/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>10845258
yeah

I know jihan is apparently supporting abc but what are the chances its all a fake and he switches to sv? I think its pretty high

Unless you find another bitmain to pump and baghold, it'll slowly drop in sats.

>>10845258
probably

>Is it safe to start building up a BTC position again?

I myself am waiting until I see suicide hotline posts on reddit before I move in.

Also, if it splits, then who knows how low the hashrate of either chain is going to be. You could probably perform a 51% attack with 2.5% of bitcoin's hash power.

>>10845305

I know, I feel like there's one or two more bloodbaths waiting in the next few months. But I'm starting to get fomo at these low prices...

>>10845258
So far it looks like there won't be replay protection on either ABC or SV, as a result miners will fight and orphan eachother and the majority chain will win. CSW seems pretty confident he has the hash behind him, so we'll finally see if he's all hot air or not. So far Coingeek and BMG pool(which is nChain) has a large % of the current BCH hashrate. Whether or not they can fend off a determined Jihan hashrate, or even if Jihan would feel determined at all, is another question entirely. In any case the chain lives on.

>>10845258

It was never alive to begin with.

Imagine buying what everyone else got for free

>>10845281
WOW, well done anon. You have caught on to the truth. Just like Segwit2x. All a distraction for the real motive. Everyone who is a major player in BCH can make a killing with SV, that I mean the miners.

>take one to the chin temporarily by causing confusion in their own BCH community
>main purpose is to confuse Core and let them troll as they wish while keeping them in the dark
>128mb is also a distraction
>real intention is removing the block size
>there is no more time to debate and only way to win right now and put an end to BS is unlimited block size
>devs trying to make their mark don't matter, they can be replaced
>after SV is launched pro-BCH miners still mining BTC switch BTC hash power BCH as planned
>use SV as reason to migrate hash power to BCH

>>10845355
Etc and eth did just fine without replay protection.
And since both chains will have a butchered difficulty adjustment, they'll be fine even with big price and hashrate swings.

>>10845355
So far consensus has all come about from people agreeing before hand, signalling before it ever came to blows. Essentially all Bitcoin mining has happened under a none aggression principle. I'm no ancap, I think a NAP is unsustainable on any appreciable timeline. Eventually violence is the better option. In this case, the violence is in the form of orphaning competing miners. It's exactly the thing Satoshi originally said would bring about consensus, and we'll finally see it in action.
Bring on the hashwars

>>10845355
you think jihan is just bluffing about abc and will actually start supporting csw? its obvious abc is bought by core. best example is the french baguette who went straight to rbitcoin to complain about getting kicked from a private slack

>>10845258
Not exactly dying, but if they don't tell Craig to fuck off he's going to take it down with him.

>>10845405
Miners were still working under NAP. They agreed to the split. True hashwars would include 51% attacks on the competing.

>>10845404
thanks i always take everything with a grain of salt. also jihan majored in psych kek

>>10845406
My nigga, except there won't be a hash war within BCH, it will be a war of pro BCH miners having a reason to convert their BTC hashing power to BCH for a good reason, instead of the whole dragon slayer thing, which was put on the brakes to not spark BS and lawsuits after it as leaked. Coinbase disabled trading that day because it was going to flip and they would be blamed.

Let the retards think there is an actual dispute like Segwit2x, when there is an actual plan. Core falling for the same shit again with their troll campaigns.

>>10845404
>>10845460
can bcashers get any more delusional than this?

>>10845502
Stay tuned on sept. 1

>>10845414
I've heard whispers that Jihan is in some trouble, both from the BCH and BTC side of things. If he truly does has 1m BCH, CSW might be squeezing him by making this scene deliberately to drop the price while everything else squeezes around him. For what purpose, either to lock BCH protocol against Jihan's wishes or some other reason, I don't know.
From what I can tell, the main division here is people who hate CSW and everyone else. No one cares to have their own coin with DSV. There's no clear cut ideological separation like with segwit and onchain scaling.
I for one signed up for something that was as Bitcoin as possible. CSW says ridiculous things, but so far he's literally the only loud voice pushing for something that is a pure Bitcoin.
>>10845460
IF this is all a show, I don't see the purpose. It's possible. I do find it strange this all came up very close to the scheduled BCH stress test (sept 1). I'm super stoked for that test btw, the goal is 5m transactions in a day. Many times more than BTC during its mempool bloat in December.

