/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>7674727
Most old btc holders think their millions validate their opinions. In my eyes the vast majority never came to enjoy higher education or business dancing lessons, so they have to pad their public behavior with bullshit. They got lucky.

What a word salad void of argument

>>7674727

Bitcoin is the only crypto that matters, newcomer faggot. If you came in 2017 or later your opinion on anything crypto-related is objectively useless

>>7674973
Cool justification man I'm sure your opinion has nothing to do with the fact that your wallet is probably majority Bitcoin

>>7674973
This is what will be your downfall, corecuck. Tell me, are you 100% in btc?

>>7674999

Nope but I'm smart enough to recognize that shitcoins literally only exist for you to flip to increase your BTC stack

>>7675193
And yet most still have to get burned repeatedly on shitcoins before arriving at this truth. As a weeding-out process it's effective

>>7675193
See this is the mentality of the btc-hoarding oldfag. Most btc early-adopters are afraid of the shifting paradigm... much like Wall Street sneered at bitcoin for years, btc-hoarders now sneer at the world cryptos... just a year ago btc-dominance was at over 85%, now it's less than 35%.

>>7675193
Still waiting for any justification

>>7675193
You're delusional.

I only care about ETH. I don't think anyone use Bitcoin as their unit of account for anything but historical reason.

Guess what? Legacies come and go. Bitcoin's days are numbered.

Assuming BTC is digital gold how much market dominance does that mean it should have?

>>7674727
BTC maximalists are worst then new bankers. It is not in vain when they say give man a power and it will reveal his true character.

BTC maximalists are exactly like that, they are authoritorian. Hate competiton and tweet 24/7 while jerking of to fcking Andreas biggest btc shill of them all.

Even fucking Richard Heart left it in ditch and yet week before he was like "people are retards. We must not give them a chance to chose because they are literally mentally impaired."

Stalin would be proud!

>>7676178
1% or less.

>>7676286
What are you basing that on?

>>7675193
The Winklevoss jab at neural plasticity in old people can apply just as well to Bitcoin maximalists. You've conditioned yourself for years to that train of thought, and now your brain is literally unable to rewire to a different situation.
It's amazing the coping mechanisms in place. "People don't understand Bitcoin yet, that's why they aren't in".
I heard about Bitcoin at 30 cents, thought it was dumb, looked at it again at $10, thought it was dumb, looked at it again at $100... Did I make the same mistake as you in being unable to change my frame of thought, certainly. But at the same time, Bitcoin's value proposition didn't change one iota.
When I read one article about Ethereum last March, I immediately saw the value proposition. A decentralized currency to buy drugs and dodge taxes had no appeal, but a decentralized network for trustless applications and a censorship resistant internet sounded incredible right off the bat.
Delving into the whole crypto ecosystem, I came to realise Bitcoin could have been that as well - if Blockstream didn't stall development on purpose and censor stuff through community manipulation in complete antithesis of Bitcoin's original ethos.
Bitcoin was an important step, but Ethereum is superior in all the ways that matter. In time perhaps Ethereum will be just a step as well. There's certainly no improvement in the current batch of contenders (Cardano, Eos, Neo) nor in would-be radical innovators (Iota, Hashgraph, R3) due to fundamental flaws or limited use cases; but in a few years, perhaps a better cryptocurrency will come.
Either way, clinging to the past is riskier every day. Any rational investor uses ETH as the unit of reference at this point, with the knowledge this mental framework must be reevaluated on a yearly basis.

>>7676427
On the fact that its just another shitcoin like rest of them. Complete shit. And no Im not Roger shill, that shit is even bigger pos.

>>7676487
>but in a few years, perhaps a better cryptocurrency will come.

Quantum (QTUM) is already here.

>>7676487
My fedora did a backflip.

>>7676487
1,000% this

>>7676496
I agree with you but I have no idea how Bitcoin will perform mid term.

>>7676427
If their was a new crypto called asscoin, that was exactly like btc, it wouldn't even get past the ICO.

>>7677392
Even BTC maximalists know that. What does that have to do with anything?

>>7677392
indisputable truth. Imagine the ICO;
We're going to make a chain that is designed to be slow and have high fees.
But that's ok because it will have a second layer with fast transactions and low fees.
And this second layer won't be decentralised, so we can capture all the value in the chain at the second layer, whilst most people don't notice and think it's actually a distributed cryptocurrency with a real blockchain.
Who would invest in that shit? Aside from the traditional finance industry because they're scared of being massacred by genuine crypto.
Answer; absolutely nobody with any brain at all. Bitcoin Core only got where it is because it pulled a bait and switch, and it was only able to pull a bait and switch because external forces sabotaged and hijacked the media and political channels of the project.
And now it's going to suffer the fate it deserves for the roadmap it has adopted.

