/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>10299354

Corecucks really are scared of bitcoin cash

Craig "Fake Satoshi" Wright is a POS... just like BCash

>>10299359
totally bro

>>10299354
the same Bitpico who wanted to 51% attack Bitcoin Cash but realized it would cost too much? this goy is a scam.

>>10299452

>I-I'm not scared I'm just bashing it every day for no reason

kek, corecucks are TERRIFIED of BCH. Lightning is dead in the water and BCH is soaking up adoption. Enjoy your "store of value"

>>10299470
kek just a quick peek in the archive

>>10299369

FAGGOT, YHAY'S ALL YOU GOT? TRY HARDER

LOL

>>10299470
Didn't this pico goof with the Lightening network too? Stress testing and whale shorting and whatnot?

https://youtu.be/zSbPz4g9rZQ

Btc vs bch in a nutshell.

Corecucks have a hat store

>>10299518

And a hub and spoke network with no routing

>>10299518
Gawd, I watch that once a week now to remind me of the asshats we grant billion dollar market caps these days.

>Hold equal amounts of both
idgaf who wins just happen already

>>10299354
>Bitpico

>>10299518
hats and stickers

>>10299452
Not just bch-btc should be for any coin out there.
Btc is the shitcoin king, the one and only.

>>10299369
no he's a PoW

>>10299470
everybody bashes bcash because you cunts are the most fucking annoing pieces of shit in the entire fucking cryptosphere. you dumb fucks brought the derision and bashing on yourselves.
>flippening on the 15th of may
>flippening on the 15th of may
>flippening on the 15th of may
>flippening on the 15th of may
dumbfucks

get in, get out. this shit won't be around for long.

>>10299354
Bitpico took a few screenshots and didn't describe how anyone could verify what they were reporting.

Anyone taking a couple of screenshots seriously deserves to be poor for the rest of his life. They didn't even compare the level of "centralization" of BCH with the level of centralization of BTC, I'd bet my left nut its exactly the same.

>>10299354
>Thanks to Bitpico, we now know that Bitcoin Cash is shit, a total scam
What really happened
>Hey guys, I'm gonna hack bcash
Andreas Cuckopoulos bows down
>Hey guys, I couldn't hack shit, but I'll write a blogpost and say that bcash is shit in it
Fkin lmao. I'll actually address your other points
> has almost no transactions
Has the third largest value throughput in crypto. Had it kept the bitcoin name and BTC ticker like it deserved to it would have been #1, but don't worry, BCH is going up, BTC is going down WEEKLY.
>and is no longer seeking adoption
Just from last week:
>Robinhood enables BCH on their platform
>Bitcoin.com’s BCH dev platform has launched
>Cashpay enables “spend and replace“ for coinbase users
>Coins 4 Clothes spends 100% of donations to buy clothes for those in need
>Chaintrend org launches OP_Return analytics tool
>Newly releas a Bitcoin cash wallet for WeChat (most popular messenger app in the world)
>Bitcoin Cash meetup in Tokyo receives significantly higher attendance than the BTC meetup; 80 BCH meetups are currently active throughout the world
>Tutanota com (encrypted email service) starts accepting Bitcoin Cash
>London Bitcoin Cash Speaker Series has been sold out
>Fifa2018 cash - decentralised betting using BCH testnet coins (as a PoC)
>Purse io starts paying its employees in Bitcoin Cash
>Cashgames bitcoin com offers poker, blackjack, roulette, craps, slots and many others
>Coin dance released a browser-based BCH Texas Hold’em poker game
And finally...
>CEO of shitcoin com is doing a review of the Lightning network
Lmfao

I hope bitcoin cash jumps over ripple soon in total value.

>>10301300
Many coins should surpass Ripple soon, I don't get where this high cap is coming from

>>10299354
>we now know that Bitcoin Cash is shit
>now

We've always known that brainlet. It might not look that way to a newfriend such as yourself because "someone" has been hiring stinky pajeets to shill bcash here (and elsewhere it seems) for about a whole year now.

>inb4 some pajeet trying to deny this

Don't. It's really obvious to anyone that visited this board before summer 2017. Everyone here always took every chance to shat profusely on the big blocker crowd and their antics. Then Ver & his rich friends decided to commission their very own bitcoin fork.. and suddenly all these defenders of their retarded big block rhetoric pop up in huge numbers, diligently defending bcash and Lady Roger's honor, making daily shill threads, pretending Craig Wright is not a fraud, pretending that Roger or Jihan are qualified even in the slightest to comment on blockchain design and overall just trying way too hard to be "4chan edgy".

