/biz/ - Business & Finance

> futures predictions

Yeah how are those working out

whatever bitcoin retracts too will take bitcoin cash to 0.5 at least. If bitcoin heads to 14k then bch is going up to 7k.

I think bitcoin will correct to 10-12k ...and bitcoin cash will pump to 6-7k

>>5029601
Yep. We'll see the same ferver we saw with litecoin as people could see it as a second chance at owning an entire bitcoin. I'm curious how wall street handles cashing out of bitcoin core though. I'm thinking a lot of sideways movement. Great time for Alts this week maybe.

>dipping to 14k
>dipping
bcore was 6k a month ago ffs

>he doesn't have equal amounts of BTC and BCH

why

>>5029770
Heh, im a trader. I don't get emotional. I should have sold at 0.2 and bought back at 0.09 ....woe is me. And the only dips im margin longing are bitcoin's and when I take profit I buy more bitcoin cash. Ultimately when it hits its ATH i'll flip and go back to btc <pending narrative>

Traders trade, hodlers hold.

Honestly it's probably going to happen. Despite the retorts that bcash isn't centralized I think businesses see Roger as a central figure. And since it technique is superior than bitcoin I don't see why they wouldn't adopt that instead.

>>5029757
>he thinks normies and NEETs can pump a top ten coin with their poverty spare change

Literally every pump is orchestrated by whales or institutional money, you are either underage or a pajeet if you think crypto isn't completely locked down at this point.

>>5029439
the fact that it seems to be gaining black market adoption faster than xmr makes me think that it might just work

>>5029757
I just want bitcoin to trade sideways for at least a week.

>>5030026
How the fuck does anything on those markets not accept XMR?

>>5029439
I just paid £8 on a £42 BTC transfer. Yes, it will win. Jan/Feb when Bcash is due its next pump (look at its charts) BTC will have a mass dumping by all the Bcash holders who still own some (Old BTC money) and the flippening will happen. BTC is only good as a store of money and desu BTG seems to have that covered especially in the name. Bcash and maybe Bitcoin Gold are going to kick BTCs ass in the long term. It may survive, in what form who knows.

bcash will win or at the very least achieve parity.

BTC went up from 1.8k to 17k
BCH went up from 500 to 1.5k

> muh flippening
> muh dragonslayer

Dragonslayer 4.0

U are literally retarded if youre not holding both. At the least youre a fucking sheep who is easily manipulated

>>5029963
>Traders trade, hodlers hold.

A good trader also knows when to hold, and a good holder also knows when to trade. We are all ultimately hybrids of what you describe, retard.

>>5030342
Reminder that this is what everyone was saying in 2013. Everyone knowledgeable about tech expected better tech to replace bitcoin and it never did. Bch isn't even better, it's the same, even if it was better transaction speed doesn't drive prices.

can someone explain to me why some people are still defending bitcoin, when bitcoin cash supposedly is much faster and cheaper?

i'm not a shill, actually i don't know shit about bitcoin, i've just been focusing on alts, but i'm really curious.

is it just that people simply believe that bitcoin will remain number one because of first-mover advantage, or do bitcoin fans actually have serious problems with BCH?

>>5030187
xmr is harder for developers to work with. if they are already setup for BTC, it is nothing to switch to BCH

When BCH hits Coinbase, which is expected, it's over. BCH will shoot up to $5-$10K quickly.

>>5030872

I think you are right... maybe there will be a wave of sells but I think there is going to be more than enough people to soak it up now.

BCH is going to moon hard

>>5030872
>>5030946
Well people will be able to withdraw their coins, but I don't think buying and selling is supported. Hopefully that'll change. I think the price needs to stabilize a bit and they'll be more likely to to do it.

>>5030812
Almost every single altcoin ever made is a fork of bitcoin with faster transactions. Why is this fork special? It's not, it only has value because it's being shilled by rich miners and Tai Lopez tier marketing retards like Roger. It's scamcoin #978.

The Bitcoin developers claim the Lightning network can scale way beyond bch to nanotransactions. The main force slowing segwit and Lightning adoption are the same miners whose interests lie in promoting bcash. Without the anti segwit propaganda segwit addresses would be the norm and load on the network reduced severely without needing Lightning.

>>5030805
Bitcoin can only be used for trading and a store of value now, it is worthless for anything else. The only reason it is surviving is that everything else is priced in satoshis (yes even the ETH/USD and other USD pairs). It may survive and reach its IRL gold equivalent price of $500k per BTC but it's not what it was meant to be. It has become corrupted. I am neither for or against Bcash btw, Personally, I prefer to keep my money in Monero. It is closer to what BTC should have been though, an actual usable digital payment method to free people from banks. It is all a load of wank if you ask me.

