/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16114659
Why bother. It's just a weak attempt at building a complex network on top of an already shite network. No one will ever use it nor will it be adopted.

>>16114659
Stakenet

>>16114743
Fuck off shitcoiner.

>>16114659
no need either it works or it doesn't. cool if it does tho.

>>16114776
It doesn't appear to work as intended and BTC has a scaling problem.

>>16114659
no one needs to defend it. What's the top coin by market cap again? I forgot.

>>16114834
It won't be for long if this is the best it can do.

>>16114797
we will see. lightning is not really a scaling solution it's something much cooler. i mean sure short term it can take dirt transactions off the chain and that will help with scaling for a very transient period. but ultimately it doesn't solve anything about bitcoin scaling.

An absolute disaster, will be mocked as the biggest failure in crypto after Ethereum when this is all over

>>16114903
>it's something much cooler
Like what? Also what is BTC's scaling solution then?

>>16114910
That's what I'm thinking as well.

lightning network is based
sadly people on biz are brainlets gambling on link and will never appreciate the beauty of this network until it's too late
bitcoin will unironically be 1 million+ in less than 5 years due to lightning network being a massive success

>>16114920
enjoy losing money

>>16114928
>not sure if satire

>>16114974
not sure you understand bitcoin

>>16114983
What am I not understanding?

>>16114920
>Like what?
trustless instantaneous payment. basically it's a credit card competitor that allows for shopping with crypto.
>Also what is BTC's scaling solution then?
eventually the blocksize will be increased there is no way around that. seems like: short term increase segwit adoption while working on 2 way pegged sidechains. lightning is important and can help some in the interim period. but you would need about a 100mb block for approaching visa level transaction load on ln.

>>16114993
>trustless instantaneous payment
That already exists on BSV. wtf are you guys even doing? As for your scaling solutions haven't bared any fruit. Segwit has added a small increase in capacity. It isn't anything that will allow for mass adoption. Sidechains haven't scaled a single thing and lightning isn't working in the interim. I don't see a larger blocksize in the cards for BTC. Many of the developers want smaller sizes than they have now.

>>16114874
i honestly hope so, but the market doesn't care

>>16115046
bsv is gay

>>16115046
>That already exists on BSV
bullshit, the rbf flag is optional. go ahead try to make any merchant accept your non-rbf transaction without confirmation!

>>16115046
>Segwit has added a small increase in capacity.
segwit adoption is at 10% they want it at least 60% i think before they allow bigger blocks.

>>16115046
>I don't see a larger blocksize in the cards for BTC
large blocks are no in the cards nobody said that, but an increase will happen. btc will be small blocks comparably. at one point those small blocks will be a few hundred megabytes tho.

>>16115126
Almost everything that accepts SV accepts 0-conf.
>rbf flag optional
?

>segwit adoption is at 10%

>The percentage of bitcoin transactions using Segregated Witness (SegWit)—which make bitcoin transactions faster and cheaper—hit an all-time high of 49 percent this week

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/segwit-adoption-time-high-bitcoin-120046587.html

Looks like its at least half the network.

>>16115143
>few hundred megabytes
That doesn't scale.

>>16115143
>at one point those small blocks will be a few hundred megabytes tho.
So Blockstream will admit that Roger Ver and CSW were right?
Based

>>16115176
>That doesn't scale.
in 2080? sure it will. first things first we will get 2 meg blocks in a few years. i'm thinking 2022.
>>16115189
no roger and craig went full retard. organic scaling is good going full retard is bad. the thing is segwit changed block space scarcity the dust needs to settle before further increase.

>>16115176
>Looks like its at least half the network.
don't know about that i looked at tx-es not so long ago segwit tx-es were at around 10%.

>>16115209
You have nothing to show for it. BSV scales today and is demonstrating it can scale going forward.

>>16115219
sauce

No way, trash.

>>16115233
>BSV scales today
entirely debateable
>demonstrating it
that too is debateable to say the least.
>sauce
look at charts that show witness size and lean block size sparately!
the segwit adoption figures are tricky because they count the inputs and outputs (if any is segwit) that puts ""adoption"" to 50%. but in reality it's about 10% of tx-es that are from segwit address if i remember correctly.

