[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-05-12: Ghost posting is now globally disabled. 2022: Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 65 KB, 750x500, 33getf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14142879 No.14142879 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Give me a quick rundown on the technical differences between BSV and BTC.

>> No.14142930

One is run by a group of people literally picked by Bilderbergers, NYSE, Banking Cartel, Intelligence Services....the other is run by lgbt aussie and a money launderer who lives on an island. That is technically the difference.

>> No.14142950

How about a non-brainlet take on the software differences?

>> No.14143088

big blocks vs small blocks
kyc vs privacy
and this
which is basically true

>> No.14143122

did you know that the FIRST severless website was created on a single bitcoin transaction on the BSV network??


>> No.14143131
File: 1.65 MB, 500x353, mario64 bowser.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

BTC has SegWit (which introduced the concept of block weight) and they have 2016 blocks of difficulty adjustment period while BSV does not have SegWit and have a difficulty of the moving average over the last 144 blocks. BTC block size is 1 MB (approx 4 MB actual bytes on disk with the block weight bullshit) and BSV default limit is 128 MB. BSV also allows more types of OP_CODES in scripts and the scripts can be longer (I forget how long exactly).

Craig has said that BSV will restore the difficulty adjustment period of 2016 blocks (on his now removed twitter account) and the BSV roadmap says to "almost" restore itself to bitcoin 0.1 in February 2020, with a planned update they have named "genesis".

there's not many differences between BSV and BTC, the largest ones are max block size and segwit (the concept of block weight)

the largest difference between BSV and BCH is that BCH uses a different ordering of transactions in blocks and have introduced automatic checkpoints (which introduces trust for new nodes entering the network).

>> No.14143552
File: 401 KB, 1651x637, Screenshot_3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Try transacting with BSV and you will instantly know the difference.


>> No.14144714

So BSV uses bigger blocks than BTC?

>> No.14144747

Lal it's cause no one's transacting with BSV

>> No.14145022

I don't know if that can be called a serverless website though? Only the novel text is pulled from the blockchain, and even then, you need an intermediary to pull it for you.

But I don't know the terminology, so maybe I'm wrong. You can do this on bitcoin-core too, though. There's that website that shows images from the core blockchain

>> No.14145164

BTC: backed by exchanges, shilled by whales who pump and dump using out-of-thin-air Tether
BCH: backed by early adopter crypto billionaires, shilled by geeks
BSV: backed by the nsa, shilled by Pajeets

>> No.14145174

It's literally Bitcoin and BTC isn't.

>> No.14145198

I don't understand this drivel about someone controlling BTC, devs or whatnot. If the nodes don't like the updates, they can choose to use a different version of the software, so ultimately it is controlled by the community. Anyone can be a BTC dev, right?

>> No.14145202
File: 19 KB, 790x184, nChain STONE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's Bitcoin 0.1.0, that is all. Segshit is some frankencoin with a banking layer being developed ontop of it.

>> No.14145216

Brainlet fuck off.

>> No.14145243

Isn't LN being possibly bad pretty much irrelevant, since it does not affect on-chain transactions in any way?

>> No.14145250
File: 47 KB, 302x160, gigablock.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Much bigger.

If all transactions happening in the market occurred on SV the fees would still be the same.

>> No.14145266

What is the problem with segwit?

>> No.14145286

The way I see it, bigger blocks are a no-no, because they'd encourage even more mining centralization than BTC has currently.

>> No.14145295

The entire community was duped into believing Bitcoin is a democracy and the retarded mob said Segwit and small blocks. In reality UASF holds no actual power and the only thing that matters is hashpower, but going back and saving BTC isn't an option anymore because of Segwit.

>> No.14145338
File: 82 KB, 1015x864, NChain Transactions.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If you take transactions off of the blockchain find another technology to facilitate your needs because obviously you've missed the entire point of blockchain.

It removes pic related from Bitcoin.

>> No.14145344
File: 71 KB, 600x400, 9207.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If you can't compete join a pool or fuck off and find a new job.

>> No.14145373

wouldn't that mean that the elite buys into a part of btc, then pumps it like they want. if so wouldn't it be good to be on the btc side, or will they just crash it into the ground?

>> No.14145382

Explain yourself. How does segwit fit into this? BTC was never a democracy, it's a meritocracy, based on hashpower and always was.

>> No.14145399

That's still irrelevant, since those who want to use the blockchain can do so without any issue. Those who don't can use LN or whatever shitcoin.

>> No.14145413
File: 405 KB, 500x360, around the bed.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

they support bigger blocks. it will take years upon years before 128 MB blocks are filled.

welp, foolish me for thinking you were maybe serious with this thread. hopefully someone else learned something.

>> No.14145416

That will result in everyone joining a few massive pools and the blockchain will be super vulnerable to 51% attacks.

What you said is not even an argument, some kind of ad-hominem attack. Are you sure you're not a shill? If you are you can fuck off, I'm only interested in discussion here.

>> No.14145434

That's not an argument. Explain how bigger blocks don't promote mining centralization. Recent example: BCH got 51%ed. Are you a shill?

>> No.14145437

Somewhat...but what are you going to do? Guess whats going to happen to the lgbt conman and money launderer? You ever seen a head split open? Thats your options teenager.

>> No.14145459

Segwit changes where signatures appear in the block, making it no longer a "chain of digital signatures". The reason for this was to increase throughput, but the gains were dismal. The real reason was to make it easier to integrate a banking layer (Lightning Network).

Why is this always the logic you people arrive at? Either you have no forethought or no hindsight or either.


Lightning Network isn't "optional" at scale.

>> No.14145473


>> No.14145494
File: 86 KB, 672x371, ASIC-Mining.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You mean like how it already is?


Mining isn't something done in your cuckshed anymore.

>> No.14145503

Excuse me? Please explain where I'm wrong with that logic instead of insulting.

>> No.14145527

So you want it to be even more centralized so all transactions are verified by a single pool?

>> No.14145529

>instead of insultin
>calls me a shill
Go fuck yourself, brainlet faggot.

>> No.14145571

That's your argument? I inquired whether you're a shill or not. Since you seem to rely on ad-hominems instead of defending your position.

>> No.14145915

BSV team has made no commits ever

>> No.14145936
File: 73 KB, 821x926, Screen Shot 2019-06-06 at 9.49.53 AM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

if you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to explain it to you. Have a nice life.

>> No.14146031

>BSV is for cultist who don't question anything only
is what you are saying

>> No.14146092

BTC sucks assballs, BSV reverse sucks assballs.

Meaning it's good.

>> No.14146103

Completely false, currently the BSV blockchain can handle 128x the traffic of BTC and next month 2000x the traffic.

Technology matters.

>> No.14146121

No one's using BSV? Lol more TX than BCH and it's only 6 months old. The weatherSV app just got it's 1 millionth TX and BSV is set to overtake BTC transactions in a couple of months, easy money, easiest 1,000x you'll make in this lifetime.

