/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>9133523
4chan typically is inhabited by never amounted to anything incels, which is another word for basedboy, so why are you surprised?

>>9133523
Name one major exchange where bitcoin cash is abreviated "BTC". Fuckin cashie faggots.

>>9133539

Incels run this board. Remember normies fear us. Remember saint blackops2cel watches over us

>core shills
hello late adopter. /biz/ has archives, so if you wern't being paid to post, you could simply look up the amount of bcash posts over time, and the picture would be very clear.

>>9133523
Hi bcash shill!

>>9133542
name any, they'd literally be opening themselves up for lawsuits if they did, which is why what bcash and it's centralized "partners" are doing is so dangerous.

>>9133523
t. bcash shill

>>9133542
>Name one major exchange where bitcoin cash is abreviated "BTC"
Do you really define Bitcoin by its ticker? If I take a shit and put a BTC sticker on it is it now BTC?

The bcash shills are interesting in how hostile and idiotic they are. It will surely backfire as they underestimate even the average crypto investor. The language alone is enough for even the stupidest of people to recognise a pattern.

>>9133586
but bitcoin is already defined, and it's certianly not bcash. so why even try to argue semantics?

That only shows they know the days of Core are numbered and they gambled on the wrong horse. Wait to the next bullrun, that will kill their chain - literally kill.

>>9133602
i cant tell if there are bagholders that actually believe this, or if the script you shills are posting from is just this badly written by chinks

>>9133539
I really don't get incels. Just work out and focus on self improvement. Stop caring about what faggots think.

>>9133616
It's a mix of both I think.

Useful idiots, bad scripts. They still claim Bitcoin has high fees when 1 cent has been clearing. And that the mempool is full but it's not, it empties fully several times a day.

Then they say it's not full because nobody is using it, even though it's actually because of exchange batching and segwit.

The truth is the lightning network is here and it works, I've used it. BCH has gargantuan blocks but no users.

>>9133523
because cashie fashies are out of control. your thread is proof.

>>9133523
just an experiment guys, in reality i despise bitcoin cash....
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8fc6yi/reddit_is_totally_plagued_with_core_shills_if_you/

>>9133720
>The truth is the lightning network is here and it works, I've used it. BCH has gargantuan blocks but no users.
>Then they say it's not full because nobody is using it, even though it's actually because of exchange batching and segwit.
You're desperate aren't you.At least shill with things which aren't so easy to check.

Bitcoin Core is literally 100% developed and controlled by Blockstream. Don’t believe me? Look it up! Luckily, Bitcoin is soon having a 32MB blocksize update. This will make it the most decentralized currency EVER! The 32MB blocksize will make more miners mine it (because of competition and other simply complicated ideas most <140+ IQ individuals won’t understand) making it 32 times more decentralized than Bitcoin Core. And the network will be more reliable as hopefully professional data centres will be nodes instead of raspberry pies (because the requirement to be part of the blockchain will be higher). I mean seriously, would you rather have a network of 100 proffesional datacenters or 10000 cheap crappy raspberry pies? BITCOIN WILL BE $250K EOY. BITCOIN CORE WILL BE $0 EOY.

>>9133720
It's provable fact less tx are happening. You want to believe it's because everyone has started batching instead? Ok, keep sticking your head in the sand.

Your tx have been getting through with (somewhat) low fees since the nightmare that was last year, grats.
Good thing it can never happen again! Wait, BTC is ~designed~ to have high fees if it's successful...
https://fork.lol/tx/fee
Enjoy your 1% tx fees. I mean 2%, err, 3%, er 6%... 8% ... 1% see all good!.....

> lightning network is here and it works
It's here. It's a toy implementation. The path finding (routing) DOES NOT SCALE.
BGP, what the LN whitepaper compares it to, DOES NOT SCALE.
If LN devs develop a new mesh routing algorithm it will revolutionize the ENTIRE computer networking industry.
Cisco has not done it.
Nortel has not done it.
3com has not done it.
Foundry has not done it.
DELL has not done it.
HP has not done it.
IBM has not done it.
Worldwide ISP's have not done it.
Obviously a few LN devs are smarter than all of them, right?

>>9133748
>The truth is the lightning network is here and it works, I've used it. BCH has gargantuan blocks but no users.
Are you sure Lightning is ready anon?

>>9133748
So you checked them and saw that I'm right?

Mempool.observer

>>9133748
Here's the lightning wallet I've used. I only was trying the system, and I induced a few failed payments, but I wasn't charged a fee and the Bitcoin never left my side of the channel. I bought some stickers, and I used the micropayment publishing system.

>>9133720
the thing is, they are right, bcash DOES have higher capacity than bitcoin, but they confuse that as being higher scalability, and overstate it's importance.

the same with reinstating opcodes, in theory it means you can do more, but again, they misunderstand that "smart contracts" on bcash is going to be incredibly difficult, or limited, due to uxtos, which is why ethereum moved to an account based system.

>>9133896
1. Yes
2. Cobra is overly cautious, but understandably so.

>>9133934
Ignoring all of LN's other major defects, it works totally fine if:
a) not too many nodes are online or channel updates are sent
b) you consider less than 100% payment success rate acceptable

the moment too many channel updates are broadcasted, either legitimate updates or from an attacker, the LN network will cease to function for anyone properly.

>>9133523
>4chan is totally plagued with cashcucks shills
Fixed it for you

>>9133523
>bcashie shills think people care about the technology and satoshis vision

Mate were all here to pump and dump this ponzi scheme before it get forgotten down the track as another dot com bubble and bust.

>>9133957
The capacity is a hypothetical notion. If they fork to 32 mb on the 15th, they will have theoretically increased their capacity by a factor of 4, but it's completely untested.

If you ask a computer to actually sync and verify a year or two of full 32mb blocks it's going to be in a race condition with the growing chain, possibly never catching up, and even spontaneously desyncing if two blocks are mined too close together.

>>9133523
BCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASH

>>9133523
Anything stopping a coin from taking the name Bitcoin Core Cash ?

Bcore is too old with crappy block size. Dead man walking

>>9133601
of course bcash is bitcoin, bcore just stole the name through censorship and propaganda strategies

>>9133855
It's fewer not less, transactions are a countable entity.

Fewer may be happening (marginally when you consider all outputs addresses) but we have been in a lull in crypto anyway and I think it's disingenuous to compare the December mania with today.

>>9133523
Their days are numbered.
All we have to do, is to wait and see their Jew controlled coin destroying itself.
BCH>BTC.

