/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>9605425
yes and you won't give a shit about either when both free fall to zero.

Bitcoin cash is backed by manlets.

>>9605451

Yeah, you're not gonna win that argument.

Deep

>>9605456

if bitcoin cash is so good why am I bleeding more from it than from other shitcoins?

YOU COULD SAY I'VE GOT THEM BIG BOY RACKS

when cashies are shilling the desperation is real.

>>9605542
Why are they so annoying? Cashies and maybe BTC maxis are the only intolerably annoying groups in crypto. Others might be annoying from time to time but those two are practically cults.

BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH BCRASH v

bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash bitcash

>>9605425

>>9606015
>>9606032
>>9606049
turbo shill is awake

>>9606057

>please not the easily verifiable facts!

>facts

>>9606122

>blocks your path

>>9605451
nobody over 6' ever achieved anything great

>>9606133
>A powerful miner is able to execute some serious attacks
>Company with a monopoly on ASIC mining creates a fork
hmmmmm..................

>>9606153

>A powerful miner is able to execute some serious attacks
>miners cannot completely change or destroy bitcoin
>b-b-but they're still attacking us!

Hmm...

>>9606153
is exactly why these Jihan paid turbo shills advocate for mining nodes only. Rhetoric like "non-mining nodes do nothing for the network." is straight Jihan Wu propaganda.

>>9605456

Oh look, hookers. How impressive that a scamming shitheel has bought a bunch of cheap pussy. That's TOTALLY who I want in charge of my finances.

>>9605425
So can Bitcoin Cash ever stand on its own or is attacking BTC just needed?

>>9606286

>let's validate the transactions in the lightning net.. uh.. wait...

>>9606234

Ty for the redpills anon, keep em coming. I'm saving em all

>>9606295
>verbtfobybro

How hard was it to buy in last December anon?

>>9606297

Do you even know who that is? I mean I know you're gonna Google it anyways, but do you?

>bitcoin crash

>>9606316

>waaaahhhh someone made a technological advancement I don't like!

>>9606315

You're welcome. I'm thinking about posting them every day actually. For every butthurt core shill in this thread I've no doubt there are ten others who are DTOR and checking the facts.

>>9606125
i dont think you want to use this in your propaganda fight. it clearly says:
>if people didnt run full nodes, miners could do whatever the fuck they want with the protocol

>>9606311

kek

I think you're confused. It is BTC (Blockstream's blockchain) attacking Bitcoin (BCH) relentlessly.

>>9606324

DESU I was buying XRP and XLM in December... made a nice little lick on those trades. why do you btrash fags keep bringing up December?

>because that's when Jihan and Coinbase spam the network.

Ah, okay I see now. Are you sure you mean "buy" and not transfer? How hard has it been to "buy" btc the seven years before and the several months since December?

>>9606234
with gold it's inconvenient to insist on settling always with bitcoin you can always insist on settling. assuming the 1mb limit doesn't shoot transaction fees into the fucking sky as we got a taste of it one time.

but i agree the secondary market can put huge downward pressure on the price altho it also stabilizes it which makes it more functional as currency.

>>9606401
Don't think I am. Can only speak on what I see and it's constantly pro BCH threads attacking BTC.

>>9606391

It doesn't clearly say that at all.

>>9606391
>>if people didnt run full nodes, miners could do whatever the fuck they want with the protocol

this is the type of truth that Jihan Wu and co don't want people to see.

>>9606429
bch stands more for the original ideas of bitcoin than btc. but it also is the underdog and it's value is completely slaved to btcs which is a big issue for them.

>>9606448
i tried to run a full client you know do my part then it filled my fucking hard drive after 40 days of syncing and hogging my io.

>>9606445
ok, then explain the last line:
>The simple fact is that if they didn't run those nodes, this whole discussion would not exist.

>>9606448

>Quotes someone who misrepresented the image

Classic uneducated, unintelligent, gullible, 19k buyer, corecuck, brainwashed mentality.

Jokes on you though. Anyone can scroll up the thread, open the image, and see how much you like to eat shit. Nice work.

>>9606297
these thugs are marketing geniuses.
>Hire a shill army to troll reddit and 4chan.
>Hire hookers
anything else ?
>act like spoiled children
kek

>>9606484
the image that yopu posted was written by a bitcoin classic supporter. He was pissed that bitcoin classic didn't pass consensus. He is an enemy of btc who is mad that people run full nodes so he can't just the network how ever he wants... so yeah the anon is 100% correct. that quote proves MY point that full nodes protect the network fuckstick

>>9606471

Quick english lesson: miners could do whatever the fuck they want with the protocol =/= this whole discussion would not exist.

But that's not even the underlying meaning. He is referring to the discussion of educating people in relation to the technology, and how it works, and the confusion regarding the functionality of full nodes.

But that's irrelevant anyway because miners, being the ones with the overwhelming economic incentive, are going to do as they please anyway, so it's moot.

>>9605425
wow bro thats is deep it really makes you think, just sold 100 k

>>9606520

Please describe to the audience how full nodes protect a network that is moving all its transactions off chain anyway, and has already lost the consensus its trying to protect due to the hard fork.

We'll wait.

>>9606529
>But that's irrelevant anyway because miners, being the ones with the overwhelming economic incentive, are going to do as they please anyway, so it's moot.
well we can collectively punish them for doing selfish things if we don't like them and they know it. so they can do whatever the fuck they want that doesn't piss off or scares away the userbase. without transactions miners are nothing.

>>9606554

You're trying to punish an inmate that has already escaped prison. BCH is a separate chain to BTC, the consensus full nodes are trying to enforce has already been lost.

>>9606529
wow, an english lesson from cheap ass troll pajeet. namaste, my man.
now a quick english lesson for you: learn wtf is interpretation.
he clearly says that the "discussion would not exist", i.e. discussion about changing the protocol. in other words, miners would not need to discuss the changes with the community, or, like i already said, do whatever the fuck they want. change payout to 100 btc/block? sure, why the fuck not? block transaction coming from certain countries? sure, why the fuck not? etc.

>>9606429

Yeah nah look at the catalog, there is a 'bcash btrash' thread created hourly.

BTC is just a kiked piece of shit and you're a useful idiot, or a paid pajeet. Either or.

>>9606547
i'm not that anon but you misunderstand something lightning network is not moving transactions off chain it resolves disputed transactions on chain. and setting up and settling payment channels are also on chain.

as for the consensus there was never any at that point that's why bitcoin split. when we reached the 1mb limit the natural thing would have been to raise it, but probably some big miners equipment was not built for it. hardware limitations are not cheap to overcome so i kind of understand their issues.

lightning network is useless without an ecosystem we have to wait years for at the very least to become a reality. in the meantime bitcoin users will suffer and miners get more transaction fees. they would have been retarded to do otherwise.

>>9606580
nah dude full nodes are full nodes they are running different software for the two coin now.

full nodes don't prevent splits nobody said that. they ensure that consensus about the protocol is upheld in a fork.

>>9606547
that's the thing... I don't have to describe how the network functions, it is well documented. You shills keep trying to exploit the ignorant. It is your burden of proof since it is your argument that contradicts the documentation.

>>9606625

I understand that. Which is why when people harp on about full nodes it's completely ridiculous. BCH is not an attack on full nodes simply because the fact that BCH exists means the question of full nodes is meaningless. Yet people still bring it up as a point of contention or evidence that BCH is somehow trying to subvert something noble.

>>9606646

>citation needed

Please, educate us.

>>9606671
>Which is why when people harp on about full nodes it's completely ridiculous.
i feel you seriously misunderstand something about full nodes significance and or the arguments about them. or you are not expressing yourself very well.

the problem with bitcoin protocol doesn't matter which branch really is running full nodes became too costly and way too inconvenient for most users. but giving up widespread running of full nodes shifts the distributed control of the protocol into a centralized pattern. which is more efficient it just fucks bitcoin sideways. doesn't matter which fork. same issues.

the fact is blockchain is aging tech and bitcoin is a particularly unagile example of it. the new hash-graph based protocols could easily circumvent the main issues of the monolithic blockchain. but it's not clear yet if we can make them actually work in the original spirit of crypto safely.

>>9606646

By documentation are you referring to the Bitcoin whitepaper as written by Satoshi Nakamoto?

>>9606731
the economic incentives for the miners are in no way affected by the number of non mining nodes or what software non mining nodes are running

saying non mining nodes can affect what miners do is like saying watching a tennis match on tv can change the outcome

>>9606731

If you are taking the debate as purely BTC vs BCH, then the Lightning Network and the fact that BCH is a separate chain respectively means that full nodes are not relevant in respect to settling the debate.

But I agree that both are aging tech and ought to be supplanted by something technologically superior. Only time would tell if that happens. That notwithstanding, if I'm to choose simply between those two I am going with the one that is censorship resistant, has already demonstrated to scale on-chain without recourse to scientific abominations, and adheres most closely to its creators proposed function.

>>9606813
>saying non mining nodes can affect what miners do is like saying watching a tennis match on tv can change the outcome
nah it's more like the judges (full nodes) that score the tennis players (miners) and determine the winner, as opposed to the spectators (not running full node) that still keep the tennis alive by buying tickets unless the entire thing disgust them too much.

BCH is Bitcoin but nobody cares

>>9606831
>That notwithstanding, if I'm to choose simply between those two I am going with the one that is censorship resistant, has already demonstrated to scale on-chain without recourse to scientific abominations, and adheres most closely to its creators proposed function.
i agree, but it is an unavoidable fact that bitcoin as it is must die. either second and third tier takes the load off the blockchain and the entire thing is institutionalized or it's gonna crap itself.

so there is no scenario where bitcoin stays true to satoshis original manifesto and stays alive indefinitely.

bch was not offering any solutions they tried to fix the immediate problem. the majority didn't like that even tho it made sense.

>>9606840

I agree that someone needs to score a tennis game, that is to say a dominant cryptocurrency ought not to be monopolized. But tennis is being played on so many other fields now, and when people think that full nodes are Score 1 for BTC when really it's a red herring and serves only as a distraction for true technical debate it's really silly.

