/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54217789
Normies will get it when fee rise above 100$ per transaction for bitcoin.

Monero is better.

>>54217789
>Bitch and whine all you want
Does anyone here care what OP does with his own money?

>>54217789
>all my money is going here.
I own a decent amount of BCH I won't go all in on any asset.

>>54217789
Where? How? Help.

bcash? cuckcash? um, no

>>54217789
bcash already lost. it has literally nothing going for it.

>>54222668
oh look at that, bchbtc is at new atl.

>>54217789
tech illiteracy gives you people like op
bch is literally nothing

>>54217789
Nice. It's gonna moon soon.

>>54222822
view it against btc it's even better!

>>54222822
Wtf happened in the last bull market, why was the price action on bch so anemic Compared to 2017?

>>54221295
What's a "decent" amount of bch?

>>54225281
what happened is bitcoin proved that bch has no usecase in comparison.

>>54225305
I own a little over 25 of them. They were pretty cheap when I bought them.

BCH oldfag here. I was a believer back in the day full force. That shit is dead af

>>54225652
Do you ever plan on selling them?

>>54217789
kek. leave us alone roger

>>54217789
>BTC GOLD
>LTC SILVER
>BCASH CASH

>YOUR BRAIN: FULL OF SHIT

>>54217789
you only need 0.1% of BTC's hashrate to completely fuck over BCH network and re-org it.
how can you hold this and sleep with no worry?

I'm not buying anything with Bitcoin in the name unless it is fucking Bitcoin. Name it Cashchain or something, literally anything else.

>>54226792
Yeah if the price is insanely high or I absolutely need to convert it for dollars.

>>54226953
Or if there is something that looks like a much better investment

>>54225281
It was suppressed by whales. It's gonna hit at least 4k in June.

>>54226878
Don't worry the BCH developers thought of that and they added in a checkpoint system so that they can roll back the blockchain in case of a reorg. They also added dev tax to enrich themselves.

>>54227600
>They also added dev tax to enrich themselves.
No that ended in a hard fork. BCH doesn't have a dev tax.

>>54217789
This thread is probably bait. But take the bait and help educate you just in case you really are this retarded.

BCH currently only has 0.39% of the hashrate of Bitcoin: https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate

BCH is abysmally insecure. (BCH's hashraate fluctuates between 0.15% and 2% of Bitcoin's hashrate)

And there are currently only 799 BCH nodes: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/nodes

Meanwhile, there are approximately 52,000 Bitcoin nodes: https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html

There are even 16,385 public Lightning Network nodes: https://1ml.com/

Not to mention that a single group controlled 80% of BCH's hashrate for a long time (the same group that created BCH) and AntPool alone controlled over 50% of the BCH hashrate for years.

The fact is that Bcash has no long term future and I'll explain exactly why in the following paragraph.

In case you aren't aware, the transaction fees in each BCH block are always less than $5, and almost always less than $1.

Here is the most recent BCH block mined: https://explorer.btc.com/bch/block/784740

As you can see, it only contains a measly 0.00155146 BCH of transaction fees (worth 20 cents) and this is completely normal for BCH.

Bcashers are either scammers or they've been scammed themselves and they are just too stupid to understand that BCH having such big massive blocks and not really having transaction fees means there wont be any incentive for the BCH miners to continue mining BCH after over 99% of BCH has been mined in the year 2032. Maybe the same group that created BCH and that has always controlled the majority of the BCH hashrate will continue mining BCH at a loss when there is no longer a block reward in 2032. But will the group that created BCH continue mining it without a block reward? Possibly, but BCH's hashrate would be less than 0.1% of Bitcoin's hashrate at that point (BCH's hashrate already remains between 0.15% and 2% of Bitcoin's hashrate).

>>54227558
This sounds like average cope desu.

>>54227793
Most of the hashrate on BTC is mining at a loss also.