>>5030805
Bitcoin has become unusable. Its reason to be was "peer-to-peer electronic cash", that's what made it become widespread in the first place. Then a company (Blockstream, funded by AXA) practically took control of Bitcoin development and worked on changing it into a store of value, like gold, that is slow and hard to move, in order to push their solution akin to bank notes where they are the bank. Bitcoin was created to free people from banks and authoritarian governments, Bitcoin Cash is continuing that vision, Bitcoin Core is not bitcoin anymore.

>>5031186
I only wish that BCH was led by a less manic man. I like XMR too but like BlackBytes a bit more.

>>5031186
>Its reason to be was "peer-to-peer electronic cash"
This is the fundamental misconception. It was an experiment in decentralized ledgers using economic incentives. Technically illiterate people like Roger started pushing it as "peer-to-peer electronic cash" to try to drive up demand long before it was ready for that role. Bcash is a clone of bitcoin, with the same use load it would take just as long to process transactions and if the price was as high as bitcoin the transactions would also be expensive. Bcash doesn't even realistically suggest solutions to the scaling problems it just pretends they don't exist.

>>5031348
Oops, BlackByte comment was for >>5031176. I'm extremely interested in the benefits of legitimate DAG tech and ByteBall's privacy coin, BlackBytes has some novel anonymity methods beyond obfuscation.

>>5031414
This is not a fundamental misconception, is it referred to as "peer-to-peer electronic cash" in the WP if I'm not mistaken, along with on bitcointalk forums from the OP himself.

>>5031414
>increased block size doesn't upscale transaction limitations

>>5031469
it's a band aid on a gaping wound

>>5029439
>classic jew trickery
Like when Blockstream stopped any upgrade to bitcoins transaction output for over 3 years, to then go on to mutate bitcoin into segshit where they will profit off selling sidechains and the LN. Completely shitting on the blockchain technology and whitepaper while still referring to their coin as "bitcoin". To top it all off they call the group of people staying true to the original vision of bitcoin imposters because they are taking bitcoin past visa levels.

>>5031414
>This is the fundamental misconception. It was an experiment in decentralized ledgers using economic incentives. Technically illiterate people like Roger started pushing it as "peer-to-peer electronic cash"

Dude, the title of the Bitcoin whitepaper is "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"

>Bcash is a clone of bitcoin, with the same use load it would take just as long to process transactions
It's not a clone, it has a bigger block size, it can currently process 8 times more transactions per second, and the block size can be increased as needed, the way it was supposed to be done in the first place before Blockstream blocked that.

>and if the price was as high as bitcoin the transactions would also be expensive
Nope, the transactions are expensive because more transactions are being done than the network can handle so they pile up in the mempool with higher and higher fees.

>Bcash doesn't even realistically suggest solutions to the scaling problems it just pretends they don't exist.
Block size increase, simple solution that works in practice.

>>5031539
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/923309367260274688

someone i know told me to swap my bch for eth (bcs it is dropping) is this smart?

>>5031527
>storage is growing exponentially
>as is bitcoin transaction

Its literally fine.

>>5031609
ETH is good but it's scaling is theoretical and currently vaporware.

>>5031467
That's what he wanted it to be. Whatever you label it, in reality it's an experiment, the first decentralized ledger that works because of the economic incentives. When it started growing fast 2013 it was obvious then it couldn't compete with visa for transactions so it wasn't ready to really become p2p cash.

>that works in practice.
No, only in theory while ignoring the problems. In practice we don't really know the results of distributing a ledger with these huge blocks. People doing micro and nano transactions are inevitable so the ledger will grow exponentially as more people use it. If it's pushed for as p2p cash in 2 years you might need to own a datacenter just to run a full node. In practice that means the ledger is now centralized and can be shut down. It's possible bcash might "work" meaning it doesn't completely fail but it can't do what crypto is supposed to be able to do. If Lightning works it fulfills the promise of crypto, if it doesn't bcash is still irrelevant.

I thought Bitcoin Cash was the real Bitcoin when it was trading at $200. People seem to think it will one day go to zero, why? It can actually be used as a currency.

>>5031781
You can get to 5x visa levels with 8 year old tech you fucking lying faggot.

The longer it takes Bitcoin to fix its growing fees and unconfirmed transactions, the more market shares it will lose to other tokens. Technological changes are very unforgiving to those slow to adapt and Bitcoin is completely unusable right now as a currency.

