/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>9186467
trading pairs

>>9186467

>>9186467
Because who would invest in a 1st gen altcoin??

Nothing BCH can do isn't done better by some other 2nd or 3rd gen altcoin.

Op is a faggot

brand power
bcore is a dead corpse, bcash is a pointless parasite feasting on it
the only use of bitcoin is as a speculative investment propped up by confidence
so you look at which fork is more likely to do that... subtle jewish takeover > overt conman manipulation
honestly neither are worth holding, i own a small amount of bcore and little to no bcash

>>9186484
/thread

>>9186512
SegWit is altcoin not BCH
Kys

>>9186467
Corecucks don't really prefer BTC, they're just indoctrinated to hate BCH by reflex

>>9186467

>>9186484
I thought so. I've been using ETH but I wish more exchanges would have BCH pairs.
It makes total sense that people are using it for trading pairs though. After all, offchain transactions is the only use for BTC and that is the official position of blockstream.

>>9186512
What do you mean?
Find me a better coin than BCH and I'll probably buy it

>>9186529
That is the view of anyone who doesn't see the potential in a decentralised global payments network. In 2013 Bitcoin was more of a political stance than an "investment". BCH continues that political stance.

>>9186565
Thats what happens when you are unaware of the mass shilling and censorship sponsored by "Blockstream by Goldman™"

>>9186512
>Nothing BCH can do isn't done better by some other 2nd or 3rd gen altcoin.
Why the fuck would you even invest in any altcoins other than speculation, they provide no additional value, not a single one of them has a proper solution for the classic scalability problem

>>9186621
Neither does BCH. Nor BTC really but at least that's not an altcoin.

>>9186621
Bitcoin Cash doesnt have a scalability problem, because it can scale :D

I don't buy knock offs

>>9186693
It doesn't have a scalability problem because nobody uses it.

But it doesn't offer scalability to actually become a worldwide cash system. Bigger blocks is not scaling, it's a stopgap.

>>9186467
because bcash is shit, more people prefer it as a trading pair and it's worth more.
bcash gets its worth from a scam artist pumping it

>>9186550
Do you not understand how blockchain works? The chain with the most work done is the real chain (ie Bitcoin).

>>9186467
>picking scamfork over segwitfork

>>9186693
It has a linear scaling solution to a problem that is exponential.

I dont prefer any shit but it I had fo choose to take out profit than btc is the only way. Main reason is because most of the vendor in my town are btc and xmr, dash. If bch got more fiat gate way, vendor and trading pair theb we can step up the game otherwise I still consider bch just another fork but work better that is all.

More hash power, more trading pairs, more vendor support, realistic scaling solution that doesn't centralize hash power, will still be worth money in 2 years

>>9186753
>It doesn't have a scalability problem because nobody uses it.
>Fastest growing adoption of any crypto currency
>Meanwhilst BTC adoption is receding

>But it doesn't offer scalability to actually become a worldwide cash system. Bigger blocks is not scaling, it's a stopgap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbD0kiTddEs

>>9186736
Shit argument, BCH isnt gonna look much of a knock off when youre begging suck suck for bosses cock for an extra satoshi in your wage slip come 20 years time

>>9186765
No, BCH gets its worth from being a very useful decentralised global payments network as defined in the white paper at bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

>>9186770
Actually, the ability to fork away from a hijacked chain is one of the main components which keeps Bitcoin decentralised. If a 51% attack happens (like it did last year) the 49% can fork away and continue business as normal, and sell all their 51% scam coins.

BCH proved its independence and its will to survive by forking from the hijacked BTC chain.

>>9186790
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbD0kiTddEs

>>9186818
>more hash power
for now
>more trading pairs
for now
>more vendor support
BCH fastest growing adoption whisht BTC continues to receed
>realistic solution that doesnt centralise hash power
their solution is to literally perform transactions on a decentralsied exchange and do away with blockchain. thats now what i signed up for. No thanks!
>will still be worth money in 2 years
dont hodl your breath

>>9186897
Who hijacked the main chain? To hijack the main chain someone would need 51% of the hash power, do you think anyone can do this? If so, what is stopping them from doing the same thing to Bitcoin Cash (it would be easier since less hash power).

Anyone can start mining a different chain (fork) but the main chain is defined by being the one with the most work done (as outlined in satoshi's whitepaper).

>>9186920
>who hijacked the main chain
Blockstream by Goldman™
>https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783

>If so, what is stopping them from doing the same thing to Bitcoin Cash
They did, in August last year. BCH forked away from the hijack
You mean what if it happens again? Gee i guess we'll have to just... fork away again
and guess what we'll keep the name bitcoin and logo exactly the same. Ticker does not matter the slightest difference in real world e-commerce

>>9186897
>decentralized misinformation

>>9186955
Do you even understand how blockchain technology works? Care to address the rest of my post? Do you seriously think that blockstream control 51% of the hash rate of Bitcoin? IF SO SHA-256 ALGO COINS ARE USELESS BECAUSE THEY CAN 51% ATTACK ANY SHA-256 COIN.

>>9186964
what a rebuttal

>>9186990
Uh yeah I do.
Blockstream convinced most of the miners to support them, but newsflash, bitcoin isn't a dictatorship controlled by miners. Bitcoin is a free market where the users can use which ever coin they want
Miners are incentivised to do what the users want. Blockstream shilling and censorship convinced the majority (including me, at the time) to fall for their segwit and LN scam.

>>9187041
Read Satoshi's whitepaper. The chain with the most work done is to be considered the main chain.

>>9186467
Not sure.
But i wonder what peoples reaction would be if BTC had always used larger blocks and someone wanted to fork off and reduce blocks to 1mb, implement segwit then propose off-chain / 2nd layer scaling solutions... They'd probably call that a chink controlled scam.

>>9186897
> their solution is to literally perform transactions on a decentralsied exchange and do away with blockchain. thats now what i signed up for. No thanks!

No its not, LN is a second layer which sits atop blockchain. But even if it was, why are you so attached to an arbitrary data structure? If another structure came along that had the same properties but better scalability why would you keep using blockchain?

>>9186964
So true, and he talks all slow and sad like he is affecting him to talk about these things, as if he is passionate. It's an obvious ploy, I'm pretty sure ver writes his scripts

>>9187090
Which he wrote in reference to single miners trying to manipulate the blockchain
BCH has not been manipulated

>>9187099
Excellent point, sad part is most people don't understand the science and math behind how blockchain even works (in the context of it being a decentralized database with proof of work being used to determine who gets to update the database).

>>9186467

I don't prefer Chink knock-off's over the real thing. I'm not a nigger.

>>9187110
No, but it does not have majority support. The primary chain (Bitcoin) has majority support (consensus) and as such is considered the main chain (thus BCH is a fork or alt coin). If you want to change Satoshi's vision of what Bitcoin is, create something new and call it something else.

>>9187091

But instead, the chink controlled scam is the one where the mining power in China decided to profit with a couple developers and steal the Bitcoin brand. Bcash

>>9187099

Honestly dumbfounded people would suggest to remove blockchain characteristics from blockchain products and expect people to like it better...

If one was pedantic enough, one could use your mindset as a snapshot as to why BCH was actually more akin to "bitcoin" that the current BTC product's roadmap.

>>9187091
This 100%

>>9186467
I'm a god fearing red blooded American and if traitors don't like the coin I love it vid related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Iisu0snIL0&t=51m36s

>>9187142

Well, this is why i framed it in such a way. Is the forked product no matter what it's content destined to be viewed with hostility? I doubt 10% of people in crypto could formulate a strong argument for either.

>>9187141
BCH forked to protect satoshis vision. The white paper does not mention 51% attacks should be called the real coin.

>>9187142

>>9187152
iq less than 4

>>9187202
Except the main chain has not been 51% attacked, wtf are you smoking. The main chain simply has majority support, the BCH fork is in clear violation of Satoshi's vision, so don't call it Bitcoin, call it something else.

>>9187144

Again, why would I care if the technology is different if it maintains the same properties? I.e., is a decentralized, trustless ledger which prevents double spending?

>>9187227
The majority of people use it only for trading pairs.
It wont be long before BCH over takes it, and then you're going to have to rename your minority coin, buddy

>>9187224
*sound of eagle screaming*

>>9187253
because its no where near as effective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

>>9187284

>>9187268
If Bitcoin is to be replaced it won't be by a fork of Bitcoin, it will be by some newer alt coin that does everything better.

>>9187299
You're not real fast on the old irony detector there bud are you?

>>9187321

>>9187320
Please lend me your crystal ball?

>>9187364
lmao, so you're allowed to make future predictions but I'm not?

>>9187253

because blockchain has those properties right now, with scaling solutions that can place the downside burdens on cheap hardware, not protocol or network composition.

>but that potential increase in hardware will change the network composition

Yes, it may. To a lesser extent than LN hubs of open channels. The more i read on both, the more i view it as a lesser of two evils.

>>9187320
pic related is why this won't happen btw, or at least not for a long time. With an actually flexible, adaptive chain not hijacked by someone to promote their business interests, it makes more sense for altcoins to be beta tests of good ideas, if they can survive n years and suffer no major catastrophes, then their ideas can be incorporated into the main chain. They're effectively a staging environment for the primary world chain.

>>9186467
>>9186575
Becauase it's not just a game anymore

>>9186770
Did anyone tell bch this? It shouldn't be functioning right now it doesn't have the most work.