Redpill dump complete. I may come back tomorrow and rustle some more corekek jimmies.

Roger actually studied economics. Unlike Maxwell and the other nerd virgins

>>9606870
"Bitcoin" is any chain dating back to the genesis block with the most hashing power.

BTC has 8x the hash power of BCH.

Or if you want to use adoption, BCH has 6.4 million wallets with $1 USD or more. BTC has 15.4m wallets.

Sorry, you're not quite there yet.

>>9606894
>and when people think that full nodes are Score 1 for BTC
anyone that thinks that is a retard it's more like a prisoner dilemma than a plus. nobody fucking wants full nodes. we need them to run a trust-less monetary system where nobody or no group or elected officials control the creation of new money or the transactions but we all agree on not trusting nobody just proofs of work and our own eyes and that the internet will not split in half or fragments further for any significant time.

>>9606840
no you're wrong. a non mining node has no ability to judge or validate or whatever you want to call it. They zero ability to do work, they have no hashpower, no vote, absolutely zero say in what miners want to do

they can only watch

bitcoin LN = off chain, not bitcoin

using 0 confs made half-way safe by BitPay and Coinbase payment processing hubs = the real bitcoin

>this is what cashies actually believe (or are paid to shill)

Who the fuck cares. BCH performs better gains wise

>>9606997

>my off-chain scaling solution is on-chain

Psst....hey buddy... LN is off-chain. The more you know.

>>9606980
you don't understand how bitcoin works right?
a full node judges and validates every fucking transaction in every fucking block that is published and selects a winner (of course it can change it's mind also and select an other winner) and for a full node a transaction posted in an anomalous block doesn't exist. it simply never happened. by ignoring things that don't match it's set of rules the miners are forced to play by the rules because their rewards only happen or become a reality to the users or anyone really if the keep to the rules.

you seriously need to dig into this shit it's fascinating. it's all about perception of a shared reality and agreeing on that reality which is done by full nodes not miners not lightweight clients.

the only power miners hold is to ignore certain transactions in their blocks. but the assumption is someone will pick them up anyways eventually. if miners cartel up they can blacklist accounts (say they agree never to incorporate a transaction that has one of satoshis original addresses as source to prevent panic) which gives them too much power this is the only thing full clients can't protect you from.

the centralization of mining power is dangerous because the rules don't cover everything some assumptions were based on decentralized mining and no ability or will for miners to collaborate on any level.

>>9607071
Btc’s mining power is as centralized as bch. It’s Bitmain

>>9607047
>implying BitPay and Coinbase are on chain

You think Coinbase gives a shit about actually recording bitcoin cash transactions to the chain? If everyone had to use BitPay and Coinbase to prevent double spending because bitcoin cash's 0 confs are susceptible to it, you might as well just be using coinbase accounts without the block chain at all. Hence why Coinbase and BitPay shill the fuck out of BCH. Its hilarious cashies are so gullible.

>>9607087
they obviously share the same problems because they use the same proof of work protocol which makes entering the mining competition prohibitively costly which leads to centralization over time.

satoshi didn't forsee the fpga/asic revolution and didn't plan for it. there were signs for a long time that it's not going to end well.

you need to change too many things on the bitcoin protocol to be sustainable and true to the original intentions which would make it not bitcoin in the end.

>>9607071
miners determine the consensus brainlet
you can run whatever non mining node you want but if it's not the consensus the miners are mining on you're not apart of the consensus
that's why you have to update your non mining node after a fork not he other way round

you should be ashamed of yourself for working against the adoption of bitcoin

>>9607178
>miners determine the consensus brainlet
dude just fucking learn how it works. you are speaking the worst kind off nonsense i read on this board.

>>9607189
you are claiming non mining nodes can change the consensus
that is completely wrong, there is no mechanism to change consensus without hashpower

you're a shill and a piece of shit human who is too stupid to realize you would make more money if you just invested and allowed scaling to occur

>>9607037
please see >>9606359 before hot garbage spew k thx.

>>9607178
at this point you are either an utter retard or trolling but i will give it one more try.
you update your client after a fork because this is how you vote this is how you exercise your right to choose which reality you participate in.

miners don't reach consensus they compete every miner wants to hog all the fucking block rewards it can. their best interest is in being greedy and selfish and competitive. this is by design this is something we can all believe in.

miners all create their version of reality or multiple realities post them and of which full nodes choose one. which one they chose usually regarded as history or "happened" after 6 blocks. miners also run full nodes because it is in their best interest to know what others see first hand. and in this way in a very very insignificant way they do participate in consensus. not more than you or i could.

>you should be ashamed of yourself for working against the adoption of bitcoin
i'm not working against it i just don't believe in bitcoin anymore. i'm following it for a long time when it was still $10 and so, lot's of things happened that disillusioned me. bitcoins current state is utter crap at this point i'm only interested in it as a speculative asset.

>>9607213
>that is completely wrong, there is no mechanism to change consensus without hashpower
you don't change consensus consensus is reached by the full nodes. i think you are totally confused about something.

determine and change are different things. you participate in market price determination for a lot of things but changing the price of something is beyond your abilities most of the times.

>allowed scaling to occur
i allow it it just won't happen.

>>9607251
there is no mechanism to change consensus without hashpower. Proof of work

if we had 10^1000 non mining nodes and 1 mining node the mining node would completely determine the rules

running non mining nodes has no role in consensus. Non mining are useful for people/groups who want to get information from the blockchain without relying on third parties

If jihan decided to move coins out of your wallet right now there is nothing any number of non mining nodes could do because they have no hashpower

>>9607133

>satoshi didn't forsee the fpga/asic revolution

Actually he did, he specifically stated this would occur.

Maxwell no one believes your lies, go back to plebbit or bitcointalk you fucking pathetic neckbeard. This entire thread is full of your fucking filthy lies. Enough.

>>9607178
>doesn't understand what consensus means.

Bitcoin is not a democracy. It's a consensus.
the difference is...
Democracy = 51% majority rules.
Consensus = 100% or nothing.

Your statement is factually incorrect by the pure nature of what consensus means.

Now understand that what you are calling "consensus" is actually a 51% miner attack. If the majority of miners (51% or more) are controlled by a single entity, they would have the power to (at least attempt to) decide which transactions get approved or not. This would allow them to prevent other transactions, and allow their own coins to be spent multiple times - a process called double spending.

stop spreading lies Jihan

>>9607303
>f we had 10^1000 non mining nodes and 1 mining node the mining node would completely determine the rules

this is the most delusional statement I have ever read.

>>9607340
non mining nodes have zero ability to affect consensus

there is no action a non mining node can take that affects the incentives for the miners

>>960739
they don't call them validating nodes for no reason smart guy.

So, do you take screenshots of your posts and submit them for payment?

>>9607312
>Actually he did, he specifically stated this would occur.
source?

>>9607303
>>9607394
get a load of this guy! he just doesn't give up. he is wrong and he is not afraid to let you know. it's like watching baby trump throwing a tantrum.

>>9607475
“Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal. "

Satoshi Nakamoto Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:56:27 -0800 https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

>>9607516
out of arguments

>>9607115

Wasn't implying that at all. In fact, I wasn't even addressing that part of your post because you had already revealed you're a dumbass and anything you had to say beyond that was worthless.

>>9607525
you sure you are quoting what you want to quote to prove your point? cause i sure as hell can't see it.

satoshi either didn't see the centralization of mining coming or he designed a shitty protocol that unspokenly relies on decentralization for certain things.

>>9607541
i can't argue with someone that willfully ignores facts and logic sorry. i have said everything that needs to be said (and is common knowledge btw) you refuse to concede it's on you not me.

>>9607576
define centralization of mining
name a single situation where non mining nodes or the number of them change the incentives for miners

>>9607559
I don't think he expected Jihan Wu's monopoly on asic miners.

>>9607596
you don't even understand what we mean by centralization of mining? oh boy...

it means centralization of mining power as opposed to a system where either individual miners or many pools that are freely and voluntarily organized of cooperative individuals can compete. it is no longer so for bitcoin. those who control production and distribution of asic miners control the mining power which is all centralized in a few entity mostly in china.

this is bad news because the original idea was that anyone can enter mining if the miners get out of hand and demand unreasonable fees. and the miners that didn't include every transaction they can would fall behind in block rewards.

partly with full blocks and partly with centralization of hashing power this became in jeopardy.

why the hell do you think a hundred thousand bitcoin successors showed up in the past years? everyone knows shit is fucked. everyone trying to fix it somehow to carry on. some are just blatant scamcoins of course.

the original idea behind crypto currency was that no central authority organization or secret cartel can control your money or your transactions or the creation/supply of money.

that is why bitcoin is fucked because miners now have some power over transactions and have some power to circumvent the democratic process of people choosing forks by extortion of withholding hashing power. that's why they had to change the difficulty adaptation part off the bch client code. but of course nobody likes when the devs fuck with these things.

NOBODY CARES ANYMORE ABOUT BTC & BCH

0xBTC is the only Coin that will matter

moh you mean ZRX? that other thing is a fucking joke.

>>9607622
>>9607559

Yes he saw that markets become more efficient, obviously it happens in every single fucking industry. There is a direct quote of him saying it but I can't be fucked finding it.

Bitmain might have gotten in ahead but that doesn't matter, why the fuck would Bitmain harm the hand that feeds it? Bitmain is Bitcoin (BCH)'s defender by design and it still works perfectly.

The fact that they might be selling more miners than other companies is irrelevant, competition must become more efficient to compete.

>>9607771
correct mostly except bitcoin is not a democracy it is a consensus. big difference.
democracy = 51% majority rule
consensus = 100% or nothing aka unanimity

>>9605980
BCH is the Donald Trump of crypto

>>9608291
well yeah, the thing about it 51% decides what exactly is called bitcoin. in that regard it is a democracy. and miners nowadays can fuck with this by saying even if most of you want that we will not mine that shit.

i remember the miners voting before the split with their hashing power. nobody ever intended the miners to hold any power they were to be rewarded for work and service provided and that's it. this is an abomination.