>>54227793
sounds bullish to me

>>54227793
well said anon

name one thing BCH can do better than BSV. There's nothing. BSV has more capacity and lower fees while having a far more capable scripting language.
More scaling means more transactions means more transaction fees for miners means more proffit. BCH, BTC, ETH, etc all lose to BSV here.

>>54222785
The irony of this post

>>54227793
>Bcashers are either scammers or they've been scammed
Nah, it was more akin to Bitcoin than BTC.
No shame in admitting that BTC won, fairly or not.
AVAX is the new BCH, and if people were really into BCH they would have made it from the ICO alone. Cashies got to join at $0.33. If you're a cashie, but didn't buy pre-ICO or at least ICO AVAX wtf were you thinking

>>54217789
theres gold (btc) and then there's cash (bitcoin lightning)

>>54230476
>and then there's cash (bitcoin lightning)

>>54217789
lmao a bcash shill in the wild? in 2023? for real? kek

>>54227793
>Bcashers are either scammers or they've been scammed themselves

the way this works is that baggies get scammed on a coin, then realise their only hope to recover anything is by sub-scamming some even dumber baggies and cashing out on them, and so on and so forth all the way down, down, down until you get to the theoretically dumbest baggie physically possible (IE OP in 2023).

This is the reason even the most blatant scamcoin never quite hits zero or disappears entirely, theres always a greater fool to pass your losses onto. Its a shame, the world would be a lot better if scam coins ever actually fully disappeared instead of just accumulating forever like dick cheese in some rancid crypto cock.

>>54229226
Yea, but just like BCH is to Roger Ver, BSV is to Craig Wright which is a far more severe embarrassment of association.

>>54225815
Same. I dropped my BCH bags when Ver started shilling HEX.

>>54226814
rodger ver was right tho. I actually think it's sort of cool that he chimped out on that BTC retard for slandering BCH. Fuck dumbass bitcoiners

>>54229226
>all lose to BSV here
Craig can't code. without Roger he would have nothing. Ver has done more for bitcoin than bsv ever will. just facts.

>>54217789

>>54227989
You wouldn't know a bull if you were wearing red and it stuck its horns right up your arse.

>>54219234
/biz will get it when fees rise above 100$ on BCH too.

>>54217789
>I own a decent amount of BCH I won't go all in on any asset.

Same, I hold probably about 70% BCH.
Profits have been shit but besides the attack it's amazing.
Working version of bitcoin without all the complex bullshit you have to deal with lightning network and the transaction fee is nothing like not even a penny and smaller transactions are all instant.

BTC scammed you all lololololol enjoy your #1 spot for the time but BCH is a real working Bitcoin.
It's only a matter of time before enough people start to notice.

-OG bitcoin'er since 2011

>>54227793
Luke jr writing this fucking post lol I know it's you

Why did bitcoin not scale on chain answer that. BCH proves that the block size needed to increase and it would work. Regardless of wasted block space who gives a shit right now I can buy a 2TB hard drive for $100

Also who gives a shit about the nodes the miners are the important part and yes you have a point all the hashing power is on BTC. But what you didn't mention is the algo is the same SHA256. and when BCH becomes more profitable to mine what happens.... The miners move to BCH, So you better hope you can do the 51% attack before that day comes..

BCH is the real bitcoin because it wasn't stolen from the people and turned into some bottle necked piece of shit blockchain so a new layer could create profits for the devs.


Satoshi Nakamoto -2010

"The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling."

This statement indicates that Satoshi believed that Bitcoin could handle a large number of transactions with its existing block size and network infrastructure.

However, in 2013, he also wrote in an email to Mike Hearn:

"I don't anticipate any serious problems, but the block size limit needs to be increased."

>>54236980
Top kek, thanks for the laugh

>>54217789
Bee-cash kek is this still a thing?
Is op being funny do people still hold this? Surely this is a joke right?

>>54237830
>still a thing
Literally all early bitcoiners chose BCH back in 2017.
I'm sure most of us gave up, but why are you acting surprised, these are the same people who were being told they're crazy for buying $20 BTC.