>>10301164
Take for example this stinky pajeet right here. All this diligence in talking about all the "adoption" going on for bcash, but you won't ever see him mention that bcash doesn't even have enough volume to fill blocks past 200KB, usually doesn't even get past 100KB.


>Has the third largest value throughput in crypto. Had it kept the bitcoin name and BTC ticker like it deserved
>like it deserved

Why should the ticker be taken from the chain with the highest cumulative PoW and be given to a niche fork with literally 10x less usage and 10x less hashrate? Why do you think you are above the whitepaper pajeet? You should read it before shilling so at least you don't look like a complete retard.

>>10301572
>Why do you think you are above the whitepaper pajeet?

Same question to you? Why do corecucks and blockstream think they are above the whitepaper. BTC was meant to be P2P electronic cash. Not this bullshit "muh store of value & digital gold".

>>10301572
> All this diligence in talking about all the "adoption" going on for bcash, but you won't ever see him mention that bcash doesn't even have enough volume to fill blocks past 200KB
200KB is larger than the 100KB of half a year ago, and smaller than the 1MB+ a year from now. It was a responce to OP's:
> and is no longer seeking adoption
which is obviously false. Adoption is growing unlike BTC, where adoption is plummeting - both verifiable facts.
> Why should the ticker be taken from the chain with the highest cumulative PoW
It received higher PoW exactly because of the ticker, retard, people kept buying BTC since exchanges marked BCH as an alt - hence it became more profitable to mine the crippled chain.
Miners signalled 50%+ support for larger blocks beforehand.
> niche fork
Again, majority of the early adopter community, early devs, early business devs, large percentage of the community and more than half the hashing power have signed up for the chain with the larger blocks. Buy a dictionary and check what "niche" actually means.
> with literally 10x less usage and 10x less hashrate
More like 6.5x less hashrate, compared to the 15x less hashrate of just a few months ago. If things keep going in the same direction BTC will die, so you better hope something changes.
>Why do you think you are above the whitepaper pajeet?
The whitepaper that states that bitcoin is a p2p electronic cash system and not a settlement layer for banks? Ofc not, your boss Adam Back does, but that's all right, he's failing miserably.
>You should read it before shilling so at least you don't look like a complete retard.
I translated it into 2 foreign languages in 2012 you moron. Maybe YOU should read it. Or maybe you should stick with your core bags as you keep losing market dominance, I don't care, you don't deserve to have money anyway.

>>10301625
It's literally the same protocol as BCH and every other bitcoin-clone you dingus. The only difference is that transactions can be formatted better if you opt-in Segwit.

You are advocating that a minority hard fork that replaced the difficulty algorithm with PnD hack and needlessly increased the block size limit twice (proof: BCH does 100-200KB blocks) "deserves" to be called bitcoin because reasons. Fortunately the fate of Bitcoin can't be decided by a lone group, much less a group of stinky pajeets. The whitepaper is clear on the matter:

>Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin. BCH is not. Deal with it Omar.

>>10301834
He thinks Segwit doesn't break the chain
hahahahaHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin by Satoshi's own definition which you are quoting now. COPE

>>10301886
this level of delusion. Please die in the street.

>>10301966
please be all in btc

>>10301450
>>10301300

Ripple is a fucking scam on par with bitconnect. BTC has been coopted and intentionally sabotaged. BCH is the real Bitcoin and will eventually retake dominance.

>>10301834
> The whitepaper is clear on the matter
The whitepaper is also clear that Bitcoin is a chain of digital signatures, and since you like to dig into technicalities to prove your stupid points, let's put your ideas under the same level of scrutiny.
Legacy BTC-chain bitcoins might be bitcoins, but segwitcoins are not.

>>10301886
>He thinks Segwit doesn't break the chain
So does any hardfork, which bitcoin had several before this debacle. BCH included dummy.
Still, longest chain.
You can make up any number of extra rules in your head for what it "should be"
>doesn't break the chain! (both do)
>growing transaction value! (irrelevant)
>OPCODES!
All irrelevant.
If you really think BCH is superior, you shouldn't be trying so hard to steal the brand and let your altcoin fight on tech grounds.