>>10845532
the only people creating a division is the abc/core side. Its obvious they are brigading rbtc and slandering csw. just go on twitter and see whats going on. REMEMBER amaury the french baguette is running to rbitcoin to mock bch. if that doesnt raise red flags i dont know what does. also he appeared out of nowhere. he worked at facebook then all of a sudden he comes out of the woodwork late 2017 to be a full on bch dev lel

>>10845532
>. If he truly does has 1m BCH, CSW might be squeezing him by making this scene deliberately to drop the price while everything else squeezes around him
Only cashie theory that I agree with. Jihan can't afford his bag to drop even further or a chain split because of his ipo. Maybe Craig is using that aginst him.

>>10845532
also i have yet to see csw scam anyone. if people are talking about his tax evasion of australia, why hasnt australia extradited him yet? surely stealing millions is considered a felony. the millions he got was for a grant to build a supercomputer which he definitely has in iceland.

>>10845532
Jihan is screwed, he blew $500M on 3 failed chip production runs according to some chinese group. Between that and his bcash bags hes down almost $1b USD in 6 months. If he doesn't secure funding bitmain is probably dead.

>>10845281
>>10845404
>>10845460
This is what I think as well.
I didn't want to talk about it in case saying anything would make people take counteractions.

My one question is...
Why stress test BCH on 32MB if they are going to end up removing that limit down the line anyways?
Oh well, guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

>>10845819
As far as I can tell, the stress test is community driven. It could shine more light on miners who aren't mining 32mb blocks though, perhaps provide incentive to run SV if ABC is technically limited.

>>10845258
Dude it's only just getting started. There's a small bickering in BCH right now but it's going to be over by December. Bitcoin Cash will survive and BTC is still crippled with 1 MB blocks and a broken lightning network.

I'm all in BCH. It's literally the chance of a lifetime given to us a second time. If you guys regret not investing in bitcoin the first time you heard about it and you DON'T invest in Bitcoin Cash now you better fucking rethink your reasoning.

>>10845971
bcash bot tipped you 0.00005 bch for this post

>>10845258
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01CegebttEU

This is unironically one of the best summaries of the whole situation. And with the trouble Bitmain is in lately (dev-teams leaving in droves, etc.), it only gets worse.

>>10846012
lulz that's really well put together, if I had not done my own research I would just laugh at the cashies and go to bed.

>>10845502
Classic response.

>>10845419
That's the dream. Craig eating shit and dying.

>>10845819
Look into Tokeda by Lokad. You will find the truth that TB blocks were tested as pennies reassuring the success of unlimited blocksize which was tested on for years by Co1N and Tulip Trading supercomputers owed by the one and only. Storm is coming.

>>10846207
lmao

> shit.. CSW is becoming too cringe by the minute
> quick, queue the next faux-"genius" spouting techno-babble to trap the next generation of bag holders

awww, you've got your own little Vitalik there. He's almost as faggy.

>>10846207
Thanks anon, looking into this now.

>storm is coming
kek

>Co1N and Tulip Trading supercomputers owed by the one and only. Storm is coming.
All the good stuff is gone from the net already.
But I got the gist of it.
Been waiting for Bitcoin to be like this for years.


Core Coin
Coer Cion

Corecoin Coercion.
Fuck em.

>>10845971

Fucking, everyone else in the thread is saying otherwise. The block shit doesn't matter. If it were about the tech then everyone would just switch to Nano or some other currency. What matters is recognition as 'THE' cryptocurrency. It looks like that's going to be BTC, and nobody cares about lightning issues.

Can anyone tell me an actual reasonable strategy to not get fucking torched here? What % of your crypto should be BTC and BCH? I'm tired of this evil twin bullshit.

>>10846490

>>10846509

>>10846380
>>10846388
No argument? Dispute it. You can't.

>>10846515

>>10846490
>>10846527

>>10846509
>>10846515
>>10846527

Thanks for the super helpful insights anon you fucking mouthbreathing idiot

>>10846557
You sound stressed and scared.
Don't be.
The answers you are looking for are all in this thread. If you read carefully and consider patiently you will find the truth.

I can't hold your hand, faggot.

> What % of your crypto should be BTC and BCH? I'm tired of this evil twin bullshit.

