/biz/ - Business & Finance

>Is it true that satoshi said in whitepaper that btc can scale to visa levels by just increasing the blocksize when needed?


read the whitepaper and check for yourself lol. he didn't said this. on bitcointalk forums he stated few things about layer 2 scalling

>>10574484
roger wouldnt lie to me, would he anon?alright will start to read the white paper.

>>10574494

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0

roger won't lie anybody. the real liers were the one who wrote the script. look at his eyes

>>10574523
lmfao. why do bch shills even exist then?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6269#msg6269

here is all you need to know. look at the early adopters of btc, and how they invision scaling with satoshi input as well!

atm binance is like a btc bank. u dont really need to scale on chain when u can trust binance to do micro tx's

traders trust binance so thats more then good enough for a coffee imo

>>10574387
Satoshi did talk about an increase in blocksize on the forums. However, the visa thing I believe is an extrapolation based on the (tps of Visa / tps of 1 mb Bitcoin).

- I hold neither, just ETH.

>>10574538
they are paid.

and btw, schnorr signatures and other cryptography stuff didn't even exist back then when satoshi made the wallpaper. He made a great product, but don't think that BTC doesn't need to improve.
Scaling is a problem. Now think about this. Do you want 10x the same amount of transactions, or do you want infinite?
no matter how much you increase the blocksize, that by itself won't scale to visa levels. Not to mention all the tradeoffs which would be devastating for bitcoin.
Blocksize will increase in the future, but not until it's needed.
segwit and LN are like using cache in a computer instead of having a giant hard disk.

>>10574548
>Effectively, if you want to post a transaction there must be a fee awarded to the individual who gets it posted in a block. There should also be some kind of fee for propagating the transaction to all of the nodes to begin with. Thus propagation isn't automatic it comes at a price. Each node that passes along your transaction to other block creators should get a cut of the transaction fee. In this way the network can load balance based upon economic incentive and the "most valuable" transactions get highest priority at a price.

in other words, exactly what samson said to roger in that discussion lol.

>>10574538
they missed the btc train and want a repeat. Most got stuck bagholding during the 'flippening' event. The shilling was otherwordly back then so many fell for it. After it dumped they refused to sell and they turned into the new shills. The ones with a brain got out in the mini pumps. BCH will never, ever replace BTC

>>10574548
Good goy. Trust central banks goy.

>>10574484

Satoshi said it in the bitcointalk forums you fucking idiot. There is literally no reason it can't scale to visa levels if this 1MB kike cap wasn't in place.

This is why BCH is considered the real Bitcoin, its growth isn't artifically capped so that some private business (Blockstream) can profit by injecting itself as a middleman and forcing transactions onto their own 'side chains'.

The LN was just a fake out, it literally isn't possible to achieve in any usable form, it was designed to either slow/kill adoption or get people accustomed to the idea of off-chain transactions.

If transactions aren't on chain, it's not Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin.

>>10574585
You don't need to be rewarded for relaying transactions, you can give transactions to the miners directly.

>>10574583

>they are paid
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

BLOCKSTREAM CEO OPENLY ADMITTED HE HIRES PAJEETS TO SHILL HIS SCAMCOIN

PIC RELATED YOU FUCKING PAJEET

>>10574591
i dont trust banks i actually hold my btc offline. but if i wanted a payment protocol. i dont mind using an intermediary just like planned in the early days of btc.

if you choose to do otherwise. thats fine... thats why they created bch for ppl that want micro tx's to be trustless too.

i dont htink its possible but hey if u make it work cool!

i rather just use a btc bank or lightning hub for micro tx's

>>10574625
The title of the white paper is bitcoin: peer to peer electronic cash

Satoshi was wrong, he confused moores law with internet bandwidth and storage growth. Programming and computer hardware tech wasn't stuff hes was great with. Many assumptions he made about PoW were also very flawed.

Majority of people would probably be ok with 2mb or 4mb blocks, problem is it requires a hardfork, getting consensus for that has been impossible, people either disagree on features or they're opposed to hardforks entirely as it could lead to ethereum style bailouts in the future.

Blockstream didn't take over anything, there's no consensus to hardfork so nothing happens. Roger is opposed to consensus and wants to dictate BTC development for his own gain. This is why he hates people running fullnodes, he knows if he could just get rid of user nodes he could collude with miners and exchanges to seize control. He tried to take over the full nodes by offering alternate clients, bitcoinXT, bitcoin ABC and others, no one was interested in using software he backed. When he failed miserably he started raging at bitcoin core since that is the name of the software the majority of nodes run.

I hedge BTC with BTC futures shorts, it's impossible for BCH to deliver visa levels of transactions in its current from, if they ever actually deliver anything I might consider buying some.

Bitcoin is proof of work not proof of stake
Non mining nodes have zero affect on consensus
There is no reason to limit adoption to 1mb of transactions every 10 minutes

>>10574649

Everything you said is either an outright lie or you're an absolute retard.

You don't even understand what the fuck Moore's Law even means. Bandwidth and storage growth are both growing at a rate approximate to Moore's Law.

BCH in it's current form can easily deliver Visa level instant transactions.

>>10574649

>>10574706
man i dont get it. when block size solution for scaling is so simple and easy why are all these projects failing so bad and we have to wait for shit like sharding or plasma or holochain or whatever

who is jewing who here?

>>10574744
>who is jewing who here?
just about everyone

>>10574744
The block limit has created the illusion of a scaling problem which has allowed all the alts to emerge, in reality everything will be done on bch

I dont understand why miners didnt just mine bigger blocks core and blockstream dont actually have any say in what miners do. They either allowed it to happen to accumulate more or theyre plain stupid

>>10574744
The fear is that as block sizes increase, the computational power needed to create new blocks will be so high it will centralize power into the hands of few.
Of course they never mention the other ways BTC has fallen into the hands of a small elite like Blockstream but whatever.

>>10574744
Follow the money.
You didn't think they'd just give up and accept that they lost did you?

>>10574884
i dont give a shit about this aslong as they pump it to 50k$

nobody on planet earth needs or wants fucking crypto to pay for a coffee. what kind of hipster meme is this?

only monero is useful as a cryptocurrency for obvious goods.

>>10574832
http://archive.is/loBrv
That's why

>>10574850
several things are wrong with this post

>>10574884
nigger DCG was pushing S2X you're all mixed up with your conspiracy theory

>>10574905
The point was never buying coffee. The point is if you can't use it to buy coffee, you can't use it to buy anything.

>>10574925
you're a moron and don't know how any of this works

>>10574915
What better way to get segwit in the face of 90%+ miner opposition than with a bait and switch attack with "apparent" allies? Faction A plays the hard line and says outright they'll never compromise, Faction B makes the compromise that will only take affect after faction A gets what they want, Faction A gets what they want, Faction B backs out "because there's no consensus", then...

>>10574583
The only people getting paid are the blockstream core shills

Satoshi works at nchain and develops Bitcoin (BCH)

>>10574936
you can't think a deal between a miner and some businesses made behind closed doors is good for bitcoin

>>10574936
also voorhees business model relies on big blocks it's a nobrainer why he was opposed but oh extrapolate your conspiracy through 1 tweet

>>10574956
Humans are irrelevant.

>>10574850
Completely wrong. Difficulty changes to maintain 10 minute blocks

The fear blockstream promoted is that there will be less non mining nodes with larger blocksizes, which isnt actually a problem because bitcoin is proof of work not proof of stake.

>>10574970
where in the white paper is the EDA abused several times

where does it say the weaker chain with less work is valid
it doesn't but you conveniently ignore that

>>10574969
His business is effectively an altcoin exchange, shattering the momentum and consensus contained in a functional unified Bitcoin into thousands of pieces makes his business much, much more valuable.

>>10574387
>Is it true that satoshi said in whitepaper
If only there were some way to find out

>>10574980
This is a good case for why BCH isn't Bitcoin.
It's not a good case for why BTC is.

>>10574983
you missed the point
I'm done posting here you people are fucking idiots
you make this thread everyday and get btfo while your shitcoin alt crashes under 10%

>>10574996

http://cryptocoinjunky.com/mt-gox-creditors-prepare-claims-for-bitcoin-repayments/

>MtGox
>3: Claims for return of bitcoins (BTC) will be repaid in BCH.

L O L. I'm all in on Bitcoin Cash but this can't be true?!

>>10574693
>You don't even understand what the fuck Moore's Law even means. Bandwidth and storage growth are both growing at a rate approximate to Moore's Law.
Wrong, internet speeds and storage do not double every 2 years or so. There's developed countries where internet speeds have barely improved in a decade. You could centralize it in datacenters but you would then just have a slower ripple clone with higher fees thanks to miners.

>>10575474
https://news.bitcoin.com/lightning-network-centralization-leads-economic-censorship/

the only legit thing to be said is that people invested in making a fork of btc in hopes of generating money from it by stealing its name and an excuse for "features" nobody care about
that goes for the entire crypto market, not even eth is an exception, it will just get eventually merged into btc

btc is already a high risk investment
buy bitcoin if you feel lucky and if you feel a unholy shitload of luck within you, and only then, play with shitcoins

>>10575474

you're a fucking pajeet. Moore's law is in fact still valid for both internet speeds and storage.

Go have a look at the latest storage devices coming onto the market or the new specs for wireless data transmission.

Countries that haven't upgraded their infrastructure to accommodate newer technologies has nothing to do with newer technologies emerging, it has to do with politicals and economics you fucking mong.

Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin and no matter what kind of fucking retarded FUD you can spit out will defend you kiked 1 FUCKING MEGABYTE shitcoin, BTC has no fucking future.

>>10575557

You lost your money nigger. And you aint getting it back.

