/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>6872520
You saved your OP image twice. OP confirmed deluded cashie who wants in on low price before pump with the news coming this week.

Don't worry, I wont spoil it for anyone who doesn't know already

>>6872558
What news? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>6872520
lol teeka pajeet said to buy bch up to 1500 tho

>>6872520
What happens today:
>btc diff jumping 20%
>bch/eur opening on coinbase
>Weiss rates BCH S-Tier

>>6872559
If you had to ask, you're not going to make it.

>>6872605
HAHAHAHAHAHA DELUSIONAL CASHIE

BCC is just as slow as BTC but none of the actual benefits of holding BTC

>>6872620
Cashies are retarded. Literally a cult.

Go suck Roger Ver's cock you faggot cuck nigger soyboy numale.

>>6872634
You're not even trying, man.

>>6872621
Dr Craig promised Visa scaling by the end of the year.

I'm all in on BCH for the moon that begins in the hours when Weiss rates it higher than BTC

>>6872663
>believing a con man who who literally reused one of satoshi's old public signatures

>>6872663
>>6872680
Good and fine and all, I'm more excited about the internet-less, app free way of sending transactions over texts. It might not cause hype right away, but it will have a huge effect on exponential adoption, especially in shithole countries.

Classic low effort FUD
I love you biz

>>6872768
Don't say you weren't warned.

OP you don't make any sense... Although I do agree, hodling BCH is perhaps the riskiest top 10 crypto you can hodl. Most likely to lose and shrink out for SEVERAL reasons.

Unfortunately BCH hodlers like to echo chamber themselves with comfy BTC fud and aren't making themselves aware of how much of a slanted gamble they're making.

>>6873106
What gamble? That pushing the global transaction volume through a 1mb second pipe is a fucking retarded idea? That lightning network after many years still has not solved the fundamental problem that guarantees it's centralised? That corecucks chose the wrong side of a brain burningly obvious fork and are now desperately trying to perform posthoc damage control as the market dominance bleeds out all over the place and king fucking neckbeard resigns in abject disgrace?
If anyone on the planet was least qualified to be talking about delusion it would be people trying to make the inverse case

>>6872731
How is this news coming this week? Their private beta isn't even starting this week I believe

Anyone knows who is behind CounterMarkets? Calvin Ayre?

Satoshi said big news coming this January but we're still waiting...

>>6872621
Such as constant bleeding. Or 45 dollar transaction fees? Or 24 hour wait periods? Or perhaps being taken over by the banks.

Man with all these great things going for BTC, you would think it would be 50k by now.

>>6873405
>he thinks craig wright is satoshi
You know he forged the signature right, you fucking idiot?

Delusional cashie.

>>6873524
Begone, Blockstream™ hired shill, how much do they pay you per post, 0.00000001 btc?

this coin has nothing to offer. They struggle with adoption. Roger posting stupid posters on twitter disproving himself in every stupid tweet like trump. This is new era of conspiracy coin 2018. News like fork blocksize to 32MB while they cant utilize even 1MB are not helping either.

>>6873592
You people really have no clue

>>6873106
>BCH is perhaps the riskiest top 10 crypto you can hodl

not if you got them for free lol
what news are we talking about here?

>>6873585
You can check it yourself if you know python, fucking idiot.

FWIW Im 80% Bitcoin but I think its fucking garbage and has no future at this point.
Not really sold on BCH enough to make the move yet just yet though.

>>6873633
The proof it was forged is flawed. He deliberately didn't prove without a doubt that he is Satoshi for reasons that go above your head

>>6873253
Bch is not competing with btc only, it's competing with all other cryptos. How is bch supposed to get more use than eth while being technically inferior in literally every aspect?

Your post is a good example of what >>6873106 meant by an echochamber

>>6872559
You do realize what's on the roadmap right. Smart contracts and tokenization so it matches with Ethereum. Zk-snarks through extension blocks so it has the best privacy of any coin without any of the risk of hyper-inflation like ZCash. These will all be coming in 2018. Even if that was the end of the upgrades to this coin it would still be the best on the market.

>>6873686

explain for a brainlet like me please?
I wanna learn more but there is so much fud in the whole BTC/BCH drama. please gib some good podcast or whatever where they explain this to a retard like me.

>>6873524
You know he posted a quote from Jean Paul Sarte with that hash, the man who declined a nobel prize in literature. The whole point of the hash he posted publicly was to say he wasn't going to prove he was Satoshi. (A smart move considering the UK was going to try and imprison Satoshi for ties to terrorism). Also the two people that Craig showed real hashes for believed him meaning he must have shown them something legit. Gavin Andresen even built a computer in order to make sure when Craig verified who he was there couldn't have been any funny business.

>>6873700
>Bch is not competing with btc only, it's competing with all other cryptos. How is bch supposed to get more use than eth while being technically inferior in literally every aspect?
Bitcoin Cash will have smart contracts, a larger blockchain (meaning you can do more smart contracts on it), and lower fees. It's true that Ethereum is the only coin that competes with BCH, but BCH is far more secure and you can do more on it.