>>9134072
jesus fucking christ you're retarded, you do understand what bitcoin core is, right? i regret making this thread, though it has exposed the level of intelligence on this Mongolian copper refining forum. hopefully people will see how fucking retarded bitcoin cash supporters are. spend 5 minutes in /r/btc and you'll realise bitcoin cash supporters are everything you hate about reddit condensed into one idea and the multiplied by 1000x

>>9134026
right, thats exactly what i said, capacity is one thing, scalability is another, and we know that bitcoin blocks don't scale linearly.

in theory the bigger the block size the better, but when mining is utterly centralized in china, rearranging tables instead of trying to fix the gaping hole in decentralization rightly looks ridiculous to everyone else.

>>9134072
and that's why the only people calling bcash bitcoin are shills and those with a lot to personally lose? you're embarrassing yourself.

>>9133907
Yes we all see that Bitcoin tx are at a 2 year low. Lower than when it was sub 1k lmao

>>9133542
>1 post by this ID
literally buttblasted by >>9133586 BTC faucet
dang BTC pumpkins
get your head out of the pumpkin

>>9133523
BCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASH

>>9133995
This

There is a raid that started around 1 or 2 months ago. Don’t fall for that shit lmao.

posting in YET ANOTHER thread created by a PAID bcash shill.

I'm just trolling. in any case, i don't really care about the flippening, the backflippening, or whatever. just gonna sell high, cash out, and live comfortably. with all the friction, i just see Bitcoin Cash mooning this year, so I went balls deep. nothing against Bitcoin Core. just speculating for the gainz.

>>9133616
> Everything is fine nothing is wrong we're all good
Pic related, you are on a burning bridge and you have no fucking idea.

>>9133961
> everything is going to be fine
You've already failed shit for brains.

>>9134026
> 32 MEGS EVERY TEN MINUTES THE WORLD WILL EXPLODE
Yeah we haven't had to deal with speeds like that since 4x CDROMS! FUCKING HELL WE'RE DOOMED!
gas yourself fuckwit.

>>9134526
He understand what bitcoin core is just fine.
You don't.

>>9133586
That's exactly what bitcoin is, you put an electronic sticker on it and it becomes bitcoin. Something bitcoin cash will never be lmao

>>9136179
Go ahead and gas yourself then brainlet. >>9136061

>>9133545
>t.late adopter

>>9136002
cant even follow a proper conversation, typical.

and just so you know, i have a few thousand bcash i got from the free airdrop, so you don't have to worry about me.

>>9136061
you guys are just embarrassing

>>9136234
oh man you got me good with that one

>>9133957
Bitcoin (BCH), how do you corecucks swallow the kike bluepill so easily?

>>9136276
this coming from a good little follower swallowing everything the chinks force feed you, and even buying the coin us early adopters got for free?

who's the stupid one, really?

>>9136202
cope
Being the first is actually the only thing that gives value to Bitcoin. You can keep shitting forks, even if they are actually better tech (which isn't the case with bcash) but none will surpass the first. It is suposed to be a store of value, and it's exactly what it will do. For some reason us BTC holders got free bcash. no one actully pays for that shit lmao

The good news, OP, is that I bought some BCH because I believe the current pump will show me some profit. The bad news is, the tests have come back and confirmed that you are an irredeemable faggot.

A lot of corecucks roaming around with their paid shills. BCH is bitcoin

>>9136291

Tell me what do the chinks feed me? The miners are responsible for the security of Bitcoin (BCH), if they're not protecting Bitcoin (BCH), they're not doing the job they're paid to do.

>>9136292
> being the first
DURRR WHATS A GENESIS BLOCK MOMMIE THE BAD MAN IS MAKING MUH BRAIN HURT HURRRR DURRR
> For some reason us BTC holders got free bcash.
No idea how blockchains actually work. You probably think those new fangled horseless carts are all the rage nowadays eh fuckin gramps?

>>9136861
lmao i don't hold btc or bch you literally sound like a Republican trying to make the same "what was the founder's original intentions in making the Constitution" argument that so many idiots make when trying to defend the 2nd amendment. time goes on and society evolves

>>9136970
> coretard supporting disarmament
Why am I utterly unsurprised you like the idea of being at the mercy of the state?

>>9136970
why are all corecucks shitlibs

>>9136993
yikes. triggered much? i don't hold btc. just saying time moves on and technology can advance around it, it's ok bud.

>>9136996
slave mentality meets herd conformity

>>9137019
>yikes
>triggered much

kill yourself soicuck

>>9136777
>security
yeah, all that security from the majority of the hash rate coming from inside china, and over 50% in contrl of less than a handful of individuals. massive security.

>>9136996
>>9137095
high quality discourse from your average bcash/crypto late adopter

4chan is plagued with bitcoin cash shills.
seriously, this spam started 2 weeks ago.
up until then there were regular discussions.
fuck. off.

I was never convinced before that people actually are paid to shill, but with bch, it's crystal clear.

BCASH

BCASH

BCASH

BCASH

BCASH
BCASH

BCASH

BCASH

BCASH

BCASH

>>9133957
>nothing matters, only important thing is the three ticker characters

>>9137079
Exactly this. It's not an accident that all the BCH advocates are ancaps or some form of libertarian, and it's not an accident that all the BTC advocates are hardcore authoritarians / sjw's. Certain minds find certain ideas appealing, and true freedom is absolutely terrifying to the kind of minds that have clustered under BTC.

>>9137019
And if you're still talking about "the advance of technology" then you either didn't read or didn't understand >>9136002
You're comparing you next month's calculator to last year's supercomputer. The supercomputer still blows it away. Basically that except orders of magnitude moreso.

>>9133896
how did Steam get "hurt" by adopting bitcoin anyway? they dropped support when the price of BTC was on the rise and the fees weren't super high. if they kept selling the BTC shortly after they got it they would have made more money from each game

if anything BTC was dropped because they were worried about their customers losing too much money both from fees and from trading their BTC during a steep increase in value. i don't think bitcoin actually "hurt" steam.

>>9133602
that's a lazy image, the BTC symbol is behind the cage (not in it) and one dove should have been flipped so it flies towards the BCH symbol...

>>9136861
i dont really understand how Lightning Network is less peer-to-peer than the Bitcoin network.

both consists of peers connected to each other and in bitcoin you don't always connect directly to the miner that includes the transaction in the block and in lightning you don't always connect directly to the receiver of the payment

seems pretty equal to me as far as peer-to-peer is concerned

>>9137318
Because it isn't less p2p. The naysayers are literally shills and schizophrenics.

>>9137318
One is routed, one is not, this video goes over it in quite a bit of detail, this graph >>9136017
shows it quite clearly. Point is, you control the hubs in a routed network, you control that network.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFZOrtlQXWc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug8NH67_EfE
Pic related is what they will do with that control when they have it.

>>9137374
> not less p2p
> posts an image with lightning hubs run by NSA and CIA with (better believe it) emphasized
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA just fucking end it you sad motherfucker.