If you dont own at least 1 BTC I dont know what the fuck is wrong with you.

>>10575557
how do the projections of your shitcoin that will replace everything just because it has a random gimmick differ from any other shitcoin

>>10575527

>>10574494
the whitepaper literally says shitcoins such as bcash aren't bitcoin

This is why the world hates kikes. They lie, cheat, steal and are completely parasitical.

>>10574583
I know most of blockstream blind followers are actually retarded, but there is no such thing as infinite transactions, that's a lie you keep repeating because, well, blockstream knows you are stupid enough to copy and paste stupid things without thinking about it.

Stop repeating it, you sound less stupid when you don't.

>>10575581

I don't own any bcore (BTC). I own Bitcoin (BCH) and I have more than one.

>>10575598
so when those lines flip you'll change your mind? as long as you realize that BCH can become bitcoin i won't complain. personally i think there's more to bitcoin than just the most proof-of-work but i respect your viewpoint as long as you come over to BCH as soon as those lines cross

>>10575591
this is insignificant blabbering that doesnt change the status quo

>>10575610

Delusional bagholder.

>>10575600
>blocksize increase is only a matter of disk storage

>>10575630
They will not cross. Also BCash tweaked the EDA, so it can never be Bitcoin.

>>10575598
>>10575634

>>10574970

>>10575677
you seem to be caught in an autistic dream
in the end humans decide everything in crypto

>>10575642

Bagholding what? I own peer-to-peer electronic cash.

If anyone is reading this, step back and look at the non-arguments endlessly repeated by these pajeets. Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin was always supposed to be, peer-to-peer electronic cash.

Bcore (BTC) has been corrupted and aims to be a 'store of value' with no actual mechanism for storing value (aka being an actual currency like BCH)

Bcore is nothing more than a ponzi scheme at this point.

>>10575691
In the sabotaged shitfork that is BTC, yes.

Which is why it will fail.

No one will trust anything more than bitcoin, if bitcoin fails everything else will. period.
yes value is that simple. it's about trust.
ETF is coming for bitcoin not for bcash.
You don't have to give a shit about Satoshi vision you only want to make money.

>>10575692
i feel sorry for the dudes mom

>>10575662
>Also BCash tweaked the EDA, so it can never be Bitcoin.
that's whole point of bitcoin cash, to prevent harmful mindsets like this who stagnate the crypto. upgrades are certainly allowed, in fact they are required or else something different will overtake bitcoin with time. bcash has a lot better EDA now than legacy bitcoin.

im banking on that the lines will cross, you just make sure to remember your own definition of what makes a crypto bitcoin

>>10575750
*meant to write bcash has a lot better Difficulty Adjustment now than legacy bitcoin

>reading this thread where bcore abpes fight bcash niggers holy shit what a circus
Please post more

I wouldn't bet against the NIST
Just read the bottom half of this image if the top half doesn't make sense to you.

bch actually was more popular than btc

..when it didnt even exist lmao

>>10575869
Also IDK how to present this properly yet, but some others have been passing that picture I just posted around for a while, months at least, and just a few days ago CSW tweets this.
...
same exact sentence is highlighted.
what does it show?

>>10575910
the future is more important than the present or the past.

>>10575920
you dont define the future, "the future" is the whole premise of the shitcoins

>>10575929
The future will go to whichever coin gets worldwide adoption.
The crypto market is still tiny, tiny, tiny.

What is BTC doing for adoption?
Stupid. Bad ideas.
Nothing.

BCH is scaling and wants to put coins into people's hands. Wants to be digital cash.
Your arguments will shatter like glass in the vice grip of father time.
Have fun blocking the stream for as long as you can.

>>10575949
at this point you are nothing more than a scam artist
fucking disgusting

>>10575966
Pointillesqueian activation.

The end game is near. Get ready anons

>>10575991
Patiently ready.

>>10575966
Bitcoin Cash is what got me in love with anarcho-capitalism.
Sad that our community got perverted to get-rich-quick ponzi.
Hoping that we succeed in igniting spark of excitement within 3rd world countries that really need cheap and lightning fast transactions daily.

Bitcoin Cash is what got me in love with anarcho-capitalism back in 2011
Sad that our community got perverted into get-rich-quick ponzi.

Hoping that we succeed in igniting spark of excitement within 3rd world countries, they really need cheap and lightning fast transactions daily.

>>10574832
>They either allowed it to happen to accumulate more or theyre plain stupid

That's exactly what happened though. Bitmain would be one of the largest holders of BCH. The miners knew that LN is vapour ware and Segwit is a chain destroying trojan horse. Most people who knew the tech got nearly 20/1 BCH for BTC the day after the fork.

And they are happy with their investment already not only because it has outperformed BTC but because it will continue to.

>>10576018
Epic

>>10575966
You r Rkd m9

>>10576116
I was going to ask what that image was that you posted, but if you want to keep it off the chans that's fine too. It looked interesting though.

>>10576116
>make coin that multiplies your wealth like mad in the early stages because of limited supply and low starting price
>surprised it turned into a get rich quick ponzi
ancaps are not the brightest bunch

>>10574387
The bottom line is that BCH is a fork which failed. BTC is Bitcoin and all it actually takes is people to agree that change need to be made and fork it. People did not agree which is why BCH fell by the wayside. BTC has had several successful forks up until now.

If BTC needs to be changed it requires consensus. It was not reached which is why BCH is just an alt instead of the new chain. That is the simple fact of all of this. Blockstream being kikes doesn't mean a good god damn if miners agree to fork it to fuck everyone else over. Yet here we are.

>>10576277
Thanks for asking :)
>>10576339
Im not suprised how things went, merely pointing out that getting rich quick was not the intial spirit.
Many shared most their profits for common good entities then, as cash for ecosystem to develop.
Gavin wrote nice article about early adaptors and their general wealth:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/not-as-many-as-you-think
This one is in finnish, Malmi could have been billionaire but settled for comfy apartment in Espoo...
https://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/bitcoinin-suomalaiskehittajalla-oli-hallussaan-miljardipotti---vahan-joskus-harmittelee/h66wdaCf

>>10576400
>The bottom line is that BCH is a fork which failed.
nigga what
>BTC has had several successful forks up until now.
difference is in the past different cryptos forked away from BTC. the fork changed.

with BCH it stayed the same and BTC was the one that changed.

>>10574387
>>10574484
>>10574494
>>10574523
>>10574538
>>10574548
>>10574583
>>10574585

this is Satoshi
>>10576461

>>10576629
Kek that's an interesting image.
I'll repost it here.

>>10576471
the spirit, ideology or feelings are irrelevant. It started at like $0.01. A couple millions in and its now $1, you 100x your money. What the fuck did you expect would happen?

>>10576400

BCH isn't a fork and it hasn't failed at all, it's growing strongly. BCH is the real Bitcoin and as such the entire value proposition of crypto revolves around it.

BTC used to be Bitcoin until it forked to Bcore with segwit in 2017

>>10576698
Looks like he used to be a bit chubbier and with facial hair.
Dunno why the communist hat though.

>>10575557
>you're a fucking pajeet. Moore's law is in fact still valid for both internet speeds and storage.
The transistor density of networks and hard drives has been doubling every 2 years? Network speeds are not constrained by the density of transistors you cashlet halfwit.

>>10575557
> bcash is bitcoin
AHHAHAHHAHA deluded bcashies AHAHAHAHAHAHHA

>>10575610
hahahahahahah your centralized shitcoin is ~9% of Bitcoin's value + hashrate and yet you think your shitcoin is Bitcoin.... AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>10575750
> you just make sure to remember your own definition of what makes a crypto bitcoin
Bitcoin is the longest chain (whilst considering difficulty) ... dipshit.

>Guys im new i want to learn
>Here are a bunch of r/btc talking points tho

>>10574850
Because it's not like people don't totally mine as parts of pools already :D

>>10576732
Listen to this desperate bcash faggit

It's not growing when it's declining in price + hashrate over Bitcoin ... this is called A DYING SHITCOIN

>>10576864
The attempt to pump it above 0.1 failed, so they're back here to shill more, not that it will work.

>>10574622
This screenshot says nothing of the sort you moron.

>>10576580
>with BCH it stayed the same and BTC was the one that changed
deluded moron

Bcash hard forked, hence why it's a different ticket, different name.

The state of bcashies ...hold your shitcoin until 2020 pls, it'll be worth $60 each

>>10576864
> It is official, BCH is below 0.1 BTC
> Looks like a great opportunity to buy more
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHHAHHA
AKAUJAHAHSDAJS HAHAHHAHAHHA
LMFAOOOO AHAHHAHAHAHA

fucking typical bcashies, no different to the braindead nanoites

> it's dying
> buy more

>>10575662
EDA made Bitcoin (BCH) immune to chain death. It's good. Meanwhile bcore has introduced retarded level shit like RBF and side chains and layers

>>10576924
>hurr durr Bitcoin is the true Bitcoin because the ticker said so
Explain how BCH is not the original when that chain goes back to 2009 and BTC only goes back to 2017.

>>10576967
you're a deluded brainwashed retard, no point in trying to explain anything to you. go back to plebbit echo chamber and ask your faggit friends in /r/btc

>>10576831
This picture singlehandedly BTFOs all the BCASH shills and their failed fork, while at the same time proves the notion that most of those shills are getting paid.

>>10576967
its on the pic you braindead cashie >>10576831
>the longest chain, which has the greatest PoW effort invested in it
does bcash has the greatest PoW effort invested in it? no it doesnt retard

>>10577068
It soon might because of big blocks. Miners love them.

