/biz/ - Business & Finance

Has anyone combed through this yet?

BTC trying to do Paymail lol.

>>16446218
What a joke they've become. Really need to be put out of their misery.

https://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/getDetail.do?case_id=20192072

Not much information is public. UK law not the same as US. Less open system.

Case is in appeal.

>>16446263

They will never be able to catch up once they realize what's possible. It's too late for them

>>16446272

Ty AB, how you doing tonight friend?

BSV will be the #1 blockchain soon. Read it and weep linktards

>>16446415

BSV will spawn hundreds of chainlinks and thousands of ways to earn passive income NEETbux without having to leech from existing APIs

It's funny that the link cult of all people don't understand the value of big blocks and on-chain data and how a single, public ledger encompassing literally every type of data imaginable will completely undermine the need for something like chainlink

Blockchain agnostic my ass. What a load of shit

>>16446486


Anon.. Let us show them the way

Bump

>>16446348
burning the midnight oil.
lots of work.
snow.

>>16446218
What the fuck would the point of doing this be? You can't use BTC for payments in any realistic way. They should just stick to store of value gold or w/e the fuck their shitcoin claims to be.

>>16447254

BTC will never be private because it can't do micropayments on chain

DOUBLE DIGIT SHITCOIN
DOUBLE DIGIT SHITCOIN

>>16447303
oops
https://btcpayserver.org/

>>16446218
lol. Do they even know this was implemented on BitCoin 6 months ago? They seem to be only in the theoretical stage, so they are probably 18 month behind the real bitcoin. lol

>>16446059
okay now imagine that the double spend is the green tx and only the merchant and a few nodes see the red (the original)

yes 0onf is retarded and timing attacks are trivial

>>16448112

without spv, there is no bitcoin as money

>>16448120
spv only works on confirmed transactions neger

>>16448120
also lightning solves all these problems. it's instant for small payments it will have 100% success rate once the network is sufficiently reduced it's non custodial, trustless (for the one paying the merchant may use a professional service that safeguards his interest) and allows for bulk settlement of many many payments which opens up a lot of pay per mile or pay per time service models.

>>16448122

fuck off retard shill

go suck more corecuck dicks faggot

>>16448174
oh you realized you dun goofed and displayed your ignorance.
you have no further argument so you sperg out.
noted.

>>16446486
>they felt for the premined scam

>>16448162
>lightning solves... stop reading here

bump

>>16448238
small minds small gains

>>16448162
Why lightning network is a bad idea even if all its issues were solved:

1. you have to set up your payment channel with on-chain transaction. if you have to deal with on-chain transactions anyway you might as well just scale up on-chain instead. if i go to a coffee shop that only have depleted lightning channels i have to make an on-chain transaction. a depleted customer channel will be that way forever unless the store decides to pay someone else through a customer's channel.

2. if someone else use your payment channel they can deplete your funds to a merchant. if there are no other channels, which is likely since otherwise your channel wouldn't be depleted, you now need another on-chain transaction to make a new channel or refund your old one. if you think this is wrong, check: https://youtu.be/pOZaLbUUZUs

3. if you have 1 BTC and open up four channels with 0.25 BTC on each channel it's impossible to send more than the unspent amount of BTC on that channel even though you own more than 0.25. likewise nobody can receive more BTC than the sum of all their channels (assuming all channels could find a path to the sender and that the right amount of BTC is available at the correct end of each channel).

4. the network will inevitably develop backbone nodes that nearly all transactions pass through (most likely just trusting each other to have the required funds to save time). this "solves" the routing problem but makes the whole thing completely centralized, just like internet is today with master backbone nodes.

5. once you put your crypto into a channel you're basically trapped in the system. it's designed so that you would never want to take it out. eventually there would be almost no in/out on the bitcoin blockchain and at that point bitcoin is essentially dead and you can be sure that there will be talks to just drop it completely in favor of some kind of issued lightning network token.

>>16449404
6. it's possible to make solutions for micropayment channels on-chain instead. someone just needs to figure out a way for the sender to be able to construct a transaction but he cannot broadcast it, the reciver on the other hand can't change the transaction but he is allowed to broadcast it. the payment channel is then either closed by the receiver with the latest state or it is closed by a timeout with a full refund to the sender.