>> No.14146161

You guys might be right, but bigger blocksize is a crap scaling solution cause it enables more mining centralization. It's more important to have decentralization than scaling.

>> No.14146165

You're a dumb nigger

>> No.14146184

>the BSV roadmap says to "almost" restore itself to bitcoin 0.1 in February 2020, with a planned update they have named "genesis"
where can i read more on this?

>> No.14146207
File: 610 KB, 800x800, ok74kiT.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

LOL you don't even know what centralization means, you are parroting a dumb meme created by blockstream to justify them sabotaging Bitcoin.

>> No.14146234


>> No.14146246

>muh raspberry pi node
you fell for blockstream propaganda

>> No.14146251
File: 639 KB, 1587x2245, 20190504_222539_0000.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.14146256
File: 152 KB, 519x423, nChain Scaling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Indeed. Bitcoin was never intended to be run out of cucksheds at scale.

>> No.14146262
File: 38 KB, 1839x234, satoshi_bitcointalk_server_farms.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What do you not understand about BIG SERVER FARMS? Satoshi spelled it out for you fucking 9 years ago how the system is supposed to work.

>> No.14146277
File: 15 KB, 674x176, nChain Bitcoin vs Visa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


It's nChain propaganda.

>> No.14146314
File: 216 KB, 740x493, 1555935576692.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

At first I was about to correct you, as the file is named "nChain scaling", but I recognized it as an original Satoshi quote.


Well played.

>> No.14146356

Bitcoin mining IS decentralized. Bitcoin's game theoretic model is a Stackelberg multi-leader game. The leading miners game theoretically push up the blocksize, but they can't afford to lose 51% of the other miners, therefore they have to make educated guesses on how much to scale without risking losing money to orphaned blocks.

The verbal application of saying "mining itself too centralized" is utter and complete horse shit. I'll lay 50 to 1 you can't give me any valid metric to measure it. I'll do you one better: even if there were only 2 massive miners worldwide with mining rigs in a few countries, Bitcoin would be "decentralized" enough following your clinically retarded definition. Because the entire security model of Bitcoin revolves around economic incentives securing the network, NOT the amount of individuals behind it, fucking absolute mongo-tier brainlet fucktards.

>> No.14146374
File: 119 KB, 1200x630, United-States-copyright-office-acknowledges-Craig-Wright-as-author-of-Bitcoin-white-paper-Satoshi-Nakamoto.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.14146399

It took me like 20 fucking minutes to get two confirmations transferring one btc. Btc is a slow piece of shit.

>> No.14146410
File: 2.56 MB, 2480x4134, 1558027876857.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Based 4D chess anon.

>> No.14146470
File: 95 KB, 1000x693, dont_litter_mempool_for_big_money2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Dude that is fast for BTC. When the network is congested, which happens often, you have to wait literal DAYS for confirmation, unless you pay exorbitant fees, making it totally unusable for payments of any kind.

The more popular BTC gets, and the more people who use it, the worse it becomes. That's the future of money! Guaranteed to 100000x lmfao


>> No.14146489

explain then, what centralization means? I ain't parroting anything, it's just the logical sequence of events.

what you said doesn't matter, since it's self-evident that being vulnerable to 51% attacks is undesirable

>> No.14146531

No Anon, you are the retard

If you are rich enough to be transfering significant amounts of BTC, you should be increasing the tx fee you pay to be prioritised by the miners.

You would know this if you didn't have 0.005btc total on kikenance

>> No.14146561

Bitcoin needs to die.

>> No.14146574

Correction, the number of miners does matter somewhat, but by far the out-weighing factor is the economic incentive-driven one.

>> No.14146613

You're just throwing big words around in an attempt to confuse the readers. Please explain step by step how that would work.

>> No.14146628
File: 31 KB, 1115x331, 1.4 GB.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

BTC isn't susceptible to 51% attacks, go ahead and try. BCH and BSV both are at the current time, I'll admit that. The reason being is they don't have the hashpower that BTC has. It will not stay like this for long. I expect hash to start moving in big ways after the two block size increase next month, but especially after the halving (if a majority hasn't migrated already). Pic related.

>> No.14146655
File: 83 KB, 861x476, decentralization_of_power.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Centralization is about the power to change the protocol. If somebody can change the protocol it is no longer decentralized. A rogue developer putting in checkpoints to override nakamoto consensus is centralization (BCH). A committee of developers putting in shit like segregated witness that does not belong in the bitcoin protocol is centralization (Blockstream).

Bitcon is not supposed to be a fucking democracy, or technocratic oligarchy. It's supposed to be an immutable MONETARY SYSTEM that is set in stone. If it can be changed by any group, it will fail. If you want to change it, make your own fucking coin and COMPETE.

>> No.14146685

No one can make any node run an undesirable version of the software, so that doesn't make any sense.

>> No.14146729
File: 23 KB, 1215x309, 1559666744138.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I just wanted to pay 2 dollars in Bitcoin to the musician on the street corner so I have to pay 4 dollar BTC network fee to do that and my transaction will be confirmed within the next 2 hours. Makes total sense.

If I use BSV it costs me $0.005 fee, and he receives it INSTANTLY.

BTC is a fucking shitcoin hijacked by commie kikes, and you are scum for defending it GTFO

>> No.14146790
File: 82 KB, 1024x576, 1556695408136.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's not about desirable or undesirable. It's about changing the rules of the game. You can NOT have that in a global monetary system, what is the point of Bitcoin then? It's just fiat ruled by committee no different than the current financial system.

Transactions made today has to be valid and sound in 50 years, operating under the same protocol rules. Otherwise it can not function as money.

>> No.14146802
File: 19 KB, 500x500, 1559147519731.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The use case of Bitcoin is better realised as a store of value, I don't bring gold bars to buy soap, I don't pay for my dinner in silver bullion.

If you want to pay for smaller things, there are coins and off-chain projects for that.

One BTC is equivalent to the owning 700 acres of land. Do you pay your rent in square feet of a farm?

>> No.14146819

One has blocks that are too small to be useful.
The other has blocks that are too large to maintain a stable network.
BCH is the only useful fork.

>> No.14146838
File: 291 KB, 914x1200, Bitcoin_is_a_payment_system.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Shut the fuck up and read the Bitcoin white paper. Bitcoin is a PAYMENT SYSTEM, you can shove your "sToRe oF vAluE" blockstream propaganda up your ass where it belongs.

>> No.14146864

That's incorrect. As long as development is decentralized as it is, there is absolutely no problem in changing the rules, since those who disagree with the new rules can always fork and the best fork will be the one that survives.

>> No.14146873
File: 14 KB, 433x396, store_of_value.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

also nice fucking store of value LMAO faggot

>> No.14146900

Your centralist mindset is showing. The whitepaper or satoshi isn't an all-knowing deity that should have authority over everyone else. That's the whole point of having a decentralized currency - everyone can develop and use it, and time will show which fork is the best.

