Store of value is the dumbest meme in crypto. Prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.18906754]

BTC is a useless shitcoin. The only Bitcoin that has a chance is BCH or BSV.

[Anonymous No.18906785]

>>18906754
delusion is skyrocketing

[Anonymous No.18906792]

>>18906754

Craig Wright just got exposed as a plagiarist, so the successor to Bitcoin has to be BCH now.

[Anonymous No.18906821]

>>18906785

Hey, I'll just put my money in this useless commodity that is only used to put money in. this kills the dollar. me smart. give me an argument for "Store of value".

The narrative is fucking retarded. The cryptomarket is fucking retarded. BTC will never work with 1 MB blocks

[Anonymous No.18906846]

>>18906754
Daily reminder, '17+ fags opinions are worthless

[Anonymous No.18906850]

>>18906754
It’s moved from being a store of value to a financial instrument.

[Anonymous No.18906875]

>>18906754
DELUSIONAL FOOL. MONERO IS THE STRONGEST CRYPTOGRAPHIC COIN THERE IS.

How the fuck could people have traded BTC for drugs back then without getting caught?

[Anonymous No.18906877]

>>18906754

imagine believing the pajeet shill threads like this in the current year kek your time is up fuck heads

[Anonymous No.18906888]

>>18906821
"The internet will never scale because of all these broadcast txs derppp"

[Anonymous No.18906894]

>>18906754
Not for long, they finally did it.

[Anonymous No.18906908]

>>18906754

the only reason it could store value is that you can spend it on something later.

WHAT YOU WANT TO SPEND BITCOIN???? ANYONE WANTING YOU TO SPEND YOUR BITCOIN IS A SCAMMER!!!11!!1!!

This is what actual maxis think. It's dumb as fuck.

People are mad at businesses for "not using bitcoin" because they're selling bitcoin for goods and services.

It's like i'm at a mental hospital listening to patients rant about their delusions

[Anonymous No.18906935]

>>18906875

XMR and BCH are my 2 biggest holdings

[Anonymous No.18906956]

>>18906888

The internet would never scale if we restricted everyone from building online services because your grandmas desktop isn't good enough to keep up with competition.

[Anonymous No.18906957]

>>18906908
are you trolling or do you really have no idea what you're talking about?

if you're nice and actually curious why you are wrong I can help you out a lot

[Anonymous No.18906972]

>>18906754
You're going to eat your tongue when you see 1BTC worth $1M

[Anonymous No.18906988]

>>18906957
having any discussions with maxis usually end like this.

sorry.

why am i wrong? why will 1MB bitcoin ever be usefull?

[Anonymous No.18906991]

>>18906908

They only recorded three BTC transactions in Australia this month. And when I say three, I mean literally three. I don't normies are aware quite how dead BTC is as a medium of transaction by this point.

[Anonymous No.18907011]

>>18906792
Craig Wright is not BSV

[Anonymous No.18907016]

>>18906972

At a price of $1 million, fees for transacting in BTC would be one hundred times what they are today. Even when the price was $20,000 we had $100 fees and three-day waiting times.

[Anonymous No.18907017]

>>18906956
That's not what is occurring

The 1mb block limit is a similar situation to the difference between broadcast packet transfers and unicast packet transfers

[Anonymous No.18907035]

>>18906988
I'm really going to try and help you only because you are here and I have been around this board for some time, are you willing to listen? honestly

[Anonymous No.18907043]

>>18906972
Yeah, maybe from hyperinflation. Would be worth less than today

[Anonymous No.18907106]

>>18907017

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/aip93l/the_delusion_of_core_minions_now_comparing_ln/

[Anonymous No.18907109]

>>18906988
you miss so many points its almost not worth it to reply

[Anonymous No.18907142]

>>18907106
are you willing to listen too?

I don't bother wasting my time explaining this to people in irl but I used to come to this board and waste time just like you so I have some (probably misplaced) empathy for you

[Anonymous No.18907150]

>>18907109

>People are mad at businesses for "not using bitcoin" because they're selling bitcoin for goods and services.

Are you defending this?

[Anonymous No.18907155]

>>18906792
BSV will stay and flourish when Craig Wright leaves. If you want to criticize BSV, please do so by pointing out flaws in its technology, not by throwing dirt at its "face". You have every right to insult Craig Wright but please don't present it as critique towards BSV, which it's not.

[Anonymous No.18907175]

>>18907017
how so? could you explain further?