7. bitcoin works for payments of all sizes today. there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. we don't live forever and every year we delay crypto adaption is another year the banks will adapt to instant online global payments. you think it's hard to on-board people with crypto today? good luck if banks offer the exact same user experience as crypto. when that happens the only perk crypto has is censorship resistance and most people just don't care if banks are convenient enough.

8. all big lightning nodes will be known. DDoS those and you take down the whole network since there won't be any viable paths.

TL;DR i wouldn't want to use lightning even if it already worked flawlessly with BSV, BCH, BTC, ETH, LTC and whatever else.

A. lightning isn't bitcoin. it works with several other cryptos.
B. lightning still doesn't have a working routing algorithm, it breaks more and more the more people uses it.
C. allowing other people to spend your channel is stupid since you need to refill them or somehow make the retailer send back money through your channel. if you are supposed to make your channels private it means lightning is designed to end up with centralized channels (bank nodes).
D. it's extremely complicated to send your first payment compared to just using bitcoin.

Lightning is a disaster, it doesn't work and noone is using it

>>16448162
Yes, I know when I go to walmart I need to send money back and forth with walmart several times before I checkout... Oh wait, you just need 1 fucking transaction to go through in one direction. Lightning network solves absolutely nothing, the usecase is garbage, who falls for this shit? Who in their right mind needs a payment system where they can send money back and forth between two parties and only make it 'official' once they both agree on it. You do that through basic communication, that isn't a financial transcation you core tards.

>>16450408

The problem with lightning is that nobody is using it for practical applications or real businesses because 1) on chain settlement is neccesary for any real business, which means massive fluxuations in fees, and 2) most businesses and apps don't actually need payment channels, what they need is on-chain Bitcoin

>>16446081
Don't seem to be able to find the Tweet from Wright's lawyer where he said he was proud to represent him. None of his other tweets have gone. Just that one as far as I can tell.

lol. You don't think he might have deleted it when he found out who he was dealing with? You think he's not as proud any more?

>>16450953
You have to go back, Greg

why are redditors so buttblasted about BSV?

>>16451141

Because they think people actually use reddit and not various bot/shill armies

>>16451141
the absolute state of corecucks

>>16449418
what keyboard is this pls? I'm autistic and all-in BSV

>>16448234
Link wasn't even mined some fat Russian dude literally just minted loads out of thin air it's going nowhere long term, as in, it's worthless.
Scam is over

>>16451932
Where are the applications using Link? It's complete vapourware

>>16449404
>1. you have to set up your payment channel with on-chain transaction. if you have to deal with on-chain transactions anyway you might as well just scale up on-chain instead.
retarded if the ratio is within the 100:1 it's well worth it to settle in bulk.
>a depleted customer channel will be that way forever
not really a single transaction re-balancing is in the works.
>2. if someone else use your payment channel they can deplete your funds to a merchant
you as the end user will not route shit. that's hub territory.
>3. if you have 1 BTC and open up four channels with 0.25 BTC on each channel it's impossible to send more than the unspent amount of BTC on that channel even though you own more than 0.25.
that's why multi-directional channels are in the works. ring signatures and shielded pools can also work with ln in the future.
>4. the network will inevitably develop backbone nodes
it can't function as a mesh it would be extremely wasteful and inefficient.
>but makes the whole thing completely centralized
yes it will be more centralized but since layer 1 exit is decentralized trustless and permissionless this is not a real problem.
>this "solves" the routing problem
it will yes, but it will still be decentralized enough.
>5. once you put your crypto into a channel you're basically trapped in the system.
not really. you need to learn more about this shit
>6. it's possible to make solutions for micropayment channels on-chain instead.
that will also happen via sidechains. the global burden will be kept at a minimum security at maximum.
>7. bitcoin works for payments of all sizes today.
not really it's also a very very good idea to bulk settle as many tx as possible. there are many ways to do this ln is just one.
>8. all big lightning nodes will be known. DDoS those and you take down the whole network since there won't be any viable paths.
every centralized service is susceptible to ddos to some degree. there are also well working and tried countermeasures.

