/biz/ - Business & Finance

it will take some time for the market to adept to better technology

Core has armies and cults of people protecting it now, as well as the 'brand name'.

It's the most well established, so for new investors/normies it's the 'best' option.

This will slowly change over time, but it'll probably take everything else down with it.

its not going to happen overnight. normies are buying the fuck out of btc segwit rn while whales are slowly accumulating, i can promise you this

>>5124241
But... If all goes down with it, will BCH also go down with it? Why are no major exchanges listing BCH as a trading pair?

What is this conspiracy. The more I read about it, BCH is just superior. Wtf.

>>5124352
Unfortunately, I think so. The best case is BCH winning out, but only gaining 30 - 50% of BTCs value. If BTC were to crash normie confidence in crypto would be destroyed, this is bad for any coin.

>>5124423
but its also healthy and needed. just fucking hodl and you'll be fine. did u remember the 2013 bitcoin craze? then it died down A LOT

>>5124423
btc crashes all the time, and goes back up equally as hard and fast.

>>5124184
Segwit was a hostile takeover of the digital asset known as bitcoin. It'll take months for the market to adjust. Many of the people who adopted bitcoin early on already realize this, however nu-coiners who are just now entering and chasing profits don't understand the political environment.

>>5124423
I want the normies out tho

>>5124184
Why isn't Bitcoin Gold? Why isn't litecoin? Why isn't ARK? Why isn't Ethereum? Why isn't Vertcoin? They all have lower transaction fees. Omg, different features. Surely bitcoin is dead.

Except no. They don't have the same level of security, track record, decentralization, developers, ecosystem.

The only reason you are even comparing Bitcoin Cash to Bitcoin is because it is using brand confusion and hyper-aggressive marketing to confuse people. Newcoiners are downloading the bitcoin.com wallet and losing their money because Roger and his sockpuppets intentionally try to confuse the brand.

It's one of many scams in the crypto space. It may go on for a while because the fees are too high right now on the bitcoin network but when lightning network comes out its only unique selling point will no longer be a valid concern.

>>5124451
curious. Was it just like this? Surely not.

>>5124537
I thought lightning was out? Saw some article a few days (a week?) back.

>>5124537
>but when lightning network comes out
18 months and counting.

>>5124551
it was all over the news too but not as many people buying it as there are now i think because mt.gox. thats why a crash is needed to get the weak hands out

>>5124423
>Unfortunately

That's good though. Bitcoin is shit and Bitcoin Cash is a bandaid solution to try and 'fix' a coin as shitty as Bitcoin

Let something better take over

>>5124451
Yeah true. I think it needs to happen.

>>5124537
>BTC and BCH
>decentralization

Good joke

>>5124537
lighting is already out u fucking retard

>>5124184
>Faster and lower transactions

There are thousands of altcoins that do this already

>>5124184
If the planned upgrades fail to fix the fee issue, Core could hardfork and have all the same features as Cash and then some. I mean it could literally happen within a week if there was consensus for it. In short Cash like to get btfo regardless of what happens

>>5124771
core would look so fucking stupid if they did that

>>5124537
>Except no. They don't have the same level of security, track record, decentralization, developers, ecosystem.
Except Bitcoin Cash has all those things you mentioned.

>>5124184
Because it's a scam coin created by eBay scammer Roger Ver and chicom agent Jihad Wu

>>5124537
>but when lightning network comes out its only unique selling point will no longer be a valid concern.
Hey mr Sidechain, do you trust your bank or some random whales. Then go and buy my fucking buttcoins

>>5124537
>LN
>good

You don't understand why people are dropping Segwit coin.

>>5124771
Core has blown it. No matter what they do businesses will prefer BCH. The centralized core devs have show themselves incompetent and unwilling to perform basic upgrades necessary to keep their coin functional.

Bitcoin Cash is effectively BitCoin - CNBC tells Coin Base President

https://nm.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7k6s00/because_bitcoin_cash_is_effectively_bitcoin_rap/

>>5125268
gold

The man behind Bitcoin Cash does NOT have a technology background, in fact it is much darker than what you usually see in finance.

>>5125676
>Ver created BCH

>>5125676
At least post the real one

bcash tards are fucking hilarious

>>5125959
Gas yourself corecuck.

Another merchants drops Bitcoin - picking up speed and all coming over to BCH

Bitcoin Payments
On the topic of Bitcoin Posted December 16th, 2017 gpuShack accepted Bitcoin as a form of payment ever since we began operations on December 16th, 2014. Today,

https://gpushack.com/pages/bitcoin-payments

>>5126121
That's pretty big. It was one thing when Bitmain stopped accepting BTC for BCH, but this is something else.

>>5126228
Not as big as Steam dropping it.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/steam-stops-accepting-bitcoin-payments-citing-extreme-volatility-fees

>>5126280
Yeah but the problem with Steam is they aren't looking to alternatives, they are outright dropping crypto for the time being.

>>5124184
It's all about trust.
It's not overtaking because it's been in business for ten minutes and is run by untrustworthy crooks who tried to hijack the brand-name and all of the customers.
Bitcoin has been in business eight years and is now TRUSTED.

>>5126343
Trust is worthless if it has no utility. Also Blockstream and LN is doing everything its power to destroy trust on the network.

we dont really care about overtaking it so much its more about replacing bitcoin since its no longer a currency or a store of value, bitcoin can exist however its holders want it too

>>5126343
You realize that a huge reason why cryptocurrencies work is that they are trustless, right?

If people switched to bcash bitcoin would be useable again.

No dude Bitcoin Cash will win because they can scale, and Bitcoin core is stuck with small blocks forever because miners won’t agree to the increase. That’s why cash hardforked in the first place.
The writing is on the wall, buy BCH or regret it.

Decentralization is the ENTIRE POINT of crypto.

bcash does not provide this. bcash is a centralized coin.

Even if bitcoin cash has slightly better tech than core, there are far more better coins out there. So if bitcoin gets dethroned then why would a coin that's only marginally better take its place

its the only other coin that uses the SHA256 mining algorithm that is superior to all others coins

BCH has a team of 40+ PHD scientists working on scaling and other issues full time, thanks to Satoshis coins (being able to pay salary).

>>5126343
That whole post is backwards. The entire point of bitcoin is that it's trustless. You don't need to trust your money to any central authority. LN pisses all over that.

>>5126313
It's just sad. Commercial adoption is actually dropping because of how unusable bitcoin has become. This should be a massive wake up call.

>>5127186
>Satoshis coins (being able to pay salary)
This is pure dogshit. I like BCH but there is no evidence of this at all.

>>5124352
Yeah so superior because one single line of code is changed from 1mb to 8mb

>>5124184
>he thinks peole buy crypto to actually use it as intended

you fucking idiot, the only people who buy crypto do it because they expect MUH M00N MISSI0NZ and they think it's an easy way to get money.

The fact hat bitcoin, the outdated dinosaur of the crypto world, is still in first place is all the proof you need of this. Why is a bitcoin worth 20k USD? Why do people want it? To transact with it? Lol no, they just expect to be able to sell it to some dumb fuck later on for 25k. It's a giant circlejerk bubble that is due to colapse any day now, and I can't wait for that day

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

>>5127632
fedora, the post

ITT deluded cashies shilling their bags; some of these fucks bought at least as high as 0.25 and they're panicking at 0.09; that's why the shilling is so intense today. Just remember pic related.

>>5127823
>this faggot has posted this image in 3 threads replying to bitcoin cash

>>5127787
>he doesn't like the taste of reality

Big blocks don't scale so BCH isn't viable long term. Offchain transactions is the only scalable solution. Cashies have no response to this so they resort to ad hominems

>>5128007
>Big blocks don't scale
Except they do. How's that Segwit scaling for you plebs? Wasn't LN suppose to come out a couple years ago?

>>5128058
A 1GB block every 10 minutes scale fills a 1TB drive in 1 week. Is that your idea of scalability?

>>5125777
fukken saved!

also, trips of truth!

>>5124184

Name makes it sound like a fake knockoff. "Cash" in your name is a guaranteed way to sound grotty and scammy.

>>5128242
>"Cash" in your name is a guaranteed way to sound grotty and scammy
So is “coin”

>>5128242
It's from the title of the bitcoin whitepaper: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

I suggest you read it sometime.