>>5031628
>exponentially
Not really. Bitcoin can handle 7 tx per second, and bcash can handle 56. 56 tx per second is still awful for something that aspires to be a global payment system

>>5031842
Please correct me if I'm wrong but explain why. I used to consider the insanely huge and exponentially growing blockchain size as one of the main problems stopping scaling. The Bcash solution is just to say "no it's fine" without backing that claim up with anything. How long until the chain is so large you can only set up a new full node using trucks to ferry the data?

>>5030137
Fucking this
I can not trade if btc moves 1k up or down everyday, it's impossible, if i go to sleep I wake up to a -30%

>>5031781
>That's what he wanted it to be.
And that's what people want it to be, not a fucking unrelated experiment you want to profit off.

>No, only in theory while ignoring the problems.
Bitcoin Cash has 8MB blocks that work in practice. 1GB blocks have been tested. Bitcoin Cash will increase the block size and you will see that it still works.

>In practice we don't really know the results of distributing a ledger with these huge blocks
What fucking different results could there be the mathematical principle is exactly the same.

>If it's pushed for as p2p cash in 2 years you might need to own a datacenter just to run a full node.
Do the maths and you will see that's provably wrong.

>>5031975
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but bcash can scale up to 32MB blocks without a hf. By the time transaction demand is reaching the limits of 8MB storage scaling shouldn't be an issue.

>>5032057
>graphene
>hardware optimization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M
Doesn't even include graphene in those calculations which makes it 10x easier.

The lightning network will prevail.

Ok here is my problem with Bitcoin Cash when you invest in it. ANd I am someone who prefers the faster cheaper coin as well.

THE FUCKING STRESS AND FOMO IS BEYOND FUCKING NORMAL LEVELS. BCH is trapped in the second layer of HELL and everything that happens makes it more stressful. PLus the fact that every other fucking coin is rocketing up to new ATHs ...

Do not go into BCH until you actually see it begin to do something... I imagine the stress will reduce when the coin isnt fucked in hell...

>>5032063
>Do the maths
Here is the math: the tx/s will rise until it stops coping whatever that limit is because we want to use bitcoin for everything including every dice throw on shitty gambling sites.

No atomic swaps, no off chain transactions means it all has to go on the blockchain which will grow exponentially until the tx limit is reached so it continues to grow at max capacity. With atomic swaps and off chain transactions nanotransactions can be handled by whatever you want while you still store your funds in bitcoin your trusted store of value.

>>5032117
It's been "coming" for years.

>>5032277
Without onchain scaling second layer will be a failure. The blockchain will be stressed infinitely more than it is currently because next to nobody is actually sending transactions currently.

Just watch this interview.

https://youtu.be/AkbSrmsYJ9c

I thought Bitcoin Cash was a meme until I heard how stupid this guy interviewing the Bitcoin Cash guy was.

>durr Chinese miners
>durr stole my hash
>durr satoshi is evil

How STUPID is this person?

>>5032394
He's actually one of the smartest people from the core camp

>>5032190
the stress will reduce once the bitcoin correction is completed and p&d groups reached their goals with shitcoins. Might take one or two months

>>5032073
224 tx per sec isn't going to be enough for shit. Visa's volume is over 2k. The point is that this tech doesn't scale well, we'd need 256 MB blocks to even come close to that and that blocksize would make the blockchain fucking HUGE.

>>5032445
>>5032109

>>5032420
You have NO fucking idea what you’re talking about and neither does he.

How can you fucking steal hash?

First you complain about chinese miners, miner centralization and punishing miners, then you complain about BCH stealing chinese mining hash?

This guy is literally a retard.

>>5032445
256MB blocks gives about 13TB for one full year, I know people who have hundreds of TB storing movies and porn

>>5032497
It's not a compliment. The core camp is full of fucking retards and either dishonest or misinformed people like >>5032445

>>5032445
Do you understand that hard drivers get bigger every year you clueless idiot?

>>5032497
>This guy is literally a retard.
And still one of the smartest from the core camp, that's the point

>>5032364
And the devs aren't opposed to bigger block sizes. Bigger blocks alone aren't a solution and hard forks are not something to be taken lightly. This hard fork is a political move by miners opposed to segwit and Lightning when segwit was finally forced on them. Miners will want to maintain the status quo that makes them money. That's not a healthy basis for technological development.

>>5031030
Most altcoins aren't a fork of the bitcoin network, just of the client (wallet) code. They have their own separate networks. Bitcoin Cash is a fork of the network, sharing transaction history until August 1st 2017.

a lot of people on this board are holding a lot of BCH, including me with 90BCH, I went all in

yet you don't see us posting pink wojacks like the linkies

makes you wonder... maybe we know something you dont? maybe we know BCH is the real bitcoin destined for 100k-1mil per coin in the next 5 years

this is why we wont sell one fucking BCH

Saying were going after cash instead of gold was pretty damn clever, too bad the public view of it as just a copycat has doomed it

>>5032598
Then bitcoin core will fail.

