/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>5072582
BTC cash is better. The original BTC was more like a demo that became popular. But BTC cash is more efficient

BTC has another 20% difficulty increase coming up on monday and the mempool is already flooded

Oh and CME futures gonna short it

perfect storm brewing

>>5072628
Any other coin does the same and better
This is centralized garbage
If you're gonna buy this don't forget to take profits early this time

>>5072674
Name one other coin doing on-chain scaling? Exactly you can't. Dumb nigger.

>>5072698
There are many but most of them use various relative insecure and/or centralized (read:insecure) versions of POS, or even less secure validation systems with POS without proper game theory anti-cheating incentives.
Bitshares has been on-chain scaling with above visa tier transaction throughput ability since before ethereum was made.

>>5072698

Centralized. Garbage.

Decentralization is the entire point. End of discussion.

>>5072832
* or even less secure validation systems than POS

>>5072839
BTC and BCH share the same miner pool. There are only more miners on BTC atm because of profit incentive, they will switch as soon as that changes.

LN is 100% guaranteed to be the most centralized off chain solution imaginable. You sir are a fucking moron.

>>5072698
its like you forgot the whole point of decentralization.

>>5072894
>>5072839
>tfw you know LN is a centralized, expensive, complicated and risky piece of shit
I don't even need to sit here and argue with you dumbshits all I have to do is sit and wait.

>>5072669
kek i didnt realize difficulty increase and cme futures was gonna happen at the same time

more than 20000 users unsubbed r/bitcoin kek

>>5072839
>>5072894
How can anyone who supports Bitcoin argue for decentralization? It's a little hypocritical. Bitcoin Cash has issues with the appearance of centralized mining. And Bitcoin has issues with the appearance of a centralized core dev team.

>>5072965
this

>>5072839
Usable secure currency is the entire point, decentralization is a means to an end.

PoS is garbage.

>>5072839
in what way is it centralised?

>>5073032
Money. Decentralization = more money.

Should I buy Bcash at this price? Is it going to coinbase? If so I’m getting some regardless per their promise from the fork. Just wondering if I should buy now or if the current price is already a reflection of being added to coinbase?

>>5072890
Off chain scaling is 100% necessary for decentralization. If the whole world was using the blockchain for every single coffee how big is every block going to be? Like 300 gb? Broadcasting every coffee to the blockchain is over kill.

LN, BTC's saviour that is forevever coming soon (tm) is gonna make btc as centralised as your isp.
as it is, BTC is giving (((Them))) wetdreams

>>5072582
>Believing in Bitcoin Core

The whole point of Segwit was decouple the block from the private key so that they could steal all of Satoshi’s coins.

https://youtu.be/AkbSrmsYJ9c
28:50

“I think Satoshi’s a sellout”
“And I think that he could burn his private keys now and not risk the future economy of the world , with an unknown party holding 10% of it”
“Who may have given those keys to his kid, and his kid might be the next HITLER”
“Or he may have gotten a mental illness and gotten whacky himself”
“Or he has some other socially dangerous beliefs”
“This guy’s accruing a lot of money and he’s a variable that we’re unaware of”
“He could be renouncing his control of his keys and he’s not.”
“Which means he’s either a bitch or he’s dead”
“Those are the only two options I’m aware of”

- Bitcoin core dev

>>5073164
you're fucking retarded, off chain scaling is centralization

>>5073253
TIL altcoins are centralization

>>5073253
To an extent there will be hubs that are more well-connected than others but they literally can't do anything to fuck with you with those nodes or else they'll have their funding transactions penalized by their counterparty.

>>5073253
And the people that say fractional reserve is possible have no clue what they're talking about.

>>5073117
>Bcash

>>5073358
yeah, up until they don't
isp's were pretty laise faire in the 90's

>>5073164
yeah man you know what we can to avoid that? maybe businesses should keep tabs on sticky notes and that way we can run bitcoin nodes on raspberry pi's

>>5073400
you saved that for this thread huh?

Why do people buy bcash? Autism?

Hur durrrr let's buy a coin that isn't on Americas number 1 app hurrrr durrr

>>5072674
>This is centralized garbage
lmao. you brainwashed LN pawn pieces are hilarious. SPV with large nodes has always been the bitcoin roadmap. Segshit and LN are banker attacks to keep normal folks tied to the legacy financial system.

