/biz/ - Business & Finance

I'm unironically all in on BCH. When Bitcoin split on August it wasn't BCH that was the only fork. BTC in its current form is also a fork. Just because it is a 'soft' fork doesn't mean it isn't a fork.

Unfortunately most Core supporters and developers really have no understanding about how bitcoin even works. At its heart Bitcoin isn't primarily a "cryptocurrency" -- it's an economic competitive game. The security is economic in nature. That is why Core has made such tremendous mistakes with it -- they may be good at certain things, they may be good cryptographers or whatever, but they don't understand economics or the structure that makes Bitcoin work. It's why they keep saying stuff like bigger blocks will centralize the network because not everybody will be able to run a node. If they knew how the network model worked they would know that is a totally false statement. Nobody's home node is EVER going to put a transaction into a block. Non mining nodes add nothing to the system. Bitcoin is not a mesh network with a bunch of little node hops. It is a tightly connected network of MINING nodes (emphasis) and it is the MINERS that decide what goes into a block. Miners vote with their CPU power. People don't understand and thinks running their home node adds some kind of decentralization or benefit to the system -- it does not. In fact, leaving the block capped at 1MB has done tremendous harm to the security of bitcoin, as evidenced by its total loss of market dominance and the fracturing of the cryptocurrency economy into all these little altcoins and different blockchains. 99% of altcoins could have been done on the Bitcoin network if it had been allowed to grow freely.

Fortunately we still have the original roadmap of Bitcoin in the form of BCH. It will take it a while to become apparent, but soon enough it will be obvious which system works, and which one does not.

Just reminding you that Nano beats your bitcoin clone in every way possible

If I had bitcoins before the fork, do I have these coins as bitcoin cash coins?

>>7255622
Bitcoin cash is the definition of a shitcoin money grab.
The big boys dumped already.

>>7255622
all that matters is do dummies want to hoard it in hopes it will go higher

>>7255622
BCASH fags are more deluded than linkies.

>>7255728

https://youtu.be/QbvtAlmfYQI?t=5m3s

BCH
>tokenization coming in 2018 (OPcodes will be activated in May)
>smart contracts coming in 2018 (OPcodes will be activated in May)
>Bitpay rollout coming Q1 2018
>Coinbase global BCH rollout in almost complete
>nChain will release several patents and gift them to be used in BCH
>Calvin Ayre started a new Marketing campaign pushing merchant adoption
>Roger Ver and Nchain are also launching a large marketing campaign right now
>Has network effect only rivaled by ETH


BTC is destined to fail:
>It doesn't work anymore
>LN isn't coming 'in the foreseeable future and wont be adopted anytime soo after it comes
>Core wont fix blocksize ever
>Even normies already know this
>ETF proposals getting withdrawn

>>7255655
>Just reminding you that Nano beats your bitcoin clone in every way possible
Its not a blockchain and the security of the system is highly questionable. I think ensuring my money is safe is a high priority.

>>7255622
Why using Bcash when Satoshi's true vision is already supported by the real deal?

Bcash has such an autistic name. It just doesn't flow right. Destined to fail, aesthetics are everything.

Everyone with a IQ higher than 80 has at least 40% of the portfolio in BCH.

>>7255876
>Bcash has such an autistic name. It just doesn't flow right. Destined to fail, aesthetics are everything.
Not an argument as that isn't its name and you know you can't refute any of the points posted here, but I'll play your game. If BCash is the insult for supports of Bitcoin Cash I think its better aesthetics than the Segwit Soyboy name you have. Would you rather be a Cashie or a Segwit Soyboy? The choice is obvious.

>>7255728
>BCASH fags are more deluded than linkies.
Does anyone who supports Segwit have any actual arguments? Do you know what an argument is?

>>7255928
>ad hominem and implying normies have ever heard the term segwit
I wasn't even trying to poke fun at you with the bcash meme. I meant it's actual full name is dumb and ugly sounding.

>>7255622
Just reminding you bitcoin cash is forever tied to king shitcoin which will take everything down to the gutter and bitcoin cash isn't gaining enough traction to counteract this.

>>7256114
>I wasn't even trying to poke fun at you with the bcash meme. I meant it's actual full name is dumb and ugly sounding.
Then why didn't you call it Bitcoin Cash rather than calling it BCash which wasn't the name you thought sounded autistic? You seem to not understand what you're trying to say. Also I didn't use an ad hominem, I argued about which ad hominem seems to sound worse to outsiders. Segwit Soyboy sounds worse than BCashie or BTrashie.

Every single Bitcoin Cash supporter seems to be an INTJ type ancap

>>7255814

Satoshi's true vision is supported by the real deal, yes; the name of which is Bitcoin Cash.

>>7255689
Yes

>>7256158
>Just reminding you bitcoin cash is forever tied to king shitcoin which will take everything down to the gutter and bitcoin cash isn't gaining enough traction to counteract this.
I think most people investing in Bitcoin Cash are waiting for the next bull market before they expect Bitcoin Cash to approach prices of Bitcoin Segwit. This isn't a short term play. If you want protection from this bear market you should have bought gold awhile back.

>>7255622
>Just reminding you that Bitcoin Cash has been trending upward since its release.

what if core devs randomly decide to increase block size? bcash loses the only "upper hand" and crashes to oblivion.

>>7256258
Thats because Bitcoin cash is the real Bitcoin and anybody who started between 2009 and 2013 has ancap tendencies because OG bitcoin is deeply libertarian and capitalistic.

>>7256391
Are you immune to basic facts? This first settled at .07 and is now around .14. Just look at that chart, its slowly trending upward with massive pumps followed by smaller and prolonged dumps.

>>7256449

>>7256449
The problems with Bitcoin Segwit are only indirectly associated with blocksize. Segwit is the real issue and you can't reverse that. It's why Bitcoin Cash split before Segwit. With Segwit you remove the fraud proof nature of the blockchain and open it up to many mining attacks that make it technically possible (though very hard) to make fraudulent transactions. Since Bitcoin Cash doesn't remove the signatures from transactions you cannot make fraudulent transactions.

>>7256483
Where the hell do they get this idea that it harms decentralization? Not even Antchink has problems yet with a massive 8x increase in blocksize. Lying jews.

>>7256483
they are being smart abou it, increasing block size is really lazy.

BCH has already fucked me hard since it was added to cuckbase but unironically I want to buy in again.

Yet every time I hold off buying more it drops again. Every coin is on an uptrend now except for BCH, which has only gained half a percentage.

Seriously, what a shitcoin.

>>7256257
>again ad hominem and implying normies will ever hear the term segwit in their entire life
Because bcash is quicker to type. And ironically sounds better than the full name. Normies will never know what a segwit soyboy is. They will never know what a btrash or crash or whatever is either. They will see bitcoin, and bitcoin cash. One implies it's the real deal, the original, the genuine article. One implies it's a spinoff, and an ugly nigger spinoff at that. Stop getting so defensive.

>>7256552
Why do you care if doing the right thing is lazy? Do you like having a federal reserve "stimulating" the economy because otherwise the government would be too lazy too?

>>7255622
Will, will and will. There are bunch of coins already doing these stuff. You're saying that I should get specifically this one just because it has Bitcoin in its name and in the future it will implement technologies that punch of other coins already have? Why do BCH guys feel so entitled.

>>7256552
>increasing block size is really lazy.
This is completely wrong. The whole reason that Bitcoin Segwit has small blocks is so that they can limit the amount of work done on the blockchain. The side trying to limit the work done on the blockchain is the lazy side. The side trying to do as much work as possible cannot be lazy. Again you should read my original post as Bitcoin Cash does literally everything Bitcoin Segwit does and then some and this is only possible through large blocks.

>>7256552
>losing any and all merchant adoption it took9 years to establish
>smart
corecucks everybody

>implying ETH Casper will not put BTC & BCH in the grave forever

PoW is doomed to die.

>>7255622
nice try but i still won't invest into Bcash, ETH and LTC looks great right now.

>>7256630
Not a BCH shiller, but PoS has already existed a long time with other coins. Mostly it has remained a hybrid of PoW and PoS though.

>>7256618
>>7256628

calm down lol. I dont even have btc, nor bch. They are both shitcoins in my eyes and Im rooting for eth. Im just saying that btc is the lesser shitcoin than bch. I think LN is a much better long term solution than increasing block size.

While I agree Core has one of the dumbest devs in the field and made BTC useless for at least a few years longer, BTC still has the brand name for the time being.
This guy explains it far better than me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD9MqRwEaQQ

Im unironically all in bch. Mixedfeels. Iq 450

>>7256746

you dont need to use an infographic to explain the block size increase when the only two points of it are faster and cheaper transactiona

>>7256566
>Normies will never know what a segwit soyboy is. They will never know what a btrash or crash or whatever is either.
These are the same arguments used against Bitcoin in the beginning. "No one understands the blockchain or a what a decentralized peer-to-peer cash system is. They will never use it." This argument is irrelevant as the whole point is to create a user experience where people are using Bitcoin Cash for transactions without knowing they are using it. With fees of basically zero you can switch most of the world over to doing transactions in Bitcoin Cash but with these people still receiving other currencies. That is how Bitcoin Cash wins and it is what the big players are already doing.
https://coingeek.com/centbee-to-deliver-a-game-changing-eco-system-replacement/

>One implies it's the real deal, the original, the genuine article. One implies it's a spinoff, and an ugly nigger spinoff at that. Stop getting so defensive.
A couple things. Only Segwit supporters call Bitcoin Segwit Bitcoin so as soon as public opinion shifts Bitcoin Cash will be called Bitcoin, and then once its adopted worldwide it will simply be called Cash. Two I still haven't insulted you or your side (until the end of this post) so I'm not sure how that's defensive. Three you keep saying you're not throwing insults at Bitcoin Cash as you call it things like a nigger spinoff. Man up and just say your insulting it rather than doing this passive aggressive feminine shit.