>> No.14146902
File: 80 KB, 704x470, 1544495082515.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The ones who want to change the rules can fork the fuck off and start from ZERO with their new shitcoin rules.

Literally the opposite is what happened to BTC. The development is centralized because Blockstream decides what changes are made.

>> No.14146915
File: 91 KB, 855x535, How_it_ends_for_btc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Yes your shitcoin is going to 0.

Have a nice life.

>> No.14146925

Does this bot know something?


>> No.14146931

It was literally forked like you said, the blockstream fork just had far more support.

>> No.14146953

Rekt by FACTS and LOGIC?

>> No.14146982
File: 98 KB, 1308x402, btc_is_not_bitcoin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Blockstream changed the protocol fundamentally and kept the coin. It's fraud because BTC stopped being bitcoin the moment segwit was added.

BTC is NOT Bitcoin. It's an exchange ticker for Blockstream coin.

Bitcoin is a protocol described in the white paper, full stop. The exchange ticker is BSV

>> No.14146998

What's your point? It is still the superior coin because it has far more hash power than any other. It's more decentralized and secure.

>> No.14147003


>> No.14147046

Should I just hold equal weights of BSV, BTC, AND BCH. Rebalance quarterly? Help me out here.

>> No.14147058

It doesn't matter how true it is to the whitepaper, as long as it does what a cryptocurrency is supposed to do well: being decentralized, secure, resistant to censorship. Scaling is a secondary concern.
Your attachment to the whitepaper is irrational.

>> No.14147082

>Should I just hold equal weights of BSV, BTC, AND BCH. Rebalance quarterly? Help me out here.
Looking at the level of BSV supporter arguments on this thread I would strongly advise against it. Seems like a meme coin.

>> No.14147093
File: 279 KB, 1590x1028, 1B9C5D17-2E5F-4C75-9070-676D59710874.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

pic related.
its from thecaseforBSV.com which has more infos

>> No.14147121
File: 387 KB, 1000x500, ABC_IS_BLOCKSTREAM2.0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's a shitcoin that doesn't scale. It has no future, and is only used as a speculative vehicle to accumulate more fiat. When early investors cash out fiat gains at the expense of later investors, while trying to get new money flowing into the system to enrich bagholders do you know what that is called? A ponzi scheme.

Fittingly, BTC is nothing but a glorified ponzi.

Can you point me to the page in the Bitcoin whitepaper where Schnorr signatures, CTOR and Avalanche is a part of the protocol?

Thanks in advance.

Also I am clearly talking to low IQ morons who don't grasp the most basic principles of Bitcoin, who never read the white paper and has no understanding of economics.

You will lose everything, and you deserve it.

>> No.14147125

Imagine trying to sync gigabyte blocks holy kek
Probably takes days to propagate

>> No.14147131
File: 115 KB, 925x871, zzz2r3n453124n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.14147167
File: 259 KB, 840x348, 1559253980040.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Why do you fear BSV so much? Is it because deep down you know it has a real possibility of flipping Corecoin?

>> No.14147175

>what is SPV

>> No.14147179

Yes, it can be used as a payment system. However, in it's current implementation it takes time to confirm transactions. A time that is lessened if you are willing to pay more to have your transaction verified in the ledger faster.

>> No.14147196

Nice meme. Not really an argument.

>> No.14147212

apparently CSW researched exactly that for years. The BSV BigBlockTestNet (separate testnet!) just recently managed to produce a stable series of 1GB blocks and they aim now for 2GB. i really urge you to check out thecaseforbsv.com, the site has been floating around for a while here on biz and has some insights.

>> No.14147224

Do you have evidence for any of your claims? As far as I can see BSV is far worse, because it sacrifices decentralization, security and censorship-resistance for scaling, which is obviously a really bad idea, and really, no different from legacy banking.

>> No.14147227
File: 71 KB, 889x428, 15497419142372.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

He's a low IQ blockstream shill pretending to ask unbiased questions. You can always rat them out after the most elementary inquiry.

>> No.14147234

clearly better than RSA, but were patented when Satoshi wrote the paper.
the whitepaper and first versions were not tested under intense load. BSV fails at 20MB+ blocks, BCH has optimisations, hurr durr we need to be dinosaurs and never improve.
what's wrong with instant payments that are not possible with BSV today?

Since you're a smartass pajeet could you point me where in the whitepaper did you read about the OP_LSHIFT and OP_RSHIFT pajeet operations that faketoshi and his cult added to a perfectly fine script language?

>> No.14147251

If you think so, please rat me out.

>> No.14147254
File: 138 KB, 1232x925, 1556116250236.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I sent my gf some BSV on HandCash and it literally took less then 20 seconds to show up on her wallet...
This has a real chance of mainstream adoption.
Plus the [email protected] style address' are super normie friendly, its just like sending an email.
I have tried to show normie crypto and let me tell you they get very intimidated when they see the old school addresses f84h7f6h64jf83o2bf7f6393h3u7d63h and some people think they need to type that etc.

>> No.14147258
File: 524 KB, 1743x1609, 1550613751990.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Bitcoin was always instant and low fee until blockstream INTENTIONALLY crippled the protocol.

It's still instant and low fee on BitcoinSV.


>> No.14147264

BCH is the real bitcoin

>> No.14147292

I'd like to see evidence of that, sounds like a conspiracy theory.

>> No.14147296
File: 270 KB, 1545x716, 1548904016744.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I already did by dismantling your retarded narrative, conveniently all of Blockstream talking points.

Stay dumb and poor.

>> No.14147304

A useless shitcoin turned into a ponzi. Still even I, an early adopter and big blocker hold some, because it's what normies associate crypto with. It also holds its own well during bear markets.
A completely useless scamcoin led by liars and criminals. One of them is a billionaire, however, so if you find it cheap (it's expensive now) it could be worth buying a few just for a gamble - as billionaires could potentially do a pump and dump.
Has all the early adopters turned billionaires working on its infrastructure. It is just as stable as BTC (without the small block compromise) yet it can also be used for transactions. It has an ambitious roadmap that FIVE reference client teams are working on. The first early devs (Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn) have expressed support. My largest stack of the 3 is BCH.

That said BNB and LINK brought me much more money than any of those 3 above.

>> No.14147315

I have no idea why I even bothered. Craig is a fraud, you are easily led

>> No.14147322

You haven't dismantled anything. The only argument I can see from you is MUH WHITEPAPER, which isn't really valid, as there's not supposed to be any central authority in crypto.

>> No.14147365

BCH just got 51% attacked, no idea what you're on about.

>> No.14147371
File: 235 KB, 1200x800, D8VCmgIVsAEZ3SO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

None of that is Bitcoin, sorry.

Also BSV has instant payments


Your BAB coin is shit, and it is not Bitcoin. Best of luck attracting drug dealers, money launderers, human traffickers, terrorists and other criminals which is your target demographic. Surely this will ensure global adoption of Amaury BAB coin and his criminal friend Roger "pipe bomb" Ver.

