/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16213246
SegWit and blocksize limits. BSV is the new ticker for Bitcoin. BTC is not bitcoin anymore

nothing

>>16213255
>BSV is Blockstream's new testnet
FTFY

the chinese realised communism ain't gonna work out if bitcoin does

>>16213246
jews

futures

they fucked everything else up, so why not crypto as well?

>>16213360
*STIFF*

just ignore these retards >>16213255 they have no clue what makes bitcoin bitcoin and why sv is utterly fucked.

>>16213491
explain?

>>16213502
a hash of a signature is not a signature.
you can't tell what key made a signature from a hash of that signature.

Segwit coins are as worthless as cheques without signatures

>>16213502
transaction fees need to take up the slack as the miner reward diminishes. the math doesn't work out for empty blocks. bitcoin miners get 1000x more reward for the same block size. blockstream realized this a long time ago they want full blocks because they want to keep bitcoin alive.

as for segwit changing bitcoins nature it's just retarded circlejerk bullshit that been debunked in nearly every thread the last 2 years. it's something cashies desperately cling to but can't rationally defend. part of their catechism.

>>16213534
>Segwit coins are as worthless as cheques without signatures
nice meme but imagine if you kept a cheque that you already cashed in and it lacks signature instead it had a unique redeem code that cheque is worthless because it has already been paid so you can't get anything out of it anymore. you can keep it if you want or throw it away.


>a hash of a signature is not a signature
hashes are how we reference lager data immutably a signature is basically a hash deep down.
it's also inconsequential. bitcoins are not signatures bitcoins are entries in a (global distributed) ledger. maintaining the ledger is what the bitcoin protocol is all about.

the future is pruing. once a block is pruned by the network there is no way to tell what was segwit and what was legacy tx. all there is is the utxo set. signatures and ultimately after a while tx-es too. they are all a technicality how a distributed trustless consensus is reached on the utxo set and how you can transact in a secure and permissionless manner.

if you think segwit changes bitcoins nature then you are a brainlet who doesn't get bitcoin. if you think bitcoin blockchain was meant to be an immutable garbage heap of stale data you are beyond saving.

>>16213536
>empty blocks
what do you mean by this?

>>16213536
Why would people use a blockchain that costs $1 per tx (BTC) when they could use a better blockchain that costs $0.001 per tx (BSV)?, even if your strategy of getting transaction fees worked (it doesn't) BSV will outcompete your chain, it's just a matter of time

>>16213365
>Futures trading will expand bitcoin market beyond true believers
no kidding we can't have a market where only people that believe in the technology buys the asset associated with it... no sirs!

>>16213360
global currency is communism

>>16213246
>What went wrong?
You didn't buy the correction and now you're salty.

>>16213562
with full blocks the users compete with each other for block space, with empty blocks the miners compete with each other for any tx fee greater than zero will increase their profitability.
>>16213569
they wouldn't but sv and bitcoin are not even on the same page. also btc block size will get an increase eventually maybe it can also be made self adjusting to keep it full 90% of the time and fees reasonable. i'm working on this shit wish i had more free time.

>>16213547
is this post false flagging? you can't be that retarded

>hashes are how we reference lager data immutably a signature is basically a hash deep down.
just blatantly false

>>16213602
>empty blocks
what do you mean with the term empty block?

>>16213585
bullshit you wouldn't know communism if it bit you in the ass. you just try to stick it to everything you dislike. communism is a horrible system that would never work because it requires perverse unnatural incentives.

>>16213602
>also btc block size will get an increase eventually

I don't know how people can believe this double think:

1. Small blocks are good
2. Blocks will get bigger when small blocks get too unbearable

These two things contradict

>>16213569
>Why would people use a blockchain that costs $1 per tx (BTC) when they could use a better blockchain that costs $0.001 per tx (BSV)?
There's Litecoin already

>>16213605
it's true both are true, a signature without a unique message (hash) is worthless can't exist. basically signature is a hash encrypted by public key cryptography that can be verified with a known pubkey. ecdsa is slightly more tricky in technical but same principles.
>>16213605
whatever satoshi wrote in the whitepaper he released and developed a working reference implementation also. the ruleset that bitcoin software enforces the way it works IS bitcoin not some pdf.

>>16213617
in free market capitalism there is no global currency. there are thousands of currencies all competing with each other, bitcoin maximalists are commies

>>16213639
it's false and you are completely delusional thinking making that argument helps you

>>16213627
no contradiction there at all.
we want small blocks as small as possible. only retards insist on arbitrary numbers forever. scaling is untenable with 1mb blocks but full blocks help bitcoin stay alive if you increased the block size to 32mb now it may not survive the halving or the next one.

best way to go about this is increasing or decreasing the max block size based on the last 100 blocks average fee amount every 100 blocks or something like that. if it falls below a certain threshold decrease if goes above increase. there is one tiny problem with this the fees only really make sense in usd it's trivial to implement them in btc but long term that may not work out and if you make this part of the consensus algo well... hence why it has not been done.

>>16213645
>in free market capitalism there is no global currency.
this is such a dumb statement

there is nothing inherent about "free market capitalism" that says it must lead to multiple currencies - the fact that free market capitalism may or may not lead to multiple currencies does not make a global currency communist

you are fucking retarded, and I mean that 100% sincerely

>>16213655
heh try to disprove it i will tear it apart.

>>16213671
>a hash is a signature
no it is not

>>16213674
no i said a signature is a hash

>>16213645
also free market capitalism is a retarded pipe dream made by shortsighted >libuhtahriens

>>16213681
I said a hash of a signature is not a signature.

>>16213669
>>16213695
global currency can only exist if there is a global state. As long as nations exist there will be national currencies, as long as private corporations exist there will be currencies to compete with others

you retarded commies are so dumb you can't even understand why you are so dumb

>>16213246
It was less than $1 a decade ago. You are the late adopter? The good news if you can buy FRM under 1 cent now, and you should go do that before the Defi bubble begins.

>>16213708
okay here is a riddle... can you make the signature integral part of your message? and a message sign itself?

the signature was never part of the tx that was signed. where you put the signature is inconsequential. segwit increased security by making the transactions non-malleable. it never changed anything about how bitcoin works how it's spent how it's counted. putting witness data to an extension block in itself changes nothing.

>>16213721
>global currency can only exist if there is a global state. As long as nations exist there will be national currencies, as long as private corporations exist there will be currencies to compete with others
this says exactly NOTHING about whether or not a global currency is communist, lmao

you are simply saying that free market capitalism might lead to multiple currencies because of competition - that is just a random attribute of following economic incentives, but if a global currency provides the best economic incentive, then capitalists would use that one too, no?

you are fucking r e t a r d e d

don't vote

>>16213246
blocksizes and segshit.

end of story

>>16213762
>you are simply saying that free market capitalism might lead to multiple currencies because of competition
>might lead
it already is like that you dumbass. national currencies compete with each other and cryptocurrencies compete with each other as well. A global currency will never exist as long as free market and nations exist. You fucking retarded commie should just kill yourself

>>16213751
a hash of a signature is not a signature.
therefore segwit transactions do not contain signatures meaning there's no legal basis for ownership of a bitcoin received via a segwit transaction.
malleability is useful in payment channel.

Imagine taking the gas tank out of your car to improve the power to weight ratio, that is how core developers be

>>16213663
>best way to go about this is increasing or decreasing the max block size based on the last 100 blocks average fee amount every 100 blocks or something like that. if it falls below a certain threshold decrease if goes above increase.

That's so complicated arbitrary, why not just scale bitcoin as originally intended? BSV has already proven big blocks work

>>16213809
>a hash of a signature is not a signature
i can see this record is stuck with you. hash of a signature ties the signature to the transaction immutably. which is utterly superfluous because it's the signature that verifies the message not the message verifies the signature.

>therefore segwit transactions do not contain signatures
they reference the witness immutably by hash and the witness is also attached in an extension block. same shit different record structure.

>there's no legal basis for ownership of a bitcoin received via a segwit transaction
there is, of course if the global distributed ledger is updated the coin is yours to spend. bitcoins primary purpose is not to record every transaction that was ever done. it's to maintain the ledger of unspent outputs in a trustless but secure manner.

>Imagine taking the gas tank out of your car to improve the power to weight ratio, that is how core developers be
really bad allegory. you should have said remove the 500kg ignition key and lock mechanism to save weight.

>>16213246
Proof of concept nothing more

>>16213796
I don't know how you could read my post and miss the point any harder than this

you are saying that X (communism) enables Y (a global currency), then if some other mechanism (bitcoin) produces Y, it's inherently also X

again, do not vote, do not discuss politics ever again, just let the rest of us handle the important decisions

>>16213822
>That's so complicated
in itself it's not complicated (compared to the difficulty adjustment) it just inadequate. and we really don't want oracles in the consensus algo of bitcoin unless we have no other choice. because that shit is complicated.