>>9608233
why do you fucking turds keep doing (bch) when you type the word bitcoin?

it's because nobody thinks bitcoin means (bch) so you have to keep explaining yourselves. you are purely delusional or paid for spreading misinformation.

>>9608334
You are referring to the 51% attack. Not democracy and not consensus. The 51% mining attack is a completely different animal.

>>9606057
Core pajeets got so tired of having their arguments railed they actuality have this guy a nickname? Cute.

>>9608233
if you can't see that mining companies are an abomination a direct perversion of satoshis original idea i can't help you. bitcoin was meant to be able to operate in a distributed manner without any organization or tight decision making groups. it's no longer a reality not singe gpu mining became utterly obsolete. even with gpu mining big farms which had access to "free" electricity were a big problem but at least there was a lot of them and pools of users running gpu rigs still had a chance to play or even carry the fucking blockchain through the collapse or capitulation of mining companies.

that shit is over and done with. and so is the hope that bitcoin will make it.

i must be too old but i remember when i could still mine bitcoin in a pool with my fucking laptop it was not much it didn't worth shit but i could do it. i actually participated personally in the creation of blocks that are part of the blockchain ever since.

>>9608426
>You are referring to the 51% attack.
no i am not

>>9606297
> in charge of my finances
Dude where the fuck do you think you are?

>>9606234
Hadn't seen this one before, who's that guy? Don't recognise the handle. Interesting point.

>>9608457
again... mostly correct. However, sha-256 pow algo was never mined on gpu's you are thinking of the scrypt pow algo litecoin. cgminer was cpu specific while sgminer was gpu specific.

>>9606877
That's utter bullshit. Do you realise how small transactions actually are? Or that Satoshi did the math on visa scale transactions way back in 2008 and it was even practical back then letalone the improvement in tech since? The simple fact is core is just flatly lying about the scaling issues at this particular juncture. Maybe one day we get up around those gigabyte plus blocks and it becomes an actual issue, but right now it's all complete nonsense.

>>9608457
>if you can't see that mining companies are an abomination a direct perversion of satoshis original idea i can't help you

satoshi said nodes (miners) will eventually just be in large datacenters run by large companies

>>9608600
> sha-256 pow algo was never mined on gpu's
this is wrong, I was mining sha256 with AMD gpus in 2011. There was a window of oppurtunity where AMD GPUs ruled sha256 mining, until FPGA and ASICs were developed

>>9608651
which miner did you use?

>>9608625
>The simple fact is core is just flatly lying about the scaling issues at this particular juncture.
i was not talking about any of that, and also not convinced it's true. when you got specifically manufactured hardware to mine as cheaply and efficiently as possible hard memory limits are quiet possible on scaling existing hardware to protocol changes. so they lied or not i don't know but that's not what was talked about there.

bitcoins scaling problems are not from block size you can indeed work around that. it's from the energy consumption hike rates.

>>9607559
You're just wrong.
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
"At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm wouldonly need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node."
Mining centralisation is a lie and a red herring all miners do is initially mint new money and then either grow their wealth by increasing stake in the system, or buy other assets with their stake which they expect to grow their wealth. The central point being that they have to earnestly work towards the ends they honestly believe to be the best network possible.
That's why in the long term after spending three years fighting core on implementing this very simple change that was always part of the original plan, they finally hard forked alone and are now searching for an alternative to what core used to provide. This is the exact correct move to make for the health of the system seeing as the is zero doubt core sabotaged the project, and they have invested millions in it and won't see it fail because of core's stupid ideas.

>>9608726
>According to Digiconomist the estimated power use of the bitcoin network, which is responsible for verifying transactions made with the cryptocurrency, is 30.14TWh a year, which exceeds that of 19 other European countries. At a continual power drain of 3.4GW, it means the network consumes five times more electricity than is produced by the largest wind farm in Europe, the London Array in the outer Thames Estuary, at 630MW.

>At those levels of electricity consumption, each individual bitcoin transaction uses almost 300KWh of electricity – enough to boil around 36,000 kettles full of water. Although power consumption of other payment networks is harder to isolate, one of Visa’s two US data centres reportedly runs on about 2% of the power required by bitcoin. Between them, those two data centres conduct around 200m transactions a day; the bitcoin network handles fewer than 350,000.

>36,000 kettles full of water
to send 40 cents in bitcoin to some pajeet

the fucking waste of it is inconceivable.
when i was first involved with bitcoin mining mined coins price pretty much equated for the cost of electricity it required to mine them.

that means you could only be profitable in your dreams with free hardware. no wonder i didn't invest in it heavily.

>>9608726
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Quantify "energy hike rates" and keep in mind I consult for large scale mining operations with asics, so I'm well aware of how it all actually works in practice, and what you just said sounds like complete nonsense. Energy consumption has absolutely nothing to do with throughput caps, except in the opposite sense of what you imply, with ridiculous throughout caps, per transaction energy consumption is simultaneously absurd.

>>9608769
>quotes about network not mining
>twice now
will you post actual source that proves satoshi foresaw and was okay with centralized mining or not?
>Mining centralisation is a lie
yeah like climate change... it's a lie except we all see it.

the rest is very hard to decipher and interpret so i won't comment on it.

>>9608708
guiminer on deepbit pool if I recall

>>9608796
And if core had not sabotaged the chain, who knows what that metric would look like, if it was the visa scale he speculated on in 2008 it would be 0.44kWh worth of hashing power per transaction, or about 0.024 USD per transaction in energy costs.
Core is to blame for that ridiculous 300kWh figure.

>>9608838
>Energy consumption has absolutely nothing to do with throughput caps
i was talking about sustainability nigga. our current fiat payment system of bank cards and transactions barely consumes any of the worlds energy produce. it is extremely efficient. bitcoin is growing in consumption like a fucking beast. it's not sustainable. and it is the inherent flaw that comes from the specific pow protocol of bitcoin and it's clones.

>>9608872
No, that clearly means mining, not nodes. There is no specialized hardware necessary for nodes and he even says networks of specialized hardware with a single node for the entire network. That is exactly how mining presently actually works.

>>9608886
>Core is to blame for that ridiculous 300kWh figure.
seriously?

>>9608923
So let me make absolutely sure you want to repeat that before u go dig up the figures to prove you have no fucking idea what you're talking about; all the traditional financial sector uses way less energy than crypto? That's seriously what you want to claim?

>>9608943
Do you not know that? How retarded are you? The hashing power invested in a 1mb block is identical to that invested in a 670mb block, so yeah the per transaction energy cost is enormously inflated by the artificial block limit, it's very simple mathematics and indisputable fact.

>>9606358
Dont you have to know the name of the guy before you google him dumbass? Unless all I have to type in is "scammer surrounded by 20 hookers" and BCH appears. Wouldnt surprise me

>>9608924
dude satoshi consistently referring full bitcoin clients as nodes in his text and quotes. i'm gonna have to dismiss that claim as unfounded.

>>9608953
no i'm claiming it uses less energy per transaction by a billion times than bitcoin

>>9608996
I quoted the source directly, dismissing it doesn't make you anymore correct. You're wrong, cope harder. You've either been duped or you're just a badly trained shill.

>>9608973
so you actually don't know what scalability means...
you are trying to linearly decrease an exponential power consumption hike.

>>9609010
you quoted a text and i dismissed your interpretation of it as utter conjecture that you can find plenty opposing quotes that clearly don't imply what you are saying. satoshi calls full clients with full ledger nodes. every time.

>>9608988
here I'll help you. its Calvin Ayre, made billions with his fantastically successful online casinos in the early 2000s. was the first large early adopter of Bitcoin across all his casino brands. Probably amassed a shit load of bitcoins early on, might have even been working with CSW (also involved in internet gambling) in the actual creation of bitcoin itself (the first bitcoin client had a poker app built in). Calvin probably has untold billions of dollars in crypto at this point, and he's now 100% BCH. All the original bitcoiners pretty much have seen what should be obvious, that BCH is the continuation of the original plan we all got on board with in the early days.

>>9605451
he appears shorter due to having millions of coins in his pockets, which bends his knees

>>9609006
Per transaction energy consumption is only so high because of core's sabotage and artificial throughput cap. If you actually compare traditional banking to bitcoin it's three times more energy efficient. https://hackernoon.com/the-bitcoin-vs-visa-electricity-consumption-fallacy-8cf194987a50
Is pretty ironic you take to the defense of the exact party directly responsible for the problem you raise.

>>9609060
My gratitude. I have presently placed a market order for one hundred thousand tokens.

>>9609057
For the record, this fucktard wants to claim the server farm is packed with full nodes even though the quote in question directly says *one node*; "A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node."
I'm not interested in talking to this idiot anymore. Somebody else can torture themselves with his stupidity if they like.

>>9609070
dude understand finally it's not just the current values it's the trends and projections for further adoption.

bitcoin is unsustainable as it is. it can't scale up to widespread adoption. and it already has an environmental impact. it could have less impact? sure why not? does that actually matter a lot? nope. it still scales bad.

>>9609079
top heh

>>9609090
same for your broken english and twisted selfish thought process chink faggot.

just waiting for bitcoin core to die

>>9609111
Checked

>>9609108
Fucktard once again makes the false implication that transaction throughput cannot scale without increased energy consumption. The absolute state of coretards, can't even comprehend how proof of work actually works on a ledger he thinks he's an expert in.

https://medium.com/iconominet/stablecoin-added-to-the-iconomi-platform-97f6a5be0ead

>>9609070
nigga that article...
>Based on rigorous testing, we estimate that VisaNet is capable of processing more than 56,000 transaction messages per second
bitcoin can do what 6-7 per sec?
and it already consumes way more than visa + then entire banking sector which also has shittons of transactions per sec sans visa.

and that's a system that can actually made more efficient over time compared to bitcoin which is pretty much doomed to be more and more inefficient with time.

i'm not saying here fixed block size is not fucking stupid and it doesn't hurt. i'm saying it is not the biggest problem by far.