>>9137551
you dont explain very well, cant it be summarized why lightning network cant be called peer-to-peer while bitcoin can be called peer-to-peer?

i'll watch your videos but they are long and seem to not be about why LN is not peer-to-peer specifically

Has anybody contemplated that maybe both BTC and BCH are shit, and you're just holding onto Cash for dear life because you only give a shit about the brand power of 'Bitcoin'?

>core shills
That's another one for my filters list.
OP is a faggot

>>9137111
The same miners mine bcore you retarded mongoloid

>>9133523
>you get called a "bcash shill"
especially when you're a bcash shill

>>9133720

your main spokesperson from whale pool

>>9138254
watched both videos now. i knew all of that already and i still dont understand why peer-to-peer in lightning isn't just as much peer-to-peer as bitcoin

>>9137129
did it ever occur to you that we are ex bitcoin supporters that now see the light, most of us are just fans of BCH and thats why we post.

How hard is it to understand that there are
>ZERO
>USE
>CASES
for btrash? Why would I invest in Jihan and Ver's pajeet abomination? They forked, failed miserably, and now suffer the wrath of btrash. Not only this but they're such faggots that they have to literally PRETEND they're bitcoin. Once Roger is sued into oblivion we'll finally be rid of this garbage.

>>9133523
Leave bitcoin Cash alone!

>>9133523
You misspelled BCH

>>9139288
Not my spokesperson, I use LN.

>>9140695
Nice. You run a node?

>>9138383
You smug intellectually lazy anons are literally worse than cashies

>>9140743
Just the eclair app, it can send payments, but not route them yet. I've tried a few routing implementations on my desktop, but I prefer to have it on my phone. So it's a minor trade off for now.

If you meant a Bitcoin full node, yes I run a node.

>>9140795
Gona set up a satellite node during the summer for shits and giggles.

>>9140827
I think a full set of satellites doing low level mining and relaying transactions would make Bitcoin incredibly difficult to shut down.

>>9133523
>bcash shills swarm biz all of last week
>countless threads
>"corecucks" hueuhuhuheuhu
>literally nonstop shills trying to blend in and perform "4chan" culture
>get called out a bunch of ways (eg, ver, wright, chinky asian dude being scammy liars; bch being dishonest with its marketing as the "real" bitcoin" and tricking normal people into losing money; claiming they are victims when acting overly aggressive and defensive against critics they always ALWAYS must perceive as "corecucks")
>"4chan is totally plagued with core shills, if you say anything about BTC you get called a "bcash shill"

shut the fuck up. this kind of "i'm the victim" stuff is classic 18-24 burger
is that you
i bet it is

>>9140894
Shill rule 1: always accuse your opponent of committing the acts which you actually perform.

It's the old, cry out in pain while I strike you.

>>9140939
seriously. it's like they're following a formula, zero creativity whatsoever. if they are getting paid, i hope it's not much...

>>9140961

Yes all these new images created by /biz/ tarts represent zero creativity. The 'bcash, roger, bcash, jihan, bcash, asic boost' non-arguments are however both original and creative.

Kill yourself pajeet.

>>9140886
A network would be neat, youd need a bunch of independent operators though, and you have to get the initial full chain off a dvd or something, there isnt enough bandwidth for that practically.

>>9141033
If anything the 'memes' represent that there is a sweatshop of people converting any image into BCH 'memes'

>>9141068

Oh definitely, sweatshops always focus on art and never on spam

>>9141033
why do these arguments need to be creative? they're legitimate.
what i'm saying is that if you're going to be sneaky and manipulative, at least be fun about it. you guys aren't fun though, you're just fake and gay. and it's boring.
posting fb-tier image memes to biz doesn't qualify as "creative" btw

>>9141115
nice argument. don't get caught trying, senpai.

>>9141115
1. That image is spam, I've seen it literally dozens of times
2. Yes, actually

>>9138254
>>9138383
Scenario A) party a talks directly to party b
Scenario B) party a must route packets through parties b to y to talk to party z
Which is peer to peer?

>>9141327

Because it is still relevant, Rajeet.

>>9141461
James actually, lol.

And if racism is all you've got, I think we both know who won.

>>9141330
in bitcoin I broadcast a transaction, which then gets rebroadcasted by the node i connect to to other nodes that i DON'T connect to. it is then finally included in a block by a miner that I have never connected to.

in lightning network i connect directly to the person i want to give money OR i connect to someone who then connects to someone I want to pay.

again, i really don't see how one is peer-to-peer and the other is not. both looks to be exactly the same amount of peer-to-peer to me.

>>9141545

Ah he pulls out the kike card 'racist', it doesn't have any meaning here, Simon.

Bitcoin (BCH) has already won, a crippled, centralized blockchain such as bcore simply can't compete with Bitcoin - 32mb blocks, nothing will stop it scaling now.

>>9141742
It has meaning everywhere.

And yes, I'm part Jewish, not ashamed.

>>9141803

It's always the kikes, that's why the world hates you.

>>9141742
All I was saying is: present an argument, not memetic soundbytes. It's actually good advice for shills, the better your arguments the more convincing they are.

>>9141844

Read the the thread you fucking stupid kike. The arguments have been repeated in every thread, there is no point arguing with a filthy fucking paid kike shill.

>>9141889
It's always worth rehashing, imo. It's the most important topic in my life personally because of how massive my crypto holdings are (BCH and BTC in equal quantities) I'm not paid, unless you consider gains to be payment.

Flippening soon

>>9133542
Well, yeah, you moron. BTC stands for Bitcoin Core.

>>9141551
No bitcoin node is ever more than one hop away from any other bitcoin node, it is an unrouted network, and it is robust in its unstructured simplicity.
The design was not an accident.

>>9141927
The arguments are in meme form, and they largely are that way because of the avalanche of core shills that keep throwing out complete baseless nonsense, therefore memes get created and can just be slapped towards them, pasta too. Basically at the end of the day, it's the core advocates who have no arguments whatsoever, and the cash side is overflowing with them.
I'll even do the coretards a solid and *give* them an argument as to why cash is a problem that is better than any I've heard them advance;
POW mining within Bitcoin is based on the assumption that miners have stake in the survival of a single chain, and therefore they will not take short term payoff actions that compromise the long term survival of that chain, this is true because if they start hashing for another chain, they are necessarily killing the chain they are not hashing on, they can't play both sides of the coin because of the nature of the BTC difficulty adjustment algorithm.
But, if they create a new fork with an altered difficulty adjustment algorithm that readjusts every single block, they can use it as a refuge to build a competitive platform to the former chain, and they no longer have as much of an interest in protecting that former chain. At a certain level of stake in the new chain, it may indeed even be profitable for them to attack the old chain.
That argument is more convincing than any argument I have ever heard advanced by any core advocate as to why cash is a problem. It is also evidence that this debate is more complex than the sound of one hand clapping, there are genuine reasons why the previous DAA was like it was, they are simply on all balance outweighed by the absolute butchery that the core saboteurs have inflicted on the original chain.