>why not just scale bitcoin as originally intended?
it would let bitcoin scale infinitely. but naturally with growing demand. if the block size will be 100mb 10 years from now then small blocks will be 100mb.

>>16213863
communism doesn't enable global currency you dumbass, global currency will enable communism, thats why you retarded commie is pushing for global bitcoin.

Please don't ever breed, your complete retardness is making the world a worse place

>>16213885
>global currency will enable communism
hahahaha, explain please

can't wait to hear this

>>16213858
they reference a hash of a signature which means you can't tell if said hashed signature is made from the private key associated with the bitcoins that the segwit transaction moved.

a hash of a signature is not a signature because you cannot show what key made the signature from a hash of that signature

a bitcoin received via a segwit transaction is as worthless as a cheque without a signature

>>16213863
this! some imbeciles who never had the misfortune to live under a socialist regime think everything is a communism.

in reality communism is when you remove incentives for people to make their lives better and everyone lives in incredible poverty in total dependence of the state except for the ruling elite and all of it is kept a lid on by brutal violence and terror and brainwashing.

taxes are not communism, global currency is not communism fuck off with that retarded bullshit...

>>16213885
idiot.

>>16213721
>global currency can only exist if there is a global state

>>16213885
>global currency will enable communism

pick one, LOL

>>16213893
>>16213910
fucking retarded moronic commies, kill yourselves

>>16213871
Arbitrary block limits are complete centralisation, developers shouldn't have the power to dictate the protocol, with uncapped blocks like the power reverts back to the miners where the power is decentralised and doesn't come from a central authority (Blockstream)

>it would let bitcoin scale infinitely. but naturally with growing demand.
Scaling naturally is no limits and letting miners (the market) decide

>if the block size will be 100mb 10 years from now
100mb blocks 10 years from now is absolutely pathetic, we will be closer to 100tb than to 100mb

>>16213915
>>16213912
pls respond :^)

>>16213896
>which means you can't tell if said hashed signature is made from the private key associated with the bitcoins that the segwit transaction moved.
yes you can. you check out the witness. if the signatures are not correct you reject the block.

>a hash of a signature is not a signature because you cannot show what key made the signature from a hash of that signature
you always have to attach the signature to your message. the message and the signature can only be validated together. the tx and the witness are both needed for signature validation. what is even your argument?

>>16213912
>>16213921
seriously, how can commies be so fucking dumb? its like I am talking to a fucking potato. end yourself retard

Imagine having a network that consumes 66.7 terawatt-hours per year and requires everyone to pour exponentially more money into it to keep it running (BTC Halvings require infinite price increase) to achieve 7 fucking transactions per second

>>16213929
>>16213915
>>global currency will enable communism
>hahahaha, explain please
still waiting :^) lets hear it!

>>16213964
it wont enable communism because there will never be a global currency, it doesn't make sense because its your retarded commie pipe dream. now end yourself retard you are too dumb to exist

>>16213920
>with uncapped blocks like the power reverts back to the miners
you don't want to mess with that co-dependence. they more distributed bitcoins governance and power structure is the better.

bitcoin needs full blocks to survive long term. this is easily concluded from recent developments in sv block growth and miner fees.
>Scaling naturally is no limits
no that just invites spam and retarded bullshit instead of real adoption. spam needs to be expensive enough that it won't be done on large enough scale but contribute to the network proportionally if it's done nevertheless.

>100mb blocks 10 years from now is absolutely pathetic
like i said i'm a small blocker, with ln that should do it. but i don't have a fetish for round number. the blocksize should be as big as to accommodate tx-es within 2-3 blocks where the average fee is around 50 cents.

>>16213536
>catechism
Hey Luke, /biz/ loves you

>>16213925
>what is even your argument?
segwit transactions do not contain signatures and have irrecoverably broken btc.

Money is a legal construct.
no signature on the paper is the same problem as no signature in the code.

>>16213990
>segwit transactions do not contain signatures
like i said no message can contain it's signature. impossible.

>>16214002
>like i said no message can contain it's signature. impossible.
Did anyone tell you about that thing called Bitcoin? Check out craigwright.net

>>16213978
can you just try to comment once without your posts further convincing me you have zero coherent thoughts in your head

>>16213990
>Money is a legal construct.
>no signature on the paper is the same problem as no signature in the code.
bitcoin is not a legal construct. nigga bitcoin is the first financial system that works perfectly well without legal structure. it's revolutionary exactly because it doesn't give a fuck about authority or customs.

and the transactions are still signed nobody would accept a tx without signature (except on sv where they like to swipe segwit funds). nothing changed only the data is structured differently.

>>16214017
>nigga bitcoin is the first financial system that works perfectly well without legal structure.
absolutely delusional

>>16214014
I like how you are so dumb you don't even bother of offering any arguments at all. unless you have some argument stop replying retard

>>16214042
nonono my slow friend you made the claim that bitcoin is communist and I have addressed your claims every step of the way

we are waiting on you to start supplying arguments, not me

>>16214058
you refuted nothing you braindead commie. This is what you retarded commies don't get, you think the entire world will just magically become commie and adopt a global currency. You are fucking retarded manchild with 0 knowledge of how the real world works, now go jerk of to anime traps retard

>>16214008
no message can contain it's signature. the input hash is signed not the tx. and like i said go ahead and try to spend a segwit address without signature... see how it goes!

not mention segwit addresses are p2sh addresses so they really strictly pay to script hash not signatures. it's the script in the witness that checks signatures. but it has to evaluate to true. the tx immutably references a script that has to evaluate to true. how is that any different from a tx containing a script that has to evaluate to true? you still need everything to validate.

>>16214030
it would be interesting if you could prove your point... bitcoin works perfectly well without any legal structure. as it never really had any for years and barely has any legislation today.

>>16214066
so why is bitcoin communist again? make it simple for me so I can understand

:'D

>>16214066
Tard spotted
>MUH Commie

>>16213983
fuck off lukejr is a flat-earther retard. but he was right in a few things in retrospect. used to hate his guts before i realized what is going on. block space needs to remain scarce. but not too scarce. delicate balance has to be struck for bitcoin to survive.

>>16214106
I already explained but you are obviously too dumb to understand. Try asking at rddit they know how to spoonfeed retards like you
>>16214124
dilate dumb commie

>>16214106
its probably the most purely capitalist system ever created. but never mind poltards.

>>16214139
>i already explained
tag the post you are referring to and tell me how I didn't address it

good luck!

>>16214160
you want me to reply to you the reply I have already made to you? man you really are retarded. please dont ever breed

>>16214170
ye I want you to do that

what is hard about it? such a post doesn't exist?

>>16214139
So, Zoomer,
We already have a global reserve currency. Also, you do understand that Fx system is central controlled right now, right? Do you understand dirty floats?

InB4 >MUH COMMIE

>>16214174
if you were too dumb to get it the first time you probably won't get it now. try reading all the replies and you moron might learn something

>>16214186
global reserve currency isn't the same as global currency you absolute moron. Euro, Yen and Yuan still compete with the dollar. Go read a book before embarassing yourself retard

>>16214192
thought so LOL

you'll never back out of this argument, your ego is too fragile, but please remember this thread the next time you preach your libertarian bullshit

off to the gym

>>16214130
oh and i would absolutely for the miners to be naturally incentivized to manage the block size. that's exactly my point. they are however not.

just as bitcoin would not work without the difficulty adjusting algorithm it won't work without a block size adjusting algorithm.

the simplest thing we can do is make it a function as smooth as possible. that is basically y=2^x megabytes where x are the halvings you can approximate this function to each and every block if you wish simple enough function. the underlying technology growth should keep up with this function for a while if moores law holds.

but if adoption and tx count drops after a halving and the reward drops and was already low and price also drops and the miners main revenue basically gets quartered or decimated bitcoin can go into a death spiral as hash capitulates.

meanwhile if the block are perpetually full the miners can easily calculate their expected revenue with the only externality being price much more manageable and actually possible to hedge with futures.

>>16214192
>Go read a book before embarassing yourself retard
Why project Zoomer? do you don't even know what a float is!

>>16214214
so you finally admit you are a braindead retard with 0 arguments? thought so. Now fuck off kid you are too dumb to discuss anything related to economics and politics

>>16214219
imagine being this dumb. not like expected anything more from a braindead commie lmao

>>16214230
>commie
I know you have a VERY small lexicon. But in your ramblings, you've done NOTHING to show you have ANY understand of what your talking about. You know this board is anonymous right? No one will know you conceded that you know nothing. just you. You should be honest with yourself Anon.