>>9186484
OP btfo

>>9187373
my predictions are based on evidence.
a growing adoption rate of BCH, and a shrinking adoption rate of BTC. What alt coin is gaining fast adoption? If you find one let me know because im open to read into it

years of history
always worked
no central authority
no shilling
nobody exists to be the "face" of btc like roger with bch
trusted
satashi namakoto knew of the problems above and took measures to prevent them

>Im in it for the technology

>>9187449
> no central authority

>>9187411
Is english your second language? BTC is the main chain, that doesn't mean a fork like BCH can't function, it just can't be considered the main chain (ie it is NOT Bitcoin).

>>9187444
People have been saying that Bitcoin will die for its entire lifespan. 9 years later, it is still kicking, I doubt it will be destroyed by some minor alt coin.

>>9187449
>years of history
Yeah.
>always worked
Nope.
>no central authority
Nope. One dev team funded by bank institutions (BTC) compared to 7+ teams with no funding (BCH)
>no shilling
Oh wow, hahaha
>nobody exists to be the "face" of btc like roger with bch
Not entirely true, look for Tone Vays for example.
>trusted
True.
>satashi namakoto knew of the problems above and took measures to prevent them
He knew about them, but other than increasing blocksize (BCH) he didn't know/take any measure to prevent/solve the scaling issue.

>>9187449
>years of history
which is shared by BCH which is bitcoin as it was in 2014, but with a higher block limit
>always worked
until blockstream arrived and added "replace by fee" which took away instant transactions, then opposed block increases and tried and succeeded to change the course of BTCs development, and is now no where near as functional as it used to be
>no central authority
except for "theymos" who controls r/bitcoin, bitcoin.org, talk bitcoin and blockstream who hired most of the core developers and began to dictate bitcoins development
>no shilling
except for all of it
https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
>nobody exists to be the "face" of btc like roger with bch
roger is not the face of bch, he is just a loud mouth who happens to support bch and has been painted as such becuase he is a big figure and owns bitcoin.com
>trusted
as is bitcoin cash
>satoshi namakoto (didnt even spell his name right) knew the problems above and took measures to prevent them
yes satoshi knew the issues of central banks and fiat currency, so he created a new instant decentralised sound money payment system, as defined in the bitcoin whitepaper, and as tested on bitcoin BTC 2009-2017 (except instant transactions lost in 2015) and continued on BCH (with instant transactions again) 2017-present

>>9187524
its not going to be destroyed by a minor alt coin, it was destroyed by blockstream, but the original version of bitcoin which as survived for the last 10 years is still alive in bitcoin cash. the undefeated champ

bitcoins value is not in its ability to send the cheapest or fastest transactions

its value is in user adoption and mainstream acceptance of it having value, and BTC has this to a much greater extent than BCH

>>9187552
How could transactions be instant in 2015, that's not how proof of work based blockchain architecture works.

>>9187542
satoshi didnt think recognise a scaling issue because he intended for bitcoin to scale. he added the blocksize limit as a precaution in the early days to protect it from a theoretical attack

>>9186621

Wrong

>>9187381

Unfortunately the downside of on-chain scaling is that it centralizes hash power by increasing network consensus latency, which increases the rate of orphan block production, which disproportionately impacts smaller miners.

>>9187567
Listen to yourself

>Bitcoins (A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System - Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin whitepaper, 2008) value is not in its ability to send the cheapest or fastest transactions
Actually, thats EXACTLY why bitcoin is important. Are you literally a tulip trader? You don't care about functionality, you just want it because "its goin up innit m8 xDXDXD"

>its value is in user adoption and mainstream acceptance of it having value, and BTC has this to a much greater extent than BCH

Why would people adopt it if they cant do anything with it?
Now ask "Why would people adopt BCH?" Oh, because its USEFUL for payments, as well as being sound money

>>9187581
Its called 0conf, look it up.
Now at least I know you're new to bitcoin.

Please, download a bitcoin cash wallet and send a transaction to it (not from a centralised exchange). You'll be amazed how fast it is. LITERALLY instant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZjasKZC7p0

>>9187621
On chain scaling works. We can provide a decentralised instant global sound money payments network.
It's a working system that is NOT centralised, and thats all you need to worry about.
Time will show us to be correct
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbD0kiTddEs

>>9187622
Actually the value of Bitcoin is what people put into it. You can think of the market cap as being like a sort of 'pot' that everyone chips into, which then allows people to exchange value in a decentralized manner. The blockchain is a decentralized database which records all the transactions and proof of work is used to determine who gets to make adjustments to the ledger (which is why 0-conf doesn't work and why you need to wait for multiple blocks).

>>9187634
See >>9187669
I mentioned why 0-conf doesn't work here. 0-conf transactions defeats the entire purpose of using a blockchain.

>>9187666

How do you solve the consensus latency problem?

>>9187634

Its just as instant as BTC... both have 0 conf transactions, and in both cases, 0 conf transactions are not secure because they could potentially be double spent.

>>9187679
>>9187669

Wrong, 0conf is incredibly effective for small payments, as it would require much more time and resources to commit a double spend attack than it is actually worth. Why wait 40 minutes for 3 block confirmations when you're buying morning coffee?
The average person isn't going to attempt a double spend attack, and the 1 in a million wierdo who does will likely fail. Damages therefore negligable

HOWEVER when you're spending a lot of money on a larger transaction, then sure! It's probably best to wait for confirmation. If you're buying a new car or a house, theres no harm in waiting around 20 or so minutes until the dealer is satisfied.

>>9187703
Technological advancement. Running a mining node will not be viable if you live in the jungle, or run windows 98. If you have fast 1st world internet connection and have invested a reasonable amount of money into mining equipment you will have no problem.

>>9187731
Wrong, BTC is much more potent to double spend attacks because of replace by fee, which literally allows you to cancel your transaction after you've sent it. BCH 0conf transactions are very secure for small payments. Not perfect, but its FAR beyond a reasonable doubt of security

0Conf is the Achilles heel of Bitcoin (BCH) and anyone who doesn't agree has a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works, and why it is so lucrative.

>>9187804
>BTC is much more potent to double spend attacks because of replace by fee, which literally allows you to cancel your transaction after you've sent it.
You can disable replace by fee for your transactions.

Calling something secure if it is not helps nobody. Nothing is stopping a miner from accepting a transaction spending the same output. They can easily be encouraged with higher fees, and you can't prove they knew about another transaction.

If I double spend all my transactions, and 10% get double spent, I will save 10% if I continue long enough. Good incentive to try. I might even only do it when there's a surge in activity so it is less suspicious. Even with 8MB there have been days where it wasn't guaranteed to be included in the next block, and that will always be the case if we grow max blocksize according to real world use. If we don't, miners could intentionally create full blocks to lock out the (smaller) competition by increasing validation and storage costs.

>>9186596
>political stance

You missed his point - Bitcoin ANYTHING is a waste of time, even just as a global payment system. I'd rather send DAI via Ethereum if I need a dedicated currency token - or DGX, or Ether itself. Today, even before the Casper update, Ethereum is already better in EVERY way than the BTC's. And that's just one example of something out now, ADA for example or XLM are infinitely better than BTC. Or the new /biz/ favorite Holochain - go read their whitepaper and try not to fomo too hard.

The BTC tech is just too old. Satoshi was a genius - but we've already moved on. Smart contracts, Dapps, proper scaling, privacy - that's what we're wanting (and have available now or shortly). I agree that Bitcoin Cash is the real BTC - but it just doesn't matter anymore. Blockstream won the battle - but lost the war since everyone just innovated away from them.

>>9186484
Trading newbie here. I've been trading pairs without even realizing it since 2014. It's done incredibly so far.

>>9186621
EOS, Holochain

>>9186621
How does it feel contributing to the rise of a tyrant?

>>9187090
That’s a technical description of how blockchain works, not a prescription for which fork represents “the real bitcoin” you hopelessly stupid faggot

Jesus Christ, this board is full of actual morons

>>9187895
Whats stopping Bitcoin Cash turning the ship around and making a come back and taking the top spot?
If it does, it will stay there

I'm backing BCH and I want this to happen.

>>9188029
Will absolutely never happen. It's a scam.

>>9187731
Are you fucking stupid? Blockstream forced RBF onto Bitcoin along with their tiny block limit and now 0-conf is no longer possible. Any oldfags remember when it was possible to buy a coffee with a bitcoin? Because I do. Fuck all of you

>>9188067
>1 post by this ID
Mhm

>>9187895
Ethereum? You mean the chain you can't even sync properly in a meaningful timespan? They had to introduce new syncing modes so people can even use their currency. We'll see how they can scale in the future, but right now, it doesn't look too nice.

I admit it's an easy error to make if what you took away from the BCH/BTC debate is that BCH is a viable alternative to BTC, or even the original chain.

Consider this: Even with the lightning network, 300MB blocks (without other optimizations that are currently worked on for BTC) will not suffice for worldwide adoption, despite LN enabling people to offload nearly all transactions. You can look up the calculations in the official lightning network paper, they are very straight-forward and understandable even if you don't know any details about LN.

If you accept this, then how will any altcoin that does not implement similar smart contracts as lightning scale at all? Terabyte blocks by the minute in 2022? Doesn't sound very decentralized if there's not a leap in technological advancement in the next 3 years.

