/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>9194308
So which is the real Bitcoin?

>>9194347
Both of them, just leave us alone

>>9194347
Just buy ETH and leave the bitcoin shit-show the fuck alone.

>>9194386
>t. bargaining stage

>>9194386
>ETH
ummm try again sweetie xx
ETC is the real ethereum

>>9194347

>>9194347
By definition the blockchain with the longest chain.
Right now it's BTC, but BCH might eventually take the lead.

did someone say
SLIGHTLY LARGER BLOCKS!!!???

>>9194464
You misread the white paper.
That sentance refers to mere rejected blocks. Not complete hardforks. The BCH code never changed that day the fork happened, besides the block limit being raised. The BTC code was fundamentally changed. The only reason they got to keep the current chain is because they managed to get miner support somehow

Therefore they both have valid claims to the name bitcoin, and noone can call either chain a scam. I personally much prefer BCH and own no BTC

I think Memo is going to get bigger and bigger, and for more applications than just shitposting. Torrent links, journalism, nefarious shit, and "hidden in plain sight" peer to peer encrypted communication. Probably a shit load of applications I can't think of too

>>9194735
They promised the miners they'd double the blocksize and then fucking didn't do it blatantly choking the chains adoption through provable nefarious means

>>9194735
Deluded retard I can't wait for bcash to fucking die

>>9195517
>They promised the miners they'd double the blocksize
That doesn't even make sense. Larger blocksize means lower transactions fees. Miners love small blocks. They get the same mining rewards with small or large blocks but significantly more fees with small ones.

>>9194308
What happens when the blocks get too big and you need a massive amount of computing power to mine?
Wouldn't this lead to only select people being able to mine it and making it more centralized?

>>9195601
Yeah well its not going to because we believe in it. No one believes in core, they just use it for trading pairs

Thanks for popping in my thread

>>9195353
Memo will aparently have more charicters when the block limits increase to 32MB.

Personally think they should be made unlimited to prevent future hastle over scaling

>>9195996
Right now it works with OP_RETURN which currently is 80 bytes and will be increased to 220 bytes on the May 15 upgrade. Memo is still in alpha but it is theoretically possible to string together multiple transactions together to make a bigger memo, they just need to add that functionality to the memo protocol and I think they will.

>>9195666
So yall are just gonna ignore this?

>>9196640
It doesn't fit the narrative. BIGGER IS BETTER BIGGER IS BETTER WHO CARES IF THE BLOCKCHAIN GROWS BY FIFTY TERABYTES PER YEAR

>>9196640
Probably

>>9195666
This
My 1st generation iphone can't mine more than 10mb per hour so bcash is a scam

>>9195666
>>9196640
People are ignoring it because it's retarded.

Computing power is spent when mining calculating hashes for pow, not collecting the actual transactions. A BTC block with 1 tx and a BTC block with 9999999 tx are going to take basically the same amount of computing power to mine, because the power required scales with the difficulty of the pow NOT with the blocksize.

>>9197106
Larger blocks take longer to propagate. However, when you have solved a block yourself, there is no delay (regardless of the size), because you already have all of the block data and have already checked it.

So, let's say a miner has 40% of the network hashing power. They solve 40% of the blocks. That means 40% of the time, they have essentially NO latency in starting to work on the next block, regardless of block size. Smaller miners who might mine 1% of the blocks have to wait for the latest block to be propagated to them 99% of the time. So the larger miner will be affected by block propagation delays 60% of the time, whereas the smaller miner is affected by block propagation delays 99% of the time.

Since mining operations with a smaller portion of the hash power are disadvantaged in this way, it can lead to decreased profits and encourages centralization into a few large pools.

>>9194308
>undeletable unmoderated shitposting

Thanks just bought 100k

>>9197189
The more profitable something is, the more entities pop up that will compete. In regards to block propagation, yeah the block solver gets a head start on the next block, but if it's so large that it doesn't propagate to the rest of the network fast enough, they risk being orphaned as others solve their own block before the huge block is downloaded. This balancing act is what "sets" the block size, it essentially lets the market decide how big blocks get to be.

BCH will win in the end.

