/biz/ - Business & Finance

we're now all about that Bitcoin 2 boy
BTC is useless now that we have BTC2

Dominantist turning Pluralist here.

>>14034491
I don't think any are here, you may find a larper at best.
Bitcoin maximalists have to stay in their safe censored spaces, otherwise they stop being maximalists

Bitcoin Minimalist reporting in

Ahem, I have an announcement to make
*Tink tink tink*

Bitcoin will go to 0 because it's a slow, worthless dinosaur boomer coin. Bitcoin is preventing the market from growing because of its glacially slow transaction speed and fees. Once bitcoin is dead we will all be better off

Also fuck niggers,kikes and jannies
thank you and goodnight

>>14034518
this

>>14034600
Based and truthpilled. I can't wait for boomercoin to finally go to zero.

Pluralist here. BTC matters cause it's the most decentralized. That's the source of it's value. That being said, it's early tech and it will become obsolete.

Crypto will have hundreds of thousands of alts in the future. BTC maximalists are either idealists that believe in the original vision or early adopters that have bags to protect. Many are probably both.

>>14034629
BTC is the most centralized
all other coins had to have some sort of fair launch and had to compete

https://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-the-sunk-cost-fallacy-makes-you-act-stupid.html

I wish I was number 2, but I've seen so many alts die (just check CMC snapshots) through the years that I just stick with BTC.

>>14034629
>BTC matters cause it's the most decentralized

>>14034629
>BTC
>most decentralized

Most of the nodes are concentrated in the US and Western Europe.

The number of nodes haven't increased proportionally with the market cap.

Mining is done in countries with cheap electric power.

20% of the wallets own 80% of the total BTC.

>>14034639
this is the dumbest comment I've read all day

You have altcoins that literally premine, print tokens for themselves at the very beginning, etc with no main net.

You have devs promising all these things but there's no working code for it, they delay and delay because at the end of the day, they know what they promise is a lie.

The best way to make money off of altcoins is buy the ICO then sell on mainnet. You should think about why that's the case.

>>14034738
compete shitcoiner
all alts are at fair valuation at the moment

>>14034722

And what's the coin that have stats better than these? Just curious.

A wallet can represent assets of many people, and many wallets can represent the asset of just one person. For example, a binance cold wallet represents the assets of many people but that's just one address.
If you want information to be more precise, you hold your own keys. How many of you just have a binance or a coinbase account? How many of you actually run nodes?

Funny people want nodes to increase proportionally with marketcap, but at the same time push for BSV with 2 GB blocks.

The cost of running a node for just one day is 2 GB * 6 (blocks per hour) * 24 (hours in a day) = 288 GB of bandwidth and storage required per day. In 1 month, you need to add 8.64 TB of storage plus 8.64 TB * 9 (default connects to 8 node peers + you have to download the blocks yourself) which is 77.76 TB per month. Can you afford this, even in a developed country?

So do you think BSV is more or less centralized with 2 GB blocks? The problem is people think putting information on a truly decentralized system until the end of time should be free because they complain about transaction fees. If you do so, then just buy JPMcoin because you will NOT have decentralization.

>>14034848
>And what's the coin that have stats better than these? Just curious.
ethereum
https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03998
More importantly, bitcoin has completely given up on decentralization, there are no incentives to run a node and there are never going to be. You can expect an army of unpaid volunteers to support the network indefinitely.
Proof of stake requires running a node to stake.

>>14034848
>And what's the coin that have stats better than these? Just curious.
ethereum
https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03998
More importantly, bitcoin has completely given up on decentralization, there are no incentives to run a node and there are never going to be. You can't expect an army of unpaid volunteers to support the network indefinitely.
Proof of stake requires running a node to stake.

>>14034782
you have no idea what you're talking about

The next "best" coin is ETH, they printed 72 million ETH for their investors and devs. Current supply is 106,381,903 ETH, which means they STILL own more than HALF of the ENTIRE supply. If you mined ALL the ETH when ETH became minable, you would still have LESS than what ETH printed for themselves.