>>16115265
>entirely debateable
Debate it, lol wtf.

Also sauce or stop talking out your ass.

BTC will scale opposite

>>16115285
that fucking retard got it all wrong. the blockchain is humongous so why keep it? fucking retard lukejr the flat-earther christian fundamentalist maggot...

>>16114746

>>16114903
>lightning is not really a scaling solution

Literally says on the first page of the white paper that LN was intended to solve the scalability problem.

>Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments
>https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

>>16114659
it's optional
bitcoin is still cheaper to use than debit cards
Electrum is the safest and cheapest bank in the world

>>16115301
it's reaching 250GB
it's not humongous, it's still pretty portable
my laptop has a full node

>>16115364
Fees are completely unreliable. Businesses can't use BTC because the network is easily congested and the fees can rise to $50 and it could easily go higher than that if BTC has another bullrun/slightly higher use. With that BTC cannot be adopted for wider use in any realistic way.

>>16114659
imagine being the redditor that lost 5 bitcoin using LN so he could shave 30 minutes off his transaction HAHAHAH

>>16115349
>Literally says on the first page of the white paper that LN was intended to solve the scalability problem.
well they fucked up then.
>>16115372
it is humongous it should be 500 megabyte or so. even that is pushing it.

>>16115395
>Businesses can't use BTC because
accounting laws and or their own difficulties prevent them from taking it as payment in most countries anyhow.
you have been scaring us with that $50 fee all last year and we had like $0.34 on average.

but i agree the 1 mb limit is unsustainable. bitcoin tries to shed it's parasites while trying to scale off-chain while increase segwit adoption and keep the network trustless and permissionless by decentralization. clear vision however has not been demonstrated about it's future. it's completely leaderless as is since satoshi left. and while blockspace is the one of the most scarce assets on earth the tx count needs increase as block reward is decreasing.

>>16115420
>can't mount a single argument against scaling onchain
>doesn't know Segwit is halfway adopted
>when pressed can't provide sauce
>doesn't know LN is intended to be a scaling solution
>thinks the LN devs just "fucked up" they don't actually know what they're doing lolz

Keep posting.

>>16115462
It still has unconfirmed. The network is congested. If a business adopts this pile of shit and it takes off their fees are going to skyrocket again. Business actually were trying to btc and adoption was increasing at a pretty steady rate and then 2017 happened. No business wants to touch it again until they can know for certainty there is a stable protocol with reliability in fees, throughput, and velocity.

>>16115463
>can't mount a single argument against scaling onchain
i have non, it's great except going full retard is not good. organic growth is required small blocks only doubling every halving. even bch went full retard and sv doubled down on it like there is no tomorrow. for now we need 4mb blocks with segwit theoretically we have that block space (not sure i buy this but whatever)
>Segwit is halfway adopted
really don't know about that, maybe the exchanges and services all adopted it user? don't fucking think so probably not even 10%.
>can't provide sauce
how do you sv jeets like to say? yeah i'm not going to spoonfeed you. i know the official line about 50% adoption i remember differently from actual data. you can google too, why should i google for you?
>intended
is the operative word there
>LN devs just "fucked up"
that they did tho... clear as day.

>>16115500
>The network is congested
rofl https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,all
looks completely fine to me.
>No business wants to touch it again until they can know for certainty there is a stable protocol with reliability in fees, throughput, and velocity.
we will see what businesses find reliable or not. most business want's to receive bitcoin anyhow i don't see them having expenses in bitcoin for a good while.

>>16115505
>organic growth is required small blocks only doubling every halving
According to who? Why the fuck is anyone deciding what miners can and cannot process?

>for now we need 4mb blocks
Based off of what?

>i remember differently from actual data. you can google too, why should i google for you?
Because I already did that and showed you the result. Your shilling is so fucking obvious.