Time to COPE

>> No.14147394


He said technical differences not tin foil hat differences

>> No.14147407

How much do you get paid for shilling with the same debunked talking points over and over again?

>> No.14147426
File: 69 KB, 647x444, 1527324795566.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's a conspiracy fact, not a theory. They literally celebrate and pop champagne when the network is congested, look it up lol they openly brag about crippling Bitcoin.

>> No.14147428

Everyone who mattered in BCH + diehard bitcoin supporters moved over to BSV.
BSV is getting so muxh more development done.
BSV also has more daily transactions per day vs bch.
BCH is ran by radical anarchists while BSV will be ran with governments and businesses in mind.
BTC deserves no mention as it is already a given that it will die.

>> No.14147452
File: 95 KB, 697x315, mevsfhdu4f231.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Craig is Satoshi, and he has legal copyrights to the Bitcoin white paper AND the early Bitcoin code.

How mad does that make you?

>> No.14147458


Kys shill

>> No.14147468

>BCH just got 51% attacked, no idea what you're on about.
BCH got a majority of miners reversing a malicious transactions in THE ABSOLUTE SAME WAY they've done it on BTC. I guess only the first part of the truth came to you, maybe you're reading propaganda?

>> No.14147477

I have legal copyrights to your mum

>> No.14147478
File: 145 KB, 960x540, Bitcoin_set_in_stone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Does facts trigger you?

>> No.14147480

shilling intensifies. literally didn't address any of my points.

>> No.14147485

I was talking about actual instant transactions, not promises and theoretical instant transactions that get reversed after a self-reorg because your network cannot handle big blocks.

>> No.14147494

LOL it has never been done in BTC. Show me the evidence. And it goes without saying that the network isn't decentralized nor secure if they are able to do that. Transactions should be irreversible.

>> No.14147516

>Everyone who mattered in BCH + diehard bitcoin supporters moved over to BSV.
Literally only the annoying pajeets moved to BSV, significantly increasing the average IQ of the bitcoin community.
Peter Rizun, the Bitcoin.com crew, Jihan Wu, Haipo Yang, the Kraken guys, Brian Armstrong, Roger Ver, ViaBTC are all BCH supporters now.
BSV got pajeetoshi lmfao.

>> No.14147517

weatherSV is a demo app and the tax fees are paid by Ayre
not a real world use case

>> No.14147518
File: 17 KB, 910x698, 1555590069441.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Someone please tell me that the pro-BSV crowd are trolling. Please, to restore my faith in humanity. It's just a joke, right?

>> No.14147519

yes it do

>> No.14147529
File: 66 KB, 916x728, Bitcoin_for_payments_not_storeofvalue.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Triggered cucks getting obliterated by reality in this thread. Oh man the pure assblast from core kikes fuel me.

>> No.14147549

>didn't even address any of my points.

>> No.14147567

>show me the evidence
Sure thing bud:

>> No.14147572

Why would anyone support a centralized kiked coin? BSV is trash and anyone with a brain can see it. This is why we need to support LINK 100% and grow together. Stop falling for snake oil salesmen.

>> No.14147587

> This is why we need to support LINK
I only support BCH mane. By support I mean want it to do real-world change.
LINK is just for profits.

>> No.14147594
File: 40 KB, 1848x354, Satosho_0conf_doublespends.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

LOL try to double spend any moneybutton transaction, all of them are 0-conf transactions. Surely you could just steal all the millions of dollars being transacted on BSV if that was the case, because they all go through with 0-conf.

But you can't because you are lying kike. Get fucked.

>> No.14147615

Yikes. I guess BTC, BCH and BSV are all trash. I'm out.

>> No.14147629
File: 6 KB, 249x149, 1535462595904.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


But we need separate BCH threads to BTFO BSV on sight, without the BTC nuisance brought in.

>> No.14147633

Do your own research you fucking faggot there are so many fucking differences it takes hours to list

>> No.14147638

you were born a nigger
and you will die a nigger

>> No.14147661

This. Fuck all visions of bitcorn.

>> No.14147663
File: 66 KB, 741x800, 1556781869132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You never had a point, you are low IQ imbecile maggot.

I am educating the smart lurkers in this thread, people like you are completely irrelevant. Nothing you say has any value to anyone, nothing you do has value to anyone. You are bottom feeder scum destined for the garbage heap of life.

Sucks to suck.

>> No.14147680

you dont do that because lugging around gold and silver is inconvenient and most businesses dont accept it. bitcoin can be both hard usable money and store of value you gd brainlet.

>> No.14147696

thats fucking retarded. stability is of paramount importance. changing the protocol constantly is completely unneeded and a dead-end.

>> No.14147703

Nice meme. Now go address my points about decentralization, security and irrational attachment to the whitepaper, pajeet.

>> No.14147727

It is not changed constantly. It is changed whenever necessary, as decided by the community.

>> No.14147774

>You don't get how block chain works the movie

Let say I had a small bucket of water, I would need to hold many buckets at once to hawl more water and I would have to do it over and over to transport it

BSV is like having a train that carries all the water you need

>> No.14147794

you're retarded. VISA can do that better and is also centralized, just like BSV. completely missed the point of blockchain.

>> No.14147812

all those concerns go out the door as it grows. eventually every nation will want its own mining operation. how is that for decentralization?

>> No.14147851

Then it will still be decentralized. There's no point to crypto if it isn't though, so if BTC ever becomes centralized I'm getting out asap.

>> No.14148679

It's already centralized.


>> No.14148922
File: 33 KB, 544x491, 1510297673149.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>muh store of digital gold value

>> No.14148958

>there is absolutely no problem in changing the rules
>end the electoral college it was HER TURN

>> No.14148970

That's incorrect, because literally everyone have the power to change the protocol, so it is decentralized in that sense.

>> No.14148983

>checkpoints and wormhole

>> No.14148998

Nice meme retard.

>> No.14149036
File: 48 KB, 960x706, nChain Disk Space.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Imagine never reading the whitepaper.

>> No.14149067
File: 103 KB, 640x845, 1551454055162.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.14149089
File: 404 KB, 500x213, Trustless Network.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>competing for space on the next block

What an utter dogshit concept. The only people who should be competing on Bitcoin are the miners who receive a monetary incentive to do so. Making users compete for nothing in return and no added value to the network (like security) is pants on head retarded.

>> No.14149090

Explain how I'm wrong.

>> No.14149117

There's absolutely nothing wrong with users paying higher fees to have faster transactions. In fact, that's how it should work.

>> No.14149186

Reorgs don't effect spending what so ever. Every transaction on BSV gets to the next block, reorgs have NO effect on this. The only thing that effects getting onto the next block is small blocksizes.

>> No.14149194

I've literally used it, wtf are you talking about?

