/biz/ - Business & Finance

According to you, what did you learn about segwit?

>>4267119
The point of SegWit is to direct money to Blockstream.

Bitcoin used to be open source. Now it's just a propriety money printing machine for Blockstream.

>>4267248
besides the ramblings from some retards, can you be more specific on how that is?

>>4267423
In the core/blockstream vision the blockchain is just a settlement layer while all the transactions happen in blockstream propriety code (segwit, lightning). Naturally, the transaction fees then go to blockstream. Increasing block size would have been an easy fix for Bitcoin scaling problems. BCC did it. This was not good for the core because that way money isn't directed to blockstream.

>>4267563
>Naturally, the transaction fees then go to blockstream
care to explain that part a bit better?
How are THEY going to be the only ones getting fees? anyone can fire up a LN node and become a hub for transactions.

> Increasing block size would fix scaling problems
No it wouldn't.
It would allow like 8 txs per second (with 10+ minutes confirmations)
BTC needs a real scaling solution that can have instant confirmations and 10k+ transactions per second. And the only way to achieve that is to not include every cup of coffee transaction in the blockchain, but only add those transactions in an aggregated form.

>>4267563
so your implying that the payment channel fees are going to blockstream. .
Interesting.
Care to provide source?

>>4267062
now you're catching on

>>4267657
his ass

>>4267670
except for all your idiotic ramblings about blockstream. but BTC unstoppably mooning yes. that is correct.

>>4267651
>i don't know what 0 conf was because I just got here a month ago.

I removed all my bitcoin and put it into ETH after I learned the news since ETH will slightly go up and stabilize while BTC will keep dropping before stabilizing.

Once BTC reaches it's low and stabilizes, I will move my ETH back into BTC (assuming ETH's price stayed the same and I didn't lose anything).


Was this an okay move? I'm young kind of new to all of this. All I've ever done was buy BTC in Jan and held since.

Thanks

>>4267671
Can I get the audio recording on that quote please I don't believe you.

>>4267563
anyways, if you believe that, then no wonder that you feel angry.
But now you're also feeling doubly angry because you realize that someone sold you a lie and you bought it.
It's ok, be angry, but target your anger to yourself and learn a bit more.

>>4267699
So you put your money on a coin that just lost somebody $100M because of a bug?
you have some big balls.
https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-client-bug-freezes-user-funds-fallout-remains-uncertain/

>>4267657
Start by reading https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7

>>4267738
ex /r/bitcoin moderator comes clean
http://tpbit.blogspot.com/2017/10/blockstream-vs-miners-looking-at.html
Straight from the horses mouth
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/923309367260274688
Consider suicide

>>4267423
fuck you reddit. it's obvious and you aren't owed an explanation.

>>4267799
Lol holy shit the blockstream CEO says he plans on taking profit LOL

In essence there is nothing wrong with 3rd parties using btc as a settlement layer for faster transaction methods.

That's the free market.

>>4267876
I correct myself, he later says this:
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/923884882773889025

>"BUT the fake accusation that "developers want to keep the block size small so blockstream can profit" is emphatically false and an affront."

>>4267799
You dumb newb, look at his next tweet after that:

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/923884882773889025

This is why most people are retarded

>>4267905
Yeah it's just an unfortunate side effect ;( poor Adam will be forced to profit now.

>>4267878
>destroys free market so can have free market
lel

>>4267924
We have ids here you fucking faggot

>>4267755
I did.

Past that issue that some people had, am i making logical moves? I did it yesterday.

I just want advice - I understand the risk.

>>4267947
Yes dude, take a look at my earlier post :
>>4267876

I thought you were right at first, but then I just dug more into his twitter page and found out he meant to say "Yes that shit was an accurate quote"...

"but it's fucking incorrect to make that assumption"

>>4268011
They said they didn't sabotage it on purpose (arguable). That doesn't change that they will profit from sidechains at all which is the argument we're having here you red herring faggot.

Op is a horrible shill

>>4267651
>being this thick

>>4267726
kek

For those who are bitcoin segwit all the way answer me this. If blockstream isn’t corrupt and they are helping bitcoin why is the problem still present even after the fork? Still unconfirmed transactions. Long ass confirmations times. I have to pay atleast 5 bucks to move my btc ( bought pubg with btc and had to pay 6 bucks) and why are fees still going up. Where over at bcc transactions are 10 minutes like how they used to be before the congestion. Fees are cheaper then a dollar. And they scale 3x as much as Bitcoin segwit hasn’t fixed any problems they added on segwit and the problem is still present please someone explain. i swear blockstreamers sound like libtards on trump

>>4267738
I'm fine it with. The biggest assholes make the biggest profits. Look how they dealt with Bitcoin XT. Dossing entire regions.. Now gestapo tier control over e.g. /r/bitcoin.. Really makes you think what happened behind the scenes when B2X was cancelled. Holding family members at gunpoint perhaps? Who knows..