Thanks Zoomer, shame your generation proved the Flynn Effect wrong.

>>16214215
>the simplest thing we can do is make it a function as smooth as possible. that is basically y=2^x megabytes where x are the halvings you can approximate this function to each and every block if you wish simple enough function. the underlying technology growth should keep up with this function for a while if moores law holds.

based corecuck.
would unironically have to hedge into btc if they implemented that, even though limited blocksize will always lose vs an identical protocol with unlimited blocksize.

>>16214282
thanks for offering 0 arguments again retard. All you've done is throw buzzwords and pretend you are smart. Its pretty sad that you actually think you are convincing anyone

>>16214297
that's my issue, it actually is the other way around. the unlimited blocksize will not ensure the survival of that chain. i mean unlimited in time as an unbound function? sure. but unlimited or even just not scarce at a given moment is a bad idea. miner rewards carried the network through a period where adoption was too small. now it's time for adoption and so transactions to start carry it's own weight.

Neutral here.

Having finished reading this thread I adjudge the thread winners to be btc and small blockers.

Thanks everyone for your contributions

>>16214396
>5ft 11
sure m8, nice journalism

>>16214309
>buzzwords
KEK retard, I'll explain it to you. EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE NEVER SHOWN ANY CLUE ABOUT ANYTHING. through the float system central bank intervene in the supply & demand of the open market, thus making it a dirty float aka not controlled by the market negating its 'capitalist' BS. Also, retard, when the US (the Global reserve currency) alters its rate the RoW follows within days generally. aka we already have a (somewhat) centralised system. that is NOT reliant upon supply and demand.

I've CERTAINLY provided more substance than yourself with >MUH COMMIE. Now care to explain how BTC is Communist?

>>16214442
pushing for global bitcoin is communist not bitcoin by itself you fucking moron. You obviously don't even understand what you are arguing for. Bitcoin is just 1 coin among many that compete with each other and will never become a global currency, which is what dumb commies like you want it to be. Now go dilate retard

>>16214355
limiting block size limits miner rewards

>>16214461
>pushing for global bitcoin is communist not bitcoin by itself you fucking moron
So you don't understand the current system do you? BTC is open market, its not central controlled!
> Bitcoin is just 1 coin among many that compete with each other and will never become a global currency
Of course! hence why it can NEVER be communist

Will you please apologise for wasting our time tard face?

>>16214442
this anon has a point, but also worth mentioning the central banks tweak the incentives very rarely carry out open market operations.

still it's a governed system depending on central authority. not wanting to depend on a central authority is not communism. it's the opposite. in communism you have a caste system de facto. in theory it's by merit but you will be born into your cast lie always in human history and instead of merit connections and politics will fill positions.

human nature never changes. unless we reach post scarcity as a species then we can begin experimenting with some form of communism. maybe. even then it's borderline impossible.

Block limit is like:
Baker in NY can only sell 100 bread daily. Limit helps him we can have high fee and he will not bankrupt, our bread is secure.

>>16214472
>limiting block size limits miner rewards
yes and no. limiting the blocks so that they are say 95% of the time full ensure the miners reward. limiting tx count and hindering adoption via insane small arbitrary block size (kind of what happened in 2017) limits adoption and long term limits miners reward. at that point tho miners were very well off.

>>16214481
>BTC is open market, its not central controlled!
exactly you braindead retard, thats why it will never become a global currency like you retarded commies think it will. Bitcoin is just one outdated shitcoin that will be replaced by other better coins, thats what free market is, but I wouldn't expect a 30 IQ commie tard like you to understand how the free market works

>>16214491
We need to keep the baking industry decentralised otherwise competitive bakers will make lots of cheap bread for everone and that's a bad thing, bread is only for the super rich

>>16214503
the other shitty thing i noticed and this is incredibly inconvenient there is a daily cycle to the mempool getting full. bulk transaction processing in the developed world in business hours probably to blame for it. only fees can incentivize people to get better distribution on the networks transaction load.

>>16214491
>I went bankrupt from having too many customers
classic corecuck socialism

>>16214066
Dude you are actually mentally challenged.

>>16214534
nice argument retard

>>16214524
if you offer ""unlimited"" amount of bread the bread will have a price below the production cost.
so long the supply and demand is in rough equilibrium you have a stable price you can plan for.
if you artificially limit supply (say only guild members can bake) the bakers will make a killing if you make it a completely free market it will remove profitability completely and once the demand collapses bakers will go bankrupt.
it's a classic dilemma the problem is if bitcoin miners go bankrupt en-masse the network may never recover without tampering with the consensus mechanism. then btc loses half of it's moral high ground to bch.

>>16214568

>>16214568
>if you offer ""unlimited"" amount of bread the bread will have a price below the production cost.
Who the fuck would sell bread at a loss? Even if they did how is that your problem?

The fact is if a central group tells the baker he can only make 100 bread each day, then a lot of people will not be able to buy bread. It will be something only for the rich. And you at the same time limit the profit of the baker as it is a limit how much even rich people will pay for bread. The baker would be much better off if he was able to make as many or little breads as there is demand for.
It is literally a lesson in communism vs free market.

>>16214588
posting your favorite avatars is still not an argument.

Bad bakers bankrups. This is good for market and customer!

Nothing.
Just BTC doing its things.
I didn’t complain when it pumped from $3k to $14k, I would complain if it dumps to $5k again

>>16214514
Dear tard face,
You don't even understand Communism/the current FIAT system, but everyone is dumb! Why do you Zoomers stay so arrogant? Why do you claim superiority but prove the Flynn effect wrong simultaneously? At no point did you offer ANY intelligent rebuttal, but DEMANDED it out of others. Stay arrogant, stay dumb.

>>16214614
I like how offer 0 arguments and just keep throwing buzzwords. You aren't fooling anyone moron, you are just another seething commie corecuck. Now go dilate retard

>>16214592
>Who the fuck would sell bread at a loss?
no one but bitcoin tx-es are included in the block for practically free any amount of fee is practically added profit. and the cost comes from churning the hash for the block independent of the block size. which will result in miners that don't collude underbidding each other indefinitely. that's wrong incentives in my book. meanwhile with full blocks the users compete for blockspace they put their urgency and the cost on a scale and make a decision. miners simply maximize their profit by taking the tx-es with the highest fee until the blocks are full. this is very natural to the miners and basically a non decision. the only thing we expect from the miners is they include the oldest tx for the same fee per byte which makes the fee market function right and proper.

>>16214614
Hi Ed, you are right about BSV but your support of communism doesn't make any sense to me, just because the current system is bad (socialist not capitalist) doesn't mean communism is good

>>16214631
So you are saying YOU are better fit to decide for every individual business owner (miner) how they best can run their business?

You realize that is communism right?

>>16214642
>Hi Ed
hehe spot on. There is exactly one communist in BSV and we all know who that is. lol

>>16214592
>The baker would be much better off if he was able to make as many or little breads as there is demand for.
you can't apply this mechanism to a single baker. the bakers formed guilds in the medieval time for a reason. there was a limit to what a single baker could scale his operation to and their collective production capacity would have eliminated any profit if the entry was completely free. guilds are basically cartels you don't fucking want the miners to cartel up and start governing themselves! that's the last fucking thing bitcoin needs.

bitcoin works much better if the miners are in cutthroat competition. however this particular issue makes the miners stab themselves in the dick because of bitcoins supply curve over time. i sometimes wish satoshi never dreamed up the halvings... the stock to flow ratio would have swayed heavily to stock a little later but nevertheless.

we have an adoption gap with a halving and tx-es got expensive with an inflexible block cap at the same time. shit is bad. but you will see it will be worse for the alts than bitcoin.

>>16214625
>I like how offer 0 arguments and just keep throwing buzzwords.
What was this? >>16214442, i even explained these 'buzzwords' that you CLEARLY have zero comprehension of.
>You aren't fooling anyone moron
P R O J E C T I N G
Now go dilate retard

>>16214642
Read my other posts, No need to defend your idiotic Zoomer buddy. I never said communism is good. Please take the time to read, maybe then, Zoomers can put the flynn effect back on track!

>>16214667
just because the current system isn't a complete free market doesn't mean your globalist shitcoin alternative is better you absolute retard

you corecuck commies really are braindead trannies

>>16214646
>So you are saying YOU are better fit to decide for every individual business owner (miner) how they best can run their business?
never said that m8. i said when you agree on a ruleset for a trutless permisisonless globally distributed self governing peer-to-peer system. you better make sure the incentives are right and durable. it's in everyones interest. we are dependent on the miners for their work. we must make sure they don1t stab themselves in the dick because of the incentive system we agreed on. that's all i'm saying, and the incentive system is implemented and maintained by the developers but adopted by the miners if it's in their interest (which is if it has support in the community and the market will price in that support because it means viability and future demand) this circular co-dependence is exactly what you want in bitcoin. like a mexican standoff.

