/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>13488789
Everyone but craig is on blockstreams side. Who owns blockstream? Dcg

>>13488803
>Dcg
dcg?

>>13488803
CSW is a Blockstream tool. Craig Wright totally works in Blockstream's and Greg's interests, if not directly funded. Look:

- He completely compromised the blocksize debate.
- He intentionally makes big blockers look stupid.
- Because of his blatant, idiotic forgeries, LN advocates now have an edge.

>>13488789
yes but what about the diapers creg?

>>13488809
Digital currency group. They own all the crypto new outlets as well.
>>13488814
Fuck off greg kill yourself

>>13488818
>Digital currency group
First time I ever hear about it. I have obviously only scratched the tip of the ice berg. The cryptospace seems to be cancer all the way through

>>13488902
http://archive.is/lk1lH#selection-3671.46-3671.55

>>13488958
http://archive.is/lk1lH#

This is the correct link, I had some random shit selected and archive jumped to it.

>>13488974
Thanks anon. It's crazy how long it takes for this to finally hit. I was reading about this during the 2017 bull run and was too spooked to use an exchange that had usdt and was sure it was all gonna collapse. Then it doesn't and you feel like a retard for not just going along with the ride and coulda made way more money and now it's all coming out i'm thinking yeah knew this years ago. I hope csw rekts all these cunts.

>>13488974
Much appricated. We live in a cynical world

>>13489023
When you do research about dcg and see their tentacles everywhere, including blockstream and how interconnected various entrepreneurs, scammers, bankers and investors are with each other it gets really scary.

I can't believe you guys are so invested in the politics of bitcoin.

>>13489036
Yes anon being schizophrenic can be scary.

>>13489069
Read the article and form your own opinion. No matter what you believe or disbelieve it doesn't hurt to know more. FYI this article from 2018 also correctly describes current bitfinex woes with their funds being seized by Polish authorities so it's not all bogus without merit....

>>13488974
bump for the REAL crypto redpill

>>13489069
Haha it must be scarier being a clueless npc. "jet fuel can't melt steel beems amirite guise lelelel"

>>13489023
Knew this years ago? Hur Dur I heard about something years ago but didn't believe it but now I believe it so now I tell everyone that I've known about it for a few years already Hur Dur I am pretty smart

it is obvious greg is in here. hes such a piece of shit.

>>13489167
he is but compared to creg stephanie wright he is a character of great integrity and esteem.

>>13489159
Lern 2 reed. Never said i didn't believe it. You still can't even comprehend it.

>>13488974
damn. the rabbit hole goes deep. it all makes sense. ver, vorhees, maxwell, kraken, etc...they're all on the same team. lmao wow

>>13489263
you forgot they work for soros who owns the un

I don't get this Bitcoin bullshit debate. If big blocks are better, then make ur fork with bigger blocks. If the transactions are near instant, but still secure while the other one is secure as well, but slow, then what's the debate here? Only problem that would remain would be the price stability, but I'm sure there is a way to make a decentralised exchange where you could go both long and short if you wanted your BTC stack to be $100 at all times and then close the position if you want to spend it.

>>13489466
>If big blocks are better
that's the problem despite all the shrilling nobody knows yet which one will make it in 10 years. we have to wait and see. i'm putting my money on core and ln but fully know it's possible it will be a bust if they fail to increase the block size in the end.

>>13489537
Why don't they do tests and simulations then? Seems like a big shit show.

>>13489564
>Why don't they do tests and simulations then?
because we have 10 times more assumptions than facts. and that means we would get 3628800 different results based on how we select them assumptions

>>13489564
When money is on line do you think people are thinking rationally or emotionally?

Blockstream / Corecucks used proof of social media to FUD the shit out of Bcash (BTRASH!!!!) and all the forks and convice everyone they are the one and only true BTC even though its a slow piece of shit and lightning will never work.

>>13489564
they DONT WANT BIG BLOCKS!!!

>>13489606
for example let's assume this is not bullshit
>The best performing block was transmitted in 1,660 bytes with 841 transactions in a 363 kilobyte-sized block. “That’s 99.54% compression or 15.79 bits/tx,”
bch xthinner claims to be able to compress blocks by over 90% which would remove btc transaction bottleneck for many years if adopted without increasing the block size.
sounds like bullshit to me because keys hashes and signatures are all high entropy pieces of data that are practically uncompressed as far as information theory goes, but maybe cashies do it. my assumption would be if it works bitcoin would adopt it rather than increasing the block size.

>>13489663
*practically uncompressable

>>13489663
oh yeah xthinner can't compress blocks not even by a bit. it is some weird block propagation protocol where if all current transactions are known to all nodes it can relay a block more efficiently in theory. well that's something of course don't want to shit on it because kudos, but calling it a scaling solution is a bit wishful.

>>13488789
If you still using electrum cash

YOU DESERVE TO LOOSE MONEY

>>13488902
Just check who is part of DCG and bitfury advisory boards. Then you'll understand why bitcoin is a future global reserve currency.

