/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>15959072
i don't buy shitcoins

>>15959087
>i don't buy shitcoins
Based! I too am all in on BitCoin. When Pumpkin?

>>15959072
lol you can also send the weather

>>15959072
Because using huge blocks to scale is a terrible idea. Because Craig is unstable, a liar and a fraud. Because it's a shitty fork of an almost as shitty fork. Because nobody uses BSV, and there is no reason they should. Because Vishnu does not need to live on the blockchain.

>>15959115
sv is the stinkiest shitcoin after link

So it’s like an bcash 2 then?

"A higher limit can be phased in once we have actual use closer to the limit and make sure it's working OK.

Eventually when we have client-only implementations, the block chain size won't matter much. Until then, while all users still have to download the entire block chain to start, it's nice if we can keep it down to a reasonable size.

With very high transaction volume, network nodes would consolidate and there would be more pooled mining and GPU farms, and users would run client-only. With dev work on optimising and parallelising, it can keep scaling up.

Whatever the current capacity of the software is, it automatically grows at the rate of Moore's Law, about 60% per year." SN 2010

>>15959214
more like bcash 1/2 based on hash

>>15959220
the fuck do we keep the old blocks for btw?
pruning should be the default mode of operation by 2017. sv is going full retard even in this. trying to put data alive forever on-chain is one of the more imbecilic ideas.

>>15959072
because it has lost 75% of its value against BTC.

If wanted that I'd literally burn three in every four dollars I own

>>15959151
maybe it's just your nose being too close to your mouth?

>>15959335
>>15959315
>>15959297
>>15959241
>>15959220
>>15959214
>>15959151
>>15959142
>>15959118
>>15959115
>>15959087
STIFF

>>15959297
You are genius. Satoshi was retarded.
4TB drive cost 100$, BSV blockchain has 160GB now. Where you see the problem??

>>15959072
>- it has HUGE blocks
Only shit-eating retards think that's a good thing.

>>15959555
based trips

>>15959315
this is the same dumb fake story as the Eskimo blood knife bullshit

>>15959519
>BSV blockchain has 160GB now
yeah because it was run nowhere near it's advertised limit for 2 years, but with 2 gig blocks it would only take 2 weeks to fill that 4 terra.

>>15959666
who will spend 2k$ per block to fill? now upload cost 1k$ per 1GB and miners can change fee any time if it's problem for them.

>>15960029
a miner can fill the blocks for free tho. even if you make some arbitrary fork forcing a minimum fee he would only pay himself.

>>15959072
It's a cyber currency. It's imaginary money based on a another imaginary money. It only has value to a very limited set of people. And the people who push it are pretty much doing pump and dump or Ponzi schemes.
Prove me wrong.

>>15959406
diaper seems full of poo poo

>>15960157
gold and silver too. demand is supply

>>15960829
>demand is supply
is this the new brainlet economics?

>>15959142
>Because using huge blocks to scale is a terrible idea.
It's actually not. It's the only plausible solution to the scaling issue, and BitCoin was always intended to scale with larger blocks as outlined in the white paper.

>>15959072
so this app helps me earn bsv?

>>15959072
> huge blocks
> fewer nodes
> more centralized
> allows uploading

If bsv ever did flip og btc, governments are going to upload secret documents then say bsv is a threat to nat sec and shut down the few centralized nodes. Poof no more crypto, only state backed digital currencies.

>>15959072

>>15959087
fpbp

>>15959072
absolute shitcoin. average blocksize is what, 1 megabyte? and flagship products like twetch and moneybutton are already crapping out because they cant handle the load. at 2 GB blocks this shitcoin would be completely unuseable, SPV wont help you either as its for transactions only and not designed for this data-on-chain retardedness. its a failed scaling strategy. good luck with those bags.

>>15959072
>- it's led by Craig SATOSHI Wright

he's a fraud and a liar, on top of it an absolute faggot. even if he was satoshi (which he is 100% not) this guys behaviour is an absolute no. his homosexual person scares every serious person away. his reputation his shit to the maximum (and thats already put in friendly words).

>- it has a vibrant, passionate community
biggest collections of freaks and weirdos to be fair. everyone sane either left or stays away in the first place. not a single chad in this shit, by now its more like a human garbage dump. google the persons that are involved in bsv, its incels over incels and genetic waste.

>- Craig promised to DESTROY your fucking shitcoins
Craig promises a lot and the bitter truth is he never ever delivered on a single one. he's just a toxic asshole piling more brazen lies upon already brazen lies. no one ever kept him in check, idiots like calvin enable his behaviour cause they have no guts to face the truth.