>>10577341

>>10577341
>miners love them
no they dont, deluded cashie. They love money and will mine whatever's more profitable big blocks or not

>>10577415
The bottom line is, if miners wanted to change BTC, they'd fork it and move on to the fork. BCH has literally 0% chance of ever becoming BTC, which is why it's a failed fork.

>>10576967
>Explain how BCH is not the original when that chain goes back to 2009 and BTC only goes back to 2017.

Sorry, but you got your facts wrong. Take a version before SegWit of bitcoind, and sync it. Look at newest block. It will be a BTC block.

All the pictures on r/btc about the BTC/BCH forks are wrong. On the first of August, BCH was created continuing with a block found on the BTC blockchain, but changing the consensus rules drastically (different EDA). Nearly a month later, SegWit activated.

So at least for the time from 2017-08-01 until SegWit activated, BCH can't be Bitcoin. That's because Bitcoin just continued on, a minority of the hashrate split off, and they just mined a coin with different, Bitcoin consensus breaking rules.

These facts are irrefutable, which is why some of the (few) technically minded people in r/btc do not consider BCH Bitcoin, but a superior fork of Bitcoin.

>>10577341
Big blocks have nothing to do with PoW. You do not need more PoW for more transactions. PoW adjusts according to how many blocks were found during a given timeframe to keep the rate the same. You could mine empty blocks or blocks with 100,000 transactions: No difference in PoW is caused by that

>>10576924
>Bcash hard forked, hence why it's a different ticket, different name.
yeah but BTC has changed from what is bitcoin, BCH stayed the same. this is why BCH can say that they are bitcoin.
i can't explain it in simpler terms

>>10577470
>These facts are irrefutable, which is why some of the (few) technically minded people in r/btc do not consider BCH Bitcoin, but a superior fork of Bitcoin.
Yeah but those people don't consider LN Segwitcoin Bitcoin either, and BCH is closer to Bitcoins original design

>>10577905
Read the white paper you fucking retard. I can't believe someone like you does not choke on his food and die. Do you also have to breathe consciously?

>>10574387
>can we have a legit discussion biz? BTC VS BCH
Sure

$6,961.05 vs $692.33, end of discussion

>>10575644
kek and also 100% true

>>10574909
enlighten me
faggot

>>10574969
pretty much every business model based on bitcoin is better with big blocks except what shitstream is doing.

>>10575662
>the difficulty algorithm is the most important part of bitcoin

>>10577905
could you be anymore pathetic and thick?

BTC is the same as it was, hence why it wasn't the one to do a HARD-fork, it was BCASH that HARD-forked. And BCASH did not stay the same, all it did was revert some commits and that's it, it's a shitcoin that's gone backwards rather than forwards. Increasing the blocksize IS NOT a permanent solution you stupid faggot, go ask Roger Fag, he even said himself, IT'S A TEMPORARY SOLUTION.

Moron kys.

>>10578511
>Satoshi is god and whatever he or his whitepaper said is the final word on what Bitcoin is unless it means BCH isn't Bitcoin then it is stupid nonsense we can ignore
The absolute state

>>10577908
Then they are idiots. The only potential problem with the SegWit soft fork was the possibility of a chain split, and that didn't happen. Which was obvious, because basically everybody signalled to uphold the new SegWit rules. In a way, the SegWit soft fork was even less problematic than any hard fork in the history of Bitcoin in that regard.

Fucking normies that haven't read the actual code shouldn't talk about stuff they have zero clue about. Trying to guess what technically minded people might think won't get you far.

>honest discussion with Coreans

Lurker here - we all know PoW is an energy hog, so will the larger BCH block sizes make PoW even more of an energy hog? Or does that not matter?

>>10578791
PoW coins with a larger mining reward will have higher energy costs. Increasing the block size means each on chain transaction will require less energy.

>>10578791
It does not matter whatsoever.

The blocks hash is calculated across the hash of all transactions sequentially PLUS a nonce value which gets changed until the difficulty is appropriate. So the larger blocks really just affect network propagation but that is soon to be given a 10x improvement in Graphene.

What's in the pipeline for segwit coin?

>>10577929
>>10578601
1. It is August 2017.
2. A fork happens.
3. Afterwards BTC changed.
4. BCH stayed true to the original vision.

>>10578683
>Then they are idiots.
>The only potential problem with the SegWit soft fork was the possibility of a chain split, and that didn't happen.
Says a Segwit coin shill in a thread about
a chain split they say didn't happen
Dig up stupid

I dont really care I just care about which one will get the ETF because that one will also be the safe haven when fiat currencies are go full weimar.

>>10579116

and BTC will get it you faggot h0m0s
all that matters is the brand. else you might as well just use digibite

>>10578791

Energy use becomes more efficient with small blocks, along with that, less energy is used because transaction fees are not artifically inflated to the fucking sky (resulting in more investment in miners and hence electricity to soak up those excessive transaction fees).

>>10579196

I mean to say large blocks lol. Energy use becomes far more efficient with large blocks. Small blocks are a perversion to the reward system for businesses investing in mining and ultimately results in the blockchain being overmined, especially as the halvenings continue through the next few 4 year cycles

What the fuck is buttcoin going to do when mining rewards halve? They can't have the transaction thoroughfare to incentive miners. Only BCH has the possibility of that

>>10579116
>>10579135
I was searching twitter a few weeks ago for "bch etf" and I saw a tweet that said "just got back from new york, whispers of a bch etf"

can't find it now though.. got pulled/deleted or something dunno.

This one is still up though.
No idea who this guy is, probably just some bizlet
I think the ETF talk is mainly hopium
we'll see what happens tho

>>10579402
they claim it is a store of value so they hope the asset bubble never stops

>>10578601
>Hard fork

I bet you think soft forks are optional too.

>>10579463

Bitcoin is a terrible store of value. It can't handle high volume.

>>10579443
Oh I found it
Is this some pajeet larper posting from china using an israeli vpn through the bancor network on the ETH blockchain tokenized on the Blockstream lightning network???

>>10578974
That's what I get for talking to people who have not enough technical background, I guess.

>>Then they are idiots.
>>The only potential problem with the SegWit soft fork was the possibility of a chain split, and that didn't happen.
>Says a Segwit coin shill in a thread about
a chain split they say didn't happen
>Dig up stupid

Don't confuse BCH creation with the potential for a chain split when the SegWit soft-fork activated. First BCH was created on top of a BTC block on the 1st of August 2017. The normal BTC network did not care.

Somewhere around the end of August, SegWit activated. It is a soft fork, so the only reason why it could split the network would be unupdated nodes creating a block that does not conform to the STRICTER new rules introduced with SegWit. This did not happen, and was unlikely to happen because nearly everybody signalled SegWit AND because you have to actually try really hard to break the stricter rules introduced with SegWit (basically mine a SegWit transaction which would be considered non-standard (ruling out most pools) AND not checking the signatures of that tx). And anybody doing that intentionally would already know that the network would abandon their block because of singaling.

This is Bitcoin. If you want to argue, get to know the technical background, don't trust anyone, and read the fucking code. It's not THAT hard, even if it is C++.

>>10579782
It's called a soft-fork because a chain-split CANNOT happen due to the method of the implementation, YOU DUMB FUCK.

It is OPTIONAL.

Fucking bcashies.

>>10579818
>implying anyone likes softforks

>>10579782
BCH was created at the genesis block in 2009 LOL
>Even if it's C++
BCH plz I was programming in Verilog when you were shitting in pampers

>>10579818
You are wrong. A chain split can happen with a soft fork, which is why it was important that SegWit had near unanimous support by miners.

What do you think happens when a SegWit P2PKW transaction WITHOUT the witness part is mined in an old block?
Without the witness, it is basically just a push of some non-zero values, making it an anyone-can-spend to old nodes. But those specific pushes are recognizable as a SegWit tx by newer nodes, which can then complain about hte missing witness. So naturally, SegWit nodes HAVE TO orphan the block if it contains such a tx. This causes a chain split if it happens (it didn't, though). If 60% of the hashrate hadn't updated and someone had created such a block, the split would have been potentially permanent, even.

I dislike BCH, and I think it is a huge scam orchestrated by some miners and supported by some bagholders that usually don't know what they are talking about. But technical details do matter.

>>10579974
C++ is still not a good language if you want to have a code base that everybody can just read and understand. Add the abysmal amount of comments in the codebase of bitcoind to that, and reading the essential code parts becomes a little bit more difficult than reading something written in a less obscure language.

nopthing matter except TA

its all just speculatory except for how they are used on the black market whcih is super illegal xDdd

>Satoshi holds a million bitcoins
>He is simply waiting for the dumbass globalists to make it "their" coin
>Will dump on them when it's over $100k and announce BCH is the real bitcoin
>Roger Ver, and Jihan both know this which is why they still hold a significant amount of BTC
>Jihan could simply end Core if he wanted to due to his company having a complete monopoly over mining, essentially owning Bitcoin's network.
>Operation Dragon Fire or breath or whatever is a real thing, people just timed it all wrong and is in fact a long term strategy to usurp the wealthy elite.

>>10579782
You are totally wasting your time. BCH shills are subhuman and more delusional than than you can comprehend. You aren't going to successfully convince them of anything because they are either brainwashed or paid.

>>10580573

>Corecuck calling anyone subhuman

>>10580573
If nobody does this, even the reasonable, technical people with no clue about Bitcoin will be scammed. It's not super easy to get into the details, and the details matter in this case. I'd be a BCH supporter if I hadn't sat down and spent many hours finding out what people are actually saying, and what of it is technically valid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-sMbf2OzOY

This short video clip did an excellent job explaining what has happened on BTC with Blockstream.

>>10580528
>Jihan could simply end Core if he wanted to due to his company having a complete monopoly over mining, essentially owning Bitcoin's network.

This is the reason an ETF will never happen.

