/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.16187133]

Serious question: How could BTC fuck up so badly? They put an artificial limit on the block size and then said "look, Bitcoin can't scale because the blocks are small". Then they simply refused to remove the block limit because you know, we can't have a free market where the individual miners themselves decides how large blocks they are willing to mine in order to optimize their profit. That would be capitalism and we can't have that you know. Instead they try to construct a separate payment system that mimics the centralized way the old banking system works. It is impossible for me to understand what kind reasoning lies behind this.

Meanwhile in bsv it is now becoming painfully obvious that Bitcoin without artificial limits is the way to go. What happened in BTC to make it such a shitshow?

[Anonymous No.16187174]

ok boomer

[Anonymous No.16187227]

What the fuck are you even talking about. Learn what an altcoin is motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.16187249]

BTC segwit coin citadel

[Anonymous No.16187298]

>>16187133
>nocoiner cope dies in street from poverty

[Anonymous No.16187306]

>>16187133
BTC is a dying coin, it's only still relevant because the (((media))) only talks about BTC and not any alts

[Anonymous No.16187313]

I would buy sv if craig left

[Anonymous No.16187354]

>>16187133
What the fuck are you talking , Satoshi put the blocklimit without telling anyone.

[Anonymous No.16187391]

>>16187133
Sounds like you're an expert programmer and cryptographer. You should contribute your own code to Bitcoin and solve all our problems. What are you waiting for?

[Anonymous No.16187420]

>>16187133
The kind of people that btc attracted was cypherpunks. Idealists who think any power outside the individual should be fought and not tolerated.

Instead of the crypto economic incentive system that satoshi created, they have twisted the vision into one where miners are an enemy and node runners are the true up holders of the system.

You can see how this way of thinking got us here. An increased block size takes away the almighty power of the anarchic individual and gives it to an authority. That's a big no no.

[Anonymous No.16187475]

>>16187133
What is even dumber is that they capped the amount of bitcoin that can even exist. That means it can never be a world currency because there wont be enough bitcoin to scale globally. Without a way for it to expand they destroyed their very viability from the start.

[Anonymous No.16187935]

>>16187306
>they still don't get it

[Anonymous No.16187973]

>>16187133
>It is impossible for me to understand what kind reasoning lies behind this.
don't hurt that little degenerate brain of yours, just take those shillbucks and shut up.

[Anonymous No.16188155]

>>16187475
ever heard what a satoshi is?

[Anonymous No.16188187]

>>16187475
The coins are infinitely divisible you dense motherfucker.

Why am I even explaining this shit to you retards. You obviously CAN'T EVEN FUCKING READ INTO THE PROJECT.

[Anonymous No.16188223]

>>16187475

[Anonymous No.16188251]

I have never hoped that someone would commit suicide like I have for Creg. I really think him taking his own life would trigger the next bull market; it would be such a relief to everyone.

[Anonymous No.16188581]

>>16187133
>What happened in BTC to make it such a shitshow?

Isn't it obvious? The banking kikes took it over and sabotaged it.

[Anonymous No.16188618]

why is bitcoin considered to be a failure?
its current adoption doesnt require bigger blocks yet, also segwit isnt supported by more than 50% yet.

if there is anyone to blame currently then the miners and exchanges.

[Anonymous No.16189071]

you guys still don't get it do you?
small blocks ensure bitcoin survival.

[Anonymous No.16189238]

>>16189071
((Blockstream)) wash your brain??

[Anonymous No.16189294]

>>16187227
>>16187354
>>16187391
>>16187475
>>16188618
>>16189071

[Anonymous No.16189644]

>>16189238
no my i just looked at some graphs about bitcoin and sv and realized sv is fucked so badly it's not even funny. i'm beginning to think blockstream actually did the math and ran the numbers like they claim and simulated every possible scaling strategy for bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16189690]

>>16187133
ulterior motives.

can't sell a side chain if the main chain works as intended.
if that ain't it they are saboteurs meant to simply prevent bitcoin from going anywhere.

[Anonymous No.16189725]

Bigger blocks won’t ensure finality and could cause block disputes and reorganization. Core devs know this

[Anonymous No.16189775]

>>16189690
or more likely they wanted to ensure bitcoin survival.

