/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>13233230
It is, but BSV is even better. Don't like it? STIFF

>>13233230
You won't get an answer to this question because there isn't one. BCH > BTC

It isn't better because it's a cheap knock off.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin
Shitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin

>>13233230
because its worth $150 when THE KING is worth $5,000

>>13233230

>>13233230
LTC is also better. Stellar is better. Tons of coins are better but you retarded cash fags are missing the point. BTC is a cultural phenomenon, a poster boy and a symbol. Literally nothing in this space is measured in actual utility and BCash is a cheap knockoff riding the coat tail of the real deal.

>>13233326
Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin was supposed to be

>>13233333
wasted

>>13233360

Says who? Some guy who didn't create it

mmkay

>>13233230
>What the fuck is a lightning network anyway and why is it at all necessary for BTC?
Because main devs behind BTC believe LN will keep it's mining decentralized so your average person will still be able to run his own node. Bigger blocks lead to bigger blockchain size and problems associated with storing it. LN is a workaround for this problem, but it can potentially make BTC even more centralized than BCH, because running your LN channel in not so distant future, could be no longer affordable by single users, so it would lead to creation of another form of banking system.

>>13233230
The vast majority of it is controlled by Jihan Wu. You have to have seen how thoroughly and effectively he fucks over everyone he can using Bitmain. BCH is clearly a trap he will use to exploit you. Why would you play right into his hands?

>>13233359
This. The problem is by the time utility matters in this space there will likely be something better the BCH, LTC or anything currently out.

>>13233371
Says literally the first line in the Bitcoin whitepaper

BCH is a centralized PoS. Its whole "no conf" shill line only works because it assumes everyone is using something like bitpay, a centralized server to prevent double spending. The "bitcoin cash" solution as a whole isn't even technically a crypto because it relies on centralized components.

BCH the cryptocurrency alone still has all the same problems of bitcoin, that transactions take at least as long as the block time, and they are limited by bandwidth and storage. It doesn't matter what the block size is. Bitcoin could make the block size 100GB tomorrow if that's what the miners wanted. But there is not enough bandwidth on the internet to propagate a 100GB block size to every node in the world in 10 minutes. That's why the whole argument of block size is irrelevant. Bitcoin in its current form cant scale, so just forking it and jacking up one variable won't fix it.

Anytime you hear cashie shills talk about 0 conf or instant transactions they are shilling for bitpay or other centralized solutions like coinbase which also wants in on being a BCH pay app which is why they shilled so much for BCH.

>>13233435

haha, cope harder

Bitcoin Cash didn't need to be created. Bitcoin is doing what it was always intended to do.

You start with a basic groundbreaking technological layer, which will undoubtedly be beaten years down the line with better technology. But the foundations have been set in cement and hardened. The new job is to build upon the foundations with better and more revolutionary layers

TCP/IP is completely shit by current standards, but it's the layers built on top of it which have made the internet what it is today

>>13233478
That's not why Bitcoin was created. It was desiged to be peer to peer electronic cash, which is exactly what BCH is and BTC is not. Try reading the whitepaper.

>>13233395
Actually, I am an ETH fanboy but I also hold a good chunk of BTC. I am just looking at BCH now and wondering about it. I just think simplicity is better for adoption and use by the general public so am trying to wrap my head around how BTC is gonna do that when BCH is simpler to use.

>>13233527
>buzzwords
Explain:
1) Why BTC does not meet this statement.
2) Why BCH does meet this statement.

>>13233527

Wow, you didn't read my post at all.

Congrats, you're really helping your side!

>>13233230
Its amaury's coin
Also bcash
Also saged

>>13233478
>Bitcoin Cash didn't need to be created
No it had to be created, to show that crypto can be truly decentralized.

>>13233333
Chequed and celebrated

>>13233230
this chart is your answer:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bch.html

>>13233594

Fucking cashie bagholders in this thread, resistant to any facts about how bad their coin is

Your coin is useless, regardless of how technologically brilliant it is. Nano would be cryptos leader if technology was all that mattered.

Bitcoin has the brand name, the hash power and the infrastructure. BTFO any cheap knock off imitations

>>13233230
it doesn't matter what is "better"
bitcoin is bitcoin if it wanted to be bch it could become it

look at the united states dollar bill
now imagine some fuckwit changing george washington to asuka soryu langley and giving everyone 1 asuka dollar for their us dollar
i think we can all agree that it clearly is a better us dollar
so why wont it succeed?