>>9195517
The original actors who wanted the 2x fork called it off AND it was glitched so when they tried it anyway it couldn't get past the first 2mb block.

i think BTC will kill BCH because the BTC whales are fucking savage and ruthless motherfuckers and if push comes to shove they will use their clout to have regulators shut down BCH in exchanges and have BCH leaders arrested for money laundering

the one thing ive learned from crypto is bitcoin whales do not like competition and will fuck your shit up with their sledgehammers of money

>>9194735
They had miner support because in August they said that segwit2x was coming and increase block size. They reneged on that and sold out to blockstream

>>9197409
BCH has multiple billionaires backing it, and it is pursuing what gave BTC its original value. Usage as money. It's clear that there are forces that want BCH gone, be it BTC whales or something else, idk, but BCH has so far endured the longest, most vitriolic FUD campaign ever seen in crypto, yet it remains in the top 5.

Crypto whales are nothing compared to outside world whales, don't put too much weight on what they want. In the end, crypto's value is in its usage, and BCH has tunnel vision on usage and adoption.

>>9197106
hash power is over 20% and rising

>>9195635
Until they move everything offchain in which case the miners get nothing.

Bigger blocks mean more fees, its the only way for miners to survive as less and less bitcoin will be available as the years pass, we need massive adoption and small fees like billions of transactions a day.

>>9195666

mining is already concentrated into the hands of well capitalized operations due to the value of the network. As it grows and there is more profit opportunity organizations such as Bitmain are created and grow. Even the small miners are incentivized to join pools in order to reduce variance in hitting block rewards (hitting a block becomes harder per hash as network hash power increases). These small miners also do not even need to run a full node; only the pool leader does so bigger blocks don't actual stop anyone from mining. Regardless, big ASIC operations account for 99% of the hashpower. Bigger blocks only mean that these operations need to divert some of their resources into memory and bandwidth for their nodes rather than putting it all into hashing (seems like you might be confused here because bigger blocks don't make it any harder to mine BTC; i.e. compute hash algorithms. They just bloat the size of the chain requiring more memory to store it and they increase the bits/second that need to flow across the internet between nodes requiring more bandwidth).

BTC and BCH share the exact same pool of hash power as miners switch between the two networks constantly maintaining an equilibrium where $/hash is the same between the two chains. They therefore have equal centrality. This will not change as BCH's blocks grow. All of the bigger miners will have a clear economic incentive to scale their node hardware (again these groups account for 99% of the hash) and those miners who cannot will simply point their hash power to a pool and use their full node (something they would be doing anyways for block reward reasons). Nothing really changes except the miners who already dominate the network have to make some infrastructure investment outside of ASICs.

the important decentralization threshold is censorship resistance. Beyond that there isn't really much added benefit and BTC will always maintain this threshold because the miners are incentivized to.

>>9197106

this

fucking core brainlets don't even have a clue how this all works

>>9197486
Why would they do something that would cause the miners to get nothing when one of the main proponents of bcash is Jihan Wu?

>>9197189

Centralization into pools is already encouraged to reduce block reward variance. Solo miners might take years to hit a block at current difficulty.

I would like to see some calcs on the affects latency has. As blocks grow so will the bandwith between nodes so it may not be a problem that increases with blocksize at any significant rate.

>>9197472
i think that bitcoin's primary purpose has become a store of value, like gold, but transferable across the world.

BCH is going for usage as a currency or payment method, which BTC definitely cannot do. however keep in mind a currency or payment method can be competed with by regular fiat, or any other cryptocurrency that devises a better payment system

BTC is so powerful because it's dominance is based on market share, not technology. as such, every dollar into bitcoin means one less dollar for a bitcoin store of value rival, and the longer BTC stays on top the stronger it's claim as digital gold becomes

>>9197472
>Crypto whales are nothing compared to outside world whales, don't put too much weight on what they want

keep in mind peter thiel, one of the smartest, richest people in the world recently took a huge stake in bitcoin

if bitcoin starts being adopted as a reserve currency basket component it will go to the trillions real fast. it may go to the trillions even without that

>>9197810
But LN will provide cheap payments. Just like Satoshi predicted.

>>9197189
Same 3 mining pools have majority of both.
https://arewedecentralizedyet.com/

>>9197810
>keep in mind peter thiel, one of the smartest, richest people in the world recently took a huge stake in bitcoin

i was actually going to link to the original article, but when i googled it i found this, just today

https://www.ccn.com/peter-thiels-founders-fund-backs-crypto-broker-founded-by-goldman-sachs-alum/

>“I would be long bitcoin, and neutral to skeptical of just about everything else at this point with a few possible exceptions. There will be one online equivalent to gold, and the one you’d bet on would be the biggest,” Thiel said in March in an interview hosted by the Economic Club of New York

>>9197810
The store of value meme is just that, a meme. It was the narrative that core pushed as soon as TXs became too expensive for BTC to be used for anything else. Think about it, it's only a store of value as long as people continue to buy it, and people only started buying it because it worked as a currency, or they speculated it'd become the new currency of the world. That's no longer going to be happening, so for it to still be a store of value, you're really just investing in the greater fool who buys after you, it's essentially become the definition of a ponzi scheme.