>>6873592
>They struggle with adoption
BCH has been averaging triple the daily transactions Ethereum had at its age. How is that struggling with adoption?

>>6873700
There is value in the oldest and longest chain with the thickest armour in itself, as long as it's not a completely and utterly useless chain subject to sabotage. That is what BCH is, in light of what has happened to BTC. It's not at all accurate to say that ETH is flatly superior to BCH. They are different things with different advantages and disadvantages, and thus they can coexist quite happily. BCH is very simply what BTC should be, and BTC is dead and useless, a shambling disgrace which is weighing down the entire ecosystem. That is really all there is to it. None of that says all the other cryptocurrencies are worthless, just that BTC is and BCH is not.

>>6873820
And if it remains POW, it will still be worthwhile to people who have not yet made it.

Im getting a little sick of all these POS coins coming out.

>>6873700
Because it's devs actually want to be #1most used coin in the world not unlike most coins that just want to reach $0.10

>>6873820
If bch has equivalent functionality to ethereum it means it has the exact same scaling problems while being unable to switch to pos and having way less and way less talented developers.

>a larger blockchain

Eth has a dynamic gas limit, scalability problems are due to the execution speed of smart contracts, not block size...

>It's true that Ethereum is the only coin that competes with BCH

Eos, cardano, qtum?

>but BCH is far more secure
It has way less hashpower if that's what you meant.

>and you can do more on it.

Are you serious?

>>6872520

>>6873945
>If bch has equivalent functionality to ethereum it means it has the exact same scaling problems
Ethereum has a complicated programming language, BCH will do it in a far simpler and elegant way

>while being unable to switch to pos
Misses the role of miners in securing the chain

>having way less and way less talented developers.
Have a look at nChain and their patents, that they will apply exclusively to BCH

>>6873945
BCH might have scaling problems in a few years.
For now they can simply buy more harddrives fucking LMAO.

Do you think bitmain or calvin ayre or any other large miner gives a signle fuck whether they need to store a couple hundred more gigabytes?

How deluded are core shills?

The innovation coming to BCH in 2018 will be unprecedented. And you faggots will still be waiting for LN in 2019.

WHO DO YOU THINK WILL IMPLEMENT LN BRAINLET? BITPAY? COINBASE?

AHAHAHAHAH ALL, LITERALLY ALL BIG BTC COMPANIES HATE BCORE YOU DUMB FAGGOTS: CORE BURNED ALL THEIR BRIDGES

THEY WILL NEVER TRUST BCORE AGAIN

>>6873742
LOL nothing like this is on roadmap. https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/cash-development-plan

>>6874058
reactivation OPcodes clears the way for everything he said.
Didnt you know Bitcoin could have had all that years ago if it hadn't been cucked by Bcore?

>>6874034
>Ethereum has a complicated programming language, BCH will do it in a far simpler and elegant way

Ethereum has EVM and other languages are compiled to it. Also now you're not arguing based on facts but dreams. Is there even a draft of that bch's language?

>Misses the role of miners in securing the chain

The goal is to secure the chain. If pos works it performs the same function while being orders of magnitude cheaper and more scalable.

>Have a look at nChain and their patents, that they will apply exclusively to BCH

Are you suggesting wright is going to patent troll ethereum?

>>6874058
lol BCH has dozen of teams developing for it. You have forgotten the power of open source after living with Core/Vitalik for so long

>>6873945
Ok, you fail to understand these coins tackle smart contracts in far different ways, but Gas is the pricing of running smart contracts in Eth. With BCH there will negligible fees as the blocksize allows for far more space for smart contracts. You can't say that block size doesn't limit smart contracts in Eth when Gas is literally the pricing paid for a miner to include your smart contract (that's another way of saying if you don't pay a high enough fee it won't be put on the blockchain). With BCH the size of the blockchain makes this a non-issue. When I say you can do more on BCH its because they plan on 1GB blocks. Vitalik is completely opposed to this and he will do anything to ensure average computers are still full nodes. If your average computer is a full node then the gas limits imposed will make you unable to any large scale smart contracts. At 1GB blocks you can do an immense amount of smart contracts. You people fail to realize it is the blockchain that makes a crypto-currency and with a blockchain that is going to be exponentially larger than all other cryptos then BCH will be exponentially more capable than all cryptos. Please explain to me how Ethereum can compete with the amount of smart contracts BCH can offer if BCH has block sizes orders of magnitude bigger than Eth? This isn't that hard.

>>6874058
There are six teams working on BCH each with an independent roadmap you fucking retard. You chose one and thought it was all. Congrats, you ate too much lead paint as a kid.

>>6874058
https://www.yours.org/content/adding-zero-knowledge-to-bitcoin-cash-95a2a022a387/
Here's what you were looking for.

>>6874106
No thank you i don't listen to conspiracy theories, i verify. Maybe you should onbaord Alex Jones to help you spread your core propaganda.