>- BSV projects will disturb EVERYTHING
bsv is a shitcoin. the idea of bsv could be implemted way more efficient without the bitcoin garbage - now they are "building" on a fork of a fork of 10yo tech. what that means: you have 80% of the supply that was given for free away and that can be dumped at any moment. plus the tech is turbo inefficient as it needs to build
on a completely outdated protocol. as a bonus you still need to code with c++ with all its downsides whereby by now you could do an equivalent with c# that would be WAY more developer friendly in literally all terms.

I'm a faggot from POL and I'm not leaving until someone shows me a graph depicting either amount of companies selling products for bitcoin that aren't stock or etfs or bonds or other gay shit, OR, depicting an increase in the purchases of tangible assets or consumable goods using bitcoin. THINGS ARE ONLY A STORE OF VALUE IF THEY ALSO HAVE AN AGREED VALUE AS A MEANS OF EXCHANGE

>>15962608
good morning gregory maxwell

>>15959115
Soon.

>>15959297
If serving the data is profitable, it will be kept. Welcome to capitalism.

>>15962717
Hi Craig, thanks for the rare photo. Very nice.

Imagine investing in the Untermensch Coin >>15962749

>>15960954
>It's the only plausible solution to the scaling issue
no its not what a blatant lie again
its one solution but sv went way overboard and you know it.

>>15962598
spv doesn't work without providers that run full nodes what it does is let you verify what the provider is saying with minimal data so trust is not an issue.

>>15959555
>bingo
>four in a row

>>15963014
The way Bitcoin was always supposed to work, is to have the miners decide the size of the blocks.

The 1MB blocksize is literally CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING - a clear signal of Jewish takeover.

>>15963163
full retard yes it would maybe work on btc where the hash is well distributed and nobody can 51 the network without breaking a sweat. and btc would indeed need bigger blocks for actual txes. but only the unsecure shitforks with no real tx load only fake bullshit and stress tests removed the dos protection... the irony.

>>15963163
so satoshi was jewish? this is news to me. cause he put the 1mb limit in the codebase it can only be removed or increased by a hard fork which btc devs are too pussy to make

>>15959072
thanos
thanos craig
farmer thanos
farmer craig
CRAIG THE PUMPKIN FARMER

it all makes sense now

>>15963192
The 1MB limit was put in place at the infancy of the network when there was basically NO miners other than Satoshi himself. When there was no economic security, the 1MB limit was necessary to stop hostile attackers with a lot of hashrate from sabotaging the system. It was the training wheels that was always supposed to be removed long ago as the network grew in size.

>>15963366
>1MB limit was necessary to stop hostile attackers with a lot of hashrate from sabotaging the system
yes
>It was the training wheels that was always supposed to be removed long ago as the network grew in size
indeed, but this only goes for btc that has matured. shitforks would still need it for a long time. that is why i said it's full retard. you are putting yourself at the mercy of the miners and appeal to their benevolence.

with btc the miners could regulate the block size. anyone mining too big blocks would get ignored and orphaned. he could still break a lot of nodes when he broadcasts his block but it's fairly easy to ward against with policy.

>>15963485
but to be fair i'm in favor of the hard cap limit growing naturally with mores law just in case. this means a programmed doubling of the block size cap every halving (only makes sense as tx fees should take over the miners revenue from block rewards over time).

we would be at 4mb blocks and soon 8mb. but this clown world decided to just do everything that doesn't make sense.

>>15962608
go back peter

>>15963501
it's the BTC devs with ulterior motives that decided it.

>>15963613
or they are incompetent and cowardly. which i find much more likely. some btc devs like 3 in 600 have vested interest in off chain solutions but those will happen with or without increasing the block size limit anyhow.

what happened with segwit is it threw a wrench in the scarcity of blockspace allegedly increasing the virtual blocksize to 4mb. which is why btc works just fine today with the 1mb limit still intact. but this will only last a year or two. it's not a question of if but when it will get a bump.

>>15963619
btw i'm seriously thinking about joining bitcoin development. it's not nearly as easy as to simply fuck around with the code tho. from what i seen in the codebase and the way github is it's a very delicate matter at least anything that has to do with consensus. nearly impossible to test or debug it and the smallest errors you make can have crippling effects to the network.

i got some ideas i want to try out but after 3 hours i gave up trying to find my entry point for that change. this codebase is way too complex than just to willy-nilly patch it and be done with it.

maybe when i can quit wagecucking i will have the time to properly set about it.