[Anonymous No.18907219]

>>18907155
It will be possible to run the bitcoin protocol stack on a microchip the size of a grain of sand in a matter of time because the scaling of the stack is being out paced by the engineering advancements of computing tech etc etc etc

running the protocol stack of any other chain will not yield this because their stacks are growing exponentially instead of linearly

the TCP/IP scaling is why it ran on a computer the size of a giant warehouse room in the 70's and now the tcp/ip stack is in literally everything

it's the difference between actually scaling and LITERALLY not scaling

[Anonymous No.18907235]

>>18906754
>salty nocoiner faggot rambling

[Anonymous No.18907239]

>>18907175
explained more or less above, you sound like you are being reasonable so I will try and continue to answer your questions as best that I can

[Anonymous No.18907253]

>>18907016
no worries btc can do a few million tx/sec easily

[Anonymous No.18907343]

>>18906888
the internet would never have scaled if you was trying to put all data in the same datacenter

[Anonymous No.18907381]

>>18906875
you can't catch people with bitcoin transactions the transactions don't offer any insight to the identity and the nature of the trade whatsoever.

if you learn the identity for a wallet you can easily trace the spending unless the owner takes explicit measures to the contrary.

but first you need to get a clue that a drug trade is going on ie you need to penetrate the darkweb marketplace with agents or compromise other actors.

i think bitcoin is pretty irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

[Anonymous No.18907400]

>>18907343
or transmit every data to everyone all at once...
imagine if the internet only had udp broadcast datagrams no subnets...

[Anonymous No.18907416]

So how the fuck is bitcoin going to scale? Explain to a brainlet. Isn't it 7tx/s right now? Is Lightning Network going to fix this?

[Anonymous No.18907429]

>>18907253
It's a nice move by Blockstream to implement a middle man in transaction processing. Bitcoin was never intended to do that.

[Anonymous No.18907435]

>>18907343
That's not how its going to work, for the same reason as when you send an email to someone the internet entire internet and every peer on the internet is not informed about the email you just sent and who you sent it to

like I said, this is the difference between broadcast vs unicast txs

some ppl during the early internet days also never understood how it would scale because they didn't understand how it would be built in layers, the base layer that is the bedrock and then the layers on top which are unicast tx layers

[Anonymous No.18907450]

>>18907400
holy shit imagine the redundancy
IMAGINE TRYING TO SYNC THE "BSV-TARD-INTERNET-VERSION" NODE FROM SCRATCH

[Anonymous No.18907471]

>>18907416
who are you asking?

[Anonymous No.18907490]

>>18907471
Anyone who can give me an answer fren

[Anonymous No.18907504]

>>18907416
if you chill, I will help you

[Anonymous No.18907531]

>>18907504
Aight I'm chill

[Anonymous No.18907550]

>>18907429
not what happens.
ln channels are basically sidechains with a trustless exit. which means they are chains of signatures updating a single balance. that can be settled with a single on-chain tx even if there was a million or billion transactions.
it's marvelous ingenious and awesome. the routing part sucks ass for now but given time it will either improve or get worked around. there are multiple roads ln can take and multiple ways it can be adopted.

[Anonymous No.18907551]

>>18907490
It will scale on the layers built on top of the base layer. On the layers above, not everyone needs to be notified of every single thing taking place on the network to the tx per second capacity is quite literally infinite

[Anonymous No.18907553]

>>18906821
>implying there isn't an inherit value of a world wide unregulated game of hot potato, a casino that is open 24/7 with little to no barrier of entry
btc satisfies the basic need of gambling

[Anonymous No.18907571]

>>18907504
Walk me through the future of BTC with your eyes. will 1MB always be the limit?

[Anonymous No.18907610]

>>18907219

For the foreseeable future, there will never be a way to use BTC as anything but a layer for third party payment-processors. It has been a decade since Bitcoin was released, and you still have exactly the same enormous fees and waiting times as you ever did. I don't think you quite understand the scale of the problem. If even 300,000 people actively tried to use BTC, the system would break down. $200 fees. Week-long waiting times. A future where you can cope with 6 billion users, then, is impossibly far away. People would migrate to BCH long before then. Why would they wait on a broken system for decades rather than go immediately to what works?

>>18907416

Lightning Network is costly, cumbrous, and inefficient. It is unfit to reach widespread adoption. Even if it was widely adopted, it could only support a few million users, not a world currency system. Without increasing the block size, you are not addressing the central problem.

>>18907155

BCH has the original devs and community, BSV has no community, and has a con-man as its face. All things being equal, BCH would win on that basis alone. You see how important community is by the fact that BTC is temporarily winning even though the code is fundamentally broken. To succeed, you need a passionate community and set of investors who are determined not to let the price of your coin drop to zero.

