/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>8994623
Hi guys, where were you when you realized Bitcoin Cash (a peer to peer electronic cash system) was the real Bitcoin?

I was dranking Rogre brain gruel when Jihan rang
“Bitcoin Cash (a peer to peer to peer electronic electronic cash system) is the real Bitcoin”
“ye”

>>8994623
>thinking the original Bitcoin chain is a scam because Blockstream claims their 1Mb segwit shitcoin with the lightning failure is BTC

>>8994623
1mb blocks are dogshit. The only reason they have been imposed is because the AXA overlords of bitcoin want to capitalize on the lightning network.

if every other bitcoin fork before and after bitcoin cash fork is scammy, what makes bitcoin cash not scammy?

the bitcoin cash fork only happened after segwit rendered bitmain's 30% hashrate "advantage" attack, dubbed ASICboost, useless. W/O ASICboost, bitmain stands to loose over 90 million dollars a year.That is a fact that you can research for yourself.

history repeats itself with bitmain when they fork Monero to Monero Classic in order to keep their proprietary cryptonight asic mining "edge"

moral of story, bitmain owns bitcoin cash and monero classic only because the old chain's algos give them an exclusive asic mining advantage.

Ver spewing his hot garbage all over the place about big blocks and adoption in shithole countries is just a sideshow attraction distraction designed to keep you from knowing the dirty truth about bitmains full on attacks on the bitcoin network hash.

>>8994660
I read the whitepaper.

When are you faggots going to upgrade to the next-gen bitcoin?

>>8995131
>he posted it again

>>8994623
remember when cryptocurrency was used as currency everywhere?
Oh that still hasn't happened?
We're still unregulated speculating on pet rocks. this will never end and definitely end well when it does

just look at the charts
it's a classic dump and dump with a flavor (the pump was inherited from btc)

>>8995131
You're entire post is a load of horse shit. BTC is getting mined by ASIC boost as we speak. You're either a Blockstream shill or a BTC bagholder that bought at ath in December

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/slush-pool-now-compatible-asicboost-miners/

>>8994623
It's a copy of bitcoin from last year with a smaller, dumber dev community. Even if they ever came up with a good idea for bitcoin they don't have the intellectual capital to make it work.
That is not even getting into the reason for the fork in the first place, which was to make money for one chinese mining company.

>>8995445
>baseless claims made by a complete faggot

>>8994623
the fact that you, and all these other biz shills and retards, and all the faggots on twitter and reddit, have no idea what is coming, is what will make me rich beyond my wildest imagination

Bitcoin dieing

>>8994623
BCash (Bitcoin Cash) is a fork of Bitcoin specifically designed so that Jihan Wu, the owner of Bitmain (the company that manufactures Antminer ASICs) can continue to exploit a mining accelerator called "ASICBoost".

His whole company's competitive edge was eliminated by Bitcoin so they forked off and made BCash instead and are trying to shill all over and convince people it's the real Bitcoin, when it's not

They're doing this with another justification - that an increase in the block size (literally just increasing a constant) is the method to scale, and Lightning Network is not. BCash cannot utilize Lightning Network since they did not implement Segregated Witness (SegWit), but there will be shills telling you that they can, but they really can't and won't

There are all sorts of other supposed benefits to BCash like 0conf which is really just a choice to lower security in favor of speed, same with the block size increase I mentioned above.

It's just a shitcoin trying to ape the real Bitcoin name. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, nobody with any real technical knowledge prefers BCash.

Also BCash nodes are highly centralized, see pic related. Ignore anyone telling you it doesn't matter, because it does

Everything I said is very important when it comes to the security of the cryptocurrency, but BCash supporters always pretend like these security-sacrificing tradeoffs don't matter. Ignore them.

>>8994935
There is no such thing as an "original chain", Bitcoin is defined in the whitepaper itself to be the longest Proof of Work (PoW) chain. BTC is the longest PoW chain, not BCH.

Read the whitepaper, have you read it? Nothing in here supports BCH over BTC. It supports BTC. Satoshi repeats over and over that the longest PoW chain is DEFINED to be Bitcoin

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

>>8995400
Even if that were true it doesn't negate the ORIGINAL INTENT of the BCash fork.

>>8994623
Final dump for this incoming. I don't feel bad for the CNBC normies.

>>8994623
If Lightning worked great, it would be better than BCH however these types of mesh networks are extremely fragile and a DDOS on a few major hubs will wreak the network. I think it is a failure and will back Bitcoin cash.

>>8995562
Bch actually has more blocks. You're thinking of hashrate, which eventually bch will capture.

>>8995577
The original intent was to increase blocksize because you corefags reneged on 2 agreements

>>8995610
>Not even in full release yet
>I think it is a failure
Ok

>>8994623
Also OP keep in mind that the vast majority of people on /biz/ have no formal education in Computer Science, and these are fundamentally pieces of software, not investments or anything related to business. If someone is not willing to discuss technical details with you, their opinion is worthless.

>>8995627
Increase the block size why

>>8995644
Everyone laugh at this man.

>>8995660
>Increase the block size why
Is this nigger serious?

>>8995692
What does the sentence "is this nigger serious" have to do with my question?

Provide a technical explanation for why increasing the block size is a good scaling solution and is worth the security tradeoffs, please. Otherwise you're no more than a shill - someone who makes claims repeatedly without backing them up

>>8995714
More space in the block to accommodate more transactions. Wtf is this your first day?

>>8995660
>newfag confirmed

>>8995743
And why was this needed? Please justify the security tradeoffs and explain why it was worth increasing the block size by 2x over what SegWit supported (2mb)

Was it necessary? BCash's blocks are always empty because nobody uses it because it's a shitcoin.

Take a look at the mempool.

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1,24h

It's more than accommodated by the current block size. Why make a bad design decision to fix a temporary problem? BCash is permanently scarred

Do you know anything about software engineering, distributed systems, algorithmic complexity theory, and methods of scaling?

Do you see a scaling issue right now? Do you realize how quickly LN is catching on and how much additional scaling this will provide, along with added SegWit adoption?

>>8995660
I'm an embedded computer systems engineer by trade you neet faggot

>>8995827
I'm a low latency distributed systems engineer "by trade" you LARPing faggot

>>8995660
Economics is just as important as CS imo. A blockchain can have some amazing tech but if its consensus algorithm has the incentives fucked up then it won't be successful.

>>8995825
>justify the security tradeoffs
There are none, newfag. It's literally how bitcoin is designed to run and scale. Segwit is a security trade off (removing the fucking signatures from transactions ffs). Bch isnt 2x the size its 8x soon to be 32x.

>lightning

Lamo at your life.

BCH follows the original idea described in the bitcoin white paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. BTC does not.

>>8995874
That's true, but it's irrelevant when it comes to discussing algorithms

>>8995884
2x was a mistype, I meant 4x. SegWit fixes transaction malleability so it's a security increase and is necessary to allow LN

You're lmao at my life because I think the second layer solutions Satoshi planned are necessary? Okay.

>>8995915
No it isnt. If the incentives are fucked the system will fail.

>>8995981
SegWit is not a requirement for LN:
https://youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s

>>8995984
Okay, and the incentive systems of cryptocurrencies are fundamentally mathematical and are better analyzed using game theory than traditional economics. Explain what this has to do with Bitcoin vs BCash as well please

I'm not to good on the technical part op but I was recommended one of these to assist us bitcoin holders to keep from losing our coins. With the lightning network you have to keep your channels open and this here will help while your out while out shopping as an added bonus it will verify every transaction.

>>8995999
Video does not support your claim. It is a requirement for LN to be implemented securely and in a way that can actually scale through third party channel monitoring and sheriffing

>>8995981
Segwit didnt solve malleability, it only made a work around and requires the use of segwit transactions not core.

Second layers are fine. LN exists on both chains. Level 3 LN however is a meme and doesn't even work in simulations and even if it did work, it's basically the antithesis of blockchain because it isnt opt in no matter how autistically you screech, as the fees and lead times prevent end users from actually settling on the blockchain and will require well connected highly liquid hubs (banks) to facilitate transactions.

>>8994623
>BCH is a scam because a bunch of newbies on /r/bitcoin yell "bcash" and "Roger Drumpf" all the time... r-right guys?
I'm so glad another transfer of wealth is taking place from the retards to the people who have actually been paying attention to the scaling issue.

