/biz/ - Business & Finance

It's not the coin, it's the cultists.
Any coin would be hated if their public representation was a bunch of screeching lunatics screaming "THIS COPY THAT CAME AFTER IS THE ORIGINAL! BECAUSE I SAY SO! REEEEEEEE"

They could have just gone for a much more realistic "This one is best used for transactions, this is the speculation coin" approach, but no, they had to ruin everything with a polarizing gospel that no one outside of their brainwashed cult would dare to associate with.

They mostly don't.
The people who do are;
1) paid to.
2) unwilling to acknowledge their decision to sell at 300 was because they fell victim to a scam themselves. It is much easier for them to believe that they avoided a scam and are very clever having done so. Protects the self image.
3) evaluating on character and political propaganda. There have been tons of character assassinations from btc to bch but little in the opposite direction. If you're the kind of person who picks a side based on personalities then your choice is obvious.
4) just mindlessly following the herd without noticing higher price is objectively less valuable than 10x superior market performance.

>free fireworks

Its just a overrated fork, that's all it is

>>9476941

>>9476975
Its the best coin on the market but its not the top of the market so how can it possibly be overrated?

>>9476941
If you make your decisions based on a few autists on twitter then you're never going to make it

See, what you kids don't understand these days is, the secret to success is not stabbing your Superior in the back so you can steal his position by making him look bad and getting him fired. It's about getting behind your higher ups and helping to propel them forward by making them look good. As they succeed you succeed.

You mention normies... what do you think normies will think when/if btc dies? I think normie money will exit crypto never to return if the most popular coin dies. The crypto space is probably filled with fiance geeks and computer science nerds. The vast majority of normies can't understand what bitcoin is, much less what the drama between the two btc and bch is all about. do you honestly think bitcoin dying will be healthy for this emerging market? if you do you are delusional and you need to spend some time outside of this echo chamber called /biz/.

>>9477062
BTC isn't superior, it's a sabotaged product designed to destroy the decentralised aspects of the system and bring it back under banking control.
If the choice is that or we burn it all to the ground, we burn it all to the ground.
The original vision will not be stopped, and certainly not because of some quaint boomer analogy about not having paid one's dues that actually applies far better in reverse, as it's Maxwell's vision which is the upstart, not Satoshi's.

>>9477001
You have to be so insanely retarded to accept this line of “logic.” If CocaCola changed to nerve gas, it would mean CocaCola is now nerve gas. If Pepsi came out with something that tastes like the original recipe of SatoshiCola THEN IT WOULD STILL BE PEPSI AND WOULD NEVER BE COCA-COLA BC THE LATTER IS NOW NERVE GAS. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU EPIC RETARDS? DO YOU NOT REALIZE HOW INSANELY STUPID AND DELUSIONAL YOU SOUND?

>>9477122
You mean something new that the guy that mined it to begin with insists on calling bitcoin cash?
The point of that joke isn't that the name matters and bitcoin cash should get it, it's that the product is what actually matters. Nerve gas is nerve gas, central bank money is central bank money, cola is cola, and peer to peer electronic cash is peer to peer electronic cash. And what you call any of those things is irrelevant to those facts.

>Why do people hate Bitcoin Cash?
I hate the cancerous commuinity behind this altcoin. Also I have concerns that not limiting the block size on layer 0 will lead to problems if the coin actually is used to pay stuff. The blockchain size would grow too fast, this leads to high centralisation (desu. who sacrifies terabytes of data for a single wallet in 5 years?). If bcash would support dapps those problems will be here even faster. And you have no solution but increasing storage, since you want to sign every single transaction yourself.
Bitcoin suns on Lightning now, of course there's not a signature for every single transaction (do you really need that?), until I send it on layer 0 which is still possible. Think about it, compressing transactions is the only way of making a decentralised payment system functional AND decentralized. To lightning: Many large hubs with a lot of centralized hubs make a decentralized system.

>/r/bitcoin and bitcointalk.com have a massive censorship and shilling campaign
You mean they delete "muuh Bitcoin Cash is the real bitcoin" shitposting? I'm not impressed.

>Greg maxwell is a fat neckbeard
every developer is beautiful kek

>>9477139
THEN WHY CALL IT BITCOIN CASH???! Jesus, you people don’t have any concept of how stupid you sound. It’s really quite amazing.

>>9477171
Exhibit A for just how hard people will cling to the decentralisation meme in the face of overwhelming evidence exactly what they say is necessary for the maintenance of it is actually what is destroying it.
I think most people are actually incapable of admitting they were wrong. Especially if they were wrong because they were tricked. I remember quite well the three day period where I finally decided this block size debate had gone on for long enough and the big blockers claims had to be summarily properly demolished in order for the space to move forward. It was ego destroying to slowly realize I had been tricked, and actually it was I who was utterly wrong.
Most people don't seem to be able to cope with that and instead result to whatever rationalizations are necessary to maintain their narrative, case in point.

>>9477199
Because that's what it is? You don't seem to realise how unhinged you sound.

>>9477213
>selecting 2 large hubs to colourful highlight them
between many other large hubs. Why don't you just share the link to the live visualizer? lnmainnet.gaben.win

30 min conf time currently

>>9477094
everyone wants to be a better bitcoin. only bcash is trying to steal the name.

>>9477249
The point of the image is to demonstrate the simple fact that a routed staked network will necessarily be hub and spoke oriented in order to route payments, because there is no solution to the routing problem without this.
Your image shows it as well. The hubs are extremely visible abs exactly what the BCH camp has been saying would be the inevitable result all along, and that actually it was the intention all along.
They were and are right. It is not an accident. It is the design.

>>9477286
Plenty of people unironically believe it actually is bitcoin, and thus they call it that. In the meantime the guy who mined it insists on calling it bitcoin cash, and it's the emotionally wrought core supporters desperate to save themselves that insist on calling it bcash to deny the fact of its heritage.
Do you ever see bgold or bprivate or bdiamomd or bdark? No, because those aren't a threat to bcore, while bitcoin cash can and very likely will destroy it.

>>9477286
>everyone wants to be a better bitcoin.
This is what gets me the most about the altcoin market.
You need some project behind your coin, something that sets it apart.
BCH has nothing.
You know a coin that's faster, has better scalability, lower rates, higher potential usage, and isn't bogged down by an ongoing dick measuring contest every time they want to make a change?

Digibytes.
The butt of every joke of this board is unironically a better altcoin then BCH on every single measurable metric you could choose.

>>9477318
Those who think that simply don't understand >>9477145

>>9477338
DGB is a multi-algo (SHA-256 amongst them) PoW chain.
It's also laughable that everyone is sucking SHA-256 when it's not even ASIC-resistant, and thus is not any more secure than any shitcoin, just easier for chinks to take ownership of.

>>9477360
The necessary investment to attack dgb is orders of magnitude lower than even litecoin, letalone a post core death bitcoin cash.

>>9477360
And there is no such thing as asic resistant proof of work, anymore than there is atheist resistant religions.

>>9477360

ASIC resistance is a meme. Do you really think it's possible to create an algorithm that can resist the advances of technology?

>>9477408
>>9477426
By your own logic, then, all this circlejerking about SHA256 being the end-all proof of the chain's security is all bullshit?

I would make one thing clear here, I'm not against BCH any more than I am for BTC.
I'm just tired as shit to see only pure retardation on both sides when it comes to finding reasons why one is supposedly better, and those painfully wrong images detailing fantasy scenarios being spammed in every thread don't help either.

You might as well make an infographic saying "Someone might guess Satoshi's private key and steal all the genesis coins! In that case, BCH would be the only bitcoin worth something!"

>>9477443
Our logic is that SHA256 is the most widely deployed proof of work algorithm, and you think pointing out there's no asic resistant proof of work algorithm somehow invalidates that? That doesn't make any sense.
The infographics people are throwing around are in wide circulation now, and the math simply validates them. There is no refutation or even an attempt at a refutation. They're just facts.

>>9476954
>>9476954

I would say the reason people find Bitcoin Cash distasteful is the constant coup. For instance holding Bitcoin.com etc. The list goes on.

By consistently calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin Core" you are part of the problem. If you believe in the tech, there should be no reason to not stand proudly by Bitcoin Cash and the tech behind it. Including the name.

It's a little ironic that there is so much slander and finger pointing when a lot of that tribalism comes from the camp you're sitting in.

>>9477487
>They're just facts.
>Facts
>"In this absurdist scenario of BTC capitulation, BCH might weasel through on stealing the name!"

Yeah, great "facts"
BCH could have been an actually respectable project, if only it hadn't chosen to live with this constant Napoleon Complex towards bitcoin.

>>9477505
Continuing:

It's amusing to me that the people who support Bitcoin Cash always victim blame and say there is a FUD campaign against them by the "core cucks."

Not everything is a shill campaign against you, there is no grand conspiracy. It's shoveled to you. Does the FUD happen? Sure. It happens with every coin. But not everybody who happens to disagree with you is a paid shill out to slander your name.

>>9477505
Sorry, but you're just wrong.

>>9476941
>Litteally ETH moving from ETC

>>9477521
A 7 percent divergence in the price of the BCHBTC pair in favor of BCH for 7 consecutive days is not "absurd", especially in light of the fact BCH has 10x'd BTC since fork.
And once again, the name isn't what matters.

>>9477528
I suppose there's no point debating if you aren't willing to look at the other side of the coin.

If you're solely interested in the tech and not trying to execute a coup in order to secure the name "Bitcoin" why don't you look at a project like Stellar? It's currently the best scalable solution and has everything BCash does and then some.

>>9477555
>And once again, the name isn't what matters.
Which is why BCH keeps stealing all urls, media accounts and everything it can get its grubby paws on to fool people into thinking it's the Bitcoin 99% of people think of when looking up the name?

>>9477559
I'm interested in the tech and the vision, the one embedded in the original chain prior to core sabotage that continues in bitcoin cash.
I did look at it from the other side, but the simple fact is unilaterally forcibly changing the architecture of the project in order to specifically hand control of it to the very parties it was designed to destroy is exactly what core actually did, and exactly the narrative you accused cash of, and that is why you are flatly wrong.
I understand your perspective completely. I used to hold it before I understood the above properly, but it's just a fact.

>>9477571
Because all of the people in control of those assets actually happen to believe what they're saying.
It's still the actual properties of the system that are the most important thing. In fact those properties are why those people think it is actually bitcoin, because they are the properties of the original Bitcoin, and core doesn't have them.