>>13233623
NANO can't scale

>>13233635
United States of Asuka dollars when

>>13233652
soon friend
the weeb rises

>>13233623
>Nano would be cryptos leader if technology was all that mattered
No, it wouldn't be, because it isn't as technologically advanced as devs want you to believe. NANO has massive scaling issues, it's no different from IOTA.
>Bitcoin has the brand name, the hash power and the infrastructure
Sure, but let's imagine a scenario where world elites take the control of BTC and make it a digital FIAT. Would that be good or not? Because once 21 coins get mined that's what will happen.

>>13233230
+ both BCH and BSV is much better than BTC.
+ all the innovation is happening on either BCH or BSV.
+ BTC is standing still, bleeding adoption every day and nothing is being built upon it because it will only become more and more expensive to transact.
+ lightning network was stillborn and even if routing could ever be fixed to work at scale LN isn't even BTC exclusive

its better but BTC is king

>>13233230
bigger blocks on BCH to make cheaper faster transactions
but this leads to node centralisation as normies can't run the size of node needed

This is fundamentally why core were against the blocksize increase, and would prefer layer two solutions.

Luke Dash Jr would prefer ever smaller blocks to improve security, but no one agrees with him so core will stick to how things are.

Bitcoin, even layer two, may never become a hard money because of TPS and fees, but it will certainly be a SoV which means at least the mcap of gold - 7-8 trillion.

>>13233897
because of trading pairs and people's refusal to sell at a loss. BTC may be at the top but it is balancing on a straight stack of newly washed porcelain plates.

>>13233230
The motivation behind Bitcoin Cash is sound. The Bitcoin Core people are total garbage, and the ridiculous block size limitation and the push to turn Bitcoin into a "store of value" rather than usable digital cash is wrong in many ways.

But the market has decided that Bitcoin Core is Bitcoin, and the reason Bitcoin is #1 isn't that it has the best tech or usability. The reason is that it's the first of its kind with the best brand, best network effect, most credible initial motivation and probably most credible distribution.

If we should just dump Bitcoin and move on to a new system, why accept an improvement on some technicalities like Bitcoin Cash? If we're to dump Bitcoin, it better be for a significant improvement like some scalable future Ethereum. Also, if we just burn down the Bitcoin Core brand, Bitcoin Cash and other forks would also be affected in many ways.

>>13233230
the fact its hashrate is 5% of btc's and it could be attacked beyond repair at any moment makes it a less serious investment than btc.

>>13234233
the fact that they don't goes to show how well bitcoin's economic incentive works. miners gain nothing from attacking a chain and doing so would cost a lot in electricity, not to mention the crypto they are losing out on by attacking instead of mining on the most profitable chain. miners simply have more to gain from letting the smaller chains be, they even serve as a backup just in case BTC goes away.

therefore the argument is moot, even null and void i'd say. when BCH or BSV surpasses the value of BTC miners will just flip a switch and mine on that chain instead.

>>13234554
>therefore the argument is moot, even null and void i'd say
not when there are external actors who would badly like to destroy these projects and are not economically motivated but politically motivated. I hold equal amounts of all the forks though

>>13233360
>says the reddit bcash cult
nope

>>13233476
bcash btfo

BCH is the best money and has given me nothing but gains since its creation.

the spike from 0.1 to 0.5 BTC on polo, the multiple run-ups from 0.1 to 0.2 BTC on binance/polo, the spike from 0.025 to 0.05 BTC after the ABC/SV split.

This coin is a wealth amplifier if you know how to trade. I had under $10k before BCH, now I have $300k worth of crypto funds.

>>13233541
horse shit. this post is the exact same bullshit formulation we had spammed on this board in 2017 to early 2018. KYS you pathetic shill

>>13233603

>>13233230
>Someone tell me why BCH isn't better than BTC when the transactions and fees are cheaper and there isn't any second layer bullshit.
It simply is better and has always been. It's practically bitcoin without devs trying to destroy it for profit.
> What the fuck is a lightning network anyway and why is it at all necessary for BTC?
It's a cool idea that could alleviate about 50% of the onchain pressure, used as an excuse to limit block size to 1mb, as if it could handle 99% of transactions. It cannot and it's unreliable and not suited for the non-nerdy.
> Why not just make the blocks bigger?
Because there's no VC money when you go for the easy working solution.
>>13233241
>t. pajeet
>>13233326
>>13233332
>t. brainlets
>>13233359
>>13233476
>>13234643
>>13233478
>t. redditor brainlets

>Blockstream is good goys

>>13233394
Lightning lol

Arguing whether btc is better than bch or vice versa is like arguing who’s fart smells better.

>>13233230

Bigger blocks means you need a fuckload of storage to host the entire chain. It's expensive and unsustainable. If anything 1mb blocks are too big. Bigger blocks are terrible.

BCH is superior to BTC in every way except one: BTC enjoys the protection of the government because its dev team complies with it.