>>8995131
It’s funny how you pasta this everywhere but it’s jist blatantly wrong

...oh well I guess you got your (you)

>>8996047
>third party channel monitoring and sheriffing
holy shit the absolute state of trustless peer to peer cash

>>8995825
>>8995884
BUT MUH RASPBERRYPI NODE!!!!!

>>8996081
Bitcoin was literally $600 for a bit there. Thanks to the redditors

>>8996000
Segwit has the selfish miner problem as well as "anyone can spend" addresses which make cartel attacks a thing because 51% attacks with such addresses in the game reward more than a double spend.

Then when you get LN in the mix the incentive to mine is completely fucked as you've just added a fee market on top of the chain.

>>8996023
Also you cant cold store anything on LN. LN has so many security flaws its pants on head retarded. Also it doesn't work.

>>8996147
LN also has the unsolvable problem of finding routes in the network (without knowing the entire map of the users and their balances remaining)

>>8996047
>scale through third party channel monitoring and sheriffing
JUST FUCK MY TRUSTLESS NETWORK UP SENPAI

>>8995623
it has more blocks because the miners abused the emergency difficulty adjustment essentially abusing the distribution multiple times
thousands and thousands of coins were printed with very little PoW followed by several hours of 0 blocks found

I can't believe anyone would support a chain that abused its distribution process multiple times

bcore is done.

Cashies are so awkward and out of place whenever they step out of Reddit.

>>8996193
While in the beginning I agree things were fucked, however that isnt the case anymore. Bch consistently does 6 blocks an hour better than btc because of the difficulty algo.

>>8995884
why not 64x 128x?
when bcash pushes their network to the limits of hardware and bandwidth and nodes cost an arm and a leg
GOOD LUCK forking that system, it's over it is centrally controlled

the end game for bcash is against the ethos of bitcoin. There is a small chance they succeed enough to even reach that point, and that's why I think this is all a marketing pump/dump scheme.

>>8996123
>full validating nodes don't matter, handle them all to the miners
Good goy.

>>8996236
32mb is to scale with OP-codes, color coins, extension blocks, etc that is going in the next fork. So why not so higher number? Not enough transactional demand, but will eventually.

>>8995538
Thank you for this, you've opened my eyes to this chink scam

>>8996147
https://blockchain.info/tx/92785a57f6e9e9eb9d37a00e6e8be7f888376f65fa2b8f868db261cbf6cca7b0

Here's $330,000,000 worth of Bitcoin in a segwit address, still waiting you mouthbreaters to steal it.

>>8996261
>he thinks nodes without hashpower do anything at all

They actually weaken the network. All they do is require another hop to a node that actually has hashpower, which increases sybil vulnerability.

>>8996284
>an incentive exists for miners to cartel up
>this is fine

>>8996290
Please learn how Bitcoin works, Craig.

>>8996310
It is fine because it's bullshit and impossible, it cannot be executed.

Now what can easily be executed is taking control of the few nodes that will eventually host your shitcoin, then you are fucked.

bcash should up the mining reward to 150 bitcoin per block so they get more hashing power and can claim to be real bitcoin

>>8996193

On August 14, 2010, hackers created 184 billion counterfeit bitcoin (BTC), which the hackers sent to two addresses, and are now untraceable. According to the official story, the hack was identified, code was rewritten, and blockchain rebooted within just five hours, stranding the 184 billion bitcoin in cyberspace without the requisite 120 confirmations for inclusion into the blockchain.

>>8995623
You're an idiot. BCH has more blocks but less PoW. I specifically said PoW clearly you're new here.

>>8996314
Requires hashpower to validate transactions, cuckboi. Your full nigger meme node has no effect on the network.

>>8996334
>Now what can easily be executed is taking control of the few nodes
Actually retarded.

>>8996123
They're very important if we want BTC to be global, stop thinking about first world countries

>>8996147
None of that is true enough to be an issue.

>>8996181
It's not an unsolvable problem. Optimal routes are impossible to find, so what? They're impossible to find in real life as well when driving down a street. Does that stop us from driving? You know nothing about CS clearly

>>8996379
>are now untraceable.
on a public blockchain... these cashies are serious brainlets

>>8996182
It is trustless. Do you know what trustless means?

>>8996409
How is a 3rd party monitoring payment channels trustless?

Money Laundering Bitcoin Style: “Segregated Witness”

On August 23, 2017, after two years of debate, Bitcoin officially adopted Segregated Witness, a technology that was arguably designed to boost blockchain capacity.However, much of the developer community felt so strongly that the security compromise outweighed the purported benefits of SegWit that they forked a new currency called Bitcoin Cash on August 1st, 2017. Bitcoin Cash forked ahead of the SegWit adoption in order to preserve the intended purpose of Bitcoin as a decentralized, secure currency.

So why did the developers oppose SegWit?

This excellent Bitcrust post explains that SegWit shifts the incentives to miners away from verifying transaction signatures – which creates the opportunity for aforementioned mystery hackers to spend their 184 billion bitcoin.

If the miners no longer validate transaction signatures, then it doesn’t matter that transaction 74638 failed to achieve the requisite 120 confirmations. Just like our briefcase of dirty money, these counterfeit bitcoin can be spent like any other provided that someone helps them spend it.

>>8996398
Requires full validating nodes to validate your PoW, otherwise it's as going into the middle of a desert and making an huge useless hole and presenting this as PoW, yet you want to give the ability to aknowledge what is or isnt a valid block to the same people doing the holes in the desert. You are completely fucking retarded.

>>8996398
>Actually retarded.
Cope, your boy Roger is on record claiming he would be fine with a dozen nodes globaly.

>>8996444
you can't be this god damn stupid
just look at a basic bitcoin transactions and follow it back to the block it was rewarded in

>>8996442
Because decisionmaking power is still 100% delegated to the network. There's an economic incentive for 3rd party channel sheriffs to catch fraudulent behavior and transmit a proof-of-fraud smart contract transaction to the network so that the person being defrauded in return gets THE ENTIRE LN CHANNEL BALANCE and the sheriff who caught it gets a portion of that, fee level agreed upon either by the LN ecosystem or the user upon entering the channel

This also provides a decentralization pressure since if someone creates an LN node with a 1,000 BTC channel balance and they try to defraud someone by fraudulently transmitting an early channel balance, the node host will literally lose their 1,000 BTC and it will go to the person they tried to defraud. So channels will be split apart and this "big bank node" meme will NOT happen, and if it does happen you will know FOR A FACT that those big nodes will be 100% secure since they do NOT want to risk their entire channel balance

>>8996449
Roger is unironically a brainlet

>>8996442
you run your own LN node, or you have the option to allow a 3rd party to watch it for you
there's a scale of completely trust less to somewhat trust less to trusting a service provider

>>8996449
>Requires full validating nodes to validate your PoW

Which is what mining is. If you're not mining you dont do anything useful for the network and only create more hops weakening network security.

>>8996504
This is incorrect

>>8996504
What is this "network security" you're talking about anon?

There is no "Bitcoin network security" except transaction recipient security (since spending is taken care of by consensus), and for maximal security in that regard you have to be able to run your own full node. Big blocks limit the number of people who can do that.

>>8995161
The truth hurts but you cannot run away from it

>>8996504
if miners control all the nodes how can the merchants and users trust them?
it's better for everyone to have a copy of the ledger, especially when big companies tried to collude with the S2X hardfork
SPV node providers could have fucked the ecosystem over a controversial fork
it's more secure and better for everyone to have non mining nodes

>>8996546

If you don't trust miners there's 0 reason for you to use blockchain.

>>8996504
Read what I said again you doofus. And stop overrating the importance of miners. Not even 95% of their hashrate + CEOs of whatever managed to hardfork Bitcoin.

>>8996556
And with that comment the lone anon proves he literally knows nothing about cryptocurrencies and hasn't even read the whitepaper

You're not supposed to have to trust anyone anon. That's the point. By removing the ability to run full nodes yourself (through big blocks for instance) you're delegating trust to miners, when trust should never be delegated to anything except
>PoW
>Consensus
>The assumption that the longest chain is the real Bitcoin

And that's it. You're NOT supposed to trust miners, you're supposed to only trust what you can verify yourself, so any suggestions that we should make changes which require more trust to be placed in miners or SPV hosts as another anon said, by definition reduces security

>>8996486
>proof-of-fraud
I need sauce on this.