[Anonymous No.16189954]

>>16189775
by losing adoption? the dream of bitcoin was that everybody was supposed to use it, how can some guy in india by bananas with 50 USD transaction fees or higher?
we had steam supporting BTC, they will NEVER come back. allowing blocks to become full and publicly stating that "it's fine" was an absolutely terrible move.
and don't give me that fairy-tale about miners needing the high fees to operate, they were supposed to get their money from high transaction volume, not low volume with ridiculous fees.
having a low ceiling at 1 MB just allows the large miners to spam the network with transactions to push up the fee at almost no cost because even IF those transactions end up in a block they will collect their own fee when they mine their own transactions.

[Anonymous No.16190001]

Okay okay good job this shilling is having an effect on me... so BCH or BSV?

[Anonymous No.16190030]

>>16188187
Divisible into very small parts is not the same as infinitely divisible. If BTC hits 1 million dollars you would be fucked if you want to make small payments.
Never say never.

[Anonymous No.16190067]

>>16187133
>How could BTC fuck up so badly?

It was fucked up from the get go. Satoshi didn't design Bitcoin with scalability in mind and probably had no skill in doing so.

[Anonymous No.16190093]

>>16189954
haven't lost anything you worrywarts.
>and don't give me that fairy-tale about miners needing the high fees to operate
i'm curious how do you explain the miner fee reward discrepancy then...

[Anonymous No.16190147]

>>16187475
Wow.

[Anonymous No.16190153]

>>16190001
32mb blocks or unlimited mb blocks. Up to you

[Anonymous No.16190170]

>>16190153
doesn't matter in the end. the exact size doesn't matter at all the only thing that matter is are they full most of the time or not?

[Anonymous No.16190182]

>>16190001
BSV, it can already sustain 2 GB blocks (will be uncapped in Feb. 2020) while BCH still uses 32 MB blocks. This means BSV can scale better by handling more transactions per second and having cheaper transaction fees.
BSV also has OP codes of the original Bitcoin protocol reactivated which improves its scripting capabilities, while BCH hasn't done as such and instead they added in centralized checkpoints.
BSV is destined to flip BCH in price soon.

[Anonymous No.16190206]

>>16190182
>and having cheaper transaction fees
exactly and that is why it won't survive the next halving or the one after it.

[Anonymous No.16190233]

>>16190206
Wait for the Tulip Trust retard.

[Anonymous No.16190261]

>>16190233
fuck off with that retarded bullshit do you believe in unicorns that fly and shit rainbows too?

[Anonymous No.16190278]

>>16187313
Do it because your brain tells you to. Don't let craigs retarded asperger's stop you.

[Anonymous No.16190469]

>>16187475
Wow. Retarded.

[Anonymous No.16190502]

>>16189071
Szabo said this as well. Szabo is highly based and prob knows who satoshi is likely to be if he’s not satoshi himself with 4 other cypher punks.

[Anonymous No.16190519]

>>16187133
>TFW he still doesn't know

[Anonymous No.16190537]

>>16190170
Full blocks on 32mb is hardly able to sustain a global population using the coin you dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.16191445]

>>16190030
No no no you don't fucking understand. The protocol has shit in place to go about dividing up satoshis into even smaller units.

[Anonymous No.16191493]

i cant tell who knows what or whos telling the truth

[Anonymous No.16191554]

>>16189644
>i just looked at some graphs
kek

[Anonymous No.16192028]

>>16187133
altcoin seething

[Anonymous No.16192092]

You have to let Bitcoin go.

Yes it was ruined, but that's what American government is gonna do, to protect their fiat investments from you autists. You thought it would be that easy, snap your fingers like, to topple gigantic financial institutions that rule the world? Think again.

No, cryptocurrency will be shit for 10-20 years more. But on the flip side, rejoice, for all of you are still early adopters, you can accumulate and flip the currency of your choice, and the wisest will be the winners.

[Anonymous No.16192148]

>>16187475
You went full retard. Never go full retard.

[Anonymous No.16192274]

>>16189644
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.16192300]

>>16190170
>Need to sustain a global economy
>Decides 32 MB is the PERFECT amount, which allows a sustained ~200 transactions per seconds. Just enough to serve a provincial town Argentina.