>>5072674
>centralized
Dude sometimes I wish I were this retarded, retards just seem so happy

>>5073525
Why do people buy AAPL? Autism?
Hur durrrr let's buy a stock that isn't on Americas number 1 exchange hurrrr durrr

>>5073440
What do you mean up until they don't? The penalty for violating a contract with your counterparty is programmed into how each payment channel works through multi-sig addresses. You WANT these hubs to try and fuck with you and try to steal your money because as soon as they do you can take all the funds contained in the funding transaction.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

>For this payment channel, the contract terms are that both parties commit to broadcasting only the most recent transaction. Any broadcast of older transactions will cause a violation of the contract, and all funds are given to the other party as a penalty.

>>5073525
america is the world tho right?
coinbase is the shit, dog

>>5073525
its designed to be a pump coin, did you miss the 5x like 2 months ago anon?

>>5073525
>that isn't on Americas number 1 app hurrrr durrr
oh is that why coinbase is starting bch in Jan 2018 and has no plans to activate segshit? stay mad.

Bitcoin Cash IS going to pump just because it has Bitcoin written in its name. The normies will make us rich.

>>5073375
The people who say that LN will bring fractionally reserved banking are retarded but LN by the way it functions per definition makes it a fractionally reserved blockchain.

>>5073358
A mesh network is a thousand times more easy to regulate and control

>>5073008
Is r/bitcoin for or against bitcoin cash?

>>5073510
prepare your anus

listen to the lead developer of Bitcoin Cash, surprise its not Roger Ver.

Sticking To Satoshis White Paper with Amaury Sechet - Lead Developer of Bitcoin Cash

new -

https://youtu.be/C2KJhyBS2s0

>>5073574
tired of waiting for it
>https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
tell me when it's here

>>5073164
Visa level transactions would only require 13TB a year.

>>5073620
>The people who say that LN will bring fractionally reserved banking are retarded
not an argument

forget ripple

Bitcoin cash ‘CEO’: We won’t need banks anymore


https://youtu.be/l6Obc_cJba4

>>5073660
he's one lead developer, bitcoin cash has 5 different development teams to make sure we don't run into the blockstream type nightmare ever again

>>5073696
>not an argument
also not an argument, show some salt ffs

>>5073620
>by the way it functions per definition makes it a fractionally reserved blockchain.

It's a fully reserved block chain. Every satoshi spent requires 100% backing from the original parent funding transaction in the multi-sig addresses. If Bob has 5 bitcoins. He and and Alice can both create a payment channel, both contributing 5 bitcoins. Then they can cheaply and instantly make as many transactions as they want but the blockchain will always know there's a total of 10 bitcoins inside of that multi-sig address. He can't fractional reserve his coins and simultaneously open up another payment channel with another counterparty until he either closes this channel or gets more bitcoins on the blockchain to create a new funding transaction.

>>5073762
>show some salt ffs
no u

>>5073809

>>5073790
>he thinks average joe's will be able to legally run their own hub
wew. the delusion is strong.

>>5073844
What do you mean legally? It would be written into the software that anyone can start a payment channel with anyone.

>>5073886
gg you selfish fucker, look out for your self

I can't find anything about the time and date for CME listing. Can somebody help?

>>5073886
>It would be written into the software that anyone can start a payment channel with anyone.
running an LN hub = being a money transmitter. core's solution is to "use tor hubs." so you either get to use a legacy financial service, register your own hub, or hide in the shadows and hope you don't get raped by the IRS in the future. wow. so much paradigm change. truly revolutionary.

>>5073762
idk about fractional reserve, but LN does in fact work on a system of IOU's.

>>5072674
Fucking told ya
Hope you didn't hold this for more than 2 secs for the flashpump

>>5074015
so do store cards... where is the change?

>>5073886
Like it is technically build into a gun that everyone can pull the trigger so it must be legal to shoot people with it

>>5074000
Explain how a lightning channel is any more of being a "money transmitter" than sending a regular bitcoin transaction. It's literally the same thing legally speaking.

And since the barrier to entry to starting a payment channel will be so low the competition will be so fierce that fees will become dirt cheap. You'll almost get nothing out of being a centralized hub, you can't steal funds, you can't control anything, you can't fractionally reserve funds, and your funds will be locked up in these payment channels earning you an EXTREMELY small ROI because like I said, the competition from low barrier of entry.

>>5074131
Just buy ripple if you like stuff like this

>>5074045
>looser shits himself watching a chart that has nothing to do with him for an hour.
>gloats when the inevitable red candle shows up.
>wanks off to chad and stacey for the 5th time today.

