/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16168350
your mother's cunt

>>16168356
Holy fuck seethe corecuck

>>16168350
BSV is either going to $100k or zero (probably zero)
BCH is safer but no moon mission

>>16168350
going around tokyo, I occasionally see signs showing they accept bch. I've never seen anyone accepting bsv.

>>16168362
BSV is probably going passed $100k
BCH is more bitcoin than BTC but if BSV succeeds then BCH will get rekt

>>16168377
Thats because Roger Ver lives there and spends most of his time going around shilling BCH to backstreet divebars so he can promote "global adoption" on his youtube channel.

>>16168350
BSV, it's technologically superior to BCHABC which was what the BCH fork from BTC was for in the beginning.
I wish BCH never split in the first place but it is what it is.

btrash has no future
bsv will install the orwellian nightmare and only first buyers will actually live in the floating cities above the subhumans and slaves

BSV owners will be the new elite financially

I'll be honest BSV branding is fucking awesome.

I feel like Roger Ver is a good guy and really wants whats best for bitcoin, but Craig Wright is just evil enough to get BSV pumping.

>>16168350
Both scams

>>16168497
BCH has real world adoption. People accept it. Doesn't make it a scam does it?

BSV. Everything else will be taken down as they try to operate outside the law

Is it true BSV is more decentralized than BTC and BCH?

Is there a reason why as to why Samson Mow and Bitcoin Core developers are buying Bitcoin SV?
Is this rumor really true?
Is Lightning Network really that messed up?

Guys, what has been with BCH block time lately? last block was 40 minutes ago

Well at least we can all agreed BTC<BSV and BTC<BCH

>>16168726
Yeah Bitcoin is shit but srsly I'm trying to transfer my BCH to buy BSV but the BCH block hasnt been mined for over an hour. FUCK

all versions of btc will be phased out

>>16169101
Replaced by what?

Who here has Smart Money?

>>16168611

Yes, big blocks will unironically make it much more decentralized than BTC by an order of magnitude as miners start specializing (one miner hashes, another miner propagates, etc)

>>16168399
That is what is necessary to drive adoption.
Only BCH seems to care (and to a lesser extent, DASH)
Only BCH is doing it right: easy to use peer to peer cash which can replace all other money, everywhere.
Yeah, I'm thinking this is a multi quadrillion market cap.

>>16169414
The way to get mass adoption is to get major international companies on board, not some little literal who independent restaurants and bars in japan or slovenia

Yes very bsv moon mission. We shall have many rupees! Girls girls !!

>>16169546
or you make something like an mmorpg with an economy that blurs the lines between the physical and digital world

bitcoin still should be pushed towards people living on the fringes of society, it will only take 1 autistic dev to create the spark

>>16168350
BCH isn't lead by a bellend

>16169546
>MMORPG
RealmX
>>16169739
>Multi billion international company
Alliance Cargo Direct
...
Sure, it isn't WoW classic and Amazon but Roger is working hard and the the first founding steps have been delivered flawlessly.

>>16168356
oh look, it's the unhinged segwit core coin guy again

>>16168658
>Is Lightning Network really that messed up?
even core coin btc devs warns against using it because sometimes users funds suddenly disappear. One guy resently lost 4 btc by using LN. Another thing is that transactions fail 10% of the times and even when it works it is slow as fuck. It can take up to a minute to pay the merchant as opposed to the instant transactions on bitcoin (bsv). I have no idea why they thought it was a good idea to built a horrible non-crypto, non-blockchain like LN instead of just scaling Bitcoin. It is fucking hilarious and the whole world is laughing at them. It's a mess and they keep on digging their grave deeper and deeper while at the same time shouting profanities at Craig on his selfbuilt futuristic spaceship and calling it a scam. lol

>>16169546
This. All it takes is ONE major corporation / or enterprise / supply chain to start using it, and it will take off in a way that a thousand restaurants, gay bars and chicken feeders would never be able to do.

>>16168350
neither

>>16170223
only the merchant or a hub risks anything if he is not using a watchtower service paying with ln is perfectly safe tx either happens or not. also bullshit on the one minute even tho the network topology is horrible now.

>>16170305
>the merchant risks losing his money if he use the Lightning Network
what a mess

>>16170223
So here's the real crypto bluepill:

Craig Wright is unironically not Satoshi, the real Satoshi Nakamoto always wanted small blocks and segwit, "Peer to peer electronic cash" was simply a purposeful mistranslation of the Japanese. Blockstream - funded by Bilderberg group - saved Bitcoin by refusing to raise the 1mb block cap, preventing the blockchain from becoming cripplingly large. If they had not done this the blockchain could be as large as 500gb today meaning that Bitcoin node operators would have to upgrade from 500gb hard drives and pay for more storage space, ultimately leading to financial ruin and the death of the network.