Anon I....

[Anonymous No.16192531]

>>16190030
Ur dumb.

[Anonymous No.16192774]

>>16190093
>haven't lost anything you worrywarts.
didn't you notice i said "we had steam supporting BTC"? we lost steam.

valve's steam allowed you to buy games with BTC.
they no longer does. if that's not a loss of adoption then what is?

[Anonymous No.16192852]

>>16189294
Shabat Shalom fellow bizraelis , share this facts about BSV in another post and green wojaks and fortunes will come to you

1_BSV Hashrate is so low that a small mining pool can 51% attack it

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bsv.html

2_ 96% BSV transactions come from a fucking weather app

https://bitcoinist.com/96-of-bitcoin-sv-transactions-come-from-a-weather-app-report/

3_If you don't believe the thing in point 2 all you need to do is look the average transaction size of every crypto.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionvalue-btc-eth-ltc-bch-bsv-xmr-doge.html

even dogecoin moves more money

4_BSV mining is centralized massively and dominated by coingeek

SV

https://sv.coin.dance/blocks/thisweek

BTC

https://coin.dance/blocks/thisweek

Worse nodes are even more centralized

Only 468 nodes using the same client vs btc having more than 10k nodes using different clients.

https://sv.coin.dance/nodes

5_BSV HAS 1GB size blocks if full , this mean 52tb per year blockchain growth and an ever decrease ammount of nodes hosting it for free(only pools need to be nodes and there are 8 pools on bsv so 8 nodes will receive monetary incentives to host it).
8 nodes hosting CP basically.

6_BSV allows people to upload shit like videos and illegal stuff like cp will be uploaded there 100% knowing it's open.

7_Combine point 4, 5 and 6 and eventually you will end with a centralized blockchain with a few nodes sharing child porn that will be taken down by governments.

8_The fact that SV shills constantly attack other cryptocurrencies and threaten their destruction and even support capital controls show they are not just attacking btc but want to destroy crypto and the recent shilling campaign shows they are paid to do this.
With love , Greg Maxwell.

[Anonymous No.16192995]

>>16187391
Nigger, you can change the block size by editing one line of code, but that doesn't mean everyone will hop on your chain. Satoshi should of seen the lack of consensus for protocol changes coming and implemented dynamic block sizes similar to Monero's, but now we'll be stuck with this 1 MB bottleneck forever. Overengineered solutions like segwit and multisig/locktime contracts aren't going to scale. Way to fuck crypto over.

[Anonymous No.16193014]

>>16190537
>>16192300
you fucks can't read or something?

[Anonymous No.16193151]

>>16191554
its there for everyone.
bitcoin is best positioned to survive the halving. not intuitive at first but the charts never lie. big block will lose.

[Anonymous No.16193324]

>>16187133
>Dude why don't they just change one number in the code and fix bitcoins scaling problem?
Because it's not that trivial to scale a decentralised trustless network. For one, bigger blocks take longer to propagate across the network, increasing the likelihood of orphan blocks as it increases. Not only is this wasting hashing power that could otherwise be used to secure the network but it makes the chain less secure (if I know there are going to be orphan blocks, I can use them as a basis for an attack).

Anyone who thinks this is shit is easy is a brainlet who hasn't actually thought it through properly. BTC has opted for a second layer solution, time will tell if it's actually viable or not and people are free to come up with their own solutions.

>Artificial limits
Oddly enough, if you have issue with that number why not change the other 'artificial' numbers like the block reward? You could go around an double this and half that. Would we get a more valuable coin? No. We already have one that is like that which also went and changed the hashing algorithm, called litecoin.

[Anonymous No.16193338]

>>16192995
OK, genius. Then what happens after you bump it to 10 MB and it's still not enough? What about 100 MB? 1GB?

[Anonymous No.16193353]

BTC need smaller blocks so home node fanbois will be happy.

[Anonymous No.16193415]

>>16193353
no it doesn't btc needs pruning nodes able to form a trustless network

[Anonymous No.16193458]

>>16187313
Hes controlling your life? Wow craig based human on earth

[Anonymous No.16193958]

so bros should i sell my btc then????????
wats the verdict?