>>5073790
>cost money to open up a channel
>money used to cover money flow within channel is locked and can't be spent while providing liquidity to channel
>institutions with lots of money in reserves (((BANKS))) can afford to set aside massive amounts and collect LN node fees
>most transactions will have to route through their channels as their channels has the most liquidity to cover global level commerce channel settlements

Easily controlled, heavily centralized and censored.

>>5074054
Transactions in LN aren't done on the blockchain. The only thing recorded on the blockchain after LN is the settlements of all transactions that happened in that channel.

>>5074131
> The term “money transmission services” means “the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.””
to be an intermediary hub you have to be a registered money transmitter. due to the design of LN, large, central hubs will be favored by everyday spenders because of the need to avoid constantly closing channels and incurring fees.

>>5072582
Rare pepes will come back and blow the crypto market out. Mark my fucking words.

>>5074131
Operating a lightning node will most likely make you obligated to follow KYC/AML laws. This is for the hubs, not the one who sends a transaction.

>And since the barrier to entry to starting a payment channel will be so low
Opening a payment channel will cost at least the same as a bitcoin transaction, which will be hundreds of dollars by the time LN rolls out. A well connected hub will cost a lot of money up front.

>>5074254
>cost money to open up a channel

It costs whatever a normal blockchain transaction costs.

>money used to cover money flow within channel is locked and can't be spent while providing liquidity to channel

Good. So we agree it's full reserve.

>institutions with lots of money in reserves (((BANKS))) can afford to set aside massive amounts and collect LN node fees

It'll literally be like 0.001 cents per transaction and everybody will be competing with each other to provide the cheapest route.

>most transactions will have to route through their channels as their channels has the most liquidity to cover global level commerce channel settlements

It literally doesn't matter who routes. It's built into the system that if anyone cheats, they get ALL of their funding transaction taken from them and given to the counter party. You don't have to trust them. That's all that matters. Also there's technologies like Sphynx that will allow Tor-like anonyminity in the lightning network.

>Easily controlled, heavily centralized and censored.

You can't censor or control shit. When you make a lightning transaction you trade signatures that either party can broadcast. IF one person cheats and tries to "censor" or broadcast an old version of the transaction, you have cryptographic proof that they violated an agreement that you can use to get ALL their funds contained in the funding transaction.

>>5074646
>Since any signed Commitment Transaction may be broadcast on the blockchain, and only one can be successfully broadcast, it is necessary to prevent old Commitment Transactions from being broadcast. It is not possible to revoke tens of thousands of transactions in Bitcoin, so an alternate method is necessary. Instead of active revocation enforced by the blockchain, it’s necessary to construct the channel itself in similar manner to a Fidelity Bond, whereby both parties make commitments, and 11 violations of these commitments are enforced by penalties. If one party violates their agreement, then they will lose all the money in the channel. For this payment channel, the contract terms are that both parties commit to broadcasting only the most recent transaction. Any broadcast of older transactions will cause a violation of the contract, and all funds are given to the other party as a penalty.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

>>5074646
You could easily blacklist bitcoin addresses from using your node.

>>5074646
this is some next-level wishful thinking

>>5074646
>it literally doesn't matter
So you're telling a channel with only .000005 worth of liquidity is just as good as a channel with 50?

>>5073164
>how big is every block going to be? Like 300 gb?

>640K is more memory than any computer needs

in decades people will look on your statement the same way.

>>5074764
No, this would be a capitalistic system. Not everyone is "equal". I'm saying that it's written into the protocol that no one can cheat. So you get nothing out of being a centralized node except for the small amount of fees, which will be hyper competitive because like I said, this is capitalism, and providing a routing service for the network.

>>5075037
>which will be hyper competitive
and you seem to think mom and pop hubs will come carve out a libtard space. lol

>>5075037
>I'm okay with banks controlling bitcoin

Literally get the fuck off my board. This isn't competition over economic incentives rewarded from protocol. This is incentives to control the fucking network traffic.

>>5075205
this, fuck corecuck traitors and bitcoin judas andreas antonopoulos

>>5075205
If you actually read up on how it works, you'll see it doesn't resemble banks at all.

>It's full reserve
>Anybody can impose a huge penalty on them for violating agreements.
>Anybody can start a node.
>You can't "control" people's spending.
>The routing can be anonymized.
>It's full reserve
>It's full reserve
>It's full reserve

How can they control the network? If you make a lightning transaction that you'll pay $5 to Mr.Moneybanks and Mr.Moneybanks relays that transaction to Starbucks. Then Mr.Moneybanks trys to act like an authority and violate the agreement he'll have his entire potentially $1000's of dolllars funding transaction penalized from him.