>>9188074
Ooo I member

>>9187804
> Wrong, BTC is much more potent to double spend attacks because of replace by fee, which literally allows you to cancel your transaction after you've sent it. BCH 0conf transactions are very secure for small payments. Not perfect, but its FAR beyond a reasonable doubt of security

RBF is opt-in, and if a transaction opts in to RBF the recipient node can see that and refuse service until a confirmation occurs. (or refuse service all together. Most transactions have no reason to opt into RBF.)

> Technological advancement. Running a mining node will not be viable if you live in the jungle, or run windows 98. If you have fast 1st world internet connection and have invested a reasonable amount of money into mining equipment you will have no problem.

The speed of your Internet connection isn't the major bottleneck here, as blocks still need to propagate through everyone else's connections, and bitcoin network topology is random. This advantages miners with high hash power as they are instantly given access to a block they've mined, which they can then mine off of, and the more hash power they have, the more likely it is that they will win in a blockchain split dispute. i.e. they're more likely to produce a block which goes on to be part of the longest valid chain.

>>9188074
>No. A transaction must be marked replaceable (sequence number below MAX-1) in order for the opt-in RBF implementation to treat it as replaceable.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/

You might consider learning more about the technology you have been using such a long time if you want to berate others. Tip: Do not go to idiotic subreddits for technically accurate discussions.

>>9188074

Both RBF and 1MB block limits were put in the original Bitcoin client by Satoshi. RBF was temporarily removed due to the vulnerabilities surrounding 0conf transactions. It was later reintroduced as an opt-in feature which does not reduce the security of 0conf transactions.

Either way, 0conf transactions are fairly insecure as a miner could publish a block with a double spend. Though they make sense for things like buying a coffee, in which case both BTC and BCH are equally suitable.

>>9188188
Satoshi plainly stated that the block limit was a temporary measure, it was never intended to be this way for this long. Blockstream’s entire business model hinges on interference with the development of Bitcoin’s original design

>>9188273
Did you follow the monero PoW fork? They even had lots of support for the change, and it still resulted in the creation of lots of alts and fights about the name for the old chain.

An arbitrary blocksize increase against the wishes of the majority would have been close to suicide. It's unfortunate, but we will hardly get agreement on a random number. That's why it wasn't done.

Just imagine someone continuing to run "Bitcoin1MB" after the hardfork and then implementing weird soft fork changes with their 51% majority on the 'original' chain. It's a scenario investors and users alike could very well do without.

Segwit was a soft fork to increase the blocksize to (about) 2MB without that danger, as the new blocks still appear to follow the old consensus rules (while actually following stricter rules). The trick won't work again because parts need to remain in the 1MB part, so this wasn't an arbitrary size increase, either. It could be done, so they did it.

If you really think Blockstream is anti Bitcoin, I can't help you. But Blockstream isn't Bitcoin, and they can only argue for changes to the protocol, not enact them themselves. If they really are anti Bitcoin, they are doing a bad job at it, with all their free open source software and new research papers on novel smart contract ideas for Bitcoin. Something that will remain even if they are bought off by someone who actually is anti bitcoin.

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

>>9186512
Same with BTC

>>9186467
Because BCH isn't Bitcoin.

>>9186467
cause bitcoin cash is a cheap chinese copy of bitcoin (the original) made by a quality japanese samurai

>>9188273
> Satoshi plainly stated that the block limit was a temporary measure

Doesn't change what I said.

Also, on-chain scaling would be much more feasible if ASICs hadn't already put so much centralization pressure on bitcoin. That's something Satoshi didn't anticipate.

>>9186467
Because I don't know what you're talking about. I sent a btc tx (not to an exchange which takes longer by default) and it took under 30 seconds. Can't imagine once lightning networks are up. Brand is power unfortunately. Why didn't bitcoin cash keep the brand name then? Sucks because I can see how t would be the "real bitcoin" but my vision for bitcoin is different. I think it should be a better form of gold and not really used as a day to day currency. You'd have a tough time getting an economy rolling when people have no incentive to spend.

>>9188632
This guy doesn’t understand the tech differences at all and somehow thinks his BTC tx got confirmed in 30 seconds on-chain. So much dumb money out here.

>>9188699

it might have if the transaction got picked up by a miner who immediately found the next block. Very unlikely though.

>>9188699
Tell me more. It's entirely reasonable to get a confirmation within 30 seconds.

The PoW algorithm causes a poisson distribution for found blocks. If you are lucky, you send out your transaction, and it is confirmed within the next few seconds because a block just happened to be created shortly after.

>>9188763

its unreasonable to judge the speed of the network by one lucky confirm, tho

but we're splitting hairs here, the point is theres no backlog in the mem pool so transactions are cheap and fast right now

>>9186575

Hike: Just do the it.

>Bcash is better because it can do more than Bitcoin
>But Bcash is better than newer faster alts because...

>>9188029

They gonna move to PoS to stop wasting energy etc? Real smart contracts? Sharding? Nope. It's over man.

>>9188111

It doesn't matter. Scaling issues are dropping by the day & fast synching is a thing you know. BTC is the past - Lightning is a bandaid. And Ethereum is already in danger of obsolescence too btw. The world is moving on without BTC. At least Ethereum is trying to keep up.

>>9188747
>>9188763
The avg time is 10 minutes for confirmation. BTC has RBF so you can’t have 0 conf I like BCH. Also you are getting fast and cheap transactions right now but as soon as the bull market comes back and people are filling the mempool you’ll be back to $50 fees.

Why do you think that just because the amount of transactions have went down that “everything is fine”. Prepare to get BTFO in the next bull run.

>>9188801
>its unreasonable to judge the speed of the network by one lucky confirm, tho
Yes, I agree. The previous poster seems to think it's impossible that it happened, though, and even goes as far as to claim the confirmation within 30s was impossible.

>but we're splitting hairs here, the point is theres no backlog in the mem pool so transactions are cheap and fast right now
There is no backlog, and I'd argue that there is a chance we might not see constant backlog in the future. Lightning wallets are only starting to become usable for normal people (IMO they are not usable atm) and there's not many shop implementations for vendors, either.
But as LN is a great scaling solution that can offload a substantial amount of transactions, widespread use of it might even cause the blockchain to not be backlogged, if the number of bitcoin users doesn't increase drastically because of it.
Personally I think it might cause further adoption because it solves some of the issues of Bitcoin, and introduces sub-cent micro-transactions to Bitcoin (Unlike normal Bitcoin with its dust limit by design).

Bitcoin was never fast in the eye of the user IMO, and I'd argue normal BTC and BCH transactions aren't fast enough right now. I remember when people would religiously tell new users to wait for 6 confirmations before they consider a transaction 'done'. Bitcoin was and is faster than cashing a cheque or doing a bank transfer, however.

>>9188985
> The avg time is 10 minutes for confirmation.

The average block time is 10 minutes, the average confirmation time is lower than that.

> BTC has RBF so you can’t have 0 conf I like BCH

Again, its opt-in RBF, so yes you can. opt-in RBF doesn't present any security issues. This is only an issue when all trxs are forced to be RBF as in the original BTC client.

>>9189016

Yeah, I agree with all of this. Also, even if we have another adoption explosion before LN adoption takes off, BTC will already have a bit more throughput due to segwit adoption.

>>9188111

Oh yeah - read up on Holochain. Hashgraph basically, with a bunch of cryptographic proofs to secure it. I'm damn sure it'd be vulnerable to disrupting the consensus between groups of nodes - but possibly not, I need to do more digging into their validation mechanism. Either way - no Lightning network is needed, since it's not a Blockchain (or suffers from the same limitations) in the first place.

>>9188417
>nothing but straw men and red herrings
I don’t even know where to begin but you’ve successfully proven that you’re willing to waste more of your time shilling than I’m able to dedicate to rebutting this bullshit

All of these loaded terms... fucking hell
>they’re not anti-bitcoin
We have to get through all of your semantic trickery before we’d even be able to debate the core of the issue

>>9188976
I fail to see anything of substance in your post, would you mind expanding upon it?

The only really great scaling solutions are those that keep most transactions off the blockchain (L2 solutions) or solutions like Schnorr signatures, as they reduce the size of normal transactions substantially. There's a limit to the later improvements, though. Transactions aren't super big to begin with.

Fast syncing has different security guarantees (if we are talking about the same thing) and is very problematic/not trustless if you can't sync normally in a reasonable timeframe. It's ok for mining if the network isn't very centralized already, maybe.

>>918898
>BTC has RBF so you can’t have 0 conf I like BCH.
Wrong, see https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/
>No. A transaction must be marked replaceable (sequence number below MAX-1) in order for the opt-in RBF implementation to treat it as replaceable.
If you don't mark your tx as replaceable, you can not replace by fee.

>Why do you think that just because the amount of transactions have went down that “everything is fine”. Prepare to get BTFO in the next bull run.
I think everything is fine because technological improvements take time, but the next evolution is just around the corner (LN, Schnorr, MimbleWimble, etc)
I am a computer scientist. This allows me to spend a substantial amount of time on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency papers, and I've followed the debate for a long time. I probably used Bitcoin before most of you did (2010/2011). Everything you need to know is out there, and while it's not super easy to understand, the critical pieces have been explained again and again so you don't have to trust me or anyone else. I don't speculate on cryptocurrency besides owning a few $ from solving crypto puzzles.