>>16214661
>there was a limit to what a single baker could scale his operation to
If the baker is not able to keep up with demand, then another baker will see this and start making breads to profit on the demand the former baker can't meet.
The lazy baker will probably go bankrupt and so what? That is free market

>>16214568
The shit you guys write is unbelievable. People aren't buying block space you retard they are sending transactions. Limiting the blocksize is a limit on adoption

The production cost (the difficulty) adjusts every 2016 blocks to maintain 1 block per 10min.
Limiting blocksize limits miner rewards

>>16213365
This

>>16214685
>just because the current system isn't a complete free market
Except you failed to understand this!
>>16214192
>Euro, Yen and Yuan still compete with the dollar.
Don't try to use the new found knowledge that I've given to you & pronounce you knew all the time! YOU CLEARLY DIDN'T!
>doesn't mean your globalist shitcoin alternative is better you absolute retard
I have shown it is better than the current system & you even agreed >>16214514.
Its better as Crypto is not centrally controlled & manipulated, like the current FIAT system.

KYS tard

>>16214759
holy fuck you corecucks really are fucking retarded

your globalist shitcoin is worse than the current system and will never become reality retard, get this through your dumb thick tranny mind. Now make this world a favour and go kill yourself

>>16214710
>If the baker is not able to keep up with demand, then another baker will see this and start making breads to profit on the demand the former baker can't meet.
exactly read what i wrote! that was the reason guilds were formed because bakers insisted on their livelihood and profitability.
>The lazy baker will probably go bankrupt and so what?
not about being lazy after a while the operation was too costly or just plain impossible to scale. it was labor and space intensive.
>>16214716
>People aren't buying block space
sure they do with the tx fees.
>Limiting the blocksize is a limit on adoption
yes and no. not necessarily a bad thing. you want financial adoption of bitcoin you want bitcoin to be a money system not stupid chat programs sending immutable messages on the unlimited blockspace or parasitic blockchains taking up 30-50% of it or retarded unverified
stale weather data which is worse than junk take up 70% of it. nah...
>The production cost (the difficulty) adjusts every 2016 blocks to maintain 1 block per 10min.
yes but it never translates to tx fees.
>Limiting blocksize limits miner rewards
apparently not true. the opposite is true. weird huh? but like i said sv has the same block size not as btc yet the total fees collected are much lower. and the reason for this is it doesn't have a fee market. it has the opposite.

the blockchains main purpose is to maintain the ledger. pruning is a natural step to take and long overdue. once pruning starts in ernest anything past a 100 blocks will be ancient history nobody is interested in. most nodes will only keep the last 10 blocks.

nobody is really incentivized to keep a full record of every transaction ever. storing shit on the bitcoin blockchain is an abuse of the system not adoption.

>>16213246
What went wrong with bitcoin? Why is bitcoin not meeting expectations? Why do I not have a girlfriend? Why am I so ugly and fat? I'm going to watch anime and cry because I'll never go on adventures with a sexy catgirl who is cute and does sex with me because even in a parallel world of fantasy I fail completely and will probably be killed by a slime before it even evolves into a cute slime girl who can do slime play and sloppy sex with me. And I'm going to think about my stupid questions like "why isn't bitcoin worth $300,000, $500,000, or $600,000?", and "Why do I have to do this? Why don't I just get money out of my wallet and just buy all the shitty things I want?" and "Is this game over for me?" and "I hate these games. I hate it so much!" and "I'm going to die a miserable, miserable death".

>>16214787
>bakers insisted on their livelihood and profitability.
As they should. If a miner is not profitable he is doing something wrong and will be replaced by someone who know what they are doing.

Tell me again how it is good for a central government to put a limit on the amount of bread a baker can sell?

>>16213246
Lots of shitcoin forks like BCH and BSV.

>>16214710
His point is that in the context of profiting in a fixed-cost scenario, you cannot grow fast enough to prevent competition. If you can meet 70% of demand, and someone else builds a buissiness off that 30% easy buissiness, the stable equilibrium is both of you get half of yhe buissiness, and try to poach 20% of the other guy. Businesses do not consider this good, and will take steps to prevent it. Those steps are always bad for consumers, but they are profitable.

>>16214780
>holy fuck you corecucks really are fucking retarded
Why project retard? I've actually showed you how the system works right now, I kept it basic as I wouldn't want to overload you with 'buzzwords'.
>your globalist shitcoin is worse than the current system
Thats like your opinion man! You have NEVER given FACTS. You call things 'buzzwords' but you don't even bother to look them up/know what they are! You call others a litany of words but fail to prove anything yourself...but everyone else is dumb! How the fuck can someone remain SO arrogant?

>>16214839
>you cannot grow fast enough to prevent competition
Why would you want to prevent competition? Free market = competition.

>>16214846
you obviously have 0 knowledge about economics and politics. Go read my posts you might learn something you ignorant retard

>>16214823
>If a miner is not profitable he is doing something wrong and will be replaced by someone who know what they are doing.
yeah you still don't get what guilds were all about do you? no baker wanted to be replaced nor they wanted competition to build until they were scraping by not to starve. so they colluded.
because collusion aka carteling up is the only way producers can put a cap on supply. and you don't fucking want that for the 100th times you don't want bitcoin miners to become one large cartel or guild!

Tell me again how it is good for a central government to put a limit on the amount of bread a baker can sell?
i would say no need for that normally, but...
okay here is an example: you have 3 baker in a small town they together produce just enough to supply the town, a hypermarket opens up that he edge of the town and starts churning out fresh baked goods under production cost (at least for a smaller operation) to lure in customers because the managers concluded hat once a customer comes in for break they will most likely buy other things too much more expensive things. so the bakers are now faced with their price equilibrium completely fucked they would need to sell their good under production cost. if you insist that the hyper cant sell bread unprofitably or even under production cost that may help 1 or 2 bakers to stay alive when the dust settles. because once the competition is gone the hyper my start bringing down the quality and the price up and there is no competition anymore and new competition has a cost limit to enter and every resident of the town now eats shit bread.

completely free market only works well for the customer if there is no barrier to entry the market but then it eliminates profitability fast.

>>16213246
You have people hoarding something that is supposed to be a currency like it was an asset.
People hoarding BTC and hoping to make it are like nuts hoarding 1936 monopoly money and hoping to own the world - sure, there is a limited supply, it is fairly rare and you can exchange it for dollars and maybe barter for other goods, but the second that the delusion bubble pops, everyone who has been amassing that shit will realize that he is broke.

>>16214878
>you obviously have 0 knowledge about economics and politic
KEK, Again, you've never proved you do. I put the effort in! how about you?
>Go read my posts you might learn something you ignorant retard
I did sadly, I read all 22 of them, NONE have ANY facts in them that I haven't already proved wrong. I only learnt that you are arrogant & will try to say you know about things you have ZERO understanding of before I explained it.
Go ahead, link to some posts where you offered ANY value. I'll rebut them, as its yourself that ZERO knowledge of ANYTHING.I

You should be thanking me for giving you brief run down of how the current system works!

>>16214948
>entry the market but then it eliminates profitability fast.
It is not your job to force rules on a market because you think those rules will make businesses more money. It is up to the businesses themselves to find a business model that is profitable. Make money or go bankrupt.

>>16214981
I am sorry you are too dumb to understand simple arguments. Now keep seething commie corecuck

>>16215011
>I am sorry you are too dumb to understand simple arguments.
P R O J E C T I N G
So,
no rebuttal?
no links to posts of value?
I dare say, you've lost! I'll just declare you involuntary bankrupt of reason/knowledge.

>>16214983
you talk like I'm some fucking dictator

>>16215041
I already gave tons of arguments but you are obviously mentally retarded and can't read.
Unless you have any counter-arguments stop posting retard, you are just embarassing yourself more and more

>>16215087
>you talk like I'm some fucking dictator
You are if you force the miners to limit their capacity to 1mb

>>16215089
>Unless you have any counter-arguments
I have countered. Its you that haven't.
NO POINT IN REPLYING involuntary bankrupt of reason/knowledge anon.

I WIN
I WIN
I WIN
*DOES THE I WIN DANCE*
I WIN
I WIN
I WIN

>>16215124
dude just stop, you are just embarassing yourself now. You got BTFO multiple times and now you are just seething because you have no arguments

>>16215124
How old are you?

>>16215101
i advocate consensus it's the opposite of tyranny.
any ruleset change can be rejected by the miners if they truly wish to reject it. you talk nonsense.

