/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>24227399
Completely justified. Fuck cashies

love that BCH
>fuck blockstream

>>24227429
>cashie
read the article faggot

>>24227399
That makes it oversold and thus one of the best coins to buy in an alt season. This and XRP are going to fly. Supply is concentrated into the strongest of hands by now.

Satoshi is Adam Back, the head of Blockstream. BCH isn't the answer. There never was an original vision, only a pretended one to lure people in. All cryptos are doomed from inception to become corrupt. Buy gold. And as for banking the unbanked, Kinesis (gold on the blockchain) is the answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfcvX0P1b5g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q9aYYluRA0

>>24227492
>absolutely no mention of taproot
>dec. 2017
You're supposed to be better than this btrash. Come up with newer fud.
>>24227557
cringe

>>24227557
so fake dude its not back LMAO

do you think he would have spent 4 years pulling his hair out trying fighting and all that shit where he could have just said "im satoshi" and gotten his way

he writes completely differently than satoshi, adam back has a retard argumentative brain and satoshi was an innovative thinker long term big brainer.

if you think its adam back you are fucking new.. imagine trusting some youtuber

adam back publicly ridiculed bitcoin early on then only later got involved when it blew up

it's a bit misleading for satoshi to cite moors law when computer speed and hashrate have nothing to do with transaction throughput. bitcoin's DAA ensures the number of blocks mined in a given period of time is more or less constant.

>>24227805
hes talking about the transfer of data in terms of volume, which does follow moore's law

>>24227557
Adam Back isn't competent enough to be Satoshi.

>>24227399
Fuck off with your bcash

>>24227399
smart people like BCH

>>24227730

BTC needed an "immaculate conception" and an enigmatic founder. That was the purpose of publishing it anonymously.

It doesn't matter that Adam Back seems to be a contradiction with Satoshi, because Satoshi contradicted himself in joining with the large-blockers in his last message. As BarelySociable proves, the e-mail account from which that message was sent was not hacked. The writing style is also completely Satoshi's.

You either haven't watched the video, or you don't have a candid mind. Anybody with the slightest bit of sense who considers the evidence in that video will agree that Adam Back = Satoshi. There are hundreds of pieces of evidence which join together to make this inference conclusive.

BCH doesn't solve the fundamental problem of crypto. BTC centralizes things by forcing you to go through Blockstream's second-layer solutions, but BCH also has to centralize by having increasingly larger blocks. Either way you get centralization, so crypto serves no purpose. Might as well simply use gold-backed cryptos which hold their gold in different vaults around the world at that point. Crypto is going to zero after the reset, Russia and China will not accept payment for their commodities and production in cryptocurrency. They will demand gold.

Bsv is the most hated crypto on reddit

>>24227730

BTC needed an "immaculate conception" and an enigmatic founder. That was the purpose of publishing it anonymously.

It doesn't matter that Adam Back seems to be a contradiction with Satoshi, because Satoshi contradicted himself in attacking the large-blockers in his last message. As BarelySociable proves, the e-mail account from which that message was sent was not hacked. The writing style is also completely Satoshi's.

You either haven't watched the video, or you don't have a candid mind. Anybody with the slightest bit of sense who considers the evidence in that video will agree that Adam Back = Satoshi. There are hundreds of pieces of evidence which join together to make this inference conclusive.

BCH doesn't solve the fundamental problem of crypto. BTC centralizes things by forcing you to go through Blockstream's second-layer solutions, but BCH also has to centralize by having increasingly larger blocks. Either way you get centralization, so crypto serves no purpose. Might as well simply use gold-backed cryptos which hold their gold in different vaults around the world at that point. Crypto is going to zero after the reset; Russia and China will not accept payment for their commodities and production in cryptocurrency. They will demand gold.

