/biz/ - Business & Finance

they're both highly centralized by chinks, bcash more so, but they're both well beyond the threshold.

the real question you should ask yourself, is why didn't bcash fork to a new proof of work to actually decentralize itself. right now it has less hash power than some alts, so it's not like they would be less secure.

find out why bcash didn't, and who has the most to lose by a change in proof of work, and you find out who actually controls bcash.

In a case a 51% attack happened to a coin, as it did at the time of the Segwit fork, the 49% would simple fork away and sell all of their 51% coins, and continue as normal.
This resilience is a component of bitcoin's (notably BCH's) decentralisation.

>>9134601
See >>9134614

Hard forks are a key component to Bitcoins decentralisation. BCH's fork was a huge success demonstrating this power and resilience.

The purpose of this thread was to dispose of the myth that BCH is supposedly a "chinky centralised scam" as many trolls proclaim.

The evidence in fact shows, ironically, that it is actually currently LESS centralised than BTC.

Notice how my thread hasnt instantly been raided by anti BCH shills, spamming their redundant 12 year old trolling all over.
Maybe its because they're scared of this fact.

desu, the segwit2x fork should have went through back in autumn 2017, then none of those shitcoins would be worth anything

>>9134636
>success
it was a huge failure, they had to destroy satoshi's work on proof of stake to allow their minority fork to exist, and in the process broke it so badly they ahd to hard fork again just to fix it. all the while miners were taking complete advanage of it to mine massive amounts of coins.

look at the incentives, bcash only serves miners, and "insiders". a smokescreen of hype doesn't change that, don't get distracted by it.

>>9134793
>look at the incentives, bcash only serves miners
Welcome to bitcoin. Mining support the network, and are incentivised to do so by block rewards.
If there was no incentive, they wouldnt do it = bye bye bitcoin. Bitcoin is not based on altruism. It is a trust less system based on incentive and competition.

what is all this BCH shill all of a sudden?
every third thread is about this failure of a fork.

roger ver bet on the wrong horse and now he's paying hordes of shillbots to get a normiebase to dump on.

>>9134772
you didn't refute his comment and now you're projecting, get a grip

>>9134860
>Failure of a fork
>Fully functional crypto currency, with instant transactions just like it was in 2013
>Currently the Fourth largest crypto currency

You think BCH is the one that hires shills? Maybe try updating yourself with a little bit of history
https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783

>>9134861
Who's comment?

>>9134792
look at this fucking dishonest as shit slick-in-appearance dis-infographic. fits right in with thebcash overall dishonest marketing... bitcoin.com r/btc fake satoshi. you've earned your pay bcash shiller

>>9134936
Oh dear! Looks like someones having a real hard hit of cognitive dissonance!

If it's possible I'd like to hear a solid rebuttal of the arguments and sourced information I have brought forward. If not It's safe to assume you are wrong.
You are welcome to accept BCH any time, and we can all forget about this. Everyone makes mistakes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygr5AHufBN4

>>9134936
actually it was just a infograph i had on segwit2x because i knew that you newfags weren't around when it was supposed to fork

glad you sorted yourself out though

>>9134857
and yet bitcoin managed to say no to the miners regarding their hard fork. you think bcash even has the ability to do the same?

if centralization is your concern why would you run to something more centralized than bitcoin?

>>9135023
Errr... Yes.
BCH literally rejected segwit... BTC has never rejected a 51% attack. It went along with it.
Are you aware, its miners who have the voting power? Not users.

you can shill all you want in your silly little thread

>>9135132
Very good argument. I doubt you read a single thing in this thread. A very strange thing to do for a financial speculator, the sort of person who would use /biz/

aaaaah.. youre not a financial speculator are you? You're not a /biz/raelite. You are something else. HMMMMMMMMMMM.....

>>9134587
>bitcoin (core)
>bitcoin (cash)
Lol, such a pathetic attempt at making it look like they're both just different subtypes of bitcoin that are equally valid. In reality there's only one bitcoin (btc), and bcash (bch, or on some exchanges bcc) is no different from other blatant moneygrab projects like bitcoin gold, bitcoin diamond, bitcoin dark, etc. etc. the list goes on

>>9134601
> why didn't the fork sponsored by the producer of the ASIC hardware in order to depose cancerous core cunts who sabotaged and hijacked the original vision brick its own hardware and nullify its defense against attack
Well, fuck, when you put it like that it's clearly a conspiracy you brainlet cunt.

why the fuck is there a spot on antpool
thanks for making me wipe my screen obsessively

>>9135795
gasyourselfcoretard

>>9134893
the guy who told you a PoW change would have ensured real decentralization

>>9135990
Fucking kek

>>9136095
Well maybe they should, I dont know about that.
My argument is that bigger blocks are a much better scaling solution than "lightning network", which is effectively trying to make a decentralised exchange where people send their coins, like sending them around on bittrex.
In my opinion that completely sucks when you could just have a working block chain

but year sure maybe a POW change would be good, I have no idea.

>>9136871
Bad idea pic related.