/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>8211245
so, you're gay and you hate bch. got it.

hey bros im here to play some golf
ready to hit some balls long and hard

You came yo right place bro

>>8211245
>a yellow golf course...

>>8211245
Is he playing golf in a fucking farmers field?
Why are all the hunks fucking retards.

>>8212016
where you expecting someone that spends 90% of their time lifting heavy objects to be intelligent?

>>8211245
Yes?

Bitcoin TRASH.

Cash is King
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAMRFDs9iOs

>>8212411
You realize that because Segwit removes signatures from blocks you can't ever do meaningful smart contracts right? For example Bitcoin Cash could have a smart contract app which allows the buyer of a any recyclable item to get paid back a couple of cents if that item makes it to a recycling center. They can do this by linking the RFID tag to the address that the item was paid from. But this smart contract app requires signatures on the payments so you can know who bought the item, and where to send the payment if the item makes it to a recycling center. Unfortunately, Bitcoin Segwit removed those signatures in order for users to share transactions on the blockchain, so even if you know which transaction the item was bought with, there are multiple other transactions withing that entry, so you cannot use it to repay the original buyer, as it is impossible to figure out who that is. Segwit is for retards. It literally kills most of what Bitcoin was built to do. With Segwit Bitcoin is just digital gold. Without Segwit Bitcoin is digital gold, digital cash, a digital smart contract ledger, and a digital method for accounting that requires no central party to operate that is guaranteed to be accurate.

>>8212093
>315 bench natty
>msc in theo physics/pure maths
>paper published in top tier journal
jelly?

>>8212902
Trying to be too many things at once is bad. For Bitcoin cash to have any use at all, it should achieve a unique solution for decentralized scalability so it could be used as cash. Whether it could theoretically so smart contracts is irrelevant.
Not only does becoming the one solution for everything is nearly impossible, claiming to do so reduces credibility.
Tldr: less talk and actually do 1 thing good.

>>8212902
bitcoin cash is still trash
4000 tps is $150 in extra hard drive space every 50 days.

>>8212093
>where

>>8213099

>Miners can't spend $1050 a year on storage

>>8213099
>>8213273
Are you guys talking about the 1TB block size project or something else?

>>8213273
>miners will spend $1050 a year on harddrives when they could spend none
Your shitcoin is dying, get over it

>>8213087
>Trying to be too many things at once is bad. For Bitcoin cash to have any use at all, it should achieve a unique solution for decentralized scalability so it could be used as cash. Whether it could theoretically so smart contracts is irrelevant.
A couple of things, its not theoretical whether it can do smart contracts, its a fact. Next the idea that it shouldn't try to do too many things at once is sometimes true, but I don't think you understand how smart contracts on Bitcoin Cash work. The smart contracts are done mostly off-chain, the blockchain is just used as an anchor (used for proof certain events have occurred, such as payments for particular items). So the smart contracts and apps I'm talking about don't really change anything to Bitcoin Cash, it just means entrepreneurs build their own smart contract apps outside the blockchain and apply them to the coin. Again this is impossible with Segwit because if you don't have signatures the blockchain can't function as an anchor because the signatures are the part that proves Alice paid Bob.

>>8213314
it's realistic to believe a chain could reach ~2-4k tps with adoption.
Visa sometimes does 10k.

It's stupidly expensive on chain and only a very select few people could afford it,, but only out of the goodness of their hearts. there's no way mining would be profitable at that level.

>>8213317

Yeah because bitcoin is really miner friendly when everything happens off-chain

>>8213099
>4000 tps is $150 in extra hard drive space every 50 days.
And also over $3.5 million in fees at $.01 per transaction. So it more than pays for itself and miners will profit immensely from it. Using actual hard drive prices you spend less than $1k on hard drives and in return will make tens to hundreds of times that investment (the horror). Also once Bitcoin Cash hits that level of transactions per second it will be top 5 in terms of world reserve currencies so we have many years until we are there.

>>8213514
holy fuck all bitcoiners and bitcoin crashers are fucking retarded
YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT THEY'RE BOTH SHIT

>>8213517
... that's $1050 in hard drive fees PER node.
you can already make more money mining ETH so when those fees to mine skyrocket... why mine?
they're barely making profit against electricity costs.

>>8212305
BITBEAN SURGE

>>8213359
>It's stupidly expensive on chain and only a very select few people could afford it,, but only out of the goodness of their hearts. there's no way mining would be profitable at that level.
What are you talking about? Two things, first its not expensive for users because users won't run full nodes. They will run SPV. SPV nodes are like running the blockchain but instead of checking all transactions on the blockchain, you only check your own transactions on the blockchain. I almost guarantee 90% of this board uses SPV already (If you have a seed phrase for your wallet you use SPV). And I guess you don't like math because the fees more than pay for the memory ($3.5 million fees per 50 days) especially considering that only pools or solo miners need to run full nodes and most miners will just be a part of pools.