The miners will decide its fate.

>>5032445
People should have petabyte drives by 2020 and 13TB a year for Visa level transactions is fucking nothing and we aren't even close to that size!

>>5032627

>>5032541
>implying people are willing to put as many resources and effort into securing a world-changing peer-to-peer digital cash network as they do into their porn collection

>>5032578
>>5032541
>>5032543
>>5032490
>>5032663
>this kills the decentralization

>>5032723
Decentralization isn’t something good in and of itself.

If you trade increased inefficiency for decentralization you’re making a long term mistake.

>>5032723
>13TB for Visa level transactions
>consumer available petabyte drives by 2020
>centralization

>>5032723
>tfw it costs more to send a transaction than it costs to run a node

>>5032601
>This hard fork is a political move by miners opposed to segwit and Lightning when segwit was finally forced on them.

Everyone who wanted to use bitcoin as a currency, as peer-to-peer electronic cash, you know the thing it was designed for, wanted a block size increase, except Blockstream. Users, businesses, everyone who actually cared to use the network and understood the situation wanted a block size increase, except Blockstream and its sockpuppets. Segwit brings a lot of complexity for little added benefit.

>>5032694
Hi Roger

>>5032601
I always thought they were because they were always very vocally against them recently. Then you had the entire NO2X movement that they were major supporters of.

>>5032601
It’s actually the only thing that can sustain the long term network you retarded.

You don’t have anything without miners.

Take some of your coins and compete with chinese miners if you’re frothing st the mouth because they’re making money and you’re not.

>>5031414
are you fucking retarded
did you even read the title of Nakamoto's paper
did you even read the first line of the abstract

>>5031781
>That's what he wanted it to be.
Ok, glad we could clear up that you are the one with the misconception. The rest of your post is simply conjecture ("it will need a centralized database") or false ("it can't compete with visa").

If you're genuinely interested in quicker tx times, look into DAG tech like ByteBall (I'd recommend RaiBlocks but I'm less familiar with it).

>>5032782
>buying thousands of dollars of hardware to run something out of the kindness of my heart for a network at max capacity already.

>>5032840
If they can get away with no hard forks they kind of need to do that. The reason I keep mentioning older altcoins is because the experience with the results of hard forks is bad. The developers have a long wishlist of features for a hard fork, all of that was ignored by bch because it was made for political reasons subverting the actual development.

>>5032906
Why is everything so black and white? Miners aren't the authority on development, developers are. I actually like PoW but miners shouldn't be subverting the future of bitcoin for quick bucks.

>>5032109
Graphene doesnt even work, the developers missed the "edge case" where we have two transactions a to b and b to c. These can't be compressed in the same block. This is a huge attack vector. Holy shit, you people have no clue.

>>5033048
When I jump over a puddle I can label it as flying over an ocean in a fancy whitepaper, that doesn't make it an accurate description.

>>5032057
Hardware has improved substantially since BTC was conceived in 2009. Smart phones that fit in your pocket are likely more powerful than most desktops of the day, so the block increase is really simply keeping up with hardware advancements.

The question of what to do after continually making bigger blocks is a different one that should only come into play if BTC scaling issues outpaces hardware improvements to the point of the network becoming too centralized (cuz blocks too big). We aren't there yet though, but this is what BTC is currently addressing rather than expanding the blocks.

>>5033074
That’s what you don’t understand. Miners are the ULTIMATE authority because without them you’re no different than a shitcoin.

Miners provide the only function that both secures the network snd also has a financial risk involved in securing it.

Developers might improve code, but they have NO financial risk involved and thus can act to subvert the actual blockchain without risk.

>>5033074
>implying miners don't have to run nodes
>implying merchants who want 0-conf don't have to run nodes

The incentives are there and if need be nodes can receive fees.

>>5033144
This, idk why people are wanting Visa level transactions when adoption isn't at all there yet. In the mean time Segwitcoin can't even handle a fraction of that yet they shit on bcash despite it already being ahead on scaling.

>>5029439
>mentioning bitcoins ridiculous fees is subversion
I got my eye on you OP

>>5033141
Meanwhile Bitcoin Cash will fly over the ocean as outlined in the whitepaper while your Blockstream coin will remain an experiment in a puddle avoided by everyone.