100% in BTC
0% in BCH

BCH'ers and all other hard-forkers for that matter, riddle me this:

What made bitcoin valuable in the first place are these attributes:

* 21 million limit. No inflation tax like fiat money.
* Censorship resistance. Nobody can bar you from participating in the network. No need for central servers.
* Immutable ledger. You can and should verify all transactions, beginning from the genesis block. Nobody can fool you.

All these attributes are enshrined by the consensus mechanism within the network. This is not merely mining. Mining produces blocks, blocks people will want to use to transact money they hold, which follows the rules they verify. Mining, holding (transacting only changes who the next holder is), verifying.

Now, by definition, the first thing a hardfork does, is to demonstrate to the outside world, that the consensus rules have been broken.

How then should a hardfork ever have an equal or higher claim to staying true to the consensus rules, than the original chain, if it already demonstrated the rules can changed at will? Why not change the 21mil limit next time? Why not blacklist these addresses?

And if the consensus rules (21mil limit, etc.) are the attributes that make the whole network valuable in the first place, how then can a hardfork ever achieve a higher worth than the original chain?

Forget "technical attributes". What matters, are *economical* attributes.

>>10846587
He will fall for this post.
I've done what I can for tonight.

>>10846603
Bro, enlighten me.

But to me, this whole "hardfork for tech-gimmick XYZ" sounds to me, like if you had a very well established network of gold settled monetary services (banks, delivery, storage, mining, currency,...) and then someone comes along and says:

> bro, check this out. Forget gold. Rhodium is the real gold. It's melting temperature is almost 1000K above that of gold. Don't you get it? When the bank burns down, all the gold shills will be rekt, dude. Not I, tough. I'm all in Rhodium.

Nobody cares about the *physical* attributes of gold, insofar as a certain minimum standard is met, like it not rotting, evaporating spontaneously etc.

What mattered for gold (and still does), are its *economic* properties.

>>10846656
Bitcoin Core (BTC) IS THE "HARDFORK FOR TECH" gimmick.
That's the whole point.!!!!!!!!!!!

BTC forked off TO INSTALL SEGWIT AND LIGHTNING

BCH is the original bitcoin.
that's the thing to get.
BTC IS THE FORK.

They hijacked this shit and stole the high value
we are going to take it back completely
they are fucked from every angle imaginable
they will be prosecuted in real life.
they will lose everything.

stop falling for the propaganda
you hear about all these countries starting to test out blockchain?
what coin do you think they are about to use?
why is BCH trying to scale SO FAST???!?!?!?!

what's coming?
who's aware?
who knows?
hopefully you now.

>>10846656
Stefan molyneux made this video in 2014
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q-sMbf2OzOY
AXA

>>10846691
Nope. That's actually false.

Apparently you don't know what a hardfork and what a softfork is.

A hardfork changes the consensus rules. One of these rules was the 1MB block-limit. To have blocks that are greater than 1MB, you have to change this rule and do a hardfork.

A softfork does not change the consensus rules. It stays within the limits of the rules. For example, miners could only produce blocks of 500kb size. That's within the rules.

Every node that accepts blocks according to pre-softfork rules (blocks must me <= 1MB) also accepts these blocks.

SegWit is such a rule. It's 100% within the established consensus rules.

You can compare it with the rules of soccer:

There are consensus rules for soccer. Like no field-player can uses his arms or hands to control the ball, etc.

If a set of teams decided one day to only make kicks towards the goal with left foot, would they still be able to participate in the matches? Sure, why not? It's not illegal to only use your left foot to kick towards the goal. That's a softfork of the soccer consensus rules.

But what if a set teams wants to introduce that you can actually catch the ball as a field player but only hold it for 5 seconds? Can they now participate in all previous matches? No, they hardforked the soccer rules. They have to create their own leagues, and educate new referees etc.

Hardforks must be avoided as much as possible, for economic reasons, as pointed out here: >>10846587

and technical reasons, like I described in this post.

>>10846755
Nice explanation. After researching the alt market for some time, that’s the conclusion I’ve essentially reached. Bitcoin isn’t technologically the best, but from an economic standpoint, it has the viewpoint of many as a currency.

>>10846794
There's nobody who articulates the economic case for bitcoin better than Saifedean Ammous, imo.

His talk in Vienna was very good. If you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbm772vF-5M

He starts around minute 4:40.