>>7676130
This desu. BCH is the real bitcoin but they're slow to add exciting features and partnerships so the coin that matters right now is ETH.

>>7677482
You have no idea what you are talking about. Please stop.

>>7677514
The fact that you don't know anything doesn't mean people who point it out to you don't.

>>7674727
Been In btc since 12, I stop here every now and then to help out you noobz and pay my respects since I discovered btc here on 4chan. It seems like no one on this board has any idea how open source software develops. Careful with the shit coins, everyone I know that works in the industry is at least 50% btc, even many of the ethereum founders.

>>7677489
Btc is IBM, eth is Xerox. I don't know who the Microsoft and Apple of cryptos will be.

>>7677556
You are probably the newest and most faggoty of the newfaggots. Stfu and learn about how open source software develops and maybe even pick up some math/cryptography/distributed systems knowledge so you aren't completely shitlost.

nah, but i do find it funny when late adopters seem to think that their shitcoin out of 1500 is somehow going to be the one to take over and dominate everything.

>>7676487
Everything that ETH does is what Bitcoin was designed to do. The Core developers and Blockstream blocked Vitalik from developing dApps on it, calling it "spam". What's why Bitcoin Cash is a thing. The intention is to make Bitcoin great again. Will it matter? idk, the damage might already be all done and ETH takes the crown.

>>7677612
BCH's problem is that they still haven't solved how to distribute development work and they're "understaffed" so to speak. But they are the only real censorship currency alternative to BTC (ETH has the occasional high fees and that's ok, the rest of them are hackable shitcoins).
ETH's problem is that while hard forks are perfectly OK, hard forks that redistribute money make it impossible to sell your project as money. Which is ok, ETH is a product, not money, and it's a product with a pretty cool value proposition, which attracted all the devs in the space.
Honestly everything else in this space are garbagecoins with the occasional single-issue token that will improve some niche industry. If the Microsoft and Apple are still to come, they haven't been announced yet.

>>7677514
Because bitcoin maximalists have no defense for btc except "muh legacy".

>>7677714
>blockstream
>chemtrails
you know that's how you sound right?

>>7677732
>blockstream isn't real

>>7677725
I'm not a maximalist but I am 66% btc and for good reason. I've used lightning on mainnet and it's unreal. Eth 2nd layer should be pretty good too and I like eos if they actually do what they say they are going to do.

>>7677675
It's funny to think that early adopters think that the oldest, most outdated technology is going to remain relevant forever.

>video rental stores are never going to go away!

>>7677732
>blockstream doesn't exist, only a conspiracy

>>7677812
That's not how open source software works. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are using tcp/ip moron and there were other "better" implementations at the time as well.

>>7677661
I've been coding for over twenty years, and using linux since 0.99f. I know exactly how genuine open source software works, and it isn't what's happening in core. What's happening in core is pretentious fuckwits like yourself are being conned into giving up the freedoms the original project was designed to bestow upon its users, and you're covering up your confusion with fake intellectual vanity, because you can't accept the simple fact that actually you have no fucking clue what's going on.
kill yourself.

>>7677871
So make something better than core faggot. You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Make something better and take over the world, no one cares who the fuck is making it. MAKE SOMETHING BETTER FAGGOT.

>>7677845
In theory but not in practice. Btc is fucking frozen in time, just like you grandpa.

Btc dominance fell from >85% to <35% in a year. By the end of this year it'll be lower than 5%, the times are passing you by. If you don't adapt to the changing market, you'll lose most your crypto gains by sticking your head in the sand.

>>7677906
There's dozens of much better coins than btc out right now.

>>7677906
Already done shit for brains, that's exactly what BCH is, what Bitcoin was to begin with, peer to peer electronic cash you lobotomised thundercunt. All they did was stick to the original design and roadmap.

>>7677954

I have alts.
I already have more money than I know what to do with.
Obviously btc dominance is going to go down when you can press a button on a screen and create faggot coin.
Yes the dominance will continue to go down because there are going to be literslly billions of chains.
You obviously haven't used LN yet or you would be weighted slightly heavy towards btc as well.

>>7677906
There was a fork back in August, you most of missed the memo.