>>10580771
could still happen as long as all exchanges make the switch. miners will follow whatever exchanges do or they are mining something they cant trade.

>i keep having to point this out to people

>>10574649
>I hedge BTC with BTC futures shorts
You ex-forex traders are the gypsies of bitcoin

>>10574905
I want to pay with crypto for fucking everything

>>10574941
no

>>10575527
>btc is already a high risk investment
1bitcoin = 1bitcoin nigga

>>10575581
You own more than 1bitcoin how adorable

>>10576580
BCH changed the EDA because it knew it couldn't survive by sticking the the white paper, fucked it up by having miners stripmine it, changed the EDA again to one block adjustments which is an admission it needs special help to survive. It's like wanting to fuck a girl with downs cos you know that's all you'll get.

>>10580881
>as long as all exchanges make the switch
Seems likely lads

>>10574603
>get people accustomed to the idea of off-chain transactions
off chain transaction is fine o long settlement is on chain. nothing inherently wrong with it. and who's to say the same miners that vote for 1mb block will not change their mind in the future?

>>10581692
I'm just saying that if you convince the exchanges to make the switch Bitmain (Johan) can keep on mining as much as they wants on the old chain but he'd have no teeth. Miners don't really hold the power. Of course Bitmain can always start their own exchange or bribe/influence other exchanges to not make the switch.

>>10581675
regardless BCH has better difficulty adjustment than BTC now

Please give me dogecoins donation DS1QxG783cDMnpqwfvZT7y9bh6Zdo2j8pf

>>10574387
just read the whitepaper. it's not that long
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

>>10581737
>better
>literally an admission of weakness
Haha!

>>10574905
I dont give a shit what medium of exchange I use. Just as long as my wealth cant be inflated into nothing.

Bought bitcoin before Aug 2017 I own both still. If BCH gets to .05 of bitcoin im selling. I should have sold at 2k+ but im hoping for another run when all the shit gets pumped again.

BCH exists and scaled the way they wanted it to. Why cant I buy shit from amazon with it or at a grocery store or at a coffee shop. Is this blockstreams fault to. Colluding with amazon to keep businesses from actually using one crypto over another.

>>10581773
I don't understand, sorry.

>>10581789
If you're in it for the long term (5 years or more) I'd keep on to those BCH. I wouldn't sell at 2k unless of course you have enough BCH that selling at that point do make a big impact in your life.

>>10581789
Yes that's exactly it. Caseking.de and Newegg take BCH for computer parts so there's that... Plus many others using Bitcoin as P2P cash

I want to buy link but do not understand one question and everywhere I look they just say "it is because of the way decentralization is set up"...my question is why cant blockchains access data outside their network? Does anyone have a real technical answer for this?

In this video sergey himself states "you should look into it but for the sake of this talk we are going to assume that blockchains can not talk to external data feeds"...but why?

https://youtu.be/nMlpTgxKtAY

It is always due to the nature of the blockchain is the only answer I can find.

>>10581835
Yah like I said if it actually gets to .05 im selling. That is my capitulation point.

>>10581835
Difficulty adjustment was every 2016 blocks so if a coin forked, and one of the chains couldn't survive 2016 blocks it would just die. Having one every block is an admission that you're shit and nobody likes you but you feel entitled to a place in the world anyway. Pathetic.

>>10581899
AHAHAHA get fucked bcashies. yall so desperate you try everything in your power to have a meaning, but it doesn't matter what you do, bcash will always be a centralized shitcoin

>>10581839
it is not hard to understand. If they can look outside, consensus (i.e. which blocks are deemed valid) is unobtainable because other nodes might access the same data/URL but receive different data. So the data source can split the chain at will if it gives out conflicting data to different nodes.

Being able to split the chain makes it easily attackable with less hash/PoS power. (Just for it again, and again, and again)

>>10581899
uh ok now i get your way of thinking but it's pretty weird. it's not like someone would ever copy the repository and then go "darn it, looks like i don't have the hashrate of a thousand miner farms. wish i had thought this through before forking, guess ill just stop now"

>>10582293
You are confusing forking a software project with forking a blockchain/causing a chain split.

The 2016 blocks difficulty adjustment was a way to stop minority forks from becoming usable. If you were to split the Bitcoin chain with only 5% of the hashpower by changing the consensus rules on your mining node somehow (let's say your give yourself 50 coins, not 12.5), then you and everybody who wants to play by those rules will chose to mine that chain.

However, because the difficulty of the PoW algorithm is so high and doesn't drop low very fast, your new cryptocurrency won't be very useful at first. It will take 20 times longer to find a block than on the previous combined chain, so only about 7 blocks PER DAY instead of 144 (5% is 1/20 of 100%. 100% of the hashrate finds about 144 blocks per day if the hashrate hasn't changed since the last difficulty )adjustment)

Now obviously, the split off part could also have a different DA algorithm right from the start, circumventing that problem. But changing the DA algorithm as a very contentious change because it protects the network from people risking splits or forking off the coin pretending to be the original ("We upgraded Bitcoin, but somehow everybody else forgot to upgrade. Use our chain. Oh snap, it's unusable")

Sorry that this seems anti-BCH, but you can look up discussions about the difficulty adjustment on bitcointalk from 2009-2013 or something, way before SegWit was even planned, and see that this has always been discussed this way.

>>10583212
Addendum: That additional security from the 2016 blocks DA isn't a very hard security guarantee, btw. It just makes it a little less reasonable to attemp to change the consensus rules without being absolutely certain that your changes will be welcomed by nearly all miners because a split will essentially hurt both.

In the case of multiple coins with SHA256 PoW, having the old DA might actually cause a few more problems, just like fluctuating hashrate and thus block times because miners might change wildly between chains, especially when difficulty just rose. Personally I still think the DA change for BCH was a poor choice, especially because they botched it and 100,000 coins were created too fast because of it. They fixed that bug a few weeks later, however.

If you ever wondered why there are 90,000 more BCH than BTC in current circulation (see coinmarketcap), this is the reason. The EDA of BCH had a bug that could be exploited to mine blocks way too fast.

>>10575848
>this lmoa

>>10579402
add decimal places, so the reward keeps going on

Just got here, can I get a TL;DR?

>>10574744
All these shitty alts have the wrong idea of what a blockchain is supposed to do. You have ETH to blame for setting this precedent. Complex mathematical operations and logic loops are not meant to be completed onchain, this is what conjests the network.

Bitcoin is a public ledger, that is all. You can use it to store any information you like, including "proof of excecution" which can accomplish everything ETH can do with magnitudes less bloat.

I have 50 bch that ive held basically from sept till now. Can someone tell me wat to do?

>>10581839
Garbage in Garbage out

>>10584243
Give 1 to me

>>10574929
Fiat is to LN as Gold is to Bitcoin.

>>10584243
u better just hodl them until we find out what the fug is going on in the crypto space
u got free money, just hold.

Hashrate follows price, price follows speculation, speculation on what will be the future of currency. BTC has shown that it can't work for large numbers of TXs in a short amount of time, BCH has shown exactly that it can handle that (https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.html, BCH TX numbers exceeded peak BTC TX numbers during preliminary stress test software testing by community members) and will show it again during the September 1st stress test where the goal will be 5 million TXs in a day. Almost 10 times BTC's peak daily TX count from December, all while fees stay under 1 cent, and not upwards of $50 like BTC during peak times.

Eventually speculation runs dry as reality doesn't live up to it. BCH scales and it works today, and it will work tomorrow, and will continue working with sub cent fees while millions use it.

>LN scales
No, it doesn't. Even Andreas Antonopoulos, the pro BTC authority everyone likes to point to admits this.

>>10585563
BCH IS CENTRALIZED

the answer is that in the future there will still be a whole new crypto that reins supreme in regards of total number of transactions

at some point governments will play ugly and the core dev guys will be corrupted and then the new winner emerges

>>10586618
Nope, the answer is that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin and the only hope the world has is with the Bitcoin brand.

>>10586618
>BCH IS CENTRALIZED
People keep saying it, yet many different miners mine it. If BCH is centralized then so is BTC. Not a good argument.

>>10587230
>>10587151
I ALREADY SAID BTC IS ALSO BUT NOT AS MUCH AS BCH WHICH IS CHINK J000$

THE REAL CRYPTO KING WILL EMERGE AFTER THE GREAT DELUGE, PREPARE ANGUS

>>10587254
Kay.

>>10587288
k

>>10587291
In my view, it's not a technological issue that needs solving, it's an economics and incentive issue. One that I think Bitcoin, actual Bitcoin, already has solved. The great deluge will indeed sweep out the crap.

>>10587315
>the crap

yeah like bitcoin

2-5 years from now there will be something new aand batter than them all and there will be a whole new wave of crap

bitcoin is just not the real king UNLESS it canb adapt and become immune to governments.. it's only surviving now because the market cap is realtiveily low and they are scared of wiping it out too early

the other option is that BTC ironically becomes the global currency of the illuminati

>>10587331
People keep wanting some system that gives power to the people or some nonsense. Bitcoin works because it's competitive, and because it actually works as currency, unlike BTC at high volume of TXs. You're not going to have some system that is 100% immune to all gov'ts suddenly deciding it's illegal. The only way to win is to provide a service that is useful and that different entities compete over to get their slice of the pie. Decentralized in the way that automotives and smart phone production are, the same way actual mining companies are. There are big players, but they don't hold all the cards. Disruption happens and new players take the top spot.

People keep wanting to insert their communism into crypto. It's Capitalist or it doesn't work, same as the real world. No amount of tech "solves" that, it's not a tech issue.