>>5075434
>FULL RESERVE

I understand that retard, the problem here isn't a bank run on transactions. Its the fact that almost all people will be priced out of running a LN channel due to low liquidity. What happens then? Channels become extremely centralized to institutions who have massive amounts of fucking liquidity, ffs!

This isn't like failing to be a profitable in a venture, this literally reduces the lanes of traffic on the network. It's not decentralized at all.

>>5075620
>What happens then? Channels become extremely centralized to institutions who have massive amounts of fucking liquidity,
he must be a troll or in denial. even LN advocates know this is true, hence why they add the "muh tor nodes" part in. LN favors the status quo and is designed to keep normies off the main chain and stuck in the central hubs.

>>5072890
I'm sure the DAA hard fork was supposed to make it permanently profitable and it's done nothing but drop in hashrate but OK.

Anyway I guess the number of shills suddenly crawling out of the woodwork mean BCH has had another small pump in its eternal downtrend. Nice!

>>5073738
the nightmare of writing good consensus code? lol

>>5075620
And on BCash, normal people can't run a node or mine when every single coffee transaction is broadcasted to the blockchain causing each block to be 300 GB, this will be centralized to 3 or 4 institutions. Your ability to provide liquidity to the network will be directly proportional to how many coins you have. I have 84 bitcoins, so I know I can provide at least that much liquidity for the lightning network, but I'm 100% sure I can't even get in the arena to compete with mining operation that'll handle the gigantic blocks. Also, my point this whole time has been that you never have to trust your counter party. If goldman sachs starts the most well connected node ever what nefarious things can they actually do?

>>5075923
>normal people can't run a node or mine
this isn't a part of bitcoin's design. you sound like a communist.
> transaction is broadcasted to the blockchain causing each block to be 300 GB, this will be centralized to 3 or 4 institutions
institutions running full nodes + SPV is the original scaling plan.
>Your ability to provide liquidity to the network will be directly proportional to how many coins you have
literally the whole point of having a currency on an immutable ledger.

>>5073032
both BTC and BCH are centralized as fuck
if i'mma spring for an altcoin i'd go XMR

>>5075923
>I have 84 bitcoins and have never read the fucking white paper or bother to research the requirements for running even a Visa level node

13TB a year. Not cost prohibitive, the degree of node centralization was already foreseen by Satoshi as server farms running them in the future. However your 84 bitcoin required to run a LN is. Actually 84 isn't enough to cover international commerce so you're priced out as well, faggot.

>>5075886
im refering to the malevolent corporate takeover by the new world order

>>5075923
>If goldman sachs starts the most well connected node ever what nefarious things can they actually do?
Blacklist adresses and all adresses that has ever transacted with that adress. Require identification, KYC laws

>>5075971
>you sound like a communist.

You guys are the one's complaining because a poorfag with 0.00005 BTC can't afford to make a lightning hub.

>>5076009
Are you seriously arguing that the barrier to entry to running a LN node would be higher than running a server farm that stores every coffee on the planet?

Neither of you answered what nefarious things you can do with a well connected lightning hub.

maybe it'll work the third time!

>>5076305
What part of 13TB a year for visa level transactions don't you understand?

>>5076305
There's a million nefarious attacks you can do with centralized control of mining but nothing really can be done with a well connected lightning hub because it's still trustless.

>>5076385
Oh yeah, that's all I have to do to start my mining operation is buy a 13 TB hard drive!

>>5076456
lmao get a load of this guy. he'd rather have commie software that runs on ancient hardware than use bitcoin as a currency like it was invented.

>>5076395
its trustless but it isnt permissionless you fucking retard, i already told you

>>5076556
he doesn't know the difference

>>5072839

>not an argument

>>5074226
Updated.
If you're trading for more than two months and still don't know that BCH always does this idk what to tell you.

>>5076204
That's not an attack on the network, that's just making their node undesirable.

>>5077436
A node that doesn't do those thing will out compete one that makes their node difficult to use.

That was the bounce. We going to 4000 by the end of the month.

>>5077172
Lol, BCash is BTrash.

>>5072628
BCash has literally no novel improvements over bitcoin.

It's technological advantage is that it is less popular and therefore transactions are cheaper. End of story. Shitcoin.

ctrl +f bcash
>>5073400
>>5073525
>>5078150
>1 post by this id
wow

>>5078229
It's technological advantage is the ability to do onchain scaling, something core is incapable of admitting is necessary. 2018 roadmap has us at visa levels with graphene and block scaling. Optimizing bitcoin for modern day hardware is also key to achieving a high blocksize with old technology.