/biz/ - Business & Finance

i feel it to, its coming

>>9089614
Meempool is overflowing again. Was over 20k unconfirmed earlier today. Hoping this keeps up. Honestly wanting the price of BTC to hold more or less steady as well to keep the transactional pressure on. Feels good to be a cashie.

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

>>9089614
you crashcucks dont realize btcp is the real bch. inb4 muh zksnarks for bcrash

>>9089614
I daytrade everything, I usually can pull a little profit as well, but with Bitcoin Cash i just don't feel right contributing to the sell book.

This thing literally needs to flip btc.
Otherwise all cryptos are going to have a way tougher time breaking mainstream.

next difficulty retarget is 1 day 9 hours

https://diff.cryptothis.com

>>9089614
It's going to pump tomorrow night. Bch always pumps on Thursdays

>>9090182
Really makes me think

>>9090182
I believe

>>9090212
lol sauce pls.

>>9090211
let's go boys

Fuck off pajeet.

>>9090277
haven't u heard?
The pajeets own crypto now..

>>9090182
Bitcoin Private is legit, but Bean Cash is the true Bitcoin Cash

I've been lurking here the past couple days during this brief BCH pump, and as a disinterested observer mostly with low market cap shitcoins but still not a complete brainlet, I'm starting to get confused.
I was led to believe continuously that BCH was utter shit, and BTC was simply indisputably better, I was led to believe that this was the case with so much certainty that there was no point even arguing it anymore and anyone who even ventured the alternative hypothesis must be a troll or a paid shill.
I have with zero exaggeration over this time seen every single actual argument involving someone on the BTC side vs someone on the BCH side result in the BTC side getting embarrassingly slaughtered, to the point they have no response at all and just resort to emotional rage and throwing out insults and threats. The BCH side although obnoxious, smug and arrogant but hey this is fucking 4chan, seems way more intelligent and well informed than the BTC side, who unironically seem like they may as well be third world paid shills with a poor grasp of English.
Was all of this really the result of a propaganda campaign? Is the reality of it exactly opposite from what a casual disinterested observer might otherwise believe? What is actually going on here?

>>9090182
Wrong. Bitcoin Cash Private is the real BCH.

>>9089614
Bitcoin CA$H

>>9090811
>Is the reality of it exactly opposite from what a casual disinterested observer might otherwise believe

Yes, anon. BTC is "better" than BCH because it has more support currently and higher market cap. That is literally it. If the fork resulted in BCH being called BTC, and BTC becoming "BTC Legacy" or something, then it would have dropped out of the top 100 by now.

BCH is objectively superior in every other way. Which will succeed? Maybe both, who knows.

Vast majority of bch holders are bitcoin holders who got the fork money. Nobody has actually bought bch with cash. So the flippening is kinda meme when btc core holders are the ones who profit most

>>9090896
>have forked coins
>also bought more
>youcan'texplainthat.jpg

>>9090841
Omg amazing lol

>>9090182
>Muh Segwitcoin

>>9090811

BCH at least is working towards something useful for the masses, like email or facebook, while BTC became am elitists ''digital gold'', its a lot easy to like something that is useful to many people than some elitists very expensive toy.

Someone redpill me on this please;

Some tiny pieces of shit exchanges such as nanex and orge carry Bitcoin Private but Bitcoin Cash isn't listed. I tried to buy some shitcoins but as BCH wasn't listed I couldn't move money to them.

Why the fuck do they do this? Do they really expect me to use BTC and wait hours or days for the transaction to go through? I realise nanex requires nano for most pairs but the coin is fucked half the time so I can't move it off Binance.

Even a larger shit exchanges like cryptopia and coinexchange deliberately misname Bitcoin Cash as bcash, it's fucking annoying as fuck.

When the fuck are these exchanges going to bend over and accept Bitcoin Cash as their lord and master and add fucking pairs? I want to use Coinex but they've got hardly any pairs.

>>9090893
>>9090811
There will only be one.

>>9090122
>>9090157
>>9090199
>>9090811
These guys will make it.
Some interesting articles to read for people doubting BCH and not knowing what is going on between BCH and BTC:
>https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution- ... abb30201f7
Person who was working on early BTC together with Satoshi, criticizing BTC problems that BCH is trying to fix. Really worth a read.
>https://news.bitcoin.com/gavin-andresen-drops-a-new-concept-on-github-for-bitcoin-cash/
Another person connected to Bitcoin's early days is showing interest in BCH by providing some github activity, worth a read too.
Basically this whole shitstorm is because CORE team (People resposible for new features on BTC chain and it's wallet) refused to fix issues mentioned in the first article. They could've increased the block size and then started to focus on more future-proof fix, but they didn't do it...why? they could've prevented the "BCash" fork but instead they forced it, to gain total control over development of BTC chain. BTC has been centralized ever since the fork happened. People wanted to start fighting against banks, while they ALMOST already won...
tl;dr BCH is the true vision of the orginal BTC before it forked due to SEGWIT, while the current BTC is hijacked by people wanting to CONTROL IT. Buying BCH is like buying BTC in early 2017.

>>9090960
OMG lol

>>9089614
>Bitcoin and Bcash both drop out of the top50 because of all the infighting and confusion caused by shills
>Flippening is claimed when Bcash is 54th with Bitcoin 55th for a brief period
>No one gives a fuck as usual

>>9091122

>https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution- ... abb30201f7

correct link plz

>>9091153
Sorry.
>https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7

>>9091122
>>9091100
>>9091077
>>9090811
>>9090277
>>9090233
>>9090211
>>9090199
>>9090122
>>9090466

And so it was solidified.
Bitcoin is Peer to Peer Electronic Cash

>>9091164
You might laugh at him for selling his coins in 2016, but he was in Bitcoin for something more than just money.

Bitcoin Cash is not an attack on Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash IS Bitcoin, the natural evolution of Bitcoin. Segwit is a lethal mutation which will run its course.

>>9090811
Exactly as you are, people are wising up that there's nothing behind the bravado, and BCH is simply the better mouse trap. There's a reason BTC advocates will go to any length to avoid discussing the actual merits of their chosen attributes, and bluntly it's because there aren't any.
Ignorant tribalism only lasts so long. In the end, the truth always comes out.

>>9091188

He thinks BCash is shit too.

The order came from blockstream to DDOS 4chan because BCH was getting too popular.

>>9089614
I'm on board BCH, all my crypto is in it. I have a question about this image though: Why is BTC worldwide payments "sometimes"?

Image is from:
https://www.bitcoin.com/info/what-is-bitcoin-cash

Article explaining SEGWIT from good and bad side.
>https://medium.com/@exantebroker/on-cryptocurrency-scaling-the-good-and-the-bad-of-segwit-9e5234575041
Why some of the China miners didn't want segwit implementation.
https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-dont-support-segwit-91d44475cc18
>>9091514
Can you post it, or link to it? I would want to read it. I only read that one tweet from Nick Szabo calling "BCash" centralised sock puppetry or something.

Is btc really "permissionless"? Is it true that blockstream controls the github and won't allow people to develop on the network? I am genuinely asking and not trolling so id appreciate a real answer instead of shit flinging. thanks

>>9091514

he is salty he dismissed bitcoin cash

he was always an ass, I'm glad he is gone

>>9092301
If lightning doesn't get traction, core is dead, so anything you say about core is also a statement about lightning, given that it's been forced into the architecture of the entire system.
That said, lightning is a hub and spoke routed network, which is massively centralising all on its own and creates high pressure to have the vast majority of participants interacting only through these central hubs, but as if that wasn't enough, because channels must be funded, well funded hubs are even greater points of centralisation.
The banks will run the well funded hubs.
The same banks that dutifully cuck for the state and trip over themselves to proactively obey every last little edge regulation possible when it comes to fucking the vast majority of their customers, particularly the imposition of amlkyc.
Bank doesn't want you paying someone? Then you probably don't get to pay them, period.
Ergo, sometimes. Depends on if the banks and states let you, basically. Just like the present system.
This is not an accident and anyone suggesting otherwise is either an idiot or in on the scam.
You didn't really think they'd just give up without a fight did you? That is what all this core nonsense is really about.

>>9092301

Because sometimes your transaction gets stuck in the mempool for weeks because you didn't pay a ludicrous fee to get into the next block.

In December fees were $50+ and transactions were stuck in the mempool for weeks before dropping out.

>>9092405
uh, did you read my question?

>>9092429
yeah i know. it's just strange to not say it's worldwide since you CAN use it worldwide even if it's super expensive for people in some places.

>>9089614
>>9090122
>>9090157
>>9090199
>>9090211
>>9090212
>>9090231
>>9090233
>>9090262
>>9090466
>>9090811
>>9090841
>>9090883
>>9090893
>>9091077
>>9091091
>>9091100
>>9091122
>>9091183
>>9091188
>>9091269
>>9091281
>>9092146
>>9092301
>>9092338
>>9092379
>>9092405

>>9092495
Stay mad, corecuck :^)

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

>>9092518
(you)

>>9092338
Yes it's true. Needed changes that were always in the original plan but compromise the business interests of blockstream were locked out (on chain throughput increase) while controversial changes required to advance those interests were forced through (segwit, rbf, sabotaged op_return).

>>9092532
(you)

>>9092532
ver has done so incredibly much for bitcoin, he's definitely someone you'd want on board for your crypto... and now he's on board BCH because it's the bitcoin he worked so hard for back in 2011

>>9092532
C O P E

>>9092561
Pretty much.
He OWNS 30k BTC, if he wanted he could retire anytime and yet he works on promoting BCH... He does make himself look like a fool a lot of times though. I don't know why he is doing that, BCH would be way higher if Roger acted a little better and not so butthurt all the time.

>>9092675
I doubt it. Ver has done a lot for BCH. He just gets attacked relentlessly by the other side.

>>9092675
its bc he doesn't have btcp and is fucking terrified.

>>9092675

He's done fairly well, it's only when he starts talking about his libertarian fantasies that he seems retarded. Also when he said that insider trading is OK, that was fucking stupid.

>>9092675
Roger Ver was a millionaire before he had even heard about Bitcoin.

He had already retired and was just having fun in Japan with various women when one day he heard about criminals selling drugs online with some kind of magic money that the government couldn't do anything about. Since then he became hooked on the idea of a currency that offers total economic freedom from the government.

I honestly, genuinely believe that the guy is not in this for the money. He wants to change the world, he is a true believer in crypto.

Anybody that want to learn more on who Roger Ver really is listen to this:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2018-04-10/the-world-is-cracking-down-on-bitcoin-except-japan

>>9092675
btw where did you hear about the 30k BTC sum? as far as I've heard he's always careful to not tell anyone how many bitcoins he own so where did you get that number from?

>>9092675

>He OWNS 30k BTC

He owns close to 300k BTC, and probably half a million BCH

well deserved like Satoshi's coin desu

>>9092818
again, where did you get that number from? i've never heard him discuss how many bitcoins he have.

>>9092793
fuck off, roger. seriously.