>>9477603
So why not look at Stellar?

Again, the post above rings very true.

"Which is why BCH keeps stealing all urls, media accounts and everything it can get its grubby paws on to fool people into thinking it's the Bitcoin 99% of people think of when looking up the name?"

Do you have any input on that? Regardless of how you perceive "Bitcoin Core" do you not see how the BCash crowd could be seen in a negative light because of that which is ultimately hurting the brand?

I would appreciate it if you could answer that question directly and not evade the question by finger pointing at the core cucks.

Thanks.

>>9476826
>fees
im laffin

>>9477629
Because stellar is just a clone of ripple, not designed to destroy states and central banks. That vision is what bitcoin was designed to do and only bitcoin cash has the necessary architecture to continue with that strategy.
I am also diversified into a few other assets which compliment that vision. But as I see it BCH is the primary thrust. It has been the plan from the genesis block and it continues now. It has been very resilient even under concerted assault from well financed interests to sabotage that vision, and at the end of the day if one must choose one >>9477145 is the central thing one must keep in mind.

>>9476826
>bitmain organises ""user activated"" hard fork to increase block size to 8 MB
>nobody cares
>they fork anyway and also change the difficulty algo so it doesn't die out
>they exploit their hacky new algo for PnDs
>still no one cares, blocks are less than 100 KB in size
>they fork again and make the limit 16 MB
>still no one cares and blocks smaller than 100 KB
>they fork again to a 32 MB limit
>blocks still below 100 KB in size

Fucking pathetic. They keep increasing the block size to pander to the narrative and fake interest but practically no one but their shill squad cares or uses their centralized shit coin.

Bitcoin has actual professionals and cryptographers researching and developing real innovations (segwit, schnorr signatures, mast, bullet proofs). BCH is a bunch of script kiddies and salesmen playing around and copying shit, on bitmain's payroll of course.

>>9477671
You've actually just clearly shown your innate tribalism with this response.

There is clearly nothing more to discuss, you have already made up your mind.

Good luck with your future endeavors. I'm not sure how far confirmation bias will get you in this market, though.

>>9477730
If my tribe us "the tribe that wants to destroy states and central banks and views poorly the idea of handing control of the blockchain back to them" then yes, we agree.
I will do whatever it takes to see that vision fulfilled, unless I am convinced that there is a better one.

>>9477769
You might want to do some more research into Stellar in that case, because you don't sound very educated.

"It's just a clone" - you realize they started the "send money like email" phrase, yeah? I'm betting not.

Not only that, but it's provably the best scalable blockchain currently.

I advise you to look deeply into Stellar Consensus Protocol. I run a research group aimed to be as completely unbiased as possible.

I've done more research into shitcoins than probably 99.95% of people on biz. I encourage you to get out of your bubble and look into real applications if you're looking at tech, not securing the name Bitcoin.

>>9477833
I have no problem with stellar beyond the association with ripple which I think is just a bankers coin and thus I am wholly uninterested in. Technically speaking I believe the best experimental payments chain right now to be nano, but I would not be confident to rely on it as I am with bch as I think despite the promise if it can execute on its plans, it's a long way to go before we can be certain that is actually realistic.
I will take another look at stellar. But as I said. To me all these instruments are simply weapons. Whichever can most effectively end states and central banks are the ones I'm interested in.

>>9476826
because it's one small step away from being an actual bank. an actual bank is controlled by one organization. bch is only controlled be 3 or so pools due to the large block size. so it's only about 3 times better than a bank.

>>9477443
>"Someone might guess Satoshi's private key and steal all the genesis coins! In that case, BCH would be the only bitcoin worth something!"
strange example you give. if someone guessed satoshis private key they'd inflict just as much damage to BCH, since the same keys work there too (and have the same amounts), because BCH is bitcoin

>>9477890
The exact same set of people mine BTC and BCH.

>>9476941
Totally not ironic how Roger "Bitcoin Jesus" Ver is now one of the most hated in Crypto for preserving the Bitcoin Whitepaper

>an inspired Word that can lead to freedom gets subverted by bad actors to confuse and enslave humanity
Really makes you think

>>9478405
digital currency group also invests in a lot of crypto ... like Coinbase, Kraken, Ripple, ZCash, Coindesk, shapeshift, bitpay, Chain (not chainlink), Circle, Etherscan, Ledger (like the nano), and many other crypto startups... Just exactly like the Bitcoin Judas himself. Bitcoin Cash would have everyone believe that
the entirety of crypto has been sabotaged like those flat earthers believe all the conspiracy theories.

>>9478715
you do know that bch follows btc... that bull flag is actually bitcoin's bull flag kiddo.

>>9476826
because it's spiting crypto as a whole just so one millionare can try to push his coin.

It's purposefully confusing people who are trying to enter crypto and Ver basically spends every chance he can to slander LN when LN is one of the few things that could start the next bull cycle. And for all of that effort it's not really ever going to achieve its goal of flippening.

If you're myopic it looks nice and you might believe the Core hate but what's going on is BCH is one of the scummy things that's holding all of crypto back. It's also been observed that BCH adding to Coinbase was the trigger that started the massive downtrend from 15k or whatever it was at the time. Now people don't trust Coinbase after that debacle.

reply to me if you are all in on BCH

pajeets with $200 total portfolio need not apply

>>9478385
this is the cult shit he was talking about

>>9478703
You gotta be an extra type of autistic, out-of-touch asberger retard to think someone as passionate as Roger is evangelizing Bitcoin for dishonest gain. Rethink your whole life.

>>9478867
lol

B/c it stole Bitcoin's branding by calling itself Bitcoin when it's not Bitcoin b/c the genesis block was mined before the fork. Roger Ver, CW, and Jihan are doing everything they can to slow down BTC.

The scaling debates boils down to TX on chain, or off chain. On chain would mean larger blocks, larger blocks = inefficient b/c the network is mining a bunch of empty blocks. Where as smaller blocks means the network is more efficient b/c every block that is being mined is not empty. Increasing block size also decreases decentralization b/c of syncing issues, so they will claim 0 confirmation TX's are the way to go but it is not.

Off chain scaling with Lightening network allows for BTC to scale infinitely. B/c 2nd layer solutions like lightening can do the TX work required off chain, while using the chain to secure the TX's. Layer 2 is the way to go b/c decentralization requires small blocks.

Roger has tried to fork BTC before, remember BTC Unlimited? That failed b/c the network did not agree. So what he did was working with the Chinks to secure hashing power to fork BTC into BCash. If you recall after the BTC fork Bcash was created BTC went to 18k, and Bcash went to less than 300's.

>>9476826

No scaling with sharding. No move to PoS since that'd fuck Bitmain. No dev ecosystem or handy stuff equivalent to metamask for Dapps. Endless transparent shilling and washtrading that discredit the whole ecosystem.

BTC, BCH, all other BTC shit forks, the whole lot need to die.

>>9476826
People are just very misinformed about Bitcoin Cash.

It would honestly have been strange if things didn't pan out this way but more and more will switch over to BCH because more and more of the people that sway the larger crowds will start doing their own research instead of just repeating what they are told by other influential people.

Take this guy for example:
https://twitter.com/WhatBitcoinDid/status/995661297822806016
He started out thinking BCH was pretty much a scam but is slowly turning around. He also interviewed Roger Ver and found out that he's not the evil monster many claimed he were: https://youtu.be/hn07MfbbK4g

Make no mistake, BCH *will* take over. BTC has nothing going on for it except it has the old ticker symbol. If you who are reading this regret not buying bitcoins when they were new this is your second chance. Don't miss it!

Also as to WHY people are misinformed about Bitcoin Cash, if you look at the view count on YouTube videos about BCH they will have something like 1k views while videos about BTC might have 100k views and if the guy in that video is misinformed about Bitcoin Cash it carries over to all of his viewers because clearly they aren't watching Bitcoin Cash videos themselves.

>>9479084
>The scaling debates boils down to TX on chain, or off chain. On chain would mean larger blocks, larger blocks = inefficient b/c the network is mining a bunch of empty blocks. Where as smaller blocks means the network is more efficient b/c every block that is being mined is not empty. Increasing block size also decreases decentralization b/c of syncing issues, so they will claim 0 confirmation TX's are the way to go but it is not.
absolute nonsense, first of all if only 1 MB of transactions are created every 10 min the blocks would still be just 1 MB. second, if blocks were 32 MB you'd only need 450kbps to download it in 10 minutes. that speed will be extremely common all around the world in, what, 20 years when some few blocks finally reaches around 30 MB.

remember that microtransactions are possible ON-CHAIN in bitcoin! there's no need for lightning network what so ever:
https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#micropayment-channel

ignoring the other bullshit in your post about roger ver and craig wright

It's about to pump the fuck out, don't miss this.

>>9479281
sitting comfy with 51 BCH

I don't think people realise how little BCH is actually available for trade. A lot of it is locked up by massive whales

>>9479018
calling me names doesn't make you appear smarter. Roger Ver is a business man... he will "evangelize" anything that makes him money.

>>9478999
Lol projecting much?
You sound new to crypto and probably haven’t given much thought to why Satoshi’s Bitcoin/Blockchain prevailed.
Keep hodling that BTC breh

>>9478924
The trust issues flow both ways, there is no way core or blockstream will ever regain the trust of the people who split off and went into cash. Secession was the only option, and now conflict is inevitable given that we both bid on the same oxygen supply, and our bids can actually kill BTC. That means they can't afford to leave us alone, and we don't want to leave them alone because of what they did.

>>9479484
If you got sent to prison on trumped up charges because of a state you viewed as illegitimate and the grudges of jackbooted thugs and a corrupt legal system *AND* you could get rich off evangelizing something you know can destroy it, would you think "No, what I really want to do is just help the state that fucked with me and scam everyone who might potentially want to help the goal of destroying them."
Because if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/997022668674224129?s=21

>>9479829
dude, that faggot went to jail becasue he pissed off the wrong people. He admits it. He's the only fuckstick to get caught and charged with those explosives, several places online still sold the same explosives online long after Ver was getting penetrated behind bars. He dug his own grave. I have no sympathy for that loud mouthed scam artist of a cum bubble. you are barking up the wrong tree here step-son.