>>10301966
there's more to bitcoin than that. your image is BTC's only claim to why it should be allowed to still call itself bitcoin, meanwhile bitcoin cash has is allowed to call itself bitcoin due to other reasons.

nobody with a shred of sense is saying that not both are bitcoin

>>10302059
>If you really think BCH is superior, you shouldn't be trying so hard to steal the brand and let your altcoin fight on tech grounds.
We're not trying to steal the brand name, we're trying to get our stolen brand name back you brainlet. Bitcoin was great until 2016, we want a flippening so that the 2016-2018 could remain in history as a "first repelled attack on bitcoin"

>>10299517
Yeah and LN showed its resilience even in early stage development

Meanwhile BCash is dead at layer 0.

>>10302077
Unfortunately for you, what you "want" is completely irrelevant to reality.

Oh wew lad. Guess it's time for another episode of "Meanwhile in reality".

>>10301772
>200KB is larger than the 100KB of half a year ago, and smaller than the 1MB+ a year from now.

Delusion. "200KB" was being generous. Most bcash blocks don't even get past 100KB.

>unlike BTC, where adoption is plummeting - both verifiable facts

More delusion. Here's reality:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc-bch.html - average block size of Bitcoin VS Bcash, Bitcoin had a dip in Jan and is recovering, Bcash had a spike in Jan and fizzled out since.

https://outputs.today/ - number of outputs on Bitcoin has been increasing at least since April.

>WAAAAAH
>Miners signalled

Even more delusion. Miners make decisions by rejecting/extending blocks, not by "signaling". Try reading the whitepaper some time.

>Again, majority of the early adopter community, early devs, early business devs, large percentage of the community

Says you. In reality nobody gives a fuck about bcash apart from random anons online. Everyone mocks it in trading discords. Bitcoin has the most cumulative PoW by far. (https://fork.lol/pow/work))

>More like 6.5x less hashrate, compared to the 15x less hashrate of just a few months ago.

In reality it's 9.5 less right now. (https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate))

>p2p electronic cash system and not a settlement layer for banks

Vague buzzwords are not an argument Apu. In reality the whitepaper describes it as "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution"

Bitcoin does allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another (at least as much as BCH can anyway) without going through a financial institution.

>I translated it into 2 foreign languages in 2012 you moron.

Well, it's not showing. At all. Maybe your lack of background in STEM gives you trouble grasping the concepts, who knows.

>>10302103
Let me recap the reality
>Segwitcoins are not bitcoins according to the very whitepaper you're scraping for reasons to claim BCH is not bitcoin
>Also BTC does not have the outlined functionality explained in the whitepaper, only BCH does (being cash). Its only relevance to the whitepaper is with its infrastructure, which doesn't have any real world use
>BCH has restored a great deal of BTC's lost adoption.
>BTC is continuing to lose adoption
>BCH is gaining adoption month by month
>BTC is about to have its first year where it has less users by the end of it than it had at the beginning.
>BCH use has quadrupled and IT JUST NEEDS TO MAINTAIN THE SAME RATE in order to take over BTC in actual use
>A year from now almost any merchant in Antigua and maybe St Kitts will accept it. Months after the LN announcement it still only supports a blockstream hat store, and there's a porn site on the way, kek. That's it.

>bitcoin cosensus is decided by proof of work
>non-mining nodes have no ability to do work i.e no impact on consensus
>refuse to increase blocksize because it makes non mining nodes more expensive
>caps adoption at 1mb per 10 minutes
>try to sell lightning network as solution to manufactured problem
>set back the adoption of the first currency in human history that cannot be debased maintaining the status quo of debt slaves stuck in inflationary economic mousewheels

>>10299354
Chads don’t run nodes, faggot. Your science experiment is doa.

>>10301886
>no argument at all

Lol ok Abdul.

>>10302014
Bitcoin IS a chain of signatures retard. Don't tell me you unironically fell for the bullshit meme about "segwitcoins" having "no signatures".

>>10302162
>BTC is continuing to lose adoption
>BCH is gaining adoption month by month

Don't do that shill thing of ignoring the rebuttals and doubling down on your bullshit. Already debunked that here: >>10302139

Why do these pajeets not even research Bitcoin in the slightest before going on their shills? Imagine the level of stupid you'd need to have to go about it like this.