>>10587360
meh i kind of agree but i just think a more decentralized system could be even MORE COMPETITIVE

maybe it's enough decentralization for now but it could be done better

tbqh none of us really know the long term future but we do know that there are tons of opportunities ahead of us

and btw you should never put all your eggs in one basket.. this isn't apple vs google... linux is the best neways but the point is that you want a DIVERSE and hedged portfolio if you plan on hanging onto any value long term

>>10587391
>>10587391
In my opinion, proof of work is the best one can ever hope for. It's exactly fair(do 10% of the work, get 10% of the reward), and it cannot be faked. Proof of stake gets centralized 100% over time as the rich get richer and risk nothing to do so. You eventually must trust the oligarchy of richest nodes, 0 chance of disrupting their hold on the chain.

For PoW miners to do the same, they have to actually purchase something, the hardware, the electricity, they have to sink funds they cannot get back unless they do the work. They have skin in the game to outcompete the competition and push the tech further, and the top dog can be replaced by any new tech breakthrough. I wonder how many of the top miners from 2013 are still top now?

Every other system that attempts to punish or redistribute any perceived centrality is gameable. It might have 7 or 700 extra complicated sounding steps that make it sound like it works, but human ingenuity that would otherwise go into making a better ASIC gets put into finding whatever loopholes the devs couldnt think of. If it doesn't reduce to a PoW or PoS system, it always ends in a system that you can sybil.

Idk how to emphasize how important it is that PoW can't be faked. There's no way to game the system, you HAVE to put in the effort if you want to compete.

>and btw you should never put all your eggs in one basket
Couldn't agree more :)

>>10587315
Bitcoin (BTC) has a much better claim at solving some of the incentive problems.

It is clear that "free" blockchain space will always be used, there is no limit to th demand as soon as Bitcoin really takes off. This is pretty self-evident if we look at other technologies, but examples are not hard to come by.

Bitcoin (BTC) also creates a much better incentive for miners to mine it. Fees mean that a similarly large clone of Bitcoin is the worse economic decision, mining wise. Thus Bitcoin miners can use more energy to secure a block, because they are paid more. Note that I am not arguing for $50 fees, such levels are ridiculous and only happen because it's hard to upgrade such a system. But instead of only being paid the minimum ($0,005 per BCH transaction?), the price might be $0,02 or $0,10 during high usage. While not perfect, I'd rather have a more secure chain than clones being able to trivially attack BTC.

Additionally, BTC has LN. And LN has great new incentives for transaction propagation, which could become a big problem for the normal Bitcoin network. It is already not very cheap to run a Bitcoin node (my server requires one core at 70% to run bitcoind and relay stuff), and relaying transactions does not reward the node operator in any way. Even a miner has no real interest in relaying transactions, although receiving them is nice, of course.

With LN, this problem is solved: Relaying transactions actually earns you fees based on how many Satoshi are transacted. Those fees are really small, but can be enough to pay for the extra energy expenditure of running a LN wallet/node. And if you want to use LN, you are obviously incentiviced to relay transactions because it will cause other people to keep their channels open with you.

>>10587543
i just don't see how this fucking thing could work in real life
i go to a coffee shop read the qr code of my order and try to pay through my provider which tries to route the payment via ln and i get a fluctuating fee portion of the payment depending on which route it can take at the moment? than i press pay and it say oh sorry that route is no longer valid try again!
fucking hell.

>>10587633
what i mean is wherever i would want to pay with ln the seller would also accept cc which charges him about 5-6% for every transaction and he has already worked this into the price.

so just about almost always in a realistic scenario the seller should take the transaction cost. but he will only do that if he can be sure it stays well within the accepted percentage say 3%.

>>10587543
LN reduces to PoS. The fewer hops you need, the less you pay. Incentive system is set up to connect to highly connected, highly liquid nodes who can afford to have many open channels. You stake your coins to open channels and collect your fees. The rich get richer, centralizes heavily over time.

As for fee incentive for Bitcoin, eventually the block reward runs out. You either get onchain adoption or the chain dies, no way around that. If you get onchain adoption, true adoption, having billions of TXs a day starts to pay big money even if the fees are minuscule. Would you rather thousands of TXs for a high fee and a ceiling on user growth, or minuscule fees with room for unbounded growth? The latter becomes much more profitable over time. As it stands now, the block reward is the main carrot the miners are chasing.

Miners have incentive to connect directly to nodes that relay TXs, say Coinbase. Any miner who decides they want to relay TXs to other miners will have other miners want to connect to them, which is beneficial for when the miner solves a block, he will be able to relay that block quickly to all other miners connected to him(It doesn't matter that you find a block, it matters that everyone knows you found a block). Eventually all miners connect directly to all other miners, and all relay TXs to each other. Bitcoin works as a highly connected small world graph. It's incentivized to be that way.

LN is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, while completely fucking the incentive system, turning BTC into a PoS coin, and taking BTC down a path that leads to chain death as adoption happens off chain.

>>10587654
but then comes an other cold shower what if the seller can't accept bitcoins (laws accounting rules whatever)? what if his provider is converting usd price to bitcoins and you have to pay the provider via ln. then you got an other issue the provider will convert your btc on spot either causing a really fluctuating price once again or a very very nasty conversion ratio that puts banks to shame.

so you want to pay for a cup of coffee and the usd price is fix but none of the btc exchange rate or the transaction cost is fix but rapidly floating...

this is basically everything how money and payment shouldn't act. it is unacceptable.

>>10587633
LN isn't super easy to understand, sorry.

You get a QR code. Your wallet scans it, shows you a price and fee, you say yes. if it doesn't work, your wallet shows you another price and fee if it's not completely broken.

Congratulations, you have paid instantly. You could have just tried out LN by now, by the way.

If the payment fails permanently, do an onchain-tx, or another solution that has yet to be implemented in wallets. This should only happen very rarely, though.


What one could do in the remaining few % could be something like this: Multisig-Outputs where a provider owns the other key but where you can always get back your money with LN-like smart contracts on-chain. The provider guarantees the merchant will get his money if spent from such an output, even if it is not secured on-chain yet (contractually. Trust between merchant and payment provider required).

After investing some time really digging into LN, I don't believe this second hacky solution will really be needed. This is just an example why LN doesn't even need to function perfectly to be super valuable, as the freed up space allows us more flexibility/black space usage for special cases or on-chain transactions.

>>10587680
>LN reduces to PoS. The fewer hops you need, the less you pay. Incentive system is set up to connect to highly connected, highly liquid nodes who can afford to have many open channels. You stake your coins to open channels and collect your fees. The rich get richer, centralizes heavily over time.

The incentive is to connect to many different nodes because it increases your payment capabilities and reliability of your wallet (big nodes might go offline for a bit, too).

Additionally, running a hot wallet with lots of money on LN is dangerous. You'll easily be found out and potentially hacked.

In my opinion, the LN incentive model is pretty great. People who want to use LN also support LN via routing and benefit from that directly through fees and their channels being kept open. This also means that they can ask for very low fees, because to them, the price of opening channels and maintaining them is something they have to pay anyway to use LN.

Compare that to someone with a lot of money who wants to earn money through LN. They have high expenditures for their 'central hub', so they need to increase fees, but if they do that, people will route around them.

I find the claim that LN reduces Bitcoin to PoS ridiculous. Running a node costs money. Keeping it secure if it's a big node costs even more money. This is completely different than PoS, where owning something just allows you to get money for nothing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/72muxl/lightning_hubs_will_probably_need_amlkyc/

>>10587689
>Congratulations, you have paid instantly.
at the hundredth click if the routes and fees change rapidly all depends on the topology and the participants attitude. ln does not provide a framework for this at all. it just provides the lower layers.

>>10587738
>The incentive is to connect to many different nodes because it increases your payment capabilities and reliability of your wallet (big nodes might go offline for a bit, too).
Nodes go offline and suddenly you can't route anymore, can't even receive funds if you go offline. Why is this a feature? This is a step backwards from Bitcoin.

>Additionally, running a hot wallet with lots of money on LN is dangerous. You'll easily be found out and potentially hacked.
Sounds like a great feature

>This also means that they can ask for very low fees, because to them, the price of opening channels and maintaining them is something they have to pay anyway to use LN.
But
>Running a node costs money
So which is it? Does it cost lots to run a node or will I keep my fees low? Which grows faster, the ability to connect cheaply or the cost of TX relay?

>Keeping it secure if it's a big node costs even more money
So the more money you have the less secure it is? Is my security based on me being poor enough to not bother with?

>This is completely different than PoS, where owning something just allows you to get money for nothing.
No, it isn't. PoS still relays TXs. LN is PoS ontop of Bitcoin, draining fees from the base layer. 1MB blocks are a subsidy for PoS LN.

I wish you luck with the LN science experiment. I will stick with the Bitcoin system that worked for the first 9 years of its existence, and continues to work on BCH.

>>10587812
If what you are saying is true, why do you think the current system works much better than that? All nodes are run by the illuminati, who keep the fees low and non-fluctuating enough so that payments can be done now, but not later?

>>10587842
>Nodes go offline and suddenly you can't route anymore, can't even receive funds if you go off...
It's just what can happen, and why your other point is bullshit. Accept this and don't bring up your stupid point above without proper reasoning again. We are discussing one aspect right now, and I will not be dragged further into side battles of "why" and "this is a step backwards", or why other solutions (BCH) are worse. Let's discuss this, the other things can be discussed on their own at a later time. We all have other shit to do besides post on biz.

>Sounds like a great feature
This is the reailty we live in. Online computers/special hotwallet devices can be hacked, but probably won't if not much is to be gained. This is not a feature of anything. Do you cold-storage all your coins? Huge time waste just so you can't lose $50. Not worth it IMO.