Not to mention ETH rolled back their chain when ETH investors cried about the DAO hack but didn't roll back for other hacks that non-ETH investors lost money. ETH currently is used for printing ICO coins and alt-coins because alt-coiners don't have the knowledge to create their own blockchain worth of value (yet they claim they can do all these other incredible things). If they could create what they claim, they wouldn't need or rely on ETH.

There's no supply cap for ETH, there's no known supply per block, ETH devs do whatever the fuck they want and hard fork constantly.

The next "best" coin is XRP. They printed 42,238,947,941 (all the XRP supply) out of thin air and they tell you it's worth money. Every XRP transaction destroys XRP. At some point, if XRP ever gets used, there will be a time where there's no XRP left or no one will transact because they don't want their XRP to be destroyed. So you have a coin that will literally kill itself (no one will transact) or XRP prints a shit ton of tokens for themselves AGAIN and tell you they're worth money. When they print that much XRP, it'll completely destroy the value for the XRP holders.

>>14034928
>which means they STILL own more than HALF of the ENTIRE supply
why are you assuming no one sold, that's absurd.
Eth traded low for long, lots of people sold, including devs.
>but didn't roll back for other hacks that non-ETH investors lost money
they didn't roll back for Parity either

>>14034913
See my response on ETH >>14034928

The ETH devs & investors still hold majority ETH supply. They can stake and whatever they say goes. Because in a proof of stake network, the majority control the consensus, it doesn't matter if the minority actually has the "correct" information. So again, if you mined every single ETH since ETH was mine-able, you'll be at the whims of ETH devs & investors because you will NOT hold the majority. You don't know how much supply there will be 5 years from now because ETH can just change how much ETH is generated via hard forks, and everyone mindlessly follows it.

Proof of stake might work and it might not. When a miner mines BTC, they don't just get BTC, they PROTECT the network from external attacks. On PoS, this is NOT the case.


There is no evidence BTC devs gave up on decentralization and you have shown no evidence of such, all you do is repeat yourself without any evidence.. They fought for 1 MB blocks so what I explained in >>14034848
on BSV doesn't happen. Segwit was SOFT forked in. That means it's OPTIONAL to use segwit, you don't have to use it. On the other hand, BCH and BSV HARD forked, meaning you HAVE to abide by the new consensus rules. One is optional, one is forced. The optional one by definition is more inclusive and promotes decentralization where as HARD forks do not. Furthermore, bitcoin improvements such as taproot will also be SOFT forked in. Again, it is more inclusive and promotes decentralization. If you think BTC is centralized, the next "best" blockchain is significantly more centralized than BTC.


>>14035037
> why are you assuming no one sold, that's absurd.

Why are you assuming no one bought? That's absurd.

>they didn't roll back for Parity either
They ONLY rolled back for their investors in DAO hack. Every other hack, there were no roll back. ETH devs favored ETH investors, everyone else can get fucked. ETH at that day ruined immutability on their chain, that's why ETC exists.

>>14034491
>blockstream's btc
>bitcoin
pic one

>>14034928
this guy talks sense

>>14034491
Btc maximalist dont really come here, i only see them pop up because they are a btc and they ALWAYS say everything is shit besides btc, as if the tech just stops there lmfao idk how they only see currency as the only usecase for blockchain tech

>>14035155
*they are a btc whale

>>14035072
>The ETH devs & investors still hold majority ETH supply
>Why are you assuming no one bought?
So all you're saying is a tautology that eth holders own eth? No shit
There's no real difference in distribution between btc and eth because btc mining was an extremely small club in the first three years.
Even real wealth is concentrated, upper 1% owns majority.
>You don't know how much supply there will be 5 years
after full PoS it doesn't matter, before, well a rise is not going to happen, so at worst a constant 2 eth base reward.
The current plan is to launch a beacon chain and in the next year hard fork the mainnet to add hybrid PoS and reduce PoW rewards by 80-90%
>When a miner mines BTC, they don't just get BTC, they PROTECT the network from external attacks. On PoS, this is NOT the case.
what do you mean by that?
>There is no evidence BTC devs gave up on decentralization
Fine, show some proof there's a financial incentive in the protocol for anyone to run a full node that propagates anything, as opposed to just downloading.
Show some reasoning that miners have a reason to run anything beyond a pruned node that propagates blocks and transactions.
Any system that relies exclusively on irrational altruistic behavior is certain to collapse, like communism. Small communes actually work great - for a short while, at most for one generation.