>>9479899
Why did you get the impression I was trying to convince you to join the right side? You've made it abundantly clear already that all you care about is being on the side of the majority and facts don't matter, I was simply making it clear that actually no, there's no reasonable narrative where Roger is trying to scam the Bitcoin Cash users, he honestly and earnestly believes he's doing the right thing.
And he is.
You're just trying to pick the winning team in what you perceive to be a machiavellian political dispute.
We're trying to destroy the entire concept of machiavellian political disputes as a meaningful thing.

>>9479280
I bet you have never actually run the bitcoin core node yourself. That shit consumed over 300GB/month data of my upload bandwidth when I was connected to 50+ nodes. Have fun with your bandwidth with 32MB full blocks.

>>9479947
> doesn't know what the blocksonly flag does

>>9479964
Well I can afford to keep the flag=0 with 1MB blocks so no problem.

>>9480021
> wow it uses so much bandwidth
> but I want it to.
well then...

>>9480057
Have fun with your bandwidth with 32MB full blocks.

>>9479944
You should read my first post here >>9477062. This is why I am sticking to the original bitcoin. I am not incorrect to think that you are trying to influence my thought processes by shouting from the rooftops that bitcoin has been infiltrated, imagine I was a degenerate felon, or what ever other large words you can find
>machiavellian
the truth is Roger was relevant to bitcoin in the early days when he was the "bitcoin jesus". Blockstream took that away from him. Now he's the guy who is trying to save Satoshi's Vision. Greg Maxwell has been quoted saying that the only reason why he started Blockstream was for the funding needed at the core development level. Why didn't the "bitcoin jesus" invest in the core development? because there is no ROI in open source code? If all the faggots who are whining and crying about Blockstream were there financially when the core devs needed them... maybe Blockstream wouldn't have even existed.

>>9476826
Why bothering by a banker's coin when Bean Cash is already there?

>>9480090
Bitcoin has been infiltrated, that is simply a fact.
As for your first post ,yes, I read it, that is why I can see very clearly that you are a status quo line toeing conformist and what matters to you is what is being screamed loudest at any point in time. You are not a mystery, in fact you are exactly what I expect from a herd of conformists who has no idea what is actually happening

>>9480079
Yeah, if I had to travel back in time to 1997 or so, that sub 500kbps throughput might be a problem. But seeing as it's now over twenty years later, it's not.

>>9480210
Some ISPs limit the montlhy data and the upstream is max 10 Mbps, typically 2 or 1 Mbps. I'm lucky to have unlimited 100/100 connection. That's for EU, I think the situation is more shitty in US.

Have fun with your bandwidth with 32MB full blocks. Maybe relaying transactions is not so important after all.

>>9480269
You enjoy repeating yourself uselessly it seems. You do realise that 500kbps is less than 1mbps? And that almost every OECD country in the world has an average of about 20mbps? Here I have 100mbps and it was default, before I lived in Japan and had 10gbps.
You can lie all you want about the state of technology, but that doesn't mean anyone is actually going to believe you.

>>9480336
Why is 500kpbs some magical number? Because 32MB/10min has an up bound of 500kpbs? So your node basically sends one 32MB block to one other client once in every ten minutes?

>>9480426
Because with full 32mb blocks the throughput would be less than that. 426.7kbps to be exact.
And all of this ignores the important point that you don't need to run a fully validating node to simply use a cryptocurrency anyway. But even if you did, yes, you could run one on less than 500kbps.
Relaying transactions is a problem for miners, as the people who actually put the transactions in the block, and profit by doing so. Any project that relies on altruistic relay nodes is not being economically sensible, even ignoring the fact that with full 32mb blocks it's still trivial to run a full node just fine contrary to blockstream / core propaganda.

core cucks are scared shitless of it and have a paid army to troll it all day on every social media, that should tell you why.

>>9480190
insulting my integrity is what I would expect from a cashie.

>>9480488
There's nothing insulting to your integrity about pointing out you're a conformist. 99% of people are conformists. That's why they're called conformists, after all. I am most certainly not holding you to any standard that the vast majority of people would not also meet.

>>9480461
So you are saying that for full node it's enough to send _one_ 32MB block to _one_ other client _once_ in every ten minutes and relaying transactions is not important.

Please confirm.

>>9480525
I'm saying that I've run bwm-ng on a full node in blocksonly mode and verified that the actual consumed bandwidth at 100% block utilisation was exactly equal to block size / block time.
I'm also saying that getting transactions into blocks is a problem for miners, not anyone who runs a node for any reason at any time, ever. Miners are paid to put those transactions into blocks, so they will make sure they can get them in order to be included.

Who do you know that collects fake Rolexs, fake hold coins, fake, vintage cars, etc

Don't buy knock offs created by a scsmming diuche

>>9480560
Good for you and bch then. Now start filling those 32MB blocks so we can stress test that system.

>>9479764
Or they may just get left behind like buttcoiners. You'd be surprised how fast people's opinions change when prices move.

>>9480655
Not really, it's been nine months since the fork and despite 10x performance on BCH vs BTC, this and every other non-censored forum is still packed to the brim with three or four of these discussions which turn out the exact same way every day, BTC has absolutely nothing in support of it, no arguments, no refutations of all the arguments from the other side, basically just emotional sloganeering and tribal virtue signaling, and yet the discussions continue, even while the market has solidly gone in the direction of BCH and all arguments and logic of any kind are on that side.
Humans don't give up their irrationality easily, it takes a *lot*.

>>9476826
bitcoin cash itself is great, the wannabe bitcoin attitude is dumb and desperate.

>Supported by Gavin Andreson
You know it's 2018, right? GA was last relevant in 2015 was three years ago before he had that 'dictator' breakdown

>>9476941
Pretty much this. Also I wish Bitcoin Cash was the real Bitcoin because it's better, but as long as Bitcoin exists, Bitcoin will forever be Bitcoin Cash.

>>9480510
>buying into a pre-mined air-dropped hostile-forked bitcoin clone scam coin, born out of greed, deception, and grossly over exaggerated conspiracy theory claims, makes me a cool non-conformist.

cashie beliefs.

>>9477199
Holy fuck, take your medication, pal.

>>9476826
Because people treat Coins like sports teams

Have you poorfags even considered for once that the vast majority of the market is moved by people with so much money that they could not give less of a shit about paying 10 dollars in fees for a transaction, since they're only moving their BTC on occasion? BCH solves a problem that the people with real power in crypto don't have.

>>9477062
of course if bitcoin went to zero suddenly it would hurt crypto adoption. but if say bcash went to 10k then btc started a slow bleed out that would be fine.

>>9476954

Remember that a whole heap of people sold their Bitcoin (BCH) for fuck all because Blockstream was propagating the 'Free money' propaganda meme. That's when I picked up a bunch of BCH.

What terrifies a lot of the morons who sold their Bitcoin (BCH) is the fact they made a mistake, and don't want to buy their Bitcoin back so they FUD it relentlessly in the hope that it will go away. Obviously because it is the real Bitcoin it is staying right where it is, but the consequence is a lot of background noise and vitriol.

For example in /r/cryptocurrency on plebbit anything to do with Bitcoin Cash is voted down relentlessly, on fork day (32mb upgrade) the fork news didn't get a single upvote while some bullshit about Ripple went straight to the front page an hour after it was posted. Ripple for fucks sake, a private business pawning their worthless shitcoin on unsuspecting bagholders.

Anywho this noise will die down and disappear as the market grows and their vitriol is lost in a sea of new money as Bitcoin (BCH) retakes dominance.

There's also a lot of noise from Blockstream's army of paid pajeets and twitter bots who post mindless garbage. To this day I have not seen a single argument about why Bitcoin (BCH) and large blocks are unfeasible, not a single fucking argument.

Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin.

>>9480864
Have you considered the float price for the financial asset that globally displaces the vast majority of cash and general point of sale transactions? It's a hundred trillion dollar market. Muh whales are nothing by comparison.

>>9477122
retarded analogy, of course pepsi releasing a coca cola copy would be called some kind of pepsi. what would be dumb is if pepsi named their coca cola ripoff coca cola.

>>9480871
If bitcoin cash goes to 10k suddenly it would immediately kill BTC.

>>9477199
fucking this. just name it something else. if the product is good it won't need the bitcoin name.

>>9480697
there's not much discussion to have because the argument really just boils down to Engineers vs Economists.

Bitcoin's team are trying to develop technologies for BTC and are focused on security. BCH is focused more on price action and merchant adoption.

Both approaches are valid but the disagreement comes in from a dishonest attempt to try to steal Bitcoin's name from the original chain and confuse new adopters. Doing that doesn't serve anyone because as BTC gets slandered and attacked, it hurts all of crypto really. And it pisses people off because it's clearly delusional to think people are just going to lay down and let anyone with a loud mouth and alot of money to say what they're hodling is legacy bitcoin.

>>9479280

You're mistaken, it would only require 53.3kbps to download 32mb/10 minutes. Which is still a very low requirement for modern internet uses, my own mobile can download at speeds greater than 1mb/s

>>9481167
That's wrong though. Blockstream approach is much less secure and much more centralizing. The cash side is simply right about everything. The only reason core and blockstream exist at all was to sabotage the original vision and they're failing even at that, which is why now you hear "ok you guys win but at least give up the name, we have to have accomplished *something*."
It's not going to work.

>>9480940
>To this day I have not seen a single argument about why Bitcoin (BCH) and large blocks are unfeasible, not a single fucking argument.

walking around with blinders on then? the two main arguments that I read are bandwidth and storage space. Mine has to do with backwards compatibility. An oldfag can use bitcoin core version 9 (we're on 16) and sync with the network and start making transactions... a hard fork would make those users obsolete. For having such an all inclusive mission statement like bch has... they sure don't mind hard forking the fuck out of their software.

>>9481215
Can you even math? How about uploading that 32MB block to one hundred clients in 10 minutes?

>>9481325

Why the fuck are you uploading the same block to 100 users you dense mother fucker. You're making no sense, the average node sends data to at most 3-5 peers.

>>9481274
Bandwidth = 53kbps, so get an ethernet cable and you'll be fine. Your 56k modem from 1996 should be retired by now.

Storage = buy a fucking modern hard drive you dense cunt

These are not arguments, kill yourselves you retarded corecucks.

>>9481166
>>9477199
>ok fine BCH is great but just please don't take back the Bitcoin name
welcome to the bargaining stage

I don't care about either of them

>>9481381
>Why the fuck are you uploading the same block to 100 users you dense mother fucker.
Idk, maybe because most nodes are peers and not seeds.
>the average node sends data to at most 3-5 peers.
source please, and I'm not an average node

> it would only require 53.3kbps to download 32mb/10 minutes
32MB/10 minutes is actually 426.7kbps (kilobits per second) but it seems that bch nodes are not very precise about their node requirements.

and storage is cheap, bandwidth isn't

>>9481408
What came next again anon...