>>7256791
No, blocksize really has no difference on fees and speed unless you have full blocks. The most important point of it is actually being able to handle transactions at all.

>>7255622
>at its age
kek
it's the "let's cherrypick one arbitrary straw to grasp at" while the reality is that your bags are getting heavy, with little to no upside going forward

>>7256630
>implying ETH Casper will not put BTC & BCH in the grave forever
Again you should read my post. Bitcoin can do tens of thousands more smart contracts than Ethereum. Casper is a non-issue if Ethereum can't compete with BCH in terms of performing smart contracts.

>>7255622
>Bcash
Hahahhahaha
What a joke

>>7256706
>I think LN is a much better long term solution than increasing block size.
Did you read my post? Bitcoin Cash has lightning as well and it is more efficient (lower fees) than the version of Lightning offered by Bitcoin Segwit.

Mods need to fucking BAN bCash posts.

>>7256824
But passive aggressive feminine shit is all they have left anon.
Dont take that from them.

>>7256566
This if you want a coin that is not bitcoin there really better coins than bcash

>>7256851
>it's the "let's cherrypick one arbitrary straw to grasp at" while the reality is that your bags are getting heavy, with little to no upside going forward
It's only been up for me, I got in around .07 which is where BCH was at for most of its existence. I understand this board isn't very intelligent and buys high and sells low and the pumps on this coin are unlike anything else which means stupid investors get burnt, but for most of its life BCH was below where it is today. As far as picking adoption in terms of the coin's age thats how you do it. Ethereum (the number 2 coin) had the fastest early adoption of any coin until Bitcoin Cash came out. Early adoption rates are a big indicator of future success.

>>7256865
There's no point in saying stuff like "BCH will have faster smart contracts". You don't know that. They might achieve it, but eth already had a working system and it's more likely that they develop a more scalable solution in the same time. Don't forget you're one step behind on that regard, not mentioning all the developers already programming on eth network.

>>7256850
But you're wrong, there's no 0-conf in btc.

>>7256906
>Corecuck
>advocating censorship
>appealing to authoritarian
No surprises ITT

>>7256865
PoS has way much more more performance than any PoW system. No matter how much you try, PoW is all about wasting energy and computing power.

>>7256850
Well that's not completely wrong but is not right either.
If you have 1MB blocks, capping at 7 tx/s (full) you have X people using it per block.
If you have 8MB blocks, capping at 7 tx/s (full) you have 8X people using it per block.
That means the blockchain itself is in fact the same but you can add more transactions per block. And that means I can pay whatever fee I want because I'm going inside the next block anyways in the next 10 minutes.

>>7256593
>There are bunch of coins already doing these stuff.
There is not any other coin on the market doing tests for 1 terabyte block sizes. Everyone else wants small blocks. The only coins thinking about doing big blocks that I know of are DASH and ZCoin and they might be able to compete with BCH due to the fact that they have Masternodes which can help scale large blockchains, but this remains to be seen. If you think anyone is doing what Bitcoin Cash is doing you don't really understand the differences in blockchains. As of right now Bitcoin Cash literally stands alone as the only coin committed to using industrial grade computers for everything it does (from mining to nodes). All other coins run on desktops and desktop computers cannot compete with industrial grade computers. That's like saying you can win a motorcycle race on a pedal bicycle.

>>7257002
good job then but most got cucked on several pumps which were quite easily anticipated by non-brainlets who took the time to read into the retarded difficulty adjustments; the biggest bagholders are by and large cuckbasefags
I notice your pricing in sats shows what you consider important, at least you aren't insuferrable like ethfags in this regard

>>7257042
That's because of RBF and full blocks. Not the blocksize by itself.

>>7257061
Not BCH shiller, but crypto's point isn't to make energy efficient transactions, it's about decentralization. PoS alone tends to get centralized.

>>7257061
>PoS has way much more more performance than any PoW system. No matter how much you try, PoW is all about wasting energy and computing power.
No POW is about security and use in high volume transactions. By definition cartels are easier to form in POS coins as there is no consumption of resources so you can orphan blocks and attempt to attack the blockchain through orphans. Also without needing to earn a profit to pay back your miners the disincentive for performing a 51% attack on POS is much lower. This means POS is not as safe for transactions with low to zero confirmations. Yes POS is decent for transactions that you don't need to clear for a few hours or days, but if you need instant transactions POW will always be better. I'm not fully against POS, I just know that there are disadvantages to the system and one of them is that transactions with few or zero confirmations are less secure meaning POS coins are useful for certain types of transactions.

>>7257144
Doesn't using industrial level computers centralize the network? I'm running a VPS as a zcoin masternode for example, but equivalent to a simple desktop and is able to run encrypted transactions efficiently. Personally I think using simple VPS-s for the network is a good compromise between industrial computers and home desktops.

>>7257297
>Doesn't using industrial level computers centralize the network?
If you have global adoption with 50k+ nodes it wont.
Core shills dont understand that BCH isnt trying to be just some crypto among many. Nitcoin cash is going for total dominance. Global adoption.
The one-world-currency of the NWO

https://youtu.be/8FFly8VF950

>>7255622
Just reminding you that dogecoin has more transactions that beecash

>>7257297
>Doesn't using industrial level computers centralize the network?
If you think that using oil rigs to drill oil centralizes the oil businesses or that the fact that most trucking businesses now use semis instead of smaller farm trucks centralizes the trucking business. The fact that it would take money to run a node isn't related to centralization, its related to markets preferring to get the most work done for the least amount of payment. Industrial computers do more for the blockchain and its network at lower costs. As far as ZCoin goes the fact that you use a VPS to run your node rather than your own server isn't really related to any centralization because that just means you are paying someone else to run the computer that your node is on. But ZCoin is planning on adding smart contracts and have specifically said they don't agree with the store-of-value approach to crypto so it seems they are pursuing the Bitcoin Cash approach of very large block sizes meaning in the near future you will probably need a VPS that has better hardware capabilities than the one you currently use.

>>7257500
While I get your point, a small part of me still hopes that the code will get more scalable, home computers/smartphones get better and world-wide connectivity gets better. And then you could run the network fast on normal people's hardware. One can dream right?
Using high performance computers feels kinda like ripple.

>>7257765
If blockchain sharding works then you will be able to, but that's like Segwit's version of Lightning. No one can say for 100% it will work.

>>7255622
FFS. LOL! What are these idiots sniffing?

>>7259359
>FFS. LOL! What are these idiots sniffing?
Again, the Segwit supporters still don't have any arguments. The only thing that got close was the ZCoin guy who said he wanted to run his own full node even if it didn't help the network and even on that issue if blockchain sharding comes out then his problem is solved. The blockchain sharding issue won't matter for years as gaming computers can run at half of the VISA network throughput so there isn't really an argument against Bitcoin Cash except that you don't understand it.

>>7255622
>>7255794
>Bitcoin hashrate over 10x bcash hash rate
Listen here kid, If you think bcash is even remotely safe while using the same hashing algorithm as its major competitor with less than 10% of its hashrate, then you're a massive fucking retard. All it will take is a small group of miners to kill your shitcoin.

>>7259449
You can't kill Bitcoin Cash with a 51% attack as everyone's funds would be safe and the attackers could maybe scam a few million from merchants but it would cost them billions to perform the attack.

Are you aware of how the selfish mining attacks works with Segwit? Under Segwit you actually make more money if you never check signatures as a miner. So this means its more profitable to mine without signatures. If a cartel forms they can all mine without checking signatures and make more money, but you will never know if transactions are legitimate. Even if this cartel is only 10% of the mining power they can set up nodes throughout the world and listen to network traffic. While listening to network traffic if they find a block they wait to release it on the network. While they wait to release the block they solved they work on the next block. When their nodes hear network traffic indicating another miner found a block the cartel releases their block. Because the cartel miners don't check signatures and the non-cartel miners do the cartel block propogates first. Because the cartel already started mining the next block before they released it to the other miners they have a massive advantage. This means that any miner who checks signatures will make less money than the cartel so all miners will be forced not to check signatures or lose out on profit and thus lose their share of the hashrate. If the cartel can "train" at least 51% of miners not to check signatures then miners can literally forge transactions on the blockchain and by the time the victim of the theft finds out about the theft the signatures have already been removed from the blockchain and no one can prove that a theft occurred.

So are you ok with adopting a protocolthat incentivizes miners to stop checking against fraudulent transactions? Are you ok with a protocol that incentivizes miners to join cartels and steal others money as a way to maximize profits?

>>7259872
Listen up stupid, If it gets 51% attacked, how many people do you think will be using it?
Literally nobody uses it now, do you think anyone is going to use it after that?
More people use doge right now, and you think they will even look at btrash after a 51% attack?
LMFAO the absolute state of bcunts.