>So which is it? Does it cost lots to run a node or will I keep my fees low? Which grows faster, the ability to connect cheaply or the cost of TX relay?
There are costs of running a wallet, but they are small if you are a small node. Basically a few kb of data and a bit of your battery each day if you run the wallet on your smartphone. If you run a huge node and relay thousands of transactions per second, you will need a beefy CPU, more bandwidth, and you might need to think about staying online 24/7. This is why tx relay is basically free for small actors, but a real cost factor for large nodes. And this is why the incentives for running a large hub aren't the best. The better the wallets work and interconnect the network well, the less big nodes provide value to the network.

>So the more money you have the less secure it is? Is my security based on me being poor enough to not bother with?
Targeted attacks are much more likely if you have a lot of money. That is all there is to my argument. Non-targeted attacks through protocol flaws can be fixed.

>>10587859
>why do you think the current system works much better than that?
because it's just a fucking demo with none of the real life issues present when you try to run commerce on it?

>>10587842
>No, it isn't. PoS still relays TXs. LN is PoS ontop of Bitcoin, draining fees from the base layer. 1MB blocks are a subsidy for PoS LN.
You haven't even bothered to reply to my points and just reiterated what you already said. I can't help you.

>I wish you luck with the LN science experiment. I will stick with the Bitcoin system that worked for the first 9 years of its existence, and continues to work on BCH.
The experiment is optional and doesn't endanger Bitcoin in general. If it fails, then it fails.

Compare that to the big block lie of BCH. Just assume big block do centralize the system and allow miners to control it even more so than they already do. BCH as Bitcoin would fuck over everybody.

In my eyes, you can't even call BCH an experiment, because when you just think through the effects of big blocks and broken systems like 0-conf being used by nearly all merchants (until it doesn't work anymore), you can see the impeding doom already.

Luckily BCH won't ever become #1. I'm just sorry for all the non-technical people who fell for the lies.

>>10587958
A demo? You are an idiot. It's being used for commerce on the main chain. You can buy stuff with it, no problem.

If you think there are any unsolvable bottlenecks, please enlighten me. Even the current routing implementation is good for the next few million channels.

>>10581719
>off chain transaction is fine o long settlement is on chain. nothing inherently wrong with it
True, there's nothing inherently wrong with off-chain transactions and most supporters of BCH/big blocks don't have an issue with off-chain transactions.

The problem is when off-chain transactions become the only way to transact. With the 1MB block cap, it soon becomes impossible to use on-chain transactions. That's what the problem is. If we had the allowance for bigger blocks, it would be fine to build and use second layers on top of it, but the people who want to transact on-chain could still do so.

This is what BCH allows.

>>10587927
>It's just what can happen, and why your other point is bullshit. Accept this and don't bring up your stupid point above without proper reasoning again. We are discussing one aspect right now, and I will not be dragged further into side battles of "why" and "this is a step backwards", or why other solutions (BCH) are worse. Let's discuss this, the other things can be discussed on their own at a later time. We all have other shit to do besides post on biz.
Bullshit how? You're grasping at straws.
You say let's discuss this but start the sentence with "It's just what can happen". Okay, it can happen, and I'm saying the fact that it can happen is a step backwards from Bitcoin. If you don't want to talk about it, fine.

>This is the reailty we live in. Online computers/special hotwallet devices can be hacked, but probably won't if not much is to be gained. This is not a feature of anything. Do you cold-storage all your coins? Huge time waste just so you can't lose $50. Not worth it IMO.
If I control the keys, does that make it cold storage? I can spend it pretty damn easily regardless, and don't have to hire a third party watchtower if I happen to ever go offline.

>This is why tx relay is basically free for small actors
But how much? Basically free isn't free, and things reduce in cost as you scale upwards.

>The better the wallets work and interconnect the network well, the less big nodes provide value to the network.
You're describing a mesh network with no central actors. The actual LN network is demonstrably a hub and spoke network with highly connected, highly liquid nodes. You can say it works one way, but the economics and the evidence show otherwise.

>Targeted attacks are much more likely if you have a lot of money. That is all there is to my argument. Non-targeted attacks through protocol flaws can be fixed.
I can put $100 million in a Bitcoin address, and it wont get hacked.

>>10587966
>You haven't even bothered to reply to my points and just reiterated what you already said. I can't help you.
That's not an answer. I made a point and you ignored it.

>The experiment is optional and doesn't endanger Bitcoin in general. If it fails, then it fails.
The experiment is only happening because of an artificial blocksize limit. No one would be working on LN if BTC carried on like it did before hitting the blocksize limit, increasing bloacksize proportionately to the amount of TXs. "but infinite demand for blockspace!" No such thing as infinite demand, sorry.

>Compare that to the big block lie of BCH. Just assume big block do centralize the system and allow miners to control it even more so than they already do. BCH as Bitcoin would fuck over everybody.
And here it is. The scary miners are going to go against every economic incentive to "fuck over everybody", whatever that means.

>In my eyes, you can't even call BCH an experiment, because when you just think through the effects of big blocks and broken systems like 0-conf being used by nearly all merchants (until it doesn't work anymore), you can see the impeding doom already.
All the negative you have to say about BCH was true for BTC for the majority of its lifetime. Clearly you just don't like Bitcoin.

>>10587230
>People keep saying it, yet many different miners mine it. If BCH is centralized then so is BTC. Not a good argument.
BCH is locked down via the nodes, thats why Roger constantly shills against users running full nodes. With BTC users can reject changes by refusing to install new wallets on their nodes. It's not foolproof as if miners opposed users they can stop mining in protest but the mess would be very costly for them. With BCH the majority of all nodes are controlled by a few people, there's no need for consensus Roger can dictate what ever he feels like. I have seen people accusing them of blacklisting nodes attempting to run any version or software they don't approve but I haven't tested it myself.

>>10574693
Made a bch transaction last week
It took 1h

>>10588114
>Bullshit how? You're grasping at straws.
You claim the incentives cause big nodes.

I explain the incentives according to my view.

You "answer" with things completely unrelated to incentives.

Now you are asking again why it is bullshit.

Please show me how you are honestly trying to discuss this here. I'm starting to feel like you are just trying to waste my time.

>If I control the keys, does that make it cold storage? I can spend it pretty damn easily regardless, and don't have to hire a third party watchtower if I happen to ever go offline.
What? I don't even know what you are going on about here. My point was that you are using a computer to send normal transactions, too.

You control your own keys with LN, by the way. Can't you see how you are constantly adding unrelated things to this discussion in an attemp to derail it? First hinting at that you think LN doesn't let you own your own keys, then some watchtower "argument" that you don't flesh out?

>But how much? Basically free isn't free, and things reduce in cost as you scale upwards.
Less than a few cents per month if you aren't a hub? Basically the extra energy it costs you to run the software, and the extra bandwidth it requires to route payments (<1MB).

This doesn't reduce in cost if you scale upwards. A big node needs server hardware, which are costs that a normal user does not have. I know economies of scale, but they do not have to apply if every normal user already has a smartphone, but hub operators need to pay a lot of money to provide their (in your eyes) better service to push out normal wallets in routing.

>>10588156
You're working under a fundamental misunderstanding of a proof of work system. You're touting the benefits of being able to sybil a system, whereas PoW literally makes that obsolete. 1 CPU 1 vote is not the same as 1 user 1 vote. You can fake users, you can't fake PoW.

>BCH is locked down via the nodes, thats why Roger constantly shills against users running full nodes.
This made no sense. Right now, BCH has a higher diversity in node implementations being used. Something like 98% of all BTC nodes run BitcoinCore.

>With BTC users can reject changes by refusing to install new wallets on their nodes.
This also made no sense, that's now how wallets work. Wallets literally just hold your Bitcoin addresses.

>With BCH the majority of all nodes are controlled by a few people, there's no need for consensus Roger can dictate what ever he feels like.
Again, you say BTC works well with its supposed sybil network, and then turn around and say BCH is corrupted by a sybil network. That's not how it works, proof of work cannot be faked.

>I have seen people accusing them of blacklisting nodes attempting to run any version or software they don't approve but I haven't tested it myself.
If you don't follow consensus rules, your invalid TXs or blocks will be rejected, same as BTC.

>Roger Roger Roger
Roger didn't even fully support BCH until S2X failed. He had nothing to do with the hardfork.

>>10588156
Wew lad, you really need to do some reading of your own. Fair enough if you don't agree with BCH/big blocks, but it's painfully obvious you're just parroting things you've been told by other people.

Look into how it all works yourself and then form your own opinion either way on BTC/BCH and Roger Ver (protip: Roger doesn't control anything).

>>10588114
>You're describing a mesh network with no central actors. The actual LN network is demonstrably a hub and spoke network with highly connected, highly liquid nodes. You can say it works one way, but the economics and the evidence show otherwise.
Guess we are looking at different networks, then. Having a few shops with many direct connections does not make LN hierarchical. It is very interconnected, and users often have more than a few channels. And it looks like it can only become better in the future.

>That's not an answer. I made a point and you ignored it.
What point? You only reiterated points you made previously.

>The experiment is only happening because of an artificial blocksize limit. No one would be working on LN if BTC carried on like it did before hitting the blocksize limit, increasing bloacksize proportionately to the amount of TXs. "but infinite demand for blockspace!" No such thing as infinite demand, sorry.
Keeping a system the same doesn't endanger it in the way that changing it does.

The demand might not be infinite, but million times larger than today as long as transactions are free. I'd upload my backups onto the blockchain if transactions were free and if there was no blocksize limit. Wouldn't you?

>And here it is. The scary miners are going to go against every economic incentive to "fuck over everybody", whatever that means.
A system that relies more and more on game theory to be secure is less secure than a system that doesn't rely too heavily on it.