>>16215140
>. You got BTFO multiple times and now you are just seething because you have no arguments
Where?
I WIN
I WIN
I WIN
*DOES I WIN DANCE ALL OVER YOUR TARD FACE*


>>16215157
I'm a boomer, Just trollin the Zoomer, don't worry Anon, I know its childish, Like Anon here >>16215140.
>MUH I RIGHT
>uses ZERO facts

>>16215049
yup that's the socialism i grew up in.

>>16215181
>i advocate consensus it's the opposite of tyranny.
You advocate the that the consensus in a small elite should be forced on the market. The definition of communism

>>16215190
keep seething commie

>>16215222
I pronounce you involuntary bankrupt of reason/knowledge anon. No more, replies will be given.

I WIN

>>16215211
>You advocate the that the consensus in a small elite should be forced on the market
no categorically not true you on the other hand advocate that only a handful of miners colluding should dictate policy. that's oligarchy.
>The definition of communism
fuck off i do believe in striving towards the common good for all mankind but fully within the capitalist incentive system.

once the adopters and the market has consensus on the devs work the miners are incentivized to follow that consensus not forced.

>>16215242
>no categorically not true
You want to force the miners to limit themselves to 1mb blocks, no?

>you on the other hand advocate that only a handful of miners colluding should dictate policy
do I?

>>16215280
>You want to force the miners to limit themselves to 1mb blocks, no?
no

>>16215238
whatever helps you cope dumbass

>>16215211
>consensus in a small elite
the new york agreement is an excellent example how that is bound to be a failure.

>>16215283
>no
Then I have completely misunderstood you

>>16215312
>the new york agreement is an excellent example how that is bound to be a failure.
It was criminal. They agreed to change what bitcoin in order to increase profit. They changed Bitcoin and continued to promote it as Bitcoin. This is why law is important. Even in a capitalistic system.

>>16215340
>Then I have completely misunderstood you
possible, but my position is
- small blocks, as small as possible but unbound as a function of time
- fees should minimally limit or preferably not limit real adoption
- but blockspace needs to be scarce enough for multiple reasons
- miners are not incentivized correctly to maintain this balance
- there is no consensus mechanism adequate at this time for flawless durable self adjustment
- miners are not incentivized to keep the full blockchain they will prune if they don't already (bigger the blocks the harder they will prune)
- bitcoin has no way to fully function as a trustless pruning network currently. that's the main problem that needs to be solved.
- once pruning and trustless sync is solved the block size can easily be increased without undue burden on nodes
- we should give lukejr the mercy of a quick headshot so he does not suffer anymore

law will not help you there you need something much more strong and profound. bitcoin is built upon consensus. it is much greater than the nakamoto consensus responsible for validating the blockchain for the ruleset. because there is a consensus about the ruleset itself which the nakamoto consensus can only enforce.

>>16215401
btw the law if you think about it is an incentive adjusting system. it alters the probabilistic outcome (the expected profit) of behavior undesired by society by adding sanctions.

so in a way bitcoin already has laws. and in an ideal state the laws are agreed upon by the vast majority of citizens for the benefit of the vast majority of citizens. we should strive for that. bitcoin has a certain level of sovereignty in creating and adjusting it's own ruleset. without governing body or even a clearly defined a governance system only consensus can govern it.

and i personally think that's friggin awesome but also scary as fuck.

>>16215664
Bitcoin does not exist in another dimension outside the reach of law. Everything in the world is covered by law. It is literally the foundation of civilization. Too much regulations is bad of course, but you can't have a society without it. It's just not possible. Bitcoin WILL be regulated, there is simply no escape. It is nothing magical about bitcoin that makes it impossible to regulate. I know you believe that and the push for smaller blocks is a way to make it harder to control.

This, first of all, doesn't make it harder to control as people think. Second, it makes it completely unusable as a new economic system for the world because it is run by raspberry pi's which is no where close to powerful enough to process all the worlds transactions.

BTC vs BSV is about ideological differences. It is totally fine to have differing ideologies, but it is dishonest to sell BTC as Bitcoin when it doesn't follow the Bitcoin specifications laid out in the whitepaper. If you cut off the legs of a pair of slacks it becomes a short. You can't simply call it slacks just because it once was

>>16213246

only scammers and shills think something went wrong lol.

KYS link shills and BSV scammers

>>16216428

But BSV doesn't follow my interpretation of the white paper dude.

KYS you fucking retards, your coin has no hashrate and is run by a fraud

>>16216488
>my interpretation of the white paper dude
What do you mean interpretation? It is a technical document describing the specifications of Bitcoin. How can you interpret it in any other way than what it says? Please give some specific examples

>>16216521

does it have words in the document? can you interpret words? god you guys are like drooling bible thumping retards. holy fuck.

>MUH BIBLE IS THE ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION FOREVERR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>16216521

satoshi says the true chain has the most hashrate

WHY ARE YOU DISREGARDING THE PROPHET DUDE SATOSHI SAID!!!!!!!

WHITE PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>16216551
lmao you are either 12 or have 12 IQ

>>16216581

BSV shills actually believe this

anarchic mining leading to centralization around the big pools

>>16213721
ting ting ting !
Congratulations! you won the dumbest comment of the day award on biz today.

>>16216619
oh look another retarded seething corecuck commie. go kill yourself braindead tranny

>>16216649

>corecuck

YOUR
COIN
HAS
ZERO
HASH
RATE

did you read the white paper???????????? lmfao why won't you BSV guys read the white paper?????

>>16213255
and the cultists instantly shows themselves to reeeee cuz someone isnt talking about bitshitv

>>16216664
who said anything about BSV? BSV is merely one of many coins that shits on your useless outdated dinosaur token

>>16213391
the only people I ever see saying that retarded meme word stiff are underage or mentally underage.

>>16216686

oh god you're even lower than a BSV shill? this is actually and interesting concept, who is lower? a bsv shill or a scamming alt coin faggot?

>>16216709
the bottom of the barrel are the braindead btc maximalists like you moron. please do the world a favour and never breed

>>16216733

lmao! you'll figure it out dude. BTC is so "slow" and "outdated" your chosen alt coin will surely overtake it any day now man!

>>16216428
>Bitcoin does not exist in another dimension outside the reach of law.
it can that's the point. law may feel the need to regulate bitcoin bitcoin doesn't need it at least not laws imposed on it by any authority. so if you define law as a traditional legal term then bitcoin doesn't need no laws if you define it as a ruleset then it has it's own laws it exists within written in c++.

>>16216742
just keep holding your bags little tard kid. I am sure a lot of normies will hear about bitcoin on TV and they will pump your bags to 100k any moment now

>>16216428
>It is nothing magical about bitcoin that makes it impossible to regulate
it's not impossible it's just pointless. bitcoin is the only financial system that does not require laws and regulations to function because it is trustless, it is non-custodial, and enforcing it's own ruleset and it's security via natural incentives built into the system.

if you start regulating bitcoin you kill what makes it unique.

>>16216428
>but it is dishonest to sell BTC as Bitcoin when it doesn't follow the Bitcoin specifications laid out in the whitepaper
it's more dishonest to claim btc is not bitcoin when it is the only chain that did not break the nakamoto consensus chain started by satoshi himself. it is criminally dishonest to call airdrop hardforks like bch and bsv that broke all consensus in their birth bitcoin.

>>16216770

hahahaha you alt coiners will learn dude. stay delusional

>>16216832
whatever helps you sleep at night pal. stay dumb and poor

>>16216797
BTC forked off from Bitcoin with SegWit. BTC is no longer Bitcoin. It is that simple. see pic rel

>>16216850
why bother to lie?
btc is the only chain that is valid under the pre-fork consensus ruleset.

>>16216876
Does BTC follow the whitepaper?

>>16216850
>bitshitv forked off bitcoin.
>forked off
>bitshitv is not the original bitcoin it forked off
thanks anon appreciate you posting that and solving the debate for many. bitcoin is bitcoin and bitshitv is the pretender or fraud more accurately trying to steal its spot with dishonesting shilling and outright slander. but sure whatever cope helps you get thru the day since you invested in the fake one.

>>16216900
>bitshitv
Is this supposed to be persuasive? Do you put the word shit in there as a standalone argument?