>>9142616
>Baseless nonsense
>>9140939

All the Core shills need to be wiped out.

>>9133523
It's almost like everyone in crypto fucking hates bcash scammers

>>9142649
When all else fails just say NUHUH

>>9142750
> promotes a shit tier banking takeover of Bitcoin
> bitches about original Bitcoin plan being a scam
Gas yourself coretard. >>9136061

>>9142761
Right, that is what you did.

>>9143015
Pointing out that the refutations to core bullshit get condensed because there's so much core bullshit is just saying "no". Okay. Cool, thanks for playing.

>>9142800
Why are cashies always racist?
Is it because racists tend to be low IQ?

>>9143113
yes

>>9143113
Gas yourself coretard is racist. Right. You're a fucking idiot. Does nerve gas only work on jews? Is it your cryptonight along with pennies near high ledges? See, that was racist, the original comment was just a handy tip on improving the world.

>>9143185
>>9141889
>>9141835
>>9141742
>>9141461
These

Also
>>9143079
But you have it backwards, just look at this thread there are way more bch shills than btc 'shills'

>>9143248
The amount of people on either side is irrelevant to the amount of easily refuted bullshit flying through the air at any given time, and that there are more people on the BCH side than the BTC side, given the fact that BTC bullshit is flung through the air in such high volume and so easily refuted, is completely unsurprising.
And "but they're racist" won't work here, I'd wager 9/10 people reading this are far more racist than I am, frankly I don't give much of a fuck about race, but if I see a black guy robbing a liquor store eating kfc with sagging pants or a jew complaining about being discriminated against while propagating a banking scam of epic proportions and a conspiracy that the world is out to get him, I have to laugh.

>>9133545
This right here. These moronic shills pretending to have any idea at all of what /biz/ was like before 2017 is cringy as fuck.

Gtfo back to r eddit op.

>>9143325
>easily refuted bullshit
That's the problem, the bullshit takes an order of magnitude to refute than to generate. You can lie for 30 seconds, and it takes 5 minutes to debunk.

>>9143447
Wrong, if there were any refutations for the things the BCH advocates keep saying, you could simply put them in pasta or image form and attach them.
The problem for you is that there is not, they are actually right, core did hijack and sabotage bitcoin, BCH is the original Bitcoin vision, there is simply no refutation to this, end of story.

Bcash shills could you do something about the 0x Shills? I find them more annoying.

>>9143509
>END OF STORY
>*stomps feet*
>MOMMY!
how weak-spined and desperate for authority do you think the neets on this board really are lol

>>9143509
No, truth can be argued against, but if you make up something, there is no pretuned argument against it.

For instance: Bitcoin cash has higher adoption on DNMs.

You could just say it's not true but to refute it correctly you need access to information that may not be readily available.

>>9143509
Yeah you can't have any discussion about BTC/BCH because the core only has name calling tactics and shit up any thread. Pretty anyoning but I take comfort in how fucking obvious the Blockstream sabotage has been that 10 minutes of entry level research opens it up.

That's core most effective tactic: make the whole discussion so toxic that no one would want to invest 10 minutes of research.

>>9143582
> tone policing
Thanks for making my point for me brainlet.

>>9143587
> making up random unsubstantiated shit is exactly equal to something for which there is abundant evidence for and zero refutation in existence and has been in wide circulation for years now.
Thanks for proving my point, you just don't have any ammo, period. All you have is BCASHBCASHBCASHBTRASHLOL and associated pointless nonsense.

>>9143633
?

>>9143633
I'm talking about something specific.

>>9143601
no, i'm just saying that your tactics are shitty.
and again, it proves my point- bcash shills aren't fun. if you're gonna be sneaky and manipulative, at least be fun about it. otherwise you're just fake and gay.
and you seem pretty fake and gay desu
like, crypto aside
objectively
as a human being

>>9143668
We're not being sneaky and manipulative, and we're not shills, we bought the original bitcoin vision and are pissed off with sneaky manipulative brainless coretards accusing us of exactly what they're actually doing, and we're not just going to get in line and obey.
Deal with it.

>>9143633
I even called it Bitcoin cash, read all my posts in this thread before replying to me again please.

>>9133523
Are you mentally challenged

>>9133523
Don't worry anon. The Tulip Trust created by Dave Kleiman is in full effect. 1.1M Bitcoins distributed in over 20 wallets are ready to be dumped, which is control of Satoshi after Kleiman died.

Want to see something that is very telling? Go to Satoshi's Twitter account. Scroll back a month or two, then report back here and tell me how many random photos of tulips he has posted. Don't forget to read the comments on the photos.

Godspeed, anon.

>>9143693
Nothing you've said has any bearing in reality whatsoever, Bitcoin transactions are down because usage dropped, conclusively, check bitcoin charts, Bitcoin Cash usage is not high because it's a less than year old fork in terms of production deployment. Everything you've said has just been more lies. And you've accused us of exactly what your'e doing.

>>9143686
really, because as someone who doesn't hold any btc or bch and is watching this from the sidelines both sides are accusing each other of the doing the same shit they're doing to each other
it's kind of funny how this btc/bch dilemma mirrors so well america's intentionally divisive and distracting two party faggot roast
is this intentional or

Let's see if any core-shills have a script developed enough to talk about the following, or can they only counter with name-calling.

It kinda pisses me off when I read everybody using “but the white paper” and “but blockstream” as the only reasons BCH is necessary.

Segwit2x came to be because the community and the miners agreed to allow the implementation of segwit if and only if they upgraded the blocksize to 2MB.

We forked before segwit was implemented as a form of insurance just in case they didn’t follow through with the blocksize increase.

And guess what? They backed out last minute. They proved us right.

It doesn’t matter what the original Bitcoin is, nor does it matter which chain is the authentic one and which one isn’t. Just like it doesn’t matter if humans or any of our cousin species are the “right” lineage of ape. We’re both following Bitcoin chains.

We split off because our views of what Bitcoin should be are incompatible with theirs. Satoshi laid the framework. No one man should dictate what it becomes. That’s for us to decide. Don’t give into this stupid flame war. The chain more fit to our needs will become apex in the end. Just let it be.

>>9143715

screenshots please

Hey guys, Roger Ver here. Please stop arguing, it makes me really sad. But please keep buying Bitcoin Cash, I don't have a vested interest in its success at all and definitely was not a reason at all in why I created it. Also, I'm definitely not trying to co-op Bitcoin and confuse people into buying Bitcoin Cash so that's definitely not why I get seriously offended when people call it Bcash. Anyway, thanks for listening!

