/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>57189184
its not decentralized like Bitcoin(BTC) BCH is centralized like every. single. other. coin. other than Bitcoin(BTC). give it up Rodger.

>>57189211
no it’s not

>>57189223
yes it is

>>57189184
bch was trading above $600 before the bsv fork
I'd say its all fucked

>>57189245
no, it’s not

>>57189272
Yes, it Is.

>>57189289
Ok, enough. burden of proof is on you so do it

>>57189289
no, it’s not

I agree with Roger on many things, hence why I advocate for monero.

>>57189389
Let's make buying explosives from Facebook fun again

Forks always lose to the original chain

>>57189184
My literal halfwit schitzo brother used to always ramble on about bitcoin cash becoming the predominant cryptocurrency.

>>57189184
>Is it dead? I’ve got a soft spot for it
yep me too, and it's one of the coins i've used a lot the past few years. it is/was accepted everywhere as payment. and when you have the choice between btc eth and bch. with bch being the cheapest. then its easy.

I don't think it's dead. but there's also no hype for it and a lot of people just follow the herd belief of "BCH MAN BAD" then they go complain about 20 dollar bitcoin fees or buy a printed air shittoken ( sergey printed 1 billion tokens and gave 650 to himself, and dumps when his company needs money lol)

>>57189245
>>57189211
bch is more decentralized than BTC. all BTC developers are under control of blockstream's owners.

>>57189184
It's not fast. It's just cheap because no one uses it. It can't scale to any meaningful demand. I mean it can but then you end up with a centralized network like Solana. Big blocks are just stupid AF.

>>57191016
32mb blocks aren't that big tho. its medium blocks. bsv is doing big blocks.

>>57189211
u drank the koolaid

>>57191249
there was a calculation the other day done in the BCH group. that if a guy DCA'd BTC , and in 500 Transactions collected 1 bitcoin the other day and now wanted to move that one bitcoin. (with 20 dollar fees) he would have to pay around 0.4 bitcoin, on top of what he already paid in fees to collect these bitcoins to his own wallet.

Basicaly BTC (core) is becoming unusable for payments below mega millions of amounts. if small blocks are kept. of course it doesn't matter if you have to give up a few bitcoin to send 1000 bitcoins. but well if you aren't a mega multimillionaire..... you literally can't use BTC. BCH still holds true to the whitepaper title "PEER 2 PEER ELECTRONIC CASH" and I admire that about the BCH camp. the coin is actually usable.
if you want to spend 10 bux, 50 bux, 100 bux, if you want to spend 1 bux, 10 cents. a few cents. 10k. 100k. BCH works and is nice to use. Personally I use what is available. and I don't use BTC UNLESS i have to make a more than 50k usd payment right now.

>>57189184
i agree with your sentiment anon, but not sure it will be a winner. I still believe BTC will have big problems in the future due to governance, but BCH still has those problems. You'll just see another fork probably.

i still hold a small bag, but have been holding said bag since 19

>>57191307
>I still believe BTC will have big problems in the future due to governance,
proof of stake will also give problems with governance. i mean yeah things get decided fastly, but the problem is once you have 51pct of stake you decide everything forever. you see...with POW you vote with mining power. that's why the hash war happened. and it was a close call. BCH almost won. but then it didn't. BCH is just as legimate as BTC

>>57189184
I've been back and forth between BCH and LTC for payments. I would (and have) used straight BTC but now the fees are higher than what I'm paying for, even with minimal utxos, so I basically have to sell BTC for LTC/BCH to get the job done. It's easier and more efficient to do this than the lightning network in practice (which is embarrassing for BTC maxis); I don't have to worry about a channel closing or funding a channel or a custodial lightning node wallet or whatever.

Why not other coins? Because they're not as well accepted, and because the infrastructure to run your own node/wallet/payment processor is near identical to BTC for BCH/LTC.

Is BCH dead? I hope not. I got a lot of it for free during the fork, and I think raising block size was the right solution back then (and it's basically too late now, the war was already fought and lost). I feel like we're in the clown timeline where the consensus chose not to increase the block size because it felt like such a no brainer back then.