BTC's dominance in the market is a result of its original momentum as a currency, you can see it in the historical market dominance graph. The moment it lost its ability to transact cheaply and reliable, right at the time the 1mb limit was hit, the market dominance dropped from over 80% to about 38% dominance while different alt coins took the demand and began taking increasing chunks of the market.

I can't speak for Peter Thiel, his actions are his own. I know I can't make myself put money in BTC because it just isn't what I originally fell in love with in crypto. The "store of value" claim doesn't hold up in my view.

bitcoin cash is the best cryptocurrency.

>>9198002
>That's no longer going to be happening

Found the problem.

>>9198029
Tons of merchants dropped BTC during the December fees. There isn't a debate about that, it's a fact. It's the first time in BTC's history where merchant adoption reversed.

>>9198022
>The longest running blockchain dating back to Satoshi's Genesis Block

>>9198002
you've made your case pretty well so i won't make fun of you or insult you. this is actually the first, only actual debate ive ever had on biz that didn't devolve into shit throwing so ill just address your points as intelligently as i can

>>9198002
>It was the narrative that core pushed as soon as TXs became too expensive for BTC to be used for anything else

you are correct. however, that doesn't mean they're wrong or that the argument is dishonest. bitcoin has failed as a digital currency for the exact same reason it is succeding as a store of value

>>9198002
>Think about it, it's only a store of value as long as people continue to buy it, and people only started buying it because it worked as a currency, or they speculated it'd become the new currency of the world

not at all, i can prove it personally. I learned about bitcoin in 2014 and had no desire to invest in it because it was useless as a currency. why would i use something decentralized with fees when i can use something like my visa card with no fees or even negative fees (cash back). however, once i heard the store of value argument i invested immediately. i am not alone - there have been many stories about the physical gold market being crowded out by the bitcoin market.

>>9198002
>so for it to still be a store of value, you're really just investing in the greater fool who buys after you, it's essentially become the definition of a ponzi scheme.

what you just said could be said of gold. gold has no intrinsic value outside of industrial uses (small portion of its demand). it pays no yield. it does not evolve. it is 100% inert. it never, ever grows or changes. and yet it has endured for thousands of years because storing value is not a "ponzi scheme." it's a real demand from real people. look at all the venezuelans desperate for bitcoin. they are not ponzi suckers. bitcoin's value is literally keeping them from starving to death.

>>9198002
>he moment it lost its ability to transact cheaply and reliable, right at the time the 1mb limit was hit, the market dominance dropped from over 80% to about 38% dominance while different alt coins took the demand and began taking increasing chunks of the market.

you may be right. it might also be because new players were entering the game with new ideas. ETH has nothing to do with either being a store of value or even a currency. it's a functional, intrinsically verifiable contract mechanism.

>>9198002
>I can't speak for Peter Thiel, his actions are his own. I know I can't make myself put money in BTC because it just isn't what I originally fell in love with in crypto. The "store of value" claim doesn't hold up in my view.

that's fine. ive studied thiel for some time, ive taken some MBA courses that focused on his career and leadership style

the only thing i can say is that if peter thiel is investing in something, you should be investing in it too.

>>9198371
by the time any big investor shills you anything its usually a sell signal. Big money thinks a little differently than you and I

yeah, kanye tweeted about bitcoin then I heard kim said he bought a bunch at 18k so he has some heavy bags.

>>9198326
Thanks for having an actual debate about this, I wish more people would actually partake like you decided to. Far too much vitriol on this subject, overall.

With gold, the fact that it does have uses beyond a store of value, industrial use, it's pretty to look at, the fact that it was historically a means of exchange for THOUSANDS of years(and still is in some cases today), all contribute now to its store of value claim today.