Roger

>>9143744
Once again, accusations, zero proof, just assertions, "you're all as bad as each other, despite the fact there's nothing but evidence on this side that these actors are bad and a complete absence of it on the other side, i'm just going to sit here and pretend they're equivalent.
I just don't care what you think and consider you an argument for compulsory sterilisation, basically. Actually make a point and use reason and evidence to back it up or I'm not even going to bother responding to your whiny tone policing faux smug idiocy.

>>9143729
Except everything I said has been extremely measured and reserved, no outlandish claims, easy to check facts, I even linked to a site that has some of the data.

Plus I genuinely do have an equal amount of BCH and BTC from the fork, so it almost doesn't matter for me in the long run. Its just that to me, the data suggests that the core method for scaling will beat the BCH method.

>>9143802
nice. hey, maybe you're so sensitive to tone policing because you know you're acting like a total asshole puppeting for moneydollars

>>9143729
By the way, that graphic is inaccurate in it's proportion of dev distribution.

>>9143774
He didn't create it, you dumb shit.
He has no skills to do that, it was part of the community supporting bigger blocks and Roger happened to favor it over Segwit. It has almost as many github comits as Core BTC and devs working on it aren't paid by fucking institutions, unlike Core. Some of the Cash devs were even complaining about needing money.

>>9143832
> Except everything I said has been extremely measured and reserved
Your claims;
>>9133720
1) Useful idiots, bad scripts. Evidence ventured, zero.
2) Bitcoin doesn't have high fees. Evidence ventured, look at the mempool right now when the chain is barely being used.
3) It's false that nobody is using it. Evidence ventured, zero. Segwit adoption is actually barely 30% and has been trending downwards.
The simple fact is you're just another brainless coretard just like the rest of them, you just have delusions of intellectual honesty whereas your compatriots are happy to just spout the typical BCASHBCASHBCASH all day. At least they're not making provably false claims like you.

>>9143908
See, you just asserted that what I asserted is false, without even the minimum of evidence I provided.

You're a hypocrite at best.

>>9143883
It is not inaccurate in terms of control exercised over what gets merged, if the blockstream devs don't approve it, it doesn't go in, end of story. And that's what matters, not that 115 people contributed to various translation string files all over the world, but that core exercises command and control and treats the rest of the community as simply unpaid volunteers. Which they are, for all the stake and control they have if it comes to something that core doesn't want in the codebase.

>>9143908
I've only ever called it Bitcoin cash or bch, shits confusing enough, doesn't need a made up nickname. Why do you keep saying that?

>>9143950
Alright, well who merges the various bch implementations, what if they implement incompatible consensus rules? Realistically they try not to do that, so what is the difference? They have to agree to merge something at some level.

>>9143944
> you provided no evidence for your claims
Because they require none, everyone knows it's true and it's ridiculously easy to verify, but since you're pretending to be unaware of it, and for the benefit of actually new lurkers that might doubt it and be interested;
1) BTC adoption and dominance has been falling for some time pic related, this very clearly correlates with the times of high transaction volume that makes it clear the core sabotage has made the product flatly unfit for use pic related
2) segwit adoption has been falling and is at about 30% http://segwit.party/charts/
3) The chain is barely being used at the moment. https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1,2w
Your claims on the other hand were flat out false.
You're a slimy lying cunt.

>>9144032
There are multiple competing dev teams, and they do not pursue a single agenda, they debate the merits of various approaches and they get to decide if it's important enough to fork over something or not, if they don't believe it is they let it lie, case in point the OP_GROUP discussions recently. Unlike core where the only question is "Is this in blockstream's business interests and in line with the vision that Gregory Maxwell imposed over the top of Satoshi's by force? If not, it doesn't get merged, end discussion."

>>9144050
>everyone knows it's true
Not me, but I mean I get what you're saying.

Point 1 is more or less correct, but it's fixed because of batching segwit and LN, next bullrun will prove it.

2. 30% is up from during the transaction crunch, so what are you are comparing? It's down because fees are low, and people get lazy when they don't face the consequences, so when fees rise so does segwit.

3. 207k txns in last 24 hours, (transactions, not outputs or actual discrete payments)

>>9142508
you're telling me there's no propagation in the bitcoin network, im connected to all nodes and broadcast my transactions to all of them?

>>9134119
Literally compare the transactions to a year ago, brainlet. People are dropping core in droves.

>>9144075
So you're saying good ideas need complete unanimous agreement or they get buried? That's a strange contrast between BCH origins.

When most of the BCH nodes are in server farms or on the Amazon computing cloud, it doesn't matter as much because they can roll them all over when an update is published.

>>9136970
>take my rights away daddy

Fucking corecucks.

>>9144196
>Not me,
Your ignorance is your problem, not ours.
> Point 1 is more or less correct, but it's fixed because of batching segwit and LN, next bullrun will prove it.
If there is a next bullrun, BCH stands a good chance of permanently killing the BTC chain outright as described in >>9136002
And no matter how deluded coretards are, even they won't blow thousands on a chain that flatly doesn't work at all, even a little bit. And it's not fixed, in the slightest, on chain capacity is still less than a 28kbps modem from the 90's even with the abomination of segwit, that has turned BTC into a completely different product, and Lightning is a staked routed network that necessarily results in centralisation as demonstrated in >>9136017
> 30% is up from during the transaction crunch, so what are you are comparing?
Gave the link, the trend is very clearly down, it's also up from inception, big deal, it's still a shit change and shouldn't even exist at all pic related
> t's down because fees are low, and people get lazy when they don't face the consequences, so when fees rise so does segwit.
Bullshit, most people don't get to choose whether their transactions are segwit or not, it's down to whatever combination of wallet / exchange setup they happen to be using, and they largely don't care. The response of "Let's just not accept BTC" is more common than "Let's adopt segwit" given falling BTC adoption rates, as it should be, given that segwit is cancer.
> 3. 207k txns in last 24 hours, (transactions, not outputs or actual discrete payments)
So what? Relative to recent volume that is absolutely nothing, you are just trying to throw out a number that sounds large to make it sound like you're not full of shit, but you are full of shit after all.

>>9137116
>late adopters want to are the ones who want to preserve bitcoin

Imagine actually believing this.

>>9144319
I'm saying in order to cooperate in a group with diverse interests, the value of diverging good ideas needs to be weighed against each other. Does it privilege the business interests of this entity + does it placate this sad neckbeards ego as the uber alles of a chain is a terrible vision, and you don't see anyone trying to sell BTC as "Maxwell's vision" even though that's clearly what it is as a consequence of that fact. Idiots that believe in core only do so because they have no idea what's actually going on.
> Non mining nodes help
No they don't, you don't understand how the network actually works, mining nodes create blocks, and nodes with significant economic activity assent or dissent from accepting them, Other nodes are completely inconsequential, the former two types of nodes are economically incentivised to exist and the costs of them are therefore irrelevant.

