/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.10171382]

The dev team that saved Bitcoin

[Anonymous No.10171409]

>>10171382
the dev team that single handedly caused the current bear market

[Anonymous No.10171422]

>>10171409
god bless craig and ver for saving bitcoin(BCH) from those brainlets

[Anonymous No.10171424]

Bitcoin Core is not the real bitcoin and has nothing to do with Satoshi's vision

[Anonymous No.10171745]

>>10171409

>current

BTC isn't going up unless the block size is increased and that simply will not happen.

Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin and will eventually overtake the market.

[Anonymous No.10171761]

>>10171382
Damn they are full onions

[Anonymous No.10172307]

>>10171424
>>10171422

Cashcuck cope.

Imagine paying 1K+ for an airdrop other people got for free.

[Anonymous No.10172393]

>>10171409
you forgot to add when exchanges started batching transactions in jan/feb which caused a huge drop in total tx's and makes that look way worse than it really is..

>>10171745
segwit is technically a block size increase

[Anonymous No.10172485]

>>10172393
>exchanges started batching transactions
they never did.

>segwit is technically
uncurable aids infecting the bitcoin codebase

[Anonymous No.10172514]

>>10172485
>uncurable aids infecting the bitcoin codebase
How is Segwit bad?

[Anonymous No.10172523]

>>10171382
Jew Crew

[Anonymous No.10172603]

>>10172514
it's a really ugly hack, making the transaction structure and the entire code base much more complicated.
segwit transactions are actually larger than normal transactions. but by counting every byte of the signature data as 0.25 bytes, they only "appear" to be smaller. an ugly accounting trick with no technical basis.
segwit was never intended to be a scaling solution in the first place, only an opt-in workaround for transaction malleability. the entire point of making such an overly complicated solution was to avoid a hardfork, which in the end, it didn't prevent.

[Anonymous No.10172864]

>>10172603
Could transaction malleability been solved any other way? Is remaining on the BTC chain and not using Segwit a better choice than using Segwit on the BTC chain?
I value your insight and opinion over what others say.

[Anonymous No.10173159]

>>10172864
tx malleability is easily fixed by changing the transaction structure slightly so that the txid is computed only from fields covered by the input signature. it's a small change, but does require a hardfork. BCH already implemented this.

segwit is currently kinda pointless to use unless you intend to use the lightning network, or happen to run a poorly written exchange that relies on unmalleable txids.
given the complexity of the segwit code, there is a greater chance that it contains undiscovered bugs, which may result in you losing your money. i think this is unlikely however, given the massive amounts of money involved, any serious bugs would have been exploited by now.

[Anonymous No.10173367]

>>10173159
Interesting. Thanks for the info

[Anonymous No.10174101]

>>10171382
They look normal to me.

[Anonymous No.10175327]

Corecucks on suicide watch!

[Anonymous No.10175412]

[Anonymous No.10175553]

>>10171745
is that why bch is still worth not even half of btc despite being around for over a year now?

[Anonymous No.10176237]

>>10171382
smartest men in Crypto right there boys. Pure cypherpunks.

Unlike this (pic related) fraud. This French faggot was writing spyware for (((Facebook))) when the real men in the OP were putting it down. FFS this French faggot's entire code base was written by the real men in the OP sans a number change from 1 to 32. A fucking monkey could write bitcoinABC.