>>9189095
Hashgraph based cryptocurrencies are interesting and new. I've only looked a bit at a cryptocoin using a Tangle, but it seemed to solve the consensus problem by having central instances, at least for now. For me, the main feature of Bitcoin is its trustlessness. Anything that doesn't preserve this feature is basically uninteresting to me.

Maybe hashgraphs do/will not need trusted central instances in the future and remain secure, but it will take a few years to be sure about this. Meanwhile the Bitcoin codebase has been hardened through constant attacks and scientists have tried to formalize Bitcoins attributes to better analyze it.

I'm not saying it'll be Bitcoin for all eternity. But the most and the most interesting innovation is happening with Bitcoin at the moment. Add the problem of getting a widely distributed userbase and a somewhat fairly distributed coinshare (no substantial, unfair premines/ICOs which make it an investors/mining equipment owners only coin) now that the cryptocraze is on, and Bitcoin seems very strong to me.

>>9189118
>I don’t even know where to begin but you’ve successfully proven that you’re willing to waste more of your time shilling than I’m able to dedicate to rebutting this bullshit
I'm spending time educating people because I like doing that. I also like discussions. I stand behind everything I say, and if I make a mistake, I won't repeat it.

I mean, just as a reminder, you were the one claiming RBF was mandatory, which isn't factual ( >>9188074 )
>... Blockstream forced RBF onto Bitcoin along with their tiny block limit and now 0-conf is no longer possible. ...
I'm doing my best to not waste peoples time and by explaining everything as clearly as I'm able to. The quoted sentence was either uninformed or tried to confuse people, however. Not that I've never been wrong in the past few years, some details of Bitcoin aren't straight forward, after all.

>We have to get through all of your semantic trickery before we’d even be able to debate the core of the issue
Someone else brought up the credibility of blockstream and I felt like responding to that, too. Besides that, most of my arguments were technical in nature, and hopefully backed by with info that's easily followed up on.
Try to see it from my viewpoint: The anti-bitcoin crowd is constantly writing factually incorrect things online, doesn't even bother to understand proposed changes and additions to Bitcoin, but still argues for a certain viewpoint (Not that there aren't blind zealots for BTC, btw). Every doubt I had, however, I follow up on, and it always turned out to be based on a misunderstanding or incapability to actually understand every detail of Bitcoin or one of its recent changes. And look, I'm still doing it, still trying to find that one altcoin or BCH supporter that can present an argument that has a technical foundation that makes me reconsider the validity of the choices made by the Bitcoin developers.

>>9189346

I also get accused of being a BTC maximalist or a corecuck in threads like this, but desu, I don't own any BTC, just alts, and for a very long time I was critical of how slowly Bitcoin was moving. Things have really sped up around SegWit now, though.

>>9189623
In my opinion, it's still much too slow.

We don't have any big companies actually presenting solutions. Where is the Lighting wallet from Microsoft, Apple or Google? Why is there no big payment provider allowing people to pay Bitcoin invoices using a credit card (maybe this exists already)?

Altcoins might seem to innovate faster, but their implementations are often lacking, and it's much easier to propose a new coin with a fixed, new featureset than updating an existing solution. As soon as they used by many people, they have the same problems with gaining user consensus and doing backwards compatible updates, however.

My (completely subjective) impression is that most people with a background in distributed systems seem to be in Bitcoin, not in any altcoins. And for good reason. Appeal to authority does not help in discussions, of course. But if somebody wants to know why I'm not an altcoin-investor, that's reason #1.

>>9189768
> In my opinion, it's still much too slow.

Versus what though? What's your expectation based around, and what, if anything are you comparing it to? Other cryptocurrencies? Other technology integration cycles?

>>9186514
agreed. likely roger trying to figure out why his psychology is flawed

>>9189793
Compared to the value in providing a payment system that is capable of micropayments, world-wide, uncensorable monetary transactions, and storing your money 'in your brain'.

Every citizen should want this. Every citizen will get some value ouf of this (even if it might cost them their job if they are working for a bank).

But here we are, early adopters, still running software that's too complicated for our grandparents. Despite some really talented people working on all this, and even with a few full-time scientists doing amazing research in this field.

I think 2017 really started to get the ball rolling, though. If we don't see some big releases by large companies within 2018/2019, we might still be here arguing about what might be a good solution in 2025, though.

A lot of sharp people in this thread but some dumb money as well

The problem with increased block size is that it increases the expense of operating a full node. Nodes are actually the ones verifying/processing transactions. Miners are simply guessing random strings to secure the block and reap the rewards, nodes operate without compensation.

I used to run a full node and it makes sense if you have low energy expenses and unlimited bandwidth, but most people are not in this situation. This means that over time, as the expense continues to increase (and make no mistake, block size WILL continue to increase in bch), nodes will become more and more centralized which will be at the expense of security.

Personally idgaf, I don’t know what the real solution is. Lightning seems like overkill and will be confusing for most. BCH will face long term scaling issues. I think the only thing that makes sense is to hold doge

native segwit has lower fees

>>9186467
More development and better future potential. Always remember that BCH is one BTC blocksize increase away from being wiped out.

>>9189981
>Lightning seems like overkill and will be confusing for most.
There is a new paper about a replacement for the transaction-update-mechanism in lightning (eltoo). It's a bit easier to understand than the one described in the original LN paper and comes with a proper explanation that moves from on-chain to off-chain.

While the technical details are confusing, none of the details make the creation of a lightning wallet with good usability impossible. It is harder, though.

>The problem with increased block size is that it increases the expense of operating a full node. Nodes are actually the ones verifying/processing transactions. Miners are simply guessing random strings to secure the block and reap the rewards, nodes operate without compensation.
This is not the only problem, but one of the problems., I agree.

Some BCH people seem to believe that miners will 'act in their own interest' and do this for free to not endanger BCH, as reduced usability of BCH would cost them. While this might be true, other options aren't completely out of the question, either, but they'll probably suck for the users of Bitcoin.

Just as a random example, there's also the problem that not being able to check the blockchain for yourself opens up the possibility for mining cartels that inflate the number of Bitcoins. If all miners get away with mining wrong blocks for a while, people who were paid with transactions inside those blocks might be incentivized to call for a continuation of that (faulty) chain, especially if the damage of reverting/waiting longer for those transactions in a new chain is higher than the theoretical damage of having just a few more coins in total.

This puts too much power into the hands of miners, who have already demonstrated to collude in the event that they can make a lot of money out of it. (100k coins were mined too soon through PoW difficulty adjustment algorithm flaws. Miner collusion required. It's why BCH is many blocks ahead of BTC).

No one has mentioned financial institution support?

as far as I can tell, BTC is the only crypto with it's own derivative market. CBOE Futures market to be exact. Created so that institutions could gain from exposure to btc without risking exposure to btc. Unless I'm misread, there is no bch derivatives market or plans for one.

Same reason you don't buy a chinese product when you want something quality

Because all the BCash fagots pretend BCH is BTC

>>9186467

who cares, when 0xBTC is the future

>>9189981
> A lot of sharp people in this thread but some dumb money as well
Yes, for example people that think it's the auditors doing all the work rather than the actual generators at an electricity company.
They would probably describe it like this;
"Auditors are actually the ones supplying electricity. Generators are simply rapidly moving a conductor through a magnetic field to generate electrons and reap the rewards, auditors operate without compensation"
That is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in crypto. If you take away nodes other than the ones needed for the actual system to exist, that is, mining nodes and economic majority activity nodes (large merchant processors and exchanges), there is no effect on the network at all in terms of capacity or function.
If on the other hand you take away the mining nodes, there is no system anymore, period. They are the CPU for the global distributed ledger. Only through the most tortured acceptance of the blockstream dogma could one ever even begin to come to another conclusion, and it is rectified with the most rudimentary of thought experiments regarding what happens when the various component classes are removed.
The most annoying thing about this nonsense is that people think they're clever and grasping something subtle, but actually they're just completely deluded. They bought the propaganda hook line and sinker, and they're impressed with their gullibility in having done so.

>>9191782
Your comparision makes no sense. In your example, auditors are doing nothing.

I agree that the wording of >>9189981, namely
>Nodes are actually the ones verifying/processing transactions. Miners are simply guessing random strings to secure the block and reap the rewards,
is misleading. What can be said, however, is that only running a node actually allows someone to verify the complete rules of Bitcoin being followed, so you either need to be a miner yourself (running a full node, not just a stratum client), or you need a node that fully validates the blockchain. If you do not run a node, Bitcoin is not trustless.

The following problems arise (maybe I forgot another one):
1. Using SPV, you can not know if the node you are using is lying to you about the nonexistence of a transaction. The node cannot fool you into believing a transaction is in the blockchain without that actually being the case, though, because you can check that via the block id, the merkel root, parts of that data structure and the tx itself.
2. You can not be sure that the rules of Bitcoin are being upheld at all times. This could result in miners spending your/someone elses money without the necessary cryptographic signatures, or the inflation of mining rewards (through fee inflation), which in turn increases the 21 million coin limit. While this would invalidate the chain, SPV/non-node clients would continue using that chain, and if reversal of the chain would cost people money, people might vote to stay with the broken chain.
3. Miners could collude to not supply new nodes with certain blocks, for example parts of a block that they cheated in.