>>9609229
Andreas is an insufferable corecuck, but he has solid points about Bitcoin and energy consumption
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T0OUIW89II

>>9609149
>makes the false implication that transaction throughput cannot scale without increased energy consumption
no you don't understand. throughput can be increased somewhat sure, but no matter what you do bitcoin will consume exponentially more power. and you can't scale the throughput exponentially over time. you lose so fucking bad it's not even funny. get it through your thick chink skull you dumb ass imbecile you can't fix this with a bandaid. why do you think people are putting their hopes into vapoware like lightning network?

>>9609229
> a; bitcoin can do what 6-7 per sec?
> b; i'm not saying here fixed block size is not fucking stupid and it doesn't hurt. i'm saying it is not the biggest problem by far.
I really don't know how to make this more fucking obvious to you, but for the record on anyone who is not catching the glaring error in your logic, a is directly caused by b. This fucking retard is found the equivalent of driving around with his handbrake on and complaining about fuel efficiency at a motor show.

>>9609229
BTC = 6 tx/sec, BCH = 150 tx/sec

honestly there's really not a need to be able to compete with VISA for many, many years. i doubt that bitcoin will ever take over all transactions, it'll just coexist next to them as an alternative.

>>9609251
This is flatly and completely fucking wrong. What does it take to get you to understand? The energy consumption for a block is the same no matter the size of the block, I'm trying to use very simple words so it doesn't overheat your clearly damaged brain, I have no idea how to make it any clearer. 3gb block? Nothing to do with the energy consumption. 300kB block? Nothing to do with the energy consumption.
Christ I can't believe someone so fucking retarded thinks highly of their understanding in this area. Unfuckingbelievable.

>>9609245
keeping in mind that traditional banking consumes much more energy than all cryptos combined is a good thing to keep in mind indeed

>>9609780
And let's not forget the cost in human capital, rather than just energy. There's more bankers than cops.

Just compare the human capital invested into bcash shills with the bankers.

>>9605539
They say windex how you live like that?

>>9610014
BCore shills do it for free. That’s the magic of manipulation

>>9605479
Pimpest picture

>>9608924
>17 posts by this id
>>9608943
>36 posts by this id
>>9607622
>10 posts by this id
>>9607550
>24 posts by this id

How much do (((they))) pay you for shilling?

>>9610410
>1 post by this id
bitcoin cash is still bitcoin

pity your low iq if you believe (((they))) want bch to win

I didn't know the bcash scam wasn't even a year old. I mean Christ, how did it get on Coinbase so quickly?

>>9610042
HOW YOU MAKE THEM FOREIGNS WHIP LIKE THAT?

>>9610450
the genesis block of bitcoin cash was mined on jan 3, 2009 by satoshi nakamoto

>>9610410
(((they))) don't pay me anything. (((they))) pay core shills. Cash advocates do it because that was the original vision from the start, it's really that simple, we bought a product back then based on that vision, it was hijacked and sabotaged by mainstream banking, blockstream, their shill brigades and a pack of useful idiots who fell for their completely nonsensical bullshit, I get paid because I have significant holdings in the asset and when the record is set straight as to what actually happens and people widely understand the truth that Bitcoin Cash is the actual original product, and Bitcoin Core is just a shitty clone with a poison pill strapped to it, I stand to benefit from that.
The simple fact that they actually managed to pull this deception over on so many people, when the very core of the argument is so ridiculously flimsy, really taught me a lot about just how fucking ignorant and stupid most people are, case in point >>9609251 most people seem to be like this, they really have no idea what the fuck is going on, they just spew pointless nonsense which frankly you'd be hard pressed to believe if you had paid attention at a computer science class in middle school where they teach you what bytes and kilobytes and megabytes are and how big that is and what technology is capable of doing in terms of moving, storing, and processing this data.
In a world where everyone watches terabytes of data per day on netflix, massive squads of completely clueless idiots have been mobilised to warn us all of the dire threat posed by 400 byte transactions flitting about between nodes on a peer to peer network. It's *unbelievably* stupid.

>>9610450
Coinbase has loathed core for as long as I can remember, and rightfully so. They built a huge business around something they saw as potentially revolutionary, and then those cunts came along and changed it to something completely different.

>>9610446
I dont give a fuck about your tribal wars. Bitcoin (cash) is a relic of a bygone age and will die sooner or later. Its just funny to see that you are still fighting over this.

>>9610549
It's funny that in light of >>9606015 and the recent 51% attack on Bitcoin Gold validating exactly what it's saying in the real world empirically, people like you still don't fucking get it.

>>9610510
Thats actually interesting, do you have any pre-bcash fork sources to prove it?
Also what arguments are used against increasing block size in bitcoin "core"?

>>9610631
What do you dont understand? I dont care about bitcoin and its forks, alts are the future.

>>9610410
the fucking shitpost counter guy is here... for the 100th time, I don't get paid by anyone for shitposting on an MS paint tutorial board for kids. I post facts in otherwise factless threads. cashies spew hot garbage all over my pc monitor, pure and utter fucking trash. namely bcash

>>9609292
hey i'm totally with bch on this! don't get me wrong. it's just a bandaid that's all. it's what we needed at the time imo, but not a permanent solution. it's hard to imagine that btc gets lightning network up and bch doesn't also adapt. they pretty much merge in all changes from the main branch automatically.

>>9609288
you don't read or can't understand what people are posting nigga?

>>9610707
> Thats actually interesting, do you have any pre-bcash fork sources to prove it?
Prove what, exactly? and Bcash isn't a fork, it's a Bitcoin Cash full node implementation, so I'm not sure what you actually mean here.
> Also what arguments are used against increasing block size in bitcoin "core"?
They have used dozens, none of them are at all even *vaguely* true, except this one;
1) If the on chain throughput is increased, people running non mining nodes on $30 hardware will not be able to validate blocks in real time.
Which is somewhat true (actually not even really because you can run with 8mb blocks just fine using an rpi) but completely irrelevant, because the intended configuration at scale was for end users to use SPV wallets, which is what everyone uses on thin client devices at any rate, and none of those give the vaguest fuck about block size.

>>9610744
Read >>9606015 again and consider what happened to Bitcoin Cash recently, it was 51% attacked and 18 million USD was lost on exchanges at a total cost of less than 70k USD.
Altcoins are not "the future", they are beta test projects that unless they acquire enough value, will eventually be doomed to suffer the same fate as Bitcoin Gold. They are effectively just interesting technology demonstrations, with an attached stake represented by the market price, until they acquire enough hashing power to defend themselves against a trivially committed attacker.

>>9610813
correction; the attack was on Bitcoin Gold, not Cash.

>>9610707
>Also what arguments are used against increasing block size in bitcoin "core"?
nothing too impressive. the real reason behind was more money for the miners. it's also possible they had technical difficulties adapting to a larger block size. it's not likely since only the hash of the block is hashed which is fixed in size.

>>9610707
there are three legitimate arguments... 1. bandwidth 2. storage space 3. backwards compatibility. There are others... like the fact that there are Billions of dollars invested in bitcoin, from the coins themselves to the network to supporting businesses and startups. when you are dealing with billions of dollars in real money (not premined airdropped shitfork coins) you don't go hardforking the fuck out of it. fiduciary prudent people respect the existing value of the network. crazy get-rich-quick scam artists fork the shit over and over and over, loosing a percent of the existing users (20% in the 32MB fork) for a possibility or attracting a little more. bcash lost 20% of their nodes in the 32MB hard fork. could you imagine the backlash that would ensue if bitcoin forked and lost 20% of their userbase... you could if you are not a fucking idiot.

>>9610881
And this lying cunt is emblematic of the cancer. The hard fork to raise the block size was planned *many years ago* by Satoshi, historical record is clear on this, despite Maxwell and his coterie of toxic assholes and useful idiots claiming otherwise. Thus, their decision *not* to follow through with this plan and instead implement an untested and not even theoretically workable second layer scaling solution that was guaranteed to turn out centralised (and has, even though it doesn't even work properly and is in the absolute beginnings of implementation).
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Cash hard forked to 32mb just fine, with no reports of any lost transactions at all, and nodes that didn't move in time are simply not in consensus anymore, and as such probably just upgraded themselves, or stopped running a node when they didn't need to.

>>9610954
>premined airdropped free scam coins are the future

hey, shit-for-brains... why is there over 100,000 more bcash coins in circulation than bitcoins in circulation?

>>9609332
>Bitcoin's current estimated annual electricity consumption* (TWh): 68.53
shit just gets worse and worse and worse and worse while all other tech gets more and more energy efficient. if you increased the competition in bitcoin mining to a healthy level if new players entered the fray it would be even more worse.

i want to direct your attention to my earlier post which sparked this shitstorm: >>9606877
>either second and third tier takes the load off the blockchain and the entire thing is institutionalized or it's gonna crap itself

this is about widespread adaptation meaning no more visa no more bank transfers everything is on block chain. you either centralize and institutionalize it (which kills bitcoin) or it will consume more power than what we can spare before crapping itself under the transaction load.

many people done the detailed calculations you can look them up. it helps short medium term if you increase the block size it's not enough long term.

i don't really care about long term tho it's purely academic i care about the next 5 years or so. after that something better is bound to emerge victorious.

>>9606448

Running a home node does nothing... by the time your node has even seen the tx, miners have already decided whether or not to put that tx into a block... the network structure is all the miners connect to all the others, your home node isnt important because it doesnt mine. If you want influnce you need to invest. Buying crypto does more than running a home node in terms of influence.

>>9611019
Hey, useless lying cunt. Because the EDA had a bug in the hard fork to 8mb, which was fixed in a subsequent hard fork. By contrast, exactly as I stated, there were no problems with the 32mb hard fork.

>>9611029
You can repeat this as much as you like, but it remains bullshit and just evidence of how fucking stupid you are. Allow me to repeat, every time you say that energy consumption of mining is linked to transactional throughput of the blockchain, you are making a fucking idiot of yourself, on much the same level that if you were to claim that the energy consumption of a nation were necessarily correlated with its monetary velocity.
You are wrong, and repeating this is JUST MAKING YOU LOOK FUCKING STUPID.
STOP IT.