>>5128216
>we need blocks 1000 times bigger
Jesus dude, my tax spreadsheet is going to take like 10 floppy disks, how the fuck am I going to get this thing down to the print shop without spending an hour swapping disks?

>fills a 1TB drive in 1 week
Good thing we'll be using drives measured in PB by then. I think 1000 weeks is plenty of time to figure out a further scaling solution.

>>5128355

>ackchually it's in the white paper title

I don't give a fuck about that shit. Taking an existing name and sticking "cash" on the end 100% makes you sound like a scam. If they'd called it Bitcash maybe it would have been alright, but no they wanted to ride on the coattails of the bitcoin name.

>>5128355
NEWCOINERS ARE SO FUCKING RETARDED GAHHH

Hi I'm gonna drop $100,000 on 5 units of a technology I DON'T REMOTELY COMPREHEND. And no, I'm not even going to fucking try.

>>5124184

Have some patience OP.

>>5128449
>I don't give a shit about the original whitepaper

Yeah I already gathered that from your posts.

>>5128216
>2017
>bitcoin requires 1GB blocks to scale current network

>>5128449
>ride on the coattails
It is bitcoin. It was called bitcoin for 8 years before being called bitcoin cash. Why doesn't it deserve the name? Segwit was the major change. If you knew anything about the bitcoin protocol you would realize that bitcoin cash is literally the bitcoin protocol. Segwit is a new protocol.

>create something new
>keep the name from when it was different
>the version that stayed the same doesn't deserve to keep the same name
You didn't think this through.

>>5124184
>Bitcoin is a decentralized currency
>Needs a data-center to run a full node
>Chinese miners own 80% of the hashrate

Core is bad enough, no need for making things work

In other words, BCH is built on promises of cheap future technology. Any chance this might not pan out, especially in certain corner of the world.
Also, this shows BCH's 'tech upgrade' is nothing but a prayer for better hardware and bandwidth in the future.

>>5127879
>3 threads about bcash
>zero valid arguments for bcash
Wow, it's almost like there are "people" rapidly posting threads about the same topic spouting the same opinions repeatedly in order to influence public opinion for their personal gain

>>5128503
>current
>what does scalable mean

>>5124184
>It's a flat out upgrade.

Adding a coefficient to a number in a line of code is not an upgrade. Contentious hard forks are not upgrades. Combining several failed development teams is not an upgrade. Dragonslayer memes are not an upgrade. All the propaganda was just created to steal more real bitcoin from idiots.

>>5128727
>segwit sure has solved the problem :^)

>>5125676
He was thrown in jail for advocating libertarian ideas and the Feds didn't like it.

The "explosives" were Pest Control Report 2000 he sold on eBay. It was an agricultural firecracker meant to kill pests in the fields.
Everyone sold it on eBay, but the Feds went after Roger because he was speaking libertarian views publicly.

Reminder that even Cobra, the guy who once advocated changing the original whitepaper, has changed stance on big blocks.

https://medium.com/@CobraBitcoin/thoughts-on-bitcoin-as-a-settlement-layer-c40cc1415815

>>5128548
>>5128502

You pinheads know zero about marketing. Which coin "deserves" to be called what isn't the point. It's about what sells on a mass scale and "Bitcoin Cash" is an auto-lose name.

>>5129022
Don't talk about marketing when Core is losing commercial adoption all over the internet because it's so shit.

>>5129022
Marketing can only do so much if you literally zero utility. I mean the Pet Rock sold for a bit, but eventually everyone realized it was just a meme.

>>5129022
The elite already took over Bitcoin. Nerds don't have a spine, and let Blockstream control the development. Bitcoin Cash sounds like an altcoin, so will probably fail. A bunch of spinoffs are happening to confuse the public and make Bitcoin Core seem superior (bullshit like Bitcoin Gold). I would say the battle was lost, and Bitcoin is finished.

>>5127384
Exactly, no idea why BTC decided against this and instead opted for centralized offchain solutions that play directly into the bankers favor.

Really makes you think, huh? You fucking retard.

>>5128007
>big blocks don't scale
Except they demonstrably and instantly do.

>>5129022
Or we know so much about marketing that we can see completely through the corecuck propaganda, hmmm....

Core is 100% marketing. I know all about marketing. I also know all about cryptography!

Guess what bitcoin is? A cryptographic currency. Plebs think crypto means "secret" FFS.

For anyone reading this shit thread who might be falling for corecuck propaganda, here's what just one team (there are multiple independent teams) of BCH devs have planned:

>Planned protocol upgrades every six months – on the 15ths of May and November.
>Increase the network capacity, ideally by decreasing the inter-block time to 1 min, 2 min, or 2.5 min to improve the user experience, focusing on faster and smaller blocks
>Re-enable op-codes that were disabled soon after launch in 2009. These will permit representative tokens, binary contracts, and other advanced features.
These would be similar to ETH's smart contracts. More here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
>Implement a new Bitcoin Cash address format, to make it difficult for BTC to accidentally be sent to BCH wallets, and vice versa
>Evaluate the use of Bobtail to reduce inter-block time variance, increase double-spend resistance, improve the DDA
>Improve block relay, potentially by integrating Graphene
More about Graphene here: http://forensics.cs.umass.edu/graphene/graphene-short.pdf

>>5129438
>Implement a new Bitcoin Cash address
How will this fork my current Bitcoin Cash? Makes me nervous.

>>5129022
Bitcoin = Wii
Bitcoin Cash = Wii U

>>5129438
The great thing about Bcash is that if you follow any pro BTC argument, it's always BTFO by cashies, and the inverse of this statement is not true.

>>5129496
Statement from the guy who proposed it here:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/2017-November/000472.html

>>5129561
The great thing about people posting on /biz/ is that since nobody gives away money for free, anyone telling you to buy is actually telling you to buy their bags

>>5129561
Stop calling segwit BTC. It's not. If Bitcoin Cash doesn't deserve to be called BTC, Bitcoin Segwit doesn't either.

>>5129645
>libertarians telling other people what they are allowed to call their coin

>>5129558
Wii U is great and it’s backwards compatible with Wii

>>5129632
you would be right, except we're not selling. I've got some leftover Bitcoin Segwit to sell you for 20k though. that is a steal, itll be 100k by christmas.

>>5129558
Monero = Switch

>>5129615
Thanks, but I'm still a little confused as to what I should do on my end. I have my BCH on paper. How will I get them on updated addresses?

>>5129701
>offering to sell BTC above market
I'll pay the going rate for it, thanks. I'll probably be buying your sales anyway, since I'm pyramiding up on the way to 100k.

>>5129666
FUCK YOUR MOTHER IF YOU WANT FUCK, SATAN

>>5129666
>libertarians can't co-operate
He's on my side. We're strategizing, numbskull. As a libertarian I expect others to follow themselves.

>>5129632
>implying I gather all of my info from /biz/ shitposts

And no, some people here actually care about the merits of greater tech, myself included. I hold 0 of either.

>>5129645
Yeah, stop doing this: >>5129666 . Also nice trips, Satan. It's petty and fucking gay as hell. Segwit is BTC until the real flippening occurs. You're delusional if you think anything else.

>>5124184
>why are people stupid?
if this had an answer the world might not be so fucked, yet it is.

>>5124687
No its not. They have had Level 2 Lightning for awhile, but not Level 3. Level 2 is just bi-directional payment channels. Level 3 is what everyone calls the Lightning Network where you can share other people's payment channels. Level 3 Lightning does not exist and no one knows yet how to create it.

>>5129757
I am on your side of the BTC vs BCH debate, but ultimately the masses decide the name, it's a democratic process and you'll just seem autistic by making up your own names.

>>5129750
All hail your God.

>>5129766
BTC is dead m8. Get over it. You can call your kitted miata a lamborghini all you want. It's not.

>>5129676

Nobody owns it though.

>>5129804
Words define reality. Start paying attention. How do you think we got in this mess?

>>5129796
Source.

>>5129804
You seem reasonable, which is rare on /biz/. Best of luck.

>>5129730
As far as I'm aware they are simply introducing a new address format, they will not force changes on old addresses. If you want to start using a new address, transfer your BCH to that new address. You can still use the other one.