>>16216935
I call it what it is shit and the less people try to call it bitcoinsv the better. its shit and a fraud coin by a fake. only cultists and paid shills and delusional idiots refer to it as the "real bitcoin" even tho it's not the original nor is it by satoshi but hey nice you focused on only that tiny detail. good to know it has you shook and triggered enough to reply like the fanatical zealot cultist rushing in to defend his cult coin

>>16216847

here i'll help you out, explain the ideology on monetary policy behind your coin and how it's secure without any hashrate, we'll wait ;)

>>16216885

BSV doesn't follow the white paper because it has no hash rate. KYS

>>16216885
what bitcoin is:
- a trustless permissionless publicly auditable ledger that is also secure
- a non-custodial peer-to-peer electronic payment system
- a network of nodes enforcing a common ruleset shaping a common reality in a trustless manner
- the longest blockchain under the consensus ruleset with the largest commulative hash proven by a specific form of proof of work
- a protocol that describes how consensus is reached on ordering transactions and how difficulty and coinbase supply adjusts over

time
- a greater consensus on the ruleset that governs the protocol
- a standard reference client implementation created by nakamoto and maintained as an open source project

what bitcoin is not:
- a whitepaper
- a gargantuan garbage dump of stale data stored immutably forever
- whatever satoshi said in a forum post
- whatever faketoshi dreams up in delirium
- whatever sv jeets shrill and rave about currently

there is no denying the fact that btc is bitcoin, if you want to argue against that you have to show how a 2016 client would sync up with any other chain...

>>16217000

hahahaha this, please somebody sticky this to /biz/ for the noobs

>>16216997
it's more important that they broke all consensus twice. because bitcoin is not determined by momentary hashpower alone nor it is determined by cumulative hashpower necessarily. it is the longest chain with the most cumulative hashpower that is valid under the bitcoin ruleset. which means if a new miner would show up with 10 times the bitcoin network hash and started mining under a different ruleset he wouldn't be mining bitcoin.

that aside minority hash forks are beyond retarded. and satoshi explicitly warned about not to go that way. because your network is no longer secure.

>>16216982
hey little tard kid, explain the ideology in using a slow outdated shitcoin that is owned by chink miners that will collapse if people actually started using it, we'll wait (:

>>16217034

tl:dr

NO
HASH
RATE

>>16217036

LMAO it seems you are new to bitcoin, please lurk moar before posting on our forum.

>>16217063
nice argument retard. another braindead corecuck commie with 0 arguments. go back to rddit to seethe buddy

>>16217070

We are tired of arguing with morons man, it's time to sit back and watch your little shitcoin bags go to zero for us at this point kek

>>16217087
you seething corecucks are hilarious lmao. stay dumb and poor retard

>>16217102

which alt coin bags are you holding? just curious lol

>inb4 too embarrassed to answer

>>16213246
wake up! bubble poped. Its dead. not eco friendly, not scalable, no new utility cases, slow, high feed.
Im gonna be very surprised to see btc in top10 in 2 years. Don’t forget to screen cap this!

>>16217102
communists are stupid but you make them look smarter, please stop being a brainlet if you want to fight the brainlets

>>16217124
why would I give an advice to a dumb corecuck like you? I want you to keep your bags and stay poor lmao
>>16217153
commies are stupid but the useful idiots of commies like you are even worse, basically you are a braindead subhuman

>>16217102
interesting you're the one sperging out and throwing insults and he's over here hey man chill and watch this play out. very interesting how you bitshitv cultists operate. it's almost like your tiny little brains cant handle being told no you're wrong and you just meltdown and start sperging. that might work on your moomy and duhdy but here in the real world we dont have to put up with your retarded spergouts and we CAN and WILL mock you openly and call it out. run along lil spergy adults are talking about bitcoin not bitshitv

>>16217167

>prediction confirmed

please show us your bags bro! you're so confident in them! TOO THE MOON!!

>>16217102
>35 posts post by this ID
This post is so full of COPE.
Why are you so full of projection? Not one of your posts qualifies you to rebut anyone. What is your problem Anon?
>>16217070
What are you saying here Anon? That the market is wrong? You know better than the whole market combined?
Genuinely interested

>>16217172
interesting how you had to reply to me even though I never spoke to you.. you must be seething af lmao dumb corecuck. now fuck off back to rddit tard kid
>>16217185
nah I want you to stay bagholding king shitcoin and be poor lmao. to 100k soon bro jus like asuka told u amirite?

>>16217186
man I can smell your butthurt from a mile lmao. keep seething corecuck incel

>>16217206

trust me, nobody gives a shit what you are holding and we aren't on the edge of our seat waiting you to give a big reveal

>>16217206
Just calling out a childish cultist sperging out. And so what it's an open forum I dont need to talk to you to reply to you nor your permission. Keep sperging out sport you look real cool defending bitshitv like a 12yr old "tough guy" . But yes yes corecuk blah blah reddit blah blah low IQ npc replies from a low IQ cultist. got any other insults that arent something a 12yr old would say online? I expect people involved with the supposed real satoshi to act alot smarter and instead its just tons of sperging out retards showing a serious lack of IQ. do fire back with more memewords like corecuck and other things a child would find hilarious and think hahahah I did it mom I trolled him good trollololololol!!1!!1!!!1!1111one.

>>16217206
So the market is right then, Good. BTC is the only coin that matters. No one can predict the future. As of right now, BTC is & has always been king of crypto. No crypto can come close in terms of Market cap. To most ppl crypto is Bitcoin. The future looks bright for BTC. Shame you don't own any.

>>16217226
>>16217238
>>16217240
topkek. look all these seething corecuck incels. Your coping is actually hilarious please give me more tears

>>16217257

i wish i could argue with you for 2 years straight online, can you give me your email or something so i can check in with you from time to time on your bags? LAWL

>>16217275
don't worry pal, when your shitcoin gets flipped I am gonna be here laughing at you poor retards lmao

>>16217257
Are you trolling Anon? You've done a great job at showing sub 30 IQ, no way can anyone, even on /biz/ be this dumb.

>>16217257
I love how you assume people calling you out for being stupid = seething. that complete denial of reality would make alot of doctors wet dreams studying the brains of people like you.

>>16217293
cope harder dumb incel

>>16217284

>when your shitcoin gets flipped

HAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAHAAAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

it's brain damage isn't it guys? is that was this is or pure delusion?

>>16217316
I like how everything you say is a projection. I bet a lot of people call you stupid in real life and you really are sensitive about it lmao moron

>>16213246

Nothing? It's all okay.

>>16217317
>incel
Confirmed troll, this cunt HAS to be an incel, what a shitty attitude.

>>16217328
please laugh harder, the more you laugh now the harder you will cry later lmao poor retard

>>16217339
aww did I hit a nerve there little incel? if you weren't so poor and dumb you might wouldn't be an incel lmao

>>16217345

(you)

>>16217365
<--you

>>16217331
ahh I get it now you're one of THOSE people. no matter what gets said you'll shitpost and make reality up as you go for de lulz. But hey whatever helps you from not eating a gun every day right? lol kids being allowed online before the age of 18 is a mistake

>>16217364
Later Trolly McTrollface, Have sex

Why BTC is bad, the high fees of December 2017 were BY DESIGN:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015455.html

Who is Gregory Maxwell, you ask? Well glad you asked, a BTC Core developer and CTO of Blockstream:
https://www.weusecoins.com/gregory-maxwell-bitcoin-expert/

Why SegWit is bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY

Why the Lightning Network is bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFZOrtlQXWc

Why Blockstream is bad:

Investor in Blockstream: AXA, see this link:
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/blockstream/investors/investors_list

CEO of AXA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Buberl

Former CEO of AXA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Castries

Both of whom happen to be in the Bilderberg meetings:
https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2017.html

The earlier CEO is even:
CHAIRMAN STEERING COMMITTEE
Castries, Henri de (FRA), President of Institut Montaigne; Former Chairman and CEO, AXA

>>16217380

how triggered can one man get over BTC? kek i'll reply to you all day bro this is hilarious

>>16217384
>>16217385
>>16217394
keep seething incels, this is just sad lmao

>>16217386

hahahahaha shitcoiner cope posting is fun

>>16217399

i'm actually quite comfy sir, please reply as fast as possible! (you)

>>16217412
imagine getting this triggered everytime someone doesn't like your useless shitcoin lmao you must be butthurt 24/7 kek have sex

>>16217399
last you from me kid but again people replying and calling you out isnt seething no matter how much you keep saying it is.

>>16217240
>the market is right
yeah the market is always right.
but also there is no other way to make money trading than betting against the market to ride the correction when the market realizes it was not right after all.
i find this contradiction interesting whenever i'm trolling the box on bitmex.

>>16217425
of course you are incel. Now go back to rddit to cope about your bags lmao

>>16217431
you can't take it anymore and you leave? lmao. just how angry are you pal? you don't have to seethe this much about bitcorn dude lmao

>>16217427

we really don't care man, you guys will figure it out eventually or lose a lot of money. not my problem, it's just funny how triggered bitcoin makes you. You guys are aware of it yet buy shitcoins, brain damage is the only real explanation

>>16217399
Is this Anon even real? It would explian the low IQ posts, Its a bot.
something something commie
something something seething
something something corecuck
something something cope
something something ect
kek, the street shitters made a bot!