>>9092838
>i've never heard him discuss how many bitcoins he have.

thats because he is not an idiot, and its the #1 rule of crypto

but its an open secret, he is the guy with most bitcoins in the world, and won private bets over this

>>9092841
>imagine letting Roger live THIS rent free in your mind

>>9092769
Those libertarian fantasies are the only value in any of this. Take them away and it's just another extremely inefficient money transfer mechanism subject to the same state controls and pressures as the rest of them.
But regard them as a non negotiable part and parcel of the product, as they clearly were intended to be right up until the hijacking age reassertion of state control, and you have the only realistic mechanism for peaceful overthrow of the current post Westphalian political order and the absolute death of the modern nation state.
For a great many of us, that's the only reason we're interested in this. Fuck lambos and thots, I want the state's metaphorical head on a pike.

>>9089614
Yeah flappening of ltc more likely

>>9092885
yes, sorry to interrupt your extremely organic conversation/thread.
bye.

>>9092981
>so far gone he actually believes hes talking to Roger

>>9092996
you guys hiring or what, i want to be a discord shill slut too daddy

>>9093121
>he thinks that he can't possibly be wrong and everyone on /biz/ in the bch gang is from discord

oh no no no no
HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>9089614
>Flippening this year

>>9092813
>>9092818
Yeah, I made a mistake
>https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/05/winklevoss-twins-head-the-list-of-people-getting-very-rich-from-bitcoin.html
Also in that one infamous interview of his, he mentions in rage how rich he is
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJT2CbfHTpo
That guy was provoking Roger so hard...

This is unrelated, but can someone post that doom spider mastermind edit with vitalik head? it made me laugh so hard internally when I remembered it.

>>9093213

I hate this fucking faggot in the video, what minute does he say it?

>>9092884
it's the exact figure i was wondering about, this is like saying that its an "open secret" that bill gates is rich

>>9093213
i never watched that whole thing because that guy was being such a dick. he really deserved getting the finger and anyone thinking poorly of roger because of him getting angry (since he's human) are jerks. if anything all these emotions proves further that he is a true believer and not just in it for the money. he really believes bitcoin (in its original form) can change the world for the better.

do you have the timestamp for when he says how much he has? would save me the time to go through 45 minutes.

>>9093161
well yeah
i mean, you're all here saying stuff like
>Ver has done a lot for BCH. He just gets attacked relentlessly by the other side.
what are we supposed to think, that you're communicating naturally processed thoughts directly from a real boy brain
idk buds, we're all dead in the end right
gl

>>9093213
god damn it i started watching this thing and it's just 6 minutes in and it's already bothersome

that Bitcoin Error Log guy says that "oh how great bitcoin is because it's open source and anyone can contribute to it, it doesn't have any leader" but he fails to realize that the fork from the project is exactly in that open source spirit. bitcoin has no leader, therefore any competing version has legitimacy as long as enough people are behind it.

if changes to bitcoin doesn't get included in the git then what do you do? you fork off in your own direction, it's the whole point of open source to be able to do that

i'd really appreciate that time stamp to where he says how much BTC he owns....

>>9093213
the audio is so bad, half the words get morphed or removed completely. mostly when ver speaks too, almost suspicious

>>9090122
bcashies are stupid

>>9090199
bcash is trying to steal the bitcoin brand and it's hurting all of us

>>9090211
>>9090262
I have a black friend so I'm not racist but chinks are destroying bitcoin

>>9090883
Roger Ver doesn't respect women.

>>9094001
>>9094042
>>9094076

Roger Ver is an actual homosexual.

>>9091122
Ok I admit bcash is better but tricking people into thinking it's bitcoin is problematic

EXCELLENT video explaining LN Network.
ABSOLUTE MUST WATCH for everyone.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g
(((They))) are already in and are actively trying to hijack the BTC. God damn it, I must say that even I got fooled.

>>9094158
You're not fooling anyone.

>>9094001
b "i identify as bitcoin" cash.

the choice of sjws and those cuck'd by chinks worldwide. your hilariously ironic images just prove how much you fit into that demographic.

>>9094001
>>9094042
>>9094076
lulz

>>9094210
I hate bcash to and I don't mind paying $100 everytime to chinks so how are they cucking us? It's more similar to findom.

>>9089614
Are you mentally challenged

>>9092956
Abolutely right my rugged individualist.

The nature of crypto is to take away the need for a 3rd party to facilitate fair transations. In the past the 3rd party has been the roman gaurd watching over the market, or the swiss banker with his secure mountain vault, or the big-daddy government. No matter what so long as crypto is decentralized it will take significant chunks of power away from governments and banks

>>9094001

>>9094941
kek

>>9094941
Nice just bought 100k BCH.

>>9089614

satoshi called it bitcoin ca$h. the cash was dropped when roger ver bought bitcoin.com. per paradise papers, doc craig wright holds bitcoincash.org and .com, as wells a bcash domains, fwiw

>>9095144
Substantially massive if entirely factual.

finished watching >>9093213

Roger didn't say how many BTC he has. So as I suspected >>9092818 and >>9092675 were lying.

Just in case someone reads this and are wondering. So forget that 30K/300K figure, there's no proof to it. Not that it matters.

He's probably sold off most of his btc stack as he knows whats coming, he doesn't want to be left holding digital beanie babies

>>9092549

Wait.....really?

So lets say I find and fix a bug, or suggest a new opcode or something. Blockstream will just....block my pull request if it's going to fix an issue that somehow doesn't benefit them explicitly? Maybe I'm a brainlet......but ok, say I change something non-controvertial, like make a Wallet improvement - what sort of shit are we talking about?

And is this why the Lightning thing is such a shitshow? No good third party devs can contribute? I mean, isn't it basically just a secure tunnel between 2 nodes, and you use locks to prevent doublespending? I'm more of an Ethereum guy.....I just don't get what's so tough about what they're doing, since Ethereum stuff like Raiden is FAR more advanced (distributed computation is tougher than ledger entries ffs) yet there's way more progress on all fronts. I mean, if I fixed the Mist wallet or something, no way Moneyskelly or someone would just randomly block it out of hand.

>>9095590
as long as you submit something that they dont see as something that will damage their company they will probably let your code merge with theirs. so if you submit a bugfix it would get through.

if you try to add a feature that might damage lightning network in anyway they won't let it through.

>>9095240
Roger KNEW about bitcoin when it was below 1$ and has been promoting it ever since then. That 300k is just a rumor, but think for a moment. Do you really think he sold his coins early and has been just watching it rise to new highs without holding anything? It's very possible that he owns even more than that. That would also explain some out of the place btc dumps during bch pumps.

>>9095659
How is that permissionless if one company controls the development

>>9095590
>>9095659
>>9095691
It's not.

>>9095691
forking is a defence mechanism to protect bitcoin
welcome to BCH

>>9095851
Protection from what? Who decides?

>>9092969
>flappening
Kek, it has been cancelled

You should be buying PFR instead of whatever crap youre holding. Their mainnet comes out on April 30th. Do you realize that Localbitcoins now has KYC? Do you understand that once PFR is out, people will all jump ship to avoid having to upload documents? People kept doubting the project but these guys deliver. Do you want to be poor forever..

>>9095887
now you are getting it. Decentralization.

>>9095887
We all do.
Even you. You look into the material evidence and ask yourself what makes the most sense. Was Bitcoin always supposed to be be a settlement layer for banks which a small software development firm uses in order to charge tolls on transactions via second layer add-ons that compromise the value proposition of peer to peer electronic cash?
Or was bitcoin supposed to be peer to peer electronic cash?
Nobody else can force you to answer one way or another. It's your choice. And you can honestly make whichever you choose no matter how ridiculous it may seem to everyone else all the way up to "well my church says it's this one because it supports the tonal number system" and nobody can stop you.
But you can't stop anyone else from making the choice they make, either. And if they choose differently to you, they're probably not going to value your tokens highly. And this has economic consequences and incentive implications for your choice.
With great power comes great responsibility, you can't just rely on a brand and think you'll be ok, or pic related.

>>9095851
This realization, in a nutshell, should be sufficient for any thinking person to see through all the retarded "forks are dangerous," "bitcoin can only be what I say it is, anything else is a scam," etc. rhetoric.
We have known SINCE THE BEGINNING that a fork is the last line of defense against captured development, communications and / or miners.
ANYONE who claims that bitcoin is supposed to work in a neat, orderly way with authorities acting as gatekeepers has no fucking clue what bitcoin is about.
>>9095961
Not everyone is going to make it, but most people with half a brain will. The era of dysgenic markets that reward stupid behavior is at an end.

>>9096580

That's fucking true. If Bch fucks up for example and does something totally retarded, I should be able to fork it, or alternatively if the fuckup WAS a fork stay on the old chain. If my chain has value - it'll be fine. So yeah, some for-profit entity taking total charge in a supposedly Open Source & crushing forks shouldn't be just.......allowed. And yeah, even if increasing blocksize was just a stopgap - so what? It shouldn't have been THAT controversial and wasn't that what Segwit2x was anyway?

Holy fuck.....I'm unironically buying into the cashie meme.....we need it as a base trading pair on Binance now, fuck sake. I'm so confused....I'm either a sucker or I'm legit having a redpill moment.

>>9096736
Surprised it took you this long.

If you actually bother to look into this whole btc vs bch affair - it becomes obvious really quickly what the truth is.

>>9090811

I've had the exact same experience as you. Only difference is that in every thread I posted this question to core supporters: what do non-mining nodes do and why is it important that it does jot become more difficult to run on shittier computers?

Never got a response.

>>9096856
now we just need Kanye to start tweeting about BCH and Blockstream

>>9096736
We may have just saved another one, boys.
Here's another related nugget to wash that redpill down with, anon. Knowing the history a little better helps the medicine go down.

>>9090811
>>9096856
Same, but a couple months ago.

>>9096877 (checked)
Make it so.
Here's some more retardation from Adam "Bitcoin is Basically Hashcash with Inflation Control" Back for everyone's amusement.
The would-be technocrats of bitcoin, like their predecessors in the legacy financial system, are remarkably incompetent. Unlike the legacy system, though, this time there is no government to backstop their stupidity.

>>9096736
you'll make it. This all hit me on fork day but I wasn't sure the war was winnable. Now I know we've already won.

>>9096736
I've been thinking this as well lately. My biggest problem is BCH had MORE centralized mining.

Core is fucked with it's 1 MB blocks, but BCH has its own problems.

I hold both btw. Call it flipping insurance.

>>9096904
Disegard that image, I suck cocks. Here is the real comparison.

If BCH ever became Bitcoin it would eventually just turn Bitcoin into a convoluted Paypal. Massive centralization as a result of bandwidth requirements for nodes and network consensus latency privileging miners with high hash power. Bitcoin is already fairly centralized as a result of weaknesses in SHA-256 as a hashing algorithm, it can't really take much more centralizing pressure without morphing into something very different than the original vision.

Unfortunately we can't get rid of SHA-256 hashing so we'll have to settle with 1MB blocks. Not that onchain scaling is really viable to accomplish all of Bitcoin's goals anyway regardless of the mining algorithm.

