/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>18824876
The purpose isn't to dethrone ETH, though it's possible
Having a trustless immutable PoW coin is going to stabilize ETH DeFi considerably because ETH price will be tied to network security but price of 0xbtc won't

>>14947213
>No institution will want to hold it and it will become worthless. After ETH passes it up it's over. All scams like btc and nano will still be run by corecucks and reddit fags but soon the networks will become so easy to 51 percent attack they will go to 0. Stop making any comparison to gold. Btc is not digital gold. Calling it digital horseshit would be too nice. If no one wants to buy my horseshit at least I can grow some plants in my yard. Btc does nothing. The value of digital goods in most vidyas are less likely to go to 0 than btc is. You can't do shit with btc except look at your balance. You fell for the tulips (actually you can still plant tulips and exchange with Mommy for gbp, so it has value, NVM). I'm actually glad that btc is so fucking retarded though. I think smart people with lots of money heard about it, quickly realized how stupid it was, and wrote off the entire space. Gave me and others so much time to accumulate link and eth.

this is what everyone has said about Bitcoin from the start. good job repeating the same rhetoric that's been blasted at Bitcoin by all normie fags and redditors and CNN experts since 2011, while the price of Bitcoin has risen 10,000x.

also, go educate yourself on the tulip mania. long story short, it probably barely happened. almost no one was affected except a few traders. it created or refined some of the most important financial instruments we still use today (futures and options). and equating Bitcoin to those tulips is using a crystal ball. people said the same retarded "omg the toolipss" stuff about stock in internet companies in the dot-com boom. but now look at FAANG etc. the fact that you can relate tulips and some other thing in the same sentence does not mean that you can make sound predictions.

i suggest growing at least one brain cell before trying to talk again.

>>14902822
>Looking forward to the next essay

happy to oblige by way of a thought experiment:

what if you had a new "mineable" called 0xBurncoin, and the contract works like this:

- there are 21 million 0xBurncoins
- you call `mint()` on the contract, transferring `amount` of your ether with the call
- the contract accepts your ETH, as well as the ETH of many other people
- all ETH it receives it immediately transfers to 0x000...000, irreversibly burning it
- once every 50 Ethereum blocks (approx 10 mins), the contract adds up the total ETH it received, divides by the amount each sender sent, and gives the corresponding proportion of the 0xBurcoin reward to each sender.* that reward is 50 0xBurncoin (divided proportionally amongst the senders) at the start, and halves just like Bitcoin/0xBitcoin.

how would this be worse or better than the way 0xBitcoin and Bitcoin distribute the block reward by the amount of hashing done per block**? both 0xBurncoin and 0xBitcoin/Bitcoin require provably destroying something of value in order to demonstrate proof-of-belief-in-value and receive a share of the block rewards.

but you might think 0xBurncoin is better because it is more "efficient".

i think 0xBitcoin/Bitcoin are better. prove me wrong. bet you can't.

* technically, the distribution would happen for the previous block on the first call for the next block, but forget implementation details
** when averaged over many blocks

>>14731970
>0xbtc? which one actually provides something or fixes an issue? I cant remember

0x (ZRX): an open protocol for trading crypto. the ZRX token is used to pay fees, and ownership share is used for voting on changes to 0x protocol. they are making progress. they did an ICO, but it wasn't scammy.

0xBitcoin (0xBTC): it's just Bitcoin value mechanics but running on Ethereum. you acquire 0xBTC through mining, aka proof of work (or buying on an exchange after someone else mined it). it is not trying to replace Bitcoin, just to be an alternative that gets rid of three big Bitcoin problems by running on Ethereum (which is currently the world's best distributed trustless computer). first, 0xBitcoin does not confuse its value proposition like Bitcoin does by securing its own network with mining; it outsources security-of-network to Ethereum. second, because the fees for sending 0xBitcoin are paid in ETH, not in 0xBitcoin itself, it doesn't have the limitation that Bitcoin does where the more people want to use Bitcoin for money, the higher the transactions cost rise in that very same money (since Bitcoin fees are paid in Bitcoin itself). third, 0xBitcoin is native to Ethereum, so it can trustlessly be used to pay and store values in Ethereum smart contracts. Bitcoin can't do that. (there are things like WBTC that try, but they are inherently bad because they are centralized.)

ETH is not intended to be money, as Vitalik said over and over; ETH is intended to be gas that you spend for computation. 0xBitcoin's goal is to be the money while ETH is spent to move 0xBitcoin around (send/receive, buy/sell).

anyway, see the thread if you want to learn: >>14724977

>>14728387
>you people have no actual counter argument. just reply with nonsense. yes well done. but 0xbitcoin is completely shit compared to btc for the reasons i just outlined. i cannot cash out 0xbitcoin in ghana. i cannot buy anything useful with 0xbitcoin. it is thusly useless compared to real bitcoin