>>16115527
>looks completely fine to me.
It was over 15k unconfirmed earlier. There is almost no excitement in BTC and it's hitting 10k numbers.

>>16115527
>i don't see them having expenses in bitcoin for a good while
Well it's hard to make that transition when the cash system you created is limited to a megabyte by retarded developer groups.

>>16115559
>when the cash system you created is limited to a megabyte by retarded developer groups
truth to be told despite the unwillingness of certain parties 1) satoshi put the 1mb in place he could have made it auto adjusting from the get-go he fucked up 2) a hard fork increasing the limit was in the works and was only aborted because it was riddled with bugs when they still tied to go live with it their split chain came to a standstill due to a bug. 3) it's a fucking nightmare to do a hardfork on bitcoin. all the devs are afraid of what could happen. and apparently a lot can go wrong with such a simple thing.

that all aside it should have been done long ago. reminds me of the pic where the dog sits in a house on fire and says it's fine some days. but then it still works and still the only trustless permissionless publicly auditable and secure ledger to date.

>>16114776
this
I'm not married to any coin - thinking like that allowed me to save the majority of my peak net worth in 2018

>>16114797
I'll use ETH if BTC fails, then

>>16115679
Suit yourself. ETH is even shittier than BTC.

>>16115679
>I'll use ETH if BTC fails
i will go bch if bch survives if not then i'm done with crypto go full boomer with gold and stocks.

>>16115711

Have fun getting left behind

>>16115809
we will see, i wouldn't bet on btc going anywhere any time soon. it certainly gonna have one last bull at least. $100k is almost guaranteed within 2 years. after that the true challenge comes. we are in the adoption gap right now. it's kinda natural for disruptive tech. it can also be fatal. bitcoin became a thing before the world had a real need for it.

>>16115904
>we are in the adoption gap right now
You sound like a realtor right before 08'. BTC is so fucked lmao

>>16115928
you seem to think sv has any chance of surviving btc... weird.

>>16115993
>you seem to think Bitcoin will survive some usurper shitcoin

BTC is a fucking joke.

>>16116047
sv is a 100 times worse joke. (accidentally their hashrate ratio)

>>16116078
>sv is a 100 times worse joke
>NO U

>>16115046
>trustless payments already exists on BSV.
Not when BSV got the hashrate of an Excel spreadsheet

I like big blocks and I cannot lie. Little blocks are sooo sad.

I think a lot of little girls around here are scared of big blocks, but letting the miner choose is key.

Give me those big block!

>>16114659

Noob / shitcoiner reveal thread?

>>16115046

nobody cares about altcoins

I prefer NANO to BSV

>>16116716
>but letting the miner choose is key.
I think miners chose tiny blocks though

In fact, I prefer NANO to BTC, LN and BSV

>>16115395
> fees can rise to $50
HAHAH LOL
no they can't
also, I choose how much I pay on fees, there are pools who take any fee
bitcoin is just like paying by check, you just have to wait a bit

you don't have to wait for confirmation if you're a merchant selling coffee, just like you don't spend the night at the restaurant you paid by check and are only allowed out when the check is debited

VISA will soon start accepting crypto, as bitcoin is more bank than payment processor

>>16117592
bitcoin is just like paying by check, you just have to wait a bit
but what about the peer 2 peer electronic cash part?

>>16115265
how tf is it debatable??
bsv will be king. BTC became broken when it refused to scale.

>>16117911
>how tf is it debatable??
it's debatable that bitcoin can scale with no block limit. because it makes blocks space cheap and invites spam and junk to a normally scarce asset bloating it up infinitely.

it's basic econ the demand for free immutable highly redundant storage is infinite. now sv is not completely free of course but it's heap as fuck compared to bitcoin. and even on bitcoin there is a serious amount of transactions happening that are not financial in nature. the fee market is the only thing that can bring balance to this but it only exists when blocks are full. blocks can't be full if they have no limit. the fee market orders transactions by priority. you see tx-es piling up in the mempool that are not priority tx-es priority tx-es pay the fee for their priority and junk tx-es or non priority tx-es will have to wait for empty blockspace. which happens sooner or later anyhow.