>>9192089 continued

Sadly, there is no scheme that allows us to pay node operators for this work and the trustlessness it provides, which is why the Bitcoin developers want to scale the size of the Blockchain more slowly to keep up with measurable technological improvements. Some say it's too expensive to run a node today if you are poor, and I'm willing to agree. My node eats a lot of bandwidth and CPU processing power, and someone in a poor country might not be able to afford that at all.

So yeah, >>9191782 has a point, but people who claim non-mining-nodes do not contribute essential work aren't correct, either.

>>9188699
So explain it, is it because both parties had segwit activated? If so it worked great and I still believe second layer solutions are better.

>>9192089
> Your comparision makes no sense. In your example, auditors are doing nothing.
Auditors have the role of monitoring the flow of electricity from the generator to the consumer, and billing appropriately, and making sure everything is on the level there, without them the generator might claim to have generated more kWh than they actually did and billed the clients higher for the service.
It does actually work exactly as well as the miners vs node separation, and it's nonsensical for largely the same reason.
> is misleading. What can be said, however, is that only running a node actually allows someone to verify the complete rules of Bitcoin being followed
That's false, it's like saying the only way you can know the result of a football match is to have been there and personally witnessed it.
Consider the case that the miners start inflating the supply which is the one that blockstream propagandists always like to fearmonger against. The block reward is right there in the block, with the difficulty and issuance time, visible on any blockchain explorer, of which there are a great many. You could even subcontract a transaction witnessing service to provide you guarantees of certain activity on the blockchain matching certain parameters, personally running your own node buys you absolutely nothing that another person relying on third party services does not get, unless you assume that *every single third party service in existence* is all in on the con.
(c)

>>9192089
And the most ridiculous part of this discussion is that the essential rules that they're afraid won't be verified is that each block doesn't exceed the 1mb limit, which is a completely ridiculous rule which is there purely for the business interests of blockstream.
> If you do not run a node, Bitcoin is not trustless.
Nonsense, look even if you do want to get utterly paranoid and assume that all the third party services that warrant the blockchain is in state x and y happened are in on the con, why then do you stop at the assumption that operating system and lib providers and the various distribution architecture for the software that runs nodes and hardware providers are not also in on the con? Because if they were, even running your own node doesn't save you. There are levels of certainty you can have that x has taken place on the blockchain, and running your own node does not provide a meaningful increase in certainty, over not running your own node, period.
> Using SPV, you can not know if the node you are using is lying to you about the nonexistence of a transaction.
Depending on when the transaction is, yes you can, if you're looking at a chain of block headers that matches n other nodes your spv wallet is talking to, and they all agree x has or has not happened, then x has or has not happened, the block header hash chain coupled with the proof of work invested in it is what assures you of the integrity of the ledger and the matches between the blocks on the various nodes. A forged chain would need to be longer than the real chain in order to be even theoretically able to fool an SPV wallet as to the ledger, and if it were a longer chain, it would just be the actual chain, period.
You seem not to realise that the absence, or presence of a transaction will *both* change the hash of a block, not just the presence. If the data is different, the hash is different.

>>9192283
>you assume that *every single third party service in existence* is all in on the con.
>(c)
somebody did

>>9186484
this
all LN needs to be able to do is make transactions much faster between exchanges and that'll be enough for the next few years while they work on making crypto more normie friendly

>>9186512
this
Why bch instead of eth?

>>9186550
lol attacking BTC instead of defending BCH against 2nd/3rd gen alts
typical, bch shills never respond when I ask "Why bch instead of eth?"
when I asked my discord group I got one reply "LN is shit", not even related to ETH at all

>>9192489
Then you need to assume also that the CPU manufacturers and OS manufacturers and etc are also in on the con. In which case, running a full node buys you nothing, once again.
The only thing that will get you past *that* level of deception is building your own chips, running your own software, from sand through to output, etc.
The simple fact is just *one* proof that an agent is lying about the blockchain is enough to sink their business permanently, there is an enormous disincentive for involved third parties to do this and absolutely no incentive given the penalty and how easy it would be to get caught if they did.

>>9192283
>Auditors have the role of monitoring the flow of electricity from the generator to the consumer, and billing appropriately, and making sure everything is on the level there, without them the generator might claim to have generated more kWh than they actually did and billed the clients higher for the service.
Thanks for the clarification.

>Consider the case that the miners start inflating the supply which is the one that blockstream propagandists always like to fearmonger against. The block reward is right there in the block, with the difficulty and issuance time, ...
No, the block reward can only be verified by looking at all transactions included in a block, and the UTXOs that are now spent. That's because the fee you pay for a transaction is not implicitly declared in a transaction, but basically all bitcoin that were not used up by the outputs of a transaction. The miner may add that amount to their block reward.
>... visible on any blockchain explorer, ...
Blockchain explorers do not necessarily generate revenue. They exist because it is still cheap enough to run your own full node and to process all meaningful blockchain information.
>... unless you assume that *every single third party service in existence* is all in on the con
I assume that miners and full node operators collude, yes. If it becomes very expensive to run a full node, there won't be many full node operators, and states or very powerful individuals might force them to behave in a certain way, or they might bribe each other.

Why BCH and not XLM or NANO over BTC?
Same question, even more logical since both instant and fee-less.
BTC has existed the longest and therefore it's a good store of value.

>>9192590
>Then you need to assume also that the CPU manufacturers and OS manufacturers and etc are also in on the con.

I don't have the links at hand to prove why we should distrust these leaders of the tech industry... but, long story short ((( they ))) ARE in on the con. Apple, M$, Intel, Google, FB.. mining data like Jihan mines bitcorns. albeit, immediately less financially and economically detrimental than the central bankers printing fiat exponentially however, a risk to our personal freedoms non the less.

I run a non-mining bitcoin node.

>>9192819
continued:

If I (or a shop) run my own node, I don't even see incoming transactions in invalid blocks, so there's no danger of me believing I have been paid. If I never believe to have been paid in the first place, there is no incentive for me to ask for a consensus change that will allow the bad blocks to be built upon in the future. On the other hand, if I did accept payment, there's a financial incentive to ask for a consensus change (basically to ask for them to carry on with the invalid blocks) because having to wait or the possibility of a double spend causes me a monetary loss.

Miners (and the node that I'm using when I can't run my own) only need to collude for a few blocks to make this problematic. If they carry on long enough, most users might agree on continuing with the invalid chain, so they have an incentive to notice 'too late'.

If some node operators sound an alarm when they notice it, this might not suffice to prevent this from playing out exactly as I wrote. We need users to not rely on SPV when they receive a meaningful amount of Bitcoin to prevent this event from unfolding. And the only secure alternative to SPV is running a validating node yourself.

>>9192590
>The simple fact is just *one* proof that an agent is lying about the blockchain is enough to sink their business permanently,

like it did for Deutsche? or, how about FaceBook? or Apple? or any number of "trusted third party" who have been caught doing criminal actions with our money and our personal information?

>>9192882
I'm not actually saying they are trustworthy, I'm saying "you trust a set of people in order to have them verify this set of data", and that set is not meaningfully different in the case that you run your own node or you don't. In either cases, it is equally difficult to run the theorised con. The simple fact is the speculative attack surface from which you're protected by running a full node, but not protected by relying on third party services is almost exactly the same surface. I'm running out of ways to re-state this.

>>9192927
In the cryptocurrency ecosystem, not the old finance ecosystem, which, incidentally has bought and paid for blockstream's present activities, so if you want to paint these as the big bad evil (and rightfully so, I would agree) then you absolutely positively should also have blockstream and everyone associated them super high on the list of people not to trust.

Here's a list of some stuff that's going on with Bitcoin Cash:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8g7eob/the_most_popular_and_innovative_projects_and/

Anyone know of anything at all happening with BTC?

>>9192963
yeah, the more I read about Blockstream... the less and less I like them.

>>9192301
>Depending on when the transaction is, yes you can, if you're looking at a chain of block headers that matches n other nodes your spv wallet is talking to, and they all agree x has or has not happened, then x has or has not happened, the block header hash chain coupled with the proof of work invested in it is what assures you of the integrity of the ledger and the matches between the blocks on the various nodes.
If miners collude, they will all lie to you that a certain transaction has not happened. Just imagine that it is 2025, Wikileaks 2.0 is asking all 10 of the 10 existing full node running datacenters if they received Bitcoin to their donation address, and all of them lying.

SPV allows one to securely know that a transaction happened on the longest PoW chain. To know this, you only download all block headers. Then, the node has to provide the full transaction, the block id and certain parts of the merkle tree so you can rehash all "steps" of the merkle tree. If you do that, you can see that the tx is in the merkle tree and that the merkle tree hashes to the merkle root and you know that the merkle root is in the block headers you downloaded, so all is fine. The block headers you downloaded are the correct ones because you can easily check the difficulty of the PoW of all blocks combined, allowing you to at least follow the longest chain you know of.

To know that a transaction really -didn't- happen on the longest PoW chain requires one to download the whole blockchain and to scan every single transaction to look for my address hash. This is actually what bitcoind does for you when you create a new wallet. Without a full scan of the blockchain, it can not know. You can run it with tx-index=1 so you don't have to rescan to know the spendable UTXOs of a new wallet, but what you can not do is just look at the block headers, merkle root and merkle tree and figure out that a certain address of yours got money in Block #XYZ. That info is only in the bc.