>>5033246
What I don't understand is, even if BTC disagrees with blocks as a long term solution, there is nothing but benefits to implementing this until their other, off-chain, solutions are finalized. IMHO they absolutely should've expanded blocks as a short term solution. It would've been easy (still would be) and wouldn't effect the network or miners in any negative way.

>>5033314
If BCH does perform a successful flippening maneuver and legacy BTC remains below BCH in market cap, at what point will BCH simply be referred to and known as BTC, unanimously?

>>5031414
>>Its reason to be was "peer-to-peer electronic cash"
>This is the fundamental misconception
The fucking whitepaper is called "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" you utter fucking mongo. Kill yourself right fucking now.

>>5032906
>take some of your coins and compete with chinese miners

this. oh but if you want a sha256 asic mining farm you better buy some Bitcoin Cash because its the only accepted payment :)

>mfw all these idiots talking about hard drives scaling not realizing that the real bottleneck is machines verifying fuckhuge blocks and network bandwidth to transfer the actual data

Sure, hard drive sizes have scaled really well since 2009 or whatnot, but the actual network speed and CPU have not. You are going to need an industrial-tier datacenter just to have good enough bandwidth to keep running a node at those fucking huge block sizes.

Fuck off bch shills, you don't know shit about technology and it shows.

t. someone who works in the industry and knows what he's talking about

>>5033187
>Miners provide the only function that both secures the network snd also has a financial risk involved in securing it.
Miners can vote with their mining power, that's their role. They don't have the expertise to make judgment on development.

>>5033246
The promise of crypto is to have millions of times more than visa. Visa is only for buying things, bitcoin was already doing all kinds of other things, the cliche example is satoshidice. I'm going to pay for my electricity and water per second with a Lightning transaction for every tick, pay my uber per second and tip homeless cashies I see out the window 1 satoshi.

>>5033452
Make your own hardware you fucking retard.

You idiots complain about China monopolizing mining hardware but sit on your bitcoins and do nothing productive with them while the Chinese outcompete and outsmart you.

Start your own fab.

>>5033363
Because they know increasing the block size will most likely work well enough to render Blockstream's business model useless, Blockstream is funded by AXA, they want banks to remain relevant in tomorrow's world, that's why they try everything in their power to stop a worldwide peer-to-peer electronic cash solution from working, but the desire for freedom is stronger than them.

>>5033453
I think everyone realizes this, and it was BTC's only legit argument against bigger blocks.

But "machines" have improved substantially since 2009, and can handle 8MB blocks easier than 2009 "machines" could handle 1MB blocks.

>network speed and CPU have not
This is objectively incorrect, and nobody cares where you work.

>>5033482
Miners make judgements every day on the development by what they decide to mine.

>>5033453
>tfw you have single threaded mempool acceptance code
So as someone who works in the industry when do you think we will see multi core cpus?

>>5033507
Oh, you're right. I forget how truly corrupt they've become. BTC forums and communities don't like to address this, so I often overlook this as a legitimate factor.

you all need to do your research into what you are spending your neetbux on and get all the facts, not propaganda and manufactured reddit/twitter consensus

if your ADD and autism aren't too severe you really need to watch this hour long video

https://youtu.be/v1_gxvx_QGo

>>5033363
I think the primary reason core won't up the block size is because they're afraid it'll destroy the price. Because everyone will have to change chains as its a hardfork to up blocksize. How do you get everyone to move over uniformly with billions of dollars at stake and just give the new chain all the valuation of the previous one without a hitch?

>>5033558
I think monero had a few hard forks this year. Eth did too. Tons of other alts have in the past it's not even remotely difficult to pull off.

>>5033482
Again, consumer available petabyte drives by 2020.

>>5033558
If it’s the only viable long term solution you either hardfork it or someone else will. Then you get to the point we are right now where one chain might prevail over the other throug competition.

If you do not do what is right for the viability of the network, someone else WILL.

>>5033516
And that's how they should do it. Instead they propagandized against segwit which cuts the asic boost and refused to upgrade until forced and then rushed a hard fork with no consensus.

>>5033453
>You are going to need an industrial-tier datacenter just to have good enough bandwidth to keep running a node at those fucking huge block sizes.
256 MB every 10 minutes
That's 430 kB/s

>industrial-tier datacenter just to have good enough bandwith

>>5033453
who the fuck cares about your niggers in africa running raspberry pi full nodes. GET FUCKED

of course you will need an expensive machine to support a GLOBAL FUCKING PAYMENT SYSTEM. nobody gives a shit.

END USERS DO NOT NEED TO RUN FULL NODES. I mean fuck, nobody is doing it right now with tiny fucking 1MB blocks. The miners support the fucking network, and they are paid well to do so.