>>7674727
I did the math on some thread a while ago. For McDonald's alone to switch entirely to bitcoin then it would take the entire world's annual energy usage (all forms) in electricity every 2 weeks to process their transactions.
So even if you had a crypto that was a million times more efficient your crypto future is a fucking delusion.

>>7677982

I hold an equal amount of bch to btc so I really don't care. BCH will end up using LN anyway and I was for 2X if it wasn't done by retards, but it was done by retards so we were all against it.

>>7678054

I have the same amount of bch as btc so I really don't care who wins.

>>7678071
BCH will probably not use LN, because the present iteration of LN relies on segwit, and segwit is complete fucking trash. It will however almost certainly eventually have second layer transaction processing, yes. I was also for 2X, but now that I've fully internalised and understood just how fucked up Segwit is I'm glad the chain wars are coming down to BCH vs BTC, and I hope BTC goes to its natural worth of zero after the treatment Blockstream and the core devs have subjected it to.

>>7674973
This. People who got into crypto In 2017 are a cancer.

Bitcoin is the only valuable crypto.

>>7678054

>most of
>must of
>of

Kys faggot.

>>7678058
>t. full retard

>>7678071
Payment channels already exist on both chains. Cross channeled LN doesn't fucking work and if it does it'll be implemented, doesn't require Segwit and in fact Segwit is reason enough to not want BTC. Also payment channels are mostly worthless anyway if settling on chain is too expensive/lead time prohibitive.

>>7678147
Shit, I guess fuck everything then.

>>7678145
BCH will definitely use a 2nd layer solution in the future NOT because they wouldn't raise the block limit enough to handle all the transactions in the world.
They'll need a 2nd layer similar to today's banking layer because people are retards who are too dumb to take good care of their own money and normies are going to lose wallets left and right. They'll also want some mistaken transactions reversed.

>>7678058
Really? Were you taking the LN into account with in those calculations of yours?

>>7678145
Malle fix without segwit is fine with me I really don't give a fuck but from the discussions I've had they understand some sort of 2nd layer is needed. Problem is that the bch community has hard dicks for on chain scaling. Like I said, ultimately I don't care who wins.

>>7678218
Basically this. Meanwhile everyone is able to retain their economic freedom and not forced onto a 2nd layer.

>>7678020
Even with LN why would I use btc instead of qtum, EOS or IoT Chain?

>>7678146
Atm, but the flippening is inevitable. Adapt when the time is due, or get shrekked

>>7678200
Are you schiz? I have no idea what kind of word salad nonsense you just put together?!

>>7678287
What don't you understand? This isn't even high level stuff.

>>7678230
The only argument against on-chain scaling is the cost to run a full node. Let's see who is going to run a full BTC node:
>All of blockstream
>Universities
>All 0 merchants who accept BTC
>Blockstream's 1000 fake nodes put on different VPS-es to simulate adoption
And BCH nodes:
>No-one from blockstream
>Universities
>All the thousands of merchant's who'd eventually use BCH
>Jihan's puppets who put 1000 fake nodes on AliCloud only in order to simulate adoption

BCH is actually going to be more decentralized by design, and had this been BTC the merchants would have already been there, too. There's literally no argument against on-chain scaling.

>>7678275
>the flippening is inevitable
Take your head out of your ass, most people still think crypto IS bitcoin. If BTC fails, everything crypto related will die with it for decades at least, because noone will touch it because >muh ponzi.

>>7678261
Because LN opens the door for insane scalability and use cases where you won't even know you are using bitcoin. Sub satoshi fees, instant, global, no scaling wall, millions of tx per second. I already know people working on a global venmo that uses unique user ID like email, like myname@lightning.network

>>7674727
This pierre guy is a delusional fucktard lmao.

>>7678363
Good, fuck it. Let it burn. I'm in this shit for the long term. It just gives me more time to accumulate.

>>7678329

Fine. Like I said I don't care who wins. My only point is that layer 2 is amazing. For anyone here that hasn't used it yet, I recommend trying It out. Bch should have a good second layer, eth too and I like eos.

>>7678418
Honest question, what is so amazing about layer 2 that the main blockchain doesn't have?