>>8213025
>bragging to weeaboos
no

>>8213580
Less than 10% of miners are mining nodes, they use pools. Only solo miners or pools run nodes. There will also be other financial services that will run full nodes such as companies that scan the blockchain to allow 0 confirmation transactions in a few seconds, crypto banks, crypto smart contract companies, etc. Also you are using prices for consumer hardware, but using industrial hardware they've already done the math and at one tenth of a cent per transaction fee you can still have very profitable mining. (http://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/17/terabyte-blocks-for-bitcoin-cash.html))

TL;DR You can have over a thousand miners operating at 60% profit margins with TERABYTE block sizes.

>>8213324
Ok I see. But this signature function isn't unique to Bitcoin cash right?
Why is it so important to do smart contracts in the Bitcoin network?
There has to be a fundamental reason why Ethereum exists.

>>8213720
If you need industrial hardware to run it, you've basically given up on decentralization.

>>8213820
Centralization means a centralized group or authority has complete control over a specific item or group. So when the Core developers decided to push Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, and other big block developers out of the development team and revoked their access to the Github commit keys that was a centralized move. Furthermore, making it impossible for owners of industrial computing hardware to provide their better and more efficient services to the blockchain is also centralization as it is a central group of people telling one group that they are not allowed to help. Using industrialized computers isn't giving up on decentralization, its giving up on the communistic soyboy idea that every user is equal. Only those that provide the best services for the network deserve the opportunity at the profits from mining.

You can't pretend that decentralization means communism. Communism is centralization and that's what you are advocating for when you say that you will ban efficient hardware from scaling the network. The fact that certain industries have economies of scale isn't centralization. That's the free market at work. I don't understand how you support banning certain hardware from helping out the network on one hand and then pretend to be decentralized on the other. If you were decentralized there would be no need to interfere with who becomes a node, yet here you are saying that efficient and powerful nodes shouldn't be allowed to help the network and the network should be forced to rely on computers that aren't designed for the task given.

>>8213932

Coretards BTFO

>>8213932

>>8213932
Hmmm, interesting, I haven't really thought about it in a communist/liberal point of view.
My point of view is this: neither BTC or BCH will be THE crypto. The reason is that most people are bitter that they were not in on it soon enough. That's why new altcoins are made every day.
I think that the 1 crypto that will actually be taken into mainstream use is the coin that would enable equal mining possibilities for everyone. Ideally it should be only be mineable withsmartphones, but maybe CPU/GPU is good enough. ASICs are a big no-no.

When I think about it, I guess my view is "communistic", but this is probably the way a global currency would be accepted.

>>8213598
why pay $3.5 million in fees to miners when you can use ETH for 1/100th of those fees?
For $3.5 million in fees you can have a maximum of 3000 nodes to break even.

So what, are we going to have 100 nodes, then have those pools charge 3% mining fees?

but why bother? the free market has already determined no one has any interest in bitcoin crash.
There are a dozen other blockchains that can do other things more efficientlly and smarter, without first resorting to the laziest, expensive method that quickly centralizes so that no one can run their own node.

>>8214161
Fortunately the world doesn't operate according to what you think is right

>>8214161
ASIC resistance is a meme. It's easier to create an ASIC for any hash algorithm than it is to create a new secure cryptographic hash.

>>8214313
Well right now it's my opinion against your opinion, all we can discuss are ideas at this point.

>>8214318
MTP might be a solution for that, check https://zcoin.io/what-is-mtp-merkle-tree-proof-and-why-it-is-important-to-zcoin/
Zcoin almost implemented it in 2017 August, but they found a possible security threat. Now they plan to release it by Q2, will be quite interesting if this really works.

>>8212093
T. That fattie who got picked last in PE

>>8214200
>why pay $3.5 million in fees to miners when you can use ETH for 1/100th of those fees?
>For $3.5 million in fees you can have a maximum of 3000 nodes to break even.
Ethereum fees are far higher than BCH fees so I don't know what meth you smoke. Also the math for Bitcoin works out so that you can always have about 1,000 profitable full node miners. Since its a small world network rather than a mesh this is more than enough security. If you look at other node networks, like e-mail, almost everyone uses them, but there are only a couple of hundred or thousand nodes.

