/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>18160799
Checked

>>18160799
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48#msg329
>In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for [mining] nodes. I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
>—Satoshi

>>18160839
The segwit is a fork

>>18160864
why the fuck are you telling me that?
stop parroting shit when you don't even understand what my position is

>>18160872
Explain me your position pls

>>18160799
>it's not zano
dropped gay OP

>>18160878
That he likes the blockstream forks

>>18160878
>>18160887
>>18160839
>>18160839
>>18160839
>>18160839
>>18160839
>>18160839

>>18160878
>>18160887
read this shit again
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48#msg329
>In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for [mining] nodes. I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
>—Satoshi
in what fucking universe is this an argument for the dysfunctional shitcoin Core has rendered BTC?
develop some fucking reading comprehension, fuck

>>18160896
Fuck Jews

>>18160905
Do you like bsv?

>>18160954
how about you actually turn on your brain for two fucking seconds, read what I've written, and then try to figure out what I think based on that, huh?
fucking hell, so fucking hard to think for yourself these days apparently

>>18160966
Do you like bsv?

>>18160974
here you go, in case you decide to turn on your brain
>>18160839
>>18160905

>>18160997
Do you like bsv?

>>18160997
I'm still not convinced, do you like BSV?

>>18161027
This

>>18160799
Definitely needed a reminder. Forgot about this shitcoin. What happened to it?

>>18161027
That shit is over. Better to buy some lowcaps like OGN and ZANO

>>18161036
I made a 400% in three days in 2019
All in.
Shitcoin? Lmao
Better than the blockstream segwitnl Jew fork

ITT 3 BSV shills but 2 of them are from the same call center and couldn't comprehend why someone would shill BSV for free

>>18161059
You are wrong as usual faggot. Stay poor

>>18160799
Isn’t the Indian call center in quarantine? They allow remote working now?

>>18160839
fee in reward ratio is way too little in sv for the halving to be bullish and not bearish.

>>18160799
look at average fees per day on BSV theyre alread tanking
halving will rek BSV screencap this

>>18161090
The mining fees of BCH will make miners abandon BCHABBC babcash if roger ver

>>18161066
you guys really should coordinate better
you and OP couldn't even identify a common pasta you guys yourselves post
but I get it, it's work hours, you're lazy, brain works at 20% capacity, still here on /biz/ we expect a level of intelligence, your lack of trying might work on plebbit, but 4chan requires your 100%. Please get your manager in this thread I wanna have a few words with him.

>>18161090
how? inflation goes down the same way, just less of holders wealth will be distributed (and sell-pressured by-) miners

>>18160905
okay let's look at the theoretical cap of transaction sin a testbed between forks...
bitcoin (with ln) about a billion tx/s
bch ~24 tx/s
bsv ~6000 tx/s

>>18161095
Will get bsv rekt???

>>18161107
You are wrong again, everybody expected it except you. Because you are always wrong. Your mother has repented.

>>18161111
btc miners get a few thousand to a few ten thousand bucks per block bsv miners get around $1 from fees. which is why i try to tell sv cucks that no the halving is not bullish for them at all. of all all the forks miner only on btc get appreciable amount in fees per block.

>>18161155
>1 $ fee per block
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, what a shitshow. Muh utility

>>18161155
oof
i dont think calvin can dump mined sv on the market without crashing it anyway so idt it matters much except on paper
if craig is satoshi good things will happen. otherwise were boned. good luck out there frens.

>>18161748
>if craig is satoshi
>if
>iff
>stiff

>>18161759
Bump

>>18161155
the real question is how much do btc and bsv miners want to support their chain
will calvin and craig mine bsv at a loss?
will the chinese mine btc at a loss?
personally i think craig and calvin will at least for a good while, they are all in already.