>>10846755
>>10846833
Isn't Bitcoin system created to have limited supply? 21 million coins and that's it? It was also created for those coins to be used on its P2P payment system. So if the LN not only allows to bypass the P2P payments and it also allows other coins to be used and cross/swapped with one another while making LN payments, exactly what limit does there exist any more to have a fixed supply of coins? There isn't such limitation any more.

If people would transact in Bitcoin system only, only one such blockchain would exist, IF it was scaled as intended. There would be no other coins and marketcap would remain mostly in BTC. But because scaling was prevented people were faced with problem which Core and Blockstream created, lack of capacity caused increase of adoption which created artificial need for other solutions, other blockchains and LN all of which creates infinite creation of coins also done by banks. Now that people no longer think they need for any blockchain to scale as bankers funded Blockstream promose LN to scale many of them off chain, which is propaganda in itself, which means original idea of single blockchain to scale not needing any other blockchains, no longer applies.

Do you think its nothing unusual with before the Bitcoin Cash fork there were no forks of BTC that called themselves Bitcoin xxx etc. Only after Bitcoin Cash fork they were created one after another... more than 40 of them... this looks very much like deliberate creation of such coins to make unaware people think that because they are all crap and scams it must be that Bitcoin Cash is such crap coin and scam also, which is exactly what Core guys and their employers in Blockstream say all the time. They also don't attack any other forks, they attack only Bitcoin Cash, and don't even want people to call it by its actual name by calling it Bcash.

>>10845406
Kinda cool

>>10846380
>faster-than-light transactions
bcash does it again

>>10846905
I think you are confused.

> It was also created for those coins to be used on its P2P payment system. So if the LN not only allows to bypass the P2P payments

LN is a protocol that can be used on top of bitcoin's blockchain, as well as any other blockchain that has the required primitives (like time-locks, multi-sig,...)

It doesn't take away from the P2P nature of bitcoin. If anything, it is more P2P, because it's not a broadcast protocol, it's a routing protocol. What is transferred, are still signed bitcoin-transactions.

That being said, LN has on the face of it, nothing to do with Bitcoin. I personally don't even think it's necessary for scaling. If it works find and people want to use it, fine. But many people make it out to be some sort of upgrade to Bitcoin, which it's not.

> it also allows other coins to be used and cross/swapped with one another while making LN payments, exactly what limit does there exist any more to have a fixed supply of coins? There isn't such limitation any more.

The fact that other blockchains exist doesn't take away from the fact that there will only be 21mil Bitcoin. And the fact that Bitcoin was the first blockchain, that grew organically on the market means, it is the blockchain with the highest claim to immutability of its consensus rules.

> If people would transact in Bitcoin system only, only one such blockchain would exist, IF it was scaled as intended. There would be no other coins and marketcap would remain mostly in BTC.

This is historic revisionism. There have ALWAYS been altcoins, as soon as people realized Bitcoin works and that you can extract money from noobs by shilling a shitcoin.

Just use the Wayback Machine

> https://web.archive.org/

and look at the Coinmarketcap.com site over time.

Shitcoins, shitcoins, shitcoins.

Only a few from years ago are still with us and with everyone of them you lost value vis-a-vi bitcoin.

>>10847009
So, what it wrong with and unlimited block size on BCH, with others building a layer 1 on top of it, including lightning capabilities?

Do you agree that a protocol with an unlimited block size with LN is better than a protocol with a limited block size with LN is better? It's yes or no.

>>10847009
>If anything, it is more P2P, because it's not a broadcast protocol, it's a routing protocol.
I wouldn't say that. Because it's routed you have to rely on intermediaries to carry the transaction for you.

>>10847045
>So, what it wrong with and unlimited block size on BCH, with others building a layer 1 on top of it, including lightning capabilities?

Economically, this is wrong with it: >>10846587

Now technologically:

Here's a strawman argument often brought forward by BCH'ers: Blocksize is no problem, because storage is cheap.

Everybody knows that. And I don't know anyone who said that storage is the bottleneck.

What you have to understand is, that the bottlenecks are

* Transmission of new blocks and
* Validation of the chain and new blocks comming in.

Why the blocksize must be kept small (other than the economic reasons above) is, the longer it takes for a new block to propagate through the network, the more electricity is wasted by miners who haven't received the new block yet.