>>24227399
It's just no one likes forks. They are jewishh by nature

>>24228149
>because Satoshi contradicted himself in joining with the large-blockers in his last message
Satoshi created bitcoin, and he was clear throughout pretty much every message on the topic - bitcoin can scale layer 1.

the 1mb block limit was temporary to prevent block spam at the time and was never meant to be permanent
>You either haven't watched the video, or you don't have a candid mind. Anybody with the slightest bit of sense who considers the evidence in that video will agree that Adam Back = Satoshi. There are hundreds of pieces of evidence which join together to make this inference conclusive.
i watched it when it came out and found it unconvincing. but i already knew of adam back because of blockstream and hes early involvement with bitgold or whatever he called it was not new to me. no doubt satoshi drew some insopiration from adam back. but they are very different.

perhaps i will re watch the video before i post this thread again

>>24228149
>
BCH doesn't solve the fundamental problem of crypto. BTC centralizes things by forcing you to go through Blockstream's second-layer solutions, but BCH also has to centralize by having increasingly larger blocks. Either way you get centralization, so crypto serves no purpose. Might as well simply use gold-backed cryptos which hold their gold in different vaults around the world at that point. Crypto is going to zero after the reset, Russia and China will not accept payment for their commodities and production in cryptocurrency. They will demand gold.

>> he doesn't know

hahhahah big blocks are the future. you'll understand in a few years when they unravel the new ways to store data. in a decade or so we'll be able to store data in a DNA like fashion. we will be able to store Trillions of GB in objects the size of a hair.

fibre is gaining speed benchmarke after benchmark and soon we have elon starlink.

where we are going. the limitations of today are no more. and you are braintarded to see it.

thats why you are a btc core cuck and thats why you will stay poor.

>>24227399
Pretty sure reddit hates bsv more

>>24228220
>Satoshi contradicted himself in attacking the large-blockers in his last message
Please show how he contradicted himself?

>>24228021
The fact that this continuisly forked coin is still in the top 10 is a bad look for all of crypto. There is no reason for this shitcoin to exist even compared to litecoin and fucking DOGE. Which by the way still has more transactions than bcash. To make the argument that it can be used as cash when in reality stablecoins will more than likely be used which run on ethereum, that you can also use with 2.0 no confirmed
>>24228220
You forgot your #maga2020 retard.

>>24228220
>Adam Back = Satoshi
Nobody other than shills believes Adam Back is Satoshi.

>>24228357
btfw scientist already have results with storing data in grains of sand.

a scientist was on the news here a year ago telling about how in a good 10 years they will have perfected their tech to the point where we will be able to store the entire content of the internet in an object the size of a coffee cup.

Bitcoin core small blocks will be eternally BTFO.

>>24228444
Chequed

>>24228444
Satoshi works for XMR now.
hes one of the 5 anonymous lead developers.

>>24228436
I don't know. The fact that BTC is still number one when it's essentially crippled software is an even worse look. lol

>>24228357

>thats why you are a btc core cuck and thats why you will stay poor.

I'm clearly opposed to BTC in both my messages. I said that I supported gold-backed cryptos like Kinesis.

>hahhahah big blocks are the future. you'll understand in a few years when they unravel the new ways to store data.

Your thinking is delusional, but it doesn't matter whether it is correct or not, because fiat is going to collapse within a few months to a couple of years, and BCH won't be ready to become money when that happens. The world will revert to gold. Besides which, even if what you say is true, Russia, China, and the other productive nations, will not accept BCH in exchange for their goods and commodities. You will either give them gold or you will get nothing. You can't use BCH for any useful purpose, i. e. in industry, to strengthen an economy or fight a war. Whereas gold and silver have manifold uses, and represent value and savings for real-world purposes. So no nation-state will ever take BCH over precious metals.

>>24228366

Satoshi made out, in the beginning of BTC, that the block-sizes would keep getting upgraded. But as soon as the block-size debate came about, he pulled out the rug out and said that he had changed all his views. You can find this in BarelySociable's video. He betrayed Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. He was working for Blockstream all along, because he was Adam Back.

>>24228436
Vitalik supports BCH

>>24228743
Can you provide a link to the bitocointalk thread? Some of us like to read and don't learn like fucking zoomers.