>>16450408
the point of ln is it's riskless to accept for the merchant or his provider, instantaneous trustless yet non-custodial. it's also very cheap to do each transaction. probably cheaper than banking. yet non-custodial. completely.

excited that Terra is killing it! with their new and improved developer documentation with details around the upcoming Columbus-3, Mainnet is here!

>>16452103
oh ok, lightning just isn't ready.
we only need to wait another 4 years.
https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712

yeah sure that makes sense, we have time.
Libra isn't a threat, it's smart to disregard scaling on-chain while we wait for LN to be developed. even though it's completely possible to do both.

>>16452288
Interesting. What are your personal holds, anon?

>>16452288
it's not done yet obviously but it looks promising.
and the path is clear ln or no ln bitcoin choose the bulk settlement approach and full blocks.

libra is not a crypto tho it's a sovereign corporate currency and it's more of a threat to the united states than to bitcoin.

>>16452288
>disregard scaling on-chain
side-chains are still on-chain as far as i'm concerned. it's just the distribution of the burden and the scope of rule-set conformity is completely different while all side-chains can derive their security from bitcoin.

>>16446486
>they still don't understand the link tokenomics and how it differce what ever they are fantasizing themselves
you'll forever be sergeys cucks

>>16446486
>they still don't understand the link tokenomics and how it differs what ever they are fantasizing
you'll forever be sergeys cucks

>>16452103
So how would this actually function in the real world (LN store purchases)

You still need to make a transaction to move/commit funds onto the channel right? Which still takes an hour to confirm. So... this most likely isn't happening at the point of sale, or even at the point of entering a store.

The only thing it could be is you would have to maintain accounts with deposits for every store you plan on doing business with ahead of time, which means freezing up money in various places (yes you can take it out, but would require another tx, this constant shifting around of funds is far from ideal)

Is that the solution, every place i plan on doing business with I maintain basically a 'gift card' with a balance of how much I think I might need? What am I missing here becasue this doesn't sound applicable to the real world at all.

>>16452481
>Which still takes an hour to confirm
20 minutes tops bitcoin is widely accepted as 2 confirmation

>>16452481
also you are talking about a non-routing scenario which only makes sense with your biggest spending places. like a restaurant you eat every day at or a market you visit weekly and spend a lot on groceries.

routing can still work besides but it will probably only work for small transactions until the ln network shapes up and gets some improvements.

in the end your bank will most likely be your ln hub. you will be able to deposit btc to participate in the liquidity hub for a share on fees too, but if you don't want to then you can just use their hub to purchase and use their 2fa signing service for more security on your transactions and use their complex audited smart contract portfolio to take care of inheritance and the like.

>>16452487
That's still not acceptable though, this isn't a shit on core vs SV, SV would have the same issues. Everyone talks about TPS but the confirmation duration is the biggest opstacle I think. I'm genuinely curious how this will work and be capable of in store purchasing (or gasoline where it's minutes) and you seem very knowledable so I want to pick your brain. Online obviously isn't any issue since there is already lead time.

>>16452528
i don't know how you shop but if i go into a super i spend way more than 20 minutes in. but if you are in a hurry you can open the channel before you leave home. it's not like you have to be present.

>>16452557
You're an idiot. The fact that you think anything you said is remotely acceptable in 2019 shows that

>>16452557
Not trying to be argumentative, but it still doesn't seem acceptable and just goal post moving. This is a new payment system, you can't say you can only use it for these specific cases when it has to compete with cash and visa, etc. There are many many legit every day cases where this wouldn't work. Convenience stores, emergency stops for gas, even just oh man I got a craving for a latte let me hit this drive thru...

Someone mentioned using a bank as a hub, but wouldn't this just ultimately result in one giant single payment hub, otherwise the merchants would have to support every bank to make the process seamless for the customers which isn't feasible. Once we head down that path of just one giant hub that processes everything on LN, why even have it rather than the original chain, or some other "central" body.