There are economic incentives for miners that fuck over the rest and profit them. You are just ignoring them because you don't believe they exist or would play out well. I chose to be cautious.

Holy shit fuck reCAPTCHA. /biz/ is so broken, can't even post a half-way decent argument because of size limits and bullshit DoS protection.

>>10588156
wrong

>All the negative you have to say about BCH was true for BTC for the majority of its lifetime. Clearly you just don't like Bitcoin.
When I first used Bitcoin, it was "wait for 6 (or better 10) confirmations until you consider a payment final". 0-conf was something that was kinda reasonable (and it still kinda is), but it is ultimately broken within a system of economically driven actors that can pretend they did not see a transaction.
The issue of big blocks came to light much later, the first scientific paper I know of about it was presented in 2016. The problem just didn't get the attention it deserved back in the early days.

I do like Bitcoin. I'm a Bitcoin maximalist. I do not like non-majority changes to Bitcoin that endanger the system in a huge way, however, so I dislike BCH.

bcash is the better bitcoin.
bitchcoin core in unusable.

>>10588282
transaction is instant settlement within 10 min is what it's always been
there is huge competitive advantage in accepting 0 conf. Invent double spend insurance for merchants if you're concerned
It wouldn't even be a point of discussion if rbf never existed

>>10588304
And yet Bitcoin aka Bitcoin "core" will be worth $40000 end of year

>>10588235
>You're working under a fundamental misunderstanding of a proof of work system. You're touting the benefits of being able to sybil a system, whereas PoW literally makes that obsolete. 1 CPU 1 vote is not the same as 1 user 1 vote. You can fake users, you can't fake PoW.
It still relies on usernodes to some degree for consensus. BTC/BCH PoW is a failed experiment and a total trainwreck. I'm pretty sure the whitepaper didn't say one chinese brat with some ASICs = most of the votes, 1 cpu = 0.0000001 vote. I'm convinced the current PoW will kill BTC sooner or later.

>Roger didn't even fully support BCH until S2X failed. He had nothing to do with the hardfork.
Roger hoped he could take control of BTC of course he didn't want to settle for a chinese immitation, he failed.

>>10588319
>transaction is instant settlement within 10 min is what it's always been
>there is huge competitive advantage in accepting 0 conf. Invent double spend insurance for merchants if you're concerned
If you're going to make merchants use a centralized payment insurance system there's no reason to use a blockchain for small retail payments to begin with. 0-conf is just a poor method of off chain transactions while pretending it is actually on chain.

>>10587972
>You can buy stuff with it, no problem.
no you can't

>>10588375
what is a user node? if it is a non mining node it has no impact on consensus.
both PoW and PoS will develop pareto distibution ownership of hashrate the difference is in PoW innovation is rewarded with more share where in PoS more share is rewarded with more share

>>10588091
the 1mb block was an obvious money-grab move from the miners. the only problem imo is the userbase is too afraid of what the miners will do and what will happen to the hashrate to vote in their own interest. that's the catch of btc currently. it goes where the biggest pool goes.

>>10588451

Then explain why thousands of people are using it right now to do just that. Just download Eclair and buy some hoodies or fool around on satoshis.place

You can't deny reality forever.

>>10588460
>both PoW and PoS will develop pareto distibution ownership of hashrate the difference is in PoW innovation is rewarded with more share where in PoS more share is rewarded with more share
There's no innovation in SHA PoW, it's so simplistic it is only constrained by how much money you can spend paying TSMC to fab your ASICs and how cheap you get power. It's practically PoS but you stake USD instead and a few hundred million is the smallest amount you can use.

>>10588584
Can you purchase an entire PC on Lightning Network yet? Not to mention Bitmain ONLY accept Bitcoin Cash BCH pls the writings on the wall already
If 'NO' it has failed already.

>>10588999
>88999
TURBO full boat, god has spoken

>>10589011
quit sucking bitmains dick fag
they centrally control your shitalt no need to keep shilling for them

>>10588999
>>10589011
braindead brainlet deluded bcash fag, you were proven wrong and you still talk out of your ass like a queer.

>>10587774
Too many people overlooked this post
re: Lightning and KYC/AML.
Check it out.

>>10588584
>why thousands of people are using it
because it's a fucking demo, i'm talking about it becoming somewhat equal to credit cards. that's what being used means. this is just dicking around.

>>10588159

No, you made a BCH transaction and it was instant. The confirmation may have taken longer than 10 minutes but that can occur due to block variance. However because BCH does not have crippling changes such as replace-by-fee, zero-confirmation transactions on BCH can be accepted by merchants.

>>10589140
We are really lucky that nobody bothered to go by your logic when Bitcoin was new. People could not have used it before it was used before, causing a chicken and egg problem that would have resulted in Bitcoin never being usable for payments.

Or in other words: Wow, such stupidity.

What's your limit for 'being used' then? How much commerce (in $ or Satoshi or some other currency)? If you give a number, we can compare it to the revenue of bitrefill and other services that are being used right now to do actual business on Bitcoin and LN. Not all of them might publish data, but some do.

>>10589251
RBF is optional. You can still send non-RBFable transactions on BTC. Shows how much you actually know about the system, BCH idiot :)

>>10589254
>What's your limit for 'being used' then?
when you can buy stuff with it same as with a cc or at least as with paypal. that's pretty much what being useable means to anyone.

and when you try to scale ln to that real world scenario there could be serious issues with what i just mentioned. as a payment system it is worthless if it can't adapt to real-life retail scenarios. and so far it's just a shiny little toy we have no idea how it would actually perform because a lot of that depends on the actors and their behavior and of course the routing algos.

>>10589342
So Bitcoin or BCH isn't being used? Both aren't anywhere near Paypal. Let alone CC.

You have shitty definitions, boy.

>and when you try to scale ln to that real world scenario there could be serious issues with what i just mentioned. as a payment system it is worthless if it can't adapt to real-life retail scenarios. and so far it's just a shiny little toy we have no idea how it would actually perform because a lot of that depends on the actors and their behavior and of course the routing algos.
All of this is doubly true for BCH. Your blocksize cap might be larger, but your actual blocks (outside of stress tests) is close to zero. Dogecoin has more transactions than you do if you substract the stress tests. And boy are you going to be in for a ride when you go the way of Ethereum with their 3 months validation times.

Did you know Bitcoin doesn't check the signatures for blocks that are more than a few months old? And did you also know that it still takes a few days to validate the part of the chain it does validate? Have fun not being able to run a node if it takes you years until your are synced to head, and tell me why it is completely save to not verify the chain as a miner in the mean time. Protip: You can't. BCH is fucked with 32MB blocks this soon into the game. BTC on the other hand will scale safely, as it did with SegWit to 2,xMB. Maybe we'll get a few more megabyte in the next few years once storage and CPU verification time actually do go down (and not UP because of spectre and other shit)

>>10589263

GL teaching normies the difference. My mom thinks her bitcoin wallet interacts with her bank account.

>>10589450
You think BCH is Bitcoin. Not a very bright family :)

>>10589456

BCH is the real Bitcoin. You clearly aren't intelligent enough to overcome groupthink, propaganda, censorship and clearly lack basic comprehension.

Bitcoin is P2P electronic cash, as described in the whitepaper. If you're going to be using your lightning network via centralized hubs which follow through 'watchtowers' then it's clearly not Bitcoin.

I'll keep buying up the real Bitcoin - Bitcoin Cash while Bcore (BTC)'s ponzi scheme inevitably collapses.

>>10589516
mmmhh, tell me more about this P2P electronic cash where you just run a client to a federation system of miners that run huge datacenters to process the blocks, giving them only to each other but no other actual peer.

With Bitcoin, everybody can at least run the same software using the same rules supporting the same network. Regardless of whether they have the chance of finding a block or not. Real peer to peer, just like LN, where we are all equals.

>>10589516
BCH is FORK of original Bitcoin what is wrong with all you calling it Bitcoin, what a joke

>>10589546

You and your data centers pajeet. It's always about the non-existent threat of data centers for a fucking 32mb block. Should a 32mb block be produced in the next few years I would be impressed and extremely happy, the price of Bitcoin (BCH) would be well over 500k. Guess what, there are 100 Terabye Solid state drives are now real.

1 Terabyte = 1000 Gigabytes
1 Terabyte = 1,000,000 Megabytes

1,000,000 / 32 = 31,250 FULL blocks (blocks are currently no where near full

31,250 blocks @ 10 minutes each = 217 days worth of FULL blocks.

>>10589516
Also, do you realize the irony of writing
>You clearly aren't intelligent enough to overcome groupthink, propaganda, censorship and clearly lack basic comprehension.
and then copy and pasting r/btc whitepaper FUD? BCH was created without majority consensus, that makes it not Bitcoin. PER THE WHITEPAPER. It's realy easy to understand, actually, but I suppose you really are brainwashed if you use all the bad arguments of BCH proponents without focusing on the half-reasonable ones.

>>10589553

Bitcoin has forked numerous times, why the fuck wouldn't it still be called Bitcoin after this fork? It didn't radically change unlike when Bitcoin forked into Bcore right after Bitcoin forked into Bitcoin Cash in 2017

>>10589657
Wow, only $60,000 to store 2/3 of a year of BCH blockchain. You really are onto something there.

>>10589657
>this guy

>>10589675
BCH was a minority fork (or not even a fork, but a copy with the old UTXO set, but let's continue with broken definitions).

Bitcoin was defined as the longest PoW chain followed by the majority. That is not what they did. Maybe Bitcoin isn't Bitcoin, but BCH isn't Bitcoin by far.

>>10589667

BCH had to fork off as BTC had become coopted by a private business called Blockstream which is attempting to insert itself as middleman.