>>7260077
>Listen up stupid, If it gets 51% attacked, how many people do you think will be using it?
If it gets 51% attacked by Segwit miners then all of these Segwit miners go out of business so the honest Bitcoin Cash miners could then perform a 51% attack on the Segwit chain. Your argument only works if you don't consider the profit effects of these actions. With Bitcoin Segwit you don't need 1 malicious miner with 51% control over the network. You just need miners to be profit maximizers that choose not to check signatures. So the 51% selfish mining attack on Bitcoin Segwit can be done continuously for a profit, but to do a 51% mining attack on Bitcoin Cash the Segwit miners would be committing suicide and leaving their blockchain unprotected.

>>7255622
Shitcoin designed to make Chinese miners rich.

It's also slow as fuck, not much better than core.

>>7260077
>LMFAO the absolute state of bcunts.
At least have a basic understanding of what you are talking about if you are throwing insults. Your scenario is impossible and would cause each miner to lose all of their investment but the selfish mining attack possible on all Segwit coins is not only risk free but increases your profit.

"Lightning Network" is not Bitcoin - anything that's offchain is not Bitcoin. The only time it is Bitcoin again is when it's mined into a block. Other than that, it's just IOUs passing around a network with routing issues.

>>7260250
>20 posts by this ID
Nobody wants your shitcoin dude.

>>7260268
>Shitcoin designed to make Chinese miners rich.
Like I said to the other guy, if you don't require miners to check signatures before they get the block reward (Segwit) then this allows miners to forge transactions if a majority of the miners don't check said signatures. The fact that miners make more money when they don't check signatures means this is not an issue of if, but when. If you want to maximize profit as a miner you want to try and set up a cartel to perform the selfish mining attack on Bitcoin Segwit and then forge transactions.

>>7260306

I just made that, by the way. Enjoy, seeing the pic when it was brand new :)

>>7260330
>Nobody wants your shitcoin dude.
It is my thread and you Segwit Soyboys still haven't come up with a valid argument. We're almost at 100 replies here. Still not one argument. Personally I hope none of you buy it as that allows me to buy at lower prices. That being said I enjoy watching you sub 80 IQ mutts trying to explain your reasons for supporting Segwit.

>>7255622
What about BTG?

>>7260306
You're literally repeating talking points verbatim from Reddit.

$0.02 bcash has been deposited in your account. Thanks for correcting the record

>>7260408
It has Segwit so it should be avoided like the plague. Segwit is the bad guy, that'

>>7256566
This.

This is also, hilariously, why cashies get butthurt when you call it "bcash"

Because calling it bcash means that they can't piggyback off the BITCOIN name. It distills their shitcoin down to what it is: a poor imitation.

>>7255655

Kek. Who uses NANO (XRB)? It has like 1/10000 of the market share of BTC.

>>7260400
>24 posts by this ID
the shilling is relentless.

>>7260477
>Because calling it bcash means that they can't piggyback off the BITCOIN name.
The Bitcoin name is all Bitcoin Segwit has. Bitcoin Cash doesn't even have it and its adoption is increasing. Meanwhile adoption of Segwit coin has been dropping for months.

>>7260418

It's from twitter, not reddit. Anyway it's a good statement which helps redpill people, but it needed some tweaking so I re-wrote it slightly.

http://reddit.com/r/btc

I know, it is reddit, but just go there for a moment. If you lurk this subreddit for a second, you will get why bcash is such a strange cult and thats why you need to be very careful with this coin.

>>7260477
Why don't you call Bitcoin Gold Bgold then?
Bitcoin Diamond is Bdiamond
Bitcoin Cash is a Bitcoin fork, the real electronic peer-to-peer cash system.

Bitconnect 2

>>7260577
Because bcash is a scam, thats why.

>>7260277
dumbfuck cashie, 51% attack can happen right now, as in fucking a minute from now, all it takes is some miners to get sick of you faggots, and rape your coin in the dick.
Segwit "problems" as stated by cashies will require years to become even remotely worthwhile, and if the miners collude to fucking steal segwit transactions, THE FUCKING COIN WILL GO TO ZERO INSTANTLY, making it pointless to do.
Then all their equipment and their entire business is fucking done. Think it through.
Point being there is very little chance of segwit ever being a problem, while 51% attack can happen any time on bcash.

>>7255622
This is a scam just like bitconnect. If you haven't done your research (which you obviously didn't op) you'd find out the truth. People are going to lose a lot of money in this. Please everyone, stay away from this.

>>7260622
Ok, now explain arguments. I just see it as an improved version of Bitcoin, it's a fork. Are you going to argue is not a fork too?

>>7260512
>Meanwhile adoption of Segwit coin has been dropping for months.
lolno, Bitcoin node growth has been going up consistently.

Why do cashies just blatantly lie?

>>7260552

http://reddit.com/r/bitcoin

I know, it is reddit, but just go there for a moment. If you lurk this subreddit for a second, you will get why blockstream coin is such a strange cult and thats why you need to be very careful with that coin.

>>7260689
>B-B-B-B-BUT BITOCORN COREGA IS WORSE!
Laughable.

>>7260720
So, no arguments? :)

>>7260816
>:)

>>7260679
I see the longer this fight goes on they lie outright more and more.
One that cracks me up is the "industrial computers" meme that is just hilarious.

>>7260833
t. No arguments ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>7260853
thanks you convinced me just bought 100K

>>7260623
>dumbfuck cashie, 51% attack can happen right now, as in fucking a minute from now, all it takes is some miners to get sick of you faggots, and rape your coin in the dick.
I can't believe how stupid you guys are. If the Bitcoin Segwit supporting miners (less than 25% of miners btw) attack Bitcoin Cash they will lose out on their investment on mining equipment meaning they are no longer miners. So in order to kill Bitcoin Cash there would be no miners left for Bitcoin Segwit. Again what stops the 51% attack is profit incentives, but with Segwit you can perform a modified 51% attack that increases your profits meaning if you don't participate you lose hashrate.

Finally Roger Ver and Jihan control over 51% of all the hashrate already. The only thing stopping your shitcoin from being raped is the fact that they don't want to. But then you idiots slander them publicly which will only make them want to bury your shitcoin. The Cash side owns the hashrate right now even if they use that hashrate to honestly mine Bitcoin Segwit. You should really do some research, you lack a basic understanding of a 51% attack.

>>7260896
>Finally Roger Ver and Jihan control over 51% of all the hashrate already.
wow this definitely convinces me that bitcoin cash is the way to go now.

lmao

fucking retarded deluded cashie

>26 posts by this ID

>>7260885
>Bcash is a scam
>No arguments

>>7260950
thanks just bought 200k

>>7260623
>Segwit "problems" as stated by cashies will require years to become even remotely worthwhile
These problems exist today, the only thing stopping it is the honesty of the miners. Yet the two biggest miners you bash, Roger Ver and Jihan Wu, are the biggest backers of Cash. The moment they decide they want to kill Segwit they can.

>>7260622

bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash bcash

>>7260679
Daily transactions has been on a consistent downtrend for months. That's why fees are lower. Node count isn't adoption.

>>7260965
>>7260977
>mfw this thread
Don't try to argue against Bitcoiners.
It's P O I N T L E S S

>>7255622
>at its age
>doesn't want you to realize that the crypto economy has exploded recently making cunty non-arguments like this possible

>>7260896
>Finally Roger Ver and Jihan control over 51% of all the hashrate already. The only thing stopping your shitcoin from being raped is the fact that they don't want to. But then you idiots slander them publicly which will only make them want to bury your shitcoin. The Cash side owns the hashrate right now even if they use that hashrate to honestly mine Bitcoin Segwit.
By the way, this isn't even remotely close to being true.

Why do cashies just keep blatantly lying and think they can get away with it?

>>7260679
That’s not what adoption means. Bitcoin isn’t for setting up nodes as an end in themselves. It’s adoption as a currency is dropping, and its value hasn’t risen nearly as much in the past year as most other cryptocurrencies.

>>7261053
because ver has his cock planted firmly up their ass

I don’t know enough about the tech to know whether on-chain or layer-two scaling is preferable, but Bitcoin Cash supporters tend to try to have a rational conversation, while Bitcoin Core supporters primarily throw insults and avoid talking about the actual topic. I’m all in BTC right now but considering switching.

>>7261088
> and its value hasn’t risen nearly as much in the past year as most other cryptocurrencies.
As opposed to bcash, which underperformed the market even more than Bitcoin? kek

>>7261202
Both are utter shit.

>>7260720

Don't your handlers realize they're shooting themselves in their own feet when they use that approach (as you're displaying)? Not only does it never "work" (it sways nobody and has absolutely zero impact on the outcome of your struggle - which is already lost); it's in fact having the completely opposite effect of what you / they (Blockstream) intend.

>>7261092
kek, the /r/btc shill stopped responding because of that.

I once heard the argument that "Bitcoin Cash is like someone making a fake burger stand in front of the Burger King shop and claiming to be Burger King."

THE REALITY is this:

Bitcoin Core / Blockstream is the one who got into Burger King as new management, and faced with the ever growing demand for burgers; they decided to NOT increase the number of burgers being made, due to having only 1 kitchen, and they tell customers ordering burgers to get a salad instead, because its better for them... but they will have to wait for it...

Bitcoin Cash is the new restaurant across the road with all the workers from Burger King who left BK so they can continue making the same classic burgers people want, AND they increase the number of kitchens so they can make more burgers faster to keep up with the demand. Customers get the same classic full-sized burgers and quickly.