NoLinkers are a joke.Their understanding of finance is at best warped, but likely closer to 'perverted.' They have demonstrated throughout these past months a limited grasp of what Chainlink is or what it seeks to do, and multiple assertions in their fud threads have been disproven with the most basic, cursory, surface-level research. But the specifics don't annoy me so much as Nolinker’s basic mindset.

Nolinkers have an arbitrary set of critera with which they seem to be evaluating projects, but it does not involve fundamental analysis or technical analysis. Nolinkers are evaluating based on "community support" by looking at twitter followers, and have a standard of professionalism based on... the website? How frequently the CEO makes 'announcements'?

While Nolinkers intelligence is worthless in that it is deeply misguided and not even particularly useful for what it seems to want to do (measure community involvement and the professionalism of the team), I wonder if they could become part of an indicator. I'll look at some of their shills and mull it over.

>>9144237
You are connected to peer nodes, you send transactions to them, and they send them on to all nodes they are connected to, and so on, and so forth, there is no routing, all transactions are broadcast.
This is by design, quote from the whitepaper "the network is robust in its unstructured simplicity" exactly to prevent the kinds of attacks and control points that become possible with the adoption of lightning as described in >>9137551

>>9144357
Outputs are up while transactions are down, but you have to multiply them to compare to previous periods.

Like I already said, I have an equal amount of BCH. So a flip isn't a threat to me.

>>9144504
> UTXO's are up
Are you retarded https://blockchain.info/charts/utxo-count
> I'm not all in BTC
Good for you, all I care about is that core don't get their lies out, and when I see them I will correct them.

>>9144439
that's what i thought. i mean it's just as peer-to-peer as lightning network. just because there's routing in a network it doesn't mean it doesnt connect peer-to-peer, right?

or am i confused over what peer-to-peer actually is?

>>9144526
You need to look at that graph a little longer, and it actually doesn't imply anything about the number of outputs per transaction, they are different things

>>9144552
You're confused as to what peer to peer actually is from the perspective of network topology. Lightning transactions by contrast to what I just described are routed individually through a single path from sender to receiver, and not broadcast. Routes are also staked, meaning some routes are more valuable than others, which increases even more the innate centralisation pressure of routed networks. There is no decentralised routing solution available, and blockstream have always assured us that "this will be fixed", but in fact it is by design because they want to implement >>9137551

>>9144560
You didn't say outputs per transaction, you said outputs are up while transactions are down, actually both are down. If you want to say outputs per transaction are up, provide evidence or shut your lying mouth. The graph i provided shows that UTXO's are very clearly down.

>>9144604
i know all that's bad with LN, it'll never work.

i guess i just dont know what the heck makes one peer-to-peer network peer-to-peer while another is not. one one network the transaction is broadcasted through peers, it's peer-to-peer. on the other the transaction passes through peers, it's not peer-to-peer. \(o_O)/

>>9144670
Because one requires hubs in order to actually route the transaction, look at graph >>9136017
You can see in order to get from one outlying node on one side to one outlying node on the other, you need to go through central hubs, right? What if those hubs are taken out? What if they're controlled? Now picture the exact same collection of nodes, but instead of being linked in a routed configuration they're all connected to each other in a complete graph and transactions propagate to all nodes on the network starting from their point of origin. What happens if one node is controlled or taken out of the graph? Fuck all, no effect.

>>9144637
>outputs per transaction
My mistake I should have been more clear. Its honestly hard to keep all this jargon straight.

So since July last year the average has gone from 2.45 to 2.75, its not a massive increase, just 12% but that means transactions could go down by 12% without the number of economically relevant payments are being made.

I will concede that the multiplicative sum of the two variables has gone down, but I contest that it is because we are in a crypto retraction, which I believe may end soon.

Best case scenario, both options are tested, the best one wins, but I do have a horse in this, considering my feelings toward the prominent actors behind the August 1 fork.

>>9136017
Its actually becoming more decentralized over time, I can get the graph if you want.

>>9144718
it still sounds like peer-to-peer regardless if there are central hubs or not. i mean the hub is a peer even if it's the only peer you've got. if i download a torrent i can be connected to one or several peers, even if it's just one seed and one leecher it's still a network of peers.

come to think about it, what is NOT a peer online anyway, i need to look up the definition of a peer-to-peer network.

>>9144740
Finally some actual useful evidence!
> that means transactions could go down by 12% without the number of economically relevant payments are being made.
Are they down by 12%? Remember you said that the cause of the transaction drop was batching and segwit. segwit has fallen, and by your own evidence transactions per output rose by 12%.
> I will concede that the multiplicative sum of the two variables has gone down, but I contest that it is because we are in a crypto retraction, which I believe may end soon.
Why would it end given the fact that BTC has been hijacked and made absolutely useless? It has been turned into a shitty poorly performing paypal ripoff, and is of no value whatsoever anymore, the only hope crypto has as far as I can see is if BCH kills it.
> Best case scenario, both options are tested, the best one wins, but I do have a horse in this, considering my feelings toward the prominent actors behind the August 1 fork.
Allowing your feelings about people to influence your positions with regards to the construction of trustless ecosystems strikes me as emotional and suboptimal at best.

>>9144772
I don't buy it, that graph still looks utterly centralised to me. If I was a conniving banker and wanted to own the space, I know exactly where I'd want to be in that mass.
I've heard claims from core propagandists that it's becoming less centralised over time too, and they always fail to mention the impact of the stake of routes, and assume the value of all routes is equal in order to get that result, which is heinously dishonest and manipulative given how lightning channels actually work.

Holy shit...
Check the BCH's funding page on bitfinex...
Something is coming.

>>9144803
Equal position in the topology, a hub with 50 connections is not a peer to a peer with just one. Think of it from the perspective of a banker that wants to shut all this down and take control of it and parasite on the economic activity that takes place, which would you prefer to have to content with, a routed network where you just take over the hubs, or a graph network where you have to control every single node?

>>9144826

>>9133523
All the social channels are infested with BTC idiots. I have to give credit to Theymos and the blockstream goons, they've well proven that you can brainwash masses of people even when they have access to the open internet. Truly something for the psychology books

>>9144874
> assuming infinite capacities
Thank you for proving my point.

>>9144886
They printed it on the graph, they aren't trying to trick you, but how are they supposed to know the capacities of the channels? There is no public repository.

>>9144803
looks like a peer-to-peer network is when all nodes are equal; when they all can act as every role in the network.

based on that I can see Lightning Network in two ways:
1) in theory it's peer-to-peer, any node could connect to any other node
2) in practice every node can't play the same role of every other node because it may not have enough funds. plus the creation of channels are not automatic so in the end there will always be some kind of "node backbone".

that way I can understand how some people might say LN is a peer-to-peer network while others say it is not

>>9144908
> The graph is useless and they admit it
Ok, so that doesn't mean it suddenly becomes useful.