>>18161886
don't think this is an issue for now because the way hashrate flows between forks based solely on market price miner profitability will always trend to 0 where it finds equilibrium.

so basically if sv becomes less profitable after the halving event then btc by a few% then hashrate will drop accordingly. it's the long term view (which does no interest miners that switch between forks at all) that's extremely bearish for big blockers. but the fact that there is no clear consensus on chain scaling vision in the btc camp is worrisome (and the reason why the shitforks exist to begin with).

we know it's easy enough to fork bitcoin for larger block size as needed. but core devs are not laying out the roadmap when and how they wish to scale layer 1 for layer 2 adoption. all they say it's not needed yet because they bought time with segwit. and for some people this is frustrating beyond everything else and they left btc in a fit of temper tantrum and now dogmatically entrenched in the position that btc will die.

fucking shitshow all of it. if i could stangle a few people to make it easier to have a decent discussion about btc scaling it would be luke dashjr, adam back and craig wright. should drain the swamp significantly.

adam back is not saying stupid things but he is a stick between the spokes always delaying the inevitable trying desperately to somehow profit from his hashcash work before bitcoin... they are too focused on their liquid sidechain solution and purposefully try to squeeze traffic off-chain and while it's cool tech it's disgusting for many people because all they do it for is profit.

but being disgusted with blockchain is no reason to be a cashie tard.

>>18161981
the long-term view is bullish for big-blockers, since big blocks has always been the intended solution for scaling
you're literally making it seem like there's a fight going on, whereas BSV has in fact BTFOed the dysfunctional garbage that is BTC a long time again, now we're just building applications and playing the waiting game

>>18162018
>the long-term view is bullish for big-blockers
no it's not, and i explained why. fees will not support miners with big blocks the way you think. this is evident from current trends. big blocks mean blockspace has no value.
if you have 10 megabytes blocks that are full you will have ten to hundred thousand times more in fees than if you have 100 megabytes that are empty ghost town. bigger the block limit the worse this gets. while increasing the global burden for everyone opening yourself up to dos attacks especially on a minority hash shitfork. on btc attacks taking advantage of removing the dos protection would be magnitudes harder.
>you're literally making it seem like there's a fight going on
there is no fight nobody take the shitfork scaling seriously. that's my problem i wish there was a fight.
>whereas BSV has in fact BTFOed
if btfoed nothing but itself. sv pretty much went ahead and proved adam backs point on big blocks.

>>18161135
imagine needing a (shitty) second layer to use your crypto efficiently

>>18160799
Bsv is a scam creg is a faggot kys pajeets

>>18162159
>no it's not, and i explained why
your explanation is shit and wrong
>fees will not support miners with big blocks the way you think
yes, they will
>big blocks mean blockspace has no value
moron alert
>if you have 10 megabytes blocks that are full you will have ten to hundred thousand times more in fees than if you have 100 megabytes that are empty ghost town
makes no sense at all, the blocksize limit has been removed completely on the Bitcoin network (BSV), so talking about empty vs. full blocks literally doesn't make sense
>there is no fight nobody take the shitfork scaling seriously
except a ton of large actors and people building applications
stay ignorant if you want to, or get with the times if you want to stay relevant
>>18162165
indeed, and not only shitty, but completely dysfunctional, absolute garbage
can't believe anyone looks at it with a straight face and takes it seriously

>>18162165
>imagine not preferring exponential scaling instead of linear scaling
never gonna make it

>>18162186
>yes, they will
evidence clearly shows otherwise you just have to take a look at the fucking charts it's all publicly available.
>the blocksize limit has been removed completely
it was increased to 2gb in fact
>so talking about empty vs. full blocks literally doesn't make sense
it does but basically with no block limit all you have is empty blocks. meanwhile btc tries to have full blocks at least 95% of the time
>except a ton of large actors and people building applications
please nigga those bullshit projects will go nowhere. you call it applications built on the blockchain but none of them are built on the blockchain 99% of them are complete centralized service garbage most with no real incentives for adoption the rest solves problems it invented.

it's a fucking shitshow. only btc and bch has meaningful onchain development.

>>18162215
and one more thing because bsv devs are not simply not developing on-chain it's worse they in a neo-luddist retardation actually are destroying existing sv on-chain capability. that's right it's devolution not evolution. they are destroying not building.

how can anyone be bullish on sv is beyond me.