Bitcoin as a store of value was just the first step, Blockstream is releasing the full version of the Lightning Network in 18 months, this will lead to a revolution in digital gold and decentralisation by routing all payments through Lightning banking nodes off-chain, this is why Blockstream is so intent to lower the block size to 300kb to incentivise adoption.

Back to hash power, as the price and adoption of BTC increases the blocksize will be gradually reduced to 0kb, closing off the blockchain completely, this will move all transactions onto Layer 2 (Layer 3 and 4 are also in development). With all transactions off-chain the greedy miners will have all their power removed and we will never see another hardfork ever again like the hard forking of 'Bitcoin Cash' and later 'Bitcoin SV' by the fraud Craig Wright (they have their own competing blockchain in the works), this will render the BTC protocol completely free from big blocker influence under the tight but decentralised fist of Blockstream.

>>16170310
its the settlement part if you are offline when layer1 settlement happens you risk getting stiffed by the other party. but when financial institutions will be hubs this will be alleviated by the legal layer.

>>16170359
basically merchants will use services they trust and have a legal relationship with that includes natural coverage of loss resulting from technical issues. someone has the btc its not really lost. huns will have the redundancy and or the legal clout or they will disappear after suffering crippling losses pure evolution.

>>16170359
>financial institutions must be hubs just like the old banking system to make it "safe"
LOL. Have you ever heard about Bitcoin?

>>16170359
>>16170383
>but when financial institutions will be hubs this will be alleviated by the legal layer

>>16170340
pure undiluted bullshit ln doesn't work without base layer transaction

>>16170398
Small blocks are good right? What's smaller than 0?

>>16170377
>>16170305
This is a fucking trainwreck, can't they just push Liquid with 0-conf instead of LN? It looks like they're desperate to stick to LN because they're embarrassed to admit their mistakes.

>>16170398
>ln doesn't work
Now we're getting somewhere. With this I will grant you 1 hour of dilating

>>16170383
lightning is a second layer that only works reasonably centralized and the various costs and security issues all predict heavy centralization of the network. which will result in a trustless but not fully permissionless network to endusers. ln routing issues will be alleviated by a 3rd layer solution also this mesh topology i think is untenable long term. but ln at the core the payment channel works just fine and is awesome.

>>16170340

Lel

>>16170420
What a mess. Did anyone tell you about this new thing called Bitcoin? It's a peer to peer electronic cash system and it solves all the problem you have created with your high school hobby project Lightning Network

>>16170420
>ln routing issues will be alleviated by a 3rd layer solution
Will that be replaced by the 4th layer when the 3rd layer has issues?

Also LN isn't a 'layer' it's off-chain

>>16170403
ln is still trying to find its shape give it time. 0conf was never a good idea. ln works (as in useful) or not time will tell. the most important issue is maintaining channels rebalancing them with a single onchain tx and possibly making 1:n or n:m channels for better liquidity scaling.

>>16170434
no bitcoin and ln solve different issues also ln needs bitcoin to function for settlement. you are just willfully ignorant.

>>16170447
Only 18 more month righ? lol
what a total and embarrassing mess

Meanwhile on bitcoin (bsv) 0-conf tx are cheap as fuck and works perfectly fine - every single time

>>16170435
of course its a layer what are you smoking? its only offchain for individual txes all balances are settled onchain.

>>16170447
I don't believe that 0conf is a problem for a federated chain like Liquid with all parties being exchanges or companies. Hey, it's actually based on bitcoin. There is cold storage and non-custodial wallets. Why push LN then?

>>16170453
>ln needs bitcoin to function
but Bitcoin doesn't need LN
It's a complete mess lol

>>16170447

>Implying RBF wasn't a terrible, system-breaking idea that most opposed when it was first proposed

>>16170460
no idea m8 all i know is 0conf will not work without authority and centralization of sorts timing attacks are trivial

>>16170472
yeah central authority and trust however distributed it is makes it viable in theory.

>>16170474
its a flag dont use it if you dont like it!

>>16170484
>timing attacks are trivial
then why haven't anyone done it? Why don't you do it?
You are a such a mess

>>16170473
i can't argue with that i can only argue with technically incorrect stupid shit.

>>16170495
they have on networks and in situations where its worth it 0conf will be abused if implemented.