It probably wont usurp BTC though, as Bitcoin doesn't really have much value to the financial sector if it can't scale to handle nanotrxs and is susceptible to central manipulation. The whole point of cryptocurrency as an investment, long term, is that its basically programmable gold. You probably lose the gold aspect entirely with BCH and cutting out segwit definitely reduces use cases, i.e. programability. In addition, LN is currently being rolled out and is working well for people. As it gains adoption it'll make BCH seem pretty superfluous. Now that BTC fees are down to under $1.5 again it already seems like much less of a threat than it did at the fork date.

I understand the allure of an easy, direct solution to the scaling problem but unfortunately the issue is a little more nuanced than Ver and the like make it out to be. Luckily we've figured out a way to implement trustless layer 2 solutions.

>>9096780

I actually hadn't. I've been around for a while, but I went away from Btc right when the fork happened. Got tired of the politics, assumed the Btc vs Bch thing was just a Grandpa coin vs Shitcoin political thing. That's one reason I'm more into Ethereum - you can trust skelly to be skelly, the guy seriously loves his baby more than money whatever his faults. I'm kinda reading up right now though.

Something else I just realized - there's been a LOT of anti-Ethereum FUD since skelly declared there wasn't to be an anti-ASIC fork. Everyone including me were confused - that was literally a core part of Ethereum, remaining ASIC resistant. Suddenly it's not happening - and people are mad since even though it'll be forking soon to PoS (which actually is a better algo for a decentralized computing platform anyway) the ASIC miners (who are likely the same guys like Bitmain who're pro-Bch) will still end up with large Ethereum stacks to stake with. Now skelly, being actually honest - maybe he just figured all this shit out and decided to quietly decouple further from Btc.....and thus further towards being an ally to Bch. He'd rather trust Bitmain etc than whoever the fuck is behind Blockstream. Suddenly, massive anti-Ethereum fud appears, in the past even full Btc maximalists tolerated Ethereum somewhat since it's not really a competitor - suddenly they're back to posting about it being a shitcoin etc again.

Holy.......fuck.......this all explains so much.....

Anon......who the fuck owns Parity???? Is it fucking Blockstream? There's a similar split happening in Ethereum world right now, a for profit company that fucked up and lost millions in Eth want to hard fork and centralise. Fud everywhere from them about how bad immutability is etc. If it's the same parent company as Blockstream I'm gonna be blown out.

>>9096949

I dunno though - read more on Lightning. That shit is REALLY centralized. At least I can still just buy a Btc miner and if I can get energy costs down it's fine - but Lightning looks more like a banking system than anything.

>>9096965
>the issue is a little more nuanced than Ver and the like make it out to be. Luckily we've figured out a way to implement trustless layer 2 solutions.
The simplest answer is the wrong one, goy. You just need to trust us. :^)

>>9096949
more centralized? I assume you are talking about the storage needed for the history of the blockchain right? Any PoW coin will always be more efficently mined at scale so you must be talking about running nodes?

Nodes just validate the blockchain and do not influence it in any way. In the case of BCH GB blocks, it will still be feasible for non-profits to run a node and allow the public to audit miners. Also, miners in different countries belonging to different power structures will no doubt watch each other.

But you have to ask yourself, if core gets their way and 99.9% of transactions are taking place between lightning nodes, how will anyone audit that network?

>>9096949
Not true. The proof of work algorithm is the same across both chains. Saying one is "more centralised" than the other is like saying a particular method of gold ore processing is "more centralised" than another. It doesn't even syntactically make sense, and empirically the fact is 90 percent plus miners follow an extremely simple rule; mine whatever is most profitable at the time.

>>9096980
>who the fuck owns Parity?
ethereum co-founder

>>9097025

It's not flawed because its simple, its flawed because it doesn't consider the impact that blocksize scaling has on network consensus latency and bandwidth requirements for nodes.

Also, its only wrong/flawed if your goal is a decentralized global protocol for handling nanotransactions. If you're fine with a centralized protocol that can handle a few orders of magnitude beyond the current BTC transaction volume then block scaling is fine. That doesn't sound particularly useful, though, as we already have Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, etc...which already do this in a way thats cheaper than block scaling. The advantage to cryptocurrency is decentralization, but you don't maintain that with block scaling on top of a popular SHA-256 hashing coin.

>>9096965
Maxwell, is that you? You talk just like him, making a bunch of absurd claims, providing zero evidence, and assuming you have actually won some kind of argument.
The problem is the group of people to whom it is now obvious you are full of shit is growing exponentially by the day.
Your time has come.

>>9097068

BCH and BTC share the same hashing algorithm, but they don't share the same network consensus latency or bandwidth requirements when blocks are at capacity because BCH has a larger max block size. This creates centralization by increasing the bandwidth requirements to run a node and privileging high hash power nodes via network latency. (lower hash power nodes are more likely to mine orphan blocks, and increase block size exasperates that)

>>9097110

This is called projection.

>>9089614

If the places were flipped, cores value would've dropped to zero a week after the fork

>>9090122
I also can sense it. Its on the way

Bitcoin's days are numbered.

fuck off with your pajeet and gook scam.
how many rupees did they pay you for this, go shit on a street you sub human mongrel

>>9097095
Hah, it really is you and you're still on with that whole "let's hope nobody in this discussion understands header first mining which totally invalidates my ridiculous claims about the speed of block propagation".
Sorry asshole, you're out of luck today.

>>9097095
>Doesn't know that bitcoin can scale to GB block sizes using current tech without affecting the fundamentals of the system.
>Doesn't understand that miners, exchanges and merchants will be more than happy to shell out for extra bandwidth and storage to participate in a network making them billions of dollars a month.
These are the technocrats that think they understand how to "steer" bitcoin against what the market actually wants.
Don't be this guy, anons. These socialist technocrat types are exactly the kind of people who are getting steamrolled by the juggernaut of a true free market money.

>>9092884
>not acknowledging your true lord and master

>>9097136
I'm not you, I lack a fiery red beard a few ounces of cheetoh duet and undying dedication to the deep state coupled with an unlimited capacity for treason.
Neck yourself one meg greg. Look upon your works and despair.

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) attempting to label itself as "Bitcoin (BCH)" - it will be forever marked as Bcash the shitcoin.

>>9097174

I'm not Maxwell but, uh, thanks?

Forwarding headers before validating blocks and mining on those headers is interesting, but not really viable in a hostile environment because it allows a network to be easily attacked by nodes which forward bogus block headers. In a traditional blockchain those would be discarded on the nearest node, but with a header-first scheme they're forwarded through the entire network, allowing anyone to easily flood the network.

>>9089614
Kys faggot

>>9097093

Holy fuck, I need to spend less time on tech & code (and trading), more time with the politics and dramas.

https://github.com/paritytech/parity-bitcoin/issues/404

Blockstream devs are contributors at least. Hmmmm. Can just be in a supporting role though.

And who is financing him? Is it all just his Ethereum profits? I'm going to do some digging around, I suddenly smell a rat.

>>9097200
What happens when the block is 100 TB because of cheap permanent-storage fee's? How long will it take for a new node to be setup (to download all that data)?

corecucks should give up on bitcoin and follow maxwell over to monero and make that blockstream's true vision. Leave Bitcoin to Satoshi and friends.

>>9097200

> Doesn't know that bitcoin can scale to GB block sizes using current tech without affecting the fundamentals of the system.

It can't though.

> Doesn't understand that miners, exchanges and merchants will be more than happy to shell out for extra bandwidth and storage to participate in a network making them billions of dollars a month.

Sure, people making billions off of bitcoin will still be able to cover the costs of bandwidth, same as Visa and MasterCard cover their bandwidth costs because they're pulling in billions. I'm not Bitcoin can't function with onchain scaling, I'm saying it would become incredibly centralized.

>>9097210
Many miners are betting hundreds of thousands per block that you're wrong. Header first mining is already widely deployed and there's empirical evidence for this, observe the outlying fast blocks that are mined empty due to the full utxo set not yet being propagated.

>>9097200

Also, 1GB blocks would handle less than a quarter of Visa's volume. Becoming a global currency or handling nanotransactions just isn't viable at that scale.

who here thinks (((blockstream))) is the one spamming the mempool to increase fees and bribe the miners into keeping their segwit chain alive

These bch AstroTurf threads are comedy gold.

>>9097293
who here is a moron that loves conspiracy theories and that the world cares about a poor pajeet like you? You.

>>9097273

You're a bit confused it seems. In order to solve the latency issues I'm talking about, you need to not just mine off of an non-validated block, but you also need to forward that non-validated block to other nodes, and those nodes need to do the same thing, and so on until its propagated through the entire network. That's also the context in which the vulnerability I'm describing becomes an issue.

>>9097279
> gigabit is a lot therefore we should stick to 14kbps.
You see where this argument has landed you now coretard?
You're actually right at a certain technological level regarding on chain scaling, but you've called wolf so many times it still sounds like bullshit and you've thoroughly poisoned even the concept of off chain scaling for legitimate nanotransactions in a free market for on chain space executed completely honestly rather than as a transparent sabotage attempt hijack attempt to prop up a miserably failing business model.

>>9097279

Yeah but hang on - aren't there improvements outside of off-chain scaling that remain viable? Why not sharding or sidechaining? While the individual shards or sidechains would be more vulnerable there's a TON of research into this already over in Ethereum land - in the event of a full-scale assault the network can pretty much fall-back to a single primary chain and ride it out. That's a much more decentralized method than an off-chain solution, so coupled to larger blocks, why wouldn't that do the trick?

No idea if Bch are even proposing anything like that - just my 2 cents.

>>9097324
You're either confused or stupid, because you keep conflating blocks and headers and ignoring the average block time and assuming there's an equilibrium in practical deployment for the continuous propagation of large sets of headers only prior to their utxo sets given the difficulty to actually produce said blocks.

>>9097347
It's being pursued.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/2017-August/000166.html
There's still nothing wrong with off chain scaling in principle as long as it's implemented honestly and not used as a road block for on chain scaling to privilege a failing business model.
Blockstream may have mortally wounded the concept with their malicious actions though potentially.

>>9097342

Its a balancing act, where the bigger you make blocks, the more centralized the protocol becomes.

At BCH' current scale it can retain more or less the same decentralized properties as BTC, sure, but its not particularly useful. 4 times the paltry volume of BTC isn't any more attractive to vendors than BTC. If you just want to process transactions, do you choose a 1MB block, an 8MB block, or a Visa card?

On the other hand, LN solves these issues and makes blockchain scaling kind of pointless. I mean, doubling or quadrupling BTC's blocksize wouldn't be the end of the world, but why even do it? It won't increase layer 2 trx volume, and it'll just create a chain thats a little more centralized and bulky than a 1MB chain.

The only justification I see for it is as a stopgap between today and wide LN adoption, but desu that seems like a pretty shitty reason to bulk up the protocol, especially when LN is already here.

>>9097347

Sharding is a good solution for PoS chains. Ethereum plans to move to PoS and then implement sharding, as well as implementing a trustless layer 2 solution. (Raiden)

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQ

Unfortunately, Bitcoin is 'addicted' to SHA-256 mining. Any attempt to removing SHA-256 will result in Bitcoin getting forked and continuing on with SHA-256.