Satoshi Nakamoto added the “MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000” on July 15, 2010 and released in Bitcoin Core 0.3.1 rc1 dated July 19, 2010. The 1MB rule was implemented on September 7, 2010, starting with the 79,400th block. On September 20, 2010, Nakamoto removed the startup rule, but retained the 1MB limit rule.

>>9606204

Is this brainlets invoking the labor theory of value to bitcoin?

>>9610760
i don't think BCH developers would ever want anything to do with Lightning Network but i don't think that will ever become a point of discussion either since Lightning Network won't ever solve its routing problem

lightning network is inherently a bad idea because of three reasons:

1. you have to set up your payment channel with on-chain transaction. if you have to deal with on-chain transactions anyway you might as well just scale up on-chain instead

2. if someone else use your payment channel they can deplete your funds to a merchant. if there are no other channels, which is likely since otherwise your channel wouldn't be depleted, you now need another on-chain transaction to make a new channel

3. the network will inevitably develop backbone nodes that nearly all transactions pass through. this "solves" the routing problem but makes the whole thing completely centralized, just like internet is today (with master backbone nodes).

bonus: 4. once you put your crypto into a channel you're basically trapped in the system. it's designed so that you would never want to take it out. eventually there would be almost no in/out on the bitcoin blockchain and at that point bitcoin is essentially dead and you can be sure that there will be talks to just drop it completely in favor of some kind of issued lightning network token

>Corecucks applaud bitcoin gold because no asics
>Lack of asics allow one miner to grab 51% of the network and double spend

So why didn't the Non-mining nodes do something huh? I thought you guys had power over the network? Or maybe you can't do shit about double spends because the Chain follows all consensus rules anyway.

>>9611048
>a bug in the hard fork to 8mb, which was fixed in a subsequent hard fork.
top fucking kek... you can keep your premined airdropped scamcoin now with extra buggy sauce. OG bitcoin please.

>>9611044
this is too stupid for words... hey fuckstick you do not have to take my word for it. the beauty is that it is well documented what a validating full node does for the bitcoin network. your spew is just showing how fucking shill you really are.

>>9611029
My idea is... xrp could be a good second layer... your thoughts?

>>9611140
do it on the Bitcoin main network then, frog

>>9611192

You're missing the point, faggot. How does your non-mining node secure the network or keep miners honest? We already saw how miners can dunk on you retards with 51%+ of hashpower. Take Maxwell's cock out of your ass and refute my point

>>9611114
i'm not thrilled about it either but banks work right?
our current monetary system works you could think of it like you have a payment channel to your bank and all money locked up in it that' son your account... then the nodes (cc companies) handle the transaction load and settle with the banks. just like nodes on ln... it works it is proven to scale up to real world demand.

ln may require to be centralized on the same level but the dispute resolving is decentralized and trustless and entering this competition would be easier for a new party than it is to issue your independent credit cards and have sellers accept them.

>>9611140
>bitcoin gold
is not bitcoin idiot

>>9605902
what exchange is this?

bcore

>>9611223

typical low iq bcore supporter

>>9611094
5x the block height he imagined having it implemented by. Lie all you fucking want, it was temporary.

>>9611210
banks working is irrelevant because it's a trusted system. lightning is supposed to be trustless.

also remember that payment channels are NOT like tubes that crypto flows through. they are more like metal bars between each node with crypto being pushed from one side to the other but they can't never leave the metal bar to another metal bar.

im explaining poorly but image is related to how you should see a payment channel. crypto never leaves it. when you pay "through" a different channel all that happens is that crypto slides across the channel to the other end, it never "flows" through all the channels to the destination.

>>9611205
The holders are the economic majority. The moment I see 6 blocks deep reorganization on the main chain, I am dumping the worthless token for fiat cash and millions of HODLers around the world with me.

On the other hand if the network works properly and securely, I'm buying the dips of the real Bitcoin (you know which one) - the strongest proof of work one.

>>9611192
You can't because miners, only. If they go away, you absolutely could just as easily, which proves the whole "BUT MUH FULL NODE" nonsense is exactly that, nonsense.

>>9611184
You mean the fork that has a bug in its difficulty adjustment algorithm that will completely destroy it? Right, yeah, great, you keep that fork cuntbrain.

>>9611282

So you're saying economic incentives keep miners honest? Makes sense 2bh

>>9611210
And no, banks don't fucking work, that is exactly what the purpose of all this is fucking *for*. It's embedded in the fucking genesis block you clueless hack.
Banks work to eternally enslave everyone that uses their premined shitcoin. That is the fucking purpose of their rube goldberg machine, they don't work, they must be destroyed, and that is what cryptocurrencies were designed to, and will, do.

Maaaagical crypto

>>9611184

You dont understand how bitcoin works... sorry but node count isnt important, it is the distribution of the miners and the ratio of edges to vertices. Bitcoin forms a hyper connected network of miners, which is what makes it work and keeps the neteork coherent and resistent to things like sybil attacks. Read the whitepaper - nodes mine, full stop. Proof of work, not proof of home node. The only need for a non mining node is if you are a merchant or exchange. Sorry to break the illusion but bitcoin is small world, proof of work and mining - not home nodes in a loose mesh.

>>9611282
> yay we finally banished the miners guys lets celebrate
> what do you mean there are hundred block deep reorgs happening all over the place?
> oh well I guess we give up and go home
gas yourself you clueless fuckstick

When scamcoins try to turn the tide

you quickly rush to mah side.

>>9611257
your example makes zero sense. bitcoin gold is not even sha-256.

>>9611460
He's pointing out that all proof of work operates under the same attack surface you drooling fucking troglodyte.
FUCK coretards annoy me with their fucking idiocy. Why are you people always so fucking stupid? I guess if you weren't you wouldn't be fucking coretards for starters. *sigh*.

>>9606148
Kike lies designed to smear the Führer. Hitler was 6'4"/240 lb/8% bodyfat as all ideal men should be.

>>9611489
layer 2 solutions are a must
always verify don't trust

There's no point in arguing. If you like bitcoin cash then use it. If you like bitcoin core then use it. If you don't like either then don't use them. I personally pay for my seedbox with bch because it's cheap, fast, and easy to use. If lightning ends up being better then i will use that. Bunch of fucking fanboys in the crypto community.

>>9611525
you're doing it wrong, by using bcash you're giving it legitimacy

>>9611517
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pYhl8gtBug
Try this North Corean anthem you clueless fuckstick. You're a load that should've been swallowed.

>>9611545
No, my seedbox accepting bch gives it legitimacy

>>9611549
The joke's on you, North Korea are actually the good guys.

Everyone must be able to run a full node, even if that means they're priced out of using Bitcoin. Verify, don't trust.

>>9611563
Why am I totally utterly unsurprised a core fanatic would think that?

>>9611489
it is this kind of contradictory speak that true shills are exceptional at.

hyper-premined airdropped buggy scam shitcoins will always be just that. bitcoin cash will never win. they are the bad guys in black hats in this spaghetti western. just the simple fact that their mob keeps threatening the bitcoin chain is proof enough of their maleficence.

>>9611702
> it's threatening your shitty boss to say you're going to take a better offer if it comes along or your side gig takes off because he is insane and you don't like the way he runs his business
You really are stupid cunt.

>>9611702

>it will never work
>p-please ignore all the adoption and on-chain projects

desperation

>>9611140
>Corecucks applaud bitcoin gold because no asics
Which ones?
Are you sure you aren't misunderstanding someone?

>So why didn't the Non-mining nodes do something huh?
Non-mining full nodes are so you the user don't have to trust anyone.
Obviously if the entire network is under a 51% attack, even your fucking mining node won't do shit for your dumb ass...
So what's your point cunt?
How can you have a trustless network if you have to trust someone to use it?
People accepting bitcoin should not be forced to trust someone because the devs are incompetent and/or literally don't give a shit.

51% attack is irrelevant on bitcoin (BTC) in this context because it has 90+% of the sha-256 hashrate.
BCH has a HUGE risk of miners attacking it the same way BTG was attacked.
Just having ASICS is not enough, you need to have a different algorithm, like litecoin, or it's irrelevant.
Other coins with way more hashrate than you have, aka 90% more hashrate on BTC vs BCH that can fuck you over at any time.
I hope it happens too lmfao.

>>9611783
I would take the better job. retaliation is for the weak minded. the best form of revenge is success.

>>9611860
>hyper-premined airdropped buggy scam shitcoins will always be just that. bitcoin cash

>>9611881
> 51% attack is irrelevant on bitcoin (BTC) in this context because it has 90+% of the sha-256 hashrate.
> BCH has a HUGE risk of miners attacking it the same way BTG was attacked.
You absolute fucking retard, pic related, you don't even understand the territory you're in.

>>9611939
>premined

Now you're just throwing words out you don't understand. Back to réddit, corecuck

>>9611622
Why call me a fanatic.? You found that in your shill scripture? You don't know us.

What's interesting you are supposed to convince us. But why won't you spill the beans. Who's funding you, why are you here (I know, to convince us the bcash is best, but why).

You are going to tell that you are genuinely convinced that bcash is best yadda yadda, but this is worth a try.

>>9611972
That is irrelevant.
The CURRENT hashrate is what matters.
If that day ever comes that the miners switch to bitcoin cash, then BTC will have the same threat BCH has now if it survives the drop in hashrate.
The fact is that it would take a tiny fraction of BTC's current hashrate to fully fuck BCH, just like it took a tiny fraction of GPU miners to fuck over BTG.

>>9611975
it isn't hard to misunderstand a word like premined. bitcoin cash has over 100,000 more coins in circulation than bitcoin due to a "bug". Dash also claimed that a "bug" was responsible for it's huge premine/hyper-mine whatever you prefer... I prefer to call them scams but to each their own. airdropped is in there to. that's when the legitimate owners of bitcoin received for free bitcoin cash. just for being there. you can't have an airdrop without a premine. you can't have 100,000 extra coins without a hyper-mine. so, what have we learned class... bitcoin cash is a hyper-premined airdropped scam shitcoin.