For example: Miner A finds a new block, lets say block Nr. 11. He announces the new found block to the network and propagates it. During this time, other miners are still working on block Nr. 10. When they get Nr. 11 and see it's valid, they stop mining Nr. 10 and start mining Nr. 12. But Miner A already was mining Nr. 12 all the time it took for the block Nr.11 to propagate.

You can easily see, how this turns into a positive feedback loop for Miner A. The bigger the blocks, the bigger his advantage over all other miners becomes over time.

This is only one centralizing pressure of bigger blocks. Nodes on the margin falling off, is another.

> Do you agree that a protocol with an unlimited block size with LN is better than a protocol with a limited block size with LN is better?

No, as described above.

Unlimited blocksize is absurd. Here's why:

How do we decide which transactions get included into a block?

One, they must adhere to the consensus rules and

Two, they must include a fee large enough to be viable to be included for the miner.

If the supply of something, in this case blockspace, is unlimited, what happens to the price?

...TO BE CONTINUED...

>>10847045
>>10847111

The price goes to zero. Simple law of supply and demand.

But is the price of blockspace ACTUALLY zero?

Of course not. It may be small, whatever that means, but it is always strictly above zero.

So now that the price mechanism for blockspace allocation is destroyed, but we need a mechanism to select viable transactions, how do we decide?

There's only one option now: Miners decree.

Congratulations: you created the blockchain equivalent of communism. Everything is free, but it's not *actually* free, because we still live in a physical universe and resources are limited, so now you have to employ a totalitarian state to control the resources.

>>10847072
That's also true for a broadcast protocol.

You don't teleport the transactions from node A to node C. Node B has to broadcast them too.

So, it's sunrise in my timezone, it was nice having this economic and techno discussion. Good night to you all.

>>10847146

Thx anon. Appreciate it.

>>10847146
>>10847246
New tactics.
Take note.

>>10845971
bcash is a literal scam I feel bad for you

So reading this. I am confused. If the big boys have taken control of bitcoin, what chance does bch have?

1 million bcash bags
the heaviest bags of them all

>>10847405
bch are bigger boys
think Trump v Hillary

>>10847405
Its always going to survive. Big bankers have taken over btc by making it cumbersome and difficult to use so they can turn people off. Thats why forks exist, btc is comprised. Bch may take a while to gain more traction but by the time a new ath hits everyone will see how much btc ln has progressed. In case your wondering it wont

>>10845258
Bitcoin Cash is literally just like any other shitcoin. This is like saying you didn't know whether to hold Link or Bitcoin because you didn't know which was going to come out on top. Bitcoin is the only coin that matters, but that hard floor is bullshit. Whales aren't mining, they just already have a fuckton of Bitcoin that they're willing to sell at literally any price because they're still up over 1000000%.

>>10847511
Except this time the vote is about something that actually matters

>>10847534
>Its always going to survive
bcash hashrate is under 5% of bitcoin's
it's becoming easier and easier to 51% attack

>>10847547
Then go for it

>>10847558
if the ratio continues to drop I don't see bcash surviving past the next halving

>>10846012
This is one of the best things I've ever seen.

>>10847405
>what chance does bch have?
Bitcoin Cash is literally unstoppable.

>>10847009
>>10847111
>>10846755

Tl;dr version
>Slow and expensive transactions are okay because muh consensus

>>10847702
>don't destroy BTC right away
>instead throw sand in the engine
>allow a bunch of alt coins to be swapped on LN
>creating a new currency eliminating BTC and other alt coins no longer being themselves on LNia swaps
>scared of BCH because it destroys their plans
>honest BTC people who' were retarded were threatened by their families on top of being paid
>hence Adam Back,all others will not be forgiven

>>10847534
lets say youre right and btc has become corrupted and bch hard forked to carry on the uncorrupted version of bitcoin. according to you, hard forks are necessary to save the project after it becomes corrupted.
lets also say, that something terrible happens and bch is corrupted sometime in the future. how do you feel about the fact that bch developers are trying to jam as much proprietary (licensed) code into bch codebase as they can, basically making it impossible to hard fork for anyone who doesnt have a permission?
keep in mind, that btc is still completely open source, you can fork it in 10s if you know how to use git.

Why does BCASH still exist? I can't see how it possibly could have any value, anyone could create a fork out of thin air, it's not backed by anything, and the price is so unstable.