>>16452526
>in the end your bank will most likely be your ln hub. you will be able to deposit btc to participate in the liquidity hub for a share on fees too,

Sounds fucking gay

I want to make real money on chain, not pennies for taking fees

Nobody is building anything real on top of LN and it shows. You know this is true, there is absolutely no innovation or momentum besides hobbyist bullshit and 18 monthsTM

>>16452605
Again, want to emphasize this isn't BSV vs whatever, becasue BSV has the same conformation duration issues. I'm curious how bitcoin in general is supposed to function at consumer level. If there wasn't the ability to cancel a transaction you could just verify the TX yourself and verify there are no other TX's in the pool for that wallet pending that would cause a balance issue... It seems liek having the ability to cancel a transcation really fucks it up.

>>16452570
it's completely acceptable especially for public transport vs the current system.

here i have to buy a ticket or a pass beforehand i can travel, but of course you can't really buy any of them but in a few places mostly broken vending machines.

and you pay a lot even if you only go one stop. you can't just pay per stop.

alternatively with ln: you open a channel with the amount a monthly pass would require. because if your traveling reaches that amount you are free to travel that month no charge. whenever you hop on a vehicle the phone will detect the network and an app will notify you if you have to buy a ticket. the phone can automatically detect each stop via the transmitter and if you don't exit the vehicle it will automatically pay for the next stop until you cancel it or loses the network.

this would allow you to travel in the most comfortable way and only pay for what you must. don't have to plan ahead or anything. now this scenario would theoretically work with 0conf if 0conf wasn't retarded but instead of 2 tx you would make 200 in a month for the same amount.

>>16452419
it was predicted in 2015 that the blocks would get full at the end of 2017, which they did.

imagine if they had just released a version of the BTC client in 2015 that increased the max blocks to 2 MB at a certain block height (before the end of 2017).
faith in bitcoin wouldn't have been lost. adoption wouldn't have left. bitcoin cash (and SV) wouldn't have been created. people wouldnt have left to work on those projects instead. roger ver and bitcoin.com would still have been promoting BTC to this day. lightning network wouldnt have been rushed out before it was done, which completely wrecked its reputation.

i'll never forget the damage blockstream and the 1 mb blockers did to bitcoin. and now I think it's too god damn late to recover with Libra right around the corner.

>>16452624
>Nobody is building anything real on top of LN and it shows.
that is something that bothers me, adoption is lacking even tho there are many good scenarios that suit it. however the main problem is accepting bitcoin as payment not ln imo.

business can't just accept bitcoin. nor accounting nor business model wise it is good for them. they would need to hedge every purchase to lock in the value they need to deal with exchanges which are mostly unregulated some shady as fuck. their expenses are in fiat.

it's just fucked. i don't really believe bitcoin can be cash anymore. but i do believe it makes you able to take control of your finances (especially your savings) in a way unprecedented before.

>>16452681
but full blocks are the point. they are not a problem but a key to bitcoin survival. you still don't get it... start looking into what miners make from fees in usd from bitcoin and sv and bch...

double digit shitcoin

>>16452728
DOUBLE DIGIT SHITCOIN
OUBLE DIGIT SHITCOIN
UBLE DIGIT SHITCOIN
BLE DIGIT SHITCOIN
LE DIGIT SHITCOIN
E DIGIT SHITCOIN

DIGIT SHITCOIN
IGIT SHITCOIN
GIT SHITCOIN
IT SHITCOIN
T SHITCOIN

SHITCOIN
HITCOIN
ITCOIN
TCOIN
COIN
OIN
IN
N

>>16452691
ya, that whopping 1/10,000th of their profit per block, wew lad. That is certainly the key to their survival. Hmmmm, I wonder how high transaction fees will need to be in order to make mining profitable after the halvening, when there are only 4tx per block and 3.5k of revenu per block goes down the shitter. That should be fun to see! Can't wait

>>16452691
the dream was to have nigger joe in africa use bitcoin to buy bananas, he won't do that with 50 USD fees. it's you who don't get it.