One can make the argument that BTC is pretty to look at and you can still use it as a medium of exchange, but it does still lack the tried and true history of gold, and I suspect that a lot of its value is just as a vehicle for people to invest in alts. Also the fact that if it loses enough value in a short enough time, it won't be profitable to mine and if difficulty wont readjust fast enough and it will be unusable in exchange as its blockchain freezes in time.

But let's assume you're right, that BTC can and will be the store of value of the future. Since gold is the go to store of value, we can use its marketcap as an indicator of how well BTC might do in the future. According to https://cointelegraph.com/news/how-bitcoin-does-versus-gold-fiat-and-all-worlds-money which is a bit outdated, gold has a $8.2T marketcap. If BTC were to take 100% of gold's marketcap, if we take the current circulating supply we'd see a value of roughly $482k per BTC. Quite a lot, right? Well, let's look at Money instead, which according to the link above sits at a total marketcap of $86.6T. So if BCH took only 10% of the Money marketcap, it would outdo BTC taking 100% of the traditional "store of value" marketcap. So which is the better store of value? I think any claim to BTC being a store of value is equally valid for BCH being a store of value, along with the fact that BCH has utility on top of that.

>>9198623
All that said, about money, store of value etc. I think BCH has the potential to exceed just usage as money. In my view, every single alt coin is just a money built for a single use case of digital currency. If BCH can scale worldwide, there's no reason that any alt use case can't be built on top of BCH. It's already happening too, something like Steemit now has competition from BCH on yours.org , privacy coins have competition with BCH with cashshuffle.com , idk if there is any alt advertising uncensorable social media, but it already exists on BCH at memo.cash.

Something more extreme like Ethereum, we'll have to see how BCH does with the op codes being reactivated in the May upgrade, but I'm very optimistic about it, I'm sure you can tell. Something like crypto kitties on BCH might sound silly, but BCH is built with a "the more the merrier" mentality when it comes to use cases, and the network wont grind to a halt from a few tens of thousands of crypto kitty transactions like etheruem did.

>generals on /biz/
kill yourself painfully

>>9198623
lol btrash

>>9194308
sold all my bch quite a while ago and feel great about it. thx for the free cash Ver and co

>>9199443
>>9194308
oh and sage, diagf, etc etc

>>9197409
BTC whales are also BCH whales.

>>9194308
Why isn't maxblocksize dynamically decided like difficulty is?

>>9194467
>segwit

>>9194735
>miner support
I thought it was enforced by UASF? Also just like America voting should have be left to landowners/miners. This is why you don't enfranchise everyone within a system, dumb mother fuckers.

>>9195635
Aside from the fact Blockstream's business plan is to get transactions off chain (fucking miners), having crippled adoption is far worse for making money than billions of people paying less than a cent per transaction.

>>9195666
>Wouldn't this lead to only select people being able to mine it and making it more centralized?
You mean like it is now? Miners don't even have to run a node themselves. If you're in a pool the only one actually required to run a node is the pool operator.

will i make it with 46 bch?

>>9197409
Imagine being this much of a faggot.

>REEE competition
>government do something!

>>9197839

>>9198072
It actually is though.

>unironically letting a cashie near your children

Risky business desu

>>9198326
>using a credit card
>2018

Confirmed never spent crypto in his fucking life. Shit works like a dream, so much easier than cards and far far more secure.

>>9198771
>prefers pajeet spam
>you did buy x?
>you enjoy being poor /biz/?
>never bet against the normies! BAZANGA

Meanwhile we're discussing tech. So kindly fuck off to your PnD's, brainlet.

>>9198404
This is such a meme.

>>9197189
This is the hidden block fallacy, the problem is that miners want to be rewarded and broadcast as quickly as possible to prevent someone else from solving their block. which is why BTC is a small world graph and not a mesh.

>>9194735
you seem to be completely ignorant on how oss development works. im not going to spoonfeed you, but heres a start: google hard forks, soft forks and backwards compatibility. maybe youll understand that youre spewing bullshit right now.

BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH

>>9195517
the fork did happen, the only problem was that the main developer (grazik iirc) is so inept and stupid that the fork couldnt even mine the first 2mb block and got stuck on fork block. it was also a complete rookie mistake (i think it was simple increment error, basically a 12 yo level mistake).
say what you will about core, they might be scheming kikes, but at least they can code.

>>9201769

Don't be so fucking naive. Segwit2x was meant to fail, Garzik and co took the opportunity to swindle money out of 2x proponents by cancelling at last minute, I guarantee you they made millions shorting 2x and longing BTC and BCH.