>>5129438
I would be surprised if they actually change block time. This has been discussed but BCH already allows instant transactions so block time is basically irrelevant.

bcash is for niggers

>>5129818
Dude you/'re a fucking moron, I support Bcash, not BTC, as you even observed above.

>>5129854
Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin is Bitcoin. Saying anything else is fucking retarded. It's one thing to say "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin", but if you actually start calling BCH BTC, people will just think you're talking about BTC. Can't believe I have to explain social norms to autists like you.

>>5129873
y-you too, kind corecuck :3

>>5129854
>words define reality
>so we stole their word kek
If words define reality, do you really think people are so stupid they won't realize the blatant plagiarism of "Bitcoin Cash"? The word Bitcoin had the power, you can't say it's Bitcoin without going into an autistic rant about how literally everyone but you and Roger Ver refer to ticker:BTC as Bitcoin and ticker:BCC/BCH as bcash. Your launch was so fucking disorganized you couldn't even choose a single ticker symbol but you and Roger, a self-described libertarian, want to tell other people what they are and are not allowed to call a coin. This is delusional and does not help your case.

>>5129879
Alright that sounds good. They're not wrong for wanting to change the addresses imo. I don't have a problem using btc addresses, but I could see how it'd be a problem for individuals and businesses.

>>5129890
It allows 0-conf transactions. Which are great for some things but not for others. Shorter block times are always worth striving for I think.

>>5129955
I'm on BCH's side of the scaling debate and think bigger blocks are a perfectly viable short term solution, but GODDAMN all these namecucks are fucking ruining the scene, it's unreal lol

feelsbadman, these few retards make the rest of look equally petty and retarded

>>5129948
Bitcoin Segwit is not Bitcoin. It is not a "Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System"

"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the
next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner
and adding these to the end of the coin."

The next quote is page 2 of the whitepaper. Segwit removes the signatures so how can it be Bitcoin? Segwit literally makes crypto incompatible with the original Bitcoin whitepaper.

>>5129989
I think it would be good, but its not necessary.

beetcoin caysh reel beetcoin

>>5129796
Here is the most recent lightning network node I've come across that works on BTC mainnet. Anyone interested in running a lightning node before the official release can choose to do so.
https://interfect.github.io/#!/posts/009-Ride-the-Lightning.md
https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair

I don't see anything restricting use of 3rd party payment channels as long as you are both connected to said 3rd party.

>>5129989
>0 conf transactions
Have literally always existed; the point of confirmation time is to make sure that block is the one that gets onto the main blockchain and the idea of 6 block confirmations is relatively obsolete because there are orders of magnitude fewer orphan blocks now. That isn't a technical advantage, it's just a relic of BTC being first and the most secure.

>>5130071
So then Bitcoin Cash is actually Bitcoin? Great, go tell your friends that and they'll buy it straight from CoinBase. Let me know how well your shilling actually works.

>>5130127
There exists no protocol for routing payments through a second layer solution. Bi-directional payment channels have been here since Bitcoin was created. There is no routing for what is termed Level 3 Lightning which is what is needed to scale Segwit. Please educate yourself. You are talking about Level 2 Lightning that exists, but you need Level 3 Lightning to scale Bitcoin Segwit.

Also Segwit coin has RBF so you cannot trust 0-conf transactions. BCH has first come rule so you can trust 0-conf transactions 99.99%

>>5130071
I don't think your maggot filled pea brain actually understands I agree that BCH is deserving of the title, BTC. However, calling it so currently is retarded.

As I said, it's one thing to say "Bitcoin Cash is the *real* Bitcoin", and completely different to actually start referring to it as Bitcoin, as I explained here: >>5130131 .

You're being an autist, and not the good kind.

>>5130028
It is a good short-term solution and I'm not sure why the 2MB block size increase for BTC didn't happen, but I appreciate the given explanation that "consensus was not achieved." It isn't a viable long-term solution and I think BTC is making the good an enemy of the perfect; but BCH has a terrible spokesperson/face, has a terrible and vitriolic constituency, and has very little to address a very real problem should the "flippening" ever actually happen. And yes, the amount of dumb cashies is a huge red flag for me.

>>5130071
>hurr white paper
So then when BTC has lightning and BCH doesn't, will you just call it bcash instead of Bitcoin Cash?

>>5130096
For argument's sake, improving the tech is what development is all about.

Also as far as the name is concerned, I wouldn't worry about it. You can't force these things. The superior coin will emerge eventually and it will be called whatever people want to call it.

>>5130127
I don't disagree with any of that. Hence why smaller block times are are good thing.

>>5130131
Just like you corecucks got into Bitcoin late because you didn't understand it everyone is getting into Bitcoin Cash late because they don't understand it. This is great for me, it keeps the price low.

>>5130222
>>5130071

I can understand where both of you are coming from. Although desu calling Segwit Coin "Bitcoin" does feel wrong on so many levels.

>>5130229
If Core increased the block size to 2MB and transaction fees and times improved people would have realized Segwit and LN are the pile of shits they are much faster. Core will literally never raise the blocksize. If they can't get lvl 3 LN out they are SO fucked.

>>5124551
Yeah it was being covered on bloomberg, and then we got goxxed and interest died completely

>>5130229
Bitcoin Cash does have Lightning. But not Level 3 Lightning. Just Level 2. Level 3 Lightning is retarded. You can lose all your coins in a lightning channel if the network gets congested. I don't know why this is a good thing.

Also the fact that corecucks think the whitepaper is shit is evidence of your retardation. You can call Bitcoin Cash bcash, you can call it twiddlesticks. It doesn't matter. It is the best crypto.

>>5130304
How many times do I have to tell you, I AGREE with BCH being the real Bitcoin and the better solution. I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing your namecuck delusional autism. I'm assuming you're avoiding the argument because you know you're retarded.

>>5130229
>It isn't a viable long-term solution
Yeah, but who knows how long until it's really no longer viable? This would've granted BTC a lot more time to develop solutions in a more functional state. As it is, it's threatened by better working tech (BCH) potentially undermining it.

BCH does have a terrible spokesperson. It's very offputting and that alone kept me on the BTC side of the debate for quite awhile. But that's all he is, a spokesperson. He's just the loudest voice in the room. He does not reigning authority of BCH, or anything even close to that.

>>5130215
>scale segwit
Bi-directional payment channels are lightning and scale segwit; you can now open a transaction with a coffee shop and buy as much coffee as you want over time in 1 transaction.

>layer 3
https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7cba96/Scalable_Funding_Of_Blockchain_Micropayment_Networks%20(1).pdf
https://btcmanager.com/layer-inbetween-fund-lightnings-channels/
Channel factories (what you call layer 3) have the math down for the most part.

>you can trust 0-conf transactions 99.99% of the time
>trust
You don't know what trust means. Your 0 conf is exactly what BTC had pre segwit, and nobody used 0 conf because it was unreliable. Are you really the "true" Bitcoin if you are now claiming it's a feature of bcash when in Bitcoin it wasn't?

And the LN is instantaneous anyway.

>pretending to be smart on 4chan
>pretending the team that decided "lets just increase the block size" was just that much fucking smarter than everybody else
If it were so easy to fix everything with Bitcoin by just increasing the blocksize, why was it even contentious? If you say jews, you're a fucking meme and your opinion should be disregarded.

>segwitcoin
Your opinion should be disregarded.

>>5130425
>He does not reigning authority of BCH
Every Core supporter on /biz/ thinks Roger and Jihan control BCH. It's one of the most frustrating things about this whole debate.

>>5130466
0-conf is still less prone to fraud than Visa. Alternatively wait for the confirmation.

>>5130485
Yeah, pretty gay. But it keeps the price cheaper for longer. I think it's bound to win honestly, and tide seems to always be incrementally shifting towards an increasingly bullish BCH. One of these days BTC will dip and won't quite get back up and BCH is going to be there to meet in the middle.

>>5130466
>you can now open a transaction with a coffee shop and buy as much coffee as you want over time in 1 transaction

Yes, but that money is locked away from the time you open the channel to the time you close it. It's a very inelegant solution.