>>16452681
this

>>16452681
also early adopters keeping profits to themselves..

the success of bitcoin depends on early adopters as they no longer have to wagecuck

from the look at it, it seems unlikely they rather spend it on lambo

>>16452528
security is on a spectrum.

there is a function of time and fees which shows you the security risk of spending your inputs. Just adjust accordingly.

The time and fees it takes for security is very low. That is bitcoin.

>>16452288
Checked
>>16452398
>>16452419
I cannot believe the "just wait for LN" argument is still being reheated in 2019. Has it already been 4 years? Jesus Mary and Joseph, corecucks must all be mentally defective.
>>16452681
This. This whole recalcitrance by the core clique and their propagandists has cost us five years of progress at best. Enough already.

>>16452691
>full blocks are the point
You are a goddamn nigger of the crypto world. Go back you are out of your element and you are going to lose money until you give up.

>>16451141
Kek

>>16452927
>Has it already been 4 years?
wat? it's been online a year and some change

>>16452927
go away you tech illiterate faggot

>>16452963
COPE CORE KEK

>>16450350
I don't get it. Are these kinds of posters retarded, shills, both?

>>16452982
so what adoption had bitcoin produced in it's first year and a half? the first year satoshi basically solo mined it and there were like 10 others that tried it out and deleted the client.

ln is a raging success in comparison. just fucking wait a few years i will be the first to diss it if it actually turns out to be shit.

>>16452963
LN has been worked on since 2015 (and discussed before that)
http://web.archive.org/web/20150301065655/http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf

and STILL nobody know how the fuck routing is supposed to work.
ctrl+f "Payment Routing" in the whitepaper and they dedicate 1 paragraph to the biggest elephant in the room, handwaving it by saying it's "largely a solved problem". then they have the balls to reference how routing works on the Internet, which is SUPER centralized and has had several issues in the past where malicious actors have routed part of the world's traffic to the wrong servers

the non-archived current whitepaper still has no clue how to solve routing and it hasn't been updated since 2016
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

also here's how routing works currently in LN for those who don't know:

the one sending a transaction takes a snapshot of the whole network, calculates the desired path for the transaction, onion wraps it and sends it on its way.

that shit will not work when you scale up the network and you have channels constantly coming online, going offline AND changing the amount of crypto stored at each end of each channel

>>16453067
that's true the payment routing is the achilles heel of ln which is why i don't believe in it. we will circumvent routing or the network has to get a lot smaller than now.

>>16453106
just to spell it out, the reason transactions on LN fails so much today is because after being sent the tx goes along its designated path, unwrapping the onion, and everything is fine until it finally hits a channel that has a changed state (closed or not enough money in the right end to transact). it works when few people are using LN at the same time, which is fine currently for the occastional video of someone buying a sandwich with LN because the network isn't used, but it would fail more often the more people that buy something at the same time in the world

>>16449418
>TL;DR i wouldn't want to use lightning even if it already worked flawlessly with BSV

Same. It's like Bitcoin (not really) with extra steps. It's fucking gay and people who support this retarded shit should consider suicide.

>>16452103
Lightning is bad and you should feel bad.

>>16453146
>that shit will not work when you scale up the network and you have channels constantly coming online, going offline
indeed hubs need to be bigger channels need to go down in count also reserve capacities need to be added between hubs, but most importantly hubs need to form rings. where the total amount locked into the ring is not locked in between any two hub. this allows routing to be a very simple 2 hop routing for 90% of the times. and the endpoints are simple as fuck.

now the real challenge comes: how can a hub route a shitton of bitcoins to an endpoint without locking in the liquidity into a channel? because i can't figure this part out. i don't think outgoing channels can be part of the ring. maybe having multiple rings a central tier ringset for the hubs and smaller rings between hubs and merchants... i don't know.

>>16452288
>2015

This is why we call them cucks. jfc

>>16453245
no lightning is awesome. it also sucks ass right now.
lightning makes it possible for bitcoin to compete with debit cards on a technical basis in a trustless secure non-custodial manner. can't really compete with the cc cashback tho.

>>16452557
Sort yourself out.

>>16446059
Why is Ari fudding so hard?
https://twitter.com/ari_cryptonized/status/1201388448772476929

>>16452633
BSV actually doesn't have this issue because it has 0-conf as intended with Bitcoin. Segshit has RBF.