>>16170484
>>16170489
Liquid is the one. To add a new node you need the permission of other nodes, who are concrete entities, hence a federated chain. But it also has features of bitcoin, cold wallets and stuff. I just don't understand why keep on pushing LN.

>>16170470
>"I run my own node to validate my transactions because I don't trust miners, don't trust, verify!"
>All lightning transactions are off-chain and unverifiable

>>16170515
and by implemented i mean stupid merchants accepting it for goods and services they can't return from their end.

>>16170535
Micropayments are not just merchants. It's also web micropayments which LN is unfit for.

>>16170524
lightning is basically one mechanism for bulk tx settlement. off chain until its settled. you try too hard.

Look, I actually hate BSV but admitting mistakes is crucial for moving forward. The Lightning Network is dysfunctional by design and in implementation. There could be much better offchain solutions.

>>16170545
we will see m8 way too early to tell but it looks promising enough to keep the experiment going. its basically open beta. and the mesh is ridiculously huge. i expect it to halve in node count every year for a while

>>16170578
>The Lightning Network is dysfunctional by design and in implementation.
Yes that's exactly what blockstream wanted

>>16170618
it was not blockstreams idea they back it pretty half assed no real resources diverted from paying projects

>>16169546
>>16169739
Nice idea, I like the vision, very futuristic and I could see how that would work.
But such an application could just as easily be built on BCH, and in all likelihood will be, because BCH continued with the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) which Satoshi started. Craig and Nchain rolled the protocol back to 0.1, locked it down unfinished.
Anyway, BCH is more private, and more useful with SLP tokens, and more secure with avalanche, and gets 99.4% more transactions through in the same MB of blocksize thanks to Graphene and Canonical Transaction Ordering (doesn't need to raise the blocksize because kept improving the tech) soon it will be completed and locked down too, the best most useful Bitcoin with the widest adoption.

Segwit and the Lightning Network are systems that only could be conjured up by neurotic Jews, it's fairly obvious at this point that just hard forking to allow for bigger blocksizes was the better solution.
Segwit is 5000 lines of code, while on a basic level allowing for bigger blocksizes is a single variable change, the Lightning Network is an autistic, non-working, and over-complicated dumpster fire.
Sooner or later they are going to have to hard fork anyway or BTC will be completely unusable if adoption increases, I can't wait for them to admit that they were wrong after several years of development, like Craig has always said.

>>16170618
I believe it was a failed experiment and Liquid looks much, much more superior in comparison (actually based on bitcoin, literally a small-world network of companies). If Blockstream started pushing it as an micropayments solution (and added something like 0conf compared to its 1-2min confirmation time) it would absolutely smash the competition, including and not limited to BSV. The problem of Blockstream is that they're reluctant to admit mistakes and prefer to stick to them, and LN IS a mistake.

>>16170644
hmm didn't realized bchdevs are working on pruning nice anyone can point me to the github repo for that work im deeply interested.

>>16170658
>Sooner or later they are going to have to hard fork anyway or BTC will be completely unusable if adoption increases
it has been demonstrated that they can do it with soft fork

>>16170644
also m8 the blocks are not compressed they cam compress the blocks only in propagation between nodes having the same mempool

>>16170644
Strategically why would you focus development time on bloatware features rather than scaling? Scaling solves everything

>>16170673
Segwit already maximizes the amount of transactions that can be stored in a block, which just delayed the core issue, and the LN doesn't work and it makes you lose your BTC.
If adoption continues to increase, we're just going to have the same issues as pre-Segwit: extremely long transaction times, insane fee amounts, non-cash
A hard fork from the beginning would have avoided all of this and is clearly the better and more efficient solution, the claim that Blockstream intentionally crippled BTC seems pretty fair given this.

>>16170659
>I believe it was a failed experiment and Liquid looks much, much more superior in comparison (actually based on bitcoin, literally a small-world network of companies).

Liquid is completely antithetical to a small world network. Its literally a bunch of scam exchanges on a sidechain.

>>16170658
Even if Blockstream suddenly did an ideological 180° and became big blockers they will never be able to scale BTC fast enough to overtake BSV, by the time BTC could get to 32MB blocks BSV will be at 1TB blocks

>>16170706
It is a small world network, though, as a means of security. A single exchange/node cannot confiscate your funds, just like on bitcoin.