That's the network decentralization, mining is centralized but nothing can be done about that.

>They fought for 1 MB blocks so what I explained in
Irrelevant, if anything it hurt network decentralization because sending btc started to cost more than running a node, so even the pool of irrational altruists got reduced substantially.

>Segwit was SOFT forked in. That means it's OPTIONAL to use segwit
That's not what a soft fork means, it means the opposite. Old nodes are forced to accept the fork because from their perspective miners are censoring valid transactions.

The biggest issue here is people want faster transactions and no fees.

On a decentralized, trust-less, permission-less system, this is NOT possible.

In simple terms, storing information forever until the end of time on thousands of systems has a SIGNIFICANT cost. Real scaling can only be done on Level 2, where you store the initial deposit between 2 parties, let them transact off chain but still use signatures where both parties have to sign, then broadcast the very last transaction on the blockchain. That takes all transactions between 2 parties down to just 2, on chain. ETH is finally realizing this and they're trying to do level 2 scaling as well. The funny thing is, BTC is ahead and it shouldn't be because ETH has a bigger scaling problem.

The complete ETH block chain is already over 2.2 TB (https://etherscan.io/chartsync/chainarchive).). The "condensed" version is 260 GB (https://etherscan.io/chartsync/chaindefault)) while BTC is only 220 GB (https://www.blockchain.com/charts/blocks-size).).

ETH is only 4 years old while BTC is 10 years old. Yet, ETH's blockchain size has already passed BTC. It's obvious ETH has a huge scaling problem. But on here, do you see BTC or ETH get more shit on scaling issues?

BTC pioneering L2 scaling, gets shit on the most, while ETH tail winds on lightening dev's research and also start to look into L2. It's completely obvious to anyone that looks at the blockchain that ETH needs scaling way more than BTC and BTC is developing the next generation of scaling, first.

Then again, this is /biz/. You'll trade anything. However, you must understand a lot of tech to be able to evaluate it. What someone promises on a pdf document or a website is not reality. Until there's code and a network that anyone can participate in, it's a lie. If you remember anything from this, remember:

> The biggest issue here is people want instant transactions and no fees.
> On a decentralized, trust-less, permission-less system, this is NOT possible.

>>14035346
>The complete ETH block chain is already over 2.2 TB
no, the full blockchain is 77GB.
https://etherscan.io/chart/blocksize
Average size is 9.7kB times 7.9M blocks.
You are seriously misinformed by bitcoin maximalist propaganda.

>>14034491
Because in any market, only 1 matters. So which 1 coin in cryptocurrency matters? Bitcoin.

>>14035346
Thx bruv

>>14035279

> Fine, show some proof there's a financial incentive in the protocol for anyone to run a full node that propagates anything, as opposed to just downloading.

You're kind of blending mining and nodes together. So on BSV where you have 2 GB blocks, there's no incentive for you to pay anything more than 0.0000001 sat for any transaction. The assumption is that blocks are not full but if it were, it'd just be like BTC. When 2 GB blocks are full, BSV will fork to 4 GB blocks, you do the math on how much it'd cost to run a node. If everyone pays the same fee, this is communism. The cost is pushed to node operators.

On BTC, you have to bid for your transaction to be put on the blockchain. Some people pay more if they want a faster transaction, some people can pay less if it's not time sensitive. This is more like a capitalist system. In addition, when you fix the block space, you push innovation. This is like fixing land space and why big cities like NYC, LA come about. When you fix the land size, you encourage innovation. You invent concrete, reinforced steel, elevators, mass transport, etc. If you have infinite land, people would still be building outward in mud huts on mud roads. Segwit, taproot, etc are optimizations on BTC and even optimizations are optional. However, you are financially encouraged to do so because tx fees are cheaper.