>>5128660
Its called Moore's law fuckface.
> prayer for better hardware and bandwidth in the future
kek

>>5130425
This is probably my #1 reason to be a "corecuck". The amount of bullshit cashie circlejerking is a huge red flag, these guys won't even acknowledge you support bcash if you don't refuse to call BTC Bitcoin.

Increasing the block size would have helped, but for some reason I trust the guy who sounds calm and focuses on addressing issues, "Judas", as opposed to the guy who can't help but ragequit because "bcash". I don't think this is purely spokesperson either, it says a lot about the community that he's even allowed to be the loudest voice in the room.

>>5130400
>implying everyone with BTC is perfectly willing to let "core" ruin their investments of money and mining hours if the solution was that fucking obvious to everyone. Also, all it takes for BTC to get bigger blocks is a now-consensus driven hardfork, supposing anyone who was against the hardfork before perceives BCH as a threat, whereas BCH to get lightning requires implementing segwit, a 100% turnaround of opinion, and once again "borrowing" BTC code. It's open source but enough is enough.

>>5130418
>bcash has lightning
Where? Point to it. Not the possibility of bi-directional channels, but ACTUAL bi-directional channels already live on mainnet. You don't have it, you have the potential of it by once again just borrowing all the code from Bitcoin and then pressing "ctrl-h bitcoin>>bitcoin CASH" like a fucking script kiddie.

>>5130651
Computing gets less powerful overtime, anon. Computers were size of buildings in the 60s. You can't explain that!

>>5129955
It IS closer to Bitcoin's original design.

Blocksize was part of Bitcoins architecture since inception.

Segwit is new tech meant to deviate the original design.

Like do everything you can to argue this. Good luck though, you will have a lot of reality to be working around to beat that.

>>5130651
Additionally, we've kept the same blocksize since 2009 and hardware has improved substantially since then. In a sense, the blocks have become proportionately smaller when factoring in the increased hardware capabilities.

Expanding blocks to 8MB keeps the previous ratio of blocksize : hardware capabilities much closer to what it was when BTC was initially conceived.

>>5126343
If BTC were to die, then the 2nd most trusted crypto would take over. Which one is almost as widely accepted as Bitcoin, is easy to buy as Bitcoin, has gone up 100x this year, has a very active development community, and is undervalued right now?

If BTC dies, there will be a flippening, but not the one that BCH is hoping for.

>>5130723
>implying Americans with dollars are perfectly willing to let "Fed" ruin their investments of money and labor hours if the solution was that fucking obvious to everyone.

I was sorely tempted to throw my support behind BCH but the amount of time those faggots spend whining about coin names really turned me off. Like that stupid teddy bcash joke seriously rustled their jimmies that bad? Who cares.

>>5125153
Core only cares about short term gains and not about the survival of the coin.

>>5129558
Ethereum = PC

>>5130723
>This is probably my #1 reason to be a "corecuck".

This is a bad reason. You're letting the obnoxious few ruin the technical merits. "These guys" are just a select few angry autist.

I understand where you're coming from, because I was there a few months ago (and since then things have only gotten worse in this regard). But it's important to know there is a silent and rational majority that you don't notice, because they aren't obnoxious assholes.

Further, nothing is stopping Ver from being the loudest. What else are they supposed to do, kill him? They have no control over what he says, and the development of BCH is perhaps even more democractic and decentralized than BTC in it's current state. Ver and Jihan are not "lead devs" or anything close to that, I don't even think they're devs at all desu, just annoying whales.

>>5130723
If Core suddenly decided to increase the block size, even to just 2mb, they would lose absolutely all credibility.

Question, Coinbase is adding withdrawal support to their platform on January 1st. If you held BTC prior to the hardfork that created Bitcoin Cash this past summer, you will get an equal amount of BCC to tht of your BTC holdings on Coinbase at that time.

They are NOT adding trading support according to their spokesperson until possibly later in the year.

ReGardless of the lack of trading support, will Bcash moon once the old investor fags have access to withdraw their funds from normie base?

>>5130814
see >>5130859

>>5124241
this.

>>5130861
this

>>5130485
>he thinks Jihan doesn't control BTC and BCH
If Jihan wanted to take risks, he could just say fuck it and turn his miners over to BCH, instantly crashing BTC and sealing in BCH as victor. He has plenty of mines on his own and please don't tell me you don't think the chinese miners who literally bought their miners from Jihan aren't able to coordinate that kind of attack. Jihan just doesn't give a shit about BCH and wants the profits; he probably only supported BCH at all because he wants antbleed.

>>5130648
If you know you're going to buy 5 coffees for the week, it's not that hard to budget it out in advance to save on transaction fees. If you are depositing on an exchange, being able to deposit to a multi-sig wallet that the exchange can sign off on lets you withdraw/deposit from the exchange without ever touching the blockchain. It's a solution, and it enables more new development that the community felt without segwit wouldn't be possible. I can't comment on whether or not it's possible, but I do know people don't risk millions in value for nothing.

>>5130651
>moore's law
Doesn't apply to validation time; you need to get these big (and eventually, bigger) blocks to every full node and have that node validate the block within the block time or the network falls apart. That means there will be less full nodes, and yet BTC is the "centralized" coin.

>>5130874

I have a feeling it could either one of two ways, whales will drop their bags enmass, or we will see a slight mooning. But I'm a noob, what are your thoughts?

>>5130723
>I trust the guy who sounds calm and focuses on addressing issues

I trust the guy who delivers results rather than one who only knows how to put on a stupid veneer.

>>5130850
Ethereum = CP

>>5130906
>run a business
>run it into the ground

Anyone who isn't mining btc isn't profitable and not in business for long. This is a long game. Once bitcoin begins to actually trade sideways for more than a day and bch price rises in sats miners will switch. Also, there are people mining bch Jihan included at a loss currently so not really sure what you're screeching about.

>>5130906
>I do know people don't risk millions in value for nothing

What Juicero? People poured millions into it, including Google, despite the pointless of the technology.

>>5130906
>budget it out in advance to save on transaction fees

Does this honestly sound like a reasonable compromise to you? How about aiming for a fast blockchain that actually works as intended?

>>5130122
that's a bcore face

>>5124551
People were saying a lot of the same things. Including OP's question of why isn't coin x defeating bitcoin even though it's clearly superior.

>>5130805
>comparing BTC to fiat
Nice strawman, the Fed took a hundred years to ramp up and takes 2-4% of your money per year. Hardly comparable to "should we increase the block size or not", unless you're saying every crypto developer supporting BTC is a moron.

>>5130739
>do everything you can to argue this
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bitcoin

>>5130859
>what can they do to stop Ver being the loudest
Have an alternative. Haven't heard of anyone shilling BCH except Roger Ver; even Jihan is relatively quiet.

>>5130861
>lose all credibility
It's been 3 months and now the testnet BCH proved it worked. BTC gains power from testing tech out on other coins, because it's not seen as "copying" but "testing". There are billions of dollars at stake; being cautious is always a good thing even if they really are just blatantly stealing the idea from BCH.

>>5130874
>sudden influx of money
>will the price go up?
Yes you should go long bcash.

>>5131094
It was analogous to Blockstreams hostile takeover of the network, but you're obviously too dense to see that.

>>5131094
>Haven't heard of anyone shilling BCH except Roger Ver;
That's on you.

>It's been 3 months and now the testnet BCH proved it worked. BTC gains power from testing tech out on other coins, because it's not seen as "copying" but "testing". There are billions of dollars at stake; being cautious is always a good thing even if they really are just blatantly stealing the idea from BCH.
This whole paragraph is utterly delusional. Core was vehemently against any block size increase. The debate raged for months, years even.

>>5130917
>delivers results
What result? No flippening yet; quite the reverse.

>>5130987
>isn't profitable
It's perfectly profitable to mine BCH; I mined BCH as soon as it forked til about November. It's not the MOST profitable to mine BCH, but if its for a "good" cause...

>it has to do with the market
No, it doesn't. There have been multiple times when BCH was more profitable to mine, and each time the market swings less and less in favor of BCH and less and less miners even bother switching chains.

>>5131030
>fast blockchain that works as intended
Litecoin. Dogecoin. Feathercoin. All faster than bcash.