[Anonymous No.16193968]

Why is bsv shilled so much here?

[Anonymous No.16194161]

>>16193958
not yet it will go to 1mil before it goes to zero

[Anonymous No.16194301]

>>16187133
block size should re-adjust like difficulty does

someone explain to me why this is a bad idea beyond the obvious problem of how you set the target size """correctly""" so that mining for fees only once the block subsidy ends has a profit motive

[Anonymous No.16194352]

>>16189690
>that image
>multiple huge companies is sufficient decentralization

fucking retarded. baffles me someone could be clearheaded about the rest and not see how fucking stupid this is.

[Anonymous No.16194384]

>>16194161
ok hwen wil it go to 1milly? thank you already
im worry about losign it all :(

[Anonymous No.16195010]

>>16194384
at $100k cash out your initial investment that will happen by 2022

[Anonymous No.16195200]

>>16195010
thx

[Anonymous No.16195244]

>>16194301
I always thought as well that this should be the way to do it. Like double the blocksize at every halvening.

Anything beyond something that simple would probably require individual discussion for each increase depending on current demand and price so that there are more transactions than fit in blocks so that there are sufficient fees to pay for the mining, but not so many transactions that it becomes unusable.

Perhaps something like not a fixed blocksize, but that all transactions with a minimum fee do not count towards the blocksize.

[Anonymous No.16195503]

>>16195244
>individual discussion for each increase
or dude oracles lmao

if a central authority has the power to change it a central authority has the power to ruin it

[Anonymous No.16195560]

>>16195503
>if a central authority has the power to change it a central authority has the power to ruin it
This is what it is all about.
Bitcoin is all about taken power from any single central group. The only way to do that is to lock down the protocol rules and let the miners in a free market decide what blocksizes they will mine. This is how it is in BSV and we can see that the different miners have set their block size limit different from eachother. Someone mines 256MB while some only mine 8MB blocks.

[Anonymous No.16195655]

>>16195560
The problem is that this creates a tragedy of the commons, the miners mining the biggest blocks have large profits, but all other miners are paying for them with diskspace and network bandwidth. It won't work as a free market when profits are privatized and costs are distributed.

Unless all miners agree on a blocksize (which is then fixed in the protocol), there is no incentive to create anything but the largest blocks. If you make smaller blocks, the next miner will profit from the transactions you didn't include, and you're paying for their cost either way.

[Anonymous No.16195684]

>>16195560
>The only way to do that is to lock down the protocol rules
I agree. There's nothing inherently wrong with locking it down to a specific size or locking it down to fluctuate in a predictable manner like difficulty. If blocks can have infinite size what happens to the fee market when the block subsidy ends?

[Anonymous No.16195728]

>>16195655
>The problem is that this creates a tragedy of the commons, the miners mining the biggest blocks have large profits, but all other miners are paying for them with diskspace and network bandwidth
You actually don't really understand bitcoin and the "tragedy of commons". I'm not saying this to "bash" you.

I know you hate him, but he has a very good article about just this:
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/decentralised-or-just-inefficient/

>The security of Bitcoin relies on a group of individuals investing money in building to create a secure system. It is not the tragedy of the commons which we have in the communist or socialist version of Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16195755]

>>16187133

Hi noob

[Anonymous No.16195799]

>>16195728
I don't really hate him, he's just wrong. Satoshi explicitly designed the protocol so that economic incentives work to strengthen the system. What Craig describes is not economic but purehearted incentives of putting in money just because it's the right thing.

That will only work until everyone runs out of money, and then it's back to economic incentives, which invite a tragedy of the commons again. The only way to avoid that is to build a level playing field for everyone, which implies building the block limit into the protocol itself so nobody can cheat and profit at the cost of everybody else.

[Anonymous No.16195825]

>>16195799
I agree totally with you on the economic part and so does Satoshi. It is just that you for some reason fall on a different conclusion. Please read his article. Even if you don't think he is satoshi, there is a lot of good insight in it

[Anonymous No.16195829]

>>16195244
max block size could adjust to average fees in smaller increments while the absolute limit could indeed double every halving.

[Anonymous No.16196156]

>>16195799
Satoshi wanted huge blocks and miners to professionalize. He said this in no uncertain terms.