>>8214161
>My point of view is this: neither BTC or BCH will be THE crypto. The reason is that most people are bitter that they were not in on it soon enough. That's why new altcoins are made every day.
I agree, any coin with a capped limit on coin supply will fail. Money should have stable value over the long-term. Any coin with a capped supply must necessarily rise in price to keep pace with economic growth. This is not best for the economy and forces businesses to shut down as whatever rate the economy increases by (and thus the price of that coin), the businesses experience a loss. So at 4% economic growth using Bitcoin the price of Bitcoin rises 4% so if you had real profits of 12% your realized profits are your real profits minus the deflation of Bitcoin, or 8%. So the cap on coins makes EVERY business less profitable. Furthermore the cap on coins lowers the mining incentive and creates fewer nodes and less security. The yearly inflation rate of coins should either be pegged at around 1-5% (the inflation rate of gold) or it should be linked to the hashrate which would also help lessen price volatility. I agree BCH and BTC are doomed, but as of today all of the 1500 crypto's are doomed eventually.

>>8214865
The question isn't whether it would work, it's that me as a regular Joe can not afford to buy industrial hardware and participate in the network.

>>8214947
But what does participating in the network do for you? If you use SPV then you get the wallet, the private keys, the security, and all you need to check on the blockchain are your own transactions, not everyone else's.

>>8211245

sauce?

>>8214936
The coin supply issue is probably one of the most difficult ones to solve.
I'm not a macro economic expert, but my understanding is that the inflation of currency should be the same as the amount of goods produced.
I think theoretically it will be possible to calculate the GDP once the supply chain blockchainis such as WTC and vechaini are implemented everywhere. Then you could tie a currencies supply to that.

>>8214985
If I can't rune the full node, who will?
Right now money supply is controlled by federal reserve and transactions by VISA. Will there be new organizations to do that then? What's the point then to begin with?

>>8213025
am I supposed to be impressed when I don't even know what an msc is?

>>8215433
master of science, he thinks one has to be smart to get one and so believes he deserves recognition because of it

>>8211245
>every other shitcoin braps with some slag
>cashies are called in with buff men
Cashies confirmed gay bagholders lel

>>8215490
t. Low test beta

>>8215483
you sound kinda jelly mate

hows that ba in film studies serving ya?

>>8215490

There's nothing wrong with big muscular men with thick cocks advertising crypto.

>>8215062
>The coin supply issue is probably one of the most difficult ones to solve.
Maybe, or maybe not. If you link the inflation rate to the hashrate then so long as your equation can properly adjust for increases in computing power you can make crypto susceptible to market supply and demand forces (more hashpower equals more inflation and less hashpower equals less inflation). This method doesn't really work right now because adoption is so low and only after adoption begins to plateau will stable value be possible. As far as using supply chain blockchains for calculating GDP growth etc, you can only estimate, its not an exact science. The reason why is that if you try to add distinct economic goods you don't get meaningful variables for math. For instance if you have 5 shoes and try to add 12 shirts to it you will find that because they are not the same item math no longer has a purpose. So you can't actually calculate economic growth, all you can do is estimate and then use that to estimate the best inflation rate for a coin and try and devise a mathematical equation that keeps you at that rate over the long term.

>>8212093
I lift 1 hour a day, 5-6 days a week. I look better than you ever will, with an 145 iq and over 800k in shitcoins.

Where's your god now you disgusting dyel?

>>8216016
>flexing on biz
>never going to make it

>>8215655
I've read thousands and thousands of theoretical physics research papers so I know your msc doesn't mean shit, phds usually don't either

>>8214161
THE crypto is ARK

>>8216175
Lol

>>8216016
> in shitcoins.
If you said "in crypto" or "in bitcoin" I would have tried to make fun of you, but shitcoins is the true gainsmaxer.

Good luck to you my fellow dex accumulator of dank shitcoins.

>>8216067
>he thinks skimming a paper and nodding when he encounters a word he recognises means he understands it
Let me guess, you've made your own theory of everything you just need someone to write it up in language of mathematics?

>>8216264
You sound exactly like the kind of scientism cult faggot believer I despise, the epitome of what's wrong with modern science, I'd love to destroy your ego just for the sake of it, link your shitty paper from that "top tier journal" if you want while I'm making money

A lot of papers are full of logical fallacies and inconsistencies, complex mathematical equations make your kind think they're the shit but usually that's only hiding the lack of substance beneath :)

>>8216445
thanks for finally admitting that you're a pleb

>>8211245
>bitcoin CRASH

>>8216485
>he's afraid of linking his paper on here
what's wrong buddy?

>>8216518
Why would I doxx myself idiot?

Here's a slightly older version of published paper. Mind giving me some pointers mate? Point out some errors?

>>8216709
Oh a shitty maths paper then, any link to theoretical physics? What's your result? What are your assumptions? Applying it to the standard model perhaps or just mental masturbation?