I'm done; bcashies are literally reporting my posts to get me to shut up. Fine, I'll shut up. Anybody lurking should realize this is 100% proof bcashies are shilling their bags because they bought in above 0.1. Notice how the cashie shilling literally appeared overnight, coincident with the rapid rise of BTC and falling BCH value.

>>5131223
>It's not the MOST profitable to mine BCH
You just answered you're own question about business and profitability.

PUMP INBOUND

>>5131194
St. Andreas says all the time things have to be scaled on every level including the blocksize. It's just not that easy to get consensus anymore when there are $300 billion at stake.

>>5131250
>nobody will ever switch from BTC
>they will when it's more profitable to mine BCH!
>its been more profitable to mine BCH
>the miners need BTC to stabilize for more than a day
>its been through week-long rangebound periods
>it needs to stabilize at a lower profitability than BCH!
Sure. Keep waiting for that to happen.

>>5130466
What I'm talking about is this.
https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/overview-of-bips-necessary-for-lightning/

Without sharing bi-directional channels you cannot scale Bitcoin. Segwit is what allows you to share channels. If you can't share channels you must pay a fee for each new channel you open which means you can't scale Bitcoin Segwit.

>>5131364
The last pull back in btc was 22%. If you think that is significant in this space you're a nu-coiner.

>>5131223
>Litecoin. Dogecoin. Feathercoin. All faster than bcash.
That's a testament to how poorly bitcoin has developed over the years thanks to blockstream. As I already said, there are multiple ways in which BCH will improve over time.

>Anybody lurking should realize this is 100% proof bcashies are shilling their bags because they bought in above 0.1. Notice how the cashie shilling literally appeared overnight, coincident with the rapid rise of BTC and falling BCH value.
This is just sad.

>>5131094
>Have an alternative. Haven't heard of anyone shilling BCH except Roger Ver; even Jihan is relatively quiet.

I'd wager you also haven't sought one out, as this anon implies: >>5131194

>>5131280
Andreas' lecture "Liberty at Scale" was dogshit and full of contradictions. I originally watched this lecture should I could silence BCH shills, but it really turned the tables for me and pointed me toward supporting BCH. He says bigger blocks are bad because they *might* one day lead to centralization, then continues on to say we need offchain centralized solutions, and even jokingly says these are basically like bank in that they handle the transactions in a centralized manner, iirc. It was absurd.

>>5131039

>"bcash should be #1 because it's superior to bitcoin"
>"altcoins are already better than both bcash and bitcoin? doesn't matter, they aren't bitcoin"

>>5130723
Bi-directional channels have existed for years. It;s the sharing of bi-directional channels that Segwit allows and Bitcoin Cash cannot do. Read here.

https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/overview-of-bips-necessary-for-lightning/

Levels 1 and 2 exist on both chains. Segwit Bitcoin is trying to create Level 3 while Bitcoin Cash is not.

>>5131513
To be fair, alt coins aren't intended to be based of BTC's whitepaper, other than maybe LTC, but that's more of just a code copy pasta.

>>5131513
That's not true at all. In terms of security, decentralization, and scalability Bitcoin is superior. Privacy coins have more bloat. Coins with more transactions per second have exponentially worse security and decentralization. Bitcoin Cash is the better Bitcoin so it is the best cypto.

>>5131434
The point of decentralization is to have predefined rules as the ultimate authority instead of some bank or government. The miners enforce the rules and get paid for it. LN gives a away to have private, "centralized" transactions that still obey the rules enforced by the miners, settled on the chain. LN is the dream solution that allow my local devices to do millions of transactions directly with my supplier of electricity or whatever but is still subject to the authority of the decentralized blockchain.

>>5131674
Hubs can censor addresses and are prone to regulation.

>LN
>Blockchain

Pick one.

>>5131674
Yeah, but this has nothing to do with choosing LN over bigger blocks. Bigger blocks are far less centralized than LN in their current state with the current state of hardware.

>>5131733
Ok, don't use hubs that censor addresses or are subject to regulations.

>>5131733
and this, I don't know much of the technical merits, but a high level overview screams that bigger blocks are the way to

>>5131766
Even with very few hubs it doesn't mean we have the centralization problem, these few hubs are still subject to the rules of the contracts enforced by the decentralized blockchain so I still own my bitcoin without worrying some central authority decides I don't.

>>5124184
Bitpay hasn't adopted it yet. But they will very soon, check their blog.

>>5131783
You and your buddies aren't going to have the liquidity to keep your channels open and certainty not going to be able to support international commerce daily volumes. No friend, that privilege is reserved for banks.

No part of this is peer to peer electronic cash, this is not bitcoin. This is legacy banking taking over, controlling all payment channels and settling on the blockchain.

>>5131810
>says liberty at scale lecture was dogshit
It's one of his best lectures.

>>5131810
>bigger blocks are the way to go
>1MB = 7 txn/sec
Bitcoin currently supports 4 transactions per second but is supposed to be capable of 7. We'll round up to give BCH the benefit of the doubt, since we can't figure out how much BCH can support at max, since nobody wants to use it.
>visa = 150 million txn/day
You can google.
>150*10^6/(3600*24)
That is the number of transactions per day divided by the number of seconds in a day, which equals ~1736.
>~1736/7 (transactions per second / transactions per block) * block size per block = block size of visa
QED, by increasing the blocksize to 250MB, you can support VISA # of transactions.

That's happening at the current level of fees, and since we know miners won't mine for free and bitcoin is the biggest hashrate market for SHA-256, let's suppose the current level of fees is what is required per KB of transactions.

>current txn price is $54.90/KB

Suppose the average coffee costs $5.4 for easy math. Since we increase the block size to lower fees rather than compensating miners, let's assume the miners will just continue as long as they make the same amount as today in actual value, i.e. US fiat

>250 MB block @ $54.90/KB
>2500 MB block @ $5.49/KB (multiply block size by 10, divide fee by 10)
>25 GB block @ $0.549/KB (this is 1% fee)
>100GB block @ $0.135/KB (this is 0.25% fee)

>>5131943
You posted this in a different thread. The hardware required is cheap even at those levels of adoption (surprise we're no where near) and those fees are completely pulled out of your ass.

>>5131941
>mfw I recognize the same fucking cashie from earlier because he still doesn't understand what the fuck liquidity is
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidity.asp
Fuck it; circlejerking is for plebbit. Yay bcash to the moon

>>5131941
Plenty of whales want something to do with their bitcoins while hodling. If hubs try to regulate they will be circumvented, "me and my buddies" in fact love doing exactly that. Banks can be part of the action but the rules are set up so they can only do so while subject to the same rules as everyone else.

>>5124551
It was pretty similar but the scale wasn't as large.

>>5124537
No BCH is bitcoin cope with it faggot

>>5131996
https://fork.lol/ All the statistics come from there except for the visa transaction #. You couldn't respond in the last thread and you can't form a cogent argument in this one, either.

>the hardware required is cheap
Yeah except for the exahashes per sec of mining hardware you have to convince to switch to mining BCH.

>hurr I meant hard drives
Nobody said hard drives weren't cheap; the objection has always been you can't verify a 1GB block in 10 minutes without broadband internet speeds being consumed ferociously or drastically reducing the number of full nodes, which is the "centralization" you are bitching about.

>at those levels of adoption
BCH is trying to take on BTC.
BTC is trying to take on VISA.
That alone speaks volumes.

>>5124184
big bankers want BTC to succeed, not your ancap utopia. lightning network is the future. deal with it.

>>5130906
>Doesn't apply to validation time; you need to get these big (and eventually, bigger) blocks to every full node and have that node validate the block within the block time or the network falls apart. That means there will be less full nodes, and yet BTC is the "centralized" coin.

Then its a different fucking argument. One second people make the argument that Moore's law doesnt fucking exist. And now the goal post is moved to "Roger Ver is moving too quickly!"

Also shut the fuck up about centralization. Seriously just stop it.
The lightning network is the epitome of centralization. The lightning network nodes will be super expensive so only corporations / Banks will even be able to run them. Lightning network is fucking disgusting shit system from the ground up.

So shut the fuck up about ANYTHING being more centralized than that. You have zero room to fucking talk about the topic as a corecuck. Your bank coin is planned to be the most centralized shitcoin ON FUCKING EARTH.