>> No.14149234
File: 602 KB, 2048x1569, 1557284831033.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>unironically shilling for VISA


>> No.14149244

Why should it work that way?

>> No.14149268
File: 85 KB, 916x720, satoshi_micropayments.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

> In fact, that's how it should work.
According to who? Blockstream? Because that is their talking point. And you ask how I know you are a blockstream stooge, you literally reveal yourself by parroting their narratives as if it was fact.

Let's see what Satoshi has to say about this, you know, the person who actually created the system.

>> No.14149272

shoutout to my bsv brothers. these shills and npc's will get fucked soon

>> No.14149303

Used during every protocol update on both BTC and BCH. Your "Satoshi" never knew that and made himself look like a fool.
nothing wrong with the protocol except that it's a just a basic OMNI fork, so it got abandoned. We now have SLP, which was co-authored by BSV's only infrastructure dev - Ryan X Charles, I wonder if you'll hate it or love it xD

>> No.14149307
File: 12 KB, 318x318, twoBcQI_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Reddit npc literally shaking huh

>> No.14149309

BTC has hit critical mass and will never drop below 13k again
BSV is bullish for a 1000% adjustment

>> No.14149319

Transactions literally got reversed though. Thankfully they're all fake transactions generated by CSW so nobody lost their money, but that won't be the case if the BSV shitcoin ever got adoption.

>> No.14149321
File: 32 KB, 863x190, orphans_part_of_bitcoin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Exactly, it's a natural part of Bitcoin. Literally nobody has read the fucking white paper, the most important document in all of crypto.

>> No.14149339
File: 5 KB, 400x400, PuKNm2zv_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>BSV's only infrastructure dev
Nigger please.

>Transactions literally got reversed
Utter bullshit. Show me.

>> No.14149341

No one is shilling visa here, just pointing out that BSV and VISA are pretty much the same thing, as both are bound to be centralized.

>> No.14149363

>BSV and VISA are pretty much the same thing
You're really showing your lack of knowledge on what the fuck a blockchain is.

>> No.14149375

How else will you prioritize transactions? I don't know anything about blockstream, but it makes sense for it to work this way, because otherwise anyone could spam the network with 1 satoshi transactions and go unpunished for this malicious behaviour. Fees are there for a reason. In fact, when all BTC are mined, fees will be the only incentive for miners to verify transactions.

>> No.14149394

It is you who doesn't understand what the purpose of a blockchain is. Protip: it's not instantaneous transactions.

>> No.14149428

>How else will you prioritize transactions?
You don't need to. All transactions go onto the next block.

>otherwise anyone could spam the network with 1 satoshi transactions and go unpunished for this malicious behaviour
>Fees are there for a reason

How does someone type this without realizing they've answered their own question?

No brainlet, you think Visa and BSV are at all similar. Probably because you understand crypto through the lens of LN and believe this shit all works like money transmitters.

>> No.14149429
File: 1.62 MB, 1016x1238, 1542839787222.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]



>> No.14149466
File: 71 KB, 620x550, 1542548198225.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is such a dishonest argument. Satoshi added checkpoints back when there was no economic security on Bitcoin, the coin didn't even have a real world price yet, he was one of the only miners and there was no protocol contention.

An ABC fuckhead developer added centralized checkpoints during a contentious fork, completely overriding nakamoto consensus and ensuring that nobody could challenge their protocol changes. it is the definition of CENTRALIZED CONTROL. and the equivalent of dictatorship in governance.

Even Andreas Brekken admits that it was a fatal mistake. Probably the worst single decision ever made for BABcoin.


>> No.14149474
File: 2.36 MB, 420x420, model-equivalence (1).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

it doesn't have to be instantaneous. the benefit is that it's an immutable ledger that acts as a business record, no hack or destruction of servers could destroy the data, has 0% chance of double spending, is not anonymous so no crime, and is timestamped for helping recording data

>> No.14149480

You are suggesting to solve that by sacrificing mining decentralization, which defeats the point of a cryptocurrency.
I don't care for LN, but I don't see bigger blocks as a valid solution either.

>> No.14149499

>no mention of decentralization
so VISA but run on more computers

>> No.14149542

A mrycle tree!? That’s all you got??

>> No.14149575

How can you still not understand the literal billion dollar industry of mining yet? Bigger blocks don't make mining anymore centralized than it already is. Do you actually think a few bucks for better internet and storage is going to wrench up multi-million dollar mining operations?

>> No.14149596

pure decentralization is an anarcho wet dream. you think the powers that be will ever let people hide their money and spend anonymously? coders are bad lawyers

>> No.14149608
File: 40 KB, 152x254, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This all skirts so close to Poe's Law that I can't tell who is being serious. Some of these posters have to be shitting around to stir up drama, they just have to be. How anyone could go around posting screenshots of the white paper and counting Satoshi's word usage, and think they are making a serious argument, is beyond me. Either this is quality bait, or they really do believe it in which case yikes.

Either way I'm glad BSV and BCH exist to quarantine these types away from the actual bitcoin community.

>> No.14149628

Apparently it does make a difference, looking at how BCH literally just got 51% attacked, while BTC was not.

>> No.14149630
File: 2.32 MB, 960x540, Bitcoin Core.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Either way I'm glad BSV and BCH exist to quarantine these types away from the actual bitcoin community.

>> No.14149647

Call it whatever you want, but that's the purpose of a blockchain. If you're okay with centralization, use legacy banking. It's much better than the blockchain in every way, except for centralization.

>> No.14149650
File: 437 KB, 1200x603, 1546273462918.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>t. blockstream kike

>> No.14149651

I already explained that.

>> No.14149669
File: 1.21 MB, 1765x957, All Peers lead to Hubs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>If you're okay with centralization, use legacy banking

Give me a fucking break.

>> No.14149671
File: 44 KB, 856x571, 22kjtxjtg5331.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


If you pay attention to all bsv and csw threads, the shills always use the same talking points over and over.

Remember fellow BSV warriors, both Blockstream And ABC have shills attacking BSV, they're terrified of people learning the truth about bitcoin.

This attack on CSW exactly mirrors trump in 2016, and he ended up winning.

>> No.14149692
File: 115 KB, 1000x594, lightningwhitepaper1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You mean like lightning?

>> No.14149697

>it will get better, I swear!
we'll see when it does. for now it's a piece of crap as far as I can see.

>> No.14149706
File: 367 KB, 220x220, tenor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>the actual bitcoin community

>> No.14149708

Reminder that Bitmain holds the asicboost patent in china, and segwit dealt with that.

>> No.14149724

Name a single thing the blockchain does better than legacy banking apart from decentralization.
Lightning is off chain, so it does not affect the main chain in any way. It's a personal choice whether to use it or not. If you want to sacrifice security for speed, you can use lightning. Otherwise stick with on-chain transactions.

>> No.14149774
File: 1.61 MB, 1920x1080, 2A9B0C79B3914DDEAEBD7A66FFFF801D.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Reminder that Bitmain holds the asicboost patent in china, and segwit dealt with that.
Does that mean BCH is the most centralized?