>>5033621
Concensus isn’t necessary. Competition is good. If you make stupid decisions, you’ll be punished for it.

And why don’t you create your own ASIC’s if you’re so worried about hash?

I laughed of Bcash ignorantly initially because BTC shills shat all over it.

That changed when I noticed that BCH shills can fight off any FUD, and deliver FUD to BTC that they can't defeat.

>>5033601
Yeah and bitcoin has hardforked in the past, but it was much smaller back then. Its easier for ETH or XMR to hf because the development and consensus is more centralized. BTC's development is centralized too, but in theory its not suppose to be and there are many more detractors in BTC's environment than in others.

>>5033625
i get 1gig fiber optic to my house for like $60 bucks a month bro

>>5033664
I don't care about asic, the miners who stunted bitcoin development did. The same people directly responsible for slowing development now attack bitcoin for the scaling problems they opposed fixing.

>>5033668
I got into cryptos in September and I ignored BCH for the first month as it seemed the community generally viewed it as some cash grab scam. The more I researched into why BCH forked from BTC and all of the fundamentals behind both projects I eventually went all in on BCH.

>>5032778
>If you trade increased inefficiency for decentralization you’re making a long term mistake
So being inefficient is better than being decentralized?
>>5032782
>>5032789
The biggest SSD right now has the capacity of 60tb, and goes for $20k. There is just no way we're going to see an over 16x increase in less than three years, much less on the consumer level.
And it's about bandwidth as well. If one block is 1GB there's going to be a considerable delay between nodes getting the newest block, not to mention ameriburgers using up all their data in a few hours.

>>5033616
Which I'm okay with. I think what Bcash did to hardfork off was the right call. Its what Segwit should have done and the legacy chain could have still existed. This would have allowed the battle between Bcash and Segwit to occur on level playing ground. Instead Segwit was a hostile takeover of the legacy chain, so it carries all the "authority" of bitcoin without any of the legitimacy. It's fucking crazy how this has all gone down desu.

>>5033715
So it’s the responsibility of the dev to do what is right and let the miners vote on a consensus.

Don’t blame the miners when they vote for something else because the core devs chose to go in a direction the miners did not support.

Why do you complain so much about chinese miners when you’re not providing any utility to the network by not creating your own mining pools?

you cucks are finally coming around. btc can't scale its broken, cash is going to replace it as much as you don't like it it doesn't matter in the end.

>>5033680
It wasn't really supposed to be contentious. Blockstream signed the exact same agreement last year that proposed the exact same plan. They jump ship almost immediately after they got segwit.

>>5033723
> I eventually went all in on BCH.

Hopefully you've made plenty of gains and didn't get burned. I was swing trading it around $550-$750 and woke up one morning to my sell order filled out for a $75 profit, but if hadn't done that I would've made $2k off that flippening bullshit.

>>5033725
I meant if you trade efficiency for decentralization.

>>5033555
what an asshole
he should fuck off

>>5033783
How much authority do Ver and Jihan have in BCH? I don't know how the leadership works for that chain, or how much % of the supply they own, etc etc. Is it as democratized as BTC once was?

>>5033820
>his autism is too severe to watch a video

I'm sorry for your loss anon

>>5033725
Please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M and stop being ignorant. Once again this doesn't include graphene which would make this 10x easier to achieve.

>>5033803
I would have made more money sitting on normiebase coins but hindsight 20/20 and all cant really predict what the market will do. I am pretty confident that BCH will see 100k a coin in the coming years. All I have to do is accumulate and wait for the inevitable retirement fund.

herp derp 1gb blocks guise
4 nodes to ddos

>>5033555
>Satoshi Nakamoto

>>might actually win? Roger is one subversive mother fucker!

Problem is, Bitcoin is the white man's coin. It was created to eliminate jewish trickery. Bitcoin is literally Jesus coming back to take his revenge on those who betrayed him. Oh, and network effects aren't hatched in 3 months so BCH is fucked.

>>5033865
>bitcoin unlimited
>comments and likes disabled
Okay I'm watching it but I don't have high hopes

>>5033809
If you don't care about decentralization and only care about transactions just use visa. Crypto isn't for you.

>>5033942
Has to be done or else it's just downvotes from the ponzi parade

>>5033840
There are at least 6 independent teams working on it, the development is way more decentralized than on BTC. I would guess Ver and Jihan own several hundred thousands BCH. It was a hard fork so everyone who held BTC before August 1st got the same amount of BCH.