>>8996522
It's not.
>>8996523
Hops in a network open up sybil attacks. If you are running a node and you have no hashpower you aren't helping in anyway. The ONLY people who validate transactions are miners.

>>8996556
the whole point of this is so you don't have to trust anyone
you need to have the ability to watch miners and know when to fork away to your own network

if you trust miners then bcash might be for you

>>8996556
>trust
>trust
>trust
>trust
>trust

>>8996556
You are completely fucking retarded. Bitcoin works because nobody trusts the next guy.

>>8996572
I'm going to exit this argument because I'm really sick of "arguments" where it's really an education session for one side but they won't admit it

>>8996574
Have you studied the LN at all? This is literally how it works. Do some research

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46183/does-anyone-get-custodial-control-of-your-funds-when-using-lightning-network/46208#46208

>>8996574
>Hops in a network open up sybil attacks. If you are running a node and you have no hashpower you aren't helping in anyway. The ONLY people who validate transactions are miners.
You are helping yourself, and you're the only one who you're supposed to help. Not "the network" whatever that means. If we make changes that prevent users from helping themselves and increasing their own security, you're delegating trust to others.

>>8996572
>>8996576
>>8996578
>>8996583

Yes, you do, in fact, trust miners to act in their own economic self-interest. am I sharing this board with redditors or shills? Saying non-mining nodes do anything is like saying you "contribute" to a soccer game by watching it on your television

>>8996596
>Miners decide

No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in BTC, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.

There are two specific methods to control miners on this matter, which will make the scamcoin Gavin is trying to replace everyone's BTC with only replace some people's BTC. The first and most obvious is that irrespective of what miners mine, each single full node will reject illegal blocks. This is a fact. If all the miners out there suddenly quit Bitcon and go mine Keiser's Aurora scamcoin instead, from the perspective of the BTC network hash rate simply dropped and that's all. There's absolutely no difference between Keiser's scamcoin and Gavin's scamcoin as far as the network is concerned. As far as anyone will be able to perceive, miners simply left.

The second and perhaps not as obvious has nevertheless been discussed at length on multiple occasions:

Whoever has enough money to matter is likely to pick one chain for whatever reason, since fork means BTC can be spent independently on either chain he will sell his BTC on one and perhaps buy on the other. As a result prices will rapidly diverge, panicking the mass of users, and the fork is economically resolved.

The situation here is aggravated by the fact that the fork proposed is not simply nondeterministic behaviour, and so the holdings on the two chains aren't notionally equivalent. Instead, all the holdings on the BTC chain are accepted as valid on both BTC and Gavincoin, but holdings on Gavincoin are rejected by BTC. Consequently, everyone involved with the fork is writing options to everyone in BTC, free of charge. That they have no ready way to finance these should be obvious, and consequently the grim prospects of the Gavin side of the fork should be just as obvious. At least, to people who understand economy to any degree.

>>8996596
You're a fucking retard. Does the second amendment "contribute" anything to the government? Is it helping out the government? No, it's for protecting YOURSELF FROM the government

i.e. small blocks and running your own non-mining full node protects yourself from malicious miners, double spends, and a whole host of other things.

>>8996596
The way you abuse language sickens me

>>8996620

All non-mining nodes do is copy the chain from a miner or another node (which copies, again, from a miner)

This does nothing. You are not solving blocks so you are not adding anything to the network. Point to the place in the white paper where it states otherwise you tremendous faggot

>>8996618
Nice screenshot but it's contrary to the spirit of BTC. Even if Nick Szabo WAS Satoshi, him saying that doesn't mean too much. Hypothetically he could have gone demented. The goal is to not trust anyone but to trust mathematics

/rant

>>8996585
I dont see proof of fraud anywhere.

If you actually believe this then literally everyone should be running a roll node which is pointless. The only people who might need a full node are merchants mostly for 0-conf which doesn't even exist on core. Also big blocks aren't even cost prohibitive, especially for miners. Would make up maybe 1% of their overhead.

>>8996635
What the fuck are you talking about? Proof-of-fraud is specific to LN and has to do with malicious channels trying to fraudulently finalize the channel balance on the base level chain with earlier signed agreements which are out of sync with later ones which the defrauded user (or sheriff who caught it) broadcasts to the network as a "proof of fraud" which then gives the defrauded user the entire channel balance.

>>8996620
>the 2a is the same as transaction validation

>>8996630
>mathematics prove BCash is centralized sockpuppetry
>"muh spirit of BTC"
>constantly quotes satoshi to make a point (only the quotes that meet his agenda, out of context mostly)
>ignores actual post content anyway
kys

>>8996261
>>8996314
>Hurr durr can't trust the miners because what are economic incentives.
If there is a point where you need to run your own node to "validate" that the chain being extended by the miners is faulty, bitcoin will have been broken anyway.
YOUR NODE MEANS JACK SHIT, IDIOT. ECONOMICALLY INCENTIVIZED POW IS THE ONLY REAL TRUTH IN BITCOIN.
>>8996583
No, bitcoin works because of economic incentives and game theory. There is plenty of trust involved throughout the ecosystem and that is perfectly fine because the incentives are well-aligned. "Muh trustlessness" does not apply to every corner of the ecosystem, you mong. If you think you need to actually validate the blockchain by yourself every time you want to check a transaction, rather than just querying a few trusted miners, then kindly GET OUT OF BITCOIN NOW BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE HOW THIS SYSTEM WORKS.

>>8996652
Even googling proof of fraud lightning network gets nothing.

>>8996655
Way to misunderstand my post retard

>>8996668
Sorry my mistake anon, it's called an "anti-cheat transaction" not a "proof of fraud"

>>8996663

Corefags think they can defend themselves from double spend attacks just because they're running a rasberry pi node. They're fucking delusional. if the miners collude you are absolutely 100% fucked. They won't, but even if they did your node won't change shit

>>8996635
literally gibberish

>>8995445
This is incorrect.
BCH forked because Blockstream and (((friends))) decided that the internet wasn't quick enough to handle 1MB blocks every ten minutes.
They also decided that BTC should be a store-of-value and not a currency.
BCH actually is BTC functioning as originally intended.
To the people that speak of chain-bloat, remember that to run a validating node, you only need to store the UTXO set (currently less than 4GB). Once UTXO syncing is enabled, chain-size won't be a problem in most cases. Bandwidth will be the constraint and even 32MB blocks should be easily sustainable by anyone with decent internet.
Graphene will also massively reduce propagation issues when a block is found.

>>8996678
So there's no proofs, so there's trust, so its shit.

>>8996695
Did you google it? You googled the other term. Are you going to google this one now?

>>8996695
Anti-cheat transactions "ARE" proof of fraud that's why I called it "proof-of-fraud transactions". It's just that the popular name is "anti-cheat transactions" instead. It is a proof. Of fraud.

>>8996679
big blocks
miners attack network
can't fork because node costs 50k+

small blocks
miners attack network
fork to new consensus and already have nodes distributed worldwide

>>8996688
VISA level transactions on chain would require 3GB blocks.
Every 10 minutes.
150TB chain after just one year.

>>8996722
Mathematical proofs or gtfo. What you're describing is hired service to monitor fraud like a BANK.

>>8996688
Checked for triple dubs of truth. The takeover by economically illiterate dipshits has all but failed and bitcoin is going to make it.

>>8996730
Anon, they ARE mathematical proofs. It's just that you can hire someone else to monitor the network and construct the proof for you, or you can do it yourself. There is an economic incentive for people to act as fraud sheriffs, it will be a new economically incentivized network security computation process similar to mining. Every LN channel will have countless sheriffs each hoping to have a 0.00000001% chance of catching fraud on each channel so they can get a fee

It is a trustless mathematical proof

>>8996663
Once again, another summerfag giving lectures.

Let's use a practical example of why you are wrong about the value independent nodes play in for example, determining which hardfork has value.

Let's say 70% of miners decide to change the rules. - Examples: Add one extra mandatory output to themselves, that doesn't need to have a valid signature. Can be done, if they are the ones who validate the rules... - Decides to stop validating signatures and treat Segwit as anyone-can-spend

Now, all else being equal, the majority chain would win. But there would be two chains, not compatible. If mining nodes were those that decided whether or not transactions was valid, it's a given which side would win - right?

But ok. The economic part of the ecosystem is not interested in that. They'll not perform those changes, and will still only accept coins mined by the 30% minority chain.

The minority chain is doomed to win in this case, unless they actually manage to fool the non-mining nodes to run that hard-fork too...and why would they?