>> No.14149782

>as far as I can see
Yes, because as discussed before you lack the forethought to see what's coming with fees and believe LN is truly optional for most people at scale.

>still shilling for banks
Bitcoin is a dream compared to legacy banking. You've clearly not used it.

>> No.14149785
File: 155 KB, 750x575, 8551CE77-7DE2-49DD-99BD-2A5EC056BA56.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Either way I'm glad BSV and BCH exist to quarantine these types away from the actual bitcoin community.

>> No.14149787
File: 509 KB, 2224x1091, Bitcoin_transactions_free_satoshi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Yep. Remember when these threads get so many replies and stay on top for ages, drop big fat red pills for maximum visibility. Many minds can be changed like this, as hundreds of eyeballs are on the busy threads, which helps break the prevailing propaganda narrative.

Assblasted core cucks HATE this one weird trick. Stay tuned for more!

Truth wins.

>> No.14149813

/biz/ in a nutshell. Indians pretending to be white to shill BTC, and whites pretending to be indians to shill BSV.

>> No.14149817
File: 70 KB, 708x582, lightning_shadow_banking.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

False, lightning allows blockchain transactions without signatures. It has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

>> No.14149818

and yet bitcoin continues to rise....how do you explain that? you faggot ass indians think you got it all figured out lol. BTC is the standard and it looks BULLISH as fuck.

>> No.14149831


>> No.14149844

You can pretend to play 4d chess here all you want, the fact is that the coins you are shilling are a centralized piece of crap. You need to show evidence that it has potential to become decentralized. Your "forethought" means nothing here.
I use both BTC and legacy banking rather regularly, and I can tell you that using credit/debit cards, for example, is faster, cheaper and more secure than BTC. The only problem is that it bends to central authority, unlike BTC.

>> No.14149846
File: 63 KB, 1125x388, Satoshi_kills_corecoin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's going to zero. Enjoy your pump and dump ponzi rollercoaster while it lasts.

>> No.14149894

Explain how it works then.

>> No.14149903
File: 255 KB, 1824x713, 7jfv30wkesr11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>this entire post

>> No.14149935

>prevailing propaganda narrative
says the one who has no idea about how the blockchain works and was rekt on every singe retarded point he made. how much do you get paid for shilling this bs?

>> No.14149939

blah blah blah, where is the sell fagboi?
your man is a scammer and he gets exposed daily

>> No.14149940

the community doesn't control bitcoin dumbshit, a it's a handful of mining farms controlled by the powers that be

>> No.14149960

Nice meme faggot, now address my point. Decentralization is the only advantage a blockchain has over legacy banking. And it was literally designed for that purpose.

>> No.14149980

Nice tinfoil hat. Now show evidence.

>> No.14150039
File: 868 KB, 2164x1748, protocol_set_in_stone_satoshi2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If you paid attention, this entire thread is one long lecture by me on the fundamentals of Bitcoin, but you are too fucking retarded to grasp facts and logic. Or just paid not to, which is much more likely. It's irrelevant though as you aren't the target audience anyway.

>> No.14150043

>Decentralization is the only advantage a blockchain has over legacy banking
Not at all. You keep saying this without telling me how legacy banking is actually better.

>> No.14150061
File: 360 KB, 576x506, 1542739901173.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You should try to be more subtle... Veterans of /pol/ have finely tuned shill detecting skills..

>> No.14150083

It is faster and cheaper: instant free transactions with credit/debit cards.
It is more resistant to fraud: if you get scammed, banks will either reverse the transaction or involve the police.
If you get stolen from, there's a chance to get your money back, unlike on the blockchain, where transactions are irreversible.
The only area the blockchain has advantage in terms of speed in is international transfers. That's what I use BTC for.
Now of course all that comes with a disadvantage of centralization: your funds might get frozen if the bank doesn't like something you do and similar issues.

>> No.14150086
File: 261 KB, 808x916, 1558441426241.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

core cucks seething

>> No.14150103

If I were a shill I would be memeing like yourself, instead of trying to have a proper debate.

>> No.14150135
File: 97 KB, 1024x800, US_inflation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Ever heard of currency debasement faggot?

What do you think is the point of an immutable ledger? What happens when (((committees))) can start to manipulate the system?

That's a rhetorical question.

>> No.14150151

>It is faster and cheaper
Not its not and transactions are not free with credit and debit cards.

>It is more resistant to fraud
Its not. People get their credit cards stolen all the fucking time. Reversible transactions are a flaw not a feature. Bitcoin is proactive on fraud. Its impossible for you to steal my Bitcoin unless you get my private key and when I spend I don't have to input vital private information about myself like a credit card. If you're irresponsible with your private key, use a custodial service with insurance.

>> No.14150155

That is what decentralization solves, idiot.

>> No.14150160
File: 250 KB, 966x1200, 1528804767391.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Also I found a picture of OP

>> No.14150183
File: 60 KB, 1280x720, tonevays.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I believe Tone Vays will break his delusions and go all in BSV eoy.

>> No.14150227
File: 988 KB, 914x866, 1558098186566.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

LOL yeah like "decentralization" stopped blockstream changes before. If the protocol can change it is not decentralized. If the (((committee))) wants to increase the BTC supply, or implement any other damaging change like RBF, they can and will.

>> No.14150237

Credit and debit card transactions are free for the user.
Reversible transactions are a feature of legacy banking, but it's a flaw of centralized blockchains like BCH, BSV.
If you get scammed out of your fiat, there's a good chance you'll get it back with the help of banks and police. It is impossible with BTC.
If I get your private key you are fucked, also it is not resistant to the $5 wrench attack. And no one will help you get your BTC back then.
>If you're irresponsible with your private key, use a custodial service with insurance.
So basically legacy banking.
Come on dude, let's be real here. Normies are never going to be responsible enough with their private keys and they will always rely on centralized services for day to day purchases, which is essentially the same as using legacy systems.

>> No.14150260

Anyone can change the protocol, since anyone can be a BTC dev, therefore it is decentralized. Already told you this before.

>> No.14150275

If community doesn't want to increase the BTC supply, they will not, as nodes simply will not accept the update. It's that easy.

>> No.14150277
File: 120 KB, 1065x420, 1556475051567.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

He is not actually delusional, he is a political operative. He is a banking kike with a fake name funded by other kikes. He will do exactly what the kikes above him in the hierarchy tells him.

So no, he will never switch to BSV in public. He might buy in secret, if he's not totally retarded.

>> No.14150290

FALSE, Blockstream controls the github repo and thus have total control over any and all changes made to BTC.

Any other dumb shit on your mind?

>> No.14150294

go back to hindu u goddamn cowboy

>> No.14150307

>Credit and debit card transactions are free for the user.
>businesses totally just eat this cost
I bet you believe the same is true about corporate tax.