>>18161759
based

>>18162215
>it was increased to 2gb in fact
thats the default cap retard, there is no longer ablocksize limit on BSV after genesis upgrade
>muh empty blocks
average blocksize on BSV right now is 1.5 mb so still more usage than corecoin. also more tx daily than BTC
>one of them are built on the blockchain 99% of them are complete centralized service garbage
youre a complete brainlet who fell for the decentralization meme. meanwhile BTC is as centralized as it gets, literally controlled by single dev team

>>18162215
>it was increased to 2gb in fact
no, it was removed completely with the Genesis upgrade, again, get with the fucking times, loser
>it does but basically with no block limit all you have is empty blocks
no, what you have are blocks exactly as full as there are people making transactions, in other words no one has to wait for the next block, which would just be incredibly absurd and ridiculous
>meanwhile btc tries to have full blocks at least 95% of the time
thinking about blocks as full or empty is outdated stupidity, see the above point

>>18162247
$1000 bsv when?

>>18162247
>no, it was removed completely with the Genesis upgrade, again, get with the fucking times, loser
that actually makes it worse m8 not better
>no, what you have are blocks exactly as full as there are people making transactions
so you don't get what full and empty blocks mean for fees. ok.
>thinking about blocks as full or empty is outdated stupidity
it's economics scarce asset with fix supply vs totally non scarce asset with infinite supply.

nobody will pay for or appreciate an asset that has infinite supply.

>>18162259
Bitcoin (BSV) won't be measured in dollars where we're headed, son, value will be measured in Bitcoin

>>18162269
in your magical realm that exist in your head maybe. fiat is not going anywhere. it will be devalued but it has been a billion times and it's still here.

>>18162266
lmao, you truly are a brainlet
the entire point is that anyone sending a transaction must pay a fee for it to be included
there is no infinite supply, you have to pay the fee
thus why transaction processors ("miners") are more than happy to accept your "spam", because you have to pay for it
this is exactly what makes Bitcoin work
imagine being so stupid that you can't understand something that simple

>>18162287
Time to go all in bsv?

>>18162266
>nobody will pay for or appreciate an asset that has infinite supply.
that is such an unbelievably retarded take; ijust cant even
by that logic mcdonalds should only sell a single burger a day because muh scarcity
the value for a blockchain comes from USEAGE and velocity. the more transactions, the bigger the blocks, the more money miners can make. imagine VISA would increase their fees to $100 per payment and only handle 7 transactions per second, are you honestly trying to argue it would increase the value of the network?

>>18162282
fiat currencies go to zero every single time historically, hence why reserve currency status shifts around with regular intervals
however, this time around the new reserve currency will be Bitcoin (BSV), because it's a technologically superior alternative which hasn't been available before

>>18161107
kek

>>18162287
>the entire point is that anyone sending a transaction must pay a fee for it to be included
well 0 fee tx-es were a thing in the past before the block got full, also how much and how much that is worth on a shitfork is the quest. if only you bothered to look at data...

>>18162301
Time to go unironically all in?

>>18162301
>fiat currencies go to zero every single time historically
but there is always an other that immediately takes it's place. without failure without exception without much delay. fiat is here to stay. it makes sense for those in power and it's useful to the people and the economy.

the world has zero incentives to adopt a fix supply asset as money.

>>18162334
yes go all in right now in the first weeks of the biggest depression of all times. please!

>>18162348
Lmao you fucking Jew

>>18162018
>now we're just building applications and playing the waiting game
you don't have much time
calvin mines at a loss

>>18162269
bsv will never pass btc
you can keep seething and raging, doesn't change anything

>>18162455
BTC is a Jewfork
It’s a fork lmao

>>18162472
call it whatever you want
it will never pass btc
keep raging

>>18161135
Wrong.
BitCoin aka BSV- tx/s billions then trillions.
BTC aka care coin limited to 7 tx/s

I can't wait for core to take a shit and dump to zero.

>>18162455
>>18162529

>>18162576
lmao ragie rage bsvisnhu
>"S-SOON YOU'LL S-SEE !!!" the vishnu yells
lol

>>18162597
nice projection, corecuck
cope harder

>>18162565
>I can't wait for core to take a shit and dump to zero.
but waiting is all you do, cuck
all bark and no bite
when will we see this crash to zero?
lmao

>>18160799
>sv
Nada, muh OG

>>18162611
what projection you little simp
you are literally barking at the moon with your promises
never ever

>>18162455
>bsv will never pass btc
>>18162529
>it will never pass btc

>>18162654
>>18162654
bitshitv cultist delusions

>>18160799

Did CSW manage to prove just one of his claims? No? OK, just delete this thread.