>>9192819
> No, the block reward can only be verified by looking at all transactions included in a block, and the UTXOs that are now spent.
That's not true, each block has a coinbase that pays the block reward, You're thinking of block fees, which are different, you're right about the way they work, but that is not "inflation" of the supply, that would be tampering with the actual transactions themselves, which would require the private keys of the actual transactors, so... That's not realistic at all.
Proof re coinbase transaction;
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/520776
Note the 12.5 "generation" as distinct from the fees.
> Blockchain explorers do not necessarily generate revenue. They exist because it is still cheap enough to run your own full node and to process all meaningful blockchain information.
They will if it becomes at all arduous to run a fully verifying node, and block explorers like this will not go away when that's the case https://chainflyer.bitflyer.jp/?lang=en because they're financed by heavily incentivised players.
> I assume that miners and full node operators collude, yes. If it becomes very expensive to run a full node, there won't be many full node operators, and states or very powerful individuals might force them to behave in a certain way, or they might bribe each other.
Exchange and merchant processor interests are opposed to miner interests in the sense that they can't run a fair market if the miners are tampering with the chain in a way materially relevant to its market value, therefore they are incentivised to act as monitors to the pure mining nodes.

>>9192590
There are many different implementations of Bitcoin nodes. They run on vastly different architectures and programming languages.

Nothing stops you from rewriting your own node software without the use of any libraries. I could do it, if I had to. Biggest problem would be hashing and ECDSA, but auditing the existing code is possible.
Just look at the original bitcoind code. It's not -that- long, and for validation only, you could remove most of the code which deals with RPC calls and whatnot. Then you rewrite only that part. Would take someone a few months, given code to look at for.

>>9193048
> 10 of the 10 existing full node running datacenters if they received Bitcoin to their donation address, and all of them lying.
Doesn't make sense, if you're theorising about a situation in which they are prepared to collude, then they're prepared to collude to simply not mine that transaction into the chain period, and therefore it wouldn't actually be on the chain and they wouldn't be lying about it not being there.
For them to actually mine it and then lie about it would require just a single defector to prove that they're fraudulent, for them to simply not mine it is much easier and more straight forward.
> To know this, you only download all block headers.
And the headers dictate the content, or the content dictates the headers, whichever way you look at it, there's no tampering with a block and leaving the headers untouched.
> To know that a transaction really -didn't- happen on the longest PoW chain requires one to download the whole blockchain and to scan every single transaction to look for my address hash
No, if I tell you that transaction x happened, and I provide you a txid, and it's not there, then it didn't happen, you don't need to personally have a full node yourself to verify that, literally dozens of competitive and dispersed control third parties will independently verify it for you. And once again, removing those parties from the attack surface simply doesn't meaningfully modify what that attack surface actually is.

>>9186467
string of digital signatures (bitcoin) vs string of digital hashes (horrible abomination)

>>9193112
> There are many different implementations of Bitcoin nodes. They run on vastly different architectures and programming languages.
And if you're backdoored at the silicon level, this is of zero consequence.
And there are many different implementations of blockchain explorers, etc. And to block all of them, you would once again have to be capable of backdooring any of the potentially arising blockchain explorers at the silicon level to ensure that your con is not exposed.

>>9193085
>https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/520776
Look at https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/13bb616f0118e79677967332c1df1cd5326a6b1deb6463ee5717514e8078523f
This is the coinbase transaction. It contains two outputs. The first one (0) pays 12.81153917 BTC to the miner.

>Note the 12.5 "generation" as distinct from the fees.
This is just the info the website shows you because the website knows the rules for block reward.

To verify that the 12.81153917 BTC are the correct amount, you need to look at all inputs and outputs in the current block (and the outputs the inputs reference, most of them in previous blocks) to see the amount of Bitcoin they contained. Then you remove the amounts that were sent to the outputs within this block. The remainder are the fees you are allowed to send yourself with the block reward, namely the 0.31153917 BTC included with the 12.81153917 BTC in the coinbase transaction.

If the miner gave himself 23 Bitcoins instead of 12.8, you wouldn't be able to tell if it was ok or not without looking at all spent inputs and the new outputs. If you don't validate that every old output was spent correctly, a miner could create a transaction that spends an old output without having the needed correct cryptographic signature, and in that transaction, he could then pay himself a hefty fee despite the transaction not being valid. You can not know that this hasn't happened without validating the whole blockchain yourself, and nobody can prove to you that this hasn't happend in some other way that is cryptographically sound. You have to trust other node operators if you use SPV that this hasn't happened to the longest chain.

>>9193189
What you are talking about is not that easy to do. How would you even detect a reimplementation that hasn't existed when the CPU was built? And then change the runtime in such a way that it does not break, but provide just the results you want?

Oh, btw: At the moment, we can use a CPU from 2008 to validate the whole blockchain because it isn't too big to validate without a datacenter.

>>9193233
> This is the coinbase transaction. It contains two outputs. The first one (0) pays 12.81153917 BTC to the miner.
For it to be otherwise, would assume that other miners were willing to mine on top of it, when actually it would be an invalid block, and they wouldn't, So your attack surface goes from "every node willing to collude on changing consensus rules" to "every node willing to collude on changing consensus rules" (which is incidentally indistringuishable from a hard fork from a technical perspective at any rate)
> This is just the info the website shows you because the website knows the rules for block reward.
As does the node software and that is why it will not accept a block with an invalid coinbase transaction (the theoretical "we magically created coins situation") the explorer is doing exactly what a node would do, allowing you to audit the issuance of new coins.
> If the miner gave himself 23 Bitcoins instead of 12.8, you wouldn't be able to tell if it was ok or not without looking at all spent inputs and the new outputs.
Which you can do just as easily with an explorer as you can with a full node.

>>9193277
> What you are talking about is not that easy to do.
I'm not saying that it is, I'm pointing out that you can't apply the logic to only one side of the scale, if "x is hard therefore full nodes are safe" then also "x is hard therefore a wide and disparate field of third party full nodes that all provide the same information" is also safe, because both situations rely on the same ground.

At least post some images with your texts boys, it's not called an imageboard for nothing.

>>9193148
Maybe they collude at a later time, when the transaction has already happened. But yes, other collusion attacks are certainly possible if one requires a datacenter to run a fully validating node. Nowadays you need a PC and a few ASICs to potentially recuperate your costs. If you need a datacenter, that increases the effort of becoming a miner quite drastically. Just a few ASICS won't recuperate your costs for the datacenter even if you are lucky in finding blocks.

>And the headers dictate the content, or the content dictates the headers, whichever way you look at it, there's no tampering with a block and leaving the headers untouched.
Please, I'm explaining this in full here to show you that I even understand the non-obvious part of SPV payments. Nobody but you started talking about changing block hashes. I don't need to lie about block hashes or content to tell you "Nope, didn't see that address in any of my blocks". You just have to believe me if you don't have the blockchain yourself. That's my whole point. There is no trustless verification for non-existance of transactions.

I could even tell you that a certain txid does not exist if you only have all block headers without the merkle tree. The merkle root alone tells you nothing about which txids are in the tree, you need the full tree for that. And because the txid does not tell you which address received Bitcoin in it (obviously, as some tx can have hundreds of receiving outputs), I can also lie to you and tell you that a certain address has never received any Bitcoin, even though it has. I hope this was clear enough.

>>9193148
>No, if I tell you that transaction x happened, and I provide you a txid, and it's not there, then it didn't happen, you don't need to personally have a full node yourself to verify that, literally dozens of competitive and dispersed control third parties will independently verify it for you. And once again, removing those parties from the attack surface simply doesn't meaningfully modify what that attack surface actually is.

You can get proof from nodes that a transaction happened, I even said so in one of my first posts. What you can not get is proof that an address HAS NOT received bitcoin on the blockchain yet. I can lie and say "no' even if that address has been used thousands of times, because you can not tell from the merkle root or merkle tree, you can only tell by scanning the blockchain for yourself. There is no proof to show you for this, besides the whole blockchain.

>>9193277
And incidentally, the statement "you need to keep the block size at 1mb forever otherwise you can't validate it with a CPU from 2008" is flatly incorrect. You could verify blocks no matter how large with hardware no matter how old. It just takes longer. Therefore it is foolish to suggest fraud would be attempted when it could be so trivially detected "Well guys, we have intel, AMD, huawei, nvidia, all the ARM vendors on board, and we've cornered the market on old alpha64 chips and sparcs and etc, but damnit, we were foiled by this rogue agent and his trusty amiga 500."
I would say it is the stuff of paranoid conspiracy theorists, but the fact is that they at least frequently try to have a consistent threat model rather than one which they're only willing to apply to the solution which they'd prefer to avoid, and completely ignore when it comes to the solution they're trying to force down everyone else's throats like Blockstream are.

>>9192489
I wonder what whoever wrote that headline in The Times think about it being forever embedded into the genesis block.

>>9193286
>For it to be otherwise, would assume that other miners were willing to mine on top of it, when actually it would be an invalid block, and they wouldn't, So your attack surface goes from "every node willing to collude on changing consensus rules" to "every node willing to collude on changing consensus rules" (which is incidentally indistringuishable from a hard fork from a technical perspective at any rate)
YES. This is what happens when miners collude. They collude because they all win out, they can all pay themselves inflated fees and nobody will tell the rest. Hell, they could even add block explorer operators to the coinbase tx if they wanted.