>>7678218
I'm not so sure second layer makes sense for transaction reversibility, the whole five dollar wrench problem etc is ripe territory for innovation at the end of the day, in the mainstream market it is solved by reversible transactions, but maybe there's a better way. To my mind, the big use case for second layer is transaction types that don't make economic sense to be pushed on chain, if the chain capacity isn't artificially restricted, it is still going to have a natural limit, and once that limit is reached, it's extremely unlikely that will also happen to coincide with the exact amount of total transactions people would ideally like to be able to make across the entire world, and with this natural market force for the transaction setting the fee to a very small level, it makes perfect sense then to have other layers.
The only thing that makes me despise lightning, Blockstream, and Bitcoin's approach to second layer scaling is because they're transparently sabotaging an open source project that had the potential to change the world perhaps more than any other software before it, just so they can pad the fucking Blockstream bottom line, it's just so fucking disgusting what they've done, I hope the industry never forgets and they all get what they deserve.

>>7675363
I like how no corecuck tried to refute this. I don't care whether BTC lives or dies, I'm hedged either way, and so should everyone be.

>>7678366
So? That's still inferior to a lot of much better cryptos? Why waste with an old dilapidated shitcoin with a bad foundation and an upgrade shell placed on top just because it has a recognizable name? Especially when there are dozens of better coins built more solid from the ground up...

>>7678490

Instant.
Sub satoshi fees.
The tx fee to join the network is already proving to be refunded by many nodes.
Unlimited scaling.
Insane new use cases not possible before.

It's not hard. Try it out.

>>7678418
>blockchain is great
>lets not use it

Making it so all end users besides node operators (it will literally be banks) can settle on the blockchain, makes using crypto utterly pointless.

>>7678363
You shortsightedness is hilarious. Btc will die out the upcoming years. People will start to get used to other cryptos. Just like they learned to adapt to other superior products in the past.

BTC maximalists have always been cringeworthy retards who never grasped the underlying ideas behind crypto. They're the circa 2013 version of the retards flooding in now who think regurgitating Corecuck propaganda means they are smart.

>>7678521
What you don't seem to understand is that people TRUST bitcoin, and that's immensely valuable.

All the fucking fakeshills on twatter are dead ass disabled or some fuck

>>7678521
The foundation is fine. The only reason that other chains haven't hit a scaling wall is because they HAVEN'T hit the scaling wall. Layer 2 is needed with every chain in existence right now.

>>7678565
It's an impartial arbiter for the first time in human history. There is no need for my purchase of a coffee to go to the arbiter when there is no dispute. I can make 1,000,000,000 tx a year and settle up at the end of the year or decade just fine.

>>7677718
>ETH's problem is that while hard forks are perfectly OK, hard forks that redistribute money make it impossible to sell your project as money.

Because 'they switched to a fork which reversed theft of 5% of all ethers and therefore they are useless as money' sounds so convincing.

People with your logic are btc hodlers who don't spend their coins at all, so their opinion is irrelevant.

>>7675363
>>7678507

If by any random astral event one of the alt devs find an innovative addon to the blockchain it can also be implemented in bitcoin. There is literally nothing an alt can do (not gimmicks or vapor, just sustainable scalable tech) that bitcoin cannot do as we speak.

Comparing wallstreet-bitcoin to bitcoin-alts is the most retarded leddit comparison I've ever seen.

>>7678558
Sorry, I really don't want to be trolling but I can't see any of these being something that 0-conf doesn't provide already.

You guys are hopeless. Gonna go get my cock sucked by 2 seeking arrangement girls now. Gl with the shit coins but I recommend holding at least 33% btc and equal amount bch. Coin to coin, not percentage.

>>7678734
I sense Bcash cult supporter.

>>7678773
How big does block has to be for 1,000,000,000,000 0conf txs every 10min?

>>7678734
There's a precedent of redistribution. It means that if the majority of users want to switch to a fork which taxes the rich and gives to the poor, there's this risk that the old chain that doesn't will die. Probably sounds silly now but you do need to look into the future when less than 1% of users will be libertarians.
Once code stops being law and there's a fair dictator on top it's simply not uncensorable money, and it doesn't cover BTC's value proposition. It's perfectly good at what it does and I hold a shit ton of it, but it's not money.

>>7678565
let's use it but only as a security measure for other layers so as to avoid bloating it with useless data like dapps and dust transactions (useless for the purpose a blockchain provides - open secure ledger)

>>7674727
>Pierre Rochard
>Jean Cripteau

>>7678824
>Every person on the planet will be making 143 transactions every 10 minutes, including while he's sleeping, therefore we should limit block space to 1mb

>>7678710
>I can make 1,000,000,000 tx a year and settle up at the end of the year or decade just fine.

Okay so why use blockchain again? Nodes are centralized with their own ledgers subject to all kinds of fuckery before settlement.

If you want to use a payment processor just use fucking Visa. Speaking of which, this will be subject to KYC and other kinds of regulation that isn't able to control blockchain transactions.

