/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>9938483
"scale" = putting nodes in (((corporations)))

So Peer to (((Corporation running node))) to Peer, not Peer to Peer, certainly not cash.

Perhaps stop drinking the Rizun kool-aid.

>>9382492
Segwit is fine, and if you don't like it, your coins can sit on legacy addresses, which wouldn't work under the (fictional) attack on segwit coinbases.

On the other hand, your coin is fucked at layer 0.

>>9382493
No, the amount of people will be the same: none. And for some dumb reason, you want even bigger blocks.

If it were to be used at scale (full blocks) only a couple of datacenters would be hosting the blockchain, which is what the USG has been trying to do since the begining, but all their previous attempts failed (XT, Classic, Unlimited..) so they had to create an altcoin, hire a conman to trick noobs into a cult of satoshi personality, and get Gavin and co on board (again). Too bad it's already late. Bitcoin is already set in stone, no one can change it, which is why it has value.

>>8996630
>mathematics prove BCash is centralized sockpuppetry
>"muh spirit of BTC"
>constantly quotes satoshi to make a point (only the quotes that meet his agenda, out of context mostly)
>ignores actual post content anyway
kys

>>8973134
if bitcoin cash is bitcoin, why is its name bitcoin cash (bch)?

>>7800345
Later on satoshi predicted how people would be against (((blocksize increases))) so they could still run full nodes. In fact, he designed it this way so there is never consensus, which means Bitcoin is inmutable, which is why it's valuable. He created an open source network which cannot be forked, since attempting to fork it creates an altcoin by default due lack of consensus. All attempts to fork it just give real Bitcoin users a stake on the forked chain which will put forkcoins on a constant sell presure.
The world must adapt to Bitcoin, not the opposite. Bitcoin needs hard people, not hard forks.

>Oh yeah, sir, we have this wonderful thing called Lightning Network, you just need to stay online in order not to lose money
bcash fud is pretty weak these days

>>7439545
Yes you would, if your shitcoin actually had the fictional demand that you think it has. Not to mention if anyone with resources bothered to kill bcash, they could by spamming the network for a while filling the hard disks and bandwith of whoever was an idiot enough to be running a node on that abortion.

>>7388315
>Block size increases aren't allowed by the developers.

You are a complete fucktard, just like all bcash bagholders and anyone on any subreddit. Please continue being poor and stupid. You can keep complaining about X Y or Z, you can keep spamming the network, you can keep the marketing campaigns going, you can keep the US corporate deals going, the outcome will be the same.

Bitcoin needs hard people, not hard forks.

>>7389024
There is no demand for bigger blocks, otherwise bcash would be getting used more than Bitcoin, but it isn't, it's as used as Dogecoin or any other shitcoin, perhaps because spending an asset limited in amount above it's store of wealth use is completely retarded (you spend the shitty money, that's fiat, which is designed in purpose to make drones consume and good enough to do so; you do not spend the good -savings- money), and anything that threatens the store of value properties is rejected by anyone with enough money to matter, and believe me, the biggest wallets against forktards don't even run Core software.

As a matter of fact, even satoshi realized back in the day that people would oppose bigger blocksizes so they don't become USG's Coinbase(TM) cucks processing everything for them and deciding what is Bitcoin for them.

>>7278374
>banks and coinbase controlling crypto is a good thing

>>7263276
>20 posts by this ID

BCash bagholders are so calm about bagholding their "investment" that they have to constantly shill it all over the internet (inb4 "it's to warn people about muh Bitcoin Corecuckzz or any other nonsense)

>correct. BTC is useless.

Already explained why it is only useless to people that don't matter. These that cannot afford transactions, can use any other shitcoin which doesn't require decentralization.

>"its stupid" is not an argument

Read again.

>The richest in the BTC ecosystem are actually behind BCH. Not to mention 20k$ nodes have nothing to do with centralization. raspberry pies add nothing to the network.

lmao. You need to lurk more if you think Ver and these other scammers control most of the Bitcoin supply.
The people that control most of the Bitcoin supply aren't on social media running "marketing campaigns", pumping shitcoins and lossing their BTC running spam attacks and other futilities.
They have the biggest BCrash wallets and any other shitfork too, since they recieved their coins for free, which they haven't sold, as it's not really needed since BCrash is a failed project in it's fundamentals (as any other altcoin), and having to move private keys around is not worth the effort.

>Literally no arguments. Adoption is all that matters.

Once again, babby tier knowledge on game theory.

>Shitforks are just a temporary blip on the radar. Any new shitforks after BTCP wont even get tradingpairs. Holding BTC for forks is retarded after 2017

All shitforks have huge selling pressures forever as everyone holding BTC holds the shitforks, starting by BCash. There will be many to come as ICOs get banned and scammers need ways to get coins out there. Not that it matters, all of them already failed.

>>5134626
Satoshi predicted people not wanting to have hueg blocks, atomic swaps, payment channels etc, way after releasing the whitepaper. Stop thinking its the fucking bible you autist. Oh and he didn't definitely want FORKS.

>>5115420

>big blocks
>decentralized
pick one