>>4268211
>For those who are bitcoin segwit all the way answer me this. If blockstream isn’t corrupt and they are helping bitcoin why is the problem still present even after the fork?
There is no problem. All you retards are whining nonstop about nothing. Go use your fucking Bcash if it's such a better coin and shut up already.

>>4268211

>libtards on trump

How can you honestly defend a fraudelent 'businessman' who clearly rose to power in a sketchy way, is undeniably unfit for his job and is obviously a useful idiot in the hands of the global elite?

Even retarded libs can see that.

>>4267755
Yeah and it hardly affected the price at all, because most people are not as stupid as you and knew that it was a bug with a wallet, not Ethereum itself.

>>4268249
>Multi-hour transaction processing that costs you $5 is not a problem.

>>4267062
You are absolutely right. While it also disgusts me, the undeniable fact is that BTC is stronger than ever. However, it is only a matter of time until BTC will lose dominance against all the alts. Many projects are just so promising and superior in many aspects. BTC is only strong because it is "first". Nothing else is special about it.

>>4268391
If a 3rd party program can break it, it's most definitely an Ethereum bug.

>It's yet another episode of BCH bagger trying to pump his coins.

>>4268249

You stick out like sore thumb mate

Blockstream already have a massive control over the community's opinion. We won't see anything change until after it's too late. Once both Segwit and LN are already implemented and the scaling issues are still there, maybe then we'll see people look towards real fixes that don't involve giving overreaching control to one group of people.

>>4267651
This guy gets it, but all he's going to get in this thread is a bunch of grief from some butthurt chinks and borderline retards who thought that putting the development of Bitcoin in the hands of miners would lead to anything other than a bigger ringfence around their fees and mined blocks.

Segwit2x just got cancelled

https://cointelegraph.com/news/segwit2x-is-dead-long-live-bitcoin-price-hits-all-time-high-as-hard-fork-canceled

>>4268638
>Poster relies on on-chain posting solution
>Post arrives from yesterday

>>4268601
Great argument. Let's continue to ignore >>4267799 so we can attempt to confuse and trick a few more lurkers.

>>4268601
The flippening would be the best outcome and I'm not even saying that only because my BCC stack is even bigger than my BTC stack.

>>4268344
Really? And theres absolutely nothing sketchy about the way Bill, Hillary or Obama rose to power right? Or just the Pedocratic party in general?

Fucking idiot.

>>4268713
I'm not ignoring anything. Even if I accept the analysis that Blockstream has interests and acts accordingly (the blogspot analysis is particularly reasonable), that doesn't mean handing the reins of Bitcoin software development over to the miners (whose power in the ecosystem is already too great) wouldn't be a complete fucking disaster.

What makes Bitcoin a uniquely compelling store of value is its decentralization and balance between competing interests. I will always side with the conservatives on matters concerning its long-term development.

>>4268807
Crypto has been invaded by liberals and they brought their same shitty tactics with them. This is just another Trump Vs Hillary at this point.

>>4268834
Blockstream just gimped the miners and plans on moving you onto sidechains where they will have all the power. So you accomplished absolutely nothing. Where as bitcoin cash has 3 different development groups.

>>4268856
>Where as bitcoin cash has 3 different development groups.

>>4268896
You're pathetic. I've never seen one thread where you faggots win.

>>4267878
there is nothing wrong with side chains and LN but there is something wrong with intentionally nerfing bitcoin in order to get there

>>4268845
>Crypto has been invaded by liberals

You're the one coming late buddy, otherwise you wouldn't spend your time whining about Ethereum, IOTA or Ripple because they hurt your feelings as if a board about business and finance was like your echo chamber.

>>4268948
The fuck are you talking about?

>ITT

>>4269169
>anyone who wants fast and cheap transactions is a commie chink

>>4269271
ITS A FUCKING STORE OF WEALTH. UNTIL WE GET OUR BLOCKSTREAM™ SCALING SOLUTION IN 2 YEARS THEN ITS GONNA BE A CURRENCY

>>4268090
oh boy, you just proved me wrong

>>4268211
Because segwit is still not being used fully. Specially by the big players like exchanges. Once they do that there can be many more transactions in the blocks. But yeah, it is still a problem with scalability. But upgrading the block size comes with a lot of problems too like many more orphan blocks for example.

Also please note, there was a time when there were no unconfirmed transactions like less than 1 month ago. The BTC network is being attacked by the miners who want to get bigger blocks. Then they will be the center of the centralization.
You can find out by yourself that the mempool is being spammed to increase the fees and then complain that there is a problem.