>>6873945
POS takes value away from a coin. Crypto was meant to be a thing that people could them selves mine. Proof of Stake makes any coin more centralized by nature.


If you are poor living in a poor place you have no hope of mining Stellar. But if you happen to get your hands on some electricity you can mine Bitcoin.

If you are living under communism and your currency just inflated 1,000,000% in a month, you have no hope of securing your wealth in 2018 Ethereum but if your fellow capitalist pig friends can get some PCs together, you can mine bitcoin.

I love how rich liberals living in 1st world countries are the only people bitching about the costs to mine crypto. Those bleeding heart champions of the poor and impoverished.

>>6874112
>The goal is to secure the chain. If pos works it performs the same function while being orders of magnitude cheaper and more scalable.
Think about this logically. If I want to perform a 51% on a POW coin I have to invest billions in mining gear. I will lose all those billions in mining gear due to the attack. The only coins I can double spend during the attack are my own coins so I need to spend more billions on coins. Now for POS all you need to own is coins. So with POS there is a much lower barrier to entry for a 51% attack. It's not that hard. Don't get me wrong POS is alright, but its just not as good.

>>6874145
who told you this bullshit ? its not true. If so it will be published.

>>6874112
>Is there even a draft of that bch's language?
https://nchain.com/en/blog/nchain-innovation-computational-flexibility-using-the-blockchain/
https://nchain.com/en/blog/bitcoin-cash-development-testing-accord/

>The goal is to secure the chain. If pos works it performs the same function while being orders of magnitude cheaper and more scalable.
https://nchain.com/app/uploads/2017/07/Proof-of-Work-and-the-Firm.pdf

>Are you suggesting wright is going to patent troll ethereum?
Vitalik would have built smart contracts on Bitcoin had Core not prevented him to do so

>>6874050
>For now they can simply buy more harddrives fucking LMAO.
>>6874123
>but Gas is the pricing of running smart contracts in Eth. With BCH there will negligible fees as the blocksize allows for far more space for smart contracts

Eth scalability problems are due to propagation and verification time, not block size limit.

>Vitalik is completely opposed to this and he will do anything to ensure average computers are still full nodes.
>Please explain to me how Ethereum can compete with the amount of smart contracts BCH can offer if BCH has block sizes orders of magnitude bigger than Eth? This isn't that hard.

Gas limits are set dynamically by the miners (stakers in the future). There's no hard coded limit.

>>6874201
>If you are poor living in a poor place you have no hope of mining Stellar. But if you happen to get your hands on some electricity you can mine Bitcoin.

Are you fucking serious? A poor person is going to buy a bunch of antminers and mine profitably?

>>6874246
>Now for POS all you need to own is coins. So with POS there is a much lower barrier to entry for a 51% attack.

Non sequitur, it depends on how much these coins are worth compared to how much a mining equipment is worth.
The problem with mining is that the cost of an attack is a function of burned energy which can't go up indefinitely and depresses prices. With proof of stake there's no theoretical limit.

MUH FULL NODES

>>6873750
This is the "proof" signature that Wright provided proving he's Satoshi:

MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VTC3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

Pic related you can see the command to decode it from base64 and encode it as hex.

Now look at
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?

and

https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?format=hex

If you put the content on the second page into https://blockchain.info/decode-tx you can see it's just the public signature on Satoshi's transaction.

Literally all he did is take a publicly available signature from Satoshi and encode it in base 64. Craig Wright is a fraud and anyone who believes in BCH is being taken for a ride.

>>6874442
They already do that in shithole countries you fucking ignorant liberal. Pull your head out of Stalin's ass sometime and expand your mind. They are counties with actual use cases of crypto, because you need a truck load of your own counties currency to buy the gas it took to get to the gas station. But bleeding heart liberals will donate solar panels and shitskins will sometimes figure out how to make them work.

>>6874486
>corecucks truly are this dense
He was exposed as satoshi, or part of the satoshi teamn via his email getting hacked.
Only after that he produced fake evidence in order to get the press and coiners off his back and it worked.
Do you realize the ramifications he would face if he actually proved it?

Being known as fraud by a bunch of brainlets that cant put 1+1 together is far comfier than being known as Satoshi Nakamoto.

If you think Bitmain and Ver and Ayres and Gavin would work with him if they thought he was a fraud is maximum retard. He prroved it in private to all of them newfriend.

>>6872520
Kek Corecucks absolutely shitting themselves, they just cannot stop talking about Cash Chad

I haven't even claimed my coins, not about to now

>>6874583
>guess I'll just pay those fees.

>>6874431
>https://nchain.com/en/blog/nchain-innovation-computational-flexibility-using-the-blockchain/

That's not a draft, that patent tries to patent a general idea of turing complete scripting without any implementation details. It's also worthless because it would apply to ethereum which was the first. Pure patent trolling.
It's also laughably incorrect: "The Ethereum blockchain platform approaches this is
sue by incorporating a “built in”
Turing complete language called Solidity". That's not a claim so it doesn't invalidate the patent in itself but it shows what a fucking clown Wright is.