>So basically legacy banking
Yes and no, I never said banking would go away. Retards like yourself need custodians because otherwise you'd lose your shirt. Banking as we understand it today would be much different though.

Unlike you I generate on a laptop that's never been online and and air gaped. Once I spend I create a new cold and a new hot. Spend and store without much concern.

>> No.14150311

Implying you cannot write code outside the GitHub.

>> No.14150314

Well, that and bsv have done nothing to address it.

>> No.14150344
File: 7 KB, 161x250, 16602953_10155348885889523_5735474240227244566_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>that pic

You could be right. I can just respect him for not wanting a market full of useless shitcoins. It's my hope that many people will start seeing the light before its too late and they lose everything.

>> No.14150354

>I bet you believe the same is true about corporate tax.
That is irrelevant. Everywhere, whether you use cash or credit card, the price stays the same
>Yes and no, I never said banking would go away. Retards like yourself need custodians because otherwise you'd lose your shirt. Banking as we understand it today would be much different though.
In other words, BSV is a non-solution to a non-problem.

>> No.14150382

Calling out kikes while advocating for a centralized blockchain. Is there no end to your hypocrisy?

>> No.14150401

actually, it's not quite like that. If nodes don't update, but btc users do, then those nodes will soon be mining a worthless coin. It's called economical majority.

>> No.14150410

Yes, it's still effectively decentralized though.

>> No.14150424

It's even more decentralized

>> No.14150430

>That is irrelevant
It's not. It's reflected in the price of goods and services. That was the entire point. Jfc, a business does not eat this cost.

>In other words, BSV is a non-solution to a non-problem.
Absolutely not. Just because some people chose to use custodians does not mean its true for everyone else, especially business. You're also missing the underlying principal of the matter, which is Bitcoin is hard money. Custodians do not change this and unlike LN users aren't forced to use them.

>> No.14150498
File: 71 KB, 1024x957, 482472322.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's actually amusing to me how stupid you are. It's like your brain is operating on gameboy color hardware, and you have no possible escape from this your debilitating biological impediment.

Everyone should just point and laugh at the pathetic core cucks hahahaha

>> No.14150548
File: 71 KB, 1024x957, 482472322.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's actually amusing to me how stupid you are. It's like your brain is operating on gameboy color hardware, and you have no possible escape from your debilitating biological impediment.

Everyone should just point and laugh at the pathetic core cucks like OP hahahaha keep buying BTC, please go all in, I beg you, it's not a ponzi I promise.

>> No.14150595


>> No.14150626


>> No.14150637

>t's reflected in the price of goods and services.
So you believe BSV mass adoption would drive down the price of goods and services? If you say so. Then explain. How BSV will make the transactions cheaper than legacy banking. Legacy banking can use way less computing power than even the most centralized blockchains, so the overhead will always be lower.
>Absolutely not. Just because some people chose to use custodians does not mean its true for everyone else, especially business. You're also missing the underlying principal of the matter, which is Bitcoin is hard money. Custodians do not change this and unlike LN users aren't forced to use them.
That will still only be valid if the blockchain is not susceptible to attacks. Which it very much is at the moment and I see no evidence of that changing in the future. Besides, LN does seem to solve the normie problem. Businesses can use the main chain to make important transactions, and run their own lightning nodes to sell coffee to normies, while at the same time having a main blockchain that is immune to attacks right now and in the foreseeable future.

>> No.14150652

Nice meme, retard. I blasted you into oblivion with FACTS and LOGIC for everyone to see here. The other guy with green ID is at least putting up a decent fight. You're only good at insults and memes.

>> No.14150700

>How BSV will make the transactions cheaper than legacy banking
Literally costs a tenth of a cent. Credit cards are like 2%. You just don't know this because you don't understand costs of business.

>LN does seem to solve the normie problem
lol how, LN is so much more complicated that sending a Bitcoin transaction. My sides weren't prepared for this.

The only people running a LN node at scale are money transmitters.

>> No.14150724

A key aspect to understand is that transferring a block over the network globally is not completely instant. The bigger the block is, the longer the block propagation statistically takes.
However if you are propagating the block to part of the network that is close, like transferring the block to yourself (which of course means that you won't need to transfer the block at all), the latency disappears. If you find a valid block, this means that you have a slight mining advantage to mine with the new block as the last valid block, while other parts of the network is still mining on the old block as the last valid block, during the time the new block you just mined is propagated to the rest of the network. The larger the new block you just mined, the longer time you have to mine on the new block while other parts of the network are still mining on the old block as the last valid block.
In an industry where even the slightest percentage wise of advantage leads to being able to outcompete your opponents, longer block propagation times means higher concentration of big parties on the network.

>> No.14150764

Will see how much it costs when it has the volume of VISA. Right now it's nothing compared to that.
> LN is so much more complicated that sending a Bitcoin transaction.
Back end is somewhat complicated, but there are already front end solutions that are super easy to use.

>> No.14150773

Miners can validate a block is valid with just the blockheader and begin working on the next block.

>> No.14150807

>Will see how much it costs when it has the volume of VISA
The price of transactions only increase when there isn't enough space on the block. Unlimited blocks in February.

>> No.14150873

That doesn't solve the problem I pointed out.

>> No.14150890

bitbus means you can pull from the blockchain without a full node

>> No.14150916
File: 35 KB, 867x224, development_not_decentralized.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Every single argument you made has been dismantled, and the vast majority of arguments I've made you simply chose not to address.

You literally just vomit the blockstream narrative and believe that counts as logic. Not good enough Moshe.

>> No.14150957

I addressed every single retarded point that you made, which was pretty much MUH WHITEPAPER, MUH BLOCKSTREAM, MUH NOT REAL BITCOIN. You don't even have a good enough understanding of the blockchain to make a proper argument.

>> No.14150986

It does actually.

>> No.14151043

How long does it take to validate a BSV block?

>> No.14151208
File: 29 KB, 498x297, gavin_no_blocklimit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

So you are trying to make an argument about what Bitcoin is supposed to be, by discarding the original founding document, discarding the writings of the Bitcoin creator, discarding the original protocol, discarding how the system worked for the first ~5 years until a group of kikes hijacked it, discarding economic reality, discarding on all accounts objectively superior technological functions.

Instead, you substitute all this knowledge with literal point for point Blockstream power point slides, and claim you won the argument.

Please kill yourself.

>> No.14151426

Seconds? Probably less.

>> No.14151631

Your centralist mindset is showing. No one forces the miners to mine the BTC chain instead of BSV, Crypto doesn't need a central authority that will dictate what it is, it's the community that should decide what fits it best. Get it through your head, satoshi disappeared for this exact reason. BTC should not and does not have any central authority. It is being developed by many different groups, and mined as well, unlike BSV, which is centralized in every single way and probably will remain that way. It's a pump and dump scam by Dundee Nakamoto.