>>16117993
>it makes blocks space cheap and invites spam and junk to a normally scarce asset bloating it up infinitely.
oh no, free market makes something cheap and abundant. We better assemble a small group of people to rule over the masses and decide what and how much they can produce
Oh veey

>>16117993
the effects of the block limit and fee market are fivefold:
1) it provides natural incentive for efficiency (ie smaller transactions, batching transactions)
2) it pushes dirt transactions off-chain but still in the ecosystem (sidechains - which is a fundamentally different philosophy of scaling than one-chain carries everything - will help with this while derive their security from bitcoin while allowing for more specialized blockchains and ledgers to coexist)
3) keeps the blockchain more lean and manageable new nodes are allowed to sync up trustlessly
4) helps with block propagation with low latency
5) keeps the miners well fed as block rewards drop on an appreciating asset which contributes to network security.

>>16118017
the cumulative cost is better priced in this way. still a free market but one that adapts to scarcity. bitcoins supply is artificial scarcity to begin with. i bet commies like you don't lieke that.

>>16118035
>the cumulative cost is better priced in this way
I know better than the free market. It is better if I descide what people can produce and how much they can charge for their products. Just trust me, I am just so smarter than the free market. Let me rule over you and we will all have a better world.

Why hello Kim Jong Un

>>16118028
How is this sidechain business panning out? There was a lot of talk about it with little results

>>16118054
>It is better if I descide what people can produce and how much they can charge for their products.
it evidently doesn't work as intende as shown by the past 10 years. sure miners could implement a soft limit to bitcoin tx-es per block and adjust it to reasonable fees but bitcoin does not provide a mechanism for discovering this limit naturally. because once tx fees start increasing because some miners stop including low fee tx-es after a certain block size an other miner will be incentivized to pick up the slack and maximize his imminent profit.
this ends up with miners bidding under each other and including as much non-free tx as possible which pushes down tx fees till their point of in-profitability. so you can't have block limits without having block limits imposed by consensus rules.

but again we will see if a centralized piece of shit insecure coin like sv can manage this well after the halving.

>>16118090
>THIS time communism will work
lol, cool story bro. You are insane

>>16118076
dunno, all i know is with hierarchy of sidechains you can have more cumulative blockspace more total tx/sec without bloating the root blockchain to ad infinitum. and allow everyone only download portions they are interested in. you can have regional sidechain for local payment, you can have specialized smart contract sidechains with turing complete script for insurance and legal contracts and oracles and shit... i like this approach better because it allows for more evolution more competition the patentoshis coin tries to stiffle *sic* all that and push everything onto a giant bloatware that will simply not perform as expected nor will it keep the properties of real crypto.

i think they are coming close to a two way pegged sidechain with liquid but don't really care for that project right now. it will only be important in 5 years or so. right now i care about pruning the blockchain without impacting bitcoins base incentives and security and trustless nature.

>>16118103
it's the opposite of communism neger. a fee market is the most capitalist thing invented. commies like you sure love projecting.

>>16118103
>retard trying to look for communism everywhere because he can't reason on his own

>>16117993
BTC had 10 years to scale. It couldn't do it due to 1MB limit. Artificial bottleneck - death by blockstream central planning.

BSV has a removed block limit and usage is scaling exponentially.

Pic related is a LOGARITHMIC scale - meaning linear curve is actually exponential increase.

Tide goes in tide goes out. You can't explain that!

>>16118135
it's /pol/ that's leaking into sv threads you can recognize them by this and their blatant anti-semitism. they don1T actually understand the mechanisms and incentives behind bitcoin they just try to force their memes on everything they don't understand and call everyone a jew or a commie who disagrees.

>>16118145
we only hit the 1m limit in 2017
>BSV has a removed block limit and usage is scaling exponentially.
looks like an s-curve forced by junk data providers to me. if you removed weather sv and shit like that you would end up with 1.3% of the tx-es that are actual payments. just like ver subsidized bch network by burning money calvin and his crew tries to force their bad meme like that too.