>>10302235
what are you invested in? all in btc?

>>10302139
>https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc-bch.html
I've watched BTC usage grow for 7 years, being at a new ATH every single month, which hasn't been the case for the past year (for the first time ever). BCH adoption has been growing judging by the very graph you posted. Unless you think that lowered transaction rate in comparison to a stress test or the week it got listed on coinbase is 'losing adoption"...
>Even more delusion. Miners make decisions by rejecting/extending blocks, not by "signaling". Try reading the whitepaper some time.
You're deliberately acting dumb, I was answering another question of yours. Go read the post again and stop gaslighting.
>Says you. In reality nobody gives a fuck about bcash apart from random anons online. Everyone mocks it in trading discords. Bitcoin has the most cumulative PoW by far. (https://fork.lol/pow/work))
Says Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik (first bitcoin developers), Roger Ver (first investor in the bitcoin ecosystem), Calvin Ayre (largest miner outside China, first billionaire from online casinos), and the entire team behind bitcoin.com. There's at least 10 billionaires in the list. Meanwhile a NEET fapping to tentacles is calling them "nobodies", imagine the delusion.
>In reality it's 9.5 less right now. (https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate))
I concede, hadn't checked it in 2 months. Still significantly higher than the first 3 months when BCH was priced at 0.061BTC. Lower than day-long spikes, but higher than month-long levels. Clear upwards direction in favor of BCH.
>Vague buzzwords are not an argument Apu. In reality the whitepaper describes it as "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution"
Buy a dictionary and read what "cash" means
>Well, it's not showing. At all. Maybe your lack of background in STEM gives you trouble grasping the concepts, who knows.
Stem major here

>>10302162
>muh whitepaper

>>10302279
>Says Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik (first bitcoin developers), Roger Ver (first investor in the bitcoin ecosystem), Calvin Ayre (largest miner outside China, first billionaire from online casinos), and the entire team behind bitcoin.com.


Losers whose had to resort to pumping shitcoin.

Perhaps your summerfag ass needs to do some reading:

http://shitco.in/2015/08/19/the-bitcoin-xt-trojan/

>>10302379
are you all in btc?

>>10302391
>are you all in on the only asset that matters?

>>10302379
>Losers whose had to resort to pumping shitcoin.
Ultimate delusion.
>the people who created bitcoin are losers
>the person who though he had proved that bitcoin is not possible and didn't hold any until 2012 is the greatest technical genius
>the retard who stole the hashcash idea almost a decade before bitcoin was created, while still taking credit for "inventing bitcoin" despite being unable to use hashcash in any practical manner for 8 years is a great CEO for the company that controls bitcoin, the permissionless network
>CEO for the company that controls bitcoin, the permissionless network
>CEO... controls... permissionless
You can't be reasoned with.

>>10302279
>Bitcoin hasn't made a new tx ATH in a couple of months therefore it's losing adoption
>Bcash hasn't made a new tx ATH in a couple of months but I swear it's gaining adoption

Good one Apu. Not biased at all.

>You're deliberately acting dumb, I was answering another question of yours. Go read the post again and stop gaslighting.

You said
>Miners signalled 50%+ support for larger blocks beforehand.

as part of your string of justifications why the Bitcoin name should go to Bcash instead of Bitcoin. Signaling is patently irrelevant, it only serves to help miners coordinate, it's not binding for them, much less for the rest of us users. The majority of hashrate in the network kept working towards extending the Bitcoin chain rejected bcash blocks (i.e. deemed them "not bitcoin"), that's that.

>Says Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik...

Wow that's like a whole 10 people. Amazing.

>Buy a dictionary and read what "cash" means

No need. I got the whitepaper with the actual explanation of what it means by "p2p e-cash", which I pasted above and you completely ignored "for some reason".

>Stem major here

Must be one of the easy ones weak on math then.