Imagine this:
12.5 BTC block reward go to the miner.
1.3432 BTC fees go to the miner.
0.1 BTC each go to every colluding miner and block explorer/SPV node operator (which are probably miners, anyway, because the cost of running a block explorer/SPV node is much smaller if you run one for mining, anyway)

Users of Bitcoin would be unable to protect against this, and if this happens, they might be incentiviced to be ok with this minor inflation, because not being ok with it will mean they have to deal with their transactions being reverted. If they had run a validating node, they would have never seen the cheating, consensus breaking chain, and would incur no damages. Because they only ran an SPV client, however, they could not check for rule breaks and continued using the wrong chain/nodes for sending/receiving Bitcoin.

>>9193367
> if you need a datacenter
Is 1) stupid, because you don't need a datacenter to prove fraud on a block, period, no matter how big the blocks are and 2) extremely stupid, because you're talking about being restricted to a datacenter on a blockstream where 14kbps is the throughtput, "restricted to a data center" is ridiculous orders of magnitude higher than that, and that's only if you add the proviso "must work in real time and must provide rapid responses to n billion clients", neither of which are necessary for simply proving a block was fraudulently incorporated contrary to agreed consensus rules, which is what all the blockstream paranoia nonsense boils down to.
> I don't need to lie about block hashes or content to tell you "Nope, didn't see that address in any of my blocks".
You do if you're providing the requested blocks so the auditor can check for themselves and can run their own hashes on the block, which they can.

>>9193416
You have to validate faster than new blocks are created. If you validate at 1MB/s, blocks larger than 600MB will make it impossible for you to catch up if a block is found (on average) every 10 minutes (60 seconds * 10 * 1MB).

>"you need to keep the block size at 1mb forever otherwise you can't validate it with a CPU from 2008"
Nobody talks about 1MB forever. We are at 2.x MB right now, and we can increase that according to MEASUREABLE technological advances.

>I would say it is the stuff of paranoid conspiracy theorists, but the fact is that they at least frequently try to have a consistent threat model rather than one which they're only willing to apply to the solution which they'd prefer to avoid, and completely ignore when it comes to the solution they're trying to force down everyone else's throats like Blockstream are.
I'm not sure I understand you correctly, so please expand upon this if you can.

The threat model of miner collusion is not a weird one. It has happened on the BCH chain, to the detriment of the trust in BCH. Miners colluded with each other to fool the difficulty algorithm, and it resulted in much faster blocks than ever 10 minutes. About 100,000 Bitcoin were created much too soon, and you can even see that today on any price ticker that tracks supply. Because of this incident, I think it is very reasonable to asume miners to collude again, even if it might cause the price for Bitcoin to fall.

>>9193511
> Imagine this:
Absurd scenario, this information would absolutely be materially relevant to market trading, therefore the exchanges that run their own nodes would spot it in a nanosecond and report it, it could also be seen by *anyone that wanted to actually verify it's happening* just by running their own node. Basically this is "There's this enormous conspiracy between the managers of every piece of blockchain architecture in existence, and it relies on nobody examining the bitstream to verify at any time at all that it's going on, which they trivially could, just not in real time and at large scale, neither of which are necessary to actually prove fraud."
I can't emphasize enough how ridiculous this is.

>>9193646
> You have to validate faster than new blocks are created
No you don't, you can validate at any pace at all on any piece of the blockchain just by loading that single piece and validating it in isolation, the fact that it's embedded within a chain of blocks means that it's all linekd together and one finding of fraud proves that everyone was in on the con.

>>9193646
> Miners colluded with each other to fool the difficulty algorithm
Zero evidence that this is true, all that is actually known is that the difficulty adjustment algorithm resulted in an exploitable game theory condition, and some miners exploited it. "Miners colluded" requires knowing exactly who was involved and what their intent was. Is it bad? Yes, it's bad, but it's not as bad as what's going on in the main chain courtesy of blockstream, and it is an acceptable price to pay for the removal of that cancer.

>>9193588
>You do if you're providing the requested blocks so the auditor can check for themselves and can run their own hashes on the block, which they can.
Which blocks would you like to check to make sure your address isn't in them? Maybe all of them? That's identical to downloading the whole blockchain. Maybe you can get away with 'only' downloading and verifying all blocks since you started using a certain address, but come on, that's hardly a difference if we have to scale the blocksize to accomodate for every monetary transaction made world wide today (or half of that. 1000 times that with micro transactions).

>Is 1) stupid, because you don't need a datacenter to prove fraud on a block, period, no matter how big the blocks are and
You need to scan all blocks to find the fraud. Proving the fraud only requires the block, yes. But we are talking about collusion of a substantial amount of miners and other full node operators (should they exist in the future). And even if the fraud is found out, you can always claim it was an accident. And the longer you continue that 'bad' chain, the more people using SPV will want you to continue that chain because they incur damages from having to reinclude the transactions in to the new valid chain, and not owning the money in the mean time. If somebody doesn't somehow double spend them, making them lose money they thought they had for sure.

>>9192548
>Why bch instead of eth
One is striving to be a currency, the other isn't?

>>9193829
> Which blocks would you like to check to make sure your address isn't in them?
Is a different use case to
> Prove there has been some fraudulent activity that goes against agreed consensus rules.
You can do the latter purely in isolation by examining the bitstream and processing it at whatever speed you like.
You can do the former via SPV in the absence of the latter.
Since the fraud can be proven by examining the bitstream, it will therefore not happen, therefore you can rely on SPV.

>>9193829
> And the longer you continue that 'bad' chain
We're already continuing a completely terrible chain for going on nine months now all because of blockstream sabotage. You're discussing a far future distant theoretical problem which isn't actually theoretically possible on close examination, and ignoring an actual immediate real world problem that has already manifested and resulted in a bad chain for over nine months now.

>>9193588
>2) extremely stupid, because you're talking about being restricted to a datacenter on a blockstream where 14kbps is the throughtput

We don't need datacenters now. We will need them if we only scale on-chain and not through stuff like LN, though. Just do a back-of-the-envelope calculation for world-wide use. LN still needs 300MB blocks, despite offloading huge amounts of transactions. What do you think you need? 3GB blocks every 10 minutes? 30GB? 300GB? 1TB? And on top of receiving all that data, you also need to store it to give it to other people. 144TB per day isn't something you store on your PC any time soon.

>>9193712
If you want to think this is absurd, I don't really care. You might be right. I believe it's not ridiculous to think that drastically increasing the costs of running a node will cause only few people to run them. Especially miners who can make money off of transaction fees and block reward. Those miners will obviously also try to milk their investment by running all other services, like block explorers, exchanges, etc. And if there's only a limited number of those, they can be bribed to defraud all users by monetary inflation of Bitcoin. They have the means, there is no real protection, and there are good incentives for miners/node operators to do so.

>>9193940
>We don't need datacenters now. We will need them if we only scale on-chain and not through stuff like LN,
False dichotomy, there is no reason not to scale on and offchain, beyond all the problems with lightning which I believe make it objectively terrible as a second layer choice. The simple truth of it is that on chain scaling has been artificially limited by a central planning cabal who also just so happen to have their business interests advanced by that artificial limiting, and they have trotted out endless explanations as to why this must be done, when in fact there are none at all.
> believe it's not ridiculous to think that drastically increasing the costs of running a node will cause only few people to run them.
Drastically increasing the costs of running a node is not the same as allowing the chain to scale in accordance with market demand, period.
> They have the means, there is no real protection, and there are good incentives for miners/node operators to do so.
And far better incentives to stop them from doing so. It is a fake problem being trotted out as a distraction from the real problem which is actually killing BTC.

>>9193931
>... which isn't actually theoretically possible on close examination
Do you mean practically? Of course it's theoretically possible. And I'm arguing why it's not even super unlikely to happen in real life, especially given prior instances (BCH block inflation through miner collusion, 100,000 BCH mined too soon)

>ignoring an actual immediate real world problem that has already manifested and resulted in a bad chain for over nine months now.
Did I say anywhere that I was happy about high fees and slow confirmation times when it happened? I think it really hurt Bitcoin. It's just that all alternatives were worse. Sometimes you need to make hard decisions to protect the integrity of something. We haven't even touched on the whole hard fork/block size increase issue. I've just been arguing why it's infeasible to scale on-chain until we have world-wide adoption.

>>9193899
>Since the fraud can be proven by examining the bitstream, it will therefore not happen, therefore you can rely on SPV.
You have to download and validate every new block for that. Afterwards, you might be able to delete it. The UTXO set needs to be stored, though, and it will become quite big in the process, too. WIthout it, you can not know how many Bitcoin each output holds, so you are unable to verify fees paid.

If you need a datacenter to get new blocks fast enough (bandwidth) and to have enough CPU/RAM power to validate all transactions, not having to save all blocks isn't much of a cost save.