But BCH has become more centralized around a few players. I've met Roger and have no doubt he's a true believer/evangelist, but I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Pretty sure the main LTC guy(s) publicly sold their bags which might be the better thing. Both networks seem to run just fine though.

Honestly, at this point I'd pick whichever one most closely correlates with the BTC price.

And before it's brought up, no, BSV is not as easy to run your own node/wallet/payment processor. The software pipeline is not there, and the engineering decisions they've made over time seemed to have arbitrarily and needlessly raised the bar to do it. Further, even running it you're opening yourself up to "Satoshi" suing you if you do something on their network or with their software that they don't like. I wouldn't touch something that litigious with a 10ft pole.

> t. perpetually nostalgic 2011 bitcoin-qt contributor

>>57191495
>so I basically have to sell BTC for LTC/BCH to get the job done
i actually use bitcoin/crypto a lot to and this is exactly what I do too, i also use XMR if that is an option. BTC has become unusable. I don't even think about using it unless its for 50k+ dollar amounts.

> Pretty sure the main LTC guy(s) publicly sold their bags which might be the better thing.
in POW networks having a bag doesn't mean anything. you don't control votes in the network by holding the asset.(like how it is in POS)

> And before it's brought up, no, BSV is not as easy to run your own node/wallet/payment processor. The software pipeline is not there, and the engineering decisions they've made over time seemed to have arbitrarily and needlessly raised the bar to do it. Further, even running it you're opening yourself up to "Satoshi" suing you if you do something on their network or with their software that they don't like. I wouldn't touch something that litigious with a 10ft pole.

BSV is basically becoming a datacenter only coin. where you need direct fiber from node to node where no one other than you is using it. raising the block size is the right choice, but you have to wait for the networks to become faster too. keeping it at 1MB is completely retarded, making it 512MB right now is completely retarded. BCH wins with medium sized blocks at 32MB.

pic related, the BSV blockchain size, because some people even use it to store weather data and other useless data . and thats when its not even used a lot lol. imagine everyone start to use BSV as datastorage. it will crash soon.

>>57189211
I hate all the grifters like the old homo larping as Satoshi and boomer faggots like Ayre but legit still like Ver. He just really wanted Bitcoin to be used as a pratical payment solution.
Oh well there is still Monero.

>>57189184
>Is it dead?
yes
Monero fills the niche for a dynamic blocksize chain
+ state of the art privacy chain
+ bcash as a fork just air-dropped a bunch of coins to btc holders, and gave them ammunition to kill the price, discouraging miners

dead project

>>57191534
>keeping it at 1MB is completely retarded
it's perfectly reasonable to want the largest cap coin to maintain a bloat control over it's chain size
instead of raising the blocksize, it's easier to make another chain

>>57189184
I feel similar feels about LTC.

The thing with BCH is it sits half way between BSV and Monero leaving it with an identity issue and therefore no adoption.
BSV has scale and uses the original Bitcoin design. Monero allows for all the anti state anarchy that Roger and many early Libertarian Bitcoiners believe in.
BCH has a little from one camp and a little from another, but it never fully committed to any one idea.
And that is why it only bleeds users and has zero adoption, avoid it.

>>57191761
I'm ok with how things are, but I just don't use BTC how things are. and that will eventually drain value from it. and im not exactly poor. but like i said, i already don't consider to use bitcoin under 50k transactions. and those don't happen a lot.

>>57191925
>BCH has a little from one camp and a little from another, but it never fully committed to any one idea.
it also means its not being delisted everywhere, like monero tho. and im a big monero fan.

>>57189184
It's a fork and the original chain will always win. There is better luck with Supra mainnet than bch.

>>57192207
>and the original chain will always win
technically BSV is closest to the original protocol. you just don't know what you are talking about.

>>57191724
having met Ver in person, i completely agree with this. as said before, he's a true believer and evangelist. if he's a grifter it's probably because he actually wants the ideals behind the white paper to succeed, at any ethical cost, because the "ends justify the means".