>>9481458
Both storage and bandwidth are cheap, especially at these tiny scales.

>the 32mb meme

>>9481381
>kill yourselves you retarded corecucks
these are not rebuttals cashfreak.

dude, you may think that you are a mathematical wizard on 4chan... but, for the rest of us, your Beautiful Mind reenactment in cyberspace isn't cutting it. Your figure of 53 kilobits per second... how did you derive at this number.. P.S. I'm impressed that you used the small b. A lot of you illiterate cashie fucks don't know the difference between the small b and the big B when it comes to bits vs bytes. shouting "Yay!, we now have 32mb blocks!" makes you guys look fucking stupid as fuck...

>>9481479
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5s6zak/info_7_days_of_bandwidth_usage_on_a_full_node/
Here's some others dude's data of bitcoind bandwidth usage for one week's time. I have similar results. Now let's do some math with full 32MB blocks

32*3.79 Mbps=121.3 Mbps (megabits per second)

Do you guys really have over 100Mbps upstream connections? I can't even begin to understand that how _downloading_ one 32MB block in every ten minutes has anything to do with upload requirements.

>>9481684
the only nodes are the mining pools, they are producing all the blocks and you bet your sweet ass they are paying for the best internet connections and storage available on the market to support their money creation machines. kek

>>9481771
How many mining pools there are if they are the only nodes? Numbers please.

>>9481801
Bitcoin is a small-world near-complete graph, not a mesh. The only nodes are the mining nodes, check the whitepaper. You can stick your raspberry pi "non-mining nodes" right up your ass, at least they won't be detracting from the network anymore

>>9481827
Numbers please. How many mining pools there are? If that numbers tells the number of full nodes it also defines how centralized the network is.

I don't run my node on raspberry pi btw.

>>9481827

And there it is. Advocating centralisation, because only miners creating exponentially greater amounts of entropy matter. Bitmain and Blockstream are the flip sides of the same coin. Both are just corporate tools with a legion of paid shills. Enjoy irrelevance.

>>9481771
>the only nodes are the mining pools
so much for decentralization.

>>9481940
hashpower is the only thing that matters for the concensus algorithm. saying nodes control what is/isn't concensus is another form of a sybil attack. Proof of work fixes the sybil attack problem

>>9477062
>It's about getting behind your higher ups and helping to propel them forward by making them look good. As they succeed you succeed.

Boomer advice. Thanks dad. That totally explains how I got a promotion and then let go two weeks later because we were being outsourced to India.

>>9476826
Toxic community

led by a child

claims it is real bitcoin

not a trading pair

If I want low fee transactions there's a thousand other coins cheaper and faster. Thee is quite possibly no other coin more useless than Bcash

>>9481684
Because downloading is all you do in blocksonly mode.

people talking like bandwidth is some huge issue lol i have a symmetrical gigabit connection for like $100 a month and i'm in columbus ohio, which isn't even that technologically advanced of a city. in the next few years connections like mine are going to be rolled out even more widely.

>>9481940
What makes it even more funnier that such network topology would resemble something like in the pic >>9477213. I guess it is not so bad after all but bch supporters are contradicting themselves or do not know basic calculus or move goalposts on every argument.

And I actually own equal amount of btc and bch but it's really hard to be on bch side even though their success would benefit me.

>>9482012
No, you would also be _uploading_ blocks. Jesus, can you at least think more than one second before posting.

>>9482004
>Toxic community
heh. next time larp as a bch supporter and see how blockstream fanboys respond

>>9481871
The number of nodes doesn't tell how centralised the network is at all. Look at core, it has enormous amount of nodes, but the rules are set unilaterally by a single political council consisting of no more than ten members. And 99+ percent of the traffic is designed to go through easily co-optable choke points on the lightning network.
Cash on the other hand may have fewer nodes, but anyone who wants a voice in development of the protocol has a choice of about six different dev teams, none of which get to unilaterally set the consensus rules, and any attempt to choke on chain transactions would need to control a supermajority of all mining pools worldwide, and anyone who wants a stake in that mining only has to accrue enough hashpower to join.
One model is closed, controlled and permissioned, the other is open, uncontrolled, and permissionless, and just counting nodes wouldn't tell you any of that.

>>9482067
Wrong. Why on earth would you upload a block? You didn't generate one and you're not relaying. The sum total of data you process is blocks in and *your* transactions out only. If you're not mining that's all you need to do. And you don't even have to do that, you could just run an SPV wallet and transact for effectively no bandwidth or storage costs.

>>9481991
well step-son, instead of huffing whippits and smoking heroin, you should have studied something in school that can't be done by Pajeets in third world countries. Literally anything.

>>9482049
Really all the technical stuff is mentioned for us to distract from the fact that it's actually sabotage to put banks back in control of the system. Anything to distract people from that fact. No matter how much of an obvious lie it is.

>>9476826
'cause

>>9482101
>but the rules are set unilaterally by a single political council consisting of no more than ten members
This applies to bch too. But their kool aid is justi more tastier to you.

>>9482182
>Wrong
No, I am correct. In blocksonly=1 you do not relay transactions but you still relay blocks thus _uploading_ them.
>Why on earth would you upload a block?
Because someone downloads the blockchain data from me e.g. while syncing the blockchain for the first time. If I do not provide that then who does? Mining pools?

>>9482182
>doesn't understand how a "trustless" network actually works.

>>9481646
>btc 1mb

>>9482269
> bch has a single council of ten people in complete control too
Name them. Give examples of controversial changes they've either pushed through or stopped. Go right ahead.
> if I do not provide it then who does
*sigh* People not running in blocksonly mode. And just completely ignore the point about running a non mining node accomplishing absolutely nothing by all means. I suppose you also think when you watch football it influences the outcome of the game.

>>9482318
> thinks he understands how a trustless network works, but actually doesn't.
Once again, your non mining node has nothing to do with it. You do not understand nakamoto consensus. It's based on the economic incentives for mining. Not your shitty witness node.

>>9482384
>running a non mining node accomplishing absolutely nothing by all means

Satoshi's Vision right right there. Participating in the BCH network means you are a spectator.

>>9482384
You do not even understand how blockonly mode works. And running a non mining node accomplishing absolutely nothing expect I verify the blocks and transaction myself. That's called trustless system btw.

I think you are just trolling and are actually btc supporter because anyone who actually understands technical details and client implementations laughs at you.

>>9482407
>non mining node has nothing to do with it.

my wallet is on my non mining node. You can eat a bag full of dicks if you think I'm trusting a third party wallet. You are not making a good case for decentralization Roger. go back to r/btc and enjoy the echo chamber of idiots

>>9482432
Not mining on any proof of work cryptocurrency means you are a spectator. That you don't understand it doesn't change it.

>Miners want BCH
>Jihan wants it
>Craig wants it
>Roger wants it
>Is being advertised everywhere as being cheaper and easier

Bitcoin is just living on borrowed time at this point.

>>9481458

So I double checked it. 426.7kbps is equal to 53.3kBps.

You're trying to confuse people into thinking 32mb is larger than it is, it's a fucking tiny amount of bandwidth you deceiving fucking nigger.

Find your own fucking source if you're not a node, if you're not a node why the fuck do you care?

Fucking blockstream kikes and their propaganda. I fucking hate kikes.

Storage is fucking cheap, bandwidth is fucking even cheaper.

>>9482375
nailed it

>>9482530
lol i think 32 milli bits is actually very low number. How do I even fraction bits?

> 426.7kbps is equal to 53.3kBps.
Finally a person who can math. Then you must also agree that 53.3kBps is not equal to 53.3kbps.

>>9482462
Complete nonsense. If no blocks are mined with the rules you are trying to verify, there is no blockchain. In actual practice the blockchain will just go on without you because your consensus rules are not *the* consensus rules. The consensus rules are what miners mine and major economic nodes accept. Your node is irrelevant unless it is one of those. It doesn't matter if you accept or understand this, it's a simple fact.

>>9482471
What is a"third party wallet"? An SPV wallet stores and manages your private keys, no third parties are involved in the wallet itself. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about.

>>9482622
I don't see any miner mining 32MB blocks in bitcoin chain? Why not if consensus rules are what miners mine and major economic nodes accept?

No matter what flavor you prefer, segwit is no scaling solution but was pushed hard as one. It's there so blockstream can make money off their 2nd layer.
This should tell you that if you're in the bcore camp, you're supporting disingenious crooks. You can't then use that argument to talk down on bcash. If anything both camps are just pushing what's in their economic intrest.
And I wholeheartedly agree that those who sold their bch directly after the fork have some cognitive dissonance going on.

>>9482639
nor, do I care what a sperv wallet is. I don't want a wallet-lite. I run a full non-mining node. When this shit pops off, I'm going to be my and my family's bank. The more and more you spew hot garbage all over my screen, the more I am seeing that bitcoin cash is doomed to fail. Excluding people from running their own validating nodes by hard forks and crazy minimum requirements goes opposite from what you say in Interviews Roger.

>>9482622
you are saying Roger, that in Satoshi's Whitepaper he wrote that unless you can vote on a consensus you can go fuck yourself. Is that what you are saying?

>>9482747
Because there aren't enough transactions to fill 32mb blocks yet, but the consensus rules were activated at a certain height and validated by an OP RETURN of 240 bytes, which would not have been a valid block on the old consensus rules, and now memo cash uses those transactions all the time.

>>9482799
Literally nothing you just said made any sense whatsoever and your have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, may god have mercy on your soul, because the market sure as fuck will not.

>>9482823
No, I meant bitcoin core chain. I don't see any miner mining 32MB blocks in bitcoin core chain? Why not if consensus rules are what miners mine and major economic nodes accept?

>>9482856
yes... concede like the little faggot that you are

>>9477677
block size limit went from 1 to 8 to 32
there was never a 16

and the last hard fork was about OP code changes enabling smart contracts and allowing for extra information in transactions which allows things like memo.cash to have more characters and also re-enables coloured coins from early bitcoin before blockstream gang fucked everything up for profit

>>9482872
Because in the core chain the miners are mining the core consensus rules that the core devs set.