0-conf is secure enough for most transactions.

>>16452640
>it's completely acceptable especially for public transport vs the current system.

I need to buy soda from the gas station and I drive a car because I'm not poor.

>>16452681
Nah, BTC was already fucked before the capacity was reached because of shit like RBF. As shitty as these times are, in the long run it's for the best.

>>16452682
>business can't just accept bitcoin
They use to before Bitcoin produced nothing but bad faith. Fees to get your payments converted to fiat are low. Bitpay processes payments for 1%. We have another five years before we can fully repair the damage that was done be these fucking control freaks in Core.

>>16452691
>full blocks are the point
Yes, to Blockstream's business model. Though I doubt they care about it being profitable since their primary objective was to cripple Bitcoin.

>>16453067
>they have the balls to reference how routing works on the Internet

They even admit the whole fucking thing is only theoretical and if it were to work would just be a fucking banking network. People defending this are either paid off or complete idiots or both.

>>16453417
>no lightning is awesome. it also sucks ass right now.
Do you even hear yourself?

>lightning makes it possible for bitcoin to compete with debit cards
It's like you've never even used Bitcoin before.

>>16451141
Just letting you know, Zectro is Greg Maxwells sock account.

As is _Contrarian.

It's basically just Greg Maxwell running 24/7 astroturf campaign against Craig and BSV across all social media.

>>16453605
of course i used bitcoin you retarded mongrel. go ahead and try to buy a pack of cigarettes in the corner shop with bitcoin! ln makes that possible. what is missing is acceptance.

lightning as technology is awesome lightning as network right now sucks ass what's so hard to understand about that? it will find it's shape. the network on it's own will find the shape that works the tech also evolves. bitcoin will evolve.

>>16453589
>if it were to work would just be a fucking banking network
a banking network that is non-custodial low fee and inflation proof and a lot more competitive as entry is completely free of regulatory burden. yes that is absolutely awesome.

>>16454051
Calling Lightning a garbage fire is being nice to Lightning. You've obviously never used Bitcoin because you'd know that spending Bitcoin is more akin to handing someone a twenty. Just try and spend it. You'll find it's a lot easier than punching in card numbers.

>>16454070
>non-custodial
Yet it will require money transmitter licence to operate a node.
>low fee
Still have to get money into the channel which is still subject to BTC's horrible network fees.

I seriously find it hard to believe anyone would defend Lightning in earnest.

>>16454233
It's safe to assume anyone defending lightning is paid to.

>>16453923

Leave him alone!

>>16454233
>You'll find it's a lot easier than punching in card numbers.
wtf? with a cc it's pretty much touch and go. you don't punch in card numbers jesus.
>Yet it will require money transmitter licence to operate a node.
rofl land of the free?
>I seriously find it hard to believe anyone would defend Lightning in earnest.
that's because you got a small mind filled with retarded cashie memes.

>>16453456
Anyone?

>>16453456
>>16454872

Because traders are cancer and he's mostly right

>>16454943
without traders nothing has value you marxist cuck

>>16452963
Thanks for showing the class you know jack shit about the history of crypto.

>>16454985
$95
also you are stupid lightning went open beta not much longer than a year ago this is a well known fact.

>>16454943
how does miner pay their bills? craig is just trolling

speculators create liquidity and the success of bsv is dependent of early adopters pre 2017 adopters

>>16455004
The same tired arguments about how LN is the antidote to the scaling problem have been popping up on BCT and plebbit since 2015. You know nothing, brainlet.

>>16454943
How much BSV do you think he's holding?

>>16455318

Probably more than he's willing to admit

A lot of BSVers are unironically all in

>>16455372
If he actually believes it will go to $5 he'd be shorting his stack

>>16455372
When you realize a really shitty neutered version of bitcoin is already valued at 7k. And you see the real potential of bitcoin which dwarfs what we currently have, coupled with a $100 price tag... you go all in. It's the opportunity of a life time.