>>5033967
Holy shit he's here

>>5033967
you core cucks who think LN wont be the most centralized piece of garbage ever make me want to punch you in the fucking throat and then go cut off your dads balls so we dont have to deal with your stupidity in the next generation

>>5033847
na what he says is not wrong, doesn't change that he is an asshole and should fuck off

>>5033967
You don’t understand that if you trade efficiency purely for decentralization, when you cannot even define how much more or less it will be decentralized, you’re making a long term mistake.

Be prepared to be outcompeted by a chain that favors efficiency.

>>5033909
>Bitcoin is literally Jesus
You don't know Rodger Ver's ol' nickname do you?

>>5033967
Don't say this, you're selling crypto short. Tell him to use crypto that scales better like the DAG based ByteBall or RaiBlocks.

>>5031638
ETH is going to win with BCH because of PoS
Timing is tight but I don't see how is BCH supposed to compete with PoS+Raiden+Plasma+lots of adoption

>>5034104
PoS is garbage.

It's actually the exact opposite. BTC is the way for the white man to extract money from the Jew. Playing the long game. BCH is a tool being used to slow bleed out scammers like Ver and he doesn't even know it. Watch what happens when BTC pumps in a day or two and wipes out all alts and wrecks the (((institutional investors))) who think they can short BTC. It's going to be glorious seeing all these analogs get run over by an x^n train. The red pill is coming.

>>5034003
I just wish he'd stop talking in this fuccboi rapper snot-stuck-in-throat voice. I cleared my throat like 10 times since I started watching, it really fucks with me

>>5034024
>everyone who held BTC before August 1st got the same amount of BCH.
Yeah, so I'd assume they don't have any sort of obscene amount but was just curious. Very glad to hear it's more decentralized, as my last single vapid concern has been Ver's leadership. I'm going to research this anyhow, but if it's as you describe I'm 110% leaving BTC behind and becoming a full on BCH shill.

>>5033967
JUST
USE
FIAT

>>5033967
If you don't care about on chain scaling, just use paypal.

>>5034124
Why? Another thing I've been meaning to understand better. I have no qualms about PoW, but why is PoS shit?

>>5034104
If someone accumulates enough coins in a PoS, they control the network. There’s nothing you can do about it.

If someone accumulates enough hash in PoW, they control the network but you can add more hash to remove their ability to attack it.

>>5034137
A cute little tech guy talks for the 2nd half

>>5034185

>>5034196

>>5034073
There is a minimum required level of decentralization so your token isn't just fundamentally worthless disney bux. It has to be able to resist shutdown effectively. If enough of the btc miners were located in the same place or on the same electrical grid you could bomb that place and shut down or take control of bitcoin. Perceived resistance and decentralization is more important than actual when it comes to price but if the token isn't actually resistant it will eventually be exploited. The economic gains of doing so are so high it will always be done.

roger also drives a shelby cobra for all you nerds

https://youtu.be/PeA8q1Yea_Q

>>5034155
They pushed a shit EDA that inflated the chain quite a bit. They were mining way more than 1 block every 10 minutes. Whoever was mining these blocks has a good amount of BCH.

>>5034155
Honestly Ver is probably not the biggest holder, and he isn't the leader or anything he's just the more vocal proponent, he is mostly independent from the technical development of BCH but he does bring awareness

>>5030805
Bcash is better in every way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4_TOFRkTqQ

>>5034235
Listen I’ll go on your show and destroy every argument you present to me about hash and miners. You don’t understand anything.

>>5034223
>cute little tech guy
He better not have the faggot lisp or I'm going to get angery

>>5034136
You are doin Odin’s Work my friend. Even though I’m on Team Jesus

>>5034235
>but if the token isn't actually resistant it will eventually be exploited
sad what happened to Burstcoin but it needed to be done, thank you pajeet canadian scammers

>>5034231
There's more communists in the Core developer team than in the entire Bitcoin Cash ecosystem.

>>5034277
>biggest holder
That would actually be Satoshi Nakamoto, followed by the twins.

>>5034327
BCH is hardcore libertarian. BTC is modern day marxism coupled with gamblers from the entire spectrum.

>>5034327
I agree, it’s just a meme. BCH is no-step-on-snek tier.

>>5034224
Oh that's easy, thanks. I never liked how it favors whales anyway, and that's simply an extension of that dislike I have for it. Do you have protocols or Proof-of-'s that you like over PoW?

I understand different protocols are ideal for different scenarios of course.

>>5034293
Please help me understand. I would not pay for a token I don't think is secure against shutdown from governments. Thousands of different private tokens were released before bitcoin and none gained serious value, those that did ok were shut down by governments.

>>5034277
Oh, interesting. I've vastly misunderstood (likely thanks to BTC core shilling).