>>5132201
Relax Roger. You're just wrong, it happens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB0mG7wMvM8

>>5130229
>It is a good short-term solution and I'm not sure why the 2MB block size increase for BTC didn't happen
It literally did, that was part of Segwit.

>>5132194
At least this is a valid argument to some degree. Bitcoin is the establishment coin! Its the centralized standard coin of the Big banks.

>>5132131
>businesses, miners, and other organizations running full nodes is centralization

Just like how every user is currently running a full node right? Hashrate moves overtime. You're expecting markets to change overnight. Yes you are completely pulling fees out of your ass and again assuming we're at Visa levels already. Despite all of that BCH actually can scale to BTC volume right now with acceptable fees and times.

>>5132293
It literally didn't. Segwit Coin still runs on a 1MB block size.

If Core increases blocks now they're basically admitting that BCH was right. So don't expect any scaling solutions anytime soon.

>>5132279
Hey Fucker, I'm not Roger. You are desperate, you are clinging to anything you can out of pure desperation. You have NOTHING.

Your shitcoin is the centralized coin. Your shitcoin is the coopted coin. And you got nothing you can defend yourself. Everyone reading this is seeing you cling to some bullshit. While you get rekt by nothing more than varifiable fact.

What do you think the price will be to maintain a lightning network node? It wont be cheap!

RREEEEEE "HATE FACTS!!!" REEEEEEEE

>>5132293
The 2MB block size increase never happened; only SegWit.

>>5132201
>he mistakes /biz/ posts for arguments
Nobody ever argued Moore's Law doesn't exist or that Roger Ver is moving too quickly. Listen to Bitcoin "Judas" before you stuff strawmen arguments into his mouth.

>still hasn't addressed the bandwidth & validation issue
Prove you can propagate and validate 1GB blocks within 10 minutes with no loss of nodes and I'll be the best cashie ever.

>shut up and agree with me; core is centralized and bcash is king
Thanks Roger.

>lightning network nodes are so expensive only banks can run them
Do you have a bitcoin.org wallet with a full copy of the blockchain? Congrats, you run a full node. Just update when the official lightning daemon is included and you'll have a lightning node! it's really THAT easy.

>>5132322
you know what they say... "follow the money", or something like that.

>>5131943
>it's one of his best lectures
yet you fail to address the contradictions? I've read his books and watched many of his lectures, but I thought that one was rather poor.

>napkin math, comparison of BCH, BTC and VISA
k, not really seeing your point though. How does increased blocksize not compensate miners, just by the lower fees? If anything all of this seems supportive of BCH.

>>5132429
>Prove you can propagate and validate 1GB blocks within 10 minutes
>FULL ADOPTION NOW REEEEEE

Prove that Segwit can handle large volume like that right now or fuck off.

>>5132369
No it doesn't, that's why BCH shills amuse me so much, you're so retarded that you didn't even bother to read what segwit did.

>>5132429
>The 2MB block size increase never happened
Segwit2x was to make LEGACY transactions 2MB and segwit addresses 8MB.

>>5132429
>Nobody ever argued Moore's Law doesn't exist or that Roger Ver is moving too quickly.

pretending that Moore's Law doesnt exist is they key element of the slippery slope falacy that raising the block size to two mb would centralize the coin.

Explain how this is not the case.

>>5132492
Do you? You thought you were running on a 2MB block size ffs. Do you even realize how Segwit handles digital signatures?

The salt from coreshills is going to flow heavily in 2018, I can't wait

>>5132369
They will increase block size if they can. They have a long list of things they want for a hard fork which shouldn't be rushed. A hostile fork that even tries to take the name is not "right" in any sense.

>>5132412
I've already explained how even if there is only one hub the problems with centralization don't apply, that one hub still obeys the contract enforced by the decentralized blockchain. All you have is your meme videos and sleazy salesmen and claim you have facts on your side. Demonstrate it, exploit LN, you will be a respected legend, the man who saved crypto.

>>5132342
>markets change overnight
No, I expect the most volatile market in the history of mankind to have given some sign at all that there is any validity behind BCH. No such sign has emerged after 3 months, despite BCH being the more profitable coin to mine multiple times. Miners had a chance to switch, and they didn't. MANY miners switched at one point very early on, and since then the number has only gone down each time BCH is more profitable to mine. People don't like Roger and they don't like (you); the markets have spoken. If you're so confident in bcash, short BTC and bring the flippening about faster. All you gotta do is push the price of BTC down ;)

>>5132342
I don't really understand what he's trying to convey either, BCH is demonstrably closer to competing with VISA than BTC is. All the numbers are kind of useless too without the necessary context and sources.

>>5132131
>Nobody said hard drives weren't cheap; the objection has always been you can't verify a 1GB block in 10 minutes without broadband internet speeds being consumed ferociously or drastically reducing the number of full nodes, which is the "centralization" you are bitching about.
Yes you can. You just need to have blockchain sharding which is in the works.

>>5132546
>things aren't happening instantly so they will never happen
you're a dumb dumb, we all saw the warm up flippening

The hardware to run a lighting network node will be thousands of dollars at least. and you will have to have at a very large sum of Bitcoin to be able to allow daily commerce to go through your channel.

Huge problem for pro lightning network people that pretend it wont centralize the coin.

>>5132546
It dropped to $300 after the corecuks sold their bags and is now at $2k. So a 6 times increase doesn't give it validity? Is this a joke?

>>5132531
Segwit nodes handle block sizes larger than 1MB, typically around 2MB. Its why my transaction fees have dropped back below $5.

>>5132547
>I don't understand
Then don't speak. It's out of kindness that I said anything at all ITT and it was because (you) were reasonable at the beginning. Good bait; go 10x BCH and 10x short BTC. Best of luck to you, can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

>>5132605
No Segwit moves signatures out of the block "effectively" giving them more space. But it is still a 1 MB block.

>>5132584
>dumb dumb
You're a fucking faggot.

>warm up flippening
You mean the biggest one followed by aftershocks that got shrugged off the following Monday?

Be honest cashies, how heavy are your bags?

>>5132544
Segwit was a hostile fork, anon.

>>5132546
>miners chasing profits debunks everything argued here
How many fucking times are we going to do this?

>>5132543
I dont think we will see the salt. The people arguing here right now dont even have arguments. They are hoping that calling people Roger will be funny and clever.

>>5132595
>centralize the coin
It's not "centralized" unless a central authority can take your coins. There is no risk if most transactions go through the same hub and if you dislike it you can route around that hub or just stay on chain with lower fees since most transactions are off chain. Do you have an actual argument?

>>5124184

You're underestimating the value people put into stability and security. BTC is the grandfather and has the least risk of fizzling out to 0 or being compromised, as far as most can tell.

This isn't software and it isn't a mere matter of "higher performance".

>>5132609
>It's out of kindness that I said anything at all ITT
get a load of this faggot

>>5132609
>I can't explain so it's bait
?

>>5132634
kek getting awfully mad boy

>>5132662
>miners chasing profits
What that means is that there has been at least 1 time when BCH had majority hash rate for minutes, and since then that has never happened again despite BCH being more profitable. They're NOT chasing profits; they're collectively voting on the coin that fucking works because the way BCH made it's low fees signals to every fucking miner that the moment the fees are high, they will be hardfork lowered by increasing block size. That means BCH is a shitty coin to mine because you treat your miners like shit. Just fucking switch to PoS like all the other "new and better" coins. You probably think there isn't a hard asset behind BTC, too.

Last post ITT cause fuck you guys. Here is the magic of BTC:
>miners commit hard assets in the form of electricity and mining equipment
>BTC protocol converts electricity into a storeable "commodity" called Bitcoin
>those who do not mine can use the stored electricity as a deflationary store of value or medium of exchange
>using it as either rewards the miners with either fiat (if the miner sold) or capital gains (if the miner holds)
>the miners continue to reinvest in more electricity and more mining equipment, increasing the hard asset backing of BTC, and subsequently driving the price up

>>5124537
>muh lightning network
Nucoiner faggot get out

>>5132669
>shut the fuck up
>So shut the fuck up
>You have zero room to fucking talk
>RREEEEEE "HATE FACTS!!!" REEEEEEEE
You just sound exactly like Roger.