>>9482875
If you think someone telling you that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about and aren't making the slightest amount of sense is a concession, I suppose it explains why you are so utterly retarded. You think it's actually winning.
Kill yourself. I'm through with you.

>>9482917
But why? Core team consist of handful of people and miners and major economic nodes can easily ignore them.

>>9482944
>hot garbage spew

non-mining validating nodes are in the whitepaper. Only mining nodes matter to bcash.

>>9483020
it's because bitcoin is the chosen one and bcash is a money grab. everyone sees it... these shills see it too.

>>9483020
And yet major economic nodes have decided that they will allow them to unilaterally set consensus rules for what defines the chain behind BTC, and miners have then examined those rules and said "ok", solely because of profitability. If the profitability changes, BTC will simply die. The miners won't mine it. The difficulty will be too high for anyone else to mine it, and the major economic nodes will have to delist it, since it doesn't work at all.
The only reason miners mine btc at all is profitability. They don't believe in it. They think it's ridiculous, and frankly they're right to.

>>9483160
>The only reason miners mine btc at all is profitability.
Killing bitcoin core would make it instantly unprofitable so why don't miners decide to kill it now?

>>9483160
lies... bch is actually sometime more profitable to mine than btc... pic related

>>9483217
Because directly attacking it would be attacking one of their own revenue streams, coupled with the fact that when the market comes to the inevitable correct conclusion that it has been trending towards the nine months since the fork, they won't have to attack it at all. They will just continue to follow profitability and it will die, and they will have taken no direct hostile action and thus minimized reputation damage.
It's the same reason nobody invaded north Korea, to Invade North Corea would be messy, expensive, and walk right into a trap where the corean dictators set them up as aggressors.
It's easier to just wait for them to collapse under the idiocy of their own unhinged plans.

>>9483270
And when it is, miners mine it instead.

>>9483332
Which is what will in the long run actually kill BTC.

>>9483332
Aaaand why they stop doing that? What controls the mining profitability? Market price which could be easily manipulated by miners because they can kill bitcoin core in an instant?

>>9482872
there is no such thing as the "bitcoin core chain". there is only bitcoin. there is also bcash... also known as btrash, bshit, and most often bshill. now call me a core cuck you braindead paid pajeet shill

>>9483389
Dude read my other messages and see if I'm pro btc or bch lol

>>9482096
>most toxic community in crypto: bcash >paid bcash shills get shit on when they raid biz
>cashie complains
news at 11

>>9483352
delusions of grandeur.

>>9483389
>>9483437
oh wow usually Bildegberg wont respond to a bcash shill campaign for 12-24 hours. I guess they really streamlined the approval process.

>>9483404
who gives a fuck, you're an idiot for using bcash talking points

>>9483466
Who cares about terms and words. Just ask bch supporters serious questions in their language and let others see that their arguments do not hold and they start to contradict themselves pretty soon.

>>9483461
>paid bcash shill doesn't understand that non-paid no-shills do not monitor shitcoin cash threads 24/7

>>9483509
why, even after you win the bcash shill will create a new thread and it all begins again

>>9476826


>> 1 - Fastest transactions (instant)
>> 2 - Very Low fees
>> 3 - Smart Contracts
>> 4 - Working scaling solution proved by scientific and technological studies
>> 5 - Supported by Gavin Andreson (based lad)
>> 6 - It literally works RIGHT NOW.
>> 7 - Very easy to use
1) - Not true, BCH use like BTC a 10minute blocktime, 3 confirmations are considered secure, what means a waiting time of 30minutes. Transactions are synced "instant" like in BTC or LTC or ETH.. because your tx is broadcasted to the whole network when you make it. BTC has RBF active what means you realy need to wait for that 3 confirmations, WITH LTC or BCH what didnt have that feature activated you also can accept 0-conf transaction, because nodes do the prework.

2) BCH isnt alone with that XRP, ETH, LTC, NANO, DCR,....

3) isnt ture, OP_CODES arnt real smart_contract, BTC has real smart contracts with Rootstock, a Drivechain that is capable to handle 1000tps, merged mined with btc. With a 3 confirmation blocktime of 30second.
link:; https://www.rsk.co/
link: https://explorer.rsk.co/home
link: https://stats.rsk.co/


4) wrong, ther are no scaling solution proved by scientific and technological studies,
There isnt even a developer need to scale BCH, because they just modifie a Define number in the source code. Just change a number from 1 to 8 or 32, isnt in anyway science or a technological improvement.

6) like every other coin.

7) not easier then any other coin.
overall never would buy BCH before BTC,ETH;LTC;XMR;ADA;DCR;XRP; because they simply didnt do anything what will make crtypto successful
.

You want cheap transactions go with XRP LTC ETH, LTC is here since 2011, so the fuck.

>>9483381
If they manipulated it up, it would then have to go down to the organic price over time, which would end up compromising their interests long term, it makes more sense for them to simply play the honest game; "Look, we think this is the right way to go and we're honestly going to do it, if you agree, great, buy into our stuff, if not, great, buy into theirs". So far the market is agreeing with them 10 to 1, so eventually, BTC is going to die due to that trend any way you look at it.

>>9483523
>why
that's a fucking good question. I've wasted way too much time here. Time to leave assholes.

>>9483455
delusions of adequacy.

>>9483461
> throws out the Bilderberg Group ...
>muh sabotage
> muh AXA bank
>muh be afraid


(((they))) scare me wooo.

dude, if the fucking Bilderberg are backing bitcoin, why are you against it? the backwards compatibility means you don't have to use LN or SegWit if you don't want to.

>muh partnerships

you fags look for partnership clues in every other shitcoin

>>9483536
1) zero conf is a design goal of BCH, it is a design anti-goal of BTC.
2) It is alone with that compared to BTC, and because of >>9477145 that is an important point to take into account, you are getting much more security for your very low BCH fees.
3) opcodes are a different form of smart contract than rsk and solidity smart contracts, you might say it's inferior, but actually the model is superior in some ways. At any rate, RSK would work just as well on BCH, so even if you insisted on taking that route, BCH would still work just fine.
4) Plain old wrong. https://news.bitcoin.com/gigablock-testnet-researchers-mine-the-worlds-first-1gb-block/
6) Once again, except for BTC, which will actually never work because it has been sabotaged
7) Much easier than BTC+Lightning


LTC may be here since 2011, but it is also on board with every toxic design decision core made, so if you disagree with those decisions, it is no realistic alternative, XRP is a banker coin, and ETH is an entirely different model from the ground up. BCH is simply what those who originally bought into Bitcoin on Satoshi's vision wanted in the early days, so it makes sense for us to follow it, which is what we are doing.

>>9483569
>So far the market is agreeing with them 10 to 1
making stuff up again Roger?

>>9483710
Because we want to destroy the state, not get on board with it. And there's no realistic option not to use LN / Segwit given the aritficial 1mb block limit, period. On any kind of volume at all, on chain fees will skyrocket making them impractical for the vast majority of transactions.

>>9483791
No, you're just ignorant and stupid like always, it's ok, I'll help you out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTF5EPDzHFs

>>9483536
ETH sometimes has high fees because the whole network is processing things

it's by design too slow to calculate everything you want

>>9476941
this, plus roger and jihan are cucks

>>9483760
> muh Science
>Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) chief scientist Peter Rizun

this is what passes for science in the bcash camp, a failed bitcoin fork.

>actually never work because it has been sabotaged

this is just gay... It works, unlike your failed system administrator career.

>>9483795
>destroy the state
whoa buddy, you can wage war against a Nation. Leave me the fuck out of your psychosis Kaczynski.

>>9483819
I'm not going to watch you masturbate on snapchat. your spread means nothing to me considering the fact that it is the hottest period for crypto ever in existence . actually, 10 to 1 in the hottest period for crypto ever in the history of man... is fucking weak. shitcoins are doing 100 to 1 compared to btc...

>>9484127

>>9484127

>he doesn't hate the state
>he doesn't want to burn the system to the ground

>>9476826
Because it will be THE only coin. There might be another 1-2, maybe, but that's hard to see right now.

>no one can get on stage and debate against BCH
>it's not Samson Mow's fault he got destroyed, any CEO of a big bank couldn't have done any better
>BCH has the only players the matter backing it
>Bitcoin (Cash) is so powerful and market dominant
>The only way to hinder that was to cripple it and make 1000 alt coins
>All core and alt coins supporters are virtually on the same side
>Bitcoin Cash has more potential to change the world than the internet did
>It can't be hacked and it get be censored
>Best form of money to ever exist

>>9484332
And it's not war, I'm not advocating slinging an AK across your back or going out looking for trucks of peace to pilot into nearby innocent bystanders. It's just countereconomics. Depriving the beast of its food supply so it can die the death it deserves.
It seems so many people have lost track of the anarchocapitalist vision, it's the only reason I'm even here.

>>9481408
ha. its not bargaining its pointing out stupidity. bcash can call themselves bitcoin but they are only hurting themselves. like i said the tech is fine its this desperation for the bitcoin name that's really dumb. fucking wannabes.

>>9484417
>Implying I don't want to pilot our lord's holy automobile into a crowd of infidel normies

>>9481646
if BTC had just upgraded to 2 measly MB there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place

but they didn't so now everybody is stuck with Bitcoin Cash. all because of stubbornness.

personally im fine with how things turned out since we got rid of both segwit and replace-by-fee this way but it really is mind-boggling that blockstream would rather spawn competition than just increase the blocksize

>>9484510

>>9481684
I'll try to break it down. remember that 1 byte is 8 bits.

32 MB * 1000 = 32000 kB
32000 kB * 1000 = 32000000 B
32000000 B * 8 = 256000000 b

60 sec * 10 = 600 seconds in 10 min

256000000 b / 600 sec = 426666.667 b per sec
426666.667 / 1000 = 426.667 kb per sec

in order to download 32 MB in 10 minutes you need a 426.667 kbps

>side note: less speed needed if those 32 MB are compressed before sending

>>9484510
>mind-boggling
Unboggle yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-sMbf2OzOY

>>9484548
aye ive read it. here's the source:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/6ndfut/buttcoin_is_decentralized_in_5_nodes/dk9c27f/

>>9484661
Aye I've watched it. We're lucky the fork came when it did and that BCH is doing pretty well. Thank God Roger Ver wasn't corrupted.

It's people aware of the facts to the above degree that makes me wonder if all the people pretending to be confused or believing the core narrative are actually all paid shills. Just how much paid shilling can blockstream afford to buy? Is it really possible it's just mostly paid shills and a few credulous idiots and that's it?