And also, trump is the worst thing that could have ever happened to your country. But you're somehow too stupid to see it.

>>4268807
So you can't defend Trump except by saying that others are worse?
Don't you see that your country is going to shit and you're discussing against your fellow citizens and not against the people in control of your lives?

>>4268506
But those alts don't have an episode of the big bang theory incoming in a few weeks

>>4268672
LOL

>>4269325
They would have to pay large amounts to spam the network. Do you refuse to believe there is a demand to transact and send bitcoin? This all started back earlier this year in that gigantic bullrun.

>>4268249
this
If you want to use a fast cheap currency buy bch or whatever alt is the flavor of the month
if you want to make money and be rich as fuck buy bitcoin king
simple, are you here to make money or argue about muh principles you pussies? bitcoin is the new gold and tx fees/times are not important

>>4269507
I agree. Making money is most important. Who cares that the core devs are deceitful cunts who only care about profits for Blockstream..

>>4269375
>They would have to pay large amounts to spam the network.
And they do
But then they mine their own block and get the reward.

>>4269588
It inhibits the growth of bitcoin and now we have to startover. In the meantime having to deal with retards like yourself.

>>4269625
So they would lose money on electricity but in that scenario would make it back through higher fees overall. But higher blocksizes are incredibly counter productive to that goal. Wouldn't the miners want the network to be as clogged as possible at all times so they could continue raking in high fees?

>>4269683
With S2X they tried to gain control of bitcoin.
They want the bitcoin repository to be btc1 and not btc. And then once the blockchain is huge, the centralization would be complete, and they can then change all the rules they like about it. How about 50 BTC per block again? those in favor? me? good, motion approved

>>4269637
if your beloves bch becomes 'the bitcoin" then we really have to start everything over, and it would never succeed because the only reason people stick to btc is the trust it has build up over the years and status symbol, if btc dies there will never be such a money maker/strong leader again
you will have 1000 shitcoins competing with eachother, goog luck guessing which one is gonna be the 1-week king all the time
bch is not different than any other altcoin, if segwit2 woul've succeeded and had been immediately called "bitcoin" so that the stupid normies wouldn't've even realized that it woul've been ok, but now it's either bitcoin or nothing
those stupid wars of different groups of Jews are fucking with the entire market.
1TB blocks/LN/etc who gives a fuck, just let the btc be. that's it. the more drama the less money we all make

>>4269759
Then the markets would react accordingly. It's a what if situation vs a certainty. We know blockstream plans to profit from sidechains and that is their only goal. We know how the miners profit and that they are incentivized to have a working ecosystem that helps the users. Mining is already centralized enough to the point where they could increase block rewards if they wanted to. They don't because it would make bitcoin lose value and integrity.

>>4269325
>>4268807

Right? It's great because he just proved my point.

>>4269797
No scaling solution for 2 years will be the thing that stops you from making money.
Here's the positives of bitcoin over bitcoin cash
>appeal to authority
>normie money (which isn't even buying bitcoin)
>development consensus aka centralized

>>4270111
but it looks like increasing the block size will only delay the problem, not solve it, and if it's true that the miners a spamming the network, they're gonna do the same with bigger blocks
So the miners' greed may kill the hand that feeds them
Where is the fucking satoshi to fix all that mess
fucking jew attacking from every side

>>4270381
With bigger blocks it would take more and more money, completely counter productive and at 8mb completely useless. With technologies like 0 conf which allows low cost transactions to be instant. It makes wide use scaling much easier. Alongside hardware upgrades in the future makes it a pointless issue. One that LN doesn't properly address either.

>>4267062
What part of Segwit dont you like you faggot? Holy shit you BCash shills are getting desperate,lol

>>4267785
lmao he just picks the first shit off google because he cant explain it himself

It's not hard, Bitcoin Cash is Superior in terms of design. But Bitcoin is king because of the name and the current value.

All these "sidechains", "Lightning" are trying to solve problems that do not exist. Just increase the fucking blocksize. It's not such a difficult problem people make it up to be.

>But muh pajeets and muh storage
Connect to remote node then or use pruning, TADAH no more issues.

But I had enough of this shit discussion, I will hold BTC for now and closely monitor the situation. S2X is not needed since Bitcoin Cash exists by the way.

Also Monero increases blocksize by DEFAULT as it SHOULD BE. At this point I'm seeing more and more the appeal of Monero. The size is determined with an algo so it scales automatically. Bitcoin is such a piece of shit with so many issue now because the author neglected to come up with proper solutions for some issues, no fucking foresight, none!

>>4271825
Blockstream assassinated satoshi before he could implement proper solutions.

>>4271825
satoshi confirmed a brainlet?

>>4272039
Does it really surprise you? Women simply can't into technology.