Meanwhile, the legacy "Burger King" shop with the new management, there people stand waiting in long lines to get their burgers AND as they finally get them, a janitor eats a huge chunk of the burger before the customer gets to hold it in his hands. People will eventually get tired of all that crap and switch to the other shop across the street.

>>7260944
>26 posts by this ID
It's my thread you cuck. Of course I have the most posts.

>>7261579
Bcash.

>>7261579
Deluded cashie

>>7261679
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>7261053
I'm sorry it seems the hashrate of Antpool recently dropped so Roger Ver (Bitcoin.com) and Jihan Wu (Antpool) control only 45%. They don't just mine BCH you retard.

>>7261660
I like how you got completely caught in a lie and didn't respond.

bcashcucks must be pretty desperate

>>7261699
>They don't just mine BCH you retard.
If they're so convinced that it's going to flip Bitcoin, why WOULDN'T they exclusively mine BCH while it's cheap?

>>7261700
>51%
https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/thisweek
>?

>>7255622
bitcoin's role is to be USELESS. no smart contracts, no anything.

what you are talking about is done well by other projects.

no place for bcash.
it will be worse at evetyrhing.

>>7261739
Is it more profitable to mine?

>mfw I step put for 2 hours, come back to read the arguments ITT and there are none.
Corecucks as usual.


Listen, coreshills, we know you are salty since you got into bitcoin in december 2017 and are down on your initial but you need to understand that lightning network cant save you.
They haven't even figured out routing in LN yet. You can send infinite transactions between you and the party you have a channel with but you cant send a transaction to a party which is 2 hops removed from you.
In LNs current state you would have to open a channel with everyone you want to transact with and pay fees every time because LN cant properly route yet.

VAPORWARE

>>7261760
That's bitcoin cash hashrate, not total hashrate. Are you retarded?

Anyways it says a lot that the founders of this scamcoin are more interested than mining BTC than actually mining bcash, says a lot about how much faith they have in the future of the project lol

If Segwit is so dangerous like Bcash people that are trying to scare everyone are saying then go here..

Get your free 1 million dollars
https://steemit.com/money/@sirwinchester/usd1-million-bounty-for-anyone-that-can-hack-litecoin-s-segwit-transactions

Cause ANYONE can spend it right ?
Right ?

First you fuckers fill up the blocks to make transactions fees go way up and all the time you are fudding the hell out of BTC.

Is that centralized ??

>>7261836
>lightning network cant save you.
noone cares.
lol.

noone actually is going to use btc for everyday uses.

>>7261817
Why wouldn't they mine BCH while difficulty is lower if they expect bcash price to be higher than bitcoin in the future?

>>7261863
>noone actually is going to use btc for everyday uses.
Thats true. Bcore truly is a useless shitcoin

>>7261837
>Are you retarded?
Nice arguments, again.

>>7261867
Because those are pools. Not all of the hashrate in them is theirs. They are running businesses optimizing theor customers immediate profit.

Bitcoin cash will win because core doesn't understand economics by the way

>>7261931
You haven't explained why Jihan and Ver aren't mining bcash if they supposedly believe it to be the future.

The founders of the coin clearly don't believe it as much as you do... why is that?

>>7261971
Dude, see >>7261817 ?

>>7261961
The original argument is that those pools would be capable of 51% attack on Bitcoin (which is laughable) and now you're backtracking and saying "'w-well not all the hashrate is t-theirs!"

>>7261920
that's point! to be useless.

why don't we just call any other coin a "bitcoin" and use then? it's value is only in it's authority, other coins are much much more useful than btc AND THAN BCASH TOO.

so bcash has no neither "gold" function neither it is better in anonimity or fees or smart contracts... it's just nothing.
you could call byteball "btcoin" and use then not trying to make bcash some better.

>>7261990
If they believe in bcash as much as the true believers do, why wouldn't they be mining it right now to get more while the difficulty is low?

>>7261971
see
>>7261961

Even if it was all theirs your argument is invalid since mining BTC and selling for BCH would be smarter when BTC is still slightly more profitable to mine.

>>7262022
Nice arguments!

>>7262019
1. It's more profitable
2. Devs can rise the block to 8MB anytime
3. More forks to come
4. You would do the same
5. Me too
Should I keep going?

>>7261931
Nice arguments!

>>7261995
Im not backtracking, just explaining to a newfag what a mining-pool is. They could still use the pools hashrate for a 61 if the wanted to by the way.
But having them mine whatever is profitable is the valid long term strategy.

Gane theory and everybody maximizing their own profit is what makes bitcoin work to begin with

>>7262053
6. the miners don't really believe in their scamcoin and only forked it to make a quick buck before going back to mining bitcoin, which is more profitable like you said.

I'll trust Charlie Lee and Andreas Antonopoulos over these money grubbers any day.

Look how a person that believes in segwit acts,
https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/914372293232660481

put's up a million dollars of his own money to prove his point.

Those other fuckers are trying to rip apart the entire cryptosphere just to get their way. Fuck them and fuck anyone who supports them. They are bad as the banks.

>>7262069
Still waiting for you to explain why you think Bitcoin Cash (a fork of Bitcoin) is just a scam.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>7262072
Old Bitcoin miners have the same amount of BTC and BCH. They are mining both. Why? You tell me.

>>7262095
Nice arguments!

>>7262120
Nice arguments!

>>7262120
> They are mining both
Hashrate suggests otherwise, see >>7261053

>>7262072
Nice re-use of refuted argument

>corecucks are literally this desperate

Current thread Bcore argument counter still at zero

>>7262076
Charlie lee executed one of the biggest money-grabs in crypto by dumping on his hodlers just one month ago.
Andreas is carefully staying somewhat neutral so he can switch to the winner when things play out. He knows this is not a safe win for LN at all yet.

>>7261682
>>7261679

see:

>>7260977

https://youtu.be/QbvtAlmfYQI?t=5m3s

Bitcoin is shitcoin no matter its name
Bcash
Segshit
Ethereum sounds like a disease

High fees. Transaction limits.
Blockchains lol.
Does not scale

Premined scamcoins all of them

Nano/XRB.
Stellar.

The promised ones. Nano.XRB is for payments simply, Stellar is for better Eth, smart contracts, ICOs, 100 000trx/s. No bullshit "mining"

BCH is slowly fattening up, while BTC is starving and will end up anorexic.

>>7262217
Source?

>>7262161
>Charlie lee executed one of the biggest money-grabs in crypto by dumping on his hodlers just one month ago.
Yeah you are right about Charlie Lees dump.
Even so he did put his money where his mouth is. Even Segwit had been cracked, he wouldn't have just lost 1 million dollars. Lightcoin would have lost 200 million at the time.

At least his instant fucking with the transactions, filling them up and creating havoc for everyone in bitcoin. Selling your stack may be a bit of a dick move, putting millions of users of bitcoin at risk by gaming the blockchain size is pure heartless evil.
No better than bankers trying to make a buck of someone else's tragedy.

On top of that why do they just denegrate Bitcoin 24/7. I mean seriously what the fuck ?
It's never ending.

>>7262155
Let's see the distribution of pools:
https://cash.coin.dance/blocks <- Bitcoin Cash
https://blockchain.info/es/pools <- Bitcoin
Don't you see the same pools are mining both? Do the same pools have a large hashrate in both?

>>7262217
Nice tits!
I mean
Nice arguments!

>>7262256
Here: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.html#6m

>>7262298

*isn't fucking with the transactions
editing for the win

If you spot the 3 major shills in this thread, I'm sending you 50$ worth of ETH.

Protip: There's 2 BCH shills and 1 BTC shill

>>7262298
Charlie Lee vocally supports Core on all that fuckery.

>>7262298
>Selling your stack may be a bit of a dick move
why don't he sell, can anybody explain? he didn't premine it and even if he did?
what's wrong with selling?

>>7262380 is >>7260622 the BTC shill?

>>7262380
Do this and identify me. It will make you read some arguments.

>>7255652
>I'm unironically all in on BCH.

>>7261700
>I like how you got completely caught in a lie and didn't respond.
What lie? Again you guys can't just make shit up and expect people to believe it. Have an argument with facts to back it up.

>>7262053
When they will start mining candy (CDY)?

>>7262419
He said its to "stay neutral" when it was pure profit taking and he knew things would crash.
But instead of telling hodlers he was selling for profit, he tries to make them hodl his bags

>>7261739
>If they're so convinced that it's going to flip Bitcoin, why WOULDN'T they exclusively mine BCH while it's cheap?
As a miner to profit maximize you mine the most profitable coin and then sell the profits to buy the coin you want to invest in. That's mining 101.

>>7262461
Mainnet is delayed
>sadface.jpg

>>7262480
They're going to argue that too. Just ignore them.

>>7259872
Good post, I didn’t know this. In SegWit are the signatures not included in the block at all?

>>7255622
DAILY REMINDER BITCOIN PRIVAATE GON REPLACE THIS

>>7262480
BTC is literally just 1.05x more profitable thanks to the difficulty adjustment algorithm on bcash, which is specifically designed to keep its profitability close to bitcoin.
If they really believed in BCH, they would take the risk of losing that tiny amount. They don't mine it, for the same reasons they don't mine DGB or UNIT or PPC, because its a shitcoin.
Everything about bcash is designed to steal from bitcoin in every way.

>>7259872

You copied laughable FUD from here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7v0x68/why_segwit_is_more_vulnerable_to_network_attacks/

>>7262669
>he simply repeats his invalid shitpost
Miners mine whats profitable and sell for the token they want. That will always be how its done, economically illiterate corecuck.