>>18162654
never ever lil simp

>>18160799
ISN'T THIS POS DED YET
why they still pretending to relevance - put a fork innit already

Been around 1 1/2 year. Uncapped blocksize and no one cares. Btc is still not dead. Cant even overcome BCH which is looking more and more attractive day by day. I would even go all into ltc before touching bsv, even ltc will overthrow bsv again without much effort.

>>18162816
Core coin did already with Segwit
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHfiNSsqOF0

>>18162922
BSV already has a partnership with a $1 billion company- billions of tx/s on chain each year.
It will have 1000+ patents to enforce against greggles and his crew.
Oh and N Chain is speaking to governments around the world.

>>18162956
>Oh and N Chain is speaking to governments around the world.
Yes, I believe Australia are still quite interested in speaking to creg, for example. And did the United States ever actually get finished 'speaking' to Calvin? Nothing like being friendly with the Agency, eh!
STILL for any srs Corporate Adoption' (quiet at the back) you would need to explain EXACTLY who owns nChain, this before ANYONE takes them srs. Wouldn't you. Otherwise, people might think you were trying to hide something

>>18162790
>simp
>8 posts by this ID
Seething edgelord particularly prickly as his shitcoin portfolio tanks by the hour

>>18162693
>cultist

>>18163018
Why do so many retards on this board insist on opining about stuff they have no concept of in a way that so blatantly shows they are clueless?

>>18163018
>Corporate Adoption

There you go lad:

https://coingeek.com/ehr-data-to-migrate-41-years-of-healthcare-data-to-bitcoin-sv/

Wicked whisper- NChain, BSV it's NSA and those who sit above even that- the design of the coin could not be less subtle.
This isn't a willy waving contest. Creg has supra national backing and everything else can fuck off.

>>18163163
yes, I is muh corporate investor retard.
we is very interested in yur shitchainfork (quiet), but corporate compliance wishes you to confirm nChain ownership structure? Which seems to be a little, eh, murky, shall we say? AGAIN, I am sure you can clear this up in a second. Who are the owners of nChain, and who owns what, exactly? Thanks. Otherwise, fuck off already

>>18163339
>Creg has supra national backing
yes, its odd the Relevant Authorities decline to confirm this, uh, FACT! in every endless court case the fat fraudulent fucking retard finds himself caught up in tho. Isn't it

>>18163422
Fucknyou and jews and BTC

>>18163461
tuttut
anti-Semitic, that is

>>18163467
Realism is not fascism
Mongoloid Zionist
Multiculturalism is a scam and open borders is colonialism nigger
Wake up from the blue pill coma

>>18163594
you'll have tried lithium then?

>>18163594
Never go full schizophrenia

>>18163422
>>18163459
>>18163467
It's time to play your favorite game, folks! Pajeet... or Jew?
No white man rages this incoherently, hoping something will stick

>>18163654
>>18163657
>NOOOOO, YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE CORPORATE NARRATIVE OR YOU ARE A VICIOUS ANTISEMITE OR SCHIZO

>>18163678
But you are a schizo. Open borders is colonialism? Come on.

>>18163694
>Based on a statement that could be coherently interpreted in more than a dozen ways, I hereby diagnose you as le schizo
They're not sending their best, clearly. Imagine living in figuative shit and thinking everyone else does, too.

>>18163694
Israel has no right to exist
YHWH is gay and his brother is azazel
Ripple and XRP sucks
Multiculturalism is a scam
Erasmus is a scam
Jews wants to kill national identity
I’m a indoeuropean and I speak 7 languages
White and aryan
And Italy is the first white skin IQ country my median IQ

Israel is rank 30

Fuck doctors hospitals psychotherapists and Jews, the segwit fork, the pedophile BTC; the pedophile EtH And boomers
fuck Israel
Zion
Tel Aviv
And the holocaust didn’t happen
YET

Norimberg court in 1946 said 4.1 million Jews died in Auschwitz, all in gas chambers

Maastricht 1989: same Norimberga judges: Total deaths in Auschwitz 800 thousand, all of them by killed with guns

Israel is a liar
9/11 is a scam
Multiculturalism also
Shoah never happened (yet)

>>18163767
>Norimberg
close - want another go?

>>18163767
Mother of BASED

>>18163791
You'd think your boss would've hired someone who actually understands board culture
>7 posts by this ID
Fail

>>18162299
>that is such an unbelievably retarded take; ijust cant even
it is what it is, if thee is infinite bread nobody gives you money for bread.