>>16170705
yeah but it's after for core to do soft forks so it's the cowards way out. and it's possible to increase block capacity size via soft forks.
2 major way to go about it: 1 is about having a "pre-consensus" cheaper extension block only seen by nodes that upgrade and tied in via a special tx and hash. the main block chain can even solidify these transactions by batch processing at a later date for "old nodes" to see. 2 it's possible to allow the segregated witness part to include large chunks of data and basically it would be possible to create a special kind of segregated tx that already from the get-go does bulk transaction processing on the main block (but without signature) and only expands the individual tx-es in the segwit block.

>>16170760
>after for core
safer for core

>>16170718
it's a fools race btc will obviously not partake in. bsv dug it's own grave with practically infinite blocks. it already shows how the math doesn't add up and after the halving btc dominance in viability will only increase.

>>16170718
Yeah I agree, either way they lose.
If they decide to hard fork, they no longer get the autistic claim of "we're the original non-forked chain", and everything else about BTC is inferior.
Big business is already starting to build on BSV, BSV is years ahead in development and is more decentralized, and Blockstream is going to look like a joke: completely utterly exposed and wrecked.
Their other option is to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the obvious foundational flaws in BTC until transaction times skyrocket, fees become unpayable, and everyone left and right is losing their money to the LN scam. Everyone, including whales, will be looking for a better alternative.
Even without the Tulip Trust, coming 2020, BTC is soon going to plummet to $0.

>>16170780
>it's a fools race btc will obviously not partake in.
If you don't want to compete at all that's fine by us

>bsv dug it's own grave with practically infinite blocks
"It never really hits a scale ceiling" - Satoshi Nakamoto
Also, Moore's Law, Bitcoin can scale almost infinitely over time

>after the halving btc dominance in viability will only increase
Why would that be the case? the halving is only bad news for BTC as the hashrate will plummet from a lower block subsidy

>>16170718
Bsv won't ever need 1tb blocks because it won't have so much volume.

>>16170807
>Why would that be the case?
because fees have to pick up more and more of the slack after every halving. and the strategy btc chose guarantees non negligible fee income for the miners (about a 1000x more than say sv) as of right now.

sv would have to do stupendous big blocks and amount of tx-es to stay competitive which is not truly proven technically workable and sustainable and the demand is not even on the fucking radar for that growth while the halving is creeping on.

>>16170827
When you build a motorway if you are smart you build it to handle peak usage not for average usage, also massive volume is coming because Bitcoin SV can scale and that interests big companies. Big companies are not interested in your little hobby project

>>16170807
>Also, Moore's Law
yes bitcoin should scale by doubling it's block capacity every halving. that's about sustainable growth. btc right now has a theoretical 4mb virtual block capacity limit. which basically aligns with the two halvings if you believe those calculations. next one is the key i guess this next bullrun will make or break bitcoin hegemony.

>>16170849
>When you build a motorway if you are smart you build it to handle peak usage not for average usage
it's economically unfeasible. also the traffic demand will grow to the limit anyhow while at 90% of the time your capacity which is expensive to make and also maintain is unutilized.

if you are smart you let traffic engineers and economists plan the capacity of your highway. make them highly parallelized and interconnected so they can route around obstructions also.

>>16170831
>because fees have to pick up more and more of the slack after every halving. and the strategy btc chose guarantees non negligible fee income for the miners (about a 1000x more than say sv) as of right now.
By artificially raising TX fees on BTC you're crippling organic growth of usage, it will never work

BTC = $9000

To make up lost 6.5 BTC you need $9000*6.5 = $58,500 in fees
1mb block = 3,500 transactions
$58,000 / 3,500 = $16.57

You're going to need an EXTRA $16.57 per transaction on average to make up the lost reward, very few people are going to be willing to pay that and it gets even worse with the next halving

>>16170863
>yes bitcoin should scale by doubling it's block capacity every halving. that's about sustainable growth.
First of all Moores law doubles every 2 years not 4 years, secondly 1mb is way under what modern hardware can handle in 2019 to an extreme degree, we can do 1TB blocks right now with the software bottleneck solved.

>btc right now has a theoretical 4mb virtual block capacity limit.
4mb is absolutely pathetic, that's 28/tx a second, you want to run the world's economy on this?

>>16170880
>it's economically unfeasible.
Why?
>also the traffic demand will grow to the limit anyhow
Good! that means people are using Bitcoin
>your capacity which is expensive to make and also maintain is unutilized.
Miners are PAID, they make money from transaction fees, they can afford to upgrade their capacity and profit from doing so
>if you are smart you let traffic engineers and economists plan the capacity of your highway.
That's central planning, let the market decide

>>16170942
>Why?
because highways are fuck expensive. and they got maintenance cost each year also which would probably blow your mind.