>>9484742

Feels like every advantage is behind BCH yet it still hasn't moved to .2+

>>9484304
10 to 1 in the hottest time for crypto means nothing.
> not an argument.

I'll rephrase that for you then, Molyneux.

Your 10 to 1 spread is a false narrative, you need to start from the very beginning of bitcoin to now. Bitcoin paved the way... bitcoin alone and by itself. Every shitcoin including bcash owes it's existence to bitcoin... bitcoin cash is trying to capitalize on the bitcoin name. Throwing numbers out like a 10 to 1 growth spread against bitcoin is false narrative since bcash didn't have to do anything besides air drop premined shitcoins. In fact a 10 to 1 spread is weak considering a lot of altcoins have doubled and or tripled that.

>>9484811

It will mate, give it a while longer. New BCH projects are being announced on a daily basis and this will accelerate with the reactivated OP codes.

In November's hard fork BCH will be enabling ETH style shitcoin tokens too.

>>9484829

Bitcoin isn't a person. I don't "owe" anything to bitcoin. it's a piece of software, anon. You don't see me still running Vacuum tube computers just because they were first generation

>>9484742
BCH is up against it, just look at the average bitcoin cash video on youtube and the viewcount is 1k. meanwhile BTC videos are 10k or even 100k and if the person in that video talk down on BCH it's pretty clear that all those viewers don't have time to investigate the facts themselves

funny that adam back speaks about facts btw. the guy who advice people to run a "crypto tab" in bars and the guy that openly admits that blockstream has every intention to sell side-chains
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/923309367260274688

bitcoin is an idea and not a product.

>>9484854
>reading comprehension

>>9484829
It's not a false narrative because bitcoin cash is bitcoin, and bcore is just a shitty altcoin.

>>9484887

Anon, nothing you said makes any sense. Bitcoin is not a brand. It's not "hallowed be thy name" . It's open source software running on some computer. Owing your existence to bitcoin doesn't mean anything.

If bitcoin is shit, I'm not going to continue using it just because it has a particular name.

>>9484925
oh, I see what you did there. Nice rebuttal smart guy.

>>9484929
>Bitcoin is a fucking meme
you really can't comprehend stuff good can you.

>>9484829
tell me friend, if an open-source project have all their devs --that are allowed to actually commit code to the repository-- all employed by the same company, and they deny code merges that would compromise the company's goal, what other choice do people have than to fork off in their own direction? remember that none of these developers with commit rights were actually around when satoshi were involved.

truth is that right now there are two competing ideas on how bitcoin should proceed into the future. both have enough people behind them to warrant both a shot at the title "bitcoin".

>>9481081
pepsi cola u faggot

>>9485005
>none of these developers with commit rights were actually around when satoshi were involved.

this is true...however, the man that Satoshi did put in charge hand picked every single one of them. Nice story though.

Yeah, I've read the posts about Blockstream employees placing themselves at choke points... blocking accounts... etc... I can't say exactly what I would do to be honest. If I had money invested in the bitcoin core developers I would stick to the code... If I had money invested in bitcoin based companies... I would fork to get the most people funneled into my business.

I think though if it was money that the Core devs were after, then why didn't the "bitcoin jesus" donate to them some of the returns he made from investing in bitcoin based startup companies? I know why, so he could get filthy rich off of this open source software.

>>9485203
> he thinks he's going to provoke moral outrage on this forum with simple rational business decisions.
So you're a communist?

>>9485195
there's a lot of x cola or cola x out there in the world

>>9485203
you're misinformed, Satoshi left the project to one man and one man alone: Gavin Andresen

problem is he never actually asked if Gavin Andresen wanted the responsibility of developing bitcoin. he didn't so Gavin Andresen took help from other developers and gave them commit rights.

these devs, current core devs, later claimed that Gavin Andresen's account got hacked and got his commit rights revoked. it was later shown that his account wasn't hacked but guess what? they never gave him back the project access that satoshi himself had given him.

>bitcoin jesus slander
the only thing i'll respond to that is that Roger Ver is very driven and he is a true believer in the bitcoin idea. i don't think for a second that he is promoting bitcoin cash for the money. money he already got, but he sees just as clear as i do that bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin.

>>9485315
Roger really does get it, he absolutely slaughters anyone core throws at him.
https://youtu.be/zSbPz4g9rZQ

>>9485244
No not a communist. Thanks for asking though.

I can tell that you are an Anarchist though.

>>9485593
Was it when I actually said I was an anarchocapitalist that gave it away? Nothing gets past you.

>>9485315
>you're misinformed
you called me misinformed then proceeded to tell the same story I did. get fucked. I hate the cash mentality. Gavin hand picked those guys. whether he "asked them for help" doesn't fucking matter. Why is Gavin crying now if he didn't want it? I know it's the rejection. rejection always gets the bitches tilted.

The "community" is no different than any other shitcoin. People bought the pump and are now trying to get it back to ATH levels so they can cash out.

>>9476826
Cashies are the single most delusional group of cultists around. If you really think everybody is gonna stop buying btc and eth for a cheap knockoff that leaches off btc's name, you literally deserve to be poor.

>>9485795
As a long time observer of the way the shill narrative has shifted over time I find this pretty funny. It's always the same virtue signalling emotive nonsense, but it just gets more desperate all the time with the demands. "anything but using the name! That makes it clear to anyone that is looking that BTC is nothing like the original Bitcoin and our entire shill and sabotage campaign is fucked.".
You're not fooling anybody. It's just sad. Maybe you guys would have better luck if you actually started out on a fresh chain that was dedicated to Maxwell's vision since inception, then if it was ever actually hijacked your banal whining might actually have some basis in truth. But when it is actually the exact opposite of what happened it just makes you look like an ultrakike lying turbo nigger.

>>9485195
pepsi cola what. wtf are you even trying to say

>>9476941
this and fake satoshi

>>9486221
you are proving his point, you know that, right?

>>9477677
>has literally no idea what UAHF is

>>9481646
>being in an overcrowded club is good a good thing
>where cover is $60 and the line to get it takes 2 days

>>9485687
sorry i thought you said satoshi hand picked them. missed "the man that" for some reason.

>>9476826
>>Fastest transactions (instant)
10 minute conf vs truly instant lightning payments
>>Very Low fees
BTC is 1 cent, and LN is less than 1/100th of a cent
>>Smart Contracts
RSK
>>Working scaling solution proved by scientific and technological studies
Literally fabricated controlled 'studies' that still show that blocksize is the wrong way to scale
>>Supported by Gavin Andreson (based lad)
Recused
>>It literally works RIGHT NOW.
so does the lightning network
>>Very easy to use
with built in minimum fees on every wallet so you can't actually save any money using it
>>Widely Recognised by pretty much all crypto institutions, and a CNBC favourite (which is important to normies)
Roger Ver is married to a CNBC anchor, and CNBC is literally a crypto tabloid at this point.

>>9476826
>muh tabs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUgL-4fx2JE

>>9476826
not sure if this is satire, but replying

>Fastest transactions (instant)
no "faster" than bitcoin. supposedly cheaper maybe. not instant unless you count 0 conf, then bitcoin is "instant" too.

>Very Low fees
Wouldn't be much lower than bitcoin under load, probably the same because you're just adjusting one constant and marketing it as something fundamentally more efficient.

>Smart Contracts
bitcoin has omni / counterparty / rootstock, etc. to provide smart contracts

>Working scaling solution proved by scientific and technological studies
moore's law is not a scaling "solution"

>>9488132
I try not to even bother with these threads of the debate in general, but are you fucking retarded?

RBF broke 0-conf on bitcoin. It's much "faster" than BTC retard.

"under load" BCH would be able to handle 32x the amount of transactions BTC does without the bottleneck, meaning that fees would only rise when the 32 MB ceiling is consistently being reached

he never fucking said moore's law was a scaling solution. the scaling solution, raising the blocksize, will work. 10 TB will keep your node running for 5 fucking years with full 32 MB blocks.

Fuck off retard.

then why does doge see twice as many daily transactions?

>smart contracts
lol

>zero conf transactions
lol

>able to scale
pull more than 10k tx a day then we'll see about that

why do people hate it? because it's a scam fork and it's controllers are trying to tear the crypto community in half

>>9485005
do you really think every dev working on btc is employed by blockstream?
this is the pure level of ignorance of bcashies top fucking kek

>>9486221
nice non argument

BITCOIN CASH IS BITCOIN. BITCOIN CASH TO 100K IN ONE YEAR. SCREENCAP ME MOTHER FUCKERS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>9488819
maybe 10 thousand in 5 years if all goes well. if BTC is still around it'll take a little longer

>>9476826
Cause its the most scum-tier douchebag coin out there.

>>9488716
Then why was Gavin's access removed and never restored?

Satoshi gave it to him.

No matter how many times shills claim bch tore crypto apart, it's part of the historical record the people behind it negotiated for the implementation of Satoshi's original vision for over three years and were endlessly stonewalled by the core devs who instead forcibly insisted on the implementation of Maxwell's vision and also insisted that any divergence from that plan back to the original plan was actually the defection.
Core and blockstream provoked the defection for over three years. They flatly lied about the nature of the architecture they forced through on the project they hijacked, and now spend hours per day pelting their nonsense on thread like this one shilling that the real problem is the people that stopped them.
Of course a disease views the immune system of the host as a problem.
Blockstream and core got absolutely everything they want on the chain they forcibly hijacked, and it turned out exactly at the people pointing out they hijacked it said that it would, and the original plan continues to be executed flawlessly on the BCH chain, and there is nothing that core or its legions of lying whining shills can do to stop it.

The sad part about all this is if there weren't so many stupid people such as the morons on /r/bitcoin, /r/cryptocurrency and those susceptible to propaganda Bitcoin would likely be 50 to 100k each now.

Instead we're starting from scratch at ~1k and working up without destructive kike influence.

>>9490092
There's a good chance if it weren't for core the entire cryptocurrency market cap would be in the original chain right now. Vitalik wouldn't have had to create ethereum on a different chain and consequently all the erc20 tokens would be there also.
There would be no call to split out Satoshi's original vision, and Maxwell's vision would just be some stupid failed project dying in a corner as it deserved, and there would be little cause for the most recent decline.
This would mean a per unit price from anywhere between 22k and 50k depending on how much of the recent dip you attribute to the schism.