>>7678843
Wow, that's actually an interesting point. I'd argue tho that most people who control the forking would themselves be economically active, i.e. they would not benefit from this redistribution. I see a bigger problem if there's a centralized agency that can control this because then it will simply HAPPEN, because the gov says so. At least you can contest it with ETH

>>7678902
Iot would require the streaming of resources and yes that number of tx is very possible, do your homework. So let me rephrase since you are a being a cunt, what about 1,000,000 tx every 10 min?

>>7674727

lol at all these salty threads. BTC is #1 for a reason, crying on a chinese rice art forum will change fuck all. Enjoy your bags

>>7678366
LN is going to kill bitcoin because it only scales well if it's used in with bitcoin banks/exchanges. Like that recent lightning ramp that uses internal coinbase transfers. Nobody is actually going to keep their bitcoins in a channel. It requires a full node for a start + being online 24/7 to watch for fraud.

Everyone forgot that nobody needs crypto transfers for legit payments. It's inferior in every possible way.
Pay with credit card and possibly get some bonus back vs
send money to an exchange, buy bitcoin (fees + spread = ~0.5%), send to someone while paying a fee to the payment gateway (~1%).
The only people who are going to use crypto to pay for legit things are those that use it as a method to cash out, but that's obviously not sustainable.

LN is useless for illegal transfers because every company has one address which destroys pseudonymity.

>>7678921
That's not accurate. The balance between parties cannot be fucked with, that's literally the whole point moron.

>>7678745
Jesus fuck, btc wasn't this fucking miracle project. Sure it was an innovation but a lot of innovation since then has happened in the almost 10 years from it's launch.

>>7677608
Deluded

>>7678843
>There's a precedent of redistribution.

Precedent doesn't mean anything. Every decentralized crypto can be forked. If there's strong enough economic pressure to do so it's going to happen. Then it's only a question what's the split.

I don't think such a fork is realistic today, unless there's some catastrophic bug found in ethereum itself that results in enormous theft, I mean something like 10% of all ethers.

>Once code stops being law

Code is only law on the unforked chain. It's impossible to force people to remain on it.

as long as there are people who value Sats over USD the market will peg all coins at a specific value to btc for better or worse. A flippening cannot happen as long as minimalists exist. They will sooner kill the market than allow another coin to go above BTCs USD value.

>>7678773
This is going to sound like a shitty argument because of the toxic taint that core has afflicted it with by leaning so heavily on it when it's completely unjustified, but I'll give it a shot.
Blockchains *do* actually have a natural scaling limit, at the end of the day, defined by the architecture and the nature of the underlying technology. It's nowhere near what is being artificially imposed on the BTC chain at 1mb every ten minutes which works out to something like 13.33kbps, but it is there.
If you look at Satoshi's calculations from 2008 for example, if I recall correctly he talks about how you could hit the same throughput on chain as Visa at the time, effectively by using 670MB blocks. Even at the time, that wasn't really considered cutting edge technologically speaking, and now it's laughable with many places having gigabit internet connections, etc. But that was only Visa for 2008, it's a damn sight higher throughput than the paltry 3-7 tx that the BTC chain has been artificially restricted to, but if you instead compare it to *every transaction across the globe that the human race might want to make for any given edge case or convenience, whatsoever* it too becomes a paltry amount.
Let's imagine that level to be a thousand times greater, just to give an example of something that would be unworkable. That would imply block sizes of 670GB. That's 8.933Gb/sec. Now we're starting to get to the limits of what present bandwidth will allow. And the higher you go from here, the more unworkable it gets.

>>7679108
Now to re-emphasize, this is so far above the 1mb/10min mark it's laughable to compare them, but the point is, eventually a natural scaling ceiling does get hit. You could further tune on chain throughput, and thus raise that natural scaling ceiling even higher, by using techniques like sharding or some other currently unknown method, but eventually you'll hit a hard natural ceiling.
From there, second layers are the obvious and appropriate way to scale. And then anyone can choose for themselves, amongst the massive potential transaction traffic, with different costs per use case, where their transaction sits in the hierarchy, and arrange their use of the network appropriately.
It should be mentioned however that it took nine years of natural organic growth to even hit the 13.33kbps on chain throughput limit, so the urgency for second layer solutions is laughably loose, and has only been artificially imposed by Blockstream insisting that it be done now, because their business plan demands it, and the rest of the network has been pulled in line by a combination of their own idiocy and propaganda.