>continued in the next post

>>14035346
>The funny thing is, BTC is ahead and it shouldn't be because ETH has a bigger scaling problem.
LMAO eth is so much ahead it's not even funny.
Layer 1:
utxo commitments, a hash of the state as part of the consensus, which means old blocks aren't necessary.
This also means to fool light nodes you need to 51% attack the network, but the chain with the fake state is only going to be accepted by light nodes, a pointless attack.
On bitcoin, spv requires trusting the server.
Layer 2:
>zk-snark plasma with on-chain data
https://twitter.com/the_matter_labs/status/1129439834819440641
>zk-snark plasma with off-chain data
>zk-stark dex with off-chain data
https://www.starkdex.io/
>federated sidechains
https://loomx.io/
>state channel network
https://www.celer.network/, perun, several others
>payment channel network
raiden

BTC can only do two from these - payment channels and a federated sidechain. LN requires trust in relaying nodes for small payments, a massive degradation from on-chain transactions.

Is this the power of maximalism

kek, cringefags

>>14035576

A full node lets someone validates transactions on their own and enforces the consensus protocol. Most people here have their coins on an exchange so it's not really their coins so for the people that actually hold private keys, most people use SPV wallet like electrum. When you use it, all your wallet addresses are sent to an electrum server that you don't own. If you recall, electrum servers started displaying bogus upgrade messages and people downloaded fake versions of electrum and lost all their money. That's because they trusted electrum servers.

If you want to have your own electrum server, you'll realize you need the entire bitcoin blockchain. So if you want privacy and not have to trust anything, then you run your own node. As layer 2 becomes more main stream, running a full node is almost necessary. That goes for any cryptocoins that use layer 2.

So in short, you get privacy and you don't have to trust anyone (which is extremely important in a decentralized system. Never trust and always verify). The added benefit is that you're also protecting the network by enforcing consensus rules which is something you'd want if you hold any BTC. If you don't hold any BTC then you're right, there's no reason to run a full node. Similarly, if you don't hold any ETH, there's no reason to run a ETH full node.

>>14034491

Because they have a big bag of it.

>>14035576
Miners are node operatos, read the white paper. Also BSV has NO blocksize limit in 2020, mines decide how much their software and hardware can handle and will invest accordingly. This is called free market competition. You are seriously misinformed by BTC propaganda.

>>14035627
Yikes
>>14035673
Also this

BTC is a ponzi

>>14035576
>You're kind of blending mining and nodes together.
no I'm not, your answer is beside the point. Why are you even mentioning fees in this context
>>14035646
>you'll realize you need the entire bitcoin blockchain
>As layer 2 becomes more main stream, running a full node is almost necessary
no you don't, you only need the utxo set and recent block headers. Ie. a pruned node.
What you don't need at all is for others to leech your bandwidth.
Who provides and stores old blocks? Irrational altruists.

>>14035425
I have provided links to both of my claims. We're talking about the full blockchain, not some pruned version. If you consider the pruned version you can also do that on BTC.

It is not accurate to compare a pruned version of ETH vs the full BTC blockchain. I have compared the full blockchain of both ETH and BTC, which is more accurate.

I'm guessing you've never actually ran any full nodes or played with any of the code on BTC or ETH but you're willing to call me a "bitcoin maximalist" and even adding the word "propaganda"

I'm not a bitcoin maximalist. I'm a realist where I actually dig into the tech, the code, and play with it to see if something is true or not. Most of what ICOs promise will not come true. Again, don't trust, verify.

Go try to run a full ETH node and look at your disk space usage. Do the same for BTC. Make sure you understand how to get ETH's full blockchain first before you try because if you tried to get the full archival nodes, you'll need at least 2.3 TB of free space and at least 16 gigs of RAM. On BTC you need around 2 GB and 250 GB of space.