>>16118157
>I'm blind and can't read graphs, also If you just removed usage, it would have no usage

Hot take brainlet.

>>16118145
It's a competition of clients, Core is just one of them. Chink miners had a choice to switch from the Core client to Bitcoin XT back in the day. They didn't, they stuck with Core, because of Asiatic "loyalty". No one forced them to. If they did, BTC would have increased the block size already.

That being said, I'd definitely prefer something else to BOTH BTC and BSV. BSV is untrustworthy and is run by a scammer, BTC is just old tech.

>>16114797
>BTC has a scaling problem
No BTC has no scaling problem - it just currently has not implemented larger blocks so as not to bloat the blockchain. Once BTC is constantly (not just sporadically for a week or so) feeling the strain, then the block size will start to increase, but probably and rightly, in a conservative manor. Personally I predict we hold out till things are starting to get real problematic and then a straight jump to 4 or 8Mb blocks, as by then BTC will be quite a force to be reckoned with, being so widely adopted.
The Block size should reflect real use not speculative use.

>>16118183
you will see what i'm talking about soon enough. the market will sort it all out. it will be glorious.

>>16118213
>a straight jump to 4 or 8Mb blocks
no that's a horrible idea since segwit acts as a sort of multiplier that would be close to going full retard now. increasing the block size to 2mb could work. but the miners will get their rewards halved soon you can't do that now. you have to do it when the prices starts hiking and the miner reward carries their profitability. with careful timing this could work out incredibly well. however there is also an effort to increase the block size by a soft fork which was also demonstrated to be doable. this could mean batching tx-es first submitting into the extension block and later on the batch tx carries them onto the main block.

>>16118213
>No BTC has no scaling problem
Yeah, that's why it have so capacity that it is unusable for payments unless you are willing to pay a insanely high fee to get in the next tiny artificially capped block. Have you heard about double speak? Read 1984 by Georg Orwell, it describes the communistic BTC cultists perfectly

>>16118264
>segwit acts as a sort of multiplier that would be close to going full retard now
Im not convinced segwit will remain a thing... its obviously a temp bandaid to avoid increase in block size. BTC it could leave behind segwit and return back to the way of the pure with larger blocks.
Your right about timing and mining rewards. Block size increase might have to be increased as a function of time, so maybe every week it increases by 1kb? or as an inverse square or as an exponential or whatever...

>>16118287
i read that shit m8 i can't begin to imagine how that could apply to the bitcoin vs sv conflict. unless you talking about the sudden turn of events when one day suddenly roger and bch was always the enemy after all.

>>16118303
>its obviously a temp bandaid to avoid increase in block size
no. it's the other way around. the block size was not increased to force segwit adoption. segwit first and foremost is a malleability fix. and a stepping stone for off-chain solutions built on the core protocol. if there is a fatal flaw they will fix it with a hard fork i don't see it go away.

>>16118303
>so maybe every week it increases by 1kb?
hmm yeah maybe we shouldn't just fucking double it... you could also make it self adjusting like the difficulty only this would be based not on tx-es but total fees in a block. while setting the maximum block size hard cap to double every halving.

>>16114743
>>16114746
Stakenet is genuinely one of the best defenses and use cases of Lightning. Pic related.

>>16118287
>that's why it have so capacity that it is unusable for payments
No one is using it for payments... and not because of fees, but because BTC has become perceived as a get rich quick product. Its main use is speculative so can be "laggy"... once adoption reaches real world levels then 1MB will be blown out the water!
Having said that you can still send BTC with $0.10 fees and it does get there still - maybe not in 10min but not that long, and for coffee, i'm happy with 0 conf.

>>16118340
>self adjusting like the difficulty
yes this quite possibly is the right way to go..
Have not thought deeply about this but seems ok.
How could this be exploited?

>>16118340
>>16118394
You are so close to understanding how Bitcoin is supposed to work, yet still so far.

Welcome to BitcoinSV where miners, through economic incentives, will be deciding the block cap.

Enjoy your stay.