>>5132697
>It's not "centralized" unless a central authority can take your coins. There is no risk if most transactions go through the same hub and if you dislike it you can route around that hub or just stay on chain with lower fees since most transactions are off chain. Do you have an actual argument?

Lightning network nodes need to know sending and receiving wallet addresses. This means that the nodes will easily be able to determine the identity of the senders and receivers.

Lightning network nodes are the IDEAL environment in which you can freeze peoples assets. Track all transactions and even be able to know the general location of wallet and a transaction.

If you are to use the closest major node for your transactions then that can be used to determine the location of where transaction took place.

Lightning network node owners can be audited by the IRS to gain information on all wallets and transactions.

You will have to worry about thieves tracking people down who have very large amounts of coins as well. As this will now be possible with this kind of system.

The FBI and the IRS will easily be able to freeze people assets and the Lightning network nodes will have black lists.

Banks will sell subscriptions to side chains that are faster and through this they will be able to know your identity associated with the wallet.

The list goes on. Basically centralized nodes are a bad idea.

Stop pretending BCH is the centralized coin compared to this dystopian shit show.

>>5132822
What to mine and fork.lol both show bitcoin being more profitable to mine.

>>5132838
hehe
I'm not though HAHAHA
I just have knowledge of the topic and get made at people WHO OBVIOUSLY KNOW the truth pretending that they dont.

Centralized Nodes / why is this even a debate anymore?

Your shitcoin has centralized nodes.

>>5132822
You can't fuckin' store electricity in Bitcoin, you retard!

>>5124239
"it will take some time for the market to adept to better technology" -- Betamax, 20yrs after VHS stole their lunch

>>5132870
We already know public addresses of all transactions. What's your point?

Any deviation from the contract is punished.

LN uses anonymous tor routing.

IRS can't connect the hubs to a person and any hub that tries to impose any sort of rules will just be blacklisted by the clients and routed around.

First you say it makes things easier to track, now it's harder.

No arguments for how this happens, just speculation based on poor reading comprehension. They have no authority as hubs, they just run the protocol.

Bank side chains will probably be a thing but that means the legacy banking system is interfacing and subjecting to the authority of the blockchain.

BCH is literally nothing but hot air.

>>5132822
most retarded guy in the thread

>>5133114
>We already know public addresses of all transactions. What's your point?

Well yeah, the point is now you can prevent those transactions ahead of time. Are you losing your mind?

Why do you think I brought it up. Did you think I dont know about the public ledger?

The entire point of the lightning network is to make it so you can control peoples transactions.

I mean you can sit here and attempt as hard as you can to paint CENTRALIZED NODES THAT CONTROL ALL TRANSACTIONS in a postive light.

But you dont even have public perception on your side attempting to make this arguments. Perception always trumps reality.

Even if the lighting network is the most pristein amazing and super private system ever made by mankind. Its still CENTRALIZED NODES THAT CONTROL ALL TRANSACTIONS.

Nobody will ever side with you on this in terms.

What I predict is that this bullshit will take both BTC AND BCH down. BCH will come out slightly ahead but the honest truth is that this shit storm is bad PR for both coins and there are plenty of better alts to choose from.

So while you argue for CENTRALIZED NODES THAT CONTROL ALL TRANSACTIONS most people are going to pass.

>>5133342
>most people are going to pass
"I know what the market's going to do"
"I've put money in BCH"
Choose 1 and only 1

>>5133114
>Bank side chains will probably be a thing but that means the legacy banking system is interfacing and subjecting to the authority of the blockchain.

By the way this is an obvious tell that you are shilling in the literal sense. You knew about this because were informed of it. Most normal people are not going to be ok with this. Anyone who is cool with this is or thinks its a good thing that benefits themselves is larping.

As far as anyone with brains is concerned, the only valid "side chain" is another fucking coin. Eat it you fucking shill.

>>5133462
I am out of both BTC and BCH because of this toxic bullshit. I got me some nice "side chains" Mother fuckers.

>>5133342
Everything you say rests on the idea that the hubs have control over the transactions. They don't. They just participate in the smart contracts enforced by the decentralized blockchain. Also there will be lots of hubs competing for the lowest fees but still even in the most extreme scenario like we've been talking about where one bank controls the network it still has no authority over the rules.

>>5133469
Blockchains are the future of asset management, banks are going to use that. If bitcoin becomes widespread they will interface with bitcoin through atomic swaps or whatever method making their chain effectively a side chain to bitcoin. If Lightning fails crypto crashes and they will push through their own mainstream chain like ripple or something and we will have lost the chance to take the control from them.

>>5133613
>They just participate in the smart contracts
No trustless transaction between two parties
>it still has no authority
Contradicts first statement

because shills like you I left the bitcoin brand for a new brand

>>5133725
What contradiction? Participating in a smart contract means you have no authority except what the rules allow, you're subject to the contract. Make a coherent sentence anytime guys then you can step up to making actual arguments.

>>5133822
So you assume they, whoever they will be, will just accept every contract from every address, being probably liable if they forward a payment that might violate the laws of their country or some international finance agreements.

Keep your over regulated open ledger banker coin. Anonymous P2P transaction between two parties without a third party with a moderate fee are still possible, and the networks are growing. Keep destroying the bitcoin brand. Ultimately the market wins
>ib4 just accept that having third parties on board is a good thing
Your opinion, I say no thanks

>>5133974
They have no choice, they either run the protocol and get severely punished if they try to subvert it or don't run it at all. Miners could just as well be called liable for every transaction made. They're enabling money laundering and all kinds of stuff you know.

>Anonymous P2P transaction between two parties without a third party with a moderate fee are still possible
Yes and BCH is not competitive as a means of transactions. Dogecoin is much better, Skycoin and others have zero fees and fast transactions.

>>5124184
> Bitcoin cash
> Owned by an insane hyper aggressive insecure madman who got upset when people found a nice short way of saying it because it removed "bitcoin" from the name destroying the leech potential
> Leeches off Bitcoin by trying to undermine and overthrow it's name admitted by roger ver twice now
> calls Bitcoin > Core in an attempt to not call it bitcoin giving it away if it wasn't immediately obvious already
Bcash could've been big if it hadn't been self destructively retarded and slowed it's own roll massively.
Basically it seems to be superior but they tried to scam with it putting huge red flags and a warning sign on themselves.

>>5133613
>Everything you say rests on the idea that the hubs have control over the transactions

I cant think of a single time where a centralized hub that was unnecessarily devised doesn't result in some ability to control the flow of information.

> Blockchains are the future of asset management, banks are going to use that.

Sure, and I don't have issues with this. Its the face of automation on the banking establishment. Good!

My issue is with a bunch of tards with the obviously centralized tech projecting bullshit lies on another coin that is depends more heavily on Moore's law which could kind of be argued that it slightly centralizes the coin more.

Seriously? Just admit that centralized hubs are fully centralized. Admit it and be done with it. You should arguing that its not as bad as it sounds. I don't need to be hearing people demonizing Roger Ver saying that he is centralizing BCH from the mouths of people pushing 110% no bullshit IRS can freeze your coins bank coins.

Have some degree of self awareness. Change the script to "centralized coins are the future" or some shit like that. Because that is the meat of the real argument here. The rest is ad hom garbage in an attempt to larp as pro bilderberg big bank anarchists...

IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE. Stop it!

>>5134217
>owned by

>>5134217
>muh 1TB HD

They’re 100$ for 4TB now, not 1TB.

Moore’s law reigns supreme, corecuck.

>>5134180
IOTA, Steem, SBD, EOS and at least a few others are fast coins with zero fees. A lot of you guys should be looking at SBD as its kind of a secret coin that's been doing very well.

BCH may get a visa debit card which in all honesty is the better way to do a lightning network anyway. Other than that, BTC and BCH are really not the best coins profit wise.

