/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11916896
You're a self impressed fuckwit with no idea what you're talking about

>>11890480
> the fundamentals of bitcoin havent changed
And this is what you sad boomer fucks have to have rammed through your paper thin skulls once and for fucking all. YES THEY FUCKING HAVE. They changed the moment the one meg limit was made permanent, and all your hedging about how it doesn't matter if niggers can't buy KFC with bitcoin don't change that one fucking iota. Because the large volume of the trade in an asset is what sets the fucking price for that asset. And when the large volume in trade on the asset in question is restricted to centralised controlled and prone to sabotage and manipulation channels, that volume can be manipulated, which means in turn that the price can be manipulated and purchasing power stolen from the instrument. The lower the artificial tx throughput limit is, the easier it is to run this very simple and centuries old con, and that is exactly why your "reserve asset untouched by niggers" status is a complete fucking illusion, the exact same way sad fucking boomers in gold think the same thing about their bullion, blissfully ignorant or desperately trying to ignore the fact that on the largest global exchange in the world for gold, there's a fucking 542:1 ratio between the paper tokens for it and the actual physical bullion. This is a simple consequence of the asset backed financial model, and the one meg limit which you tards swallowed wholesale without the slightest fucking iterated game theory considerations implements the exact same nash equilibrium on the motherfucking BTC blockchain you butt smoking asstard motherfucker.

>>11844438
You don't have any points, and he did refute them. You just didn't understand what he actually said. At no point in time did he say that other layers were not allowable, at no point in time did he say that the chain should be forced past the level of market demand for on chain transactions. He said exactly what everyone smarter than you already knows; Supply and demand on a per layer basis fixes all the problems under discussion perfectly neatly. If all the volume can fit on the first layer given miner capacity, great, if it can't, fees will rise and there's demand for a second layer, and so on, and so forth. But because pic related, fools like you never grasped this.
I never was sure if it was because you were lying to yourself, or if you really are that stupid, but I don't expect actually asking the monkey why it throws feces will do any good so I guess that will remain an eternal mystery.

>>11822167
You assume good faith when none is due. Core are saboteurs, nothing more and nothing less. It really is that simple. Full sordid story in pic related.
BCHers may be getting slammed, but at the end of the day >>11821068 is dead right, they've been exactly correct about everything all along. They are unironically the honest autistic software dev anarchocapitalist set of the ecosystem who just wants sound working global peer to peer digital cash. But just because they want it doesn't mean they'll get it. They're in for a hell of a fight.

>>11792330
But frankly I'm getting bored with kicking you in the teeth.

bcore

>>9654900

What do you think the other 60% represents?

>>9654902

And? BTC is also under an unspecified arbitrary value.

>>9618591

>>9497654
You don't understand just how much effort has gone into saying "hard forks are impossible" on the core side, and just how ridiculous they will look if they have to do one. If they do it, their credibility and product is destroyed, if they don't, their product is destroyed.
They have no options.

>>9484510

>>9439000
Because that's what it is.
Just because maxwell lied and coretards bought it doesn't change the fact. The real truth is that *not changing* when it is called for can fuck things up just as badly as changing badly when it's not called for.
Coretards managed to fuck both of these things up at once, permanently canceling an essential change that was always the original plan, and replacing it with an unnecessary change that actually destroyed the essential value of the product, to the point where it flatly is not what it once was anymore, that being peer to peer electronic cash.

More on how cancerous segwit is for interested lurkers.
This is what's dying now. Celebrate good times.

>>9414044
Thanks anon, explains the situation pretty well. What a shitshow. I can't believe they actually got this nonsense activated on btc. Man that chain is fucked now.

>>9407432
Pic related is why on the blockstream /coretard front.

>>9340364
I'm not even sure that's actually accurate, header first mining + bloom filters for transactions should mean both instant propagation for the purposes of mining, no matter the block size, and no more empty blocks which is the drawback of just plain old header first mining as of now. Either way, there's no actual threat of miner centralisation, that's just core bullshit, the only real world concrete actual problem caused by block propagation + header first mining is occasionally empty blocks.
The truth is this entire thing is about a whole raft of different actual causes, none of them at all technical, it's about Maxwell's ego, Blockstream's business interests, and the central banking apparatus wanting a trojan horse to insert their kiked out bretton woods 2.0

>>9313741
Because he's a completely deluded assmad retard that looks just plausible enough as a genuine technology enthusiast to be effective in the role for which the mainstream finance industry hired him; to subvert peer to peer electronic cash which is an existential threat to their business, and turn it into digital beanie babies which is just complete and utter shit.

>>9307643
Core devs are bad because pic related.

>>9144196
>Not me,
Your ignorance is your problem, not ours.
> Point 1 is more or less correct, but it's fixed because of batching segwit and LN, next bullrun will prove it.
If there is a next bullrun, BCH stands a good chance of permanently killing the BTC chain outright as described in >>9136002
And no matter how deluded coretards are, even they won't blow thousands on a chain that flatly doesn't work at all, even a little bit. And it's not fixed, in the slightest, on chain capacity is still less than a 28kbps modem from the 90's even with the abomination of segwit, that has turned BTC into a completely different product, and Lightning is a staked routed network that necessarily results in centralisation as demonstrated in >>9136017
> 30% is up from during the transaction crunch, so what are you are comparing?
Gave the link, the trend is very clearly down, it's also up from inception, big deal, it's still a shit change and shouldn't even exist at all pic related
> t's down because fees are low, and people get lazy when they don't face the consequences, so when fees rise so does segwit.
Bullshit, most people don't get to choose whether their transactions are segwit or not, it's down to whatever combination of wallet / exchange setup they happen to be using, and they largely don't care. The response of "Let's just not accept BTC" is more common than "Let's adopt segwit" given falling BTC adoption rates, as it should be, given that segwit is cancer.
> 3. 207k txns in last 24 hours, (transactions, not outputs or actual discrete payments)
So what? Relative to recent volume that is absolutely nothing, you are just trying to throw out a number that sounds large to make it sound like you're not full of shit, but you are full of shit after all.

>>9134369
Real story behind segwit.