>>16170953
You know Bitcoin runs on computers right? There are no bags of gravel or asphalt required, it's an analogy.

>>16170942
>we can do 1TB blocks right now
you can make any size of block but you can't make a network function properly with large blocks. altho adopting bittorrent as transport layer may help you some.

>>16170965
i thought we were talking about highways. i pointed out this argument translates extremely poorly to physical traffic capacities. so it's a really bad analogy.

>>16170891
>You're going to need an EXTRA $16.57 per transaction on average to make up the lost reward
you don't have to make up the lost reward obviously it's about the future trends clearly visible to everyone. a time will come or bitcoin when tx fees will overtake the block rewards and for btc it comes a hell of a lot sooner ironically.

>>16170967
Think of the data loads Facebook and Google handle, it can be done easily with enterprise level miners

>>16170987
>you don't have to make up the lost reward obviously
You will have to otherwise miners will leave and the network will die

>a time will come or bitcoin when tx fees will overtake the block rewards and for btc it comes a hell of a lot sooner ironically.
Why should people use your payments system that costs $100s/tx? Even VISA is much cheaper and faster, imagine pitching this as your own project and not trying to steal the brand of Bitcoin

>>16171013
>You will have to
you forget appreciation... btc will make for $100k the next bullrun after the halving latest. miners know this everyone knows this. the fees however can't go lower with full blocks. after the halving i expect btc to provide 5 to 10 thousand times the usd in fees for the miners than sv or more.

"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." Satoshi 2010

>>16171026
>you forget appreciation... btc will make for $100k the next bullrun after the halving latest.

Peak delusion

If your project requires an exponential increase in money (resources) coming in to be successful it's not sustainable, BTC will probably not survive even one more halving

>>16171053
rofl, you still don't understand bitcoin after all. you don't understand the miners game. and you have no idea how to hedge from the very existing systemic risks properly. that's why you bet on all the wrong horses.

bet on btc, know how (and when) to hedge and get out in time if shit hits the fan! that's al there is to this game. there are a billion altcoins by now. 99.999% of them worth exactly zero. sv is one of the worst shitcoins.

>>16171085
>bet on btc, know how (and when) to hedge and get out in time if shit hits the fan! that's al there is to this game.
Sounds just like a pump and dump scheme

>there are a billion altcoins by now. 99.999% of them worth exactly zero
the 0.001% is Bitcoin SV

>>16171096
>Sounds just like a pump and dump scheme
it's not it's the safest bet designed every inch of it to keep on appreciating and provide value to everyone that holds it long enough and steal value from bad traders and short term speculators. which is the opposite of a p&d. risks however are never zero.

>the 0.001% is Bitcoin SV
no it truly is the worst shitcoin inheriting this mantle from bch. minority pow forks are retarded beyond belief to begin with. but like i explained it's economically unsound. i can be proven wrong we will see, but to me the math is all stacked against sv add to this the imbecilic shilling and the whole faketoshi fiasko it's a dumpsterfire.

>>16171121
>it's not it's the safest bet designed every inch of it to keep on appreciating and provide value to everyone that holds it long enough

What value is there in it? You can't use it it's useless, even things like baseball cards have more inherent value

>>16169111
by segwit

>>16170223
Because Gmaxwell said "It's not a scaling solution if we rely on Moore's law, because then we as devs haven't done anything."

Core and BTC are literally that retarded. They put ego before common sense and that is why they are crashing and burning in slow motion.

>>16171026
Lol so you realize it doesn’t magically go up in price right?

People have to want to pay 100k for a btc in mass

Won’t happen but lol

>>16171306
first up, maxwell doesn't even work on bitcoin anymore
second, bitcoin doesn't need scaling, it's not the priority
if scaling comes around, great, if it doesn't, who cares
credit cards don't scale transfers, they scale confirmations
you pay your credit card bill at the end of the month, that's when the transfers happen
bank transfers are SLOWER than bitcoin, they take more than 10 minutes and they are more expensive by a HUGE margin

>>16171729
So you’re okay with bitcoin being a store of value slightly better than a bank?

>>16171178
you can send billions of dollars across the globe in baseball cards in a trustless permissionless unconfiscateable manner within 10 minutes? wow

>>16168356

>>16171373
it will happen 100% only question is when

>>16171373
>People have to want to pay 100k for a btc in mass

Um, Anon I...

Bitcoin is divisible by 8 zeros. It's a matter of the scarcity over time increasing the price and the higher the difficulty, the stronger the network, and the higher it cost miners to keep up will drive the price up too.