I'm all for sharding wherever it works. I'd love to see a PoW sharding solution that works well, unfortunately that's an open problem right now, and might be intractable.

>>9097417
>Its a balancing act
"Trust me, I know exactly where the balance lies, not the market."
>LN solves these issues and makes blockchain scaling kind of pointless
"Please ignore all the absurd potential pitfalls of an unproven solution as well as the market's 20+ billion USD valuation of a real on-chain scaling solution."
Your arguments are so stale at this point it really is pathetic, but please keep talking and embarrassing yourself.

>>9097397

Ha, nice I'll read up on it.

Yeah - that's the thing, that argument about continuous block size increases sounds like a strawman to me - once you add some other nice scaling solutions there's not really much of a problem at all I'd imagine (obv without running the Math).

>>9097478

Yeah, I'd thought it was viable for PoW though as well. Hmmmmm......

>>9097369
> you keep conflating blocks and headers

Ok, you're splitting hairs here, but sure, you could replace 'non-validated block' with 'header' there. I was trying to emphasize that the block the header belongs to hasn't been validated yet.

> and ignoring the average block time

Why do you think I'm ignoring the average block time?

> assuming there's an equilibrium in practical deployment for the continuous propagation of large sets of headers only prior to their utxo sets given the difficulty to actually produce said blocks.

Are you saying it would be difficult to convince the network to forward bogus block headers? I don't see that as you can't tell if the block header is valid for sure until you've received its transactions and validated the entire block.

>>9097417
> Its a balancing act, where the bigger you make blocks, the more centralized the protocol becomes.
Repeating yourself doesn't make it more true.
> lightning solves everything
Lightning is extremely centralised and centralising.
> so why not just use it and never scale on chain.
Because nobody outside blockstream cares about blockstream's business plan, and you don't get peer to peer electronic cash without on chain scaling, period.
Just because at some point there may be genuine demand for off chain nanotransactions understanding the innate centralised nature thereof if the price is right and there's a genuine free market for on chain transaction throughput doesn't mean that genuine free market for on chain transaction throughput should not exist because it's bad for blockstream's business model.
Get it through your head. Blockstream can die tomorrow and nobody will care except blockstream. With all the enemies you've made in fact people would rejoice at it. You don't get to sabotage bitcoin, no matter how much you whine or try to throw fake shitty technical justifications for it out there.
The number of people that see through your bullshit is exponentially increasing. It's all over, come to terms with it.

>>9097531
You're flatly wrong on this and I'm tired of wasting time walking you through it, instead I'll just say go try and propagate your fake header empty blocks through the network and watch what happens. Header first mining is already the way the network works, your speculative attacks upon it simply don't work as a point of empirical fact.

>>9097397
>Blockstream may have mortally wounded the concept with their malicious actions though potentially.
Nah, most of the BCH community understands that off-chain solutions are not inherently bad. The coretards have tried to establish a false dichotomy narrative to serve their interests. Just more typical tricks.

>>9097482

> "Trust me, I know exactly where the balance lies, not the market."

I'm saying that there is no ideal solution. Bigger blocks == more centralization, so "where the balance lies" is entirely dependent on how much you care about decentralization.

The market is interested in decentralization as a side effect of it being useful for producing an asset class that's impossible to manipulate directly with monetary policy, like gold. This allows it to act as a hedge against assets which have been distorted by loose monetary policy. Unlike gold, cryptocurrency is also programmable so it can fill a lot of financial roles that gold can't.

Currently the market values BTC at several times the value of BCH so it seems to agree with me.

> "Please ignore all the absurd potential pitfalls of an unproven solution as well as the market's 20+ billion USD valuation of a real on-chain scaling solution."

Sure, LN is new and untested at scale, but block size scaling is also untested at scale. The difference is that we _already know_ of vulnerabilities in block size scaling. There might also be issues with LN that we don't know about, and that would suck, but at least it looks viable based on the information we have now.

>>9097608
I hope so, I think nanotransactions and streaming money are actually pretty cool ideas and it kinda pisses me off they're being tainted by blockstream asshattery

>>9097576

> instead I'll just say go try and propagate your fake header empty blocks through the network and watch what happens

It'll fail to harm the network right now because, as I said:

"n order to solve the latency issues I'm talking about, you need to not just mine off of an non-validated block, but you also need to forward that non-validated block to other nodes, and those nodes need to do the same thing, and so on until its propagated through the entire network. That's also the context in which the vulnerability I'm describing becomes an issue."

SPV miners aren't forwarding blocks before they've validated them, they're just mining blocks off of non-validated headers.

>>9097646
What's the size of a fucking header for a 300kb block vs a 1tb block?
I rest my case, shut the fuck up

>>9097608

The narrative goes back and forth re: the prominent voices in the community. The issue is that BCH doesn't have segwit so trustless layer 2 solutions aren't viable.

Segwit2x would have both enabled trustless offchain solutions and scaled the block size up... but honestly, whats the point of block size scaling if you can handling transactions off chain trustlessly?

>>9097666

Its the same, but again, youre missing my point. You can forward headers like you're suggesting and solve the latency issue just fine, but you open the network up to a very easy spam attack if you do that.

>>9089614
>>HF, or rather the protocol upgrade is coming in May

Do you want some evidence these bch threads are a shill op sent by Ver? Pic related thread was posted in r/btc 1 day ago. "BeijingBitcoins" is a moderator of that reddit, and Roger Ver (Memorydealers) is the top mod IE the owner of the reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8erauv/bitcoin_cash_wont_fork_in_may_instead_bitcoin/

The staff there instructs minions in bch talking points, and then they move out into the wider internet to shill and pump wherever seems most effective. They have a whole narrative pipeline set up to pump this stuff out. Its gotten blatant as fuck on /biz/ now recently.

>>9097698
Having just admitted that the size of the blocks makes no difference to your speculative attack, I repeat myself, go execute it then. I also repeat myself, it won't work, and yet again, shut the fuck up greggie, you're out of your element.

>>9096940
Friendly reminder: Bitcoin Gold is Blockstreams fall back plan.

>>9097705
Wow, two people referred to the same thing using the same words, conclusive evidence of conspiracy and shill champaign confirmed, your congressional medal of honor is in the mail deep state hero, thank you for your service.

>>9097721

It will only work as an attack if you execute it against a network that actually propagates non-validated block headers...Neither BTC nor BCH do that. Rather, as I've explained multiple times now, SPV miners simply mine off of non-validated headers, they don't forward those headers. And if they did, the rest of the network wouldn't follow suit anyway, as the default client isn't designed to forward blocks before they've been validated.

>>9096965
C O P E

>>9097759
> if the network did something other than it did my attack would work. This is dangerous.
Haha, you're good value honestly.

>>9097705

Why is that evidence of a coordinated shill campaign?

Look, we know that Ver paid shills to promote BCH because be posted ads publicly inviting people to shill for him. And I don't think block size scaling is a realistic solution to the scaling issue. However, a hard fork in which the original protocol isn't maintained is literally a protocol upgrade.

>>9097705
>Do you want some evidence these bch threads are a shill op sent by Ver?
Why not just give us the proof, instead of asking whether we want it? If you have proof, then of course everyone here would like to see it.

>>9097775

As I've explained multiple times, the network would have to do that thing in order to solve the network latency issue with the solution you're suggesting. SPV miners mining on non-validated headers does nothing to solve latency.

>>9097666 (checked)
Even Satan is tired of the constant bullshitting of the economically illiterate would-be technorati.
>>9097617
>Bigger blocks == more centralization
Imagine believing that you can make something true just be repeating it over and over again like this intellectual sack of potatoes. Forced groupthink doesn't work here, faggot.
>Currently the market values BTC at several times the value of BCH so it seems to agree with me.
"Please disregard the fact that BTC's market share has been eroded by alternatives since me and my friends started acting like the Bitcoin Politburo"
>block size scaling is also untested at scale
"Please believe my lies, guys"
https://news.bitcoin.com/gigablock-testnet-researchers-mine-the-worlds-first-1gb-block/
http://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/17/terabyte-blocks-for-bitcoin-cash.html
>>9097693
>The issue is that BCH doesn't have segwit so trustless layer 2 solutions aren't viable.
Imagine actually believing that cryptonerds will just listen a believe this bullshit. Holy shit.

>>9097144
This is undeniably true.

>>9097800
As I've explained, you're wrong.
The network already does header first mining.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/why-do-some-bitcoin-mining-pools-mine-empty-blocks-1468337739/

>>9097803
> Imagine believing that you can make something true just be repeating it over and over again like this intellectual sack of potatoes. Forced groupthink doesn't work here, faggot.

I've explained why bigger blocks create centralization. They increase network consensus latency and bandwidth requirements.

> "Please disregard the fact that BTC's market share has been eroded by alternatives since me and my friends started acting like the Bitcoin Politburo"

Sure it has, but the market still values it above any other blockchain. Why do you think you know better than the market?

> https://news.bitcoin.com/gigablock-testnet-researchers-mine-the-worlds-first-1gb-block/
> http://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/17/terabyte-blocks-for-bitcoin-cash.html

First, this is not testing at scale. This is testing in a test net. LN has been tested extensively on testnet, so if that's your threshold for something being 'proven' then LN is proven, which kills your original argument that LN is unproven.

But secondly, I never said that block size scaling is impossible. In fact, I said the opposite. Its 100% possible, to any blocksize. You could have a blockchain with 1GB blocks, 1TB blocks, even 1PB blocks. They're just going to be centralized once exposed to actual financial pressure.

>>9097228
Pls dont ruin monero too.

>>9097780

I laid out the mentioned narrative pipeline for pumping bch and i showed a specific talking point which moved along that pipeline, from a property which Ver owns and controls straight to here, over the course of 24 hours. I cant hold your hand any more than i already have.

But i might document more instances of this in future, i think its important for the market to have this information.

>>9097848

Yes miners already engage in SPV mining.

Miners don't forward non-validated headers to other nodes, and even if they did those nodes wouldn't forward those headers to the rest of the network.

In order to solve the latency problem with block header forwarding, you need to forward the block header through the whole network before nodes validate it.

Forwarding the non-validated block header, not mining on it, but FORWARDING IT, and allowing it to propagate through the whole network solves the latency issue. It also allows anyone to easily spam the network with bogus headers.

>>9097862
> I've explained why bigger blocks create centralization. They increase network consensus latency and bandwidth requirements.
Again with the repetition and lying. Your bullshit doesn't work here, there's no theymos to suppress those calling you out on it.
> Sure it has, but the market still values it above any other blockchain. Why do you think you know better than the market?
You effectively robbed fort knox and replaced all the gold with horse manure in secret, and are using the fact that people still think there's tons of gold in fort knox and this value it highly as evidence that the value of manure is equal to the value of gold.
That's manure, like everything you say.

>>9097417
>LN is already here
You wouldn't happen to be a monorail salesman, would you?

>>9097877

I'm not buying this, as this is literally what this is called. Its a protocol upgrade. Just because two people use the same correct language doesn't add up to a coordinated propaganda pipeline.

But sure, document it more thoroughly and THEN complain about it. I would be 0% surprised considering how sleazy prominent members in the BCH community have acted in the past, but right now, I just don't find that 'evidence' convincing.

