/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>10561495

Nick Szabo is not Satoshi, he's a retarded core shill.

Begone, corecuck.

>>10561495
Let me see if I get this straight.

Nick Szabo works for fifteen years to develop digital gold.

He finally succeeds and publishes a landmark paper entitled "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" and spends a year or so online explaining how it can be used as cash.

He then spends the next eight years explaining that this paper is wrong and that digital cash is a terrible idea, it should be thought of as gold.

Um, no. Doesn't even pass the smell test.

>>10561495
hal finney is ded you mongol

>>10561553
this, sad, but true :(

>>10561495
They idolize a dude who likes blowing prairie dogs up with explosives so much that he renounced his us citizenship so he could continue blowing up vermin with Chinese fireworks on a remote tropical island micronation.

If you are arguing with a cashie, it helps to understand the type of person they are.

>>10561495
I don't listen to twitter shills that use emojis. Emojis are so fucking disgusting, especially the faggot lightning emoji.

bcash is impressive in how thorough they have been in promoting it as Bitcoin, which it clearly isn't.

The things they've done to lure in stupid investors is the following:

Massive shilling, the creation of stupid memes like the ones posted over here, the acquisition of the bitcoin.com domain, the twitter handle, the /r/btc subreddit and even going as far as to bitch and whine on a nearly daily basis over "censorship" over at /r/bitcoin because he could not buy of the mods there for $100k oh and lets not forget the spamming of the mempool during the last bullrun to make bcash seem more worthwhile.

Roger Ver is a piece of shit even though he has some right ideas. People should not invest in bcash. In my opinion it has been destructive for the entire cryptosphere.

inb4 muh blocksize muh adoption.

Fuck you.

>>10561543
>He then spends the next eight years explaining that this paper is wrong and that digital cash is a terrible idea, it should be thought of as gold.
This is what cashies understand when you try to explain to them that the first and most important part of a currency is the store of value.

The use as "cash" is important. But useless without the part that keeps a bitcoin secure. Which btw, is decentralization (BCH can't be more centralized).
After this is 100% secure, then we can move on to other stuff. But you cannot do a tradeoff and lose security if you want bitcoin to remain being the king.
Roger Ver says it's ok if bitcoin is paypal 2.0

And may I remind you, bcash breaks a lot less like the whitepaper than bitcoin is. Difficulty adjustments every block, and the chain with the least work.

Bitcoin will increase the block size, but not yet. Only after it's necessary. Meanwhile we are trying to scale using smart ideas, not just "add more" which doesn't really scale to visa levels anyways.

>>10561729
> Which btw, is decentralization (BCH can't be more centralized).
BTC consensus mechanism: whatever a group of six people in a single jurisdiction declare by fiat.
BCH consensus mechanism: Gigawatt scale globally distributed hashing power
Bitcoin consensus mechanism: Gigawatt scale globally distributed hashing power
How exactly is BTC more decentralised?

>>10561495
Carlos Matos is Satoshi and Bitconnect is the real Bitcoin.

>>10561599
>>10561729
Bullish pajeet posts
Bch 100k eoy

>>10561495
BCH vs BTC has a super long history that goes back a long ways. Long story short though, the entire COMMUNITY around Bitcoin divided into two after the August 1st, 2017 chain split, although discussion has been around for YEARS since then.

You have strong and powerful individuals on both sides that support BTC or BCH. BTC kept the ticker, but not the spirit of Bitcoin. If you read the whitepaper, it matches BCH much more closely, which makes BCH fit the definition of Bitcoin much more closely.

What BCH proponents believe is that BTC has been taken over by a corporation known as Blockstream, having a chokehold on updates to the code (this is why Gavin Andressen and Mike Hearn left the core team). And this is verifiably true, any code changes has to first go through Blockstream and if BS don't like it, it's not pushed through.

BCH on the other hand, has multiple developer teams working on their own improvements to Bitcoin. Keep in mind each of these teams existed on the BTC chain before August 1st, 2017. These teams were trying to do their own improvements to BTC, but were declined by Blockstream, despite Bitcoin supposedly being a coin owned by none.