>https://nchain.com/app/uploads/2017/07/Proof-of-Work-and-the-Firm.pdf

Are you just going to dump random articles by this faggot? You are in effect trying to DOS me. Summarize the argument.

>>6874520
>If you are poor living in a poor place
>They already do that in shithole countries

???
Not everyone who lives in a poor country is poor.

>>6874442
>Eth scalability problems are due to propagation and verification time, not block size limit.
Look, I said from the beginning there are really only two coins in crypto. Ethereum and BCH. I like BCH you prefer Eth, cool beans. No other coins have developers like these two and no other coins are capable of things like these two. As a final point block propogation is less of an issue when you don't expect home computers to run your full nodes. That's why I like BCH, it expects industrial capacity machines to run its system. I don't think home computers can match industrial machines.

>>6873635
When do you plan to cash out of bitcoin?

>>6874647
This is the final redpill.
BCH/ETH split it the only 100% viable long term hold with guaranteed gains right now.

BCH faggot

BCC = bitconnect

>>6874575
How can you be so pathetic ? do you support BCH ? You are arguments are pure joke.

>>6874738
>You are arguments
Illiterate corecucks. No surprises ITT

>>6874486
Why didn't you post the full text you tard.

>“If I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre it is not the same thing as if I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prizewinner” – Jean-Paul Sartre, 1964
I remember reading that quote many years ago, and I have carried it with me uncomfortably ever since. However, after many years, and having experienced the ebb and flow of life those years have brought, I think I am finally at peace with what he meant. If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.

This is what Craig posted. Unless you are a retard you would realize he is saying he doesn't want to be known as Satoshi, so he won't prove it. What makes you think he would quote a man who turned down a nobel prize and say how it applies to him unless he was turning down something of extreme significance? Why can't any of you think? I'm not saying he is Satoshi, but only a complete brainlet would assume he was trying to prove he was Satoshi with this post.

>>6874818
I did not format that correctly. Craig's full post is what follows.

"If I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre it is not the same thing as if I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prizewinner” – Jean-Paul Sartre, 1964
I remember reading that quote many years ago, and I have carried it with me uncomfortably ever since. However, after many years, and having experienced the ebb and flow of life those years have brought, I think I am finally at peace with what he meant. If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.

>>6874818
Read http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/05/satoshi-how-craig-wrights-deception.html instead of falling for a bunch of damage-controlling BS.

He's a fraud and you're falling for it by pulling on the ambiguous and non-falsifiable threads he's leaving for you. Classic con artist trick

>>6874890
You're joking right. The hash you posted was literally posted with this text and statement. What do you want from me? I literally completed the partial evidence you provided. They are both the same piece of evidence. Everyone knows what he provided wasn't proof. The only people Craig showed real proof to were Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis. Gavin built a new computer before Craig proved who he was through his private keys so we know Craig didn't hack Gavin's computer. We don't know for sure whether Gavin saw legitimate evidence as we weren't there, but Gavin has never backtracked on his claim Craig is Satoshi. All I'm saying is there are only two people in the world (other than Craig) who know whether or not Craig is Satoshi and they both say Craig is Satoshi. Please stop with this entry level bullshit you are doing. I know Craig didn't provide public evidence, but he literally tells you in the post you are providing that he wasn't going to provide public evidence and you are acting like its some big fraud. If the guy tells you flat out he won't prove it and then he doesn't prove it why would you be surprised?

>>6874637
Obviously the dictators and warlords are well fed. Try leaving your comfy boarders and visiting a less polished country.

I like you anons. April 2018. It is known

>>6874890
https://www.bitsonline.com/matonis-wright-linked-firm-nchain/
Also why would Jon Matonis immediately go and work for Craig if he knew Craig was a fraud. Remember, Jon knows for a fact whether or not Craig is Satoshi and he immediately became Craig's employee. Again I'm not saying I know if Craig is Satoshi, because I don't. But those who do trust him.

>>6874999
Did you even try to replicate the steps in the blog?

You, too, can prove you're satoshi.

>Please stop with this entry level bullshit you are doing.
Your argument is literally "he quoted Sartre and Sartre and Sartre turned down public recognition, therefore Craig Wright is Satoshi!!!"

I think I will choose cryptography as evidence over pretentious references to dead existentialist philosophers.

bitcoin core will go the way of the dodo when they realise just how mongoloid LN is. That is, if they ever even get it out of the door.

>>6872652

It's a pajeet attempting to seem normal as you see with the overdone meme bullshit and blatant Ver attack

>>6875058
>Also why would Jon Matonis immediately go and work for Craig if he knew Craig was a fraud. Remember, Jon knows for a fact whether or not Craig is Satoshi and he immediately became Craig's employee
This is an appeal to authority. We don't know Jon Matonis' motivations so why speculate about them?

>>6875041
>Obviously the dictators and warlords are well fed. Try leaving your comfy boarders and visiting a less polished country.