The majority chain would of course have majority hash power, but their market would be reduced to an internal market equal to the miners.

So, only the 30% remaining honest miners coins could actually be spent, and eventually DAA would come in...and adjust difficulty so that blocks were still 6 per hour.

As a result, this would reduce the 70% majority (which were obviously dishonest so hardly any external actors would give value to the coin) to more or less a miners toy they can transact with each others.

This is a game theoretical example on why you DO NOT put full validating blocks in the hands of jews.

Now go to sleep, Craig.

>>8995488
Not him but his claim that Bitcoin Cash was forked to make money for Bitmain because of the asicboost exploit is 100% true

>>8996752
good stuff

to add to economic factors that 30% chain will remain profitable to mine, in the time between then and the DAA tx fees with incentivize more mining to enter
The malicious miner's chain will devalue making their 70% work a bigger and bigger waste

>>8996752
Well described anon thanks. Miners can theoretically create a massive supercomputing cluster powered by the sun that extends some bullshit chain into infinity, but if users don't want it it's just that - a bullshit chain with plaything tokens for them to trade with each other since nobody else wants them

>>8996752
>Examples: Add one extra mandatory output to themselves...
This is like one of those retarded ancap memes where a collectivist tries to come up with some outlandish scenario so they can say "checkmate capitalists!" completely ignoring how absolutely retarded their scenario is.
The minute a majority of miners give themselves extra bitcoin the whole world knows and the panic selling begins. Ask yourself: why would the miners shoot themselves in their own foot? Then kindly blow your brains out because you were stupid enough to entertain such idiocy in the first place.
The rest of your scenario is similarly riddled with errors, but they are not worth addressing as your premise is already pants-on-head retarded.
>Muh Craig Wright.
Only a moron or a shill thinks personalities are important in this space. You should probably fellate a loaded shotgun immediately before this market separates you from all your capital.

>>8996839
He BTFO you, now shoo shoo retarded cashie.

>>8996729
Based on 2016 stats:
PayPal = 193 transactions per second average = ~50MB blocks
Visa = 1,667 transaction per second average = ~450MB blocks
Even matching PayPal right now is perfectly feasible. If Bitcoin reaches those levels of adoption, value increases and miners can afford the storage.
Again though I'd like to stress that there is no reason a validating node needs the entire chain. Only the UTXO set is required which would make the storage problem comparatively mild.
The real constraint is in bandwidth. 50MB (PayPal) every ten minutes is well within the reach of anyone with decent 1st world internet connectivity currently.

>>8995644
You remember when lightning was supposed to be done in six months then 2.5 years later, you are using the excuse that the software is not done? Pathetic.

>>8996839
They wouldn't just add more reward. They would use a massive propaganda campaign with talking heads explaining it's actually a good thing, it adds security!
But they're effectively hijacking the network by being granted this control
sure you could start using another coin or whatever but it's bullshit to give up control and then trust the miners

>>8995623
Longest chain is the sum of the difficulties of all blocks, not the number

>>8996867
Clearly you live in a rich area, even in the dense urban area I used to live there was literally now way to get internet that fast as my parents house because the ISPs didn't want to install hardware in that specific neighborhood near their boundaries. They are limited to ~2mbps no matter how much they want to pay. You're making massive generalizations, and beyond that, why do we want to limit BTC to first world nations?

>>8996867
even if you're right, BTC main could just remove the 1 MB limit and poof, Bcrash's use case is disappeared overnight

not to mention it shouldn't take a smart person to recognize craig & ver are scammers. "i am satoshi but i'm not going to prove it lolol"

>>8995825
There isn't a scaling issue now because Bitcoin is dying

>>8996901
This. BCash retards act as if Bitcoin is permanently crippled by not increasing their block size now. Wrong. It's BCash that is permanently crippled by their unnecessarily large block size and failed scaling plan

its just butthurt devs who couldn't get the majority of other devs or miners to see their way so they hardforked
it's not a scam really, just pump and dump chink garbage

>>8996901
Gavin "I'm visiting the CIA but don't worry craig is satoshi" Andresen

>>8996901
>even if you're right, BTC main could just remove the 1 MB limit and poof
Not that easy. They have spent all their political capital demonizing blocksize increases and are working with a hashpower majority that is supportive of Bitcoin Cash. What makes you think the BCH-holding BTC miners will upgrade and devalue their holdings?

>>8996899
>why do we want to limit BTC to first world nations
Firstly, you're already doing this by constraining the blocksize. Think its feasible for the 3rd World to pay > $1 per tx? At one point, it even hit $50.
Secondly, why should people without adequate internet be needing to run a node in the first place? This was never the intention. They should be using Lite Wallets.

>>8996867
Those numbers look like underestimations, any estimation Ive read for visa-level is multi GB. How are you arriving at 450MB?

>>8996940
Um it's not $1 per tx retard it's like 3 cents

>>8996910
AFAIK as I know, BTC will increase their block size when necessary for LN

Not just mindlessly spouting "hurr durr bigger blocks" and act like Moore's law (which isn't even valid anymore) is going to save the coin from decentralization.

Cashies act like everyone can afford 100s of thousands in hardware just to run a full node and then they wonder why their coin is accused of being centralized

>>8996929
core devs support 32 MB block sizes "eventually".
you might be fooling yourself, and a small community, but bcrash is not an innovation. They did nothing. They're no better than bitcoin super diamond or bitcoin gold or any of the other scam forks.

I say this as someone who says lightning is a stupid direction to go. i think they're waiting for LN to be more stable and schnorr signature implementation before.

then on chain transactions will be much more limited instead of just growing the chain right away when it'd be difficult to handle.

>>8996899
Average worldwide is 7mbps.

>>8996947
Assuming BTC currently at 4tx/second (obviously varies depending on size of the transacions).
>>8996954
Until it starts getting used again (I'm guessing you're new?)

>>8996901
Needs the miners to signal also there is no removing segshit

>>8996959
>can increase block size at any time
>let's fees get up to $60 and transactions that take days to clear

>>8996976
By then segwit and LN will be more widely used

The same can be said of BCash. You think linear transaction throughput scaling through increasing the block size is actually a scaling solution? If BCash had the same order of magnitude of usage as Bitcoin they'd still have the same issue.

>>8996976
>Assuming BTC currently at 4tx/second (obviously varies depending on size of the transacions).
To elaborate btw:
>assuming 4tx second @ 1MB blocks
>1667TPS (Visa) / 4TPS (BTC) = Scale by 450 times current to match.

>>8997007
>If BCash had the same order of magnitude of usage as Bitcoin they'd still have the same issue
False

>>8997020
Explain why it's false don't just say it's false. That's the issue with you BCash shills

>>8997007
>By then segwit and LN will be more widely used
I'm not opposed to LN, (if it works) it has its specific use-cases. But it also has many drawbacks. The two major being:
>nodes must be online
>centralized hubs (otherwise payment routing will be very unreliable)
It is not a substitute to on-chain.

>>8997020
>If BCash had the same order of magnitude of usage as Bitcoin they'd still have the same issue
At present, they'd only have it to ~1/8th of what BTC does. In May, ~1/32th. That's an impressive mitigation.

>>8996962
Wow, total failure to address the main point of my post. The devs don't get the final word, the miners do. Even a minority of miners could easily stall a blocksize limit increase if they wanted to, but let's just ignore incentives: the miners are evil and everyone needs to run their own node because second order thinking is hard, lololol

Hey man, I get it. It's okay if you sold the winning side of the August 1st fork because you are a brainlet hopelessly brainwashed by shills and censorship. You can still buy back in to the winning bitcoin, it's not too late.

>>8997027
Are we seriously back to not understanding the function of blocksize? Good fucking God man.

>>8997032
Hubs do not need to be centralized, will not be overly-centralized in any malicious way, and centralization is NOT required for payment routing. Payment routing is a very trivial problem fixed by balanced IOUs

>>8997055
i ignored it because you're wrong.
Miners don't control bitcoin, users do.
If users don't like what the miners are doing, the demand for that coin drops, and the miners lose their income stream.
So the miners are bound by popular demand.

I own neither buttcoin nor bcrash anymore, so idgaf. but i made a few grand off of selling my bcrash so thanks Ver, I guess.