>>9611987
> Why call me a fanatic.? You found that in your shill scripture? You don't know us.
Because that's what you are, you're ignorantly defending religious doctrine while utterly failing to grasp the basics of how the system actually operates in reality.
> What's interesting you are supposed to convince us. But why won't you spill the beans. Who's funding you, why are you here (I know, to convince us the bcash is best, but why).
There's no fucking beans to spill. I fund myself and not from posting here. I'm here to correct the grievous misinformation campaign waged for many years on behalf of the core faction, because they managed to convince a significant amount of clueless fucks like you of things which are flatly untrue and obviously so on the most minor examination.
I got involved in bitcoin originally because I wanted to demote politics to the value that I believe it actually intrinsically has; zero. But this episode has taught me that no, you can't just ignore an underhanded political campaign to deceive clueless fucks, because it will be so successful that it actually manages to convince a vast amount of people that the project isn't even what it originally was.
A political campaign was waged to turn bitcoin from an instrument of financial freedom and accountability, to an instrument of even more control by the exact powers that always sought to enslave everyone else and never be held accountable themselves.
*AND CLUELESS CHUCKLEFUCKS LIKE YOU ARE CHEERING YOUR OWN ENSLAVEMENT* while accusing those of us who resist of being scam artists or fools or whatever other retarded narrative you've absorbed into that useless mass you call a brain.

>>9606032
Ben Garrison would be proud.

>>9612072
Funny how Roger was pushing Dash too.

>>9612065
It would take over 120k an hour, vs 70k a day for bch vs btc, and it would certainly provoke the hashing power that is ideologically behind bch to respond in kind and utterly destroy core with the moral high ground, as they were merely defending themselves from an attack core initiated.
Meanwhile, BTC will die and there's nothing that will change that, because of the picture you claim is "totally irrelevant".
You have no idea what you're talking about and you're going to get burned. Mark my words.

>>9611881
>How can you have a trustless network if you have to trust someone to use it?

Through this:
>51% attack is irrelevant on bitcoin (BTC) in this context because it has 90+% of the sha-256 hashrate.
The miners don't trust each other. It's in their best interest to catch bad actors because it increases their chance of wining the block reward. As long as we have enough miners competing against each other then running a full node isn't necessary because we can trust their lack of trust.

>>9612105
>*AND CLUELESS CHUCKLEFUCKS LIKE YOU ARE CHEERING YOUR OWN ENSLAVEMENT*
Babies are dying too, right Roger.

>>9605539
namefag

>>9612201
Note the flippant dismissal of tragic fact because this useless fucking cunt doesn't want to understand the magnitude of his own failure. It's worse than that. You're propping up and prolonging pic related. If you actually understood the magnitude of your failure and had a single ethical bone in your body you'd be unironically looking for a rope to end your idiocy right now. Instead you're just a clueless fucktard that fell victim to a propaganda campaign and now play the role of an obedient useful idiot for the authors thereof.
Laugh all you want, be a snide clueless fucking asshole all you want, end of the day the story unfolds only one way, and you're just a clueless pawn in this one.

>>9605425
Backed by code?

They just fuckingchanged a constant from 1 to 8 MB.

Bcash is backed by chink miners.

>it's another BagHolderCoin thread

>>9612316
Bitcoin core is also backed by miners.

>>9612139
>It would take over 120k an hour, vs 70k a day for bch vs btc,
I'm assuming you meant BTG not BTC?
So what, if you net millions from it, its worth it.
The point is its easily possible even if its less likely, which is a huge risk for BCH users.

>as they were merely defending themselves from an attack core initiated.
>implying any attack on BCH must be core, and not a miner who is doing it for free money.
kek. You are insanely delusional.

>>9612179
How do you yourself use bitcoin without trusting ANYONE?
You need to run a full node.

>>9612271
>triggered
lmfao... don't even calm your tits bitch, keep up the crazy... daddy likes it.

>>9612072
EDA wasn't a bug, it was an emergency measure to ensure the chain lived until they could find a permanent difficulty adjustment. Also it now has less than 100k extra coins and that number is going to be dropping every 2 weeks assuming the BTC hashrate keeps increasing.

>>9612407
Well run a full node then.

>>9612429
>EDA
Your shill partner called it a bug shitdick...

>>9612407
Unlike gpus, asics are typically stuck to a single chain. In the case of btc and bch, that is exactly the case, thus the only possible way bch gets 51'd is if a pretty large fraction of the btc power attacked it. The only plausible candidate is slush pool, every single other pool is either ideologically neutral or pro bch.
So, despite your fucking idiocy, yes, we can actually know.

>>9611275
>>9611315
>>9611315
i obviously meant the number of nodes you have to deal with the routing problems and transaction counts all translate to the topography ln could take. chill out niggas also you are retarded if you say banks don't work it's like saying you can't breathe air.

>>9611275
you can explain it any way you like when the channel is closed crypto moves. it's not really different from current interbank settlement.

>>9608294
Except because Trump won, and BCH lost?
The "crypto elections" happened during the fork, consensus went with BTC, BCH had to change difficulty algorithm or it would have died that same day.
BCH lost, it's nothing like Trump

BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH v

>>9612509
The EDA itself wasn't a bug you halfwit cuntbrain. The EDA *had* a bug, it was fixed.

>>9612736

>>9612407
yup, Jihan could do a 51% attack on BCH instantly. At the start they had like 75%+ of the hashrate since it was insanely unprofitable to mine it.
They could still mine it at a profit because of covert asicboost though, so they were the only ones doing it.

>>9612724
BCH won, if you'd gone with it at fork time, you'd be up over having done the opposite. Even just holding both isn't as good an outcome as full bch.

>>9612065
Too bad most of BTC’s hashrate is owned by the guy who owns BCH. Fuck your mother if you want fuck

>>9612429
>it was an emergency measure to ensure the chain lived until they could find a permanent difficulty adjustment.
>ensuring that the chain without consensus would live
> JUST AS SATOSHI NAKAMOTO SAID!
Bcashies believing they follow the whitepaper are ridiculous. The most important part is consensus, and changing the difficulty every block is completely opposite to the idea. BCH's chain should have died as soon as it was forked

>>9612775
The image is for you, not the other guy

Buying bitcoin cash is like starting a fake nike shoe collection

>>9612810
not following you consensus must only be reached between those who forked with it. it was a technicality had to be overcome.

>>9612810
We believe hashrate determines consensus.

>>9612810
Neither chain has consensus after the successful political hijacking campaign of core. The very fact the war rages on demonstrates that. Even if the only reason coretards don't switch to BCH is because they're too fucking stupid, I still cede their defection is evidence consensus is broken.
It will only be temporary though, when the profitability to mine bch swings hard enough, btc is doomed.
I consider it a compliment coming from someone as obviously idiotic as you

>>9612737
>EDA had a bug in the hard fork to 8mb, which was fixed in a subsequent hard fork.
I'm impressed. the first shread of truth in any of your posts all day.

it's still a hyper-premined airdropped scam shitcoin. but at least you didn't lie for one time.

>>9612920
>it's still a hyper-premined airdropped scam shitcoin.
>hyper-premined
no
>airdropped
no
>scam shitcoin
no

>>9612941
so eloquent an argument.

>>9612920
As if you have any idea at all what the truth is, you're easily the stupidest fuck in this thread with the exception of your drooling co-ideologue who thinks transaction throughput is directly correlated with energy consumption, and at least that cunt had the good sense to shut the fuck up, whilst you're still in here shitting up the thread with your nonsense and don't even have the decency to neck yourself for being the worthless pawn you are.

>>9612429
>dropping every 2 weeks assuming the BTC hashrate keeps increasing

let's examine this shall we... you are actually telling me that the cash fork was so fucking lame that it needed a buggy algo hack just to survive, and that shady buggy algo hack ended up not hyper-mining over one hundred thousand extra coins. Not only was it not a bug and it didn't hyper-mine 100,000 extra coins ( with the empty blocks to go with them) but, now just to return back to the amount of coins that it should genuinely have it actually needs the bitcoin hashrate to increase. are you reading the spew as you type it?

>>9612970
>hyper-premined
premined would mean that the mining was closed off to the public, anyone with Sha-256 asics could mine.
>airdropped
No again, it was a hard fork. You got BCH as long as you controlled your own private keys at the time of the fork. You can "claim" the BCH whenever, in 1 year, 50 years, 10,000 years. Calling it an airdrop is completely disingenuous.
>scam shitcoin
This is up for debate. BCH wants to be peer to peer electronic cash, if that is a scam shitcoin to you....

>>9612980
> stupidest
you are a bcash supporter who mines bitcoin. You literally are my bitch. you are stuck writing MY transactions into MY blockchain. You are the exact definition of a cuckhold.

>>9613105
Yes Bitcoin Cash devs are willing to use code that works and not cripple the entire coin by waiting for the perfect code.

>>9613160
What in the actual fuck are you on about? You somehow think I'm a miner? Do you realise why miners mine BTC? So they can dump their bags of the shit on market to stupid fanatic cunts like you and buy currencies that actually work and don't suck. You are literally their constant greater fucking fool. That you take pride in it just emphasizes the depth of your complete fucking idiocy.

>>9613160
Imagine you are a miner who loves Bitcoin Cash for long term investing and are presented with two scenarios:
1. BTC has 10x the hashrate and price of BCH. You can mine 1 BTC and sell it to pay for your electricity and trade the remaining for 9 BCH.
2. BCH has 10x the hashrate and price of BTC. You can mine 1 BCH and sell some of it to pay for your electricity and are left with 0.9 BCH.
If you are a long term investor in BCH you are willing to ignore the current prices.

>>9613116
>premined would mean that the mining was closed off to the public,
>anyone with Sha-256 asics could mine.

behind closed doors or out in the open is fucking semantics... those coins came from empty blocks mined by dishonest people who knew what they were doing. whether you call it hyper mined or premined or whatever word would make your snowflake heart feel better about supporting a scam... they should not exist period.

>No again, it was a hard fork. You got BCH as long as you controlled your own private keys
>at the time of the fork. You can "claim" the BCH whenever, in 1 year, 50 years, 10,000
>years. Calling it an airdrop is completely disingenuous.

free coins = air drop . again you are reaching for comfy words... using semantics as a buffer. reality check. free coins = air drop.