>>9097862
>I've explained why bigger blocks create centralization. They increase network consensus latency and bandwidth requirements.
Notice how this guy tries to pretend he knows what he's talking about while making no sense whatsoever. No rigorous definition of what centralization even means and no way of explaining how increased bandwidth requirements are bad or lead to "centralization." Pure goobldygook designed to baffle the uninformed.
The rest of your post is just more pathetic repetition and deflection and doesn't even bear mention. I don't even know why you are trying at this point. You have already lost. There is no escape this time.
>>9097865
Bruh, I know that feel. Sorry to say though that the cancer has already spread to Fluffypony, et al. and it may likely be terminal. Their crusade against "le ebil ASICs" should tell you all you need to know.

>>9097544
how is lightning centralized?
anyone can set up a node and transact through it
all while allowing anyone to set up a node and verify the network

big blocks limits who can set up a node and verify the network, and everything on chain makes transaction 20x more expensive right now at 1sat/byte and in the future will probably be 100x more expensive

lightning is more secure more decentralized cheaper and faster than big block brainlet scaling

>>9097900
> Again with the repetition and lying. Your bullshit doesn't work here, there's no theymos to suppress those calling you out on it.

You're welcome to explain why I'm wrong.

> You effectively robbed fort knox and replaced all the gold with horse manure in secret, and are using the fact that people still think there's tons of gold in fort knox and this value it highly as evidence that the value of manure is equal to the value of gold.

> accuses me of claiming I know better than the market
> "Actually, the market is dumb, it thinks BTC is the real bitcoin but its actually the fake manure bitcoin"

So which is it? Is the market smart or is it dumb? I wasn't the one arguing that we should just take the market's word for it, you were.

>>9097617
>Currently the market values BTC at several times the value of BCH so it seems to agree with me.
Markets don't adjust overnight and good money sorting out bad money typically takes even longer. Technically the market is discovering bch is better at break neck speeds when compared to anything before crypto.

Also scaling block size isnt untested. It's literally what we've done the whole time.

>>9097918
I've used LN twice already and have $200 in a spend only channel I don't need to keep online
it works instantly and cost me about 8 satoshi per transaction

I love how bch community says LN is centralized but they will adopt it if it works
it like they're playing both sides and saying they'll win either way
It's totally unbelievable to anyone with a rational mind

>>9097647
I think we're fine. Employers will likely use 2nd layer options for their employees and get that streaming money. Bch gang is only against """"""opt in""""""" 2nd layers that are required to avoid $100 fees and week long transactions.

>>9097954
Because routing and P=NP aggravated by the fact that lightning isn't just routed, but routed and staked meaning some routes are implicitly and necessarily more valuable than others depending on stake.
You strike me as the kind of person too stupid to grasp that though, so in visual form simply look up any LN graph which shows clearly the connection count between nodes. There is even one in this thread.
Increasing on chain throughput does not result in centralisation, period. All attempts to make it seem that way fail, also in this thread.
Second layer solutions are an adjunct to on chain scaling, period. Not a replacement for it. End of story.

>>9097954
>how is lightning centralized
Look at the network topology. If you can't figure it out based on that alone, there is no hope for you.
Any solution designed to decentralize the topology is going to necessarily introduce a single point of failure. Like the Internet, you either need a hub-and-spoke model or centralized routing mechanism. Either one is subject to potential catastrophic failure.
>>9097967
>You're welcome to explain why I'm wrong.
You seem to have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque, Greg. Reddit is that way. Please lurk 2 more years before embarrassing yourself here again.
>>9098024
This guy gets it.
>>9098043
This guy _really_ gets it.

>>9098024
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,2h
1sat/byte are confirming next block on bitcoin

>>9097803
>Imagine believing that you can make something true just be repeating it over and over again
Diversity is our strength.

>>9097967
I and others have already explained why you're wrong and demonstrated with empirical evidence from the real world that you are in fact wrong. Header first mining is deployed in production, end of story. Wriggle around all you like but you can't change it.
As to the stupidity of the market, in the short term it's a voting machine, in the long term it's a weighing machine, weak efficient market hypothesis ad et al, which is to say people are beginning to smell the horse shit in the vaults and they're beyond just asking polite questions and are taking action on the sabotage now.

>>9097953
> No rigorous definition of what centralization even means

You know, you can just ask for clarification.

By 'centralization' I mean 1.) hashpower controlled by a smaller number of actors and 2.) nodes controlled by a smaller number of actors. The latter is less of a problem than the former, but there both undesirable.

> no way of explaining how increased bandwidth requirements are bad or lead to "centralization."

Again, you can just ask. Actors running nodes have to pay for that increased bandwidth. That means that nodes which cant cover that cost are cut out.

But that just reduces the number of nodes on the network. That seemed pretty straight forward so I didn't think I'd have to explain it.

The much bigger issue is increased network consensus lag, which I _have_ explained.

Lets say you're a miner and you mine a block. At roughly the same time, another miner mines a block off of the same header you were mining on. The bitcoin protocol must now choose one of those two blocks to continue the chain, orphaning the other one. This means that the miner who mined the orphan block doesn't get the block reward, and they don't get transaction fees either.

Bitcoin resolves this by having the default client accept whatever the longest chain is. If you have more hash power than the other miner then you increase your odds of your chain being chosen because you increase the number of hashes produced against the block you mined, which increases the chance of mining a second block.

When you increase the max size of blocks, you increase the time it takes for a block to propagate to every node (or any arbitrary percentage of nodes you want to look at) on the network because the nodes have to forward and validate a larger block. This increases the rate of orphan blocks. As orphan blocks punish lower hash power miners (as they're more likely to owned the orphan block and thus, more likely to get cut out of their mining reward) lower hash power miners... (cont.)

>>9098056
Pop quiz time, brainlet:
Q: What is the *actual probability* of getting a 1sat/byte transaction through in one block?
A: https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/
Now kys. You do not have the wetware to participate in this discussion.

>>9098043
>>9098055
they're all under the rules of LN
a smaller node with cheaper routing will be prioritized
large nodes providing a service get used so what?

>Increasing on chain throughput does not result in centralisation,
now that is debunked by basic math, more throughput requires more resources
>END OF STORY
smug faggot

>>9097862
>LN has been tested extensively on testnet,
And it's not even stable there, yet its deployed on mainnet... how is this not a major red flag?

Meanwhile gigga blocks are passing tests when they wont come into use for years to come.

>>9097953
>>9098078

...(cont.) are discouraged. This leads to a smaller number of actors controlling a larger percentage of the hash power.

Feel free to ask me questions about the specifics here rather than just hurling vague insults if you'd like.

>>9098079
the site you linked is a fucking lie or terrible math
1sat/byte transactions were confirmed in 7 out of the last 10 blocks

>>9098068
>I and others have already explained why you're wrong and demonstrated with empirical evidence from the real world that you are in fact wrong. Header first mining is deployed in production, end of story

"Yes miners already engage in SPV mining.

Miners don't forward non-validated headers to other nodes, and even if they did those nodes wouldn't forward those headers to the rest of the network.

In order to solve the latency problem with block header forwarding, you need to forward the block header through the whole network before nodes validate it.

Forwarding the non-validated block header, not mining on it, but FORWARDING IT, and allowing it to propagate through the whole network solves the latency issue. It also allows anyone to easily spam the network with bogus headers."

>>9097953
>Their crusade against "le ebil ASICs
Bch extension blocks with zksnarks when?

>>9097930

No a hardfork is not == a 'protocol upgrade'.

There have been other hardforks of bitcoin other than bch including ones which straight up steal your private keys. Are they 'upgrades' too? Upgrades from where, and to where? Upgrading is a linear process, yet there appear to be multiple paths of "upgrades" do there? No, theyre hardforks, the clue is in the name.

Its interesting how you have twice in two replies taken pains to say "Look im not a cashie BUT..." and then deflected my evidentiary post off into semantics games and away from its central point. I think the market should have information like that, too.

>>9098055
>Either one is subject to potential catastrophic failure.
ok a major nodes disconnects on lightning what happens?
nothing transactions get routed around it
no money is lost

what happens when nodes get reduced to only people with 100k+ to spend
the ENTIRE NETWORK gets threatened

you fags are willing to sacrifice the entire network over the chance of a inconvenience to learn to use a better system

>>9098079
you little fags are acting so smug and smart yet you have no god damn idea what you're talking about

>>9098068
> As to the stupidity of the market, in the short term it's a voting machine, in the long term it's a weighing machine, weak efficient market hypothesis ad et al, which is to say people are beginning to smell the horse shit in the vaults and they're beyond just asking polite questions and are taking action on the sabotage now.

Then why has BCH/BTC been trending downward since november?

>>9098082
> my aunt sally is going to provide cheaper routes to the economic majority than wells fargo, despite every route being to be individually staked.
You're just embarrassing yourself now you clueless fuck.
> what is header first mining
Ok. I'm done with you, you're too stupid to breathe, neck yourself.

>>9098121
> but your empirical example cannot be right because of my theoretical defense!
C O P E

>>9098078
>orphan blocks punish lower hash power miners
What are mining pools?

>>9098179
yeah keep brushing off the FACT that larger blocks increase cost of nodes centralizing the entire system

the FACT is your aunt sally can run a node and verify the network with bitcoin
she can't when only wells fargo can afford bcash nodes

keep acting smug you sound like a retard

>>9098174
> I'm going to pretend I don't know what the volume of that 0.5 btc sale was.
Nobody is buying it Greg, go to sleep

>>9098146
> Its interesting how you have twice in two replies taken pains to say "Look im not a cashie BUT..." and then deflected my evidentiary post off into semantics games and away from its central point. I think the market should have information like that, too.

Click my ID and read my posts. I've been tearing down BCH this entire thread. If you think I'm a BCH fan after everything I've written here you're delusional. I just have a higher threshold for proof than "two people use the same common word for a thing".

> There have been other hardforks of bitcoin other than bch including ones which straight up steal your private keys. Are they 'upgrades' too?

Did these hardforks create two active chains, the current BTC chain and the malicious chain? Or did the old chain die because it was abandoned by the community, vendors, and devs? If the latter, its an upgrade, regardless of how shitty it is. If the forking chain died but the chain forked from continued then its an unsuccessful fork. If both chains garner their own communities and continue to live on then its a chain split. Regardless of whether you personally consider it a _good_ upgrade. This is how these words are generally used in this space.

>>9098174
Its bottomed out higher its entire existence. The trend is up, aside from Coinbase fuckery its extremely volatile because it carrys more fomo and fud than any other coin in the market.