>>9144908
Also, what the graph actually may well show is nothing more complex than "More central hubs are being added".

>>9144929
its actually really useful. It gives a heuristic for understanding how many nodes each other node is uniquely connected to.

>>9144956
But not how many routes would actually work if certain nodes were removed, which is what it actually purports to show.

>>9144946
that also doesn't follow from the graph, or make sense. A central entity by definition is the ONE center of an organization. Adding more 'central hubs' is decentralization.

>>9144979
No, it isn't. Compare >>9144772
>>9136017 both are very clearly focused around centralised hubs, and it's not clear at all (and can't be probably without knowing the capacities of every single one of those routes) which is actually more centralised.

>>9144968
It shows it, assuming infinite capacity, which for now doesn't need to be that high (infinite as in higher than would be reached, rather than literally an infinite number of bitcoins in every channel on both sides given that there are only 21mil.) I made come LN payments and most of them were ~1 cent sent. The channel only needs to hold like $2.50 for the balance to never be an issue when routing payments that small.

>>9145022
> It shows it, assuming infinite capacity,
Which is an incorrect assumption, meaning it doesn't show it. I'm not letting you get away with the deception, give up.
> I made come LN payments and most of them were ~1 cent sent. The channel only needs to hold like $2.50 for the balance to never be an issue when routing payments that small.
I really just don't care how well this shitty paypal ripoff works, that's not relevant to the discussion of the fact that BTC was sabotaged by core and turned into said abomination, if you want to go sell it to someone based on how well it competes with paypal, go talk to a merchant. They don't seem to care though, given the drop in adoption amongst them of BTC, so even that doesn't appear to be particularly valuable.

>>9145007
https://rompert.com/recksplorer/

go nuts

>>9145067
>https://rompert.com/recksplorer/
I already know about it, and it shows exactly what I'm saying it does; lightning is centralised based around obvious routing hubs, end of story.

>>9145064
why are you so hostile though? I know its tone policing but its getting on my nerves how antagonistic you are being.

>>9145086
I'm hostile because the project I dedicated practically the last decade of my life to was hijacked and turned into a monstrosity diametrically opposed to the vision and promised contained within it.
If lightning had instead just been executed as a standard ICO based around a completely new technology architecture, and didn't hijack and attempt to replace Bitcoin, I would not really have much to say about it and would view the entire thing as basically academic.
But that's not the world we live in, and so all this piece of shit has is my undying hatred.

>>9145106
>I'm hostile because the project I dedicated practically the last decade of my life to was hijacked and turned into a monstrosity diametrically opposed to the vision and promised contained within it.
thats how I feel too, but i'm trying to have a civil discussion.

you literally never see anyone posting threads shilling Bitcoin because they don't need to. Bitcoin has made a name for itself on it's own, over years of hard work and community consensus. If you have to shout about your coin being the true BTC like some sort of spanish inquisition you might as well save your breath. You people are no better than the mormon cucks that come around bothering people at their homes.

>>9145139
I don't care how you feel.

>>9145106
>the project I dedicated practically the last decade of my life to
Give us your background anon. I'm interested in the twisted mind of a cashie

>>9145158
lol

>>9145182
Seriously if I come to your house and decide to turn it into a toilet for a herd of swine, and then want to discuss with you the optimal architecture for the drainage channels of pig effluent, and then when you express displeasure at me for so doing, and I respond with "why r u so mad bro I'm just trying to make something cool", you're going to be all like "oh yeah, drainage ditches right here, I love me some pigshit"
Fuck no, gas yourself.

>>9145158
I just meant that the crew that made BCH are literally hijacking the Bitcoin project, at every turn, and in every way they are trying to kill BTC while six months of economic activity separates the chains now, and it would fuck over a lot of people to benefit a tiny group.

BTC is Bitcoin According to the masses, and many own no BCH.

>>9145279
Wrong, the bitcoin project is peer to peer electronic cash, not centralised banker coin to reimplement bretton woods on clueless newbies via shitty routed lightning network. There is no reasonable interpretation of the facts at hand which result in the current BTC chain actually being anything approaching the original Bitcoin vision, it is a frankencoin, a shitstain, a monstrosity, a shambling zombie in the corpse of a once appealing idea, I'm running out of ways to express it, but I think I've made myself clear. It has negative value.
> BTC is Bitcoin According to the masses
I despise the masses, so this may be so.

>>9133523
>bcash

>>9145310
Imagine PAYING for bcash.
You know everyone got it for free in an airdrop last year?

>>9145310
Who told you all that though? It's not true.

>>9145540
> is not
Not convincing, read the posts I've already made. I'm not interested in responding to you until you actually bring something to the table, and I'm sure as hell not interested in discussing your shitty science project, except to demonstrate that it is in fact a centralised takeover attempt, which I've already done.

>>9145637
Well then goodbye I guess. It's honestly sad that both of our fervor could not be on one side of the fork. Or better yet, if there had never been a fork.

>>9145685
That's what happens when you try to turn someone's house into a pigshit depository. Lamenting that they take issue with it is just being stupid.

>>9145706
But Bitcoin cash obviously started it, its not even up for debate.

>>9145706
>*stamps feet*
>END OF DISCUSSION
sick win bruh. everyone's beneath you, right? show 'em.
that dude was probably the closest you'll get to a reasonable conversation on biz and still not good enough. his fault.
go hop on twitter and chat with nick szabo or something, make your effort count.

>>9140939
I noticed it too. Bcash shills are very quick to accuse other people of being shills

>>9145807
yar. it's so paint by numbers if you've the time to sit and watch how the shilling changes and adapts day to day.

>>9145807
I wonder why?

>>9145847

>>9145782
Wrong, Maxwell's vision was not Satoshi's vision. It is not even close, they are diametrically opposed. One is authoritarian and the other libertarian. I wanted Bitcoin as a means to destroy the state, and that vision was corrupted into something to amplify its power.
Not OK.

>>9145907
Meanwhile Bitcoin cash does what to dismantle the state?

>>9146047
Provide peer to peer electronic cash, that they are unable to intermediate, unable to parasite from, unable to monitor, unable to control, unable to tax, and unable to inflate.
It removes their oxygen supply, and by extension they will suffocate if it gains wide adoption.

>>9146117
You mean like BTC but with fewer users?

>>9146117
By the way, you still have to declare Bitcoin cash transactions on your taxes

K, i'm bored now, mission accomplished and the ovbious shills are just spinning wheels and baiting at this point in time, Bye.

>>9146261
lol, oh man.
gl dismantling state. see ya next shift!