BCH came to consensus and forked. It is Bitcoin because it is peer to peer electric cash. end of story. READ THE WHITEPAPER.

You are absolutely brainwashed. You can't think for yourself and you can't even provide an actual reason why the block size could not be increased, not a single fucking reason. Bcore (BTC) is a coopted piece of shit.

Bitcoin Cash IS Bitcoin.

>>10589693
I don't doubt you are explaining why this whole BCH is Bitcoin argument is retarded to the people who are just reading the thread. I will restate again that you will never get anywhere with BCH shills with logic or reason. You are going to get the same non-answers, bullshit diversions, ignoring any point you make and outright lies.

>>10589675
On top of that, when Bitcoin forked previously, it didn't split necessarily. WIth BCH, your only argument could be that it split there, and both blockchains continued to grow, but BTC grew with more PoW, making BCH not Bitcoin by the definition in the whitepaper.

>>10589678

I don't know where you're throwing around a $60k figure as a 100TB hard drive is clearly not required and won't be for many years. An 8TB hard drive can be had for a few hundred dollars.

Blocks aren't full, you know this and yet you keep projecting. You're a fucking pajeet paid to FUD the real Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash.

>>10589707
>Bitcoin because it is peer to peer electric cash. end of story. READ THE WHITEPAPER.

See >>10589546

>mmmhh, tell me more about this P2P electronic cash where you just run a client to a federation system of miners that run huge datacenters to process the blocks, giving them only to each other but no other actual peer.

>With Bitcoin, everybody can at least run the same software using the same rules supporting the same network. Regardless of whether they have the chance of finding a block or not. Real peer to peer, just like LN, where we are all equals.

Guess you don't have an answer to that? Or was your "you only need $60,000 every few months to run a node, so you don't need datacenters obviously"-post meant to convince anyone? And even with an SSD, verification will take ages because it is CPU bound.

>>10589717

That might have been a valid reason if Bcore (BTC) did not break it's chain of digital signatures. Bcore only runs back to ~August 2017.

Bitcoin (BCH) has an unbroken chain of digital signatures stretching all the way back to the genesis block in 2009 and obviously has the most proof of work. You've been played you idiot.

>>10589737
You wrote SSD. Not HDD. Don't change your argument.

>>10589707
Do you know what white paper says too? That chain with largest hash work is actual Bitcoin. What now?

>>10589747

see: www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf


To everyone reading, you can see how these pajeets lie, again he's projecting some ludicrous cost to buy a cheap piece of hardware to the tune of what? More than the cost of a luxury car? Pajeet just stop.

>>10589767
What will your argument be when bch is the longest chain?

>>10589737
Very peer to peer, very "bank the unbanked" if you require everybody everywhere to shell over a few hundred bucks every few months if they want to be real peers in a peer to peer network...

>>10589760

HDD are even cheaper, what the fuck is your point?

>>10589767
See >>10589782

>>10589783
Mine will be that it was always clear that BCH isn't Bitcoin because it was a minority fork once. If BTC becomes a minority blockchain, it won't be Bitcoin according to the whitepaper. But maybe nobody will claim it is Bitcoin anymore when that happens.

>>10589787

Why the fuck on earth would everyone run a node, and why would it cost a few hundred bucks every few months? The blocks are no where near full, it will cost $100 for 4 years or so to maintain a node, if you're a miner making $50,000 a month I don't think that's an unreasonable investment in your business, pajeet.

>>10589792
Having to pay a few hundred dollars every year to transact is impossible for most people.

It's not what a p2p system should require.

>>10589801

BTC doesn't have the most proof of work or an unbroken chain of digital signatures. It is not Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin.

>>10589806
You are the person who claimed BCH is p2p. It is not, because of the cost requirement if it ever was used in a meaningful way.

>>10589807

Yes that's exactly right, which is why Bitcoin Cash has extremely low fees of less than 1 cent.

Compare that with $50 per transaction and you'll see that normal people simply cannot use Bcore, that's not what a p2p system should require.

>>10589818
>BTC doesn't have the most proof of work
There is clear evidence that it does have most accumulated PoW. What are you going on about?

>unbroken chain of digital signatures
Another well-known FUD takling point. Show the breaking point. Protip: You can't, as SegWit does check signatures and there never was a block that didn't.

>>10589825

I'm not claiming anything, I'm telling you how it is. BCH is peer to peer electronic cash. What cost requirement? 1 cent fees? Sounds pretty damn good to me.

>>10589829
So you mean just like SEPA? Low fees don't change the fact that you are using a client (your non-full node wallet) to talk to a server (or multiple ones). It's not p2p.

>Compare that with $50 per transaction and you'll see that normal people simply cannot use Bcore, that's not what a p2p system should require.
LN fixes that. 2MB SegWit fixed that.

>>10589835

Provide evidence of BTC's unbroken chain champ, you can't because you're lying. Segwit destroyed the Bcore chain.

>>10589849
My evidence is bitcoin core 0.16.1 synced to the current block height. Where is yours? The code shows that all signatures are being checked. You can look at it yourself, it's open source.

>>10589846

LN is vaporware and doesn't work, is centralised, requires you to be online, and does not scale.

Normal Bitcoin (BCH) users don't need to run full nodes and never have been required to.

>>10589868
So cute.

>>10589859

Provide the evidence, it doesn't exist. Segwit broke Bcore (BTC), sorry champ but you need to wake up.

I know you're a paid pajeet but I still need to counter your lies. Block height is irrelevant.

>>10589878

Not an argument pajeet.

>>10589882
The evidence is the blockchain and the code you can read and compile yourself. Do you do ECDSA in your head or what? There is no better proof than cryptographic proof, if you want start your debugger and check that SegWit transactions are indeed verified properly.

>I know you're a paid pajeet but I still need to counter your lies. Block height is irrelevant.
Block height? LOL. Block height says nothing. Accumulated PoW is calculated differently.

>Not an argument pajeet.
Just like your non-arguments. LN is varporware AND it is centralized and does not scale. Wat? How can something that does not exist (vaporware) work in a certain way that makes it centralized?

>>10589882
He owns you and debunked all previous attempts, kek and you keep calling him pajeet

>>10589920
He also wrote I'm a paid shill. Always accuse your enemy of what you are guilty of...

>>10589931

42 posts by this id
(no you're not paid to blatantly lie, who would pay for that right? Blockstream? NAH never would a private business attempt to sway public opinion by hiring pajeets

>>10574936
See this image of Blockstream's CEO admitting he hires pajeets to say public opinion.

If you dont own at least 1 BTC youre not going to make it.

>>10589969

This image I meant
>>10574622

>>10589969
I'm just procrastinating writing part of my thesis. You may guess what area I am getting a degree in. Hint: It might require me to read and write C++.

>>10589969
>webm
pls be a boy

>>10589969
>42 posts by this id
LMAO so you now bash on this guy for discussing with you? You have 30 posts, alright so you are paid pajeet too.

>>10589969
>that little wink at the end

>>10589969
Why do you store webms of potentially underage traps or androgyne girls on your harddrive?

Without sound even. Weird.

>>10574622

Blockstream are scammers. PERIOD.

>>10590192
>>10590180
>>10589969
Hey faggots get back to discussing about BTC vs BCH now instead of calling pajeets each other.
Round 3 starts now
Bong bong

>>10590223
I think he went ko.

>>10590180
Great comeback

>>10585563
>Even Andreas Antonopoulos, the pro BTC authority everyone likes to point to admits this.
you faggots lie out your asses constantly...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KiWkwo48k0

>>10585563
>Eventually speculation runs dry as reality doesn't live up to it. BCH scales and it works today, and it will work tomorrow, and will continue working with sub cent fees while millions use it.
USD can be spent by millions around the world instantly thus its a great store of value! USD to $50k by Dec.

Bamp

>>10587738
>Additionally, running a hot wallet with lots of money on LN is dangerous. You'll easily be found out and potentially hacked.
Check out Particl - it's built on BTC core, 2mb blocks, hardware cold staking is quantum resistant, will have RingCT, already has CT, atomic swaps, LN, etc etc

If anything, these threads at least have some actual discussion in them.

>>10591776
PoS garbage.

>>10591899
>PoS garbage
Please elaborate - from what I'm discerning is that LN will be PoS and so will Casper.

>>10590105
Hahaha you clearly have never heard of over engineering then, you are gonna fail your thesis if you think the technical debt of Segwit and LN are a better solution to scaling than a simple blocksize raise lmfao

>>10592290
Spoiler alert: yes they are. Blocksize raise is not sustainable for popularity like real Bitcoin have.

>>10592290
Oh wow. As if I'd write about that topic specifically.

Failing a thesis. That's laughable. The only way to fail is to copy work of others without showing it is their work. In all other cases, you should be able to get a pass. Or they require you to do more research. This isn't school. You don't even know how universities work.

>>10592345
The whole design is about blocksize you retard. That's how bitcoin works. That's how it was though.
You fools can't just take a staircase away and tell that more stairs can't reach higher floors.

>>10574387
lol bcash. Why are these threads even still being created????

>>10592743
they are fun

>>10592743
We had to endure many years of bullshit discussions with people just not following reason, regurgitating non-arguments, and FUDing as if there was no tomorrow. Let us have a bit of fun now that even the idiots are starting to wake up, realizing the have been cucked by popular players in the BCH sphere.

Everything they claimed about Blockstream could be (and is more likely to be) true about the well-known people that created and support BCH. Their whitepaper fetish is laughable, as BCH is further removed from it than Bitcoin.

By all accounts the flippening hasn't happened and will not happen. LN works, straight layer 1 scaling doesn't. Thank god that we don't have to go through 2017 again.

>>10593586
>LN works
What? This is news to me.