>>9098078
>By 'centralization' I mean 1.) hashpower controlled by a smaller number of actors and 2.) nodes controlled by a smaller number of actors.
Terrible definition that takes zero account of the economics and game theory of bitcoin. Thanks for demonstrating that the toy model of bitcoin you hold in your mind is nothing but a pale shadow of actual reality.
The rest of your post is just the same tired 1 meg greg rhetorical strategy of blathering on about trivial technical mechanics while slipping in your own preferred conclusion via the back door at the end via a false premise, namely that consolidation of mining, economies of scale and the market rewarding competent pools is somehow bad because you can't compete with shit tier hardware. No shit you will be at a disadvantage if your hardware setup is inferior and you don't spend resources innovating and upgrading your connection(s) to the network. The market is brutal. Does this mean the system is therefore easier to subvert because it has offended one of your Decentralization Commandments? Anyone who understands real empiricism is laughing their ass off right now at your self-serving sophistry.
>>9098109
>>9098159
"REEEEEEE"
Wanna know how I know you are a complete newfag?
>>9098217
>centralizing the entire system
>the entire system
>entire system
Just lol

>>9098263
miners pumping bcash
coinbase pumping bcash
bitpay pumping bcash
CIA gavin pumping bcash
CNBC pumping bcash

>were not centralized muh blockstream
one several teams developing on lightning, there are 3 main ones and several small ones

>>9095851
>>9096580
>>9096736
Im glad I ended my lurking Hiatus today and saw this. I need to re-evaluate some shit.

>>9098263
Craig is satoshi to you incompetent absolute retards
he hasn't produced a single shred of proof but CIA gavin said he was so..

>>9098147
> Lightning cannot be stopped!
Here's lightning being stopped shit for brains
https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/21/lightning-network-ddos-sends-20-nodes
This is an implicit weakness of routed hub and spoke architecture. Meanwhile, when it comes to BCH, the network is robust in its unstructured simplicity, and not vulnerable to those kinds of attacks.

How come bcash never addresses the EDA distribution scam they preformed several times
no blocks mined for 6 hours so the miners could basically print 10s of thousands of coins out of nothing
This fork is a cheap scam centralized altcoin with millions in advertisement backing it

it's fucking sad more people don't see it

>>9098327
> unforeseen consequence that was actually fixed in the codebase November 12 last year was a scam.
C O P E

>>9098314
your coin has like 10% of bitcoin's hashing power
1 mining pool could wreck your shit if they wanted to

>>9098337
yeah unforeseen consequences are only acceptable in absolute shit alts not bitcoin

>>9098314
>DDOSing LN

>>9098337
>that was actually fixed
those free coins are still floating around and being sold to the absolute noobs tricked into buying this heap of shit

>>9098327
>How come bcash never addresses the EDA distribution scam they preformed several times
>no blocks mined for 6 hours so the miners could basically print 10s of thousands of coins out of nothing
>"How come Bitcoin never addresses the low difficulty scam Satoshi performed to reward himself with all those coins in the first thousand blocks"
>REEEEing because people who took tremendous risk get tremendous reward.
I love how this stupid commie trash actually think he belongs here.

>>9098219

So what it had high volume and a high price back in November? Whats your point? You're trying to argue that the market is waking up NOW, not that it was tricked back then.

>>9098369
yeah and satoshi has those bcash too so your argument is fucking stupid
>but craig is satoshi and he likes muh bcash
get fucked retard

bcash abusing the EDA distribution was like atleast 8k blocks probably over 10k blocks though
There's easily over 100,000 bcash that was given to miners through horrible code mistakes
>but the longer chain argument while dismissing the total amount of work
LOL

>>9098312
>>9098381
Top kek at all this CSW derangement syndrome.
Imagine getting this mad about someone who wasn't even brought up in the thread.

>satoshi has those bcash too so your argument is fucking stupid
Wew lad. You really, really don't belong here.

The flappening is coming. Be very afraid bchtards.

>>9098427
>he knows our scam
Y..YOU DON'T BELONG HERE

>>9098341
> our shitty ideological fork could totally wreck the one that was created by the source of the vast majority of SHA256 hashing power who have indicated they will defend it to the last breath.
Is there a point at which you'll get embarrassed with your idiocy or is this just like "nah man, I can go all fucking day"?

>>9098249

Youre still deflecting from central point, the narrative pipeline, which i have shown as Ver (top mod and owner) > BeijingBitcoins (his subordinate) > rbtcers > here, using an exact same and very specific term "upgrade", over a very short period of time (24 hrs). Do you demand signed confessions?

up·grade (ŭpgrād)
v. up·grad·ed, up·grad·ing, up·grades
v.tr.
1. To raise to a higher grade or standard: upgrading their military defenses.
2. Computers
a. To replace (a software program) with a more recently released, enhanced version.
b. To replace (a hardware device) with one that provides better performance.

You are contradicting yourself by saying an upgrade can be good and bad, the term has a specific definition, not to mention connotation. This is how the word is generally used in the english language. In fact, the post on rbtc i linked to suggests lying to people specifically because upgrade is not an equivalent term to hardfork (which has a tainted connotation for a very good reason), they think its one with a nicer ring to it, and theyre right. Its just marketing.

"hardfork" is something that can be contextually either good or bad though.

Regardless, every time bch has recursively hardforked itself it has left behind a functioning remnant chain. The crap with the faulty DAA is still being mined.

There is no natural equivalence of these terms, and thus there is no wriggle out of what i showed, and i wont address this again. It was an interesting vector, though.

>>9098422

EDA was satoshis vishon

>>9098349
Bitcoin was being attacked by blockstream, drastic measures were taken in order to avoid a takeover, they were successful and we're only here now because of it, those who mined at the time and capitalised on the situation get what they deserve for being quick to react to market realities, commies like you get the rope.

>>9098470
"6 kids; Christian extremist"
that one line make me hate whoever created that image

You should be buying PFR instead of whatever crap youre holding. Their mainnet comes out on April 30th. Do you realize that Localbitcoins now has KYC? Do you understand that once PFR is out, people will all jump ship to avoid having to upload documents? People kept doubting the project but these guys deliver. Do you want to be poor forever.

>>9098337

>unforeseen

You cannot really believe that can you, cashew? And unforeseen consequence that just happened to print 100,000 fucking extra coins for early bch miners.

Id sell you a bridge but i dont think youve got room for another one

>>9098479
>Dat parade
Top kek.

>>9098479
covert asicboost was being attacked by a widely accepted transaction malleability fix
I know lets fork the chain mine 100,000 bcash for ourselves then pump it with all our connections in crypto

>something something commie nonsense
OK BUDDY

>>9098327
>>9098422
>>9098476
Literally priced in and despite that is still gaining. Stay salty corecucks.

>>9098475

> You are contradicting yourself by saying an upgrade can be good and bad, the term has a specific definition, not to mention connotation.

You're ignoring how the word is used in the context of bitcoin. Tree also has a specific definition, but Merkle Trees don't need to be watered and don't grow fruit.

> Youre still deflecting from central point, the narrative pipeline, which i have shown as Ver (top mod and owner) > BeijingBitcoins (his subordinate) > rbtcers > here, using an exact same and very specific term "upgrade", over a very short period of time (24 hrs). Do you demand signed confessions?

You should a picture of a single reddit post made by a mod and then pointed out that someone else here used the same language as that post, which also happens to be the accepted language in this space.

> You are contradicting yourself by saying an upgrade can be good and bad, the term has a specific definition, not to mention connotation.

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm purposely and knowingly contradicting the dictionary definition of the word because its used differently in this domain. Just like I contradict the dictionary definition of 'tree' when I talk about merkle trees. As it turns out, English is a contextual language.

>>9089614
fuck man, I want to hate Bcash but it really does seem like the two coins should swap names. Fucking Core is centralized and awful.

>>9098533
the site you provided was mathematically incorrect
you're either stupid and ignorant, or trying to manipulate people here

>>9098484
I assume because it implies that there's something wrong with having six kids from a certain perspective? He certainly is a christian extremist, to the extent he believes the universe revolves around the earth, slavery is moral, and people that aren't his religion should be executed, so, I'm assuming it isn't that you take issue with.

>>9098528
anyone buying bcash needs to know 100,000 free coins for miners is priced in
that's something they don't mention on CNBC

>>9098502
Whether it was premeditated or not, they saved Bitcoin from blockstream, if that is their price for doing it, then so be it. Without that action, we'd all be stuck with blockstream's flaming bag of shit right now.

>>9098314

Thats a link to LN getting DDoS, bringing down the most centralized nodes on the network. Smaller nodes were unaffected. DDoS like this just push LN towards a more decentralized topology. A DDoS against smaller nodes isn't viable because you need to saturate all the available connections with every node you connect to.

>>9098526
>I'm going to whine about asicboost because I didn't get the memo core are using it in halong miners and slush pool and btcdrak is even writing fucking BIP's for version bits to be dedicated to it it's so ingrained in the new narrative.
So I guess I have my answer about you ever getting tired of sounding like a complete fucking idiot. Proceed squire.

>>9098584
A altcoin fork issuing 100,000 free coins to miners saved bitcoin from bitcoin everybody
you heard it here first

>>9098600
if you had any reading comprehension you would have seen I wrote "covert asicboost"

>>9098198

You haven't provided an example of a cc protocol that forwards non-validated headers, you've explained SPV mining. SPV mining doesn't solve the latency issue, though. Forwarding non-validated headers, again, NOT MINING FROM THEM, but FORWARDING THEM.

>>9098584
>Whether it was premeditated or not, they saved Bitcoin from blockstream, if that is their price for doing it, then so be it.

>genesis block message at the very introduction of bitcoin to the world: Chancellor on brink of second bail out for banks

As in, these two things together, one of the most stridently anti monetary supply inflation statements a man has ever made. And you say so be fucking it to bitmain & co printing 100k coins for themselves well ahead of schedule? And all for what, to stick it to the man, man? You would treason bitcoins most core, crux, fundamental property to settle a vendetta that was planted in your head by the same people who engineered this coin printing in the first place?

Satoshis fucking vision indeed :^). Typing this out actually got a chuckle out of me and that is not easy for me on this site any more, thank you.

>>9098592
> the most centralized nodes on the network.
AHahahhahahahahahahh fuck me.. do you listen to yourself son or have you mastered the art of doublethink so well that this doesn't even scratch your skin?
It's over greg. You lost. Go to sleep.

>>9098584
Don't forget the digital signatures that segwit throws in the garbage.

>>9098625

Do you think cashies actually have reading comprehension?

Ctrl + F SPV

It's fucking hilarious how many times I've explained this, and they still can't comprehend it.

>>9098625
> a variant of asicboost not approved from the party! Not that I have any concrete evidence for this accusation at all, but comrades...
Keep it up junior commissar. You really are amusing.

>>9098679
> but but my precious theory.
Blow it out your ass greg, I just don't give a fuck son.

>>9098684

Why don't you actually explain how I'm wrong rather than just repeating the same vague tired shit?

>>9098710

It's not my theory, it's Graphene's proposed solution to the problem I'm pointing out, and it doesn't function well in an adverse environment because its susceptible to spam attacks.

>>9098683
> You would accept a minor cost in order to preserve a permanent vision?! How dare you!
Yeah, OK buddy.
If you don't like it fork the chain again and distribute the "misallocated coins" to your personal cause of choice. Let's see how much traction you get. I predict none.
As far as I'm concerned, they deserve that reward for saving Bitcoin from blockstream, end of story. and it doesn't increase the 21 million cap a single satoshi, it just changes the allocation to reward them for their service. If you disagree you have your recourse for all the good it will do you.