>>14035742
>It is not accurate to compare a pruned version of ETH vs the full BTC blockchain.
It's not pruned, that's the size of all blocks ever, containing every transaction ever.
>I'm guessing you've never actually ran any full nodes
that's geth

>>14034491
I've watched shitcoins pump 1000% then drop 95% over and over so now I just try and extract as much profit (in sats) from them as possible without HODLing them.

>>14034491
Bitcoin for crypto is like USD for fiat
Nobody wants shitty pesos

I'm a Bitcoin Nazist, the other definitions are cringe af.

I'm a bitcoin dominant beliver until about 10-12 years in the future and then I believe it will lose too much marketshare to other coins, i dont think it will stop growing completely until 20-25 years minimum however. I'm a maximalist because I believe there are other solid investments in the space that will be higher yielding, namely commodity backed cryptos and ethereum, however bitcoin will provide the safest returns and has another 100* gains left in it easily.

>>14035730
> Why are you even mentioning fees in this context

Because you mentioned something about communism and that's only possible on big blocks' transaction fees. There's no part of BTC that's "communist"

>>14035730
Have you setup lnd before with bitcoind? You're not using the default bitcoind parameters. You have to set txindex to 1,by default it's 0. I actually went and spun up a VM to verify. Currently syncing at height 360000 and it's 45 GB so far. Of course, to even get to 360000, I am getting that information from a full node that has the old blocks so it looks like it's pretty important to me that full blockchains are needed if anyone wants to run any pruned or full nodes in the future.

>>14035775
I don't understand the argument here. I'm specifically looking at the graphs titled "Ethereum Chain Data Size Growth"

https://etherscan.io/chartsync/chaindefault

Suppose we do exclude geth, you're looking at parity, which is 170 GB in 4 years. In 8 years, it'll be 340 GB assuming the current state of growth.

>>14035944
>Because you mentioned something about communism and that's only possible on big blocks' transaction fees
What?
>There's no part of BTC that's "communist"
Who pays you for letting others download blocks from your node?
>You have to set txindex to 1,by default it's 0.
nope
>Remove txindex requirement for full nodes
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/pull/751
that was over a year ago
>I don't understand the argument here.
do you understand the difference between a blockchain, and a running node with a database that contains the blockchain and data generated from it?

>>14035603
I like both BTC and ETH, but isn't Ethereum experiencing bad times now?
There are many competitors around - BNB, TRX, EOS, NEO etc., there is almost no ICOs and startups massively migrate from ERC20 to BNB chain.

>>14035697

Miners run nodes to validate a transaction and make sure the format's correct, as well as listen to see if the block has been mined so they can start the new block.

You don't have to mine with any significant hash power to have a full node where it essentially just enforces the bitcoin protocol.

If what you say is true, then the miners would've forced the New york agreement (NYA) with segwit2x. It failed because it did not reach consensus with the node operators. In a decentralized system, when no consensus is reached, the current protocol is maintained.

Having no block size limit is the dumbest thing ever. You literally are pushing for centralization.

With no caps, you can actually limit people simply on bandwidth alone.

Limiting people that enforces consensus rules of the network makes the network less secure and more centralized. It is not a good thing.

>>14034491
Pluralist. BTC gives the most sure returns, but there are quite a few altcoins with a lot of inherent value to them that have the potential to offer much greater returns.
I see BTC remaining dominant for some time to come.

>>14036110
Ethereum is experiencing massive growth in DeFi
https://defipulse.com/
on the horizon is corporate adoption (on the mainnet), see this video about Ernst & Young's Nightfall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2q-aoDVRRY

even on a shallow look, the network is constantly congested.
956k tx on 1 June, 815k in the last 24 hours. That's not how a dying platform looks like.
https://bitinfocharts.com/ethereum/
>BNB, TRX, EOS, NEO etc., there is almost no ICOs and startups massively migrate from ERC20 to BNB chain.
BNB is not a competitor, it's a centralized exchange. You can't even use a DEX from several countries (the ban starts in July I think). True dexes are going to supplant centralized exchanges eventually, but not soon.
As for the rest, ehh. Would you feel more comfortable having your house tokenized on EOS, where block producers can arbitrarily move it or lock it, or on ethereum?