>>8997048
Okay, so how is that any better than LTC

>>8997059
Nothing I said implies I don't understand the function of the block size. Stop being a fucking brainlet

>>8997073
>Hubs do not need to be centralized, will not be overly-centralized

They already are.

http://explorer.acinq.co/

>>8997073
>Payment routing is a very trivial problem fixed by balanced IOUs
No it's not trivial. Hence why it has not been done yet and transactions are still unreliable.
>>8997080
>Okay, so how is that any better than LTC
One is willing to scale and the other has Blockstream in its pockets and is not.
Also, BCH has better merchant adoption.

>>8997094
Explain how that is overly-centralized and poses any risk. If any hub scams they sacrifice their ENTIRE CHANNEL BALANCE to the victim. Learn what the fuck you're talking about

>>8997080
>Nothing I said implies I don't understand the function of the block size
>If BCash had the same order of magnitude of usage as Bitcoin they'd still have the same issue.

Hurr

>>8997108
>he doesn't know what order of magnitude means

>>8997105
There is more to centralization than merely running scams. You can exert control over access and information.

>>8997125
False, explain how anon and explain how this doesn't apply to BCH base layer as well

>>8997120
So wtf are you even talking about? If btc had 8x the transaction volume? Yea no shit, they aren't stopping at 8mb, bitchboi.

>>8997105
>become central node
>have 1000 people routing through me
>broadcast a bunch of theft transactions
>immediately mass spam on-chain with transactions
>people try to broadcast their anti-cheat
>too late, i have 1 week of spam on chain transactions so your message will never be reached before the timeout :P

>>8997079
>Miners don't control bitcoin, users do.
It is true that the miners are bound by the demands of users, but that does not mean that they will easily acquiesce to a blocksize increase at this point. That ship has already sailed.
I find it funny that we have arrived at the point where the "bcash" shills and useful idiots are now arguing that Bitcoin Cash provides nothing while in the same breath claiming that the Bitcoin Core side of the fork *could* implement all BCH improvements, so it is therefore useless. Hilarious.

>>8996839
You dumb ass, that was an extreme scenario, the point is, these things happen in a very subtle way, and across many years, before cucks like you realize, it's already over. In any case, we already saw this in action when 95% of hashrate threatened with hardforking Bitcoin into the segwit2x abortion.

Also lol at thinking that is an extreme scenario, while using another extreme scenario (muh segwit anyone-can-spend) because it meets your agenda.

>>8997132
>you cant use my or my friends hub for x and y reasons and we wont accept payments from x and y hubs

>>8997141
>8mb blocks but they're all empty

https://txhighway.com/

TOP
KEK

>>8997152
It's not an "improvement", that's why you don't understand.
It's like Litecoiners. Litcoin is only fast and cheap because no one uses it.
BCH has never even seen close to any usage so none of its claims have been tested.
but as we all know, 8 MB blockchain would grow 8x faster than a 1 MB blockchain at full usage.

you're bragging about absolutely nothing.

>>8996976
It got never used, it only got spammed by Ver and Jihan while selling you the shitcoin of choice, no one cares other than store of value. Look at this and weep:

https://txhighway.com/

>>8994623
>
BCash (Bitcoin Cash) is a fork of Bitcoin specifically designed so that Jihan Wu, the owner of Bitmain (the company that manufactures Antminer ASICs) can continue to exploit a mining accelerator called "ASICBoost".

His whole company's competitive edge was eliminated by Bitcoin so they forked off and made BCash instead and are trying to shill all over and convince people it's the real Bitcoin, when it's not

They're doing this with another justification - that an increase in the block size (literally just increasing a constant) is the method to scale, and Lightning Network is not. BCash cannot utilize Lightning Network since they did not implement Segregated Witness (SegWit), but there will be shills telling you that they can, but they really can't and won't

There are all sorts of other supposed benefits to BCash like 0conf which is really just a choice to lower security in favor of speed, same with the block size increase I mentioned above.

It's just a shitcoin trying to ape the real Bitcoin name. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, nobody with any real technical knowledge prefers BCash.

Also BCash nodes are highly centralized, see pic related. Ignore anyone telling you it doesn't matter, because it does

Everything I said is very important when it comes to the security of the cryptocurrency, but BCash supporters always pretend like these security-sacrificing tradeoffs don't matter. Ignore them.
>>

Quoted For Truth.

>>8997147
Then we can increase the theft limit to a month, and people can only do it once because those nodes would immediately be done for

>>8997168
They're economically incentivized not to do that. And the same can be done with literally any you fucking currency retard except monero

>>8995538
Can someone discredit this?

>>8997152
If your coin can be hardforked, your coin isn't safe and it's therefore useless for anyone with enough money to matter, idiot. Once again, Bitcoin's value is irrespective of how fast and cheap it is.

If you accept the mainstream derping about "banking the unbanked" (which itself is just a PR ruse of the USG's to get their fingers into the blockchain), you'll find yourself wanting to do something stupid about minimum transaction values in the bitcoin network. Once you reduce the minimum fee for broadcasting, a whole slew of smaller transactions will want into each block. That demand will put upward pressure on the price each transaction must pay for inclusion into each 1MB block, pressure that can only be alleviated by increasing the maximum block size. So there you have it: the USG is exploiting your kindhearted desire to make the world a better place for someone to whom you're entirely unrelated to fuck up the blockchain.

>>8997205
that would mean you wouldn't be able to use your money for a month after a closing tx.

>>8997213
Payments aren't routed like that on a fucking blockchain "peer to peer". A miner could censor you, but good luck getting all to do it.

>>8997219
No, not without lying.

>>8994623
Bitcoin cash is the only good Bitcoin. Bitcoin core (Blockstream shilled) is still ahead in mining power. But according to the original fucking whitepaper, Bitcoin cash is Bitcoin. Go read it and try to convince me otherwise.

Hopefully miners realize Bitcoin core is unsustainable and switch over to cash. It's happened a few times but not yet permanently.

>>8997220
Every blockchain based coin can be hardforked, whether it uses PoW or PoC or PoWH or whatever.

>>8995825
So basically Bitcoin is shit but it’s getting fixed by big developments and cash was a temporary fix but is being far less developed and basically will be abandoned by the time bitcoin has been developed.

bcore cucks are in full panic mode. should have sold in early 2017.

>>8997259
>muh white paper
Satoshi couldn't see 10 years into the future what crypto would be like. He made a very good guess, but not good enough.

You should use coins that are objectively better NOW, not religiously adhere to an outdated definition. This is not a faith-based economy.

>>8997315
He obviously fucking could. He planned out this shit to an insane degree. You obviously haven't read the white paper, go read it you stupid fucking nigger Jesus fuck.

>>8997259
You're fucking retarded. Explain how according to the whitepaper BCH is Bitcoin.

According to the whitepaper, Bitcoin is the longest PoW chain. This is BTC, not BCH

Fucking retard. Please post quotes from the whitepaper that support your position. Oh, wait, you've LITERALLY never read the whitepaper

Can you even post me a link to the whitepaper idiot?

>>8997331
This. He LITERALLY planned for second layer solutions like Lightning Network to be possible way ahead of time by adding the opcodes

>>8997336
>"Bitcoin is electronic cash"
>Bitcoin core can no longer make cash sized transactions, fees in the tens of dollars
>Bitcoin cash removed the arbitrary temporary 1MB restriction that had a comment in the code saying "temporary" to reduce the fees making cash sized transactions possible
Hmm

Hmm

Really

Really gets the noggin

Joggin

>>8997220
>Implying that every coin with a public ledger cannot be hardforked.
>Implying that hardforks are scary and dangerous and not the ultimate governance mechanism.
t. brainlet

>>8997351
> fees in the tens of dollars
more cashies blatantly lying, fees are currently like 20 cents

>>8997376
anything over 1 cent is too high

>>8997376
Until trading picks up again, and it's tens of dollars again :^)

Literally Google it you stupid nigger. You can see a fucking chart of fee prices

Bitcoin core constantly going up and down, raining from $0.02 to $50.

Bitcoin cash fees consistently ranging from $0.0001 to $0.001

>>8997408
>Bitcoin cash fees consistently ranging from $0.0001 to $0.001
because noone uses it lmao

>>8997406
Exactly, that's why we need Lightning Network

https://twitter.com/danielalexiuc/status/986411433867952128

If Bitcoin cash is the real Bitcoin, how come they didn't get to keep the original name when they hardforked? Really makes you think

>>8995131
this is the truth
>cashies deflect

>>8997422
LN is fuckin broken, ill just use BCH with its
less than 1 cent fees

>>8997417
That's not how it works, stupid nigger.