>>16455471

Imagine the entire market cap of crypto all piled into one coin

>>16455008

Number go up is a good thing for BSV. People will pay attention to it when it pumps. Crypto trading culture is cancer

$5 per bitcoin all the better

i will be the next roger ver

fuck ari

>>16455520
Ari is smart.

Cheap talk, but smart.

Bump

>>16455520

I don't see it dropping below 50

Good night BSVG!

>>16457038

Night fren

What the fuck is this shit? Why the fuck are these assholes constantly shitting on BSV? Fuck Calvin and Ari. Craig says it's going to $1200 EOY and then Calvin says it's a single digit shitcoin! WTF?

>>16457561

Ari would probably shit his pants if BSV actually hit $5

>>16457569
Did I miss something? I was gone for Thanksgiving. Why are they saying this shit?

>>16457586

Calvin is a boomer and Ari is a contrarian

>>16457616
That old pervert scumbag better fucking pump this shit soon or I'm fucking done. Fuck these bastards!

>>16457626

Calvin can pump it whenever he likes pretty much, it'll happen eventually

>>16457680
this

look at the books, calvin alone can pump this to $300 https://coinpaprika.com/coin/bsv-bitcoin-sv/#!liquidity

time to pump biz

>>16455146
that's a non argument
thanks for playing
sorry for your loss

>>16457857
WHAT WAS THAT?!
7500 in volume is yuuge for the real bitcoin

>>16457561
It is a way of virtue signalling
>I don't care about price only buidling
There is A LOT of virtue signalling in the bsv community and A LOT of circle jerking. It just takes on another form than in most places. BSV is filled to the brim with fart puffers and Ari is probably the worst

>>16458135

Agreed, but amateur "traders" are worse

>>16458135
>There is A LOT of virtue signalling in the bsv community
there is also a lot of totalitarianism and monolithism.
they want to take over everything and force everyone onto their shitstain of a chain wheter they want to be there or not.
which is not just simply unrealistic but also pretty disgusting attitude.

>>16458370
yes they are basically the fucking norks of crypto

>>16458370
>29 posts by this ID
Greg...Maybe you should take a brake?

>>16458401
not until all shitcoins die

>>16458370
>>16458397
LOL you forgot to change your IP Greg. You are getting tired and it makes you slip

>>16458410
i did not forget anything i was agreeing with myself

>>16458433
Greg...

>>16457561
Ari is a fucking idiot who spends all his time
trying to cook up hot takes on twitter and unironically thinks child sacrifice was necessary

>>16458433
Greg plz get some sleep you’re losing it

bump

Bump

>>16458603
thanks to ari we have spv

>>16460192
>thanks to ari we have spv
lol no. Ari is a fucking asshat. The only thing he does is shit all over twitter with his stupid brain farts

>>16460164
I would like you to bump my asshole with your penor if you understand what I mean, Autistic Bitcoiner. hehe

>>16460192
>thanks to ari we have spv

>>16460255
Dubs = truth...?

>>16461011
d-dubs again. I guess we have to do it for real now

>>16460192
link?

>>16461854
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/simplified-payment-verification/

it's not thanks to ari.

>>16458099
Let me spell it out for you since you seem to be so cognitively deficient:
Working LN has been "18 months" away for four years now. Go through the archives if you don't believe me.
"Just 18 months away" for four years. If that ain't vaporware, then I'm not sure what is, to say nothing of the well-documented technical problems.
Please do come back tomorrow so you we can all watch you seethe even harder, Mr. (32)
>>16458370
>>16458397
>>16458433
>Forgetting to switch IPs this blatantly
>"I was just replying to myself"
Oh no no no. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>16457857
Well that was short lived.

>>16458370
>>16458397
>50 shades of greg

>>16462556
why would i switch ip if i want to amend my post?

>>16462702
>being this autistic.

The best thing to do is just ignore those posts that call you out, greg.

>>16462914
i ignore the whole gregging because it only encourages the fucktards. but goddamn feels so stiff when sv is double digits and bending down. soon the capitulation comes i can feel it in my bones i will be here to jerk off with sv cuck tears.

>>16462972
ok, greg

>>16462972
I am pretty encouraged by all the gregging desu.