>>16217412
Actually I don't really want a shitcoin to replace BTC. It will work, but it will piss off a lot of people and whales probably wouldn't allow it to happen anyway because of "muh trading, muh investment".

I want BTC to get fixed with an "official" hardfork by the centralized development team.

This means Blockstream must go away first.

I don't see this happening any time soon.

But as for price and market dominance - people are dumb fucks, and whales don't give a shit, so BTC will reign supreme for the foreseeable future.

Unless Satoj actually has BTC and sinks it himself. Yeah, sure.

>>16217457
yeah broo asuka is gonna pump to 100k any moment dude amirite dudee? xD

I hope you will stream it when you will be neccing lmao

>>16217459
calm down incel. go have sex

>>16217465

>bitcoin development is centralized

brain damage, the post

>>16217485
its hilarious how butthurt you guys get because people don't fall for your dumb cult lmao stay dumb and poor

>>16217470

post your bags dude please we all want to see which shitcoin you are posting about kek

>>16217485
> what is blockstream
Braindead lambo zombie. Not judging, I want lambo money too.

>>16217498
lmao you wish dumb corecuck. I want you to die poor and beg people for money on the street. its the only future of braindead morons like you lmao

>>16217494

>repeat after me
>dumb and poor
>dumb and poor
>dumb and poor

*whirls around in another thread*

>buy BSV and alt coin X,Y,Z GUYS

>>16217504

does blockstream control what miners and users do?

typical noob retard alt coin shit

>MUH BLOCKSTREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>16217533
yes sir pls buy bitcoin asuka pump 100k soon sir!

>>16213365

How did they fuck everything else up? Also don't you think that bitcoin not being used by literally anyone plays an important role in the lack of price action?

>>16217556

i don't need to shill bitcoin

you need to shill your alt coins to noobs for them to survive

COPE

>>16217580
>I don't need to shill bitcoin
then why you get so butthurt at everyone that doesn't like your shitcoin? you corecucks really are coping hard lmao stay dumb and poor

paul le roux is satoshi
he will be released from prizon, sign his coins, and begin developing btc again.

>>16213246
nothing? Look at the fucking support levels. We might break down from 8k and hit support by the 16th of November, but then it's an upwards movement.

>>16217433
But, when BTC does fall from grace, wouldn't the market show the change? so the market is ALWAYS right! (as you said)
>but also there is no other way to make money trading than betting against the market to ride the correction when the market realizes it was not right after all.
Its just gambling at this point though, Yep, I'm sure, as most of the corecucks are that one day BTC will be replaced. But lets say you bet that right now its going to be replaced...you could burn up a lot of capital shorting now. So shorting b/c btc sucks is a bad move, shorting cause you think the market is going to dump fine. But as of now the market still likes BTC. When that changes, we'll see the market react.

Best of luck Anon!

>>16217597

i'm here to help you guys, you are 10x ahead of the general public by sitting around looking at crypto coins all day, yet you buy shitcoins and want to lose all your money. it's kind of sad to be honest. you've had 11 fucking years to figure this out

>>16217553
Miners are wussies. Satoj claims miners should be in control, but miners, just like whales, don't give a shit about scaling, adoption etc., they just use the reference client. They care about short-term gains, just like "investors".

That's why Roger Ver, Satoj and Jihan are still mostly mining BTC.

If the put enough hashpower on some other SHA256 coin (B. Satoj Vishnu, BCash, DGB, etc) - they have the hashpower - that coin will get incredibly secure, it will weaken BTC (which will remain with only smaller mining pools), and they may actually have a shitcoin argument to make.

Instead they mine BTC and promote their pet projects.

>>16217399
the only one seething here is you

>>16217609
hey buddy I get it, you are a newfag, its your first time in crypto and you buy only bitcoin because thats the one you heard about on late night show. After you lose all your money you will eventually learn though lmao
>>16217612
have sex incel

>>16217624

>alt coiner saying bitcoin will fail any day now calls bitcoiner a newfag

k.

>>16217637
>dude le asuka gona pump to 100k dude pls buy my shitcoin!!
seethe all you want buddy we aint gonna buy your bags lmao

>>16217659

how triggered are you right now ;)

>>16217602
>But, when BTC does fall from grace, wouldn't the market show the change?
if yeah i don't think it would be subtle.
>Its just gambling at this point though
different odds tho i would rather play the lottery than buy sv.
>one day BTC will be replaced
maybe but i think by nothing that uses a blokchain. it may be new tech. maybe the consensus algo changes so much we won't even recognize it as bitcoin anymore. who knows...
>But lets say you bet that right now its going to be replaced...you could burn up a lot of capital shorting now.
i shorted btc from $11k to $8.5k. shorting is natural if you hold btc you need to hedge against loss of purchasing power. shorting makes even more sense if you expect revenue in bitcoin. like for a miner.

if you hold bitcoin for any 3 year period you will make mad gains. in it's history just about any 3 year period was mad gains. only one exception where it was mostly a store of value with a slight dip after gox. i don't expect this to change anytime soon. at least 10 more years. then we will see.

>>16217673
obviously not as much as you lmao stay dumb and poor seething kid

>>16217684

>another robotic response from a shitcoiner

i think you are extremely triggered right now aren't you? kek

>>16217637
yeah that's a good one!

>>16217691
seriously how butthurt are you? every single reply you make is dripping from your seething lmao

>>16217715

are you holding ripple? BSV? chainlink? which shitcoin is it sir? :)

>>16217742
dude seriously, try having sex and you wont be this angry lmao

>>16217756

ahahahaha is that all you've got? pic related, it's you

>>16217773
lmao are you still seething? seriously dude, get laid

>>16217795

>alt coiner now telling people to get laid because he's THAT insecure about the bags he's holding

toasting in epic bread

>>16217821
>desperate bagholder shilling his shitcoin
>doesn't like it when I am not shilling mine
lmao you retarded corecuck shills can't even fathom someone that isn't a shill. stay dumb and poor incel

>>16217843
>>16217821
you two should have a room... good job fucking up the discussion in this thread in this ego fest.

>>16217843

>ITS YOU BTC HOLDERS SHILLING
>US ALT COINERS JUST HODL

HAHAAAHAHHAAH OH WOW BAHAHHAHAA ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bitcoin is an ideal and the corecucks thought it was a brand.

>>16217871

thanks for the only decent post in the thread, you should learn to troll these pathetic alt coiners more though

>>16217879
>SIR LE ASUKA PUMP TO 100K SOON BUY NOW SIRS!!
lmao dumb coretard

>>16217871
can't really do much, coretards are just mentally ill and will always act this way

>>16217901

i feel like you have to be a retarded XRP shill, did you buy because the price per coin is super duper reasonable? lmfao

>>16217948
whatever helps you sleep at night bagholder lmao stay dumb and poor incel

>>16217948
also
>calls me shill
>even though I am not shilling any coin
fucking braindead tard lmao

>>16217891
BTC is not bitcoin. Fucking moon lambo boys want to jump on the 'brand' to pump their fiat.
Moonboys never even read the whitepaper or understood the ideal. They don't see the problem in barring 99% of the population from using a currency and think scarcity alone will cause 'price go up'

>>16218038

how will "everybody in the population" use your retarded BCH or BSV or whatever shitcoin you're pushing when it's centralized because nobody is running a node because you idiots decided to run 1GIGAMEG (ROFL!) blocks?

>>16214215
What do you think about monero's dynamic blocksize?

>>16218178
it's pretty damn complicated yet looks to me still fails at the most fundamental issue: fee should ideally be counted regardless of the valuation of the asset. not sure if some sort of long term equilibrium can be reached in practicality via the input from users in fee preference. maybe.

but i admit it's also impressive in a way. don't particularly like the coin burn part. don't think btc can do that. the entire thing is very cumbersome like everything with oracles (miners in this case).

>>16217821
>36 posts by this ID
>epic bread

>>16218373
no that's wrong basically ideally usd would be completely stable and the fees would also be completely stable in usd over long term. i know you traditionally need oracles for this sort of thing and i know they won't be a part of bitcoins consensus algo most likely.

maybe what monero did is the next best thing.

>>16218398

hey, somebody needs to smack down the scamming frauds when they call. KEK!

>>16213246
greg and banking kikes

>>16218424

>>16218424
>somebody needs to smack down the scamming frauds when they call
what's up with this aggressive attitude? And why is Satoshi a fraud?

>>16218431

well i've been here smacking down christfags on /b/ and now scammers on /biz/ since '08 so i guess maybe that's kind of accurate

>>16213547
>once a block is pruned by the network there is no way to tell what was segwit and what was legacy tx
Imagine believing this is a good thing.

>>16218444

haha kill yourself

>>16213602
>users compete with each other
Sounds like a great system. I know when I use a product or service I want it to be a completely awful experience.