Blockstream and core are unironically the absolute worst thing to ever have happened to cryptocurrency. Never forget just how bad they fucked us. They should never be able to live this down.

>>9489753
>muh Satoshis vision
Satoshis vision never included patents 9n an open source project
kys shill

>>9490253
>alt coins exist because muh kike blockstream and not because people want to make ez money
dogecoin and all the og pnd shit coins existed before blockstream was a thing
once again cashies shills showing everyone that they are late adopters desperately trying to feel like they belong

>>9476826
FLASH will destroy it

>>9490285
Not a single patent is relevant to the implementation of bitcoin cash. Whatever nchain implements on top of the chain and binds to it via patents are just the actions of another third party building independently on the chain like any other, as they are perfectly welcome to do.
Your stupidity and malevolence don't change reality as much as you wish they would.

>>9490300
And none of those coins had the slightest impact on dominance until BTC shit the bed on Maxwell's vision and hit the block ceiling and it became clear to everyone that it was a failure and thousands of alts flourished, shit for brains.

>>9490326
>csw is Satoshi
>Satoshi is a patent troll
I refuse to believe this

>>9490353
take a look at market dominance in 2014 and report back to me
market dominance is entirely irrelevant. way to show everyone you are a legit Brainlet

>>9490354
I didn't say csw is satoshi. I don't know if that's true and I don't care. There's nothing to stop people from building on an open blockchain is all I effectively said. And what they choose to do with what they build is up to them.

>>9490367
also btc dominance only started to fall Jan 2017, when it cost nothing to transfer and there was no ceiling hit
at the same time as pajeets were pumping out 1b supply coins

>>9490367
All the way up until BTC failed when the scale ceiling was hit and they didn't respond, BTC dominance was always well over 90 percent.
Deny it all you like, it just makes you sound like the fuckwit you are. Do the world a favor and kill yourself.

>>9488572

>RBF broke 0-conf on bitcoin. It's much "faster" than BTC retard.
Replace by fee didn't "break" zero conf, Zero conf never works as a reliable payment method, never did, never will. Even with empty blocks there is no guarantee that a zero conf transaction makes it into the block. A zero conf transaction is as good as an IOU.

>"under load" BCH would be able to handle 32x the amount of transactions BTC does without the bottleneck, meaning that fees would only rise when the 32 MB ceiling is consistently being reached
Theoretically. In actual use with spam, latency, dos attacks, etc? It won't really have any effect. You are taking one constant and scaling it 32x. It doesn't have a significant impact on the scalability of the design. Maybe fees would be a tad lower when usage is low, but still prohibitory when the network is congested.

>he never fucking said moore's law was a scaling solution. the scaling solution, raising the blocksize, will work. 10 TB will keep your node running for 5 fucking years with full 32 MB blocks.
Assuming you stick with 32MB blocks, the whole idea of bitcoin cash is to just continually increase it and assume technology will be fast enough by then. And that is just the storage. The bandwidth requirement becomes a much, much larger problem as block size increases.

I'm not saying 32MB blocks don't make sense right now in the short term. I think that's what bitcoin cash people get hung up about. Just the idea that it will significantly increase capacity or is in any way a long term solution is wrong.

>>9490587
Zero conf is a design goal for bch. Whatever it takes to make it happen they are aiming to implement, whether that takes weak blocks or just miners not mining on top of blocks that don't implement first seen first added or what.
Re scaling, not like Satoshi had done all the math back in 2008 or anything.

>>9490587
WRONG. 0-conf works, always has and before the blocks became full there was one instance where a double spend occurred and that was due to a bug which a hard-fork fixed. All you need is a blocksize increase, because there is no point in having users run nodes - which is exactly what Satoshi said.

>>9490407
dominance started dropping off Jan 2017
were you even here then?
the drop off had nothing to do with usability of btc and everything to do with countless scam projects coming out, then the ico gold rush came in full swing

learn what market cap actually is you dumb fuck

>>9490849
Average fees during that time reached 60 cents, an all time high as the mempool started building up. So you're blaming what happened as a result instead of the cause.

>>9490849
Dominance dropped off in a minor way because of Ethereum and a major way because BTC doesn't work you stupid cunt. And the fact Ethereum is a separate blockchain is core's fucking fault too. Get over it, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, you're just a clueless fuck with delusions of adequacy, that is utterly incapable of admitting that you're wrong. You will just change your perception of the territory to match some narrative where you weren't conned and are always winning, but you were, and you're fucking losing. Get over it.

>>9490913
>>9491008
retarded cash cuck shill still doesn't understand what a market cap is and how irrelevant they are
btc did a 20x from the dominance drop off point
all those alts only had value because you could trade them for btc after pumping
again, dominance drop off was because of a surge in pnd shit coins that won't exist come 2020, and had nothing to do with paying sub dollar fees

stay mad late adopter

>>9491083
Shitcoins have always existed. Are you seriously saying that the massive drop in market share was (((pure coincidence)))?

>>9491083
If you can't see that pattern when it's as clear as fucking day right on the chart I'm not even going to bother responding to you at all. You're a waste of perfectly serviceable oxygen and you should kill yourself. Enjoy your bags and your delusions.

>>9490651
>>9490658

0 conf is just logistically impossible.Just think about what zero conf means, you want to verify a transaction without any confirmation from miners that it will be included in the block? Under any meaningful load blocks will be filled.

And the primary explanation from bitcoin cash supporters as to why zero conf transactions are reliable (in unfilled blocked) is that pulling off a double spend for low value transactions would be ineffective due to cost of fees. But fees are supposed to be low (they won't be but that is the shill line). So IF fees are low than zero conf double spends are more easily pulled off by spamming higher fee transactions.

But the reality is that blocks would be filled if bitcoin was used as a global currency with all on chain transactions, making zero conf transactions absolutely unreliable.

>>9491143
> Under any meaningful load blocks will be filled.
Core assumption that is completely wrong. That is a forced in objective of Maxwell's to sabotage the system, not in the original design at all. And it's retarded and wrong and has obviously indisputably failed and yet coretards just keep repeating it as if it weren't proven wrong.

>>9491104
it's not coincidence it's how fucking numbers work
most money goes into bitcoin and stays in bitcoin. 1b supply shitcoin being valued at 1b because 1% of the supply is traded at $1 doesn't actually mean the shitcoin has 1b in it... doesn't mean it took 1b away from bitcoin.
doesn't mean anything really

market dominance is a dumb fuck metric for dumb fucks
kys

>>9491143
Larger blocks makes it more secure. This "spam the network by paying everyone" attack makes zero sense. It would literally cost you about 600$ with current fees just to fill a single block.

>>9491141
if you can't understand why the market cap of shit coins is irrelevant, thus making the market Dominance chart also irrelevant, idk what to tell you dude
you're a dumb fuck who is obviously new to crypto if you dont understand such basic concepts

>>9491213
the 1billion shitcoin argument makes no sense because most altcoins have a decent amount of liquidity and coinmarketcap iirc doesn't even add coins with less than a certain volume to the total market cap. You are kidding yourself.

in EVERY measurable metric, Bitcoin took a nosedive as a direct result of it becoming unusable.

>>9491247
>>9491234
and AGAIN, you can't give anyone a single reason why this took place immediately as the blocks became full. All you've done is insult people and spout Samson Mow's lines.

>>9491143
https://doublespend.cash/

people actually succeed in double spending on BCH and they still promote 0 conf.

>>9491198
>blocks aren't full
>pay fees anyway
lol, your economics are nonsensical.

>>9491143
>And the primary explanation from bitcoin cash supporters as to why zero conf transactions are reliable (in unfilled blocked) is that pulling off a double spend for low value transactions would be ineffective due to cost of fees. But fees are supposed to be low (they won't be but that is the shill line). So IF fees are low than zero conf double spends are more easily pulled off by spamming higher fee transactions.

congratulations. you just explained RBF you fucking brainlet

>>9491259
>send a transaction to a raspberry pi relay node that does jack shit
>it doesn't propogate anything, just sits there being slow and useless - same as on BTC
>wow I can double spend
All it would take is a single payment processor as Satoshi said or just a client like Bitcoin XT to detect these.

>>9491217

Who says fill the block? Just spam transactions. Propagation time in a global network would be many seconds. For point of sale transactions you are targeting less than 10 second transaction confirmation. If fees are low, anyone can just fire off a bunch of cheap transactions any time they buy something. Even if it only works 10% of the time that's a 10% discount you get on everything. If everyone does this you have people sending 10, 100, maybe 1000 more tx than necessary. The whole bitcoin cash system just falls apart if as soon as realize bad actors exists, spam exists, dos attacks exist.

>>9491247
you say market dominance loss is a result of btc not being usable and has nothing to do with countless shit coins being created or the ico scam gold rush
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions
confirmed transactions only increased since Jan 17, alongside the price (did a 20x from the drop off point in jan)

please for the overall of God learn how market caps are fucking calculated and realize that they are irrelevant for premined shit coins and erc20 scam tokens

>>9491258
correlation=/=causation you conspiracy theory cunt

>>9491259
> links to failed attempts.
You're an idiot.
https://news.bitcoin.com/someone-spent-2000-1000-gift-card-trying-double-spend-bch/

>>9491276
> fails to grasp that transactions aren't zero cost until the blocks are full and then magically acquire cost.
Idiocy confirmed.

>>9491296
>If fees are low, anyone can just fire off a bunch of cheap transactions any time they buy something.
Good. Miners will love it, and it makes no difference to how possible 0-conf is to pull off.

>>9491320
HAHAHHAHAHHHAHA
Literally (((pure coincidence))) the post

>>9491337
>prize for succeeding is $0
>price for failing is -$1000
>they're surprised when no one bothers

>>9491289
>ignores the fact that these were seen on the network
>ignores the fact that about half of these clear
You CAN double spend a 0 conf, thats the point.

>single payment processor as Satoshi said
>satoshi supported centralization
Ok, got a quote?

>>9491360
spams caps laugh
uses pol brackets
can't come up with actual arguments

typical underage rthedonald bcash shill

>>9491351
>fails to grasp that transactions aren't zero cost until the blocks are full
literally backwards. They should be free until the blocks are full.
> fails to grasp
>magically acquire cost
magical thinking. Like I said, your economics are nonsensical.

>>9491296
You're embarrassing yourself. There's an existing bounty for double spending on bch. Nobody has collected it. You simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about. To ddos bch you'd need to take it all the hashing power. And as a coretard that's really ground you don't want to stand on because lightning by contrast is trivially ddos vulnerable.