How is that an answer to:
>A poor person is going to buy a bunch of antminers and mine profitably?

Are you finally agreeing that no, poor people in poor countries aren't going to buy an antminer s9 and mine profitably?

>>6874738
You are probably replying to Craig himself. All he does all day every day is post diatribes online claiming he doesn't care what people think about him. He hasn't demonstrated yet that he has any valuable technical or organisational skills to offer anybody, except defrauding the Australian government of $30m AUD. Even without that cunt bch is needed. You can't even transact on btc anymore.

>>6873795
That never happened. Gavin paid for a laptop to be bought from a store in London but it was an underling of Craig who bought it. Gavin also claimed after the fact that he didn't attempt to verify the signatures in depth. He just watched Craig do it on a machine provided by his assistant and believed him. He even said after the fact that he was way to trusting. He was tricked.

>>6874637
I despise Craig's writing style. It shows how he isn't technically proficient at all and can only speak in buzzwords. Every one of his patent applications are total garbage rehashing existing work in his own shitty writing style. Is there anyone from the community officially objecting to these trash patents?

>>6875129
BCH is superior.
Nobody knows whether Craig is Satoshi but he probably is.

Copelets will be FOMOing into BCH soon.

>>6875078
>Your argument is literally "he quoted Sartre and Sartre and Sartre turned down public recognition, therefore Craig Wright is Satoshi!!!
No my argument is that you are saying he tried to prove he was Satoshi while using as evidence a post where Craig said he would never prove he was Satoshi. I keep telling you I don't know if he is Satoshi. How do you not understand? Why do you keep saying Craig was trying to prove he was Satoshi with that hash when he was blatantly saying he would never prove he was Satoshi? What has you confused?

>>6875184
>Nobody knows whether Craig is Satoshi but he probably is.

>>6875189
>No my argument is that you are saying he tried to prove he was Satoshi while using as evidence a post where Craig said he would never prove he was Satoshi
So your argument is literally non-falsifiable? Nice, good to know you believe in bullshit.

>>6875171
>That never happened. Gavin paid for a laptop to be bought from a store in London but it was an underling of Craig who bought it. Gavin also claimed after the fact that he didn't attempt to verify the signatures in depth. He just watched Craig do it on a machine provided by his assistant and believed him. He even said after the fact that he was way to trusting. He was tricked.
Redoing my homework you are right it was a laptop and he didn't build a desktop. But it was not a Craig underling who bought it and it hadn't been tampered with before Gavin turned it on (not sure if Gavin bought it himself, but if it wasn't he went with whoever bought it). Also Gavin still says he wasn't tricked and he would know as that is his profession.
https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/

>>6875205
>We don't know Jon Matonis' motivations so why speculate about them?
We don't know Craig Wrights motivations so why speculate about them?

Real SN didn't come forward to disprove Craig. Or maybe CW killed the real SN or knows the real SN is dead?
Now thats speculation, brainlet.

Him being an angry unlikeable australian diesnt mean he isnt Satoshi.
Even if he proves it 100% many reditors wont accept it because they want SN to be an utopian cyber-communist. Not a full on libertarian capitalist.

>>6875227
>So your argument is literally non-falsifiable?
No, my argument is that you are a dumbass for continuing to say that Craig was trying to prove he was Satoshi while using as evidence a post where Craig says he will never prove he was Satoshi. How do you still not understand? Craig never tried to publicly prove he was Satoshi. That means each time in this thread you repeated that Craig's public proof was invalid you were simply relaying to the rest of us you are retarded as no such event ever occurred. What you keep using as evidence for your point is literally evidence that Craig never tried to publicly prove he was Satoshi. Why is this so hard for you? Just say you were wrong guy. It's not that hard. I'm not asking you to say Craig is Satoshi, I'm asking you to say that Craig publicly admitted he would never prove it.

>>6874668

Ill definitely take profits after the next pump.
And I do believe BTC has some juice left in it profits-wise. Just dont think the coin has any future longterm. But Im certainly not selling now after it has crashed like this.

>>6875321
>Him being an angry unlikeable australian diesnt mean he isnt Satoshi.
So do you believe him forging a signature on some random text is proof that he's satoshi? Serious question.

>>6875443
>So do you believe him forging a signature on some random text is proof that he's satoshi?
And now we have more retards? Do you not understand that entire post was him saying he would never prove he was Satoshi? How are you idiots so dense? I don't understand how Craig Wright can come out and say "I will never prove I am Satoshi." and then you idiots say 'Oh look at that his proof he is Satoshi is invalid'. Of course it is you dimwit, the so-called "proof" you are alluding to is him saying he would never prove it.

>>6875418
>Craig says he will never prove he was Satoshi
So it literally can't be verified or proven incorrect that he's satoshi. aka non-falsifiable. Any claims to him being Satoshi are pure bullshit, just as valid as me claiming I'm satoshi (but I'll never prove it!)