>>15963631
and to put that 3 hours in perspective usually only takes me 5 minutes to 15 minutes depending on a systems complexity to find where i need to get started with a change or fix. and we are talking about enterprise software there erp and mes systems.

>>15963619
they got rid of gavin* and tries to sell stuff that would be useless if btc were allowed to scale as intended. it's clearly a conflict of interest. none of their arguments makes sense, especially after BCH have proven that there's no problem for the miners to update their software.

*by claiming his account was hacked and then never giving him back commit access when it was proven he wasn't hacked

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1977971#msg1977971
>All hail our new overlords. They're not just coders, they are press directors and OWN bitcoin. As they often say, if you don't like it... fork.
Andreas Antonopoulos in 2013

anyone remember this?
https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1044220740109848578

Luke-Jr (aka the religious weird) has a dream where he almost made light wallets impractical. then Vitalik pops in to say "wtf". a little later Vitalik released a whitepaper with a proposal that would strengthen light wallets

>>15963711
>it's clearly a conflict of interest.
don't see it really.
>none of their arguments makes sense
not true unless we are talking about lukejr who is a flat earher retard.
>especially after BCH have proven that there's no problem for the miners to update their software
it proven that 10% of the miners who went with it went easily with every subsequent hardfork. but bitcoin is a much bigger consensus than bch. a lot more can go wrong also.

interestingly andreas managed to disagree with bitcoin governance but keep his shit together and advocate and advance bitcoin nevertheless.

you can't save bitcoin with minority forks you can only murk up the water.

>>15963711
>by claiming his account was hacked and then never giving him back commit access when it was proven he wasn't hacked
btw gavin could develop bitcoin without a commit access if he choose to. everyone else can only do pull requests anyhow. but i agree that was an interesting shitshow they first thought he was hacked then concluded he was somehow compromised. and let's face it gavin did a lot for that. still it's not like commit rights are the end of all things, if he ever committed malicious change it could be rolled back faster than lightning. don't like that particular happening i admit.

>>15963739
i could go through my link library to dig up all the shit btc devs have done to gimp btc in order to protect blockstream but after 2018 i've kinda moved past caring. these days i just look in on bitcoin (all three versions) out of curiosity, i've stopped believing the dream is possible

>>15963758
satoshi himself could push a merge request to get rid of the block limit and they would just deny him. of course it matters. they kicked him off the project and took all the power away from him.

related tweet concerning his commit access removal for anyone interested
https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/727078284345917441

>>15963772
>i've stopped believing the dream is possible
depends on the dream, i find craigs vision a nightmare more like.
but yeah btc is kinda fucked because politics have too much weight in the development, but just imagine if you had to orchestrate 600 devs and millions of users work and wishes around the globe everyone having different ideas and approach and vision for scaling and you have to make sure that no matter what happens the network keeps working at least and not fork.

it's not an easy job i couldn't do it. satoshi could i think. he could whip them into marching order settle any debate, but he choose to withdraw on his seventh day and let the dice roll.

and we are back to $8k btw
fucking barts

>>15963862
at the very least they could have expanded blocks to 2 MB in 2017, it was predicted back in 2015 that the blocks would get full in 2017 so they could have implemented a scheduled increase. would have given miners two years time to update their software (something they do overnight, as was proven in 2018 when the vulnerability was discovered in BTC by a BCH dev and every single miner updated their BTC software immediately with no problems what so ever).

>>15963976
yeah but segwit 2x was a brutal fuckup it was riddled with bugs and pushed hastily to production which the miners backed out of last minute. and this is what i meant by not being easy. when i looked at the actual consensus code altering it seemed like a monumental task. not to mention the hundred policy settings that need to be updated in concert for the network to function properly.

>>15963998
segwit was yet another dream of Luke-Jr

fuck segwit's fake 2 mb scaling, im talking REAL scaling. you change 1 line of code, done. no added complexity, everything keeps working. it really is that simple. id rather not get into this deeper.

>>15964021
>segwit was yet another dream of Luke-Jr
doubt that moron had anything to do with it's conception. i doubt he can count to 10.

>>15964021
>you change 1 line of code
that's what i believed but then i actually looked at the source. nothing is simple there.