>>16114928
Imagine still thinking BTC has any chance of being a viable currency in 2019...

>>16118414
miners don't have good economic incentives to manage the block size for long term network health.

>>16118342
thanks famalam. but lets keep stakenet hush hush still need to buy more masternodes before price goes 100x

>>16119329

I want to choose what ever size block i feel like mining today. Fuck limits, if you don't want to run a bitcoin node then don't no one is forcing you. Blockstream tards. The sooner everyone agrees Bitcoin SV is better the faster my bag can get pumped.

1000x is still possible with BSV. Good luck getting 10x with bitcoin in the next year. So get on the bandwagon and all kf /biz/ take the damn sv redpill already and lets get these bags mooning boys

>>16119108
its the only viable crypto

>>16119343
see >>16118090 for detailed explanation

>>16119435
>buy mah pedo bags

>>16115058
Amazing argument

>>16117592
>bitcoin is just like paying by check
No, Bitcoin is an electronic cash system.

>you don't have to wait for confirmation if you're a merchant selling coffee
On BTC you have to.

>VISA will soon start accepting crypto
Maybe they'll use BSV, but BTC doesn't scale at all.

>>16119818
also truthful

>>16117993
>because it makes blocks space cheap and invites spam
>pay for something
>its spam

Besides if the blocks are unlimited and miners decide what their own threshold is then there is no problem if the market for some reason decides that earning fees on "spam" isn't profitable.

>>16114700
Checked and fpbp

>>16119334
no

>>16118028
>it provides natural incentive for efficiency
It compels half baked workarounds that don't need to exist.
>it pushes dirt transactions off-chain
So transactions that you yourself don't find valuable but someone else was willing to pay money to do. Got it, commie.
>keeps the blockchain more lean and manageable new nodes are allowed to sync up trustlessly
Creating a new node is a hundred million dollar venture. Syncing up is the least of a new node's problems to coming online.
>helps with block propagation with low latency
HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR VENTURE
>keeps the miners well fed as block rewards drop
100k transactions a day isn't going to keep anyone fed at scale.

>>16118151
/biz/ is the real /pol/ newfag. Get out.

>>16118157
>if you removed
>STOP DOING THINGS I DON'T LIKE

>>16118187
>Bitcoin XT
Nodes were attacked. There is a whole history there. Mike Hearn wrote an article about it in 2016 when he left development. There are some things that Nakamoto Consensus didn't predict. Like Gavin hiring small blockers who in turn locked him and other big blockers out of the Core dev team.

>>16118213
>arbitrarily deciding blocksize with my central planner mentality

This is why BTC will never make it.

>>16118303
>BTC it could leave behind segwit
Those transactions are in the ledger forever. Removed digital signatures and all.

>>16118342
>shitcoins are the best defense of LN

You're not doing the BTC camp any favors here.

>>16119920
>calling xsn a shitcoin

weak senpai

All of you corecocks are delusional. BTC will not scale with segwit. Segwit transactions are not bitcoin transactions since they remove the signatures from blocks.

>>16119920
Low profitability has been a major bottleneck for Lightning. Stakenet benefits the Lightning Network immensely by having each masternode in its network serve as additional (decentralized) liquidity for it.
Every masternode also acts as a LN payment processor capable of routing and serving as watchtowers.
As Stakenet is being built to host a DEX, the benefits are a two-way street because Lightning has the potential to make DEXs much faster than they currently are. Atomic swaps performed on Lightning (or, Lightning swaps) are instant.
>>16119999
fucking checked
solid quads bro

>>16115372
>>16115420

Hey guys!
Listen
guys
Why don't they
make
the block size
FLEXIBLE
depending on how clogged the network is?

>>16114928
Dude the head of lightning network project is a woman lmao

>>16120244
Good question. Is that even possible with Bitcoin?

>>16114700
/thread

>>16119833
everybody pays for spam they just don't have to pay enough if spam exists.

>>16120377
It is. Just like the difficulty adapts, depending on the hashrate, blocks sizes can adapt too.