>>8997376
Further proof, because I'm sure you're too much of a retard to use google. Here's the first fucking result.

>>8997422
Lightning network is a fucking scam. Bitcoin cash doesn't need it.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html

>>8995445
more truth
>cashies deflect

>>8995488
not an argument

>>8997426
for the same reason "bitcoin core" does not get to keep the name.

>>8997422
>blockchain is great!
>let's not use it

>>8997443
>That's not how it works, stupid nigger.
Fees are low because noone uses it. That's exactly how it works and even you admitted that is how it works when you implied the average usage fee is a function of usage in >>8997408

Check and mate retarded cashie.

>>8997426
The one with the most PoW gets to keep the name Bitcoin.

As much as I support cash, it doesn't have that title yet. It deserves it, sure. But it doesn't have it yet.

I'm sure it will, once enough miners see through Blockstream propaganda and censorship.

>>8995538
great posts in this thread

>>8997463
Jesus you're an idiot.

It works like that in Bitcoin core because of the 1MB meme.

It doesn't work like that in Bitcoin cash because it doesn't have that stupid retard restriction

>>8997463
Cash fees would be the same with btc volume and then some (a lot more actually).

>>8997460
It does use it, fucking idiot

>Assembly language is great
>Let's use C++ on top of it

To which you for some reason think this is abandoning assembly? Idiot

>>8997477
>supply and demand are different for my coin
Deluded cashie.

Bitcoin cash fees are low because nobody uses it. It rarely even comes close to filling up 1mb of block space.

>>8997489
Consider suicide.

It's different because the code is fucking different. Holy shit I've never been so mad at absolute retardation.

>>8997482
this it true

BCH fees will remain under 1 cent for up to 32 times the highest peak of BTC volume after the may 15 update

>>8997483
>end users dont settle on chain
>they use banks with large liquidity pools and connections
>bank settles payment channle onchain one a week or month

Yea, YOU wont be using it.

>>8997489
>It's different because the code is fucking different
>i-it's different because we changed one variable in the code guise, nevermind the fact that bcash never has enough transaction volume to fill up a 1mb block anyways
Bitcoin cash fees are low because nobody uses it. This is painfully obvious to anyone who has looked at the transaction charts.

I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand this and are somehow don't actually understand enough about programming to think that changing a constraining variable does anything when the number of transactions never even comes close to that constraint.

>>8997536
>Bitcoin cash fees are low because nobody uses it.
The inability of corecucks to understand the function of blocksize is truly baffling.

>>8997557
>muh blocksize
Bitcoin cash fees are low because nobody uses it. You cannot prove me wrong on this.

>>8997536
the only reason there is a bitcoin cash is because bitcoin core couldn't handle the volume at 1mb and it failed as a currecny. are you really too stupid to understand that 1mb was and still is a constraint, even after most users have since moved to alts and BCH

>>8997557
people who ignore why it was put in place in the first place are baffling.
Why does ETH have a similar function if it wasn't needed?
LTC too.
why is BCH the only coin out there that doesn't need a tx limiter?

>>8997600
>the only reason there is a bitcoin cash is because bitcoin core couldn't handle the volume at 1mb
No, you are mixing the timeline up. The only reason there is a Bitcoin Cash is because Jihan didn't want segregated witness cutting into his massive profit margins.

>>8997627
thank fuck for Jihan, seqwit was a massive mistake

>>8997644
>based chink centralizing the mining
the absolute state of cashies

>>8997621
>transactions are spam

>>8997219
It's total nonsense. ASIC Boost can be used overtly on both chains. If you believe this kind of dumb propoganda - that a fork of bitcoin with support from at least hundreds of verified holder old timers is just a conspiracy masterminded by "le ebil Jihan Wu" - then you deserve to get completely fleeced by the market.
Remember kids, crypto is brutal and those who easily fall for misinformation and flimsy narratives that don't make any sense will get fleeced. You only make it if you have the cognitive equipment to see through the bullshit.

>>8997648
at least BCH doesnt have RBF, a 1MB blocksize, dominance down from 90% to 40%, AXA banker investments, rampant censorship, insane fees, and the risk of losing miners with no DDA protection.

>>8997688
Fuck off with your gish gallop paid shill, you didn't address the fact that bcash is a scam designed to make Bitmain richer at all.

>>8997685
> verified holder old timers
>dude just trust these guys because they have vested interests
Cashies showing they understand nothing about cryptocurrency yet again

>>8997727
how can it be a scam if everyone who held BTC got free BCH? I think you just sold your BCH and are now a faggot trying to shill for BTC since you are holding the bags of the failed version

>>8997747
>how can BCH be a scam if Jihan forked it to make 100 million USD extra a year?

>>8994623
I asked my mom and she said yes
>mom is BCH a scam?
>yes anon go do the laundry
>many thx mom i bought the BCH
>yes
>voila

>>8995158
This is the most perfect visual analogy of the Blockstream LN/Bitcoin situation that I've ever seen. Saved.

>>8997765
BTC must also be a scam then, since satoshi has a fuck ton more than 100 million

>>8997787
Non-sequitor. Address the ASICboost Jihan scam or don't reply to my posts again brainlet.

>>8997796
good for Jihan, satoshi got to mine with cpu, who gives a fuck? it was 100% centralized when it was created, nothing bad came of it.

>>8997796
now tell me, what price did you sell your BCH at?

>>8997796
>dont talk to me or my wife's son again

>>8997735
>Implying people with skin in the game aren't the most trustworthy.
Want to know how I know you don't understand the first thing about this game? I bet you think that Charlie selling all his LTC to avoid a "conflict of interest" was stunning and brave, lmao

>>8994623
Wrong.

>>8997826
3300

YOU MAD

>>8997831
>just trust these old timer people dude
No thanks faggot, I actually understand the point of crypto.

>>8997835
thathappened.png

>>8997845
Let me guess, that's where you bought because you thought the flippening was happening, right? Enjoy my bags my man.

>>8997835
i sold over four hundred around 3000 and bought back in at 600, why would i be mad?

>>8997841
I'm not saying trust them. I'm saying you can't square your dumb-as-shit "muh Jihan" conspiracy theory with the actual state of the community.
>In b4 all the old holders who are up thousands of percent in USD terms are morons and fell for Jihan's evil plot.
This whole thread is great, btw. Really shows how bad the intellectual caliber of the anti-BCH brigade is.

>>8997886
You still haven't actually refuted the ASICboost conspiracy my dude. Nobody in here has, they've just tried to dismiss it in hopes it will go away. I have yet to see an actual refutation of it that isn't an appeal to authority like your post ("dude just trust all these old timers lol!")

>>8997408
Who's going to mine it once minting tapers off?

>>8997898
its because the ASICboost conspiracy hasnt been proven and it doesnt matter. bitcoin is open source. any mining advantage will be exploited by the free market.

>>8997921
>one company controlling a majority of the hashrate and centralizing the coin doesn't matter

>>8997898
Good lord. There are at least two clear arguments in this thread that refute your retarded pet talking point if you were capable of cogent thought. This thread is hilarious, but honestly give it up already, if you continue to embarrass yourself further the cringe will start to outweigh the comedy factor.

>>8997962
Nothing in the thread has refuted the ASICBoost conspiracy properly. Care to try again my retarded friend?

>>8997954
tell me, how does this matter? how will this fake problem you made up matter? if a company owns a majority of hashpower, why would they 51% themself and kill the confidence of the coin they are running with?

>>8998012
>if a company owns a majority of hashpower, why would they 51% themself
>just trust these large organizations not to fuck you over LOL
Cashies showing again they do not understand why Bitcoin was created.

>>8998012
chinkcoin indeed

>>8997220
you have no clue what hardfoking means. any open source project can be hardforked. you can go ahead and hardfork btc, eth, openoffice, ubuntu, openocd, and even fucking bch. it literally takes 10s to make a fork of any open source project with git.

>>8998023
you are economically retarded

>>8998051
>dude just let this company that operates in china control >51% of the hashrate what could go wrong lmao its not like the country has a record of seizing private property amirite

>>8997688
why do you think satoshi implemented the mining difficulty algorithm the way he did? the explanation is in the whitepaper, but since you obviously never read it, ill help you: its to solve contentious hardforks asap. the one with lower hashpower quickly dies and is abandoned. majorities of both miners and validating nodes have to agree on which chain to continue on.
at the moment, bch is totally centralized in all senses: mining, validating nodes, development. lets imagine that bch actually overtakes btc and becomes the industry leader (lol). this will inevitably cause controversies and contentious hardforks, which will not be solved due to retarded difficulty algorithm. both chains will continue on for a long time, and if theres no replay protection, users will get fucked.