Kinda convenient that when he has to provide real cryptographic evidence he suddenly welches out on his retarded claims, huh? And then all his retarded fanboys claim "oh well he said he'd never prove it so clearly that means it's him! look, he quoted Sartre!".

Pseuds worshipping a pseud fraud.

>>6875443
No I believe I don't know whether he is satoshi.
But I think its very likely he fucked up the proof on purpose since outing himself for real would destroy his and his families life.

He only came forward with the fake proof after there was a raid on his home with "satoshi nakamoto" on the warrant and after someone leaked a dump of his emailacc to some newspaper.

Being known as fraud is easier than being known as the creator of bitcoin who holds 1 million BTC, BCH, BTG.

Imagine the amount of media attention and hacking attempts and kidnapping attempts he would get if it was 100% proven he was SN.

>>6875487
>Do you not understand that entire post was him saying he would never prove he was Satoshi
Because it's bullshit.

I'll never prove I'm Satoshi either. I guess according to your brainlet logic that means I'm Satoshi.

You know the reason public-key crypto exists is to ensure trustless verification and communication right? You believing blindly that he's satoshi is almost in complete contradiction to that.

>>6875314
Gavin's quotes in that article are open to interpretation. He never said as a fact that Craig verified his identity, only that he was convinced on a personal level, and that he expected proof to be forthcoming. The prevailing theory among security professionals at the time is based on analysis of the timeline leading up to Craig's "big reveal":

Satoshi's old email, forum, and other online accounts were hacked by an outside party, no information in them had been deleted. The accounts were likely initially hacked on behalf of Craig wright, who used the information to trick Gavin and others to build a profile of him being satoshi, since he had all of satoshi and Gavin's old communications. Separately, Craig also made a trust in a tax haven claiming to own all of the satoshi coins totalling about half a billion at the time, then used that as evidence to the Australian government that he had financial reserves to pay them in case of him being convicted for fraud by the aus gov. There is a bunch more evidence that supports this hypothesis.

Why would Craig spend 6 years defrauding the Australian government of research grants if he was really satoshi, had access to the satoshi coins, and intended to set up an offshore trust to make the funds accessible either directly or to lend against? Craight wright stinks of shit to high heaven. He is almost certainly a conman and everything he has done since the reveal has supported that, including patenting existing block chain technology as his own IP, and making massive grandiose claims about what he is doing in regards to development of BCH. There is no evidence he himself or anyone who works for him is doing any substantial work on ANY crypto technology.

>>6875162
>You can only mine bitcoin on ant miners

And you once again show how fucking ignorant you are.

Why not support both coins? Unless you're a newfag that didn't hold any during the fork?

>>6875853
BTC has dropped 70% market share in the past year. It won't be long before we hear the death rattle.

>>6875894
whoa i'm convinced, btc is worthless

>>6875823
If you try mining bch on a non-asic all you are going is waste money for electricity. You would be way better just buying coins for that money. The key word is profitable. Stop trolling.

All mining does is incentivize the creation of giant mining farms owned by rich people.

>>6875941
And now you show how short your attention span is. 5 quotes in and you already forgot where the conversation started.

You must have had a very poor diet as a child. You should blame your parents for fucking you over.

>>6875894
wow im never buying bitcoin again

And again corecucks abandon thread after defeat.
Each one of these threads brings more neets onto BCH. Blockstream better start buying some mods in this joint.

>>6876164
You got complete BTFO in
>>6875566
>>6875803

Why are you acting like you won? LOL

>>6876239
Here have a meme. Feel free to post it after FOMOing into BCH next month

>>6876164
such a beautiful picture in such a cool context, nice!

>>6876286
Delusional cashie.

>>6876239
We need BCH. Craig being a dirty rat doesn't change that. BTC desperately needs a block size increase.

>>6875974
>>6876164
All you did was shit on the board and claim victory against imaginary 'corecucks'.

The nice thing about free market is that eventually the bubble's going to pop and everyone holding shitcoins like bch is going to lose money. Devoted fanatics are never going to sell anywhere near the top.

lol, who the fuck wants to use a chink bitcoin? there's 50 "forks" of bitcoin now, which are all really airdrops, and bitcoin cash is just one of them. headed by a scam artist and unstable manchild (who on a completely unrelated note sold all his bitcoin for alts).

bch is a speculative coin only, it's not solving anything, and the people working on it are going to be beholden to all of the real developers working on projects in bitcoin and ethereum to get any real technological improvements. they're not developing anything novel themselves.

bcash is literally litecoin, lots of hype without anything to show for it, and both are literally dependant on bitcoin never getting lightning in order to survive, or ethereum never taking over bitcoin.

>>6876386
>the only coin pushing for actual IRL adoption using its billionaire backers funds cant survive free market
>meanwhile BTC has 0 usecases and is losing the adoption it spent 9 years building up in a matter of months

>>6876386
>core

Core being shit is not relevant to anything I have said. Damn son you are stupid.