>>16119857
>It compels half baked workarounds that don't need to exist.
so you have no idea what efficiency means...
>So transactions that you yourself don't find valuable
no transactions that are not valuable to justify taking up space in a block. no idea where you get this commie thing this is the purest form of capitalism. you have to pay for a service if it's too cheap it gets abused if it's too expensive it hinders intended use between the two is the golden spot.
>Creating a new node is a hundred million dollar venture. Syncing up is the least of a new node's problems to coming online.
in your cuck fantasy i bet.

also you can't argue the facts that btc miners have magnitudes more bucks from fees than sv miners. precisely because of the reasons i outlined.

>>16119872
bullshit
>>16119876
it's just spam you try to sell it as real world use case but it's subsidy when governments do this everyone knows it's bad because it distorts market incentives and mechanisms. when some rich fag does it to push his shitty agenda you start celebrating and pretend it's actual demand. it's just spoofing.

>>16120244
because that would mean the spam simply pushes up the limit and you are back to no limit at all.

you need to adjust the block limit slowly (like the difficulty) and based on fees not tx count if you want to keep the spam down and not hinder actual use case. not as easy and self evident as i would like but hell it has to be doable.

>>16120528
oh and the hard part is that fees can easily be counted by the protocol in btc however fees would need to be accounted in usd for the adjustment. which means as obviousy path oracles and a governance mechanism like maker dao. all of which is very much outside the scope of bitcoin and what it wants to accomplish an how.

so... yeah. not so easy.

>>16119920
>everything I don't like is a shitcoin
that's literally maximalist thinking

>>16119999
nice quads

>>16120528
>spam
If a user is willing to pay for a transaction and a miner is willing to process it in exchange for the fee paid by the user, then who the fuck are you to tell them they can't? What kind of fetish are you struggling with to think that YOU should rule over people and tell them what they can or can't trade and how much they they must pay or charge? You are either very sick mentally or you are just stupid. Either way you are a power hungry communist

>>16118414
btw best of luck with that experiment, i'm sure nobody will abuse it or anything. you remove your only dos protection on a minority hash network cause what could go wrong right?

it's also true tho that if it works out btc devs will have very little leg to stand on when arguing against increasing the limit. so yeah best of luck!

>>16120575
>If a user is willing to pay for a transaction and a miner is willing to process it in exchange for the fee paid by the user, then who the fuck are you to tell them they can't?
noone can tell them that. that's the point however the situation naturally resolves itself when blocks are full. spam will be too expensive thus it will be kept to a minimum or moves off the chain.

>>16120575
>you are a power hungry communist
like i said there is nothing more capitalist than a fee market. you keep ignoring this point because you have no arguments there. it's the purest form of supply and demand.
bitcoin is all about controlling the supply and let the demand run free.

>>16120611
>I'm not a communist I promise
>I'm just saying I wont allow you to process more than 1mb of transactions

Now change
process with growing
1mb with 1kg
transactions with potatoes

and maybe you will see how retarded your communistic central planning ideology is. It has nothing to do with Bitcoin and that is why Satoshi left BTC for BSV.

>>16120750
i'm not saying either of that i'm saying you are a faggot a habitual liar and a cuck.

>>16120980
>you are a faggot
>a habitual liar
>and a cuck
Persuasive and on point like only a BTC promoter can be

>>16120750
>and that is why Satoshi left BTC
hahahah jesus fucking christ the mental gymnastics you fags do to somehow twist the facts to your agenda.
no satoshi had the central development locked down on btc he was a ruthless despot. he left btc to let the system grow on it's own without him micromanaging shit. and that aussie shitposting cunt is most definitely not satoshi.

you fags make up the strangest things.

>>16120996
yeah i think i made myself pretty clear on that one. it was way better than your feeble attempt to brand me a commie.

>>16121002
You are a commie faggot, literally glowing.

>>16121217
bullshit i'm about as far away from a commie as humanly possible. you natsoc fags are much closer to the bolsheviks.

>>16121523
Who said anything about national socialism? You deserve Minecraft, stupid nigger.

>>16114659
it's kike vomit