>>9194116
> Do you mean practically? Of course it's theoretically possible.
No, I mean theoretically. Because it can be detected. If you expand the definition to "They can behave fraudulently in clear view of the rest of the marketplace" then yes I would agree it could be theoretically done, I would also agree that would be suicidally stupid, and thus will not be practically done.
> especially given prior instances (BCH block inflation through miner collusion, 100,000 BCH mined too soon)
Because some unknown people for a limited time decided to exploit a bug in accordance with the actual rules of the system for their own short term benefit, the entire ecosystem of blockchain actors will act in concert against the rules of the system which will necessarily be seen by anyone looking for it, because it will result in their holdings being massively compromised.
That is not just insane, it is also stupid.
> It's just that all alternatives were worse. Sometimes you need to make hard decisions to protect the integrity of something.
This is like saying we must accept the continuance of regular rape because if we cross the road we might get mugged by aliens. It is indecipherably stupid.
> I've just been arguing why it's infeasible to scale on-chain until we have world-wide adoption.
Unsuccessfully.
> You have to download and validate every new block for that.
No you don't, if the violation of consensus rules happened in the blockstream at point x, you have proof of it simply by examining the blockstream at poitn x, the new blocks have nothing at all to do with it.

>>9194034
Ok, so let's scale on- and off-chain, like Bitcoin plans to. LN calls for 300MB blocks. We can not do that right now. The 2.xMB blocks with segwit aren't big enough for future usage increases, though, that much is certain.

I believe we should scale slowly and according to measurable increases in network bandwidth, consumer storage space, CPU speed, etc. We should also look at how LN and other solutions reduces the demand for blockchain space. And we should keep an eye on poor countries and allow their citizens to use Bitcoin trustlessly, too.

Fast growth of the blockchain is dangerous because one should be able to store it completely on normal devices (not datacenters). I think the current growth is kind of acceptable, although running a full node already costs me over 200GB of storage, which is not feasible for certain end user devices. Validation of the whole blockchain takes more than a day (or more than a week, depending on CPU/storage), which is bad, too. But there have been recent improvements, and maybe we'll get even better in the future.

>Drastically increasing the costs of running a node is not the same as allowing the chain to scale in accordance with market demand, period.
What blocksize would you consider ok for current demand? As I tried to explain above, I'm cautious, but still think that the 2.xMB are not enough for market demand right now, at least without people switching to LN.


>And far better incentives to stop them from doing so. It is a fake problem being trotted out as a distraction from the real problem which is actually killing BTC.
What incentives stop them from doing so? The same incentives that should have stopped BCH miners to collude and inflate current coin supply by 100,000 BCH?

>>9194348
> like Bitcoin plans to.
If you haven't been around very long you may think this, but they have been talkling about raising the block size for going on four years now, it never happens, it probably never will happen, because it is not in their business interests for it to happen, frankly, if you trust BTC at this point in time, you should just be lobbying for blockstream to start their own version of paypal and implement much the same technical architecture, because that is what is actually going on below the decentralisation theater.
> We can not do that right now.
I don't actually buy this, but it also proves that this is just more nonsense, assuming the only options are 1mb or 300mb.
I'm finished with this discussion because to me it seems pretty clear at this point you're just parroting back blockstream talking points, whether you know it or not, and none of it is accurate, nor makes any sense, so, good luck with that.
(c)

>>9194348
> What blocksize would you consider ok for current demand?
There is a disincentive for miners to raise the block size too quickly, if they raise it higher than other miners are willing to build upon, they risk raising their orphan rate and thus cutting into their margins, therefore, whatever miners as a group decide is the appropriate block size, should be the appropriate block size. They have both incentives and disincentives to raising it, and they provide the actual space and bear the cost of doing so, it makes perfect sense to allow market forces to apply and reach an equilibrium rather than centrally plan it by provably malicious actors privileging their own business interests.
> What incentives stop them from doing so?
Parties who are not necessarily miners, such as exchange operators and merchants, who want to use the instrument as money are incentivised to ensure that miners do not behave in this fashion.
> The same incentives that should have stopped BCH miners to collude and inflate current coin supply by 100,000 BCH?
Right, which they did, it was a complete bloodbath in the markets at the time that the difficulty adjustment algorithm bug was discovered, and indisputably damaged the actual value of the currency at the time. It is now priced in, by definition, it was never hidden, it is old news, and nobody is surprised by it.

>>9194214
>I would also agree that would be suicidally stupid, and thus will not be practically done.
Not sure if it's that stupid. I don't believe so, but I guess we won't see eye to eye on this.

>Because some unknown people for a limited time decided to exploit a bug in accordance with the actual rules of the system for their own short term benefit, the entire ecosystem of blockchain actors will act in concert against the rules of the system which will necessarily be seen by anyone looking for it, because it will result in their holdings being massively compromised.
They threw their own Altcoin under the bus for some short term monetary gains. This could have been the end of BCH, and they didn't care. And colluded, changing their software to pull of the heist.

The attack I described can be upheld indefinitely if the system is already broken, btw. Who cares about some minor coin inflation if the alternative is that we have to start a new blockchain because the old one has become way too expensive to verify? There's money to be made elsewhere, and the miners NEED those extra coins. At least they say so and won't provide us with their datacenters if we don't agree, too. But if you disagree here, too, I guess we really have to scale Bitcoin super fast, because the damage we see right now is probably much more severe than the damage incured by the chance of such a hostage situation, at least according to you?

>No you don't, if the violation of consensus rules happened in the blockstream at point x, you have proof of it simply by examining the blockstream at poitn x, the new blocks have nothing at all to do with it.
Yes, but how would you know to look at point x, and not point y? You have to do the work all the time, and can't cherry pick the right block, because you can't know which block the mining cartel will use for their scheme. And if you only check every 50th block, that's enough confirmations to cause what I described above.

>>9194574
> They threw their own Altcoin under the bus for some short term monetary gains.
I'm not going to let this one slide though because you really don't seem to understand how mining works. Case in point, I manage a large mining facility. if a bug is detected in BTC that results in massive payouts for miners, bet your ass I will exploit it, because I despise BTC due to what blockstream has done to it, at the same time many other altruistic miners on that chain may well not, because they don't want to compromise the value of it.
The exact same situation applies to any other chain, BCH included, not "all miners" colluded to exploit the DAA bug, some miners exploited it, and there is zero evidence of any collusion at all, and also zero evidence of any links between those that did exploit it and those that sponsored the hard fork and made it happen.
> Yes, but how would you know to look at point x, and not point y?
Because the party that is actually wronged by the fraud has every incentive in the world to point it out, and can easily do so, everyone else can then verify that it took place, fraud explosed. It is not possible to do it in secret, end of story.

>>9194519
>If you haven't been around very long...
I've been around since 2010/2011, at least that is when I did one of my first Bitcoin transactions (if you had read my earlier posts from today, you'd see that) I won't say I've been completely focused on Bitcoin all the time, but I've made up for that in 2016 and 2017.

>I don't actually buy this, but it also proves that this is just more nonsense, assuming the only options are 1mb or 300mb.
Ok. Guess there's no discussion to carry on with you. I've explained the reasoning behind any of my points, so I'm sad that you still think I'm just parroting back "blockstream talking points".

There are thousands of options for increasing the block size. But the end game of on-chain scaling will look dire if we don't scale off-chain, too. And arguing for 2, 4, 8, 16 or 100MB blocks (with LN) right now is also really hard because predicting how then network and the future will behave is difficult. I want to be careful with our money, and we need hard data to back up scaling debates. Just like that paper on block propagation on the p2p network. But let's not go into that right now, it's a bit too old, anyway.

The attacks I described can not be ruled out, and I find them (or similar attacks) to be likely in the event that the main cryptocurrency fucks up scaling.

>>9194649
>Because the party that is actually wronged by the fraud has every incentive in the world to point it out, and can easily do so, everyone else can then verify that it took place, fraud explosed. It is not possible to do it in secret, end of story.
That party would be everybody in the case of a miner just paying themselves inflated fees and not confirming a wrong tx. Those coins would come from nothing. Nobody would need to be directly defrauded.

if they were to confirm a tx with a wrong signature, the coins might come from any Bitcoin owner. But they would have to find out this happened, first. By scanning the Blockchain for it, and they need to at least download every block for that.

>The exact same situation applies to any other chain, BCH included, not "all miners" colluded to exploit the DAA bug, some miners exploited it, and there is zero evidence of any collusion at all, and also zero evidence of any links between those that did exploit it and those that sponsored the hard fork and made it happen.
Ok, great. We agree that miners can not be trusted to not play games to increase their monetary gain.

>zero evidence of any collusion at all
So how did they pull it off? AFAIK, not just a few miners had to report wrong timestamps, which points to a concerted effort. That's collusion in my book, but maybe we are arguing about semantics here?

It's today, Bitcoin (BTC) have 32 MB blocks, 0 conf transactions and everything happens on the blockchain.

It forks! Bitcoin Cash (BCH) reduces the blocks to 1 MB, make transactions reversible and promises faster transactions through a complicated off-chain system that requires you to always be online to receive money, requires you to lock money on-chain to start making transactions and requires you to have more than 1 client.

Would this new fork have any chance to win?

>>9194947
children!
this anon is one of the very few genuinely smart people left on this board. it's rare to find one of them out in the wild these days.
marvel the beauty and finesse

>>9194975
If 32MB-BTC would not integrate the needed opcodes for the complicated off-chain system that enables micropayments (something impossible with every existing system), I'm sure the fork would have a good chance of becoming #1.

Especially considering most of the good developers might be switching to the fork, working on schnorr signatures and other improvements that are much easier to implement because of the changes they could introduce during the hard fork.

I'll agree that the 32MB-Coin might have a good chance of staying around, though. At least until it's obvious that the other chain has all meaningful development.

>>9195042
Procastination is a bitch.

Don't worry, after today I'll vanish for weeks. Only to post again when my next deadline draws near.