>This is up for debate. BCH wants to be peer to peer electronic cash, if that is a scam shitcoin to you....

Their software is closed source, their marketing tactics are Guerrilla, their front men are con artist known for unscrupulous moral behavior. they have distorted the very definition of cash to fit their narrative.

If I buy a $500,000 house payed for with cash... do you actually think I'm bringing a fucking suitcase filled with $100 bills to their the seller's bank? no you fucking idiot, I'm going to write a check. a fucking check that will probably take 7 to 10 business days to clear my bank account. even a certified check takes 3-5 business days to settle.

cash does not mean cheap and it does not mean fast but bcash fags twist the truth to make it seem like it does because they hope people like you are too fucking stupid or poor to understand these elementary social norms

>>9613397
*Your* hijacked shitfork should not exist, is a shitty airdrop, free coins for original bitcoin holders, the actual chain which continued on at the fork date using the original roadmap for the project. You're just a deluded fanatic who doesn't have a fucking clue what you're talking about and can't tell shit from clay.
The major BCH node implementations are all open source, you can look up the githubs, of course, you fucking probably don't even know what that means and define it via your spoonfed propaganda, which you also don't understand.
And "transactions have to be expensive and slow because they always have been" is no more an argument than "transportation has to be expensive and slow because it always has been" you absolute fucking retard. There is no reason to cripple the project just to keep the present financial system competitive, unless you're the present financial system and you're trying to set rules that will benefit you, of course.

>>9613330
>BTC has 10x the hashrate and price of BCH.
this is the only thing I could understand... the rest is an exercise in idiocy... bitcoin's current block reward is 12.5. if I sold one that would leave me with 11.5. are you having a seizure or something?

>>9611245
bl3p. do you know how to read you fucking retard?

>>9613457
Listen to this absolute fucking retard... Literally "I don't understand what you're saying so you must be wrong and I must be right". This is what coretards have descended to, I take it back, electricity consumption equals throughput guy is actually not as fucking stupid as you.

>>9613397
>behind closed doors or out in the open is fucking semantics... those coins came from empty blocks mined by dishonest people who knew what they were doing. whether you call it hyper mined or premined or whatever word would make your snowflake heart feel better about supporting a scam... they should not exist period.
They exist because we needed the miners to keep the chain alive. That's it. There wasn't a better solution at the time.
>
free coins = air drop . again you are reaching for comfy words... using semantics as a buffer. reality check. free coins = air drop.
Not free coins or an airdrop. HARD FORK. Usually hard forks result in the old chain dying and people forgetting about them.
>Their software is closed source,
BCH is open source.
> their marketing tactics are Guerrilla,
Necessary due to censorship
>their front men are con artist known for unscrupulous moral behavior.
Are you talking about Wu, Ver, Craig?
>they have distorted the very definition of cash to fit their narrative.
No they certainly haven't
>If I buy a $500,000 house payed for with cash... do you actually think I'm bringing a fucking suitcase filled with $100 bills to their the seller's bank? no you fucking idiot, I'm going to write a check.
Of course not. You risk counterfeit money and anything over 10k in the US requires all sorts of forms for anti money laundering.

If you aren't suppose to use bitcoin for coffee because it is spam and aren't suppose to use it for a house, what are you suppose to use it for? A store of value that no one is suppose to use seems unsustainable.

>>9613457
> bitcoin's current block reward is 12.5.
And who exactly is mining blocks outside of a mining pool these days?

>>9613439
>Your* hijacked shitfork should not exist, is a shitty airdrop, free coins for original bitcoin holders, the actual chain which continued on at the fork date using the original roadmap for the project.

I cannot formulate an argument to this nonsensical sentence... what are you trying to say? are you the one who's having a seizure?

>fucking probably don't even know what that means

yes, I know github... we run git lab here it's a private server for in house projects... you do know what git lab is right mr smart guy? Bitcoin ABC may be on github but there is only one dude who works on it and from what I can see it was just started back in March... I may be mistaken but probably not.

>"transactions have to be expensive and slow because they always have been"

I've never said anything of the sort. bitcoin is actually a lot cheaper and settles a lot faster than writing checks and maintaining a checking account. it's the bcash crown that put words in people's mouths and spin ideas to fit their narrative, exactly like what you just did with my non-quote

>you absolute fucking retard

calling me a retard over words that you put into my post is the true shill script. Bravo shill! Bravo.

>you're trying to set rules that will benefit you
exactly what Jihan Wu and mob are doing with bch.

oh and I almost forgot.
>trying to pretend like you're not the same shill in every thread
good one.

>>9613457
Fine if you can't understand some simple math:
Imagine you are a miner who loves Bitcoin Cash for long term investing and are presented with two scenarios:
1. BTC has 10x the hashrate and price of BCH. You can mine X BTC and sell it to pay for your electricity and trade the remaining for 9X BCH.
2. BCH has 10x the hashrate and price of BTC. You can mine Y BCH and sell some of it to pay for your electricity and are left with 0.9Y BCH.
If you are a long term investor in BCH you are willing to ignore the current prices.

>>9613606
You're clearly incapable of understanding even the simplest economic analysis like cost benefit of mining a given chain, so I'm just going to leave you with pic related as a tribute to your retarded fanaticism. One day I hope you look back and realise just how much of a complete fucking idiot you were and how easily tricked you were. Until then you'll be just an idiot pawn like this douchebag.

>>9613894
BASED TONED VASE

hell at least he has come to the conclusion btc is about to get btfo.

>>9605425
I just bought $100 bcash and lost it going all in with JJ vs. QQ.

>>9612851
that's the singular most idiotic thing i read on this entire board congrats!

>>9612980
>who thinks transaction throughput is directly correlated with energy consumption
that's just what you pulled out of your ass i never said that. i said bitcoin consumption will only raise exponentially with more widespread adaptation. this is mostly because of the increase in hashing power over time if with more widespread adaptation countries get into the mining business and it becomes sort of a fucking weapons race. also the transaction frequency of bitcoin is abysmal for naked world wide adaptation. with ln it should work tho i give you that but we were arguing about whether that's needed or not.
>at least that cunt had the good sense to shut the fuck up
you wish little piggy i was just watching a movie

>>9605456
Lmao. You probably think that danbizzaroorwhatever is the coolest guy for taking pics with 20 hookers.

>>9614453
Hashrate is proof you have skin in the game.

>>9614843
oh boy

>>9614897
"full nodes" can be sock puppets
coins can be liquidated easily

>>9611048
There was no bug. The huge fluctuations in Bitcoin (BCH) and bcore's prices caused miners to over mine BCH periodically.

>>9613672
this is me >>9613606 as is this >>9608291

simple math is one thing... this
>Imagine you are a miner who loves Bitcoin Cash
is spongebob level shit.

My integrity would say that I only mine bitcoin cash. I cannot get past this. the rest of your example is moot when you add integrity. Something I find lacking in the entirety of the die hard bitcoin cash community. I can respect a trader who uses bch as an apparatus of financial gain. I can respect a miner who has no loyalty to either one and is just doing what the game decides. What I have absolute contempt for are asshole like you, chumps in the game who try to portray themselves as team bch all the while still sucking on mamma bitcoin's milky tits. people like you are a disgrace.

>>9613894
don't know who that is... don't really care. keep pretending that you're not the same shill in every thread... your tired ass memes are what give you away.

>>9614914
crypto is meant to be a trust-less decentralized system for the users ie wallet holders. if you define consensus as something they don't participate in they won't participate in your shitcoin. which is why what you are saying is wrong and was never intended. decentralized mining would be nice but it's a pipedream for bitcoin forks.

>>9615010
>My integrity would say that I only mine bitcoin cash.
We believe that economic actors behave in their rational self interest.

>>9615050
It is Proof of Work, not proof of nodes or proof of stake.

>>9612775
You'd be up much more if you had bought Verge at that time
By that logic, Verge > BCH

>>9615074
you fucking mongrel the proof of work is not the purpose it's the means to an end. miners were never meant to hold any power they were meant to be rewarded for their service for their resources and effort that's all. stop spouting bullshit! you are worse then core-cucks!

>>9615081
I didn't know you could trace Verge to the Genesis block, damn now I'm interested.

>>9615097

Nodes still don't do anything

>>9615124
yes they do. they define reality together. that's what is called consensus. seriously look it up!

>>9615136
keep telling yourself that.

>>9615136

"consensus" sure helped bitcoin gold when miners attempted a double spend. Your non-mining node didn't do shit to stop them

>>9615081
>>9615102

>>9605451
Fucking kek, I hear Satoshi is 6'8"

>>9615097

>>9615136

>>9606032
This make zero sense. What does the author see as censorship?

>>9611615

this is retarded. 99.999% of the people here use block explorers; blockchain.info and etherscan. There is every reason to trust these sites (They have economic incentive to work correctly). "everyone must run a node" is a retarded bcore meme.

>>9615215

>>9615151
consensus protocol is useless against 51% attacks you can literally rewrite history if you control enough of the hashrate yes. but what is your point exactly? this is a known flaw from the very beginnings. if someone gets 51% or more of the hashing power in a network the rest of the miners can go hike they can't do crap the nodes can't. i just don't get your point...

>>9611702

I Think BTC has been taken over by groups who don't mine and who need to figure out some way to extract money from Bitcoin outside of its intended financial incentive system. To do this they have unnecessarily hampered the main chain in order to push their layer 2 solutions which divert tx from the miners to themselves.

Given the advances in technology (hardware, bandwith, memory, etc.) there is no reason the main chain can't scale via block size increase over time. It should have already been raised to 2-4 in order to prevent the hard fork last year and to prevent the throttling in December.

the BTC network is also in a unique position where because of its massive value much more money can be profitably invested into running its nodes. Most PoW coins can't justify running expensive hardware so must be supported by retail equipment; even BTC in earlier days had this limitation. As the network grows in value however, the nodes can cost more since they yield more. Block size can increase comfortably as long as the price of the coin increases with it; in this scenario the # of nodes doesn't significantly decrease despite the added expense and decentralization/censorship resistance remains as throughput increases drastically. The downsides to scaling block size are so massively outweighed by the upside that for Core to fight tooth and nail to keep blocks at 1mb must be motivated by something other than what is best for Bitcoin (and anyone with critical thought knows what that is).