DCG:
- Glenn Hutchins
- Lawrence H. Summers

Bitfury:
-Jason Weinstein: Former senior U.S. Justice Department official in charge of cybercrime enforcement
- Dr. Tomicah Tillemann: Former Senior Advisor to U.S. Secretary of State
- Annette Nazareth: Attorney, former U.S. SEC Commissioner

etc... Those who control crypto aren't nobodies. They will take us to the moon.

>>13488789
Greg and Crag are the same person

>>13490022
but they are not the sane person

>>13488814
It's pretty obvious to anyone who's not retarded.
Too bad, BCH is going to win big no matter what.

>>13489537
>i'm putting my money on core and ln but fully know it's possible it will be a bust if they fail to increase the block size in the end.

Why would they do that?
they are explicitly small blockers

BSV has the largest block cap @ 128mb and the largest block ever mined and propgated (128mb), we are moving to 512mb-2gb in July and unlimited in feb 2020, why hold a coin that won't even increase to 2mb?

>>13490445
>they are explicitly small blockers
even with ln turning out to be everything and more they want bitcoin can't scale with 1mb block. so i'm betting on that they will increase the block size organically as needed. small doesn't mean it will be 1mb forever, just as small as possible.

sv is bullshit, i'm not even gonna waste my breath on it. if btc turns out to be a bust bch will have to pick up the slack.

>>13490388
>BCH is going to win big no matter what.
Data sig verify makes BCH ILLEGAL - You are never going to get mass adoption
Stupid pointless changes like CTO and checkpoints show that the protocol of BCH can be changed on a whim, it's incredibly foolish

>>13490499
>even with ln turning out to be everything and more they want bitcoin can't scale with 1mb block
How can you believe this double-think? If LN works and is off-chain why do you need to try to scale on chain if "on-chain scaling doesn't work"

>so i'm betting on that they will increase the block size organically as needed
Pure delusion, they have no intention of making bitcoin work because they want to funnel everyne onto the Lightning Network which they control, even if they scrapped the LN and increased the blocksize to 2mb by the time BSV will have 2GB blocks, 1000x the capacity and utility

>small doesn't mean it will be 1mb forever, just as small as possible.
So small blocks are good but they need to make the blocks bigger for the network to work...?

>sv is bullshit, i'm not even gonna waste my breath on it
Please don't buy any, HODL BTC until it dies

>if btc turns out to be a bust bch will have to pick up the slack.
I thought you said bigger blocks were bad?

>>13488814
>LN advocates now have an edge

HAHAHAHAHA

>>13490589
ln to scale requires much more tx count just for maintaining channels than what btc can do right now. they have to increase the block size one way or an other.
>Pure delusion, they have no intention of making bitcoin work because they want to funnel everyne onto the Lightning Network which they control
lightning doesn't work without bitcoin working nigga
>So small blocks are good but they need to make the blocks bigger for the network to work...?
yes as small as possible for working, going full retard with block size on purpose is not scaling it's just going full retard.
>HODL BTC until it dies
that's a given, altho i will cash some out on the way up obviously. for the next 10 years it will be all about bitcoin.
>I thought you said bigger blocks were bad?
they are not bad if you need them, btc needs them bch don't.

>>13489703
This is an important note. DONT USE THAT SOFTWARE DEVELOPED BY FYOKBALL. I had so many problems splitting my BSV and BCH from that wallet, because it autobans all SV servers. Had to install an old version in order to retrieve my BSV.

Fucking scammers.

>>13491508
also wanted to post this pic... bch could do with 1mb block for a long long fucking time.

>>13488814
>Craig actually loves LN hes just here to make big blockers looks bad!

Can I see your Ancestory results?

>>13489066
>I can't believe you guys are so invested with the future of humanity

>>13489663
>requires HF

Won't happen.

>>13489624
It's funny because the only people spamming social media are the BSV types while the BTC people have let network node counts and hashrate speak for themselves

Why can't BSV cucks stop projecting?

>>13491698
>cucks
nice projecting Greg

>>13491698
BTC is going to zero

>>13491696
actually there has been a demonstrated way to increase block size with a soft fork. simplest way is to push all segwit transactions to an extended block not just the witness. this block would have no max size the way the main block has but a special transaction maybe the one claiming the block reward can tie the extended block to the block by hash. thus preserving cryptographic chain of validity and making infinite scaling possible while never doing a hard fork.

>>13491762
yeah but first it will be $10 million apiece

>>13491717
>he proves me right by posting the same pic that's been spammed on 4chan (aka social media)

>>13491696
or if you meant canonical transaction ordering then no that doesn't require a hardfork. and probably xthinner propagation could be done without a hard fork too. basically new clients would signal to each other (maybe with version?) they accept it and would use the full block propagation to legacy clients (if the node owner allows it). so that's a no even there.

>>13491763
>just when I thought btc couldn't become even more of an abomination

>>13488974
noice link Sir, ty

>>13491990
yeah i know without a hard fork you can never make this witness thing right. the block hash must include all witness data to end this bullshit. if that will ever happen is anyone's guess.

Things like xthinner and graphene only allow you to signal a block to other nodes more efficiently, they don't increase the block capacity at all. The block that gets written into the blockchain still needs to store all of the transction data. The only way to increase capacity is larger blocks.