>>7262750
Does copying an argument suddenly make it invalid?

>>7262750
Nice find. Now refute what he said with actual reasoning

>>7262615
They are included for the miners but no one else and then get pruned from the blockchain after moving to the next block. So if miners don't choose to keep signatures then the network is in serious danger. Again this would take a committed cartel to pull off so its not easy by any means, but a government could easily do it and profit from it. That's where things go terrible, the fact that this attack is profitable whereas normal 51% attacks are highly unprofitable. Peter Rizun has great videos on this.

>>7255794
>Its not a blockchain

>>7262784
Nice arguments!

>>7262846
Offchain ≠ Blockchain

https://news.bitcoin.com/7-million-transactions-a-second-research-paper-declares-1tb-blocks-feasible/

>>7262572

I was thinking something similar a few days ago. The BTC camp have the same mentality as people in the 90s thinking that harddrives just a few hundred megabytes in size was more than enough - and they couldn't even imagine that in the future drives of several thousands gigabytes would exist AND be cheap. When it comes to improvement of data storage tech -- SPEED and POWER always wins. We should never allow size to hold us back. Larger filesizes? Solution = MORE SPEED, MORE PROCESSING POWER! Etc. Today we have 12+TB harddrives, and that will be seen as a tiny amount in a 10-20 years from now, and then also perhaps download and upload speeds will actually be at several terabytes per second.

1) Nobody uses Bitcoin for anything other than mostly a store of value because spending something that's limited in amount and goes up in value is retarded as fuck when you can use fiat for that just fine and actually spend the shitty money that goes down in purchasing power: fact

2) Given 1, it's stupid to centralize the network with huge nodes (inb4 Peter R, Andrew Stoner, Fakesatoshi, CIAndresen, Fyookball or any other USG drone pretending to argue otherwise) so niggers can use Bitcoin to buy KFC.

3) The people that matter (that have most of the money) is going to use the most decentralized network and the oldest one (certainty and censorship resistance above fast and cheap transactions, and no other coin can ever claim Bitcoin's track record unless you have a time machine and launch it before Bitcoin's blockchain starts making history) to store their trillions out of government's reach as traditional tax havens die (see Common Reporting Standard) and not the cheapest one, which would be any shitcoin for that matter.

4) Given 4, nobody that matters cares about forks, Core, segwit, LN or somesuch.

5) Nobody wants to fork BCash or any other shitcoin but Bitcoin, and by holding Bitcoin you get for free all these shitcoins, giving you yet another reason to hold it (forks which you dump for more Bitcoin, as idiot's BTCs are reallocated into the smart's BTC wallet; rich getting richer, naturally, as a matter of course).

Now go back to plebbit.

Can someone send me one cent in form of BTC? Just made myself a wallet, wanna see if it works :)

1L2sYfRk8JwpWdbf9qzoT776aWFYmRNf1d

>>7263044

the transfer fees would be waaaaay higher than 1 cent, but I guess that's your point.

1) Nobody uses Bitcoin for anything other than mostly a store of value because spending something that's limited in amount and goes up in value is retarded as fuck when you can use fiat for that just fine and actually spend the shitty money that goes down in purchasing power: fact

2) Given 1, it's stupid to centralize the network with huge nodes (inb4 Peter R, Andrew Stoner, Fakesatoshi, CIAndresen, Fyookball or any other USG drone pretending to argue otherwise) so niggers can use Bitcoin to buy KFC.

3) The people that matter (that have most of the money) is going to use the most decentralized network and the oldest one (certainty and censorship resistance above fast and cheap transactions, and no other coin can ever claim Bitcoin's track record unless you have a time machine and launch it before Bitcoin's blockchain starts making history) to store their trillions out of government's reach as traditional tax havens die (see Common Reporting Standard) and not the cheapest one, which would be any shitcoin for that matter.

4) Given 3, nobody that matters cares about forks, Core, segwit, LN or somesuch.

5) Nobody wants to fork BCash or any other shitcoin but Bitcoin, and by holding Bitcoin you get for free all these shitcoins, giving you yet another reason to hold it (forks which you dump for more Bitcoin, as idiot's BTCs are reallocated into the smart's BTC wallet; rich getting richer, naturally, as a matter of course).

Now go back to plebbit.

>>7263019
This guy gets it.

What everyone in this thread fails to realize is that increasing blocksize to a large number (1 TB lolz) leads to centralization of the consensus. Bitcoin nodes can be run on a raspberry pi by your average Joe, but these other coins are centralized and require large data servers/centers to run nodes in order to store the blockchain with all that data

>>7263019
>Nobody uses Bitcoin for anything other than mostly a store of value
correct. BTC is useless.

>2)
"its stupid" is not an argument

>3)
The richest in the BTC exosystem are actually behind BCH. Not ti mention 20k$ nodes have nothing todo with centralization. raspberry pies add nothing to the network.

>4)
Literally no arguments. Adoption is all that matters.

>5)
Shitforks are just a temporary blip on the radar. Any new shitforks after BTCP wont even get tradinpairs. Holding BTC for forks is retarded after 2017

>>7263137
the only node that can contribute to consensus is a mining node and your average joe can't run a mining node. a non-mining node doesn't do shit

>>7262801

>There's not much [refutation] needed honestly. The "attack" you describe is a hard fork. All honest miners and nodes would ignore the transactions without valid signatures. It doesn't matter if they had more than 51% of hash rate because all that would happen is that they fork themselves off the network and create a new altcoin.

>Also, let's make one thing clear; Miners could do exactly the same thing today. They could change the consensus rules using a hard fork that let them spend other people's coins without valid transactions. Or they could give themselves an extra million btc each block they mine.

>>7263128
>Nobody uses Bitcoin for anything other than mostly a store of value
correct. BTC is useless.

>2)
"its stupid" is not an argument

>3)
The richest in the BTC ecosystem are actually behind BCH. Not to mention 20k$ nodes have nothing to do with centralization. raspberry pies add nothing to the network.

>4)
Literally no arguments. Adoption is all that matters.

>5)
Shitforks are just a temporary blip on the radar. Any new shitforks after BTCP wont even get tradingpairs. Holding BTC for forks is retarded after 2017

>>7263099
Is it so high that it would harm someones wallet? I thought, one of the advances of crypto is, that there are much smaller fees than with normal online transactions...?

>>7262750
Total mom ass

>>7262770
>Miners mine whats profitable and sell for the token they want
Yes, yes, they're going to mine bitcoin, then send it to an exchange with the supposedly high tx fees and slow transactions, to buy their favorite shitcoin bcash, which is only half a percent less profitable to mine by the way, then pay a fee to exchange it to bcash, then pay another fee to transfer it out of the exchange.

Good point bro my b.

>>7255622
>33 posts by this ID
>>7255652
>20 posts by this ID
>>7257079
>22 posts by this ID
>>7260689
>15 posts by this ID

Imagine being Roger and having to pay pajeets to shill this shit here

>>7263137
That "Raspberry Pi" (or whatever equivalent machine exists then) which your average Joe uses when blocksize is 1TB, that "Pi" will easily handle that. It's called technological progress. That's why "your" (we know you're just saying what you've been instructed to say) argument is false.

>>7262198
Stellar doesn’t have smart contracts. Literally just for ERC20 tokens and shit. Useless

>>7256824
>once it is adopted worldwide
It's time to stop posting

ITT: The absolute state of cashies. Observe well anons, and beware,

>>7263299
When Bitmain mines a vlock they get 100k+ worth of BTC. You think they care about 10$ tx fees? Besides ALL their own TX are 100% free since they simply include them in their own blocks without fees.
whew corecuck you really don't know how any of this works do you?

Some pools allow miners to widthdraw in whatever they want to by the way

>>7262822
Is the signatures are kept in some type of parallel block that can either be kept or pruned? This seems strange, the signature is quite important, obviously

>>7263137
Made some basic math:

1MB block each 10 minutes.
6 blocks each hour.
144 blocks each day. >6*24
52.560 blocks each year. >144*365
52.560MB each year >53GB per year

Now if the block is 8MB (even tho it's unlikely in the short term due to mass adoption not being instant):

420.480MB >52.560*8
~421GB per year

Still less than a half a terabyte per year.
-------Kryder's law comes here-------

If 16MB block size:
Still less than a terabyte per year, but close.
And so on, and on, and on...

By the way, in case you didn't know:
>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

Daily reminder that monero+bulletproofs makes this memecoin obsolete.

>>7263462
the point I was trying to make is that nobody wants to buy a multi TB hard drive and keep it on 24/7 in order to run a node...hence where server farms come in and centralize these currencies. Tell me how I am wrong...

>>7263811
>Spend $100 on a 4TB HDD like this one: https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-BarraCuda-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST4000DM005/dp/B01LNJBA50/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1517689910&sr=1-2&keywords=seagate+barracuda
>Years of profit having a node
Are you sure?

>>7263287

> "one of the advances of crypto is, that there are much smaller fees than with normal online transactions"

Yeah exactly, but not with BTC: https://twitter.com/StayDashy/status/943883343799701507

BTC's fees have only increased + it's often very slow. And the fees aren't related just to the amount sent - sometimes when making very small transfers, people actually end up paying more in fees than the transfer amount itself which makes the transfer pointless.

>>7263888
years of profit...how sway?