These guys at core don't mine they never made large investments into BTC when it was cheap. I remember when one of them not long ago was literally broke and had to get a bunch of BTC donations from the community. They wan't to be rewarded for their work though, they aren't doing this for free. So they take corporate sponsorship and push Lightning and Liquid which they directly control and can monetize.

I know people hate Ver, CSW, and Jihan because of their grating personalities but when you think about it these people should be trusted over Bitcoin Core for purely economic reasons. They all participate in the primary economic incentive system of Bitcoin. They all mine. Therefore of course they are going to do what is best for the coin itself.

Whereas Blockstream does what is best for their own business model. Even before all this lightning stuff Blockstream was damaging the BTC code in order to stop Counterparty from beating them to market.

>>9615237

brainlet

this shows how little non-mining nodes matter. When it comes to consensus and the state of the ledger the miners are all that matter. You could have 1 billion non mining nodes on your network; but if there is a pool of only 10 gigahash and I control 6 of them then guess what, all those nodes are useless and you are fucked. Miners and hash power are all that matter.

>>9615242
>I remember when one of them not long ago was literally broke and had to get a bunch of BTC donations from the community.
I remember Luke-jr soliciting donations for something last year.

>>9615338
They still don't understand that people are attempting to undermine their coin, and they won't care until it is too late to do anything about.

>>9615210

>>9615344
https://medium.com/@tuurdemeester/fundraiser-for-luke-dashjr-2a4c0afb96a8

found it. How is someone who was involved in writing bitcoin code from back in 2011 not a multimillionaire, unless he doesn't actually believe in the work he's doing.

>>9615256

>>9615377
> he doesn't actually believe in the work he's doing
What do you suppose his government actually has asked him to do?

>>9615187
>Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote.
oh boy... i re-read the whitepaper it's actually stupid. satoshi nakamoto was a retard. i guess the first time it was filtered through of how it actually worked.

>>9615438
Slavery is also fine with him because it is in the bible. Perhaps he is religiously motivated to ruin bitcoin because it allows people to disobey authority.

>>9615452
> when proven utterly wrong beyond all reprieve, simply blame reality for your failure.
k

>>9615452
yes the person who pieced the parts together to create the first working cryptocurrency is a retard.

>>9615460

>>9615480
He could tell the truth and get kicked out of crypto, or he could lie and God would smite him down.

Silence was a smart choice.

>>9615470
yeah i will admit my assumption of how satoshi worded his intentions were wrong. this only changes how i see his work tho. not how i see your stupidity.

>>9615474
it appears so. if we went with miners make the consensus we might as well stick with the banks. it's just schematics at that point what you call the central authority you choose.

>>9615531

Miners are incentivized by economics to be honest. You're completely clueless on how bitcoin works. Read a book nigger. Nodes can be sybil'd extremely easy since they require no investment

>>9615515
Your mistake is in thinking that anyone cares about what you think, or that it has any relationship, no matter how remote, with reality. The fact you pile hubris on top of inadequacy and ignorance is amusing, but not surprising.

>>9615545
yeah but even if you make 90% of the nodes your slaves you still can't fool the other 10% so there is no point. it's not actually a voting protocol consensus is not a majority thing. it's a thing where you simply ignore facts that don't match your set of rules and know that you only share the same reality with people that also follow the same rules.

>>9615617
well it's a good thing i was already totally disillusioned of bitcoin(s). i just thought satoshi was a cool and smart guy before today. i guess that's gone now.

you on the other hand you still sound like a retard but now i at least understand where you got it.

>>9615506
> WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE...

>>9615655
Your ability to ignore reality in favor of assuming your demonstrably retarded perceptions are accurate is truly dizzying.

>>9615377

haha nice find. Yea in since 2011 and broke. Shows how much core really believes in BTC. These broke fucks are just trying to cash in after stealing the github from gavin since they are too late to get rich the way you are meant to with Bitcoin.

this thread is still up?!

>>9612713
of course banks works as long as you do safe little pussy transactions. i dare you try to transfer 10 USD to Achmed in the middle of Islamistan and see how far you get.

your isolate safe-space experience of banks dont translate to what a lot of people all over the world have to go through

>>9615438

how did this methhead cuck even get on the team.

I can't believe someone could like these bcore people. Even blindly/fanatically follow them, but hate Ver and Jihan who actually share a common interest with you. Who cares about the personalities; you don't have to fucking hang out with them. You only have to support them so they can make you rich through a successful bitcoin.

>>9615751
>how did this methhead cuck even get on the team.
That would be Gavin. Cahies love them some Gavin A.

>>9615452

Satoshi is orders of magnitude more intelligent than you. The Bitcoin whitepaper and the Bitcoin implementation are absolutely fucking genius. Completely original; forget that we have 10,000 shitcoin copies now. Probably the best invention I've seen in my lifetime.

>>9615751
Check image in >>9610510 can your see where your assumptions fall down when it comes to who actually really works for whom, and what they're trying to actually do yet? They're not on the team they've tricked most into thinking they are.

>>9615817
Maxwell actually. Gavin hated Luke. Publicly called him a toxic person and said he should be thrown off the project.

>>9615531

kill yourself brainlet.

In what universe is a diverse group of mining nodes with varying interests the same thing as a central entity fucking bank.

Who should have consensus equity then genius? If not the people with economic incentive to see Bitcoin function properly and succeed.

Get your 100 IQ ass out of here. Adults are talking.

>>9615377
article doesn't seem to say that he isn't rich though.
but it's still strange to collect bitcoins for someone that should have hundreds if not thousands of them.
it's like tipping a dollar to someone that is a millionaire. i get the gesture but that dollar is worth less to him than just saying "thanks" without the dollar...

>>9615670
but here is the thing the way i see it you ignore reality for some incomprehensible reason. and yeah you were right about the bitcoin whitepaper why can't you be happy with that? i mean for all the retarded shit you spilled into this thread this is actually impressive.

>>9615938
Once again, nobody cares how you see anything. All you've demonstrated here is how stupid you are. Shut up and fuck off.

>In what universe is a diverse group of mining nodes with varying interests the same thing as a central entity fucking bank.
in the universe where there are diverse groups of banks that compete with each other with varying interest... you know, our world.

>>9615971
i wanted to say the exact same to you but didn't actually bother i know you wouldn't listen.

>>9615912

I remember this when it happened. He wasn't rich, he was broke and needed the money. People felt bad for him because Bitcoin was mooning and they were making money but Luke Jr. didn't have any coins.

I specifically remember quotes defending him like "he is a coding genius not an investment guru, he deserves our help"

"he should get something out of this for all of his hard work"

Apparently the 50-100 BTC he panhandled for wasn't enough and he sold out hard regardless

>>9615981
Every time you open your pie hole you just sound more ignorant.

>>9615981

So you are saying Bitcoin is decentralized then?

lol kid

>>9615719
i meant banks work technically. proof: the world functions with them so they obviously work. we have no such proof for any crypto obviously as nobody fucking uses them.

>>9616041

plz just leave

>>9616041
ive used bitcoin, it works.

bitcoin doesn't even really have addresses, you don't actually send money anywhere. you just broadcast a state update. there are no accounts. it's so simple and elegant that it's just can't not work.

>>9616038
did i say that? or the opposite of it? really? i said an analogue could be made between miners and banks if you cede them the right to define your financial reality.

>>9616041
Just when it seems you couldn't possibly embarrass yourself more...

>>9616070
>ive used bitcoin, it works.
really? i tried to use bitcoin at the gas station last time, but alas it didn't work. nor did when i ordered pizza a few hours ago.

>>9616052
no, i really need to get some sleep but i can't leave you guys now.

>>9616030
what is the main difference between BCH and BTG?

>>9616098
sounds like it's not accepted in those places yet. you're mixing up something not being accepted with something not working.

i assure you that if your pizza place accepted diamonds as payment it would work too.

>>9616110
Pow algo, difficulty adjustment, segwit function, block size off the top of my head. It'd really be easier to define what's the same and that would just be the blocks prior to BCH hard fork.

>>9616110
bitcoin gold has almost no support from exchanges and those that made bitcoin what it is today, it has something like 1% of bitcoin cash's hashrate and i wouldn't be surprised if it was launched just to discredit BCH so that people just lump all of "those forks" together. i think bitcoin gold also changed the hashing algorithm to a more cpu friendly one? i cant remember since its been six month since i sold my bitcoin gold

>>9616115
>you're mixing up something not being accepted with something not working.
in practical terms, for most people i'm not mixing up shit.

>>9616175
words matter. dont say something doesnt work when it works. if you mean it isn't accepted, say so.

>>9616146
lulz, looked it up.

Bitcoin Gold hashrate: 24954301
Bitcoin Cash hashrate: 4065177780055339520
Bitcoin Legacy hashrate: 35373998549280342016

Sources:
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20gold/
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/

>>9616230
To be scrupulously fair, it does use a different algorithm so it's not exactly apples to apples. For the power consumption to generate 14TH Sha256 for example you will push about 3.5KH equihash.

>>9616309
ah so i was right in remembering that there was a different algorithm involved.

still, Gold's hashrate is 0.00000000613855% of Cash's

not even if their algorithm is 1000 times slower it isn't even comparable

>>9611516
Tfw I´m literally the ideal you described

>>9616363
Yeah I find the most useful comparison how much does it cost to own it.
BCH you flatly just can't market buy enough sha256 hashing power to attack it period, and even if you already had the gear it would cost over 120k USD per hour to maintain a 51 attack, and it would also guarantee a response from the miners that actually value it higher than bitcoin and probably kill BTC in the process.
By contrast you can market buy enough from nicehash to 51 BTG for 65k USD per day. And nobody gives a fuck if it's attacked because it's just a silly shitcoin that is effectively a pr campaign for core.