/biz/ - Business & Finance

in THEORY 21M .A hard fork can change that

>>12316926
we've seen how forks end up.

>>12316899
until theres more bugs that generate more coins via segwit or lightning

>>12316899
M

>>12316926
nobody wants chink or chink-level forks. everybody saw how every fork of bitcoin turned out.

remember, forks are no different to completely different shitcoins like litecoin. having 80 million litecoin tokens doesn't change the number of bitcoin out there

>>12316899
Mummy I want cummies

>>12316971
U

>>12316965
literally not possible for lightning, and only delusional late adopters actually believe(pray) that segwit has bugs

>>12316926

>thinking anybody running nodes would back a hardfork containing inflation

how fucking new are you?

>>12316983
M

>>12316899
isn't that also something to be worried about? a few individuals / institutions will have the majority of all BTC (look at Greymatter, they already own 1% of BTC supply), why would the masses want to own BTC?

>>12316988

this.

you faggots buying shitcoins praying BTC dies so your bags can (MAYBE) pump need to be fucking GASSED

STEP IN LINE FAGGOTS

>>12316996
M

>>12317015
Y

>>12316998
nobody cares what the masses want to own, they have no real choice or power in the matter. early adopters will always win, and so it really doesnt matter what late adopters have been buying for the past year to year and a half.

>>12316926
there should be a hard fork that miners can take reward from unspent outputs not touched for decades.

if you actually use your btc this is no issue any wallet worth damn will send the remaining coins to a new address. only forgotten dead wallets would get mined.

>>12317015
Good boy!

>>12316975
As the layers of bitcoin are developed shitcoins will fall behind
It'll be up to them to copy code and maintain infrastructure and it will become too much for less and less reward
Also i think in the next bull shit like ETH will fail because they centralized who makes the gass limits which will cause a split eventually and will prove blocksize caps were necessary

>>12317037

>>12317047

>>12317034
and nobody would agree to move to that fork, and we would have another bcash situation where the worst members of the community disappear to in-fight on their own altcoin, yet again.

>>12317041
eth gas limit is a blocksize, just one that can be dynamically changed, but has already hit a cap anyway. the gas limit means a lot less with layers/sharding anyway.

>>12316982
P0st how dare you

oh also there is a thing called Satoshi so technically speaking there are 21e+106 of them, so there is enough "Bitcoin" for everyone. But who gives a fuck satoshis we are here for the coin itself so buy it before it moons again. Another thing about finance is that fundamentally speaking the price will go up no matter what unless it's a literal scam ( at least that's how stocks go , check out "The Monkey of Wall Street") So we are all gonna make it lads.

>>12317067
The price is going to 50k in the next two years because shits will finally figure out its worth more than the 20k top.

>>12316998
Bitcoin has the greatest distribution possible it was worthless for years because it was a new concept but only allowed 50 coins a block
No ico, no developers fee, no launch bugs (dash)
Nobody can recreate a launch as good as bitcoin's, as good as satoshi did it

So the whole what of so and so has 1% who cares
It was mined or bought fairly inside the system open and agreed upon by the consensus since its launch

>>12316899
Between 3-5 million BTC are likely lost forever

>>12317034
to expand, the more likely scenario is that when the crypto is changed to protect against quantum crypto breaking some core component of bitcoin, like factoring public keys, those old coins will have a grace period to move of some number of years, and then be effectively unspendable when the old, broken public keys are invalidated.

>>12317061
Layers and sharting that isn't developed yet
That's like upping the blocksize because hardware will be able to catch up in x amount of years
It's going to lead to only a few maintainers controlling who can verify the network while bitcoin has been conscious of this since the beginning
The only reason why eth has a platform is because bitcoin wouldn't sacrifice decentralization to allow vitalik to put loads of crap on their chain

>>12316899
How many Rubels for her?

what are you talking about retards
you don't have to own EXACTLY ONE bitcoin, it's just psychologically comfy to have a simple number like 1 or 5 instead of 0.77 and 3.48
when bitcoin's market cap is high as fuck these number doesn't matter at all, one will be happy to just have 1000 satoshis

>>12317061
>and nobody would agree to move to that fork
don't see why not. it serves a dual purpose 1 distributes satoshis stash. removing a huge uncertainty from btc lore, and makes sure all 21 million btc is here to stay infinitely.

>>12316899
There will never be more than 100 inches of my toenail clippings. Who wants to buy some?

>>12317121
>and then be effectively unspendable when the old, broken public keys are invalidated
that's the opposite of what should happen.

>>12317160
>infinitely
i meant indefinitely fucking autocorrect!

>>12317145
you can still verify the entire state of the network with sharding because ethereum lets you validate the entire network and all state changes (transactions) with just the merkel tree block headers

>>12317160
The only argument that would work is to agree to clean up dust payments years from now when small amounts are stuck but were still cleaning out 1sat/byte payments
Nobody would ever allow a large amount money to get swept

>>12317180
its not much of a security upgrade if you keep the insecure components around for anybody to freely exploit.

>>12317195
And you're trusting someone to do that like I trust a SPV on my mobile sometimes

>>12317206
yeah not at once, but if you can take small amount of rewards from these ancient addresses that were never used, that would help keep fees lower because miners still got some rewards straight up, and also not lose coins to entropy.

>>12317207
no like i said, instead of making them undependable you should just spend them long before quantum computing becomes a threat to public keys. btw unspent addresses are pretty fucking resilient to this because they are double hashed so you don't even have the pub key.

>>12317245
>undependable
unspendable
what the actual fuck? that's a proper fucking word.

>>12317222
what part of verify the entire state of the network don't you understand? ethereum works nothing like bitcoin in the light-client department.

>>12317245
sure, if the owners of those private keys want to move their coins they can, but if their account is vulnerable and inactive, the only fair thing to do is invalidate the old vulnerable outputs.

>>12317269
Yeah ya take shortcuts and experienced several bugs
One that lost 100s of millions another that rollbacked the chain

>>12317321
both of which have nothing to do with how their block headers work.

>>12317269
>the only fair thing to do is invalidate the old vulnerable outputs.
nah fuck it it's better if they are just cracked. not that it's easy mind you. like i told you, unspent address is damn fucking hard to crack.

>>12317435
for ones that are still secure by the nature of a hashed public key, sure, they're still secure, but by your logic if SHA ever gets broken we should just do nothing.

>>12317452
no its not that we should do nothing i just really hate the idea that btc supply would dwindle and eventually it all gets consumed and we would be stuck with shitty fractions of fractions.

it just feels pathetic.

>>12317472
if btc was ever popular we would quickly have to move to using sats anyway, the btc arbitrary unit would just be a relic of the past.

Scarcity does not produce value. How many bitcoins there are is irrelevant

>>12317543
u think if i suddenly had 30M btc it wouldnt matter?

>>12317344
You're trusting the few nodes that can propagate transactions It's unsafe and leads to a centralization security threat