>>7263276
>20 posts by this ID

BCash bagholders are so calm about bagholding their "investment" that they have to constantly shill it all over the internet (inb4 "it's to warn people about muh Bitcoin Corecuckzz or any other nonsense)

>correct. BTC is useless.

Already explained why it is only useless to people that don't matter. These that cannot afford transactions, can use any other shitcoin which doesn't require decentralization.

>"its stupid" is not an argument

Read again.

>The richest in the BTC ecosystem are actually behind BCH. Not to mention 20k$ nodes have nothing to do with centralization. raspberry pies add nothing to the network.

lmao. You need to lurk more if you think Ver and these other scammers control most of the Bitcoin supply.
The people that control most of the Bitcoin supply aren't on social media running "marketing campaigns", pumping shitcoins and lossing their BTC running spam attacks and other futilities.
They have the biggest BCrash wallets and any other shitfork too, since they recieved their coins for free, which they haven't sold, as it's not really needed since BCrash is a failed project in it's fundamentals (as any other altcoin), and having to move private keys around is not worth the effort.

>Literally no arguments. Adoption is all that matters.

Once again, babby tier knowledge on game theory.

>Shitforks are just a temporary blip on the radar. Any new shitforks after BTCP wont even get tradingpairs. Holding BTC for forks is retarded after 2017

All shitforks have huge selling pressures forever as everyone holding BTC holds the shitforks, starting by BCash. There will be many to come as ICOs get banned and scammers need ways to get coins out there. Not that it matters, all of them already failed.

>>7263940
lol nice...Satoshi's vision, not bigger block sizes

>>7261579
>food analogy
Not again.

>>7263888

Right and drives will get even cheaper + bigger. And probably eventually harddrives will be replaced entirely by some form of large sized (hundreds of TB) SSD/flash type solution (so people will have huge amount of space that's also extremely fast)... which at first will be expensive, sure, but will then go down in price just like everything computer related.

>>7255622
go trick redditors. you're wasting your time here

>>7263933
Full nodes are mostly mining nodes. Yes, you can run a full node just to store your keys, but there's no profit in it.

>>7263569
I like how the btc fee examples from you bcunts change based on how well it fits your arguments.
The fee would actually be about 50 cents to a dollar, and sure, bitmain won't pay a fee, but your average miner will.
The fact is, there are very few bcash transactions. there is very little evidence that anyone is mining btc to trade it to bcash lmao.
If these miners cared about bcash in any way, they would not be mining btc for a tiny bit more profit at the detriment of the bcash network. If they do, they're literally retarded and who gives a fuck.

>>7263940
>You need to lurk more if you think Ver and these other scammers control most of the Bitcoin supply.
Bitmain. Nobody mines more.

>Already explained why it is only useless to people that don't matter.
Adoption matters. BTC is losing all of its merchant adoption.
I bought Bitcoin in 2013 and have millions in fiat but will still use a coin with cheap fees to transact.
Only reason for whales to use BTC is due to its legacy reserve currency status which is quickly disappearing.

ETH & BCH will reign before EOY

>>7264065
Check this out:
>https://www.backblaze.com/blog/seagate-60tb-ssd-36pb-storage-pod-next/
It's beautiful and it was almost 2 years ago.

>>7263970
Not that I care about "Satoshi's vision", just focus on the map picture. That's the future of big block clusterfucks, coupled with huge mining centralization due orphans as well.

BCrashies complain about a potential "51% AnyoneCanSpend attacks on segwit addresses" and consider this scenario realistic, but they don't consider a scenario in which the couple dozen nodes validating transactions for you (as the good cuck you are, since you gave the sovereign power to (((them))) out there don't get compromised by a global attacker with enough resources (3 letter agencies, such as USGavin)

>>7259872

Not that I care about segwit, but here's $400,000,000 sitting on a segwit address:

https://btc.com/bc1q9sh6544xls87x7skjzyfhkty4wq7z76vn7qzq9

Let's see the miners steal it. I bet BCrash collapses before that happens.

>>7264111
Are you legitimately retarded? If I think BCH will succeed I try to get AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE
So I mine whats profitable and buy BCH with it. That way Im holding more BCH

>>7263940
This is by far the worst argument from Segwit Soyboys. "We need nodes to validate transactions. That's why we're going to use a second layer Lightning Network where none of the transactions get validated by nodes." Are you retarded? Do you not see the glaring contradiction? Either you use big blocks and hope they come out with blockchain sharding or you don't use blockchains. Please explain to me why you support the 2nd layer Lightning Network if node validation is such a big issue to you.

>>7260491
>Who uses nano?

You in 5 years.

>>7264177
>Not that I care about segwit, but here's $400,000,000 sitting on a segwit address:
>https://btc.com/bc1q9sh6544xls87x7skjzyfhkty4wq7z76vn7qzq9
>Let's see the miners steal it. I bet BCrash collapses before that happens.
If you pull off the attack you would have to selectively steal from wallets with small amounts of Bitcoin that are inactive. That way the thefts go unnoticed and are so small no one believes the victims. By the time you get found out you can have stolen billions.

>>7264200
lel

>>7263427
Imagine being so heavily invested in Shitcoin 1.0 that you desperately spread nonsense about a competing coin in the hope that you wouldn't lose all your money

>>7264198
Are you legitimately retreaded???
With the difficulty adjustment algorithm of bcash you are 100% fucking retarded to mine btc to buy bcash with it.
It figures though, because only an absolute complete idiot would buy bcash.

>>7262846
Irony

>the final weakhanded faggot has sold
>pump it

>>7264146
>Bitmain. Nobody mines more.
cage.gif

Bitmain is forced to sell huge amounts of bitcoin to cover their chink battlestations, which will eventually go bankrupt. Jihan has lost a lot of BTC on bad decisions, similar to Ver, which is why you see him promoting all these ICO scams lately.

>Adoption matters. BTC is losing all of its merchant adoption.

I already explained why you are wrong, but your dumb ass can't fathom it. Time to pick up another hobby.

>Only reason for whales to use BTC is due to its legacy reserve currency status which is quickly disappearing.

Read above.

>ETH & BCH will reign before EOY

No it will not. Capped, and im out.

>>7264177
Not to mention the HUGE frontrunning problems with bigger/empty blocks

>>7264309
Didn't you hear the Chinese miners are doing just that? They mine whatever is most profitable and buy Bitcoin Cash. They literally publicly stated this. Are you too dumb to read?

>>7264346
I love how you retards actually believe he's Satoshi when it's very clear he forged the ECDSA signature, and then when this gets pointed out you revert to "w-well h-he actually didn't want to prove he was satoshi anyways!!!!"

>1MB blocks ought to be enough for everybody.

>>7264309
Bitmain right now is only accepting BCH and FIAT.

>>7264400

>We need off-chain solutions
>But we also need nodes
>We also don't need people spending bitcoin
>And it doesn't matter if every other coin is technically better

>>7264464
Then use fiat kek. My point stands.

>>7264238
Everyone in the field is accepting payments in segwit addresses. There are tons of creditable people out there.

For example Tone Vays gets small bitcoin payments in segwit addresses, if someone steals his funds the world would know.

No one usually reuses addresses so it will be obvious when a theft happens (never).

Muh segwit address thieft is the dumbest shit since bcash itself.

>>7264574
They want FIAT to buy more BCH.
Also, they can pay their taxes and mining costs.

>>7264365
Read what? Wheres your link? Chinese miners are also retarded so your point?

>>7264111

>>7264200
If you werent a complete fucktard you would understand that bitcoin with a couple of datacenters running nodes is like Tor with a couple of datacenters running nodes.

LN is a compromise over classic onchain transactions, but it's still safe, and a reasoanble way to scale a network (you wouldn't run the bulk of the data over TPC/IP itself, which is why upper layers got developed).

Expanding blocks "as big as needed" (to quote Ver) is actual death.

>>7264633
Wow so the people who started and are supporting and promoting bcash are the only people who actually want bcash. Amazing.

>>7264579
>For example Tone Vays gets small bitcoin payments in segwit addresses, if someone steals his funds the world would know.
>No one usually reuses addresses so it will be obvious when a theft happens (never).
Most people don't check their wallet even once a day. Most Bitcoin are on wallets that are maybe checked once a month. With this attack if the victim does not alert the community before the signatures are removed (the next block) then there will be no way for the victim to prove they did not send those Bitcoin themselves. That's the issue. If you get stolen from you can't prove it and those stolen from will be those with inactive wallets. The miners know when transactions go into and out of wallets so they can easily choose easy to targets from which to steal.

>>7264684
my fucking sides, some amazing time series analysis you're doing there

>>7264697
Will Satoshi Nakamoto hold their coins?
Are the Winklevoss twins holding BTC and BCH?
Did they just sold 7000 BTC days ago (probably to pay taxes)?
Yes, miners that have been mining BTC have both and will defend both. Wouldn't you?

>>7264778
its coins*

>>7264688

https://youtu.be/QbvtAlmfYQI?t=2m14s

>>7264730
More bullshit. I have thousands of bitcoin payments on separate addresses each, which I have held for years and not moved (so they would appear inactive), I would know when there are missing funds basically because the total btc holdings on my wallet would decrease and anyone that has a functional brain knows how many coins they have.

Most people that have thousands of different addresses with payments are reputable people that move money within the ecosystem, statistically at least one of them would suffer from this delusional /r/btc segwit thieft and would eventually get reported, which will never happen as you will be on your deathbed and 0 funds will be stolen. Similarly, bcash will never overtake BTC as well.