>>57191747
Monero isn't trivial to run a node, easy to understand at a technical level, or easy to run a proper wallet without having to be subject to third-party risks/attacks (effectively everything is SPV). i like Monero like i like Tor, it just isn't practical in the real world, not enough people use it to actually provide proper anonymity to the point *any* activity is suspicious rather than the norm. and it's irrefutable that the mass delistings are a problem that has no realistic solution to get adoption high enough to solve the previous issue; same as Tor's universal CAPTCHA problem.

>>57191761
there's got to be a compromise though; you've got to be moving 5 figures right now to reasonably justify a transaction with the fees most days and it's only going to get worse. unless you find a reasonable end goal is just to have it be a settlement layer among banks, in which case we're fundamentally arguing for two entirely different use cases, but you wouldn't be wrong.

>>57191925
>>57192165
there's another aspect to "Bitcoin Cash" in that the name is now baggage rather than an advantage. it's confusing to newcomers and a grift when people like Ver outright refer to it as "Bitcoin". having been involved in the ATM business, we had to delist BCH from the ATM due to the normie confusion factor, but we were easily able to keep Litecoin.

>>57192142
same boat, i use the chain for 1+ BTC only and keep the inputs+outputs at 2-3 total. and that's almost exclusively going to exchanges/services either to cash out, send to someone else on the service for free (off-chain), or shift to another coin that i can actually pay with. there's no way the average (or above average) user can say the same.

>>57192943
>Monero isn't trivial to run a node
it is
>or easy to run a proper wallet without having to be subject to third-party risks/attacks
it's super easy, you're making shit up out of your ass

>you've got to be moving 5 figures right now to reasonably justify a transaction with the fees most day
again
lying your fucking ass off
non-priority exists and you can rebroadcast transactions at any time
+ you were probably silent when fees were low mid June
no wonder maxis went insane, you bcashers are fucking snakes

monero invalidates your whole fork and makes it look amateurish
the part about a node being "non trivial" when the GUI exists is just a fucking jewish-tier lie
bcash to zero

>>57191495
>needlessly
Satoshis says the only nodes that matter are run by miners.
>Lmfao

>>57193021
>non-priority exists and you can rebroadcast transactions at any time
nigga im not gonna pay 20 dollars to send 100 dollars, i am also not going to put the fee at 2 dollars and then have to wait a week to hopefully get it boradcast on sunday night. LOL. a lot of times when you pay with crypto there's a 2 hour window or something , if the transaction isn't there before the 2 hours pass your transaction process is completely cancelled. for many services its even only 30 minutes. in other words. BTC is unusable. XMR usually isn't accepted, sadly. and its getting delisted everywhere. it's already not available in a lot of asian countries. its banned lmao. bch isn't banned.

>>57191279
Two words: lightning network

>>57192943
>it's confusing to newcomers and a grift when people like Ver outright refer to it as "Bitcoin".
well i guess there's 3 in 1 here. like jesus the father and the son. lel

>>57193150
I aint got time for that experimental bs. and I'm a compsci guy. imagine a normal person having to set up lighting channels and having to keep it open. and all that b.s

lighting only for thee nerdiest of nerds. no one else wants to deal with that.

>>57193021
> you're making shit up out of your ass
i've had every economic and idealistic incentive over the years to adopt Monero. i've been running (and helping) Tor exit nodes for over a decade. how many nodes of Monero do you run, and how many commits (to literally any crypto project or protocol) do you have under your belt? Monero is as close to an ideal as what i wanted in terms of privacy, usability and accessibility. it just never got there in practical terms, and now that it has been squashed out to the same level as Tor, i don't think it gets to a reasonable usability/accessibility level now, beyond even just technical reasons.
> non-priority exists and you can rebroadcast transactions at any time
it's actually a problem, if you broadcast with too low of a fee an adversary could continue to rebroadcast your transaction when you want to bump the fee because it took longer than you expected. RBF helps handle this but you can still saturate and delay transactions because of the way it's implemented. picking a correct fee is non-trivial. most of the time i tell people to ensure you're an output so that you can CPFP as an escape hatch.
> you were probably silent when fees were low mid June
i was, because the network/price was uninteresting, who would even be there to listen except contrarians. i was taking advantage by consolidating utxos though, but i've done that between bubbles for awhile now. one of the larger demands in BTC custody for business these days is optimizing when to consolidate utxos, and how often, when to, and how to batch while processing withdrawals.
> no wonder maxis went insane, you bcashers are fucking snakes
i'm probably closer to a maxi than a bcasher, I haven't used bcash in a few years now. even back then, it was only what i got for free on a fork. i never recommended anyone buy it. i just advocated for a block size increase.