>>7675363
>Most btc early-adopters are afraid of the shifting paradigm... much like Wall Street sneered at bitcoin for years, btc-hoarders now sneer at the world cryptos
This. Corecucks are the boomers of crypto.

>>7678843
It's dumbfounding you manage to spin majority consensus as a negative thing in consensus systems. Money is a representation of social capital. If you're the 1% and fail to redistribute part of your wealth in initiatives to make the 99% feel content with their lot, you've fucked up. Libertarianism doesn't mean you are the only one free to screw over everyone else, everyone else has just as much freedom not to associate with you. If you want accumulated capital to reign supreme, current capitalism and socialist models are more appropriate.

>>7679131
Everything has a scaling limit, but it's very possible that actual demand for on-chain transaction would be rise slower than available bandwidth.
Real physical barriers to storage and bandwidth are >10 orders of magnitude from where we are. The only physical limit that's close to getting hit is sequential processing speed because of speed of light.

>>7676487
>Either way, clinging to the past is riskier every day. Any rational investor uses ETH as the unit of reference at this point
Great minds think alike. ETH will flip BTC legacy, that 100% will happen. It's only a waiting game from here.

>>7679131
Everything has a scaling limit, but it's very possible that actual demand for on-chain transactions would rise slower than available bandwidth.
Real physical barriers to storage and bandwidth are >10 orders of magnitude from where we are. The only physical limit that's close to getting hit is sequential processing speed because of speed of light.

>>7679332
Isolated peer to peer connections that are't broadcast don't necessarily have a scaling limit, which is why second layer is the "final solution" for this kind of thing. It's the nature of a peer to peer blockchain as a broadcast network that means it has a necessarily imposed natural scaling limit, although yes, you're right, we're orders of magnitude away from the actual natural scale ceiling of blockchains presently, and it's not completely impossible that they are simply never hit at all, totally negating the point of any second layer transaction processing at any rate.

>>7674727
The big question is, why are people still debating this? BCH might flip BTC but if not its only a matter of time before something else does. EOY either BCH or another coin will have flipped BTC.

BTC core fucks, you guys lost. Its over and its BEEN OVER. The only people who still buy BTC do it while crying themselves to sleep jacking their dicks off to pictures of sports cars. You are a bunch of morons that are equally as delusional as SJWs on a good day. On a bad day I cant tell if you are fucking flat earthers or or tide pide eaters.

The only reason BTC goes up in value is something called washtrading. Bots are currently tethering your shitcoin to other coins that actually do get action. Its all smoke and mirrors and its easy as fuck to see it. NOBODY is actually buying Bitcoin to HODL anymore. YOUR SHIT IS FUCKING DEAD.

>>7679522

>>7679579
You know, the coretards are right. We shouldn't call it Bitcoin Core. It's too confusing, Core what? Core is such a general term, we need something more specific, something which uniquely identifies the chain, something that symbolises the unique genius of their revolutionary ideas in a way that will make it apparent to all and sundry the true value of the product.
Gentlemen, I present to you; Bitcoin Tabs.

>>7679522
I don't think bch has any chance. The major argument against btc is 'it's a tulip/beanie baby/collector item'. Once eth goes PoS it becomes a dividend-generating share in the network.
Eth is going to flip btc because of proof of stake.

I think first there will be a hard fork, slow rise starts due to less supply dumped on the market. Then CNBC and other talking heads on tv start to explain what is that staking thing and what it mean. Then the bull run starts that takes ether over $1T market cap.

>>7679718
>The major argument against btc is 'it's a tulip/beanie baby/collector item'
The Major argument is that its lost its way. Devs decided to let it become unusable on purpose and so its useless now. LN is uncertain to work and if yes its uncertain when.

BCH clearly has a chance since its getting more merchant adoption every day. ETH has a true chance aswell, one of my biggest holds.
However ETH isnt marketing itself as payment solution as hard.

>>7679718
Frankly BTC is so shit that I'd take ETH over it if I had to choose between the two, but ETH has its own problems, and none of them are that promising. But let's just focus on proof of stake to begin with, primarily that no large cap coin as of yet has managed to secure itself with proof of stake, and Ethereum, despite having talked about it for years now, still has no solid roadmap to actually implementing proof of stake.
There are many fundamental objections to the very concept of proof of stake which indicate that it may actually be simply unworkable, for example, the nothing at stake problem, or acquiring a large stake and then attacking the network and shorting it on the way down, etc etc etc.

>>7679799
>However ETH isnt marketing itself as payment solution as hard.