>>7264347
>bitmain will go bankrupt
cage.gif

Coinbase.
Bitpay.
I Could go on.

the biggest companies in this space are behind BCH. Corecucks and blockstream will be obliterated.

Why do you bother replying if all you're going to do just going to repeat your failed "points"

>>7264833
>meme falvinge
enough

>>7264881

https://youtu.be/QbvtAlmfYQI?t=10m55s

>>7264852
>US Corporations behind bcrash
>this makes my shitcoin better

>>7264684
what's really going on is doge bcash flipening lmfao
>>7264778
>will a dead guy hold his coins?
probably
>are the twinlevoss twins holding free money
sure why not.
>miners that have been mining BTC have both and will defend both
Like you? You call lying about it defending it?

>>7264980
Aby other coins gets a billionaire on board /biz/ would jizz itself over it for weeks.
Meanwhile BCH has multiple billionaires with actual history in the space and the biggest BTC companies and /biz/lets keep FUDing.

Looking forward to /biz/ tears when parity comes in a few months time.

>>7265036
>if I keep repeating it, it will become true

>>7264852
Did he just said that Bitmain will go bankrupt?

All that and still nobody wants it. Stay mad buttcash baby.

>>7265019
Tell me how did I lie, please. I'm listening.

>>7265036
>my shitcoin has scammers pumping it
>my shitcoin has NSAware companies supporting it
>my shitcoin is better than yours
>im not a complete fucktards that doesn't understand what bitcoin is

>>7264688
>If you werent a complete fucktard you would understand that bitcoin with a couple of datacenters running nodes is like Tor with a couple of datacenters running nodes.
Quit changing the topic, we were talking about node validation and now we are not. That's fine, your side lost that argument prepare to lose this one as well. You realize that the majority of what Bitcoin Cash does for smart contracts is to simply act as a base layer and let other servers/protocols run on 2nd layers right? Bitcoin Cash just keeps all transaction data on the blockchain as that is necessary for security, but things like Cash Shuffle, Zerocoin, Ring Signatures, and smart contracts will run on 2nd layers like you describe. It's only transaction data that needs shared between nodes on the blockchain. The additional features just use the blockchain as an anchor.

>>7265259
>what bitcoin is
Bitcoin is fundamentally capitalistic and has been from the start. Us real bitcoiners love successful business chads.

>mfw waiting for Bitcoin defenders to explain why they think Bitcoin Cash is a scam

>>7265019

Dogecoin is in many ways more /useable/ than Blockchain Coin, already. Worth nearly nothing, but in many ways more useable. No insane fees. No ridiculously long waiting times.

>>7264844
>More bullshit. I have thousands of bitcoin payments on separate addresses each, which I have held for years and not moved (so they would appear inactive), I would know when there are missing funds basically because the total btc holdings on my wallet would decrease and anyone that has a functional brain knows how many coins they have.
If you don't alert someone the minute they get stolen the signature data is removed so it looks like you spent the bitcoin, not like it was stolen. What don't you understand. With Segwit if you don't constantly monitor your coins there is a risk of coins getting stolen.

>>7261857
>if something can't happen now, it can never happen
if you were intelligent enough to understand the scenario being presented you would realize that you haven't addressed it at all.

>>7255622
Literally /ourcoin/

Daily reminder that Rodger Ver smirkingly read a script to mt. gox investors that was full of lies and they proceeded to lose hundreds of millions based on him. Ignore bcash posters. Do not reply to bcash threads. Sage bcash threads.

>>7255789
Correction: LN has already been launched on Mainnet, but it literally doesn't work.

>>7255876
It'll just be called "cash" in the future. After crypto stops being this new thing.

>>7265083
it's always been true. there's only one fork of Bitcoin that still qualifies as Bitcoin.

t. 2011 Bitcoin adopter

>>7256048
They don't.

>>7265489
Source please, legit curious here

>>7265323
me too. it's just classic leftist groupthink and projection. crypto has always been a free market project.

>>7256449
Violates Blockstreams business model for the need of full blocks. Also requires consensus which they won't get also Segwit cannot be undone.

>>7265373
I haven't address the fact that a meteor can fly in my window and kill me either.

I'll side with the guy that put a 200 million dollar coin on the line and whos knows how many millions of his own money if it failed..

vs

scary segwit fud

>>7265645
>I haven't address the fact that a meteor can fly in my window and kill me either.
That's because the chances of a meteor hitting you are random. Segwit makes this attack the most profitable way to mine, so its not a question of if, its a question of when. Its more like you're in a large cave with a bear and you're pouring honey on yourself. You may not get eaten today, but every day the bear gets hungrier and you get more appetizing.

>>7265477
Whew another adhominem.
Imagine my shock

>>7265489
toppest kek.

>>7265527
This. BCH will be like the units used in scifi movies where they list prices in "credits" or some other shit.


>>7265590
this. leftists aren't innovators which is why Im so confident in owning 0 BTC ever since 17k. Just look whos supporting segwit and you will know they are not a threat to actual bitcoin.

>>7265826
It's not an ad hominem if it's true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0

If you trust this man after that, you deserve to lose your money.

>>7265826
Also,
>complains about ad hominem

and then writes something like this in the exact same post:
>Just look whos supporting segwit and you will know they are not a threat to actual bitcoin

The lack of self awareness from cashies is astounding.

>>7265160
I thought you were the one talking about current high fees, but you weren't my, b bro.

>>7265323
If not a scam, its clearly an attempted hostile takeover which may as well be a scam.
1. same hashing algorithm.
2. same address format (possible to send coins between chains and lose them forever)
3. same name
4. bitcoin.com owned by main bcash promoter, who promotes bcash on bitcoin.com
5. bitcoin.com bitcoin wallet contains a bcash wallet as the 1st wallet with zero explanation for new people
5. difficulty adjustment algorithm designed to stay as profitable as btc at the detriment of inflation, in an effort to steal hashrate from btc
6. constantly lying about bitcoin fees
7. (this one is just a theory) being big miners, they are able to inject attack blocks into the bitcoin mempool that slow the network on purpose (seems to have stopped recently, probably getting a tad expensive) forcing the meme of #6

etc, etc.

>>7265816
Ok so lets say that's true.
Why would anyone that has the technical knowledge that you have have any money in Segwit ?

Why would Trezor have guided every single person that bought a Trezor into an "unsafe" Segwit Address ? Are they just trying to preemptively kill their business ?

Did all the great minds out in crypto just not understand this on some fundamental level ?

Here is 40k BTC on a segwit address ?
Is 368 million not enough incentive ?
https://blockchain.info/tx/92785a57f6e9e9eb9d37a00e6e8be7f888376f65fa2b8f868db261cbf6cca7b0

My understanding is if a block containing an invalid signature is mined, then the entire rest of the node network will reject the block.
Then again I'm not a crypto guru. I am just a user.

Have I been mislead ?

>>7265985

1. of course, because BCH is Bitcoin.
2. of course, because BCH is Bitcoin.
3. of course, because BCH is Bitcoin.
4. of course, because BCH is Bitcoin.
5. of course, because BCH is Bitcoin. Its impossible to get fucked by that by the way since both wallets are on same Key and its very easy to discern what is what.
5. 2016 block rule has always been retarded. Its a great upgrade, there will be lots of those.
6. HURR DONT LIE TO ME ITS 10$ not 12$! CHEAP!
7. of course, because BCH is Bitcoin.

>>7266174
>if i repeat it enough it will be true!
lol

>>7256630
PoS is a rich get richer scheme to keep only those with the largest stack remain in power forever.

>>7266174
If BCH is bitcoin then why is it called bcash?

And where did the H in the ticker symbol come from? BCH isn't a good acronym for bitcoin.

>>7265908
>>7265868
He got fooled by fat mark and fucked up, like many others.
Good spot on the adhominem, I didnt pull up a specific incident though but generalized.

A good summary of cores vision for the future can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmF79Zn6-bk
Most of the roadmaps pioints explained in that vodeo are why I support BCH

>>7265985
> attempted hostile takeover which may as well be a scam.

HOSTILE TAKE OVER WHEN BITCOIN IS A FOSS PROJECT THAT LETS YOU FREELY FORK ITS CODEBASE

I CAN'T FUCKING BREATHE

Cashies got fucking blown the fuck in this thread.

I feel sorry for those heavy ass bags they hold. Pic related.

>>7266174
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
BCASH IS BITCOIN

>>7266272
blown the fuck out*

>>7256906
This post from a core supporters isn't even surprising in the least.

>>7266074
Miners control what goes in blocks segwit destroys the disencitive to move coins without signatures. If miners collude to make blocks with fradulent blocks the longest chain there is nothing you can do to stop them or even prove you didnt move your coins. This is not possible without segwit.

>>7265477
>Daily reminder that Rodger Ver smirkingly read a script to mt. gox investors that was full of lies and they proceeded to lose hundreds of millions based on him. Ignore bcash posters. Do not reply to bcash threads. Sage bcash threads.
Again you show the ignorance of you Segwit supporters. Due to how Mt. Gox was stolen from they and the hackers controlled the wallet containing the bitcoins for years. So when Roger went they showed him their wallet which had all the relevant coins. So technically speaking any audit would have shown Mt. Gox as solvent at the time. You can't blame him for saying all the coins were there when it was true, its just the hackers controlled the coins as well as Mt. Gox.