So now BCH has had tremendous development success such as the re-enablement of OP Codes (which allows smart contracts on chain, look at memo.cash for example), 32 MB Block sizes (fees will always be 1 sat / byte), the most efficient block propagation of Graphene, customized "Bitcoincash" wallet addresses, and in the future: Colored Coins (tokens on top of BCH) and CashShuffle (anonymization on top of BCH)

>>10561495
>>10561509
Can we agree that Neither Szabo or Craig is Satoshi? That in all likelihood he is dead in a ditch somewhere and has been for the past eight years?

>>10561495
Also this is the math and science of how Lightning Network can never possibly work. Block sizes increases can go on forever however, as even today, 32mb blocksize of Bitcoin Cash is nothing, you can buy 10TB hard drive now for $300. Hardware improvements are exponential (Moore's Law) which means any linear increases to blocksize, will in the long run, be insignificant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFZOrtlQXWc

It is a very educational video.

>>10562101
what's the point of whacking satoshi?

>>10562122
No idea. We could also go the time traveler route and he just jumped back to his own time. Someone in 2100 is going to suddenly access wallets which have been untouched for nearly a century that is worth trillions.

>>10562122
Robbing satoshi and taking over his projects, knowing he will never reveal himself and call you out. Also the CIA does that stuff for fun.

>>10562145
Not really, his Bitcoins can't be worth trillions each. If he decided to offload it into the market all at once, the price will come crashing down as there won't be enough buyers to hold the floor. It's better to say his coins are worth what the market can support, which means maybe 1% of his millions of bitcoins are worth face value price while the 99% are worth much less (maybe in the $10 range)

>>10561729
Actually the simplest solution can often be the smartest. Schnorr signatures, lightning network, segwit, are all very complex and have not been described in the whitepaper at all, whereas Satoshi himself said blocksize limit was arbitrary and that a blocksize increase may happen around block 115000 (but he disappeared before then).

Blocksize increase was changing one line of code, from "1mb" to "32mb". All these other BTC implementations, all they do is create "Banking Network 2.0"' with lightning nodes which is what Bitcoin was against in the first place. It's a PEER to PEER electronic cash, not a peer to a hub to a peer electronic cash.

>>10562167
His wallets were worth half a million 8 years ago, unless CIA was filled with niggers they did not give a shit

>>10562183
>$10 in year 2100

>>10562183
>Schnorr signatures, lightning network, segwit, are all very complex and have not been described in the whitepaper at all
Schnorr signatures is something new to cryptography that didn't exist when satoshi wrote the whitepaper. Cryptography has advanced in the last 10 years believe it or not.

If you don't see the tradeoffs when increasing the block size to 32mb, I don't think we can end up agreeing to anything here.

"Satoshi's vision" is not related to what Satoshi says.
If Satoshi deviates from his own vision, he has no say on it.

>>10561599
100% this

>>10562115
It isn't just the storage space on the hard drive, it also takes bandwidth, and processing power to verify the blocks. Verification would be the real bottleneck when trying to sync the blockchain.

Also moore's law is dead at this point. We cannot rely on exponential hardware scaling, we need to look for exponential software scaling, and the lightning network is just that.
Yes, there are drawbacks, but it is better to scale a secondary layer, so the primary layer is not compromised.
Yes, there are routing problems, but you don't even need to use routing, you can just transact on a peer to peer basis. Also as more people join the network, the capacity and the number of connections increases. There is nothing in graph theory to say that lightning can't be decentralized. It's up to the users to create decentralized connections. But users have the choice to connect with whoever they want, so we'll see what type of network that creates.
Yes, you have to keep your node on, and this is probably the biggest drawback of lightning. However, there will be solutions to this. There will be watchdog services that will make sure your funds aren't stolen. It will still be better to host yourself, but not everyone is capable of doing that. Some people need to be coddled.

>>10562076
Bitcoin core has different implenetations, look up knots, or libbitcoin-node, or btcd. These are all examples of bitcoin full nodes, not developed by core, but run full consensus rules. Just like with bitcoin core, bitcoin cash really only relies on one implementation, which in bch case, is lead by pretty much a single developer, Amaury Sechet.

Bitcoin core is taking the conservative approach. Look at ethereum's blockchain. It is already 1TB+, and does not sync anymore. The truth is, smartcontracts are cool, but should not be in the main chain. They should be created and verified on a sidechain. There is no reason that the main chain should be tainted with useless information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu8pOEOXaZY