>>24228823

Satoshi's e-mail isn't on Bitcointalk. In fact, a lot of information on BarelySociable's video has already been wiped off the internet. Nevertheless, this is the text of the e-mail:

-

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

(1/2)

>>24229140

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

(2/2)

>>24228743
are you goldanon? sorry you sold early fren.

>>24229140
>I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
>The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honou
where do you see anything about the block size in here? he does not mention it.
>Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
this goes against everything that Blockstream is and opposite of all of their actions in controlling bitcoin's path

>>24229289

>where do you see anything about the block size in here? he does not mention it.

If you watch BarelySociable's video you will understand what BitcoinXT was, which was the predecessor to Bitcoin Cash. I will presume from what you just said that you don't know about it. This e-mail is an attack on Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, and Bitcoin XT, in other words on attempts to upgrade the block size.

"The changes would activate a fork allowing eight MB blocks (doubling in size every two years) once 75% of a stretch of 1,000 mined blocks is achieved after the beginning of 2016. The new maximum transaction rate under XT would have been 24 transactions per second."

>>24229435
if that email was really written by satoshi, then it is pretty damning

>>24229722

Yes. And when I realized that Satoshi was a con-man all along, I started to see the flaws even in his alleged original vision. Having to use Blockstream's second-layer solutions would give rise to a tyrannical nightmare-world where everything is tracked and traced. The BCH people are right about that. But even BCH means increasing centralization, to the point where only a few people control things. So crypto was simply a broken concept from the beginning, a way to split the anti-fiat community, as well as to prepare the world for CBDCs. As I say, crypto simply won't serve any purpose after fiat dies, because Russia, China, and the other productive nations won't take it. They are intending to release gold-backed currencies, and will demand payment in gold.

>>24227399
The only problem with BCH is that the BCH/BTC ratio trends too much like ETC/ETH ratio and to me, charts are god.

>>24228357
What happens if you can transmute gold and have an infinite supply? Will the chinks still accept it?

>>24229937
>https://nakamotostudies.org/emails/bitcoin-dev-bitcoin-xt-fork/
it seems to be debated whether this email was actually from satoshi, and if it was then it would have been his last correspondence. remember, hal finney would be dead at the time, so if it was adam back + hal, this would have been only hal's voice. i won't be so quick to believe he completely changed his mind with one last email. it very well could have been compromised

>>24230147
would not have had hal's voice

>>24230147

BarelySociable explains that the e-mail originates from the VistoMail servers, and wasn't spoofed in any way. The domain owner hadn't changed since 2007. The e-mail was never compromised. See this timestamp. There's no reason to doubt its authenticity. Observe that nakamotostudies doesn't offer any good reason for doing so. People don't want it to be true, because it would shatter their illusion of who Satoshi was.

https://youtu.be/XfcvX0P1b5g?t=1505

It's impossible to believe that Satoshi would change his mind at the last second if he was the libertarian freedom-fighter he is presumed to be. But if he was Adam Back all along, it makes perfect sense. Draw people in with one philosophy and then pull the rug out when it really matters. Ask yourself this, if Satoshi was a good person, why did he simply run away, disappear, and abandon everyone in their time of need?

>>24227399
>Reddit

>>24227698
>instead of keeping things simple and just changing one or two rows of code to allow bigger blocks let's implement super complex alternatives on top of the concept of block weight

>>24230479
how do you know it wasnt spoofed in any way if he didnt sign the email?

Cashies are unironically the most stupid people walking this beautiful earth.

>>24230523

The e-mail demonstrably wasn't spoofed, i. e. sent with a forged address:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spoofing

The reason why Satoshi didn't sign it as Satoshi is because he didn't want to draw unnecessary attention to himself. It was enough to influence people, and then disappear once again, leaving a little bit of doubt as to whether the e-mail was genuine at all. I am sure that he would have followed up this e-mail, and signed as Satoshi, had BitcoinXT begun to show signs of winning. But BitcoinXT failed shortly thereafter, and so this e-mail was sufficient for Blockstream's purposes.