Yes, but who is going to adopt crypto for payments now? The volume of illicit flows isn't that large. Darknet markets can't sustain mining costs at anything close to the current levels.

I'm not arguing that crypto cash is bad, I just think it reached its adoption limits by itself. There has to be some other adoption driver that increases currency adoption as a side effect. If you have eth that you bought to invest in ICOs you may as well pay for them. A person not interested in buying drugs or hiding cash from the government isn't going to buy btc/eth just to pay for a steam game or whatever with it.

That adoption driver is the stock market. ICOs are disrupting the stock market. It's way, way bigger than currencies by capitalization.
Smart contracts in general, but currently ICOs are the only serious use of them.

>>7679827
Hybrid proof of stake is supposed to happen with next hardfork. Hopefully it happens in 2018.

>the nothing at stake problem

It's solved by long period of locked deposits. So theoretically if you connect with a node that's years behind there could be someone that's feeding you a false history, but that's not a realistic attack. If anything, crypto relies on trust much more than it's assumed. How many users personally verified the source code? Or even hash of the wallet they downloaded?

>acquiring a large stake and then attacking the network and shorting it on the way down

Proof of stake is better than mining in that regard because the needed stake to do that is much larger than the equivalent cost of amassing enough mining power.

>>7680109
>well pay for them
with them*

>>7680109
> Proof of stake is better than mining in that regard because the needed stake to do that is much larger than the equivalent cost of amassing enough mining power.
But you can divest yourself of the stake you acquired in the attack, at no penalty to yourself, when you're shorting it. Whilst miners attacking the chain which they are supposed to serve sacrifice their stake in order to do it, meaning it is more economically rational for them to play by the rules.
Basically my problem with proof of stake is I've never seen a proposal for the use of it that actually takes into account the nothing at stake problem, proof of work puts something hard and fast definitely at stake in a non ignorable way, and I think that's why the vast majority of cryptos at the end of the day end up secured by it.

>>7680201
>But you can divest yourself of the stake you acquired in the attack

No you can't because it's locked. If you mean shorting equivalent amounts there's no market depth for anything approaching needed percentages.

It literally amazes me how corecucks who shill LN don't even realize that the founder of LN abandoned the fucking project because of Bitcoin's retarded limitations.

Then he founded pic related.

>>7679079
You literally repeated what I said and made it as if it's not a big deal. It is.

>>7680497
Meh

>>7680444
>>7680201
Market depth is underselling it. Imagine you have eg. 25% of eth locked that's enough to attack because 49% of all eth is staking.
You would need to short 25% just to have no exposure, but that adds up to 74% of all eth. Then you need to short more to profit.

It's impossible.

>>7680517
It's magical thinking that precedent matters. It's not a common law court.
Literally nobody thinks it's bad except btc maximalists who don't understand decentralization. I'm happy to let them sink with their shitcoin, bitcointalk and r/bitcoin is toxic because of them.

>>7680693
I'm not saying it went from infinity to zero, but the precedent IS important. You're right about decentralization, but it decentralization means different things in BTC and ETH. In BTC - it is the tool to achieve censorship resistance, while the network protocol is law and transactions are irrevirsible. In ETH it meant that the majority decides the "right" chain which if ETH was money would set up for a disaster when it's mass adopted and a socialist chain is proposed.
Do also keep in mind that at the time the fork happen it was anything but decentralized, there wasn't a variety of clients and users were practically FORCED to join the fork or code their own client from scratch.

>>7681008
>In BTC - it is the tool to achieve censorship resistance, while the network protocol is law and transactions are irrevirsible. In ETH it meant that the majority decides the "right" chain

You don't understand what decentralization is. It means everyone can fork and everyone choose what forks to support. There's literally zero difference between eth and btc.
There's no 'majority decision'. ETC still exists.

>there wasn't a variety of clients and users were practically FORCED to join the fork or code their own client from scratch.

That's wrong, it was enough to not upgrade to remain on the old chain.

>btc is not a currency
>you cant buy anything with btc

Weird, but it seems the only way to access and invest into the new hot cryptoindustry is by buying BTC and using it as a CURRENCY for BUYING crypto.

>useless
>not a currency
Lmao

>>7678745
> If by any random astral event one of the alt devs find an innovative addon to the blockchain it can also be implemented in bitcoin.
Were you in hibernattion over the last 3 years?

>>7677489
> but they're slow to add exciting features
Tru but they'll have smart contracts and ZK much sooner than btc will have anything more than HODL memes.