>>9146261
Bye, but I'm going to bump this thread til it's limit.

>>9146274
Please do, has lots of proof of what you're doing there coretard. Adios.

>>9146261
>declare mission accomplished

Flippening soon. 0xBTC #3 market cap EOY.

>>9146302
the real bitcoin cash

>>9146320
Even the lightning network is a better cash than Bitcoin cash

I wish crypto-shills got their own containment board, just like /vp/, /pol/ and /mlp/

>>9146413
It's called /biz/

>>9133562
Bcash is trying to steal the bitcoin brand and it's hurting all of us. Roger Ver should sue whoever got 100%+ gains after buying bcash instead of bitcoin from his website even though bitcoin isn't trademarked.

>>9146502
on what grounds could he sue them?

>>9146502
it reminds me of that one American politician who claims to have invented Email, because technically he wrote a program with the name "Email" and it wasn't a protected name at the time (and probably still isn't)

>>9146518
It may shock you to learn that false advertising is a thing.

>>9137111
We need to change the POW algorithm NOW!

>>9146584
Yes, so the buyers could sue him, but that poster said for Roger to sue the buyers?

>>9146608
you realize your images describe bitcoin "i identify as the real bitcoin" cash more than they do bitcoin?

why are you guys always so sensitive about your shitty coin name?

>>9146617
Oh. I dunno, cashie retardation I guess

>>9146584
Not worse than misogyny and it is very present especially in bcash.

All of these core trolls seem to think us big blockers care about a name. We are not roger. bcash, btrash, shitcoin trash, etc does not trigger us. We care about tech, not namecalling.

>>9146638
>>9146608
>>9146502
Psyop.

its like shilling, but 'subtle'

>>9146624
I hate bcash to don't call it by it's real name you only give it more power.

>>9146643
Ok but if you can say that with a straight face after reading this whole thread you should take up professional poker.

>>9146638
What? Are you high anon your posts are all random

>>9146643
This

>>9146681
if you care about tech, what do you think of the lightning network?

>>9146669
Most of these bch "supporters" on /biz are just trying to make actual bch supporters look retarded. It's very blatant. Like i said, i'm invested in bch because bch is the only coin attempting big block scaling solutions. It may not work, but lightning network may never work as well. All of the evidence and calculations i've seen as to why big blocks won't scale decentralized is pure fud.

>>9146704
I think it's doomed to fail, but not because of the tech, but rather the economics. People have been living on credit for the past 50+ years, but all of a sudden they have to prepay for everything?

>>9146756
Lmao
>brainletdreamingofbrains.png

>>9146656
>>9146704
Bitcoin is not meant for payments, it's store of value but every store will accept LN soon and anyone who says otherwise is in on the psyop.

>>9146729
>the only coin attempting big block scaling solutions

Lol. 0/10 shilling, wouldn't pay if I were your boss

>>9146729
Ok but personally I don't have a great computer, its fine but not top end. I run a full node. If my computer had to handle full 32mb or even 8mb blocks, it would not be able to keep up if two blocks were mined close together through variance. It would desync my computer, and it gets harder and harder to keep up with the chain the bigger the blocks are.

It also says in the white paper that any actor can run a node and check the validity of transactions (even when they have been gone for a while). It explicitly says this. So why are you risking my ability to validate my own transactions and run a node before exhausting all technical avenues?

>>9146784
How about you offer a counterpoint rather than try to ridicule.

>>9146704
dont really care about offchain solutions. If they work cool, if they dont cool.

I signed up for bitcoin, not a 3rd party, KYC compliant, fractional reserve enabling, bank funded routing scheme.

>>9146790
Who else is doing it with the backing that bch has?

>>9146806
Then use legacy addresses on-chain, thats still fully supported and as someone else pointed out, a whopping 70% of transactions currently are legacy.

>>9146809
>with the backing that bch has
goalposts should usually be planted in the ground, not strapped to a jet and flown around to the other side of the earth.

>>9146796
Sure. You can open a channel with a payment, in theory it will be seemless on the consumer end. Unless you want to pay for things with money you dont have....?

be gone, cashie pajeet shills

>>9146809
ETH for starters, plenty more. BCH didn't invent big blocks and is a terrible "implementation" at that. DYOR

>>9146881
How so?

>>9146793
Imo, if somebody is concerned about validating their transactions then they should invest slightly more to run a full node. Even with 1mb blocksize, running a full node from low end computers and pi's in the future is a pipe dream

>>9146905
>running a full node from low end computers and pi's in the future is a pipe dream
Why?

>>9146793
You can run a spv node then

>>9146905
>slightly more
The 2GB blocks required to run ONLY current credit card level transaction volume would be physically impossible on current infrastructure.

>>9146929
well I ran bip148 and hypothetically would have rejected 2mb blocks if the fork had taken place as scheduled. Can't do that with an SPV wallet.

>>9146891
DYOR

>>9146963
isn't eth planning on switching to humongous blocks?

>>9146963
I have done my research. Eth uses gas, not necessarily big blocks, and their roadmap is to switch to pos. I fail to see how bch is a terrible implementation of big blocks and there is no other coin supported by multiple billionaires that is doing big blocks.

WHY IS BCASH GROWING FASTER THAN THE REAL BITCOIN RIGHT NOW STOP BUYING IT

>>9147029

>60 posts by this ID

Corecucks getting fuckin desperate

>>9147170
By what metrics

>>9133523

They will soon add privacy and the ability to write smart contracts. It will never overtake btc imo, but will firmly stay in the top 5 for the foreseeable future

>>9147237
time to wash the carpet

>>9147237
sauce pls

>>9147242
Jihan is pumping bcash right now so he can buy the real bitcoin even though he has barely sold any. And Roger Ver is tricking those poor bitcoin businesses that he invested in to accept bcash :(
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoincash/comments/7nfojx/bitcoin_cash_coming_soon_to_purseio/

He even tricked the bogdanoffs!
http://bitcoinist.com/gemini-exchange-may-soon-offer-litecoin-and-bitcoin-cash/

And btw, I'm sorry if I seem angry but I'm not because I totally dumped bcash when it was worth 0.2 BTC right after the fork even though most exchanges didn't support it at the time. I just don't want those poor institutional investors to get scammed :)

>>9147361
Bump

Wow is this bcash shill thread still going. Scammers gotta scam I guess.

>>9147361
scammers is right these core cucks act like they know whats going on, anybody can make up wild fairy tales, DYR

>>9148148
see
>>9140939
and
>>9143447

>>9133523
i think you mean you will be called a core cuck if you spam btc

Another altcoin trying in vain to attack Bitcoin, what else is new.

Ver will eventually realize it's futile to keep pumping bcash and the retards who fell for it will dump their make-pretend bitcoin