>>8997809
so instead of moving forward, you want to go back to the bootstrap stage? youre beyond help, just kys

>>8998071
at one point in time, like i said earlier but you are stupid and don't understand, bitcoin had 100% of the its hashpower centralized, and nothing bad happened. companies do not mine things that they do not value and wish to sell. this is why gold mining companies do not say fuck gold and all the sudden start mining maple syrup. you do not understand greedy mining. you are fundamentally retarded on economics and the 38% dominance of BTC proves my point and has me questioning why i even need to make arguments when the facts demonstrate that i am correct about BTC being a shit coin and BCH being the best way forward.

>>8998178
>bitcoin had its hashrate 100% centralized at the very beginning when nobody knew it existed
>therefore it's okay if hashrate becomes centralized 10 years later when everybody knows about it
the absolute state of cashie intellectuals

>>8998168
yup, bring bitcoin back to where it was before the 1mb spam filter, when it used to work. it stopped working with the blocksteam takeover, and after the BCH hardfork away from the hostile softfork there have been no scaling problems, and now we have 0-conf back, got rid of RBF, and its smooth sailing and a fuck ton of money to be made as it fulfills the promise of the whitepaper.

>>8998265
pajeet, ask your boss to explain what "bootstrap" means. maybe youll get a raise if you understand wtf people are saying before you reply

>>8997962
wait what? You're pretending like ASICBoost didn't happen and it did. Segwit specifically fixed this bug. I'm holding both so I don't really give a shit but don't lie.

>>8995131
my post has turned into a pasta!!! fuck yeah!!!

>>8998012
don't make me sell all my BCH. You're not that stupid right? One company having a monopoly on ASICs = centralization. Why don't they just run Bitcoin Cash from a central server in china then?

>>8994623
>roger and his paid pajeet/chink army shill for a few days
>december/bizlord fags buy in
>price increases like most other shitcoins due to mini bullrun
>jihan miners switch to bch
>has a bullrun of its own
>more newfags buy in
>the dump to end all dumps happens
a new generation of bcash bagholders occurs, happened 4 times in 1.5 years already, have fun

>Roger "Chad" Ver
is a felon who doesn't even care if an unsuspecting postal carrier gets blown in the face with illegal industrial grade explosives designed for big agriculture pest control. He even tried to play it off like they were just "firecrackers". He's an unscrupulous capitalist and a serial grubstaker.

>>8994623
bitcoin cash goes a long way, it's almost 10 years old and its whitepaper is one of the most well studied scientific articles so pretty sure you can find something in good ol' google

>>8997998
... Halong and slush are using asicboost proudly and in the clear on BTC via version grinding as we speak you utter troutbrain. That they didn't publically announce at the same time "oh by the way that conspiracy theory we had about bitcoin cash using asicboost was total bullshit asicboost is fine after all" is the only thing missing from the circuit to make it clear, and any coretard ever admitting they were wrong is utterly impossible, which is why you have them doing shit like defending geocentrism, slavery and execution of heretics. That's their mindset.
I don't understand what it's going to take for people to finally grasp that core are malevolent con artists with delusions of adequacy, anyone with any grasp of the technical issues has known it since segwit2x was canceled and they bait and switched segwit in there coercively by soft fork.

>>8998012
cashie admitting that bcash is at the mercy of 1 chink
>priceless

>>8995158
holy shit this image
kek'd

>>8998178
this is 2018 faggot - 1 chink with a death grip on bcash is failure by design

>>8999405
bitmain mining covertly on ASICboost isn't a theory. It's a fact. The covert ASICboost 30% "edge" that bitmain was using generated up to $100 million dollars EXTRA a year. that money was out of grasp for every other bitcoin miner on the network. Calling it a "Conspiracy Theory" is gaslighting the fact that bitmain is dangerous to the lasting health of the bitcoin network.

>>8994623
Good question op I was thinking the same thing. Did anyone answer you?

>>8999570
If it's a fact you should be able to indisputably prove it. Go ahead, I'm honestly interested. Not that it would actually mean anything at all given the simple fact core is championing asicboost anyway, so there can be no argument about one side being better than the other.

>>8994623
Yeah. It is basically a slightly superior coin to the king of shit coins, BITCOIN.

It is a bit better technically, but the purpose of this coin is for roger ver to control a coin he can easily pump and dump. He needs to build it up, so he can sell and rebuy. That's why you always see paid shills on biz for this coin.

>>8994623
Notice all of the arguments against it OP. It's just character attacks and people saying "this guy is a bad guy", nothing about the coin itself. The coin is superior to Bitcoin Core in every way.

>>8999474
Stupid cunt, any sha256 chain is "at the mercy" of all miners combined, period. You can't claim there's a situation affecting only bch miners that doesn't affect btc miners, it's the exact same group. I mine both of them myself depending on whichever one is profitable, and then I sell all my crippled corecoins to retarded fucks like you and buy stuff that isn't explosive hijacked shit tier.

>>8999689
> core is championing asicboost anyway
this is a lie.

asic boost is patented by bitmain. we all know bitmain is not core. nice try gaslight bruh

>>8999723
the coin was spawn from a lie. that isn't a character assault on roger at all. bitcoin cash is built on a foundation of lies.

>>8999770
Like? These stupid baseless statements help nobody.

>>8999739
You really are a stupid cunt.

https://halongmining.com/blog/2018/03/07/dragonmint-btc-miner-uses-version-rolling-asicboost/
https://www.moonlite.io/slushs-pool-first-support-asicboost

>>8999699

I think you're one of the most deluded cunts I've seen on /biz/, on par with the Chainlink bagholders.

Ver would make a lot more fucking money if Blockstream just increased the BTC blocksize, but they can't do that or they lose control and can't force the blight that is the LN on the world.

You need to step away from /r/bitcoin and do your own research and stop regurgitating the conclusions given to you by Blockstream and their paid propaganda arm (also the free arm provided by /r/bitcoin parrots).

Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin, it is most similar to the post fork Bitcoin and continues the original blockchain unmolested with disgraces such as segwit.

>>8999797
>calling someone else deluded
>Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin

We're reaching levels of retardation previously thought to be impossible

>>8999828
>Something that is not usable as peer to peer cash is Bitcoin

>>8999828

not an argument

>>8999796
>cunt.
>>8999797
>cunt

how I can tell you're a Europoor

>>8994623
BTC and BCH are both Bitcoin.

They are competing versions of Bitcoin, just that BTC got to keep the original ticker.

Personally I'm convinced that BCH's fork will win out in the long run BUT it's interesting to see what the boys on the BTC fork is experimenting with.

>>8995538
links to live versions of your image?

that one is from december, which means it is extremely outdated.

>>8997331
Satoshi didn't predict mining pools, what he did predict was people being against big blocks. He also predicted how retards who don't get their way would attempt to fork the project and call it Bitcoin.

>>8997679
>resources are unlimited

>>9001043
I actually think that 100% of the people here understand that both BTC and BCH are Bitcoin. /biz/ is smart enough to know what a fork is. It's just trolls and shills, who claim something else.

>>9001776
but i bet he didn't predict people forking off bitcoin in order to restore it to how it originally worked

>>8997809
>let's go back to bitmain owning %100 hashrate and nodes
Go to bed, Jihan.

>>8999113
>Why don't they just run Bitcoin Cash from a central server in china then?

That is exactly what BCash is.

>>8998032
What he obviously meant in this context is to fork it, then call it "bitcoin". kys

>>9001841
it's time to stop posting outdated images from december

>>9001817
No, this doesn't work like this. If your shitty ideas get refuted and don't get implemented, you don't get to fork it into an altcoin, then claim it is Bitcoin because "muh satoshi vision". Your shitcoin is a different network whose ideas failed to get into the real Bitcoin. You can deal with this fact or keep coping.

>>9001877
https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/?q=Bitcoin%20ABC:0.16.1

It's time to stop coping.