>>18162956
>partnership
oh the partnerships... ah i missed 2017 memes

>>18163819
are you and Jz0PQy5W intimately related anon?
do you share a braincell, or whatever?
ANYWAY:
simple question, who owns nChain/BSV? thanks.
simple due diligence - after all, wouldn't want to be investing in a scam, run by disreputable characters or anything. Would we now.

>>18162565
>BSV- tx/s billions then trillions.
6000 tops you could do on a testbed i even doubt you can get anywhere near that without the resources of a tech giant.

>>18162299
Ok my eyes were just opened to based BSV. But craig is also a scammer. What do?

>>18163657
>>18163654
>>18163791
COMMIES GET OUT REEEEEEEE

>>18162186
>the blocksize limit has been removed completely
i looked into the source they did not remove it actually they set it to 17 exabyte.
so theoretical max is 15 trillion tx/s but there is no way you can get anywhere near that because your blocks would be bigger than the entire internet every 10 minutes. ahahahah.

what a fucking shitshow.

>>18164075
right, for all intents and purposes completely removed until some time in the future when such data volumes can be handled
for now we're aiming for gigabyte blocks within 1-2 years and terabyte blocks within 3-5 years
with terabyte blocks the blockchain will grow by ~50 petabytes each year, which is nothing when taking into account that most large data centers had hundreds of petabytes of storage capacity many years ago, and storage is becoming cheaper faster than most other metrics related to computing

>>18163974
Take note, newfags. This guy right here is essentially a free and clear signal for those who understand what's going on. When the counter-narrative is this desperately retarded, both in terms of content and presentation, and you still don't figure it out and make a shitload of money, you have only yourself to blame.

>>18164278
Savage and based
Have a bump

>>18163339
This is the most important redpill

>>18164555
Checked

Is it time to give up, BSVbros? I am losing hope and the world economies are crashing, how can we ever make it

>>18164223
>with terabyte blocks the blockchain will grow by ~50 petabytes each year, which is nothing
ahahahah okay let's see how it goes. absolutely fucking bearish for me. when the alternative is btc with 500 mb blockchain in total.

>>18165456
>when the alternative is btc with 500 mb blockchain in total
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48#msg329
>In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for [mining] nodes. I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
>—Satoshi
good luck, hope you swallow your pride and sell BTC before it reaches $0

>>18161759
BASED

>>18165471
>In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for [mining] nodes
absolutely bearish for bsv, only btc miners get substantial reward from fees.

>>18165517
BSV has more than 60% of transactions across the three chain. So fuck you I guess.

>>18165517
the volumes we're talking about isn't something BTC is remotely capable of
already the coming halving it will become plain as day that the way miners are compensated there is totally dysfunctional compared to what was intended by Craig from the very beginning
again, we're talking gigabyte and terabyte blocks, with transaction processors ("miners") operating out of large data centers
there will likely be one or more such data centers in every developed economy of the world, hundreds in total, so all the moronic talk about large mining operations leading to centralization is completely unfounded too, and Craig knew from the very beginning that that's the way it would end up
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532#msg6306
>The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
>—Satoshi

>>18165562
but no reward for miners from fees. which was my point. try again. the reason for this is simple big blocks don't work for bitcoin. and i'm not talking about megabytes or any arbitrary limit. it just means non full blocks.
>already the coming halving it will become plain as day that the way miners are compensated there is totally dysfunctional
that is what i't saying sv is totally dysfunctional it's scaling solution is economically untenable for miners.

>>18161154
i can tell only by this comment that your from india

the biggest issue with shitforks like sv is however they are not byzantine fault tolerant.
which means while spv works on bitcoin as intended, it doesn't work on sv. because on a proper nakamoto consensus fork you know the longest chain with the largest amount of hash is valid and there are no bullshit tx-es in there, on sv you don't unless you validate the gigameg blocks yourself. an attacking miner could easily exploit spv to fuck you over he would show you the tx is included in the longest chain and you will never know that chain is invalid dead end.

absolute fucking shitshow. worthless piece of devolutionary garbage.playing with chain params and removing features is not development. it's vandalism.