>>5034066
lol yeah he is a genius academic type, not generally the type to be charismatic and sociable

but I am about 85% sure he was involved in the 'satoshi nakamoto' team and probably has control of the genesis block and early coins since Hal has died. so in other words he is or will soon be the wealthiest person in history so he literally does not give a fuck

>>5034196
>If someone accumulates enough coins in a PoS, they control the network. There’s nothing you can do about it.

Yes, but at what cost? At the cost of their entire stake. It's going to be wayyy higher than the cost of a PoW attack. That's why PoS (done right) is _much_ safer than PoW.
Also

>If someone accumulates enough coins

That's going to be probably something like 30% of all eth. That's hardly possible.

To sum it up, not only does PoS offer way better security, but it's orderse of magnitude cheaper and allows for a much higher throughput.

>>5034435
If I told you it would destroy your faith in bitcoin.

>>5034735
Ok idiot, keep your faith in PoS. If someone accumulates enough coins on a long enough period of time and decides to attack the network there’s no fork you can revert to.

>>5030805
>Reminder that this is what everyone was saying in 2013.
Bullshit, back then fees were under a dollar. Stop trying to act like you were around back then when you don't even know basic shit.

>>5034789
So angry. The only thing that's going to happen is the market redistributing wealth from you to me.

>If someone accumulates enough coins on a long enough period of time and decides to attack the network there’s no fork you can revert to.

The opposite. If someone has enough hashing power and money to attack a working network he has enough to attack a weak fork. There's no defense against a determined 51% attack.

With PoS, theoretically attacker accounts could be zeroed in a fork.

>>5034699
If he does and drops it all to buy whatever and creates a 99.9876% price drop he becomes my hero no matter how much of an asshole he is. I just want to see something crash violently again.

>>5034914
Who decides which coins are legitimate and which are attacker?

>>5034743
That's fine. I believe in crypto, I don't know about btc but I'm pretty sure bch is garbage. Right now this is just a world of speculative investment but the idea of secure decentralized tokens is appealing on a base level. You don't have to understand the specifics to feel in control so the tech is appealing even to normies.

>>5034894
I don't claim to know it all I just present things as I see them. That's how I saw it in 2013 and it seemed to me most agreed the explosion in new cryptos was due to this perception. The naive reason I didn't think investing in bitcoin was smart was because some unknown token would take the tech lead suddenly at any time and blow btc out of the water. The same naive reasoning cashies use.

>>5035119
>the explosion of new cryptos was due to this
Not really, 99% of the cryptos created back then were just so people could speculate and keep mining with their GPU rigs as it had turned completely unprofitable. That's why most being released either had scrypt algorithms or they were simply bitcoin clones with slight changes to issuance and total cap.

>>5035077
People that make the fork

>>5035208
Im sure you’d be fine if your coins got inadvertently axed by a central authority while the network has been down from weeks.

>>5035203
Still, the altcoins all had a lot of hype partly due to the underlying assumption that the one with the best tech would win and that clearly wasn't bitcoin.

>>5035119
BCH isn't garbage tho

>>5031628
Lol, can't wait for when Bcash switches to gigablocks when in the meantime BTC will have LN and other second layers haha

>>5035389
There's no central authority, you don't understand how cryptocurrencies work
Everyone can make a fork, people follow if it makes sense

>>5035529
from a practical pov bcash is currently better than bcore, from a marketing pov, it is a dead fish in the water. The crypto hype for this season needs to end with a violent crash or we might end up with a jewed market

When Daddy Bitcoin decides to move, up OR down, the alts shut the f up and get out of the way.

When the king speaks, all listen.

>>5035624
>56% dominance

>>5035583
I don’t think you’ve thought about the real world implications of coin nullification.

>>5035807
I don't think you have thought about the real world implications of a successful 51% pow attack

>>5035483
>Still, the altcoins all had a lot of hype partly due to the underlying assumption that the one with the best tech would win and that clearly wasn't bitcoin.
>clearly wasn't bitcoin
>most were alts or using a scrypt algorithm
>clearly wasn't bitcoin
Holy shit, you're retarded.

>>5035765
kek

>>5036323
meant most were clones

Roger Ver is a US government asset.

>>5036323
One of the memes with dogecoin was it scaled better for transactions than bitcoin and it does. People were aware of the problems it didn't change price formation.

>>5036323
I also clearly stated I didn't believe any of the tokens at the time were the ones that would bury btc, just that one would come along. If I hadn't had all my money in an apartment at the time I would have put some in ethereum even knowing it's pretty shitty. I made $200k on the apartment, what should I do with it? Dogecoin right?