/biz/ - Business & Finance

Was shilling for BCH all last year and then they betrayed me November 15:th. All jokes aside we are lucky BSV stepped in to keep the real bitcoin alive.

No it's not a scam, the hashpower BSV have is not cheap and can't be faked. They are serious.

>>11843643
> what is this eldritch sorcery of suggesting a medium of exchange can also be a store of value? WITCH!
Fuck off asshole.

>>11841515
yes SV hashing is pretty centralized right now but so was BTC in the beginning as well

>>11816854

>>11781199
Bitcoin can get them off. Just not the kiked version.

Was going to use BCH but when I found out I don't need to use a Watchtower to avoid losing my money into the void I dropped it.

>>11638340
Hard fork = Two separate networks. Like for example BTC and BCH. These nodes don't communicate with each other, BCH added replay protection meaning every transaction you send on BCH won't reach BTC nodes. 2 networks 2 cryptos.

Chain split = One network, separate chains. Like for example SV client and ABC client. They will still communicate with each other and receive all BCH transactions. As long as your UTXO is valid on both chains it will be included in both chains. Each new mined SV block will be rejected by ABC clients and vice versa, so there will be two chains, however if you don't deliberately go out of your way to split your coins by using opcodes that one chain finds invalid, then your tx will be in both chains. 1 network 1 crypto.

>>11539004
flipping BTC takes time. it's not a small feat. but don't worry, it's just a matter of time. 5 years is my own belief.

>>11141638
Of course he is Satoshi. All puzzle pieces fit and there's no other person on the planet that fit better than him. Should be noted that Satoshi were three guys but only Craig Wright remains alive and obviously he want morons to think he is faketoshi.

also anything's possible. i think craig wright (satoshi) could move his bitcoins any time he wanted to. i'd be extremely surprised if he didn't mine to several places as well.

>>10703240
BCH will absolutely conquer BTC in the end.
All the signs are there.

>>10689447
oh child, we are at 0:23 in the video now. just a bit more now and your pain will be over.

for fucks sake, i care about you /biz/. joke all you want about bitcoin cash but at least hold a little of it. if not for your own sake do it just so that i can sleep well.

Bitcoin Cash really is bitcoin.

BTC will most likely die, can take a long time though.

>>10256009
it was tried:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_XT
we're very lucky that this time more people got on board. BCH was the last shot to preserve bitcoin before the point of no return.

>>10184722
it's not that bad

>>10147600
even if infinite on-chain scaling was not possible BTC needed scaling right now and it was possible to scale it by a factor of 32 just by changing 1 line of code. just increasing the block size to 2 MB would have prevented BCH from ever existing and a bunch of stores wouldn't have dropped their bitcoin support.

Why lightning network is a bad idea even if all its issues were solved:

1. you have to set up your payment channel with on-chain transaction. if you have to deal with on-chain transactions anyway you might as well just scale up on-chain instead.

2. if someone else use your payment channel they can deplete your funds to a merchant. if there are no other channels, which is likely since otherwise your channel wouldn't be depleted, you now need another on-chain transaction to make a new channel or refund your old one.

3. if you have 1 BTC and open up four channels with 0.25 BTC on each channel it's impossible to send more than the unspent amount of BTC on that channel even though you own more than 0.25. likewise nobody can receive more BTC than the sum of all their channels (assuming all channels could find a path to the sender and that the right amount of BTC is available at the correct end of each channel).

4. the network will inevitably develop backbone nodes that nearly all transactions pass through (most likely just trusting each other to have the required funds to save time). this "solves" the routing problem but makes the whole thing completely centralized, just like internet is today with master backbone nodes.

5. once you put your crypto into a channel you're basically trapped in the system. it's designed so that you would never want to take it out. eventually there would be almost no in/out on the bitcoin blockchain and at that point bitcoin is essentially dead and you can be sure that there will be talks to just drop it completely in favor of some kind of issued lightning network token.

The saddest thing is that all that was needed was a measly 1 MB block size increase and:

1) BCH wouldn't exist.
2) Fees would never have skyrocketed so merchants would still use BTC.
3) No developers would have abandoned BTC.
4) The BTC's reputation wouldn't have been tarnished, community would have continued to appear united. No need for extensive censorship.
5) Lightning Network could have been developed for another 5 years and not be released in a broken state.

Feels fucking bad man.

>>9866014
The saddest thing is that all that was needed was a measly 1 MB block size increase and:

1) BCH wouldn't exist.
2) Fees would never have skyrocketed so merchants would still use BTC.
3) No developers would have abandoned BTC.
4) The BTC's reputation wouldn't have been tarnished, community would have continued to appear united. No need for extensive censorship.
5) Lightning Network could have been developed for another 5 years and not be released in a broken state.

Feels fucking bad man.