>>9098685

This is the most bald faced lie that cashews are still pushing, one that can be disproven by looking at any bitcoin block on any explorer, one that if it were true every segwit output would have been cleaned out by now DAO style. Absolutely incredible.

>>9098701
if covert asicboost wasn't an issue then S2X would have been the fork because all the major companies and miners were backing it
turned out it was just a smokescreen and the S2X development team was dogshit and couldn't fork properly so they went backwards to an even more basic fork of bitcoin

>>9098718
>lightning isn't a centralising force
>the most centralised nodes on the network
k, this one's just for you buddy.

>>9098756
> bitcoin isn't a centralizing force
> the most centralized miners on the network

derp

>>9098750
All he's pointing out is that segwit breaks the digital chain of signatures, that's true, you're misinterpreting it to be "what if all the miners stop validating the signatures on segwit transactions", which is a completely different case.

>>9098698
Tell me Gmax, how do non-mining nodes contribute to decentralizing the network if they can't add to the chain?

>>9098751
If S2X had actually happened, we may well not even be having this discussion right now and BTC/BCH may well still be one thing.
But this is not the world we live in, so it's irrelevant. And you speculating that asicboost has anything to do at all with the cancellation of s2x assumes that all the parties that were privvy to s2x all knew it was about asicboost for sure, no evidence at all that it was even about asicboost for sure have ever come out, and asicboost is in widespread use in core now anyway, basically, this is just more idiotic bullshit from you.

>>9098806

Well, in the post you're referencing I'm talking about SPV miners, so I'm not really sure how that's relevant. But its good to have some non-mining nodes that aren't SPV clients (as in, they're full nodes that validate every block) because it means you have a demographic validating the blockchain which has a different set of drives and interests than miners.

>>9098778
>Its a balancing act, where the bigger you make blocks, the more centralized the protocol becomes.
>On the other hand, LN solves these issues
> I never said lightning wasn't a centralising force
herp derp.

the end game is this

bitcoin
decentralized nodes
cheap fast 2nd layer
higher mainchain fees to pay miners for security

higher mainchain fees inconvenience noobies who don't know what they're doing
LN is an open protocol with several development teams
there are many 2nd layer developments other than LN as well

bcash
100,000 free bcash for miners
centralized nodes
lower mainchain fees but more transactions to pay miners for security

100,000 free bcash invalidates the fairness of the distribution
centralized nodes threaten the network

>>9098818
christ you are so god damn dull
we went over this a few posts ago

>>9098851
I never said it was either. PoW isn't inheriently centralized, but with a PoW chain, of course some miners will produce more hashpower than others. And in LN some nodes process more transactions than others. That's what I mean by "most centralized". Of course, unlike with miners, there's actually a force driving the network towards smaller nodes, in that the larger a node gets, the more susceptible it gets to DDoS attacks.

>>9098863
Right, and it was as much bullshit from you as it is bullshit from you now, everything you say is bullshit. It would be closer to the truth if you simply inverted it. Case in point >>9098853

>>9098743

My god, youre doubling down. Ive capped this exchange and ill cut it together later for reposting. Thank you for this.

>>9098884
> implying that there are zero disadvantages to mining at scale
So you are one meg greg after all, what's your maximum deployment, was it seven litecoin GPU's? I forget those shitty bitcointalk posts where you were trying to wave your dick around like an idiot. You have no idea about the issues that come with mining at scale and it's hilarious to listen to you speculate.

>>9098898
you refuse to accept that more transaction on chain would require more investment to run a node
it's simply nonsense to assume the bigger investment to run a node wouldn't exclude node operators

>>9098327

Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin, the fact that you can't even say the name leads me to believe you are either another pajeet shitposting on behalf of Blockstream, or you are a diehard /r/bitcoin brainlet who has been told what to think.

>>9089614
yawn

>>9098912
> thinks it's controversial that some miners will do better out of the way the blockchain unfolds than others, and this is related to what they choose to mine when
> thinks changing the distribution is the same as increasing the supply
k have fun with that.

>>9098919
> implying that there are zero disadvantages to mining at scale

List them.

>>9098938
I manage a multi megawatt mining deployment, and I'm not going to compromise my comparative advantage by educating you on just how retarded you are. Try it and see for yourself, I look forward to you going out of business.

>>9098928
just ignore 100,000 free bcash for miners "real bitcoin" amiright?

>>9098922
I refuse to accept that whether an individual with zero incentive to run a node can do so is a relevant factor for ascertaining a metric of decentralisation on the chain. But I imagine that difference is too complex for you to grasp.

>>9098938
Spoken like someone who has never attempted to scale a fucking _business_. LOL, this has got to be Greg or a spiritual facsimile from another dimension.
This entire thread and the damage control it has attracted by a few determined whiners is just classic.
>>9098962
>Free
Oh yeah, totally free. Just like that free college and healthcare, right comrade Sanders?

>>9098949

nice larp

>>9098962
> mined bitcoin are free goy honest
C O P E

>>9098949
>I manage a multi megawatt mining deployment
>those who mined at the time and capitalised on the situation
>As far as I'm concerned, they deserve that reward for saving Bitcoin from blockstream

doesn't sound like you care about bitcoin
this is just about making money for yourself

>>9098983
nice redditspacing greg, so this is what you meant by "deep protocol work" eh?.

>>9098779

No it doesnt you absolute astounding cretin.

segwit signatures are only discarded by non segwit nodes AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE NETWORK, BECAUSE THEY DONT UNDERSTAND IT, CANT VALIDATE IT AND DONT WRITE IT TO DISK. ITS AFTER-THE-FACT. SEGWIT TXS ARE ALWAYS ALWAYS TRANSMITTED ON THE NETWORK AND MINED WITH SIGNATURES. ITS SEGREGATED NOT ELIMINATED, ARE THE CAPS HELPING YOU TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS.

Goddamn you are the same guy i just screencapped lmao. You cant hang kid.

>>9098975
>Spoken like someone who has never attempted to scale a fucking _business_.

The cost and difficulty of scaling a business has nothing to do with game theoretic properties of a protocol which discourage large nodes.

You're welcome to explain how larger miners must pay more per hash than smaller miners, though, in the same vein that larger nodes must pay more for bandwidth than smaller nodes on LN.

>>9098962

The inflation is relatively insignificant. They would have been mined eventually anyway.

>>9098922
A 2mb blockchain, hell even a fucking 32mb blockchain does not exclude any miner, even a home miner from mining Bitcoin. You're fucking full of shit, this isn't 1995 for fucks sake. 32mb is nothing, its fucking tiny, most people around the world can download 32mb in 10 minutes easily.

Hell most households can download 32mb per second now days. IT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.

>>9098990
>EDA abused altcoin forks are bitcoin
you just don't get or are trying to manipulate people

>>9099016

> they're our rivals!!

You're on a Vietnamese hopscotch forum.

>>9099017
stupid kid, you forgot an image to go with your spastic attack, I thought I'd provide you with a suitable one, I'll try to make it real simple for you considering the struggle you're having with this.
Here is what you think we're saying
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@truthforce/comment-on-btc-reddit-a-51-attack-under-segwit-is-amplified-so-that-instead-of-reversing-a-few-transactions-it-will-instead
Here's what we're actually saying
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@bitsignal/bitcoin-is-a-chain-of-digital-signatures-whereas-segwit-is-something-else
I've tried to make this as clear as possible mostly for any lurker with half a brain rather than expecting you have the appropriate wetware to process it, so I don't bother asking for a re-explanation due to said idiocy. None will be forthcoming.

>>9098949
>>9099016

By the way, if you're not larping, go ahead and sign a message for us.

>>9099053
And so are you, greg. What does that tell you?

>>9098898

Actually is this you James? James Howells? The bloke who lost his bloodlines financial legacy to a fucking rubbish tip, and seems to be so broken by the experience he got involved with a knockoff bitcoin, no doubt hoping for a second chance to do right by his descendents?

Mate you lost a fucking *fortune* because of a simple mistake, im tempted to give you a pass on your subsequent indiscretions in light of.

>>9099045
>The inflation is relatively insignificant. They would have been mined eventually anyway.
it violates the founding principals of how bitcoin is to be distributed
it makes the blockchain look like a total joke
no other currency coin raped the distribution this poorly except maybe dash

>>9090896
corecucks sold at $300 and posted "thanks for the free money" on /r/bitcoin

>>9099080

Are you going to sign a message with your bitcoin wallet or not, you totally not larping industrial miner

>>9099071
The point of an anonymous board is that you're anonymous, I realise the premise may be lost on you given how transparent you're being about your identity, but personally I take it seriously, my arguments have merit based on the content of them or they don't, who I am is of zero consequence, and I'm still not going to tell you what miners in the megawatt plus range have to deal with that you have no concept of.

>>9099084
> mining violates the founding principals of how bitcoin is to be distributed
christ you're a complete fucking retard.

>>9099082
Yeah, I'm that guy, whoever he is.

>>9099080
>What does that tell you?

It tells me I like hanging out on Vietnamese hopscotch board. I don't have some dumb sense of pride about it. 4chan is no more or less stupid than reddit. In fact, its probably less stupid. I actually have had some decent discussions with cashies there. Not here.

>>9099003
>Making money for yourself is bad, mmmkay.
Please tell you boss that they need to provide better on-the-job training that includes Bitcoin Philosophy 101 before sending their drones out. They seem to be currently wasting their investment.
>>9099016
Shhhh, we don't want to let him know how obvious it is he's not from around here.
>>9099017
>Still doesn't understand the meaning of "breaking the chain of signatures."
Goddamn, this thread is hilarious. Thank you for playing.
>>9099035
>The cost and difficulty of scaling a business has nothing to do with game theoretic properties of a protocol which discourage large nodes.
"The cost and difficulty of scaling a business has nothing to do with the outcome of the bitcoin mining landscape."
Why you are even still here? The number of times this guy has gotten BTFO in a single thread must be some kind of record.

>>9099109
he turned around some words to change the meaning of the statement
AGAIN
that's not how you win a discussion buddy

This is the kind of thread that we need to have more here in /biz/. Actual argumentation instead of just insulting each other. It has opened my eyes today. Now I feel like I'm beginning to understand the debate a little bit better. Even though I still don't understand how Bitcoin Cash having the Bitcoin name isn't scummy, I do see their reasoning to exist and have a high position in the marketplace. Trying out different ways of going forward is very much the thing we need in crypto before we go mainstream. If off-chain crypto with Lightning Network does fail, we still have the Bitcoin Cash version as a reasonable option. Which ever side wins, Litecoin seems to be redundant though. At least that I am pretty sure of.
I am exited for the future of this cryptowar. It will definitely be interesting and push normies like me to understand the tech a bit more, instead of just blindly buying.

>>9099101
> who I am is of zero consequence
> I manage a multi megawatt mining deployment

herp derp

>>9099125
>Please tell you boss that they need to provide better on-the-job training that includes Bitcoin Philosophy 101 before sending their drones out. They seem to be currently wasting their investment.
he's false advertising a product and committing fraud for profit

>>9099122
I'm utterly unsurprised you think so, since you rarely stray outside your designated censored den where your particular brand of idiocy is actually considered legitimate and insightful, but that is your failing, not a failing of valuing the quality of arguments themselves over trying to play silly political games with which speaker is more significant or of higher status.