>>16218463
it's a think neither good or bad but makes the discussion about segwit being a separate token with different properties by some magical rule cashies dreamed up pretty damn moot.

>>16218483
yeah as a user it is counter-intuitive at first. but then you realize there is always a price to pay - for security and convenience - to maintain a system.

satoshi laid out the ground rules, satoshi determined the coin supply curve, and we all accepted. but it has consequences. which results in that bitcoin without full blocks and a fee market without people paying extra for priority is fucked after a few halving tops.

satoshi left the system for us to do with it want we want. i can only hope it will be something sensible that endures the trials of time.

>>16218521
Nobody will use a shitty system that costs them more to use than the utility it provides. Miners built on scale aren't thinking of a few thousand transactions a second, they're thinking millions. The fees from such a system are enormous and provide an excellent user experience.

>>16218588

use paypal or ripple

>>16218588
>Nobody will use a shitty system that costs them more to use than the utility it provides.
agreed
>The fees from such a system are enormous
apparently wrong also depends on adoption curve to race with the coin supply which is an other externality an other thing that can ruin bitcoin for all of us. you can't force adoption.

>>16218699
>apparently wrong
You didn't provide an argument as to why that would be wrong. wtf does adoption curve have to do with coin supply that can potentially ruin bitcoin for some reason?

I'm not forcing adoption, I'm allowing it to happen. All SV is, is Bitcoin unbounded. They aren't telling people what they can do they're just letting them do it. This allows for new business models and solutions that aren't possible on any other Bitcoin variant and especially aren't available on other shitcoins.

>>16218632
>Self-admitted anti-"Christcuck" fedora crusader
>"Use ripple"
>Continues to pretend like his has any authority here

>>16218737
>You didn't provide an argument
look at the fees m8
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionfees-btc-bsv.html#log
the same blocksize now but btc miners actually receive some value form the fees.
also look at financial adoption...
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/sentinusd-sentinusd-btc-bsv.html#log

>>16218737
>I'm not forcing adoption, I'm allowing it to happen
yes adoption will happen at it's own pace in the meantime bitcoin needs to stay alive.
>All SV is, is Bitcoin unbounded
and if it survives the next halving then kudos.

>>16218826
Now you're just ignoring my arguments and moving the goal posts.

>Miners built on scale aren't thinking of a few thousand transactions a second, they're thinking millions

BTC is going to be left behind because it's inability to plan for the future.

>>16218849
>Now you're just ignoring my arguments and moving the goal posts.
nope, i just explained why unbounded blocks are apparently not a good idea. demonstrated with nice colored charts or you even.

>>16218866
>BTC is going to be left behind because it's inability to plan for the future.

Okay then, I just hope you have a plan B.

>>16218849
>BTC is going to be left behind because it's inability to plan for the future.
it's the other way around m8. btc is probably the only fork that will survive long enough that we can have million tx-es in a block.

Maxis kys

>>16218816

just saying, if you want to use a centralized shitcoin, use paypal or ripple. is that hard to understand?

>>16218894

do you want your cute little shitcoin bags to survive? yes? then shut the fuck up.

>A decent thread
>actually talking about crypto technicalities
>on /biz/
Just gotta say wish we had more of this shit here instead of pajeet spam.

>with full blocks the users compete with each other for block space
>unbounded blocks are apparently not a good idea
>btc is probably the only fork that will survive long enough that we can have million tx-es in a block

It's amazing that you arrive at the conclusions you do.

>>16218932
there is a logic to my "madness" if you care to think about it for a second. >>16215401

small blocks but also unbound over time. not impossible.

>>16218816

btw, i think you're the one that doesn't belong if you are unironically a christfaggot and you hold or use shitcoins while browsing this forum

>>16218963
All you lay out in that posts are reasons why you think block space should be centrally controlled determination. Adding complexity and communistic control over an economic system that is decentralized and when left to its own devices allows the free market to determine blocksize.

>>16219028
>why you think block space should be centrally controlled determination
no centrally controlled would be doing a series of hardforks to adjust it. like... some random shitcoins did.

for a healthy network adequate transaction fees are needed. blocks should grow when fees get too high and shrink when fees get too low. in a fully decentralized manner.
>allows the free market to determine blocksize
yes that is the goal exactly. just not as simple as you simpletons imagine it to be.

unbound blocks will result in a bloated blockchain with serious issues and still negligible fees. every sign points to that.

>>16219124
>blocks should grow when fees get too high and shrink when fees get too low
So unbounded blocks lmao

>>16219155
exactly unbounded over sufficient time
but always limited to "small blocks"

for example one could easily argue that a 4mb block today would be relatively smaller than 1mb when satoshi implemented it. however i wouldn't want a 4mb empty block especially not before he fucking halving. 1.2mb would be nice for now. maybe up to 1.5mb so long it's full.

>>16213663
Have a look into how monero solved the problem.

here is a power law approximation to bitcoin price

you could theoretically use it to determine the purchasing power change of sats over long enough time.

you could set the absolute max blocksize limit to y=2^x mb here x are halvings

you could also set the valid block size limit for any given time based on the average total fees accrued in every n block if the average fees value multiplied with the power law function gives you more than $0.7 you increase the block limit with 1% if it's below $0.3 you decrease the block limit with 1%

crude and simple and probably would work out well enough. not as complicated as moneros.

of course it has it's problems if bitcoin takes up an other valuation curve this gets broken and require an other hard fork to adjust the parameters.

if the median fees offered by users over a moving average can be used to approximate bitcoin valuation that would be even better. without oracles of course. fuck oracles for this! fuck staking and coin burns also!

>>16219403
i will dig deeper when my time allows it. i like the idea greatly dislike certain aspects of it tho. see >>16218373

>>16219382
>make blocks unbounded
>10 mins go by miner creates a 2GB block
>another 10 mins go by and a miner creates a 723MB block
>another 10 mins go by miner creates a 12GB block

Alternatively we have your model.
>10 mins go by 1MB block
>another 10 mins go by 1MB block
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>WE NEED TO COME TO CONSENSUS AND SCALE UP TO 8MB
>10 mins go by miner creates an 8MB
>another 10 mins go by miner creates 6MB block
>another 10 mins go by miner creates an 8MB block now with a shit load more transactions that didn't go through
>another 10 mins go by miner creates an 8MB block with even more transactions that didn't go through
>>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>WE NEED TO COME TO CONSENSUS AND SCALE UP TO 32MB

etc

>>16219487
wrong it would be a roughly linear growth with tx count with blocks being full 95% of the time.

>>16219487
btw why would you even contemplate jumping from 1mb to 8mb? between blocks? realistic would be 1mb to 1.01mb then 1.02mb and so on

>>16219599
>>16219633
The rate and size is arbitrary. The whole point I made is completely over your head.

>>16219651
so the 21 million total supply that's not arbitrary? or the halving rate? or the atomic digits of a bitcoin in the protocol, the hash function used as pow? the number of blocks it takes to adjust difficulty? those are totally not arbitrary? only this one thing he parameters to adjust the block limit...

if there is a consensus about it it's fine it's the devs work to propose changes to improve protocol and scaling the community the adopters and the market signal support the miners signal support maybe talk over some points then the miners start running the code and a new consensus is fully reached.

>>16219651
>>16219701
oh sorry you don1t understand the word consensus i always forget i'm talking to cashies.

>>16219701
The limits on blocksize are completely arbitrary and break the system. 1MB was set in place for flood control before Bitcoin had any value. It was never the intended setting for Bitcoin at scale. Now flooding the network enriches miners, before it just added to overhead.

>>16219759
>The limits on blocksize are completely arbitrary and break the system. 1MB was set in place for flood control before Bitcoin had any value.
completely arbitrary 1mb yeah... imagine... if only we didn't have to write an arbitrary limit in code because it would forever self adjust... hm. such dreams.

>>16219759
btw, you do realize that what you said about flooding the network only enriches miners is bullshit right?

let's say an attacking miner sets upon sv with 2% of bitcoins hashpower...
he mines 2 gb blocks he simply fills the rest of the block with garbage transactions that pay no fee.
now every miner has to deal with his 2gb blocks (most nodes would go offline 5 minutes the first is mined) without any way to profit from it.
it doesn't really cost the attacker anything he has the majority hash he will just reorg anyone that tries to ignore him.
bamm no dos protection and your chain is done.
all it takes is one decent sized pool to say fuck this shitcoin!

>>16219461
added benefit of this is transactions get relatively expensive in a bull market and get relatively cheap in a bear market (like even $5 per tx in the next block) which helps bitcoin calm the fuck down and correlate to the ideal valuation curve more closely because price will feel the underlying conditions of the mempool. fucking hell...

maybe it's not even such a shit idea after all.