>>6876474
>the only coin pushing for actual IRL adoption using its billionaire backers funds cant survive free market

One Roger Ver who uses his shares in bitcoin companies to force them to adopt bch because he bought hundreds of thousands bch cheap VS thousands of companies and startups + thousands of developers building things on ethereum

The outcome is clear

>meanwhile BTC has 0 usecases and is losing the adoption it spent 9 years building up in a matter of months

Why are you still fighting against imaginary enemy? There's literally one post >>6872621 claiming that btc is a bit better than bch, that's it. Presumably due to brand. Nobody fucking cares about btc anymore, get over it. A dinosaur that's going to lose to ethereum in 2018 and that's going to be it.

>>6876692
ETH will be strong as well.
ETH = World computer
BCH = World currency

BTC will become irrelevant though

>>6876692
what about satoshi(craig)'s vision??

BCH will get a good rating by WEISS

BCH shills think in black and white. When you say their fork is a piece of shit, their tiny delusional brains must label you as a Bitcoin advocate.

>>6876748
>ETH = World computer
>BCH = World currency

Except eth is better at being a currency than bch. Smaller transactions, faster confirmations due to ~15s block time (plans for <10s with PoS). No price bleed due to mining in the near future. Ethereum is better than bch in literally everything.

I disagree with 1mb blocks, thats pretty retarded but whats wrong with segwit?

>>6876844
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY

Only a secure network can hold value. BCH was designed to be intrinsically insecure, because it was forked to allow Bitmain dominance.

Splitting mining into various subsiduaries doesnät hide the fact that Bitmain runs a monopoly on that network. They can flippen all your Bcash into their own wallets whenever they like. Ain't nobody gonna risk their shirt on that kind of honeytrap.

>>6876833
BCH 0 conf transactions are nearly instant, you only have to wait to see that nodes have that transaction in their mempool, which is the theoretical limit for transaction times

why are ETH transactions smaller?

>>6877146
What a bunch of BS. Both are sha256.
Btmain has same dominance on mining BTC as it has on BCH

>>6877243
>BCH 0 conf transactions are nearly instant, you only have to wait to see that nodes have that transaction in their mempool, which is the theoretical limit for transaction times

No 0-conf transactions aren't secure in the slightest, read this
https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/686365181241212928

that was without RBF.

>why are ETH transactions smaller?

Two reasons: (1) because eth has an account model, meaning you don't need a change address. (2) Because there's no sending address nor its public key, they are inferred from the signature. Bch/btc explicitly put in public key(s) + originating utxo.

>>6877476
Yes, you can doublespend them

you can also charge your coffee CC transaction back, if you want to be a scumbag

the point is 0 conf transactions are for smaller transactions where you can assume most people are not trying to scam you for $10

>>6877250
Bitmain has had as much as 90% dominance on BCH at points. It had +50% dominance for a lot of the first two months after the fork. It can recoup that dominance at any time, if it wishes to.

A lot of crypto noobs never learned about the significance of the "51% attack", which was considered THE existential threat to crypto for the first 6 years of its existence. It is very real, and very serious. You simply cannot put money in BCH and hope that it moons. Because, if it does, all of your holdings will be at risk as soon as it is profitable to take the network hostage again.

>>6877476
So what's the benefit of having the transactional model instead of the account model?

Is it easier light client implementation?

>>6877604
BCH will have almost all of BTCs miners because BTC will be spectacularly unprofitable in comparison

>>6877555
>you can also charge your coffee CC transaction back, if you want to be a scumbag

The difference is that cards with chargeback are inherently tied to an identity and chargeback under false pretenses is a crime.

Fast confirmations in eth make 0-conf irrelevant, after PoS wait for one block is going to be as fast as card payments are.

>>6877617
>So what's the benefit of having the transactional model instead of the account model?

It's necessary for smart contracts because it means you can have state that can change. In the utxo model (bch/btc/ltc) you can only create new state, it's much more inefficient.
For payments in particular it means that change addresses aren't necessary, because spent amounts are subtracted from your address rather than spent 100%. This inherently makes every btc/bch transaction bigger.

>>6877702
PoS is untested on a major coin

There's valid security concerns.

I read about attack factors on PoS. For one thing, I can buy up all the accounts that USED to hold significant amounts of ETH and don't anymore. I can use that to chain-reorg nodes since I now control 51% of HISTORICAL ETH and I can convince enough nodes that my history (after PoW is over) is the correct one.

PoW coins have immutable history because you can never accumulate enough work to uproot the entire history

>>6877835
my question is why did Bitcoin go with the transaction model instead of the more intuitive account model

>>6876775
KEK

doge got a better rating than BCH

>>6877878
>I read about attack factors on PoS. For one thing, I can buy up all the accounts that USED to hold significant amounts of ETH and don't anymore.

That's fixed by having a 'network consensus'. Basically you see that all other important nodes (exchanges, web wallets etc) are on one chain and some random ip show you another.

I used to believe this was a problem but don't anymore. Bitcoin would self-destruct if a hostile fork larger than ~10 blocks occured because that would every exchange and payment processor. A day-long fork would be armageddon.