>>18165853
Wow, look at how this desperate shill strings together the talking points his supervisor gave him without any fundamental understanding.
>on sv you don't unless you validate the gigameg blocks yourself
Honestly if you fall for this kind of blatant misinformation you deserve to be poor.

>>18162191
your "exponential" scaling solution makes bitcoin not bitcoin lol
read the white paper dude

>>18163662
Jew.

It's literally Greg seething.

>>18167219
of course it's bitcoin it's all settled on-chain at the end of the day trustlessly for that matter.
>>18167038
sorry for your loss imbecile
>Honestly if you fall for this kind of blatant misinformation
the sooner you comprehend the nakamoto consensus the less painful this will be for you.

>>18169120
>of course it's bitcoin
you will soon find out how wrong you really are lol

>>18169211
a bitcoin locked in a smart contract is still bitcoin i have no idea where your retardation is coming from not even sv cucks could be so deluded as to consider timelocked coins not bitcoin.

>>18169120
lmao all you have is insults and buzzwords
You couldn't even articulate what Nakamoto consensus means, much less explain how it exists for SegshitCoin but not the real BitCoin (BSV), you dumb NPC
We are going to scale massively on-chain and there's nothing you can do about it but bitch and moan in the hopes that your SegshitCoin bags don't get too heavy too quickly. Pathetic.

Should I just go all in in chainlink and avoid all this confusion?

>>18160799

Ah hell yeah 8 dollars soon

>>18169248
>all you have is insults and buzzwords
i have explained all this in depth a thousand times you can search warosu
>You couldn't even articulate what Nakamoto consensus means
you can't be this stupid no way

>>18169523
ok, explain what nakamoto consensus is and how it and proof of word are related

>>18169523
also i would like to know what you mean by "validate the block yourself", since ordinarily "validation" simply means finding the correct hash for a given block and broadcasting this to the rest of the network

>>18169248
how are the BSV bags? Waiting for 80$ again until you sell? yikes

>>18169603
i'm not gonna explain what the nakamoto consensus is that's baby tier you can look that up i'm gonna explain why bsv has no nakamoto consensus and thus why spv doesn't work on it.

the nakamoto consensus requires more than 50% of hashpower to participate honestly for byzantine fault tolerant distributed consensus. that means if you have a minority hash shitfork you have no byzantine fault tolerant consensus.
and if you don't have a byzantine fault tolerant consensus then you can't trust spv either. a miner could include an illegal transaction and prove it to you he has the longest chain with the most hashpower and you would assume that's the valid chain and get rekt. that is why i said on a minority hash shitfork you have to run a fully validating node you don't have the luxury of running an spv node.

on the other hand it works fine on the real bitcoin which is obviously btc.
>>18169627
you validate the block by downloading the entire blockchain validating every single transaction building the utxo and rejecting any block that violate the ruleset.

i can't believe you fags don't even get bitcoin basics.

>>18163028
I can't hear you
you're gonna have to go above 2% for me to hear your whining, little cucklet

>>18169835
>the nakamoto consensus requires more than 50% of hashpower to participate honestly for byzantine fault tolerant distributed consensus
Pure nonsense designed to baffle the un-initiated with bullshit.
50.1% of hashpower following a specific ruleset is sufficient to verify transactional integrity without running a full node. You are full of shit and hot air. Next.

>>18160905
Reminds me of a guy commentating on golf "the ball might go in but it might not"

>>18169835
thanks, im not even a bsv shill btw, nor am i trying to fud btc
>that means if you have a minority hash shitfork you have no byzantine fault tolerant consensus.
do you mean that all PoW chains which don't have 50+% of all honest hashpower in existence can't form trusted consensus?

>>18161047
So you risked everything you have and were rewarded with 1,500 dollars over the course of an entire year.

>>18169835
>you validate the block by downloading the entire blockchain validating every single transaction building the utxo and rejecting any block that violate the ruleset.
thanks for bringing my attention to this, i didn't realize when a transaction is broadcast that nodes have to verify it's validity in the chain by starting at it's merkle branch and following it to the top (front?) of the longest chain

>>18161090
THIS.

>>18161090
Circa 5,000 t/s with this project alone which will be logging billiosn of transactions every year:

https://coingeek.com/ehr-data-to-migrate-41-years-of-healthcare-data-to-bitcoin-sv/

There's money to be made but that is on BSV alone.

>>18161759
BASED