>>8214865
>ETH fees higher than BCH
that happens when people actually use the currency.
eth is attempting to solve the storage problem with sharding, BCH isn't doing anything.
XLM handles it by pruning the chain.
Nano handles it by storing balances in the protocol, so there's no need to store the entire chain.

BCH is worthless. it adds nothing to the ecosystem. while I think EOS is not that great, it does add parallel processing and high tx throughput to the mix.
BCH? just another scamcoin.

>>8216709
this is a pointless rehashing of a well known theorem.

>>8216890
I can hand you as many straws as you want mate, all your doing is grasping at them. Its passed peer review in top journal, why would your scrutiny mean anything? Can you understand a single line? The results are a set of theorems which allow for easy calculation of moduli space of certain class of functions which resemble holomorphic functions in higher dimension spaces.

>>8216952
Which theorem is that friend?

>>8217046
>Its passed peer review in top journal
Oh do you want me to link you to peer reviewed papers that show how common it is for peer reviewed papers in "top journals" to have logical inconsistencies?

Well especially in the research that deals with experimentation, not so much with pure maths I would guess (or hope), but your paper is so far removed from experimentation that it's basically intellectual masturbation.

Has anyone ever used your set of theorems in published research besides you or your buddies? According to you they're not even allowing calculations that weren't previously possible, they're just making some calculations more "easy", whoop dee fucking doo! Yea I'm sure if you assume the universe is a 12-dimensional manifold and treat particles as holomorphic functions of some sort you could make use of your theorems amongst all that bullshit, now what's the link to reality, to experimentation, what do we know about the universe thanks to you that wasn't previously known? Yea jack shit that's what, just useless research like 99.9% of what's out there that will never be used by anyone.

But I'm sure you're proud of it so congrats buddy

>>8217306
yeah, all that crypto math stuff was a waste of time. why'd those losers even bother? they should have just gone into gender studies

>>8217306
You seem to be enraged.

>>8217350
The bitcoin whitepaper is a prime example of deep and useful research, whereas most academic research is intellectual masturbation that doesn't lead to anything.

>>8217376
I just like to remind your kind you aren't shit. I've dealt with so many obnoxious dogmatic academics and scientists in my life who are actually hindering the progress of science that yea I do get emotional about it.

>>8211245
fag containment thread? fag containment thread.

>>8217635
cryptography was mostly a waste of time before computers.
Bitcoin's foundations are in the type of math you're attacking.

many problems that math fixes aren't used until decades after they're theorized.

>>8217670
Is that why you're here?

>>8217635
>I just like to remind your kind you aren't shit. I've dealt with so many obnoxious dogmatic academics and scientists in my life who are actually hindering the progress of science that yea I do get emotional about it.
>I've taken no time to learn science to any kind of depth but I'm gonna judge people who have because they make me feel inferior

>>8217677
The old usual argument, I didn't feel like wasting time addressing it. Cryptography wasn't a waste of time before computers, cryptography has been used ever since Antiquity. Computers made it all the more relevant.

Bitcoin's foundations aren't among the type of useless maths. Look at the sources of the whitepaper:

"Design of a secure timestamping service with minimal
trust requirements"
"How to time-stamp a digital document"
...

They have direct practical applications.

Then there's the argument that some maths problems that don't have practical applications end up having some much later. While that was sometimes true for maths research before the 19th century, pretty much everything that came later wasn't a necessity to solve whatever practical problem. When something specific is needed it's invented on the fly.

There is the famous example that Einstein used maths research from the 19th century for his theory of relativity, but he could have formulated an experimentally equivalent theory without that maths, he was just looking for mathematical "elegance", at the expense of intuition. Some theoretical physicists of late like to use recent mathematical tools, these tools aren't a necessity at all, they just like to delve into ever more complex intellectual masturbation while forgetting the link between theory and experiment.

>>8217819
>I've taken no time to learn science to any kind of depth but I'm gonna judge people who have because they make me feel inferior

I have a msc too, I saw how any dumb fuck who didn't understand shit could get one, I didn't pursue a phd so I wouldn't have to deal with the dogmatic attitude prevalent in academia where it's all about learning formulas and theories and applying them rather than understand how the theories came to be in the first place and what alternatives could have been formulated, they're covering every last square picometer of a leaf and they're forgetting about all the branches they didn't explore that could lead to so much more. And they don't let you look at those branches, they put you on that leaf and tell you you're gonna explore that square picometer over there because we know we are on the true branch. Well no fuck you you don't know. I've learnt and discovered orders of magnitude more studying and pursuing research on my own than I could ever have in an academic setting. My msc doesn't mean shit, just like yours doesn't, just like phds usually don't.

guys can we please talk about crypto