>>9197300
i think you misunderstood what >>9197189 meant.
hes saying that the larger the blocks get, the more influence large miner has. in his example the increased block size (and thus increased block propagation time) increases the influence of the miner with 40% of total hashrate to way above 40%. this happens because this miner gets a noticeable head start (which increases with larger block sizes) on 40% of blocks. this way he will solve a lot more that 40% of blocks even with only 40% of total hashrate: again, the bigger the blocks, the larger this differential is.
the larger the blocks become, the easier it becomes to 51% attack the chain: exact numbers are difficult to calculate, but it might be enough to have as low as 30% of total hashrate to mine more than 50% of blocks with blocksize of 32mb.

>>9194308
btcp is the real bch. inb4 muh zksnarks hur
'muh flippening' you faggots reiterate is actually btcp > bch. /thread. fud the fuck away.
muh 14% bch gains LUL.
btcp 500 eoy. screencap this.

>>9194308
berore ro ri ru e re boreru

>>9198757
> If BCH can scale worldwide, there's no reason that any alt use case can't be built on top of BCH. It's already happening too, something like Steemit now has competition from BCH on yours.org , privacy coins have competition with BCH with cashshuffle.com , idk if there is any alt advertising uncensorable social media, but it already exists on BCH at memo.cash.
the problem is, this never actually happens in the real world. you could say the same about thousands of things ("theres no need to have multiple OSs, you can do everything on unix!", "theres no need to have multiple screw standards, you can use din912 for everything!"). in reality, theres always some trade offs that will limit your use cases and something that claims to be good for everything usually is good for nothing. then theres also politics and people simply not liking your standard, thus developing their own. i mean ffs, theres not even one universal way to measure mass: we have kg, lb (uk) and lb (us). why do you think well have one universal blockchain for everything?

>>9201816
i never said he didnt. i was replying to anon who claimed that core somehow blocked 2x fork (how the fuck can you even block someone from forking oss?) through some mystical nefarious means.
i wouldnt be surprised if bch was actually just a plot to make a quick buck from swindled idiots, but got way out of hand and now has a life of its own.

>>9201296
there is no fallacy here: you can be honest and want to broadcast your block asap, it will simply take a lot longer to propagate 32mb of data through a decentralized network than it would take to propagate 1mb.

do I have to take my bch off exchanges for the may 15th non contentious hard fork?

>>9202184

Only headers need to be propagated, the rest of the data can flow over the 10 minutes average block time. You're making up horseshit to FUD large blocks, kike.

>>9201935
I think you're not understanding my answer. If you're 40% of the network and you don't propagate your large block in a timely manner to the rest of the 60%, on average they will outmine you and orphan your slow to propagate block that you are building on. You're statistically likely to lose out against the 60%, you risk losing your solved block reward plus all work done on the block you're building next if you get orphaned.

This risk is why even if there were enough TXs to fill a terabyte block, you wont fill a terabyte block because you cant propagate it fast enough(today, at least). This push and pull of forces will "set" the block size limit to whatever the average of the network can handle.

>>9202091
The main reason to have just a single currency is the main reason Bitcoin was created in the first place. To have something completely inflation proof. Currently, there is a new coin popping up for every single use case, with a brand new supply created just for that one use. I imagine there are infinite use cases someone can think of, thus potentially infinite supply of digital tokens. It's an inflation system all over again. Maybe people will decide that's what they want, but I have a feeling it will collapse on itself like every other inflation system.

>>9202199
No

>>9202314
To build on this, you could imagine that instead of increased block sizes that delay propagation, the miner just selfishly mines on his block instead of propagating it right away, the effect is exactly the same. This is possible right now on the BTC chain. Turns out being a selfish miner doesn't pay off, we don't see it happening, despite a certain paper claiming it does based on incorrect assumptions.

Nice. BCH price still stays around 0.14-0.15.
That's a good sign, no one is dumping it like before.

>>9203583
HOLY SHIT...
Someone just pumped it past previous resistance levels....

>>9203994
Why are you surprised?

>>9204146
I just didn't expect this happening this soon and so suddenly...

This is a war with only one coin coming out of it alive.

>>9204782
No, this a war in which bcash will get regulated to dead do to poor understanding of politics, and btc will be killed for representing a danger to state/bank run cryptos. The whole shit is a text book conquer, divide and destroy OP. Respect to the bankers and state agents pulling it off. They've managed to win where they lost during the election