>>9491362
The prize for succeeding is ~1000$ - the tiny fee.

>>9491366
"I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.

The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate. When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first. If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes." - Satoshi Nakamoto

>>9491392
>81 posts by this ID
>first post in this thread 17 hours ago
>You're embarrassing yourself.

>>9491362
There's a penalty for failing at something you can't do by the design of the system incentives? Wow. I bet that has nothing at all to do with why it's never done. Stupid cunt.

>>9491392

See>>9491259

First page, a guy double successfully spent $2,500 of BCH over 3 minutes after the first transaction.

This doesn't mean he actually robbed someone $2,500. He probably just send two transactions. For whatever reason the node received the double spend 3 minutes after the original but the network still confirmed it.

>>9491337
>>9491413
The first example shows 2.5 BCH double spent with success .

>>9491389
> They should be free until the blocks are full.
Because you demand it otherwise your argument collapses. That's not a reason that reality is obligated to comply with however, your argument just collapses instead. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. The block limit has nothing to do with individual transactions having an actual processing cost.
You're wrong.

>>9491452
>Because you demand it otherwise your argument collapses. That's not a reason that reality is obligated to comply with however, your argument just collapses instead. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. The block limit has nothing to do with individual transactions having an actual processing cost.
what about the block reward?
>you're wrong.
nah

They get $12k+/block, and they are virtually empty. If they cared about adoption the block subsidy would cover 'free' transactions for a very long time.

>>9491433
Wrong. A relayed transaction is not a confirmed double spend you stupid fuck.

>>9491443
> Status: lost
Are you really this fucking stupid?

>>9491465
It's economics. The only reason miners have any incentive to include and propogate transactions in the first place is because of the fees. There is nothing altruistic in Bitcoin. On BCH, those fees tend to be about half a cent while on BTC roughly 50 cents last I tried.

>>9491469
>has no arguments
>drags down the level of discussion

>>9491488
Are you? in a double spend one is always lost. The point is if the 'lost' transaction could have been credited under 0-conf.

>>9491488

Lost because the double spend 200 second later was confirmed instead.

>>9491469

It depends what you are calling "successful double spend." This this double spend result in theft? Most likely not. It was probably just a guy who sent two transactions. The first address probably never credited the transaction because it wasn't confirmed. But if this was a point of sale transaction with zero conf the would have lost that 2.5 BCH.

This is just an example of how two transactions can take a very long time to propagate through the network, so in this case there was a 200 second difference between what this node saw and what the miner of the block saw. This is why 0 conf is unreliable even if the blocks aren't full. If they are full zero conf is almost entirely unreliable.

>>9491465
The cost of each individual transaction rises as transactions are added to the block AND THIS PART IS IMPORTANT SO FUCKING PAY ATTENTION YOUR STUPID CUNT *REGARDLESS OF THE BLOCK LIMIT*.
The penalty is an increased orphan rate the larger the block, so miners do have to consider the value of each transaction, and yeah if they could just mine a small amount of zero fee paying transactions and win the block reward they will, they won't raise their orphan rate for zero fee transactions, and the block reward decays over time making fees on actual transaction volume more important.
You're simply wrong about block limits and you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>9491304
It is a result of BTC not being usable. Those shitcoins and ICO's are a result of BTC not being usable, not the other way around.

A vast majority of alt coins are the same greedy people who "support" BTC, but only support it because it's their cripple coin the serves as a catalyst for the success for their shitcoins and ICO's.

>>9491569
>you have no idea what you're talking about.
its ironic you would say this, because you have been getting your shit blasted for 17 hours.

>>9491585
yeah, totally, no one wants a piece of the crypto pie, no one wants to scam and dump on others to become rich, shitcoins like tron and verge and bazinga were creates because btc failed... fucking kys

>>9491566
If this were a point of sales transaction its reasonable to assume they would be using something like Bitpay or at the very least a Bitcoin XT client to detect double spends. At which point it becomes incredibly difficult to pull off without mining your own block.

>>9491588
Just because you're too stupid to know you're wrong, doesn't mean you're right.

>>9476826
>Why do people hate Bitcoin Cash?

Bitcoin maximalists are afraid of competition.

>>9491670

So are you telling me businesses are going to have customers sit at the register for 3+ minutes waiting to half-way verify a zero-conf transaction?

>>9491715
No, the transaction happens roughly instantly but the merchant just has to relay transactions instead of taking the transaction as is.

>>9491743
So they have to run a node?
>>9491569
>The penalty is an increased orphan rate the larger the block
>1GB blocks coming soon TM
so you admit that full blocks would cripple BCH, gotcha.

>>9491766
They can do it themselves if they want to, or they can relay it to a payment processor.

>>9491775
>or they can relay it
with no node.

>>9491715
Many bch miners have indicated that they will not mine in top of blocks that violate the first seen rule. This is what "zero conf is a design goal" actually means. Whether that's done via weak blocks or enforcement at the orphan level is irrelevant. It's technically possible to do it and it's going to be done. Even now the fact is it's a pure gamble and one in practice that is always failed as the bounty remains uncollected.
Meanwhile back in core zero conf as I said is an anti design goal which they purposely sabotage by rbf.

>>9491784
They don't need to run a node - they can use SPV. Which is exactly what Bitcoin XT does despite also relaying double spend attempts. https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html

>>9491810
>run SPV
>send it to a node
>node relays it for you

>>9491766
> larger blocks increase orphan rate and there's an economic equilibrium on which it doesn't make sense for a given miner to mine above a certain size is exactly equal to large blocks cripple bch.
You're such a stupid cunt it's unbelievable.

>>9491826
*Nodes (plural). SPV connects to multiple nodes, it doesn't connect to any grand centralised node.

>>9491827
Go ahead, break it down. Preserve your work, so we can all see the point where you realize the flaw in your logic.
>it doesn't make sense for a given miner to mine above a certain size
you already admitted that 32 MB is too big by pointing out that miners intentionally don't mine full blocks.

>>9491855
Fair enough, but my point was that for BTC you could just run a node in your store and be 100% sure that the transaction has been relayed.

>>9491889
Nobody said that miners won't mine a full block. Basically, it is more costly to mine a full block so miners charge fees. understood?

>>9491933
>Basically, it is more costly to mine a full block
I understand this, but it is also costly in the long run to mine an empty block.
>so miners charge fees
before the blocks were full in BTC I sent hundreds of 0-fee transactions. Why is the block space in BCH so expensive when the blocks are less than 1/100th full?

>>9491889
I never said that at all. You're just making shit up now. There's not the necessary transaction throughput on BCH right now for miners to even have to choose at what point it makes sense for them to limit their block size, and it may well be above 32mb for all of them as mentioned 32mb blocks actually result in still a low throughput.
All I said was that you're wrong about transactions having a zero cost below the block limit, and you are. Each transaction has a cost regardless of the block limit. That you're too fucking stupid to understand what was actually said is not surprising at all, but doesn't change it one iota.

>>9491992
you can insult me all you want, I have personal pride.

>>9491979
0-fee transactions used to confirm ages ago, back when there was about 50kb reserved for free transactions on all nodes I think. They would not confirm now on either because they are both much more used. It's not expensive, I've frequently tested it out and succeeded with 0.004 cent fees.

>>9492013
Given how stupid you are that's unsurprising. You could still be proud of yourself if your were a flat young earth creationist. I don't care about your mental disorders.

>>9491979
>I understand this, but it is also costly in the long run to mine an empty block.
Are you saying this knowing that miners charge fees? I don't get your point at all.

>>9492025
I can get a $0.008 fee on BTC. Anyway what Im trying to get to is specifically this: why would I have to pay ~$4500 to buy all the space in a BCH block when it sits useless?

>average fee/kB in last 10 BCH blocks, 13.8 cents/kb
>1024 kB/MB, 32MB/block
>((13.8*1024*32)/100) = $4,500
So my point is why?

>>9492058
>can't bring himself to claim pride of his own

>>9492187
the blocks I used

>>9492195
I don't give a fuck about politics and personalities and ego. All I care about is the truth.
I realise that's a foreign mindset to you.

>>9492187
Supposed you're actually telling the truth which I doubt, that fee would not be reliable enough to get into the next block when they are all full unlike with BCH.
>why would I have to pay ~$4500 to buy all the space in a BCH block when it sits useless?
When what sits useless? What are you referring to as useless? Blockspace, transaction fees, all of those are useful so what are you possibly referring to as useless?
>>9492231
Why have you screencapped BCH?

>>9492278
>Blockspace
Blockspace in a block that has already been mined cannot be filled retroactively, so thats what I mean by useless.
>why have you screencapped BCH
Because that is the basis of my math?

>>9492353

new thread

>>9492327
>Blockspace in a block that has already been mined cannot be filled retroactively, so thats what I mean by useless.
You are asking why you have to pay money to fill a block that was already mined? You are confusing as fuck.

You said "the blocks I used" but those are all at the same time and hence the same block... And average fee is almost always wrong because exchanges take the safe route of paying high fees on every coin to not deal with tech support.

>>9492366
>You are asking why you have to pay money to fill a block that was already mined? You are confusing as fuck
Let me try again, The space in the next block, it will probably only be 1/100th filled, and at current fees it would cost $4,500 to fill it with transactions.
>You said "the blocks I used" but those are all at the same time and hence the same block
Not my fault the block explorer is a glitch piece of shit, if you have a better source I'll redo the math. I just used what I could find to generate an estimate.
>average fee is almost always wrong because exchanges take the safe route of paying high fees on every coin to not deal with tech support.
sounds familiar, BTC has similar problems, without people over paying fees would be sub 1 cent for everyone.

>>9492441
>and at current fees it would cost $4,500 to fill it with transactions.
Except your calculation is way off as it uses average fees, what the fuck is your point... "I want miners to include transactions in a block for no reason"?
>Not my fault the block explorer is a glitch piece of shit, if you have a better source I'll redo the math. I just used what I could find to generate an estimate.
The block explorer is fine, you are just confusing things. Those are all transactions in a single block.
>sounds familiar, BTC has similar problems, without people over paying fees would be sub 1 cent for everyone.
No, you can't get included in a block with sub cent fees - it is basic supply and demand; there is no block space but everyone wants it. At this point you are using the same logic as marxists arguing for price controls. I feel like you're just trying to give me a headache in all honesty.