>>14036201
>You can't even use a DEX from several countries
a "DEX"

>>14036132
I can barely read it I am cringing so hard. This is must be straight out of the core textbook. I don‘t have the time to show you everything wrong with what you just said but look into this:

>What is a small world network
>What is developer decentralization

Also, read the whitepaper. Non mining nodes are useless, they cant enforce shit. Miners decided not to go for S2X at the end due to PoSM.

>>14036087
You said

"Show some reasoning that miners have a reason to run anything beyond a pruned node that propagates blocks and transactions.
Any system that relies exclusively on irrational altruistic behavior is certain to collapse, like communism. Small communes actually work great - for a short while, at most for one generation."


>You have to set txindex to 1,by default it's 0.
nope

Oh my bad. txindex only speeds up the process I guess they don't need it anymore. According to the installation notes of LND, it says the following:

"NOTE: WE DO NOT FULLY SUPPORT PRUNED OPERATING MODES FOR FULL NODES. It's possible to run a node in a pruned mode and have it serve lnd, however one must take care to ensure that lnd has all blocks on disk since the birth of the wallet, and the age of the earliest channels (which were created around March 2018)."

So the full blockchain is still required or am I reading that wrong?

> do you understand the difference between a blockchain, and a running node with a database that contains the blockchain and data generated from it?

I am talking about the blockchain, not the database generated from the blockchain. Are you talking about the same thing? Because I am not talking about the database generated from the blockchain because the blockchain itself is the necessary requirement for you to generate the database in the first place.

>>14034600
based

bsv is the future

>>14036201
Ofc I would prefer ETH atm, the only things I like in EOS are logo and delegated PoS.
But I have a feeling that Ethereum won't be able to hold it's dominance because there are too many competitors. Yes Ethereum is better than them but TRX already holds pretty huge share of the market.

>>14034848
>big blocks centralizes mining

>>14036250
>You said
which is not related to fees, I was writing about running nodes, not mining/generating blocks.
>So the full blockchain is still required or am I reading that wrong?
what they mean is they need all blocks which contain the opening transaction of a channel that's involved in your ln transaction.
Which at worst means you can delete all blocks before March 2018
>I am talking about the blockchain, not the database generated from the blockchain
ethereum blockchain is 77GB, the database size depends on the node and its configuration. 2.3TB, 170GB you wrote elsewhere is generated from that 77GB depending on a configuration and node.

>>14036315
+15 rupees

>>14034600
go to 0?
Nah... but I think it will lose the number 1 spot in the next 1 or 2 years,and it will be out of the top 10 before 2025,It will be the digital gold,the actual king of crypto is already here evolving but who knows ETH? EOS? ADA?people should watch out these 3.
Monero Im sure is one of those that will always be there,solid choice but never numero 1

>>14036234
>>14036234

> have 80% support
> would benefit you greatly
> hate core
> but didn't do it... cuz uh... reasons.

Yeah right, if they could they would've. They couldn't because people running bitcoind (which is the most popular and developed by core) would've rejected 2 MB blocks because that goes against the consensus protocol (just like it would reject a block if someone tried to generate 1000 BTC instead of the current 12.5). The reason you hate core (funny that I actually have to tell you this) is because they are making the software that most people chose to run for bitcoin's full node. That way, the miners can't do whatever the fuck they want. If they did, they could increase the block size at will and even change the block rewards at will. The only reason that doesn't happen is because those blocks would be rejected by bitcoind and it would not propagate through the network. If you think letting miners change the bitcoin consensus protocol (which is not just changing the blocksize, but they can change how much they can award themselves for new blocks), you are letting the miners do whatever they want and you'll follow it. Good luck claiming that it's still decentralized.

> core doesn't make miners or mining firmware
> still hate core even though according to you, they have no power

Yeah, I think I'm out of this thread.

>>14034491

>>14034913
>Proof of stake requires running a node to stake.
Does it?
Or can u connect to a large central node

>>14036639
you need the state needed to execute transactions in a block