Which means allowing the possibility of forks that are too deep is fundamentally pointless.

Temporary consensus in pos is enforced by stake locking, I think it's supposed to be several months in ethereum.

>PoW coins have immutable history because you can never accumulate enough work to uproot the entire history

That's false, it's only a matter of money. It only costs about $30M in energy + capital amortization to mine btc for a day. At some point - probably after the next halving or two - old asics are going to cheap as dirt (being inherently unprofitable) - from closure of old mining farms - meaning access to mining hardware stops being a problem.

>my question is why did Bitcoin go with the transaction model instead of the more intuitive account model

Who knows, you would have to ask Satoshi

>>6878230
having a hostile fork exist for this long is nearly impossible, because Bitcoin mining takes as much electricity as to power most of the countries in the world, you need a state actor to do this

> That's false, it's only a matter of money. It only costs about $30M in energy + capital amortization to mine btc for a day.

It's very impractical, compared to just buying up old accounts

if you're saying you need to have network consensus... well that's basically relying on a social solution to a technical problem

Might as well just buy XRB now and call it a day if you believe in the social solution (PoS, trusted nodes, etc.)

Disclaimer: I'm long BTC, BCH, ETH, XRB

>>6878363
same portfolio. Its the safest call for 2018.
Pretty sure its impossible to lose that way

>>6878363
I think POS, like communism, looks good on paper and makes feels goods for liberals. I do not think it will work in the long term.

It favors the rich over the poor, its less secure, less options more centralized. It cuts out to much of what made Bitcoin new and exciting.

>>6878363
>having a hostile fork exist for this long is nearly impossible, because Bitcoin mining takes as much electricity as to power most of the countries in the world, you need a state actor to do this

That's because most countries are small. If you have asics all you need is a place with industrial power connections and about ~$40M and you can rewrite one full day.
Wait for two halvings + a price drop and that goes down to single millions.

>well that's basically relying on a social solution to a technical problem

Currency is inherently a social construct and mining is hilariously insecure and wasteful. It can never work in the long term.

>Might as well just buy XRB now and call it a day if you believe in the social solution (PoS, trusted nodes, etc.

No, it's exactly like choosing between btc and bch, different forks of the same chain. The difference is in timing and required size of a conspiracy. In XRB you trust particular nodes now. In PoS you rather choose the network. One network has lots of currently active entities (that you know exist) transacting and validating. One has only old accounts.

>>6878805
The original chain can just fork off, like ETH did. If you want to claim social solutions, I can use one myself.

> In XRB you trust particular nodes now. In PoS you rather choose the network.

XRB is PoS as well

LOLd

>>6878893
Forgot to write that bch only requires ~$4M today.

>The original chain can just fork off, like ETH did. If you want to claim social solutions, I can use one myself.

I don't get your point here

>XRB is PoS as well

Is it actually PoS? I thought you have to choose your own nodes to trust

>>6878980

Bitcoins current cheap fees aren't rated in, though. With them BTC would be a B+ at least.

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-state-by-fee-level

>>6878985
you choose the node that represents you

but you trust a vote from all the nodes, weighing them by the amount of XRB they have or the people that trust them have

so you just have a few nodes (probably exchanges and payment processors) that people want to trust so they choose them as their representatives

but when it comes to the question of transaction ordering (some nodes say A happened before B, some say the opposite) you check the XRB totals

>>6874890
>>6875078
>>6875129
>>6875227
>>6875443
>>6875525
>>6875566
You are a fucking retard. I own no BCH and even I can see past your bullshit strawman
response.

>>6879025
its still 7$ average fees dipshit

>>6879051
>but you trust a vote from all the nodes, weighing them by the amount of XRB they have or the people that trust them have

What does 'xrb they have' mean? Are they locked in so that they can stake? There's a difference between the nothing at stake problem in the span of minutes vs months.

NXT and (apparently) XRB work because they have very centralized ownership

Btw did you know that the only reason bch is alive is because bitmain mines at a loss? How is that for a 'technical solution' huh?

>>6879319
I don't think they are locked

BCH is pretty break-even on mining, it's sometimes more profitable and sometimes less

Unless they've been unprofitable for a long time and I didn't notice

>>6879230

A small fraction pays 15x more than they should, for whatever reason. Link confirms.
It's probably Coinbase bleeding their users a little for fun. It's not their BTC anyway so why would they care.

>>6879384
>BCH is pretty break-even on mining, it's sometimes more profitable and sometimes less

That's the problem.
You finish a profitable block, difficulty rises. Now you should switch to btc and wait for some loser to mine an unprofitable block(s).

Bitmain is this loser. They constantly mine unprofitable blocks. The moment they stop the network dies.

To be fair, btc has the same problem, it's just that it's way bigger so these oscillations would kill bch way faster.

If miners were efficient and not operate based on 'social' reasoning bch wouldn't be to survive.

>>6879558
>wouldn't be to survive
*wouldn't be able to survive