>>9099125
>"The cost and difficulty of scaling a business has nothing to do with the outcome of the bitcoin mining landscape."

When did I say that. What I said was "The cost and difficulty of scaling a business has nothing to do with game theoretic properties of a protocol which discourage large nodes."

The cost or organizing things at a large scale exists outside of the context of the protocol. I'm very clearly talking about the cost per hash vs the cost per transaction.

>>9099125
He's basically admitted he's greg, and even if he's not it's pretty much irrelevant as he's clearly consumed so much swill from the /r/bitcoin trough he may as well be. He's made it plenty obvious already I'd say.

>>9099157
> unsubstantiated claims about an anonymous person

okay there, you big megawatt miner you.

>>9099069

the chain is unbroken you invalid lmao

>appropriate wetware
>said idiocy
>none will be forthcoming

Cringe.

>>9099174

how many megawatts do you think his mining rig uses. he said multi-megawatt, but didnt specify. that could mean hes actually a TWatt miner, as a TWatt is multiple MWatts.

>>9099136
Which is how I know what I know, not why you should listen to me. If you honestly can't reasonably imagine why it might be slightly complex and involved to run a multi megawatt mining business, and your internal map of mining really is just "get tha megawatts and watch the paper roll in dolla dolla bill yall bitches on mah dik yo" then it's no wonder you behave as you do towards the very concept of securing the blockchain with proof of work, you sad little retard.
But, I think I'll survive all the same, despite your hostility, because all you've served to actually accomplish with your attack is provide stake in the real bitcoin to those of us who understood it better than you did all along, so, you know, thanks.

>>9099189
> If you honestly can't reasonably imagine why it might be slightly complex and involved to run a multi megawatt mining business

No, I can. What I can't understand is why you'd be paying more per hash than a smaller miner.

>>9099145
George, is that you? I can smell the usg cum on your breath from here.

>>9099164
>He's basically admitted he's greg, and even if he's not it's pretty much irrelevant as he's clearly consumed so much swill from the /r/bitcoin trough he may as well be. He's made it plenty obvious already I'd say.
IIRC he has also been caught socking on reddit and just like now when directly asked he has no response.
>>9099174
>Thinking this is a meme on 4chan
>That spacing
>Using the word "invalid" incorrectly while trying but failing to implicitly make fun of "them 5 dollar words"
They are not sending their best, folks.

>>9099215

you got me I'm definitely greg maxwell

desu I just do what the bogs and the bergs tell me to do

>>9099128

Bitcoiners dont actually have a real problem with bcashes mere existence. Its the as you say scummy attempts to hitch its wagon to the bitcoin brand instead of building its own destiny. Its gone beyond misdirection and its into fraud now, Roger Ver has recently put "bitcoin (bch)" on his website. Someone should buy some and sue him for passing it off as bitcoin, get his US assets frozen and/or the site blocked in the country, just like foreign gambling sites (as an aside, thats exactly what his business partner Calvin Ayre was into and the reason he refuses to step foot in any country that has an extradition treaty with the US now)

>>9099196
The per hash cost of any given operation is a result of the sum total of inputs, divided by the sum total of all outputs, in this case the outputs being hashes, and the inputs being the stuff required to run a mining operation.
Suffice to say the inputs required to run an extremely large mining operation are very different to the ones required to run your quaint little 4 gpu litecoin miner you were bragging about on bitcointalk back in the day. Sure, we absolutely positively make a ton more revenue than the small operations, but we also have a ton more costs than they do in areas they don't even have to remotely consider. I'm not going to write them up because it cost me rather a lot to learn them and that was quite valuable experience that I don't really feel like handing out for free, it's that simple.

>>9099084

It is a consequence of Blockstream's attempt to takeover Bitcoin (BCH), as I said already it is relatively insignificant and it certainly doesn't 'violate the founding principals' of anything.

Fuck off you fucking lying kike.

>>9099189
big miner wants more centralization
isn't phased by this >>9099003
promotes an unfairly distributed altcoin fork as real bitcoin

you might be able to trick some noobs but it's disingenuous and scammy

>>9099238
> I wont actually explain why it costs me more per hash than someone with a much worse economy of scale, but just take my word for it. I am a big megawatt miner after all

>>9099003
The reason I invested the past many years of my life in the project was because I cared about Bitcoin, the reason I got into mining was because I cared about Bitcoin, the reason I'm involved at all is because I want to see the state's metaphorical head on a pike, I'm just doing my part with the skills that I have to ensure that happens, and I consider my support of BCH to be a deflection of an attempt to hijack and sabotage it by forces that would be much more amenable to the existing order.
Shame me for this as much as you like, I'm quite proud of it.
Additionally there's the problem that I don't care what you think and consider you a promising argument for compulsory sterilisation.

>>9099255
>Hurr, durr. What is overhead?
"Could it be that thing that prevents economies of scale extending infinitely with size? Could there be some other non-linear factors to consider? Nah, my duplo-tier mental model can't be wrong!"
It's cute when people who don't understand business and economics try the 1 meg greg strategy of baffling people with bullshit. Stick to the technical bullshittery. You'll get more mileage out of it, peasant.

>>9099239
100,000 coins is
>relatively insignificant
6 hour no blocks to 2016 blocks with halved difficulty found in a few hours
>doesn't violate bitcoin's principals
ok guy keep saying absolute nonsense

>>9099284

100,000 coins is 0.59% of supply. That's all. Once again, a non-argument out of a corecuck.

I rounded up too.

>>9099284
I bet you and G Maxipad don't even realize that every time you repeat your stale, debunked nonsense here, you just bump the thread and shine more light on your bullshit for all anons to see. Hilarious.

>>9099277
you want to make the world a better place with bitcoin, but you selfishly abused the distribution of a forked altcoin and don't have a problem with it?
you're no better than the state, it's just that you have that x amount of advantage on bcash so you promote it as bitcoin
you're full of shit man

>>9089614
I think the flippening will occur hen bch is 1000 and BTC is 900. All alts down 90 percent too. Crypto needs its great depression. And no it wasn't after the first 1000 usd pump.

>>9099306
what's debunked it's timestamped in the blockchain
go look for yourself you stupid fuck

>>9099315
> mining is abusing the distribution HONEST Y DONT U BELIEVE ME GUISE WAAH
*sigh*. You are outmatched, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person any further, and won't be responding to you anymore out of pity.

>>9099296
over the course of what a week or two?
that isn't ok, it's bullshit

>>9099334
6 hours no blocks is real bitcoin guys
believe me look at blockstream
100,000 coins is the cost of using my chain

The flailing desperation is really quite charming.

>>9099334
>*sigh*. You are outmatched, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person any further, and won't be responding to you anymore out of pity.

>>9099284

>muh bitcoins founding principles

Got source on the Bitcoin constitution, made by the founding fathers, that lays down directive on EDA and distribution? No? Then go fuck yourself.

>>9099336

Over the course of 3 months, don't fucking make up lies and expect people to swallow your propaganda. It has been fixed, it was a once off, it is not an issue, as I already stated it's about a half of a single percent.

Fuck off with your non-argument you fucking lying sack of shit.

>>9099399
our lord and savoir satoshi wrote RBF into bitcoin to test us

>>9099405
>our chain was unusable for 3 whole months
>we're real bitcoin

>>9099364
the king of pretentious neckbeards with delusions of adequacy just implied I'm a neckbeard. Today is a funny day.

>>9099405
bcashies use temporary blockchain congestion as a reason to fork to a chain that was unusable for 3 months that "accidentally" distributed 100,000 extra coins and are delusional enough to call it real bitcoin

>>9099433
>>9099456

You forgot to switch IPs to post from your other ID rajeesh.

Bitcoin (BCH) has been as usable as ever since the genesis block. The 100,000 coins is 0.59% inflation of 17,000,000 coins, it's nothing.

Will I keep rebutting the same non-arguments till the end of time? Or will you switch to a new talking point using a different IP address?

>>9099491
I replied twice explaining the same point that flies right over your peanut brain
6 hour blocks isn't usable
I could have paid a $1000 transaction fee and it would still take 6 hours while the miners added .59% unfair inflation straight into their pockets with half the work

>>9099435

If satoshi ever publicly told someone that he had outmatched them in a battle of wits I'd be a whole lot poorer than I am right now.

>>9099519

Why do you keep bringing up 6 hours? I don't even know what you're talking about. Bitcoin (BCH) mines 6 blocks per hour on average, as intended.

0.59% is literally nothing. 6 hours for the bcore chain is fairly standard, after you pay your $50 fee of course.

The Bitcoin (BCH) fee would be on average less than a cent and you'd be guaranteed to be included in the next block, so ~10 minutes.

>>9099519
> 6 hour blocks isn't usable
Just quietly, as a core supporter, you might want to leave this stone unturned.

>>9099541
If that guy needed telling it's only because he might be functionally retarded.

>>9099541
Yeah I'm not as diplomatic as him, and I'm far more conceited and less tolerant of idiocy. Sue me. I don't really care, I'm not interested in humans or their opinions.

I wagered bch will flip btc and I can't believe how accurate I was so far. Bch is #4, and since Cripple isn't useful for anything soon bch will take #3. And to think ppl said I was crazy when I said bch is the real deal.

>>9099744
And this is why I'm not interested in humans or their opinions, they're so easily fooled by complete nonsense.
It's a problem though, nobody can claim the concept of blockchains backed by proof of work was not dealt significant damage by these events. I hope it will serve as a vaccine in BCH going forward against any future similar hijacking attempts, but the extent of human idiocy never ceases to surprise me. I hope we don't end up back in this exact same situation in another few years.

>>9099744

ETH's inflation rate is bonkers so you should also expect ETH to dive after the ICO scam boom ends.

I worked it out yesterday, 12 ETH are awarded per minute which equals 720 ETH per hour.

720 * $600 = $432,000 worth of ETH is created and sold every hour. Biggest pump and dump in history.

>>9099711

It's less about diplomacy and more about the cringe. Torvalds isn't diplomatic but I still use GNU/Linux. If he ever said what you just said I'd be using BSD right now, I swear to god.

>>9099760
>I hope it will serve as a vaccine in BCH going forward against any future similar hijacking attempts, but the extent of human idiocy never ceases to surprise me.
There's nChain but short to mid term I'm very bullish, even if BCH won't filp BTC it's getting increasingly viewed as a way to hedge BTC in case another $50 fee 80MB memepool situation arises.

>>9099807
How's it possible? Didn't they say they'll move to PoS which will have far lower reward?

>>9099842
Once again, the mistaken impression that I care what you think, if it disturbs you that people like me are mining the blockchain, then be disturbed, if you want to use that as a basis upon which to abandon it, then abandon it. I will not moderate my behaviour to conform to your ideas of what is desirable or appropriate, as far as I'm concerned you are either so stupid you should probably be put out of your misery if you're not greg, considering how utterly consumed by his propaganda you clearly are, or unironically the worst thing to ever happen to crypto if you are, and I'm just glad you're failing miserably.