/biz/ - Business & Finance

Satoshi here. Didn't think about that actually. Nice work anon

>>25186397
they did, it's called monero
also bitcoin scales through adoption by trad payment rails

>>25186397
They did, but then its "not bitcoin" any more so they called it bitcoin cash. Because of this attitude bitcoin can now never be updated and will become more and more obsolete in time.

>>25186440
It sucks to use a third party for such a basic function, I would have to disagree

>>25186467
This is the right answer

>>25186397
Blocksize limit means, that blocks can't get bigger than 1MB. It doesn't mean, that every single block is 1MB. Some are smaller, but they can not be higher than this artificial limitation. I'll make a you a TLDR
>Satoshi creates Bitcoin as a Peer to Peer Digital Cash system, that is free from central point. It doesn't mean it's decentralized.
>he plans for Bitcoin to be maintained in future by merely few nodes (miners), and that users run SPV (simplified payment verification), which would led users to only hold header of the last block (around 80kB of data).
>Satoshi puts 1MB block size limit, because Hal Finney is concerned about spam attacks, as Bitcoin was worth back then pennies
>Satoshi hand away project in hand of Gavin Anderson
>Gavin Anderson is a cuck, and is too weak to hold his ground. He gives access to Bitcoin's code base to 4 more people(if I'm correct). 3 of them cuck him, and take over the project. They are now part of Blockstream
>Blockstream takes over Bitcoin
>I see 2 scenarios. Either Blockstream wants to make a lot of money out of making 2nd layer solutions (Lightning network, Liquid), or they want to destroy the project, as they're bad actors hired by banksters to buy them some time so that they can build CBDC. What better way than an arficicial limitation
>Big blockers fork away. BCH is born
>BCH starts to fix Bitcoin. Transactions are cheap again
>BSV forks away, as BCH goes into anonymity, and BSV is going into becoming a data dump
>2020 and BTC still doesn't scale, and increasing block size is not an option. Big blockers are dead. Bitcoin become a speculative asset (a meme digital gold)

The problem with digital gold is, that it would need to have a constant inflation. Miners were supposed to switch from block rewards to fees.


>>25186440
Go away anonymity shill. Nobody is going to buy a coin, that is about to get delisted from every major exchange

>>25186397
Bitcoin is digital gold, it doesn't need to scale. You don't spend it, only buy.

There's a tribe or something, the most valuable object to them are these immovable rocks. Bitcoin will become like that, impossible to move and of infinite value.

I'm a Bitcoin maximalist.

>>25187465
this. it literally doesnt matter if fees are 500-1000. thats a rounding error when making >1M transactions.
literally just signing messages will start to have value by itself.

>>25187465
>>25187554
At this point I don't give a shit what Bitcoin is. I just want to milk this market, and when I'm done making money, I'll cash out everything. Bitcoin a a digital gold is a good meme to get brainlets into buying this useless scam.

>>25187554

What’s the point of “stacking sats” if having anything less than a huge chunk of a Bitcoin is meaningless since the transaction fees will be larger than the actual amount you want to send? Basically forces everyone into becoming a wholecoiner

>>25187806
We all need 2nd layer solutions, or someone to hit with a hammer blockstream idiots to increase block size to at least 10MB. If that doesn't happen, than fees will go to $50-100, and this rally will die. After that there probably would be a huge alt season like in the end of 2017, but after that crypto will completely die.

>>25188067
2nd layer only hides the underlying problem. I believe that once hardware and bandwidth will have massively improved, bitcoin will scale naturally, and increasing block size will become popular and accepted.
By the way blockstream isn't the only entity against block size increase, many people in the space were against it, which makes the blockstream hijack theory rather silly.

>>25189044
The hardware and bandwidth was viable before the fork. On-chain BCH tests show that it's more viable still, right now.

I'm not holding BCH these days, but the tech been ready.

Wrapped BTC

>>25187352
It's hard to believe that these brainlets are still on this topic, repeating the same stupid ideas they always do.

>>25189619
I think BCH was ultimately right but too early, looking at current network activity on the btc ticker