>>57189184
20k this year. 100k in 2025.

>>57193264
breh you crazy. if it wasnt obvious most people still herd mentality shit on BCH. if it hits a good 2000 dollaroos its a success.

>>57189211
>he thinks BTC is decentralised

Lol, lmao even.

all crypto is a shitcoin.

>>57193046
> Satoshi says the only nodes that matter are run by miners
you realistically need to run your own node if you're running an exchange or service to reliably speed up your ability to query, watch and broadcast to the chain in realtime. i suspect large exchanges will need to run, or partner aggressively with, miners to ensure they've got an escape hatch for things like stuck transactions, protocol attacks and to have some say in any future (if any) forks. also privacy.

>>57193150
unsurprisingly i'm also with >>57193158
i've been sitting on the sidelines waiting for LN to be good enough to use, and trust me, i've wanted it to succeed. i traveled to sit thru talks and spoke with the devs/speakers in person at Stanford's BPASE (they renamed it since) in 2017 thinking maybe i could finally become informed enough to contribute/participate. i walked away disappointed, and things haven't improved since, and have only gotten more convoluted. let me know when the friction and fee to open a channel is less than buying/selling into another chain like BCH or LTC. right now the only reasonable option for LN for the average user is custodial wallets; i'm really only interested in self-custody.

>>57193276
i agree, i don't see BCH or LTC competing price-wise unless it catches up in an ETF or something. they may have the advantage of "inheriting" eligibility since they have stuck so close to BTC from a genesis/protocol/implementation standpoint; it's pretty aggressively implied that they have inherited "non-security" status. short of that, Bitcoin sucks and succeeds on first-mover advantage, and those two coins don't get the same "pass". they're uninteresting compared to anything more modern as well.

in summary, if BCH was going to "succeed" in the way it was intended to, it would have already. but i would not argue it's unusable/useless any more than LTC is, and are still better than many other modern alternatives. that honestly has no affect on the price though.

>>57193276
K

>>57193367
>unless it catches up in an ETF or something.
there's rumours of BCH ETFS, also there's the BCHG grayscale thing.

BCH is not some kind of illegimate thing. it already gained legitability from tradfi. unlike BSV which is delisted on the major trading exchanges

>>57193384
there's honestly no reason BSV should have any less of the advantage BCH does, except for the technical choices mentioned prior in the thread. it's still as fast to transact as BCH/LTC, but running your own node is not trivial. but as far as i know, nobody has airdropped, printed, or fundamentally censored the network in a way that diverges from the attributes that would set BCH/LTC in the realm of "non-security". however, the litigious nature of the primary advocates/players for BSV will make large institutions pass on it over others because they will realistically find that risk expensive and annoying. these same reasons are likely why it was delisted; for exchanges it's orders of magnitudes more arbitrarily difficult/expensive to run your own BSV node compared to BTC/LTC/BCH, and they don't want to have the legal exposure.

anyone qualified and with the same resources (ie hardware & man-hours) that can run and manage BTC wallets/services/payments are equally and automatically knowledgeable and equipped for BCH/LTC. the same cannot be said for BSV (any more).

>>57193465
>there's honestly no reason BSV should have any less of the advantage BCH does
all major figures in both the crypto world and the tradfi world don't like bsv.

even kraken exchange has monero, but not bsv. heh.

>>57189184
Garbage, token not needed. For cheap (and private) payments you use Monero.

>>57194582
token very needed. I usually spend monero but i have to switch to something else a lot of times, cause xmr is not accepted. usually i have to switch to bch or ltc which are almost always accepted.

>>57189184
It's a bad investment but I use it to pay for my VPN.

>>57194730
funny how this thread is one of the few only ones that isn't just pajeets shilling a scam.

>>57189184
Keeping hold of mine, it's being used in the superyacht sector. Also, if Cashrain gets rolled out properly, could take off. But who knows.