>>7680109
>buying drugs or hiding cash
Those are normie opinions on what crypto is used for.
There are very good reasons to adopt crypto for all online payments.

Example:
>Average creditcard fees for online merchants are 2-4%
>Average margin for online merchants are 4 %
If he uses crypto checkout with low fee such as BCH or ETH or some other coin he will almost DOUBLE his profit.
He could probably even give 2% discount and still make 1% more profit!

These are the arguments corecucks abandoned to serve their core masters.

>>7676267
>Even fucking Richard Heart left it in ditch and yet week before he was like "people are retards. We must not give them a chance to chose because they are literally mentally impaired."
I wish I could upvote that 1000 times. Count Dracula represents everything that's wrong with BTC.

>>7682219
>Those are normie opinions on what crypto is used for.

No these are actual realistic uses rather than guess work on 'what could potentially make sense'. Buying drugs is an actual motivation to buy & pay in crypto. "Theoretical lower cost on the merchant side" aren't.

>Average creditcard fees for online merchants are 2-4%

Not even close, maybe for micro shops that have to use middlemen. In EU the legal limit for interchange fee is 0.3% for credit cards and 0.2% for debit. There's no way crypto to fiat payment gateways can beat that.

Even if that were true the problem is this doesn't matter. Customers pay, not merchants, so payment solution must entice customers.

>>7674727

a lot of these Rich guys have a mega phone but all they are doing is confirming that they are idiots

>>7678145
I bet 100 satoshis BCH will use sharding if it works on ETH. It has all the pros of on chain without the major cons of a 2nd layer, and the best thing about it, it'll be a completely user friendly, which is something BTC never cared about.

>>7682363
Re-read my post. There are extremely good reasons for merchants to use crypto.
Darkweb crypto use is NOTHING compared to ecommerce.


>low fees
>no chargebacks (BIG BIG BIG PLUS)
>double your profit (If you'd be using Paypal, Creditcards otherwise)

t. Actual shop-owner that loved BTC until core cucked us

>>7682573
You should reread my post because you didn't answer any point.

>no chargebacks (BIG BIG BIG PLUS)

BIG BIG BIG MINUS for customers. Nobody fucking cares what merchants prefer.

>double your profit (If you'd be using Paypal, Creditcards otherwise)

Which is, again, irrelevant, as merchants' opinions don't matter.
And again, that's only true for micro merchants which have close to zero impact on adoption by definition, as they have no volume. Every serious business has a direct merchant account.

>>7680109
BCH will have be a platform for tokens eventually too using coloured coins.

>>7674973
I got into Bitcoin in 2011. BTC is a fucking shitcoin and will be replaced by XLM as the mainstream cryptocurrency by 2020.

>>7676608
>qtum
>still relevant in 2018
lmao

>>7682687
Merchant opinions are all that matters.
I can offer 2% discount on all crypto checkouts, still make more profit than usual, and normie scum will use it.

You dont understand basic economics

>>7682812
>I can offer 2% discount on all crypto checkouts, still make more profit than usual, and normie scum will use it.

Which unless you sell things that aren't in big shops is still going to be more than what it costs on Walmart/Amazon. They pay <0.1% on card payments as they have direct deals.

Only things that are in big shops are either unpopular and hence don't matter much, or are illegal, like drugs.

Crypto payments are more expensive than card payments with big shop rates.

>>7682744
that place looks extremely familiar. where is that?

>>7682812
>I can offer 2% discount on all crypto checkouts, still make more profit than usual, and normie scum will use it.

Which unless you sell things that aren't in big shops is still going to be more than what it costs on Walmart/Amazon. They pay <0.1% on card payments as they have direct deals.

Only things that aren't in big shops are either unpopular and hence don't matter much, or are illegal, like drugs.

Crypto payments are more expensive than card payments with big shop rates.

>>7683136
wtf I love barriers to entry now.

If Core wanted Bitcoin to be digital cash, they would not sneer and jeer that anyone who wants to "buy coffee with Bitcoin" is an idiot. It is not up to a cartel of developers to say what you should and shouldn't buy with Bitcoin.

>>7683715
>they would not sneer and jeer that anyone who wants to "buy coffee with Bitcoin"

Just use fiat.

>>7683136
IRL shops have lower CC fees.
Online you are dealing with 2-4

Even if you are big, Creditcards will be more expensive than a proper crypto, and no-chargebacks add to that.

>Crypto payments are more expensive than card payments with big shop rates.
Nope. no CC can beat 1 cent.