Segwit was implemented so they can laundry fake bitcoins or fake money dont you get it yet - no digital signature and pay off top miners to go along

There are more lightning nodes than bcash nodes.
>the absolute state

https://www.asicboost.com/single-post/2018/03/01/opening-asicboost-for-defensive-use/

>We have strong reason to believe that some manufacturers of mining equipment have been secretly using this covert method to evade detection by the patent holder and gain unfair advantage over others but not revealing what they were doing, and without making it known to the patent holders.

>Conversely, version-rolling method of AsicBoost is completely transparent in the blockheader of each boosted Bitcoin block. The method has no negative side-effects, like encouraging miners to mine less transactions and thus smaller blocks.

basically there are two versions of ASICboost?

I find it hilarious that core cucks cry about asic boost, which Bitmain has never even used, and then welcome it with open arms when another company patents and starts using it. If someone makes a more efficient miner, good for them. Its called capitalism. Compete or die.

>>9003928
Cheating the system and fucking over everyone else in the ecosystem isn't competition creep.
there are clearly two versions of ASICboost.

the covert and overt. Bitmain was 100% using the covert version to their unfair advantage.

>>9000983
> I may be stupid and wrong but at least I'm not European.
I'm not European either shit for brains, there's the real hint to my nationality.
You however are indeed both wrong and stupid as fuck.

>>9001925
where are all the 0.17 clients?

>>9003876
>;like encouraging miners to mine less transactions and thus smaller blocks.
These absolute fucking retards, you know what else encourages smaller blocks? A fucking one megabyte block limit.
Take note; they're utterly full of shit and will say whatever it takes to sell naive idiots on their new fractional reserve system enforced by hub and spoke architecture. If at this late stage of the game their constant flip flopping in frequently directly contradictory ways like asicboost is bad, now we're using asicboost but not the bad version that uses small blocks, but we're still using small blocks because big blocks destroy blockstream's business plan! Then there is no hope for you and you lack the necessary understanding of technology to meaningfully participate in this field.
Core and blockstream are fucking scum. They sold bitcoin down the river to the international banking system whilst desperately hoping they could suppress the original anarchocapitalist vision with a widespread propaganda campaign aiming to capitalise on the idiocy of the average pleb.
Teach them that they've failed. Justify your position in this ecosystem by rising above the pleb they think you are and cast down their shit hijacking attempt and put their fucking shareblue tier shill brigades out of a job.
Do it, it's the right thing.

>>9004239
>be bcash shill
>complain that corecucks can only use ad hominem attacks on bcash face man Ver.

>use ad hominem attacks on core devs, blockstream, and core supporters.

>cannot find a real argument against bitcoin besides muh blockstream, muh fees

>>9004600
Shills like this fuck, who think they can simply repeat things continously despite their being flatly untrue and people will buy it. Most of the time he'd be right too, but not in fucking crypto. We all have skin in the game, we've all put fucking years of our blood sweat and tears into this to get where we are.
Put a fucking lump of coal in this shill's Christmas stocking. Kill blockstream today.

>>9003928
What is going to be even more hilarious is when bitcoin cash supporters finally get their wish and bitcoin core drops to 0. What these absolute idiots don't understand is if bitcoin goes down... they ALL go down.

At this stage in development we need "normie" adoption. All normies know is bitcoin. if bitcoin goes to 0. NO fucking normie is going to touch ANY other shitcoin.
>bb-but beecash is the REAL bitcoin.

Normies can't see that shit. if bitcoin goes to 0 the entire crypto market goes with it.

fucking idiots

>>9001043

Best post yet in this thread.
I'm enjoying both as tech projects, enjoying profits from both. Hating the gossiping whores on /biz/.

Just research them both, then shut the fuck up about them.

>>9004708
Bitcoin won't go down. It'll go up. The abomination spawned by the fucks who are paying you five rupees a post will go to zero, and it will prove for everyone to see the truth; don't fuck with bitcoin, it fucks back. It will take your money while you pump it into your shit hijacked fork and constantly liquidate it to buy more stake in the real thing, using your attack to become even stronger.
Bitcoin is antifragile. The harder you hit it the stronger it gets.

>>9004690
>pajeet level shill confirmed

bcash was born from greed. not "satoshi's vision" deal with it.

bitmain using asicboost to attack the network has been proven. only shills would try to gaslight and say it's a theory.

>>9004781

can you fucking read? I'm not a beeecash shill you moron. I posted the first shit about ASICboost yesterday and the day before... these pastas are a copy from my post yesterday.

>>9004822
No. You're a bcore shill. And no matter how frequently you say "it is known" like you're one of Drogo's bitches, don't think we don't notice the absolute lack of any actual proof whatsoever.
Start looking for a new job turbonigger, you fucking suck at this one and blockstream isn't going to be around to pay you much longer.

>>9004822
you did write "absolute idiots don't understand is if bitcoin goes down... they ALL go down." though. you dont seem to understand that btc is just a version of bitcoin. just like bch is a version of bitcoin. if btc goes down (what you consider is "bitcoin") bitcoin lives on in the form of bch.

>>9001907
missed this one. lol, still thinking bch is an altcoin. also still posting that fake satoshi image as if a discredited Craig Wright would discredit bch in some magical way

>>9004890
just to make one thing clear... I own bitcoins, I'm not being payed by anyone to shitpost 4chan.

I do this in my spare time becasue beecash shills argue that bitcoin supporters can't say anything other than ad hominum attacks on ver little penis size. well,

>Furthermore, Bitmain went on to point out how they >also hold a patent for ASICBOOST and that they can >legally use it in their cloud mining platforms. However, >they claim that they haven’t used the feature so far and >are not planning to utilize it “for the greater good of >Bitcoin”.
>https://themerkle.com/what-is-asicboost/

proof. Bitmain saying that they weren't using asicboost while filing for a patent to own asicboost and building asicboost into their harware (both require investment capital) which would be fucking stupid business move for them if they weren't using asicboost like they say.

you are either dumb or being payed to say otherwise if you say bitmain wasn't using asicboost to their advantage.

pros of BCH: emergency difficulty adjustment, better short-term scaling with 8mb blocks however bigger block sizes favor big miners with expensive harware

pros of BTC: more nodes / bigger decentralization

I believe that scaling though increasing block size is a dead end, because it is just a temporary relief and it makes it harder for normal PC's to mine. I think segwit / lightning is a better scaling solution. During dec-jan BTC was really struggling with high fees and painfully slow transactions, right now its pretty OK. Too bad neither are ASIC resistant.

Im not invested in neither, im in ETH. But I think both are good blue-chip coins. Maybe keep 50-50 between BTC and BCH. Oh and don't get emotionally attached to any coin, ignore those BTC vs BCH retards and paid shills, we are here to make money and don't care about your faggy dispute.

>>9005435
Your proof isn't proof of anything, it's like pointing out the Russians have nuclear weapons and that proves they've used them. Making asicboost part of the design and holding a patent for it is a hedge against other people using it, if someone comes along like say halong and starts deploying it abs you're therefore not competitive, you can use it and all of a sudden you are competitive. Absent that you can indeed choose not to use it. Fact remains that right now even though core is using it and bragging about using it out on mainnet, bitmain largely isn't, which pushes it further into the "they probably aren't" camp than otherwise, since they could easily do so now and just say they're doing exactly what core is and they'd be completely right.
As for you not being a shill, if you actually have personal investments of significant magnitude in this space, you're going to get destroyed. You're either dishonest or hoodwinked, and at least if you were only dishonest you wouldn't be an idiot, so frankly that's even worse. You still sound like a shill to me though, you push stuff that is obvious bullshit and pretend it's categorically proven true and you don't have the faintest grasp of what the facts actually are. People with large amounts at stake are not able to comfortably remain in that position, they need more certainty and understanding than just echoing bullshit propaganda campaigns.

>>9005435
the sad truth is that all that was needed was to increase the 1 mb blocks to 2 mb blocks.

then BCH wouldn't exist, fees wouldnt have skyrocketed so that vendors abandoned BTC, old devs and supporters wouldnt have abandoned BTC and lightning network could have been kept being worked on for 5 more years instead of being rushed out the door like this and thus damaging the bitcoin brand

btc community done goofed and i dont know if there's any way back now

hey guys i really enjoyed all the different perspectives in this thread

from what i gathered bch is technically more usable than btc at the moment, but btc has better devs/talent and will likely improve btc beyond anything bch will do. the satoshi's vision stuff is likely mere rhetoric designed to confuse and distract from the clear economic incentives of the fork.

both seem to be rather safe bets for short and medium term future at least.