>>5134180
>the bee cash strawman
Where did I mention Ver coin? I said the bitcoin brand died for me, I have my alternatives, for after the end of this shitshow.
>miners may as well be called liable for every transaction made
That's a legal question that needs to be answered. For now, according to the FinCen regulations and EU guidelines, miners don't fall under such regulations because they are not really partaking in the "money" transaction as third parties, hubes, as contracting third parties forwarding transactions by opening "channels" might fall under those regulations, as one could put them on the same level as WesternUnion and such services

>>5134434
So go buy those shitcoins and we’ll stick with Bitcoin Cash, the only Bitcoin that uses Satoshi’s original protocol.

>>5134261
>I cant think of a single time where a centralized hub that was unnecessarily devised doesn't result in some ability to control the flow of information.
Mining pools are just as much centralized hubs as LN nodes and they don't control the flow of information, it's cryptographically verified, that's the whole point. Hubs participate in the protocol like miners. You are the one like a broken record repeating a script that has no basis in reality. I never even claimed BCH is more centralized, you just want to go off on tangents you copy from meme videos and snake oil salesmen.

>>5134261
>Change the script to "centralized coins are the future"
this is where they are gonna try to go

>>5134493
And why do I give a shit about US laws? They also say claiming to be a currency and unregulated money transfers are illegal. They can't enforce that anymore than they can enforce this bullshit speculation you're presenting as fact.

>>5134534
If I see significant advancement and when BCH gets on Coinbase I will simply view it as the real bitcoin. I am fine with holding at least a little BCH. And the Visa Debit card thing would get my attention for sure.

Until then, Good luck to you BCH holders. I have no qualm. I am just increasing tired of the toxic bullshit and other coins are proving to be better investments atm.

>>5134570
No they are not. Miners cannot censor your transaction. Lightning hubs can.

YOU FAGGOTS TOLD ME TO DIVEST IN EVERYTHING AND GO ALL IN ON BCASH SINCE BITPAY WAS ACCEPTING IT NOW I HAVE MISSED OUT ON SO MANY GAINS

FUCK YOU ALL.

>>5134570
>Mining pools are just as much centralized hubs as LN nodes and they don't control the flow of information, it's cryptographically verified, that's the whole point. Hubs participate in the protocol like miners.

Mining pools are still utilizing technology that is designed to be distributed. Lightning network HUBs are the exact opposite of that architecture.

The reason I am sound like a broken record is because I am having to play whack-a-cognitive dissonance.

The core architecture, the design of the system around mining is distributed. No one central node control, views and gates transactions like a network hub.

>>5134618
>Reeeeeeeeeeeing
tststs, keep it civilised beecore.
I really suggest you re read the part of FinCen regulation about money transmitter

>An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN’s regulations, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person.10 FinCEN’s regulations define the term “money transmitter” as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. 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.” 11

https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FIN-2013-G001.pdf

>FinCEN’s regulations provide that whether a person is a money transmitter is a matter of facts and circumstances. The regulations identify six circumstances under which a person is not a money transmitter, despite accepting and transmitting currency, funds, or value that substitutes for currency. 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff (5)(ii)(A)–(F).

So I guess in the US papa Joe want be your hub

>>5134217
>owned by

>>5124184
Bitcoin Cash actually takes around 1-2 hours to confirm and the fees can be 30 cents or more. Compare that to Dogecoin where confirmations are 20 seconds and fees are less than 1 penny. In fact you can specify them to be $0.000006 which is less than any other coin.

>>5134684
No they can't. They run the protocol, participate in a smart contract.
>>5134761
Demonstrate that hubs have this control and LN is dead but you can't. Your basic assumptions are wrong.

>>5134799
Virgin Btrash vs The Chad Dogecoiner

Btrash only wants to become like Dogecoin but it can't

It sucks too much dick

>>5134864
Yes they can. Any Lightning Node can choose not to route a transaction. If all nodes collude then specific persons can be disallowed from using Lightning altogether. The assumption is that one of the Lightning Nodes will route a transaction but even Andreas Antonopoulos speaks about this. He always says that if no one else will route your transaction, he will. And that is fine so long as he has enough channels open to find a route, but one node cannot have enough channels to route everyone.

>>5134950
>He always says that if no one else will route your transaction, he will
Well then the Greek might be ass raped by FBI and Interpol

>>5134999
Technically speaking when he says this it isn't true. You need enough channels to find a route. He would have to pay billions in fees to have enough channels to do this. He doesn't have billions so he can't do it.

>>5135044
Not to respond to myself, but it might actually take trillions seeing as there are 8 billion people so you would need at least one channel per person and under Lightning fees are expected to be far in excess of $100.

>>5134864
>Demonstrate that hubs have this control and LN is dead but you can't. Your basic assumptions are wrong.

Its good to see the goal post has moved to

"You cant prove that these super expensive to maintain centralized hubs that can only be run by people who can afford to run them wont be a weak link in the privacy and dependability of Bitcoin Lightning network."

This is good because the debate has actually moved forward.

bcash down to 0.094 kek; the lower the price goes the harder the shilling gets.

>>5135044
I'm aware about the technical impossibility. He will be also probably the first who gets banned from every bigger hub because known to route terror, drug and laundry money. But hey, it's the luckyless greek, who do you think paid part of his crippeling debts to shill for banker coin. He will always be the poor sucker.

These retards talking about money laundering regulations in the US don’t realize most of the mining is consolidated in China and China doesn’t give a fuck about American law.

Crypto’s will find a place to exist with or without the US. And if the US was smart they would invest in developing ASIC’s instead of trying to fight an idea that can’t be stopped.

>>5135123
>crippeling

>>5135160
Here is the clarification for miners from 2013
https://archive.is/Yj4AJ
>In undertaking such a conversion transaction, the user is not acting as an exchanger, notwithstanding the fact that the user is accepting a real currency or another convertible virtual currency and transmitting Bitcoin,

>so long as the user is undertaking the transaction solely for the user’s own purposes and not as a business service performed for the benefit of another.

And no this has nothing to do with china miner. But only LN in china seems not very efficient

>>5135117
Grats on making less USD though. I hear your coin went up about a thousand finally. Wasnt stuck for a week while EOS went to 7 to 9 dollars?

Nice coin though, big numba mean big money right? :D

>>5135267
Honestly I don’t give a shit what they say “mining” is.

The future is mining.

Either they accept it or they’re left behind.

>>5135452
i love the irrational delusion, honestly, you are too cute. Don't rope yourself

>>5135108
When I give you some of your retarded assumptions and show how even with them there's not a problem you twist that around as some victory. This is the power of cashie delusion, tremble before the reality distortion field.

>>5127823
it's comfy af on planet bch

>>5128754
There's room for both. Btc can be the p2p beanie baby system. Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin.

>>5124551
The size and speed of this economic bubble/boom is basically unprecedented

>>5130122
we do fix to chain by do thing off chain

>>5136666
>digits

wew lad. just bought 100k Bitcoin (cash)

REMEMBER REMEMBER

SATOSHI GETS TO DECIDE

HE OWN'S 10% of BOTH. THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN

>>5132279
this is the best bcore mongs have lmao

>>5136749
The Chinese will just fork it. They have more invested in Bitcoin than anyone.

>>5124184
Because it's a shitcoin that's only gained the position it currently holds because it's been pumped and promoted by Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Fake Satoshi etc. who are all involved for their own personal agenda. It is an attempt to co-opt and split the Bitcoin community. It's hardly surprising that it has a following of gullible people who don't understand the original intent of Satoshi when he created Bitcoin. It was created to displace the control of Central Banks and Governments over the wealth of the population by creating a secure store of value which will (eventually) mature into a currency to be used daily, not to initially buy cups of coffee in Starbucks - that won't change shit.

>>5137230
majoriety hashpoer is in chine

>>5137765
Not sure what you mean.

Bitcoin ———- Bitcoin Cash
|
——- Segwit Coin

>>5138018
Early Bitcoin adopters were too stupid to realize hash power controls the network. I knew that from day one, while you idiots talked about muh block size and other bullshit. Apparently the Chinese figured it out too.

The Chinese won, deal with it.

>>5138086
early bitcoin adopters absolutely understood that cpu power was critical

early on it was a gentleman's game where each would use maximum a handful of their own systems to hash out blocks.

you would know well that it was requested that early adopters be cautious in their contributions to the network at any given time to avoid 51%

>>5138264
I’m talking about the shift from GPU to ASIC where Butterflylabs ran a scam on people to source chips in China.