a change to that protocol. A rather significant one. Therefore, somewhat 'less Bitcoin-y' -- at least on this axis -- than other implementations which hew to the original.
On the other hand, if some element is decidedly counter to the white paper (chain of digital signatures, anyone?), then that indeed does matter.
It’s hard to keep track of what you were saying when you keep changing it.
And for that matter, Segwit was a softfork.... Beecash was a hard fork...