>>7266324
Bet you hes not even trolling as well fucking lmao

>>7266260
You can fork it all you want, but if you do those things I listed, you're a massive faggot, and its a hostile fork.

>>7266377
Wouldn't those miners have to have 51% ?

This is what a reddit thread is saying about it.
" Even if the miners have 51% hashrate, the rest of the network (well those updated clients that support segwit, anyway) rejects their chain if it contains an invalid signature."

I as just a user would really like to know if this is just FUD or what. I keep my BTC in my Trezor and it's Segwit.

Are you telling me that my coins are in danger sitting in my wallet ?

Even if the miners have 51% hashrate, the rest of the network (well those updated clients that support segwit, anyway) rejects their chain if it contains an invalid signature.

>>7266454

There's no such thing as a hostile fork.

>>7265985
It is seen as a hostile fork because Bitcoin devs and miners didn't agree to rise the blocksize.
1. So every ASIC miner can keep mining.
2. Already fixed. This was one of the main problems and the devs were focusing hard on this one.
3. It is a fork.
4. He invested in BTC years ago. He promoted BTC years ago. Now he defends the technically superior coin which is just a fork.
5a. It's the most useful wallet. It displays as BCH wallet. And it creates both BTC and BCH wallets when you just open the app.
5b. It is a fork. You want to keep the code the closest to the original.
6. We're not lying and I can explain it all the times you want. If the block is bigger, you can pay less fees and get into the next block anyways. If the block is smaller, you're going to pay more to get inside the block before smaller fee transactions.
7. That is a huuuuuuuuuge bitcoin talk nobody knows about. It happened last year. It could be Bitcoin devs profiting from capping the blocksize somehow. It could be Bitcoin miners only taking high fees to make more profit. It could be due to adoption (this is the one I like the most). It could be to Bitcoin cash holders spamming small transactions spending millions of dollars just to try to kill the Bitcoin mainnet (I just don't find it possible since spamming will cost money and nobody wants to spend it unless you get more profit doing it).

>>7266391
>Due to how Mt. Gox was stolen from
>he actually thinks mt gox was stolen from rather than karpeles exit scamming
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BCASH KEKS SO NAIVE

>>7266174
kek
1 - 5.5 just keep telling yourself that. It will hurt less as it bleeds to zero.
5 - That's not the point faggot. People are losing BTC by sending it to Bcash addresses.
Call them dumb all you want, but it's really the shit devs that either don't know how to change it, or they don't want to change it which is even worse.
Either way, it's a bad sign for bcash.
6. Hilariously outright lies about BTC fees while being called out for constantly outright lying about BTC fees. 1sat/byte TX's are being confirmed right now.
7. hahaha doesn't even deny it.

>>7266624
>People are losing BTC by sending it to Bcash addresses.
Not on bitcoin.com wallet. Its the same key for both wallets

Based Ver

>>7266474
No such an attack would require 51% without segwit but the separation of witness data and blocs changes the nash equilibrium youtube peter rizun "segwit blocks are not bitcoin blocks" for detail.

You have to ask yourself why would they introduce segwit when it introduces this vulnerability when lightning network needs 133mb blocks anyway and segwit is not necessary for second layer solutions. Addituonally there is not a single justification for 1mb blocks

>>7266624
Show those 1 sats/byte please, I can't find them.
>By the way: 1 BTC satoshi is way more in USD than 1 BTC satoshi (it probably matters)

>>7266806
Well shit , now I don't know what the hell to believe.
Answer me this. Why the hell would Loaded move 358 million dollars to Segwit ?

https://twitter.com/whalepanda/status/957195180247015424?lang=en

Makes no sense if what you are saying is true.

>>7266480
Litecoin - fork
Bcash - hostile fork.
Very simple.

>>7266482
They could do everything without being hostile.
1. that is ULTRA FUCKING STUPID for any coin that claims to be secure and want's to actually compete with bitcoin.
2. It should have been read right away, and be the 1st thing they did. But they didn't, showing either malice or incompetence. Either way, its not good.
3. So is Monero, Doge, Litecoin, and 4000 others that don't say bitcoin in their name.
4. So what? That doesn't change my point.
5. Lol fuck off, not even remotely a good answer.
6. You can send a btc tx for 10 cents that will be included on the next block right now. You're lying. Even Bitmex (by far the most expensive to withdrawal due to 3 of 4 multisig) is 20k sats to withdraw which is $1.80
7. fair enough, but personally I think its Jihan sending attack blocks that he gets the fees for anyway.

>>7266981
What hes describing is true but a very theoretic attack vector. Its not likely to happen but the possibility of it happening means segwit should never have been done.

>>7267007
>Litecoin - fork
>Bcash - hostile fork.
>Very simple.

Anyone is free to run BCH software, buy BCH, or Fork bitcoin whenever they want without consensus. What you're saying makes no sense

>>7266915
I sad they're being confirmed, not that they're average lol... (hasn't been any 1sat/byte confirmed for months)
you can easily get a 3 to 5 sat/byte tx in on the next block right now assuming its not like an hour block or something.

>>7266074
>Then again I'm not a crypto guru. I am just a user.
As far as blocks containing invalid signatures being rejected this is true, but only if miners check signatures when they mine. If someone attempts the selfish mining technique they orphan blocks on purpose of miners who do check signatures and because signatures are extra block space when the selfish miner orphans the block it is most likely that their block becomes the main chain. By waiting to release the block when the cartel finds it they can start mining the next block meaning each time they orphan a block they have a massive advantage on finding the next block. So if miners check signatures you are fine, the issue is that it is more profitable for them not to and if a miner does this selfish attack any miner that does check signatures will solve far fewer blocks and get far fewer payouts.

>>7267007
Litecoin hash algorythm: Scrypt
x4 times the total supply.
Is not a fork, it's a new coin. Has its own blockchain.

1. Do you really find stupid keeping safe all that hash power and investors in your product?
2.
>I've just read the next points and I'm not going to keep this argument

>>7266474
>Even if the miners have 51% hashrate, the rest of the network (well those updated clients that support segwit, anyway) rejects their chain if it contains an invalid signature.
The protocol accepts the longer chain as valid so you can't stop it through this. And if you try and fork the miner just moves to your new chain and does it again. I think you misread the selfish mining attack as all miners who check signatures will be forced into losses by the cartel performing the mining attack because the cartel finds blocks and waits to release the block until other miners find the block as well. The cartel releases their block at the same time the other miners do which orphans the block. But because the cartel is all cooperating and the other miners check signatures the cartel will win more often than not. When the cartel wins they have already started work on the next block so they get a head start.

But your main point that the block will get rejected is invalid. So long as Segwit exists whatever chain it is used on is vulnerable to this attack. So if you try and fork it and the network and users use the fork so will the mining cartel. But again, the issue with the selfish mining cartel is that you won't be able to prove if your funds are stolen anyways as the signatures are gone. So you will cry about stolen coins but when someone asks you where your coins were stolen if you show them the blockchain the blockchain will show them a valid transaction. So you will never know if the coins were stolen or not.

>Monero, Doge, Litecoin, and 4000 others that don't say bitcoin in their name
>Forks

>>7267016
Well I have to say if this is the case, "Unlikely" means it will definitely happen. Especially when there is 400 million just sitting there waiting to be taken. If there is the REMOTEST possibility it will happen 100% for sure.

So let's say that is the case. The public will learn that 400 million Bitcoin where stolen from the blockchain.

That's it for crypto as a whole. it's all over 100%
No one will ever trust any code ever again. The public will never invest in ANY coin. Not BCH, Not ETH, not anything at all that isn't back by the power of the government.

So I have to ask myself. What is the purpose of BCH pushing this narrative ? It makes no sense at all on any level.

You think if BCH is right and bitcoin fails because everyone with a segwit address gets BTFO, that everyone will just flock to BCH ?

Yeah no, that would be the end of all blockchain for a generation.

Instead of fudding you better be helping Bitcoin find a solution for the BTC chain instead of shilling BCH.

>>7266552
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BCASH KEKS SO NAIVE
It could have been Karpeles though it is unlikely. But they were stolen through a copied wallet.dat file before the bitcoin wallets were encrypted so that wallet and the next 100 wallets created from that file by Mt. Gox were owned by both Mt. Gox and the hacker. What I'm saying is that any audit would have shown Mt. Gox as solvent due to the way the Mt. Gox was hacked. You obviously don't quite understand and probably can't, but I'm letting others know who can understand.

>>7266074
>My understanding is if a block containing an invalid signature is mined, then the entire rest of the node network will reject the block.

This is what I meant to quote in my other reply.

>>7267208
Exactly, they forked the code, and then innovated. They didn't hard fork, then make a few tiny changes, then go on the biggest fud campaign of all time against its biggest competitor.

By not changing the algorithm they open themselves up to an easily possible 51% attack. It would cost billions to attack bitcoin, but a small minority of bitcoin miners can easily destroy any shitcoin that doesn't change algorithms. It's ultra dumb in my opinion to fork and not change algos.

>>7267289
Now you're getting it. Just because its a fork of something doesn't mean it has to or even should keep the name.

>>7267358
>>7267407
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

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

What is a fork?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(blockchain)

>>7267556
I know I'm using words that you don't understand, I'm very sorry for that.

>>7267556
You know that forks happen on things other than the blockchain itself right? I mean I thought you were at least a little smarter than the average bcunt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)