>>15964091
he basically made the whole thing

>>15964100
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a30b56ebe76ffff9f9cc8a6667186179413c6349#diff-23cfe05393c8433e384d2c385f06ab93R18

behold the bane of our existence. everything around it is just excuses not to just fucking increase the size.

trivia: Hal Finney suggested the limit, it wasn't satoshi's idea originally
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.msg10388435#msg10388435
>But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.

the max block size was implemented as flood protection, a temporary fix while the cost of 1 BTC was so low than anybody could create 10k transactions with no real world cost, which would "flood" the network. today it is not needed because such an attack has an actual real world cost associated with it and would not last long.

>>15964227
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE is just one thing, but the validation code is full of policy settings involving sizes of transactions overall sizes overall fee amounts etc...

you can't just fucking increase one constant and expect everything to work.

i mean you could try on a testnet but even organizing one is way beyond your means.

>>15964227
>he basically made the whole thing
thought pieter wuille proposed and worked on segwit lukejr is the fucktard we can thank the mess of a soft fork to.

>>15964504
like i said, excuses. i understand that it's not literally just one line of code that needs changing, because the devs are retarded (it SHOULD just be 1 line that needs changing, that's why the constant is defined, so you can change it easily), but it sure as hell would be easier to do that than to implement segwit and bring on all that technical debt. just the concept of block weight is retarded. you'd really need some big ulterior motives to even consider segwit before taking the EASY route, which is to just change that constant.

speaking of ulterior motives...
https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/6ndfut/buttcoin_is_decentralized_in_5_nodes/dk9c27f/
https://medium.com/@SegWit/segwit-resources-6b7432b42b1e

>>15964528
yeah i was being a little hyperbolic
here's a good article if someone wants to learn about how segwit came about (it's long but can at least ctrl+f luke)
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

i'm logging off for tonight btw so apologies if i dont reply anymore, seems like we are the only two left in this thread

>>15964552
>it SHOULD just be 1 line that needs changing
not really you have to work around the validity issues involving time and miners signalling readiness in the acceptable ratio before you allow a larger than 1mb block and so on. and like i said its not evident but i agree in that it should have been done already. and in an automated manner like is aid automatically double ever halving. halvings of the coinbase are handled as is and the information is readily available in the consensus module.

>>15964504
if those variables can be calculated from max-block_size then it should still be just one line.

I believe more into potential gems with a small marketcap.
Take UOS for example,
Small marketcap of 2 mil, it can easily go 10x and still only sitting at 20mil marketcap.
It's designed to break into the billion dollar industry, which is gaming. It's becoming a huuuuge part of the IT / tech world.
The team behind UOS wants to cut the standard industry fee by half (around 30% to 15%), this is actually very ambitious and also very friendly to aswell for the users as the game developers.

>>15965870
i remember looking at segwit2x changes that basically just wanted to make segwit a proper hardfork and increase the blocksize to 2 megabytes.

shit is not so simple the segwit 2x fork only had a few minor bugs and some people tried to go ahead with the fork nevertheless but it just stopped working in 2017.

consensus is a delicate matter. bch also suffered serious malfunctions due to it's forks.

it's easy to say the core devs are pussies. but bitcoin is not a fucking plaything that you can buy an other if you break it.

>>15960053
then the miner misses out on other real fees

and if his block is too large, filled with his own transactions, it might take too long to propagate and a competing block will reach other nodes before his, leaving other miners to build upon the competing block. His block would be orphaned.

BitCoin is about incentives. No millionaire miner would harm his business in this way for too long.

>>15959297
You can't delete old stuff without reversing transactions

>>15967288
>then the miner misses out on other real fees
he can include anything he sees and fill the rest. you can't wiggle out of this.

>>15967288
it's true about the big block propagation but a miner that has more hash than the entire network needs not to worry. this is why btc is secure and shitcoins are not. especially shitcoins that share hashpower with btc. jesus christ what a dumpster fire!

>>15967341
>You can't delete old stuff without reversing transactions
i have no idea where you got that but quickly pretend you never said anything so stupid!

pruning is a natural step to take there is no way bitcoin will experience a 100 deep reorg and chug on like nothing happened. so anything before the last 100 blocks is history. which means it's enough to keep the utxo set and the block headers. this greatly compresses the space bitcoin would take up on a hdd to about 500 megabytes i think.

>>15962823
just imagine investing in a Socialist quota of 1mb - - BTC

>>15959072
>Craig
That answers your question Bindesh

>>15967474
>>15967480
Well yes that may be true but you must remember this miner is consuming valuable resources on a network he deems to be inferior. This behaviour is not incentivised. Why would you spend money elsewhere if your competitor is not fit for competition with you? You are more incentivised to work on the network you deem to be fit

guess /biz/ is a bit slower than usual right now