/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11987808
No, it would be too honest.

>>9340000
yeah, what a genius, does he make your pussy wet too becky?

>>9098778
>Its a balancing act, where the bigger you make blocks, the more centralized the protocol becomes.
>On the other hand, LN solves these issues
> I never said lightning wasn't a centralising force
herp derp.

>>9076826
Integrity honestly simply does not matter when it comes to the truth. If you have the local mayor and top donor to charity who donates to the puppy shelter and kisses babies telling you 1+1=3, and a cutthroat meth addict who steals from the orphanage and rapes cats telling you it's actually 2, it's still actually 2.
This is why politics doesn't matter worth a fuck, and why analysis of personalities is a waste of time on technical questions. Facts are facts and there's no getting around them, and the fact is that everything blockstream presents as fact is in fact a lie, end of story, debate over.
So it doesn't matter how much you love the aroma of cheetos wafting from gmaxwell's beard, or you find luke-jr's hillbilly meth teeth erection inducing, or Roger Ver's chad stride threatens your onions sensibilities, none of that matters in the least, the raw facts of the matter are these;
1) It is in Blockstream's business plan to charge tolls on Bitcoin transactions
2) It is therefore in Blockstream's interest to limit the blockchain to as low a limit as possible.
3) the present limit was never intended to be the configuration at scale
4) there is absolutely nothing complex about a distributed network operating at throughputs exceeding 14kbps
That's really all there is to it, I don't give a fuck about your chinese miners molesting cats, or your noble cheetoh coated saviours attending BALUG meetups and waxing lyrical on the people's struggle, that's all just sideshow bullshit that isn't worth the sweat on my balls.
As for the talk by Adam Back, the clip was a short phrasing of exactly what he said, they didn't have to do much editing to make it sound absurd, it was absurd to begin with, pic related. He honestly said that with a straight face and people like you still hold him up as some noble saviour of your lost cause.
It's honestly pathetic, I hope you grow out of whatever affliction has caused this deficit in you.

>but muh security

Don't blame the platform for pajeets being unable to write good code, corecucks.

>>7696928
Core aren't in it for the reasons you assume they are, they are saboteurs, pure and simple, their goals are mutually exclusive with the execution of the original vision, that's why they're pursuing a settlement layer with an attached second layer that forces centralisation and can provide zero actual technical justification for it. There was a coretard in here last night trying to make the case for the "decentralisation is degraded by larger block sizes" position and it was just stunning how utterly ignorant and clueless he was, breathtaking even. They literally do not have any legitimate arguments at all, thus the only remaining option is that they're lying.

>>7679579
You know, the coretards are right. We shouldn't call it Bitcoin Core. It's too confusing, Core what? Core is such a general term, we need something more specific, something which uniquely identifies the chain, something that symbolises the unique genius of their revolutionary ideas in a way that will make it apparent to all and sundry the true value of the product.
Gentlemen, I present to you; Bitcoin Tabs.