>> No.14151677

I'll have to look into this more to understand, but my point still remains. BSV mining is centralized right now, it is vulnerable to attacks. I will consider it a viable competitor to BTC only when it isn't Your claim that it will be less centralized in the future holds no weight, since it's not backed by evidence, and even if you believe this, you're not clairvoyant. For now what you say is just baseless speculation.

>> No.14151697
File: 131 KB, 648x484, 1559960890336.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.14151720

>not backed by evidence
You can apply the same logic to BTC. We're both making predictions. Just because BTC has the hash now doesn't mean it will in the future and I have reasons to believe it won't.

>> No.14151819

How about the fact that it always had it and still has. IF you named all of your reasons, I don't think they're nearly strong enough to make such a prediction.

>> No.14151853

I've already given them throughout the thread and there are still plenty that I haven't. All BTC had to do was follow the whitepaper and none of this would have happened. Not just forks, but altcoins as well.

>> No.14151856

Besides, I am not convinced it is a hashpower issue instead of a code issue. When BTC had much less hashpower it was never affected by any attack.

>> No.14151892

Le whitepaper meme. So you think the whitepaper is more important than the all encompassing decentralization of crypto and interests of users? There's nothing wrong with forks and altcoins. If the community needs them let them have it.

>> No.14151994

>code issue
BSV doesn't have one since all it's doing is following the original protocol.

>There's nothing wrong with forks and altcoins. If the community needs them let them have it.
They wouldn't have needed them it Bitcoin scaled and didn't alter protocol. They actually are a problem. The more shitcoins there are the more hashpower gets divided the less secure Bitcoin is.

>> No.14152105

>BSV doesn't have one since all it's doing is following the original protocol.
I don't know the other differences, but the original bitcoin always had the block size limit. Also how does BTC not follow the whitepaper? Not that it matters much of course.
>They wouldn't have needed them it Bitcoin scaled and didn't alter protocol. They actually are a problem. The more shitcoins there are the more hashpower gets divided the less secure Bitcoin is.
There will always be forks and altcoins no matter how well BTC scales, it's not even about scaling. People will create all kinds of weird projects, vaporware, pump and dump scams, and of course there will always be conflict within the BTC community no matter what. Everyone can't have the same opinions on all matters, and that is fine. Forks are what enables the evolution of crypto, as the more useful coin holds its own and the shitcoins become forgotten.

>> No.14152162

Why are you so convinced that the original whitepaper is the be-all-end-all of crypto? It was written 10 years ago, the situation is completely different now. Crypto needs to adapt instead of staying in the same place.

>> No.14152835
File: 31 KB, 378x332, how about.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


blocks don't instantly become full just because the max is 128, there will be years upon years upon years for global connection speeds to improve. at those levels bitcoin will seriously start competing with the world economy, if ever reached. mohammed in africa shouldnt be running a parasitic full node.

many huge companies will move into mining over the years as bitcoin grows, multiple huge mining companies with million dollar hardware, staff and facilities won't break a sweat about validating and transferring 128 MB blocks every 10 minutes in 10 years when those kinds of blocks might start to become a reality. even today 128 MB in 10 min is laughable, think about how much bandwidth YouTube alone consumes. also it's bizarre to not think a global financial system would have practically endless resources, there will be dedicated fiber lines between countries for only bitcoin if it is allowed to just grow to that point.

and no, nobody will "spam" 128 MB blocks with "fake" transactions because that will burn a hole in anybody's pocket within a day.

>> No.14152886

BTC mining is already plenty centralized as is. Furthering that in any way is a baaaad idea.

>> No.14152994

The entire point of blockchain is decentralization which can't be done with 128mb blocks right now

>> No.14153070

>the original bitcoin always had the block size limit
No it didn't. It was added as a temporary measure for flood control before Bitcoin had any value.

Forks and alts would have been entirely irrelevant. Something like Litecoin only began to gain value after bitcoin fees and transaction times skyrocketed.

If it's not, then fine. Make a different chain and compete, but don't call your shitcoin Bitcoin when it's really segshit lightning.

>> No.14153087

Increasing blocksize does not increase centralization for the billionth time.

>> No.14153363

Lul, segwit and lightning don't change pretty much anything, it's largely the same coin. Almost nothing has been changed. Why does it matter what the name is anyway? The best coin will win regardless of name.
Bullshit, you have to demonstrate that.
>It was added as a temporary measure for flood control before Bitcoin had any value.

>> No.14153394


>> No.14153454
File: 6 KB, 211x239, 1509817153249.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>segwit and lightning don't change pretty much anything

>> No.14153466

Yeah? Tell me how any of these make the main chain any worse.

>> No.14153545

I've already explained these things to you in this very thread.

>> No.14153557

You haven't addressed this at all, as I did not ask.

>> No.14153594





Literally me explaining to you these problems and you ignore them, circle around and hope I forgot. So tiresome.

>> No.14153696

LN is still irrelevant, you can think of it as an altcoin or something. It still doesn't make the main chain any less bitcoin. Now increasing block size would.

And what's the problem with changing where signature appears?

You're just making some claims without actually explaining how it makes the coin worse.

>> No.14153734

>just hold still while I move the goal posts second

God, give it a rest. We've already discussed these things, so idk reread the thread because you don't seem to be absorbing anything and I'm done here. It's Friday and I've got shit to do.

>> No.14153797

I see the happy merchant everywhere Now... Especially the LN.

>> No.14153997
File: 19 KB, 360x360, raf,360x360,075,t,fafafa_ca443f4786.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>objectively superior technological functions

>> No.14154024

Imagine being such a braindead retard that you couldn't even imagine that both blockstream and craig are scammers fighting over having control of the biggest shitcoin.

>> No.14154403
File: 108 KB, 950x534, wrightzuckerberg950x534.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Lmao just stop bro. Your embarrassing yourself. Segwit and LN change literally everything. Its nothing close to the same coin. Its a frankenstein

>> No.14154438

Blockstream talking points again.
It won't centralize it any more then it already is, its basically all large scale miners at this point. Nobody is mining from their laptop. Technically all you need is 3 different pools and its decentralized

>> No.14154481

Off chain transactions. The whole point is to have an IMMUTABLE PERMANENT PUBLIC LEDGER. doesnt fulfill that function with off chain LN payments does it? Causes transaction history to get lost and disappear.
Either you already know this, you have cognitive dissonance or your a blockstream shill, which is it?

>> No.14154486
File: 77 KB, 940x686, 1560310164753.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Craig is Q
Bitcoin SV is BitCoin
Corecuck shills in max damage control

>> No.14154508


Tick .... Tock..

>> No.14154884

so bitbus is a server connected to a full node that just parses parts of the blockchain?

and nobody could possibly do this because it is copywrited?

>> No.14154913
File: 12 KB, 258x196, 1485782036792.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>braindead retard
>having control of a decentralized system

>> No.14155223

I hope you realize decentralization is a meme. Go back to reading your anarchist cookbook.

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.