>>10302475
>Good one Apu. Not biased at all.
Of course I'm biased, there's a reason why I found bitcoin so early, and core devs completely destroyed the functionalities that made bitcoin interesting to me and other early adopters.
>50% support thing
It's not binding, sure, but it clearly shows that BCH is not a "niche fork" and no fork had "highest cumulative PoW" at the moment the fork happened (since it hadn't happened yet, duh).
Heavy miner support came afterwards, when BCH was deemed an alt, all trading pairs remained on the legacy chain, which drove the price, hence profitability up. Miners voted something completely different beforehand, even if it's non-binding.
>Wow that's like a whole 10 people.
How many people do you think created bitcoin? These are the earliest bitcoin devs, bitcoin is not a corporate product with 1000-s of employees working on it. At least it wasn't.
Also in terms of importance, no-one is more important than the earliest devs, the first investors and the first entrepreneurs. You could substitute quality with quantity, although even blockstream isn't going for 1000 pajeet codemonkeys, so I don't understand your point.
>No need. I got the whitepaper ... and you completely ignored "for some reason".
Pretty sure we're not reading the same whitepaper. Sure, it's clear and concise, hence it won't go into detail about use in retail, but how do you think a system like bitcoin could become valuable in the first place? It had a price, because it had liquidity and was used for purchases, and it then got a high price because people started speculating that it might get adopted at even more merchants. Liquidity drives the price, otherwise the US government wouldn't mind seeing petrol traded for euros for examples
>Must be one of the easy ones weak on math then.
My name is on this website: http://imo-official.org/results.aspx
Sure, I didn't care about maths after high-school because I was poor and needed a job, but I'm pretty much 99.9 percentile

>>10299354

>op doesn't realize the new no. 1 exchange uses bch transactions exclusively

see 24 hour trading volume

No one seems to notice more and more new exchanges are popping up with BCH as the base currency, soon all the old exchanges will have no choice but to open BCH pairs if they want to remain in business and relevant.

Coinex is racking in new customers with their transaction mining thing, very good things are on the horizon for BCH and growth is set to explode.

All those faggy utterly corecucked exchanges like craptopia and coinexchange will eventually bend the knee or die, these are the same faggy exchanges that have fucking doge pairs and misname Bitcoin (BCH) out of fear because they sold their real Bitcoin for sweet fuck all almost a year ago.

BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH

>>10302871

BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE BCORE

>>10302746
>>10302837
yea sure a jump in trading volume from $5 million to $1.5 billion in 48 hours
seems legit.

>>10302671
>core devs completely destroyed the functionalities that made bitcoin interesting to me and other early adopters.
Be specific. Explain which functionalities did they break and how.


>Heavy miner support came afterwards, when BCH was deemed an alt, all trading pairs remained on the legacy chain, which drove the price, hence profitability up.

That's your narrative. I can just as easily say events unfolded the way they did because core's roadmap of increasing efficiency with academic innovation and thorough testing appealed to more users than bcash's philosophy of not innovating, not studying and just haphazardly increasing parameters to fit more and more shit in. And the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.


>Miners voted something completely different beforehand, even if it's non-binding.

Well that's too bad for them. They could have stuck to their word and just mine the fork, but they didn't though. Because they knew the majority of the market and users weren't gonna buy their shit and would stick with the original chain. So they stuck their tail between their legs, called off the bluff and went back to just doing their fucking job and being thankful for the opportunity to sometimes collect block reward and fees of Bitcoin.

>blabla this public figure and that endorse bch

The only people in that list with any relevance to bitcoin development is Gavin. Doesn't matter anyway, the fact blocks are consistently smaller than 100KB and it's valuation is nearly 10x less than Bitcoin proves it has less community support than Bitcoin. There's also the anecdotal evidence that you can't find bcash shills anywhere except places where it's easy to run sockpuppets (4chan, twitter, reddit..), go to real life or live crypto chats (like discords) and everyone's shitting on it.

(cont)

>>10303273
>Pretty sure we're not reading the same whitepaper.

Nope, you're just not reading at all Apu. You ignored again the relevant citation I pasted directly from the fucking abstract about your "p2p ecash" "argument".


>how do you think a system like bitcoin could become valuable in the first place?

By being a trustless store of value whose policy no one person or cabal can control (send my condolences to your bosses). I don't know how things are like over there on mudstreet, India, but here in my tiny irrelevant country fast cheap payments through a smartphone are already a reality, debit cards have existed for decades. Bitcoin and crypto bring precisely 0 advantages if you're focusing on speed and fees.


>My name is on this website: http://imo-official.org/results.aspx

That's good for you but it's only a pre-college math competition for kids. Not even close to the mental training one gains going through a math-heavy degree like math or physics for example.
Gotta be going now. Might reply again when I get back home but probably.