Besides, Craig Wright is inextricably tied to SV. He claims he is Satoshi because he wants to get hold of Satoshi's coins. Are you happy to make a liar and a con-man the richest man in the world?

[Anonymous No.18907620]

>>18907550
i'm sure miners are really impressed losing transaction fees from 999 million tx and processing just one instead
every halving makes them need to rely on fees more for profit
genius

[Anonymous No.18907635]

>>18907571
I would venture to say that the 1mb block is set in stone at this point yes.

It will scale on the layers above where everything is done via cryptographic signatures yet to be broadcast by multiple parties (infinite parties theoretically)

[Anonymous No.18907636]

>>18906754
OP I think you’re the dumbest nigger on planet fucking earth and I want you to stay that way. Buy BSV

[Anonymous No.18907652]

>>18907416
just read this
>https://medium.com/@ayelem02/congestion-attacks-in-payment-channel-networks-b7ac37208389

[Anonymous No.18907663]

>>18907435

If you make BTC a mere settlement for layers, you confine it to being a useless method of payment for 99% of humanity. Only wealthy users and institutions could use the technology. It defies the whole purpose and use-case of Bitcoin. It's supposed to work out of the box, for everyone. That's the only way you achieve mass adoption.

[Anonymous No.18907666]

>>18907571
>will 1MB always be the limit?
not possible imo. eventually it has to be increased, but segwit kind of acts like a multiplier so doesn't need to be stupid big.

best case would be to make it self adjusting with a single consensus hard fork and after that the consensus rules would enforce the proper block limit that adjusts to growing real demand naturally forever.

[Anonymous No.18907679]

>>18906785
Its really not hard to understand when you have either boomer rocks that the jews control and charge you a spot % on any transaction, or a shitcoin like fiat currencies that literally steal your purchasing power everytime they turn the BRRR machine on. Literally dont care if it halfs in value to fiat.

Fuck the kikes fuck the federal reserve and fuck low iq subhumans

[Anonymous No.18907697]

>>18907610
If you can increase your block size your project is not decentralized.

[Anonymous No.18907723]

>>18907610
-we understand the problem
-no the future is not impossible, it's literally being built and is currently functioning it just hasn't been adopted yet. I can do 100,000 trustless 2nd layer tx's per second right now if I was inclined to do so
-no they wouldn't because bah would have the same scaling issues or just turn into a database

-it's actually really really efficient


-no it doesn't

[Anonymous No.18907752]

>>18907663
no, because of layers and literally how the internet was built the same way

[Anonymous No.18907756]

>>18907663
>It defies the whole purpose and use-case of Bitcoin.
except for the trustless permissionless and secure part right? and the hard coded supply curve thing... let's forget about everything that bitcoin was made to counter...
with sidechains you don't necessarily have to transact in bitcoin to benefit from bitcoins trustless and secure nature. it can be done right and local commerce can be made local concern, or it can be done stupid with scam tokens and their own free floating price discovery and arbitrary supply.

we will see how it plays out.

[Anonymous No.18907767]

>>18907550

Sidechain solutions rely on centralized systems of permission. They are a way to abuse Bitcoin's protocol in order to pour transactions through bank-owned systems. This is precisely why financial institutions (Blockverse) captured and neutered Bitcoin in the early days.

[Anonymous No.18907781]

>>18907635

OK can you describe these layers for me?

LN will never work without a custodial service managing your channel liquidity and connectivity to services. Your grandma will never set up a home node to always be online to receive/send money.

Even if you try without a custodial service, 1MB will take years to get everyone on the planet to make 1 TX into one payment channel. I've read that you'd need at least 12 channels open to stay sufficiently decentralized.

Is there anything other than LN i should be aware of?

[Anonymous No.18907783]

>>18907666
not likely

[Anonymous No.18907808]

>>18907752

See >>18907106

"core minions are now equating the broken and dysfunctional LN with TCp/IP , as it so happens when you are lying on a daily basis and doing propaganda, the liar actually starts comparing his false claim with something real to give a hint of credibility

a reminder, how to use LN =

1 .download the entire 200GB plus btc block chain

2. open channel . make wallet 'hot'

3. the other person does the same ( step 1 and 2)

some one please tell me how this is comparable to TCP/IP which is , theoretically, something entirely different ..... BAKA"

*

"As much as I like to hate on the r/BTC sub, I agree with you that this comparsion with TCIP is nonsensical.

Bitcoin is more like HTTP because it is an application protocol that would use TCPIP as a transport protocol.

Also, just to be clear this is not the view of the many Bitcoin followers, just a select few extremists."

[Anonymous No.18907810]

>>18907697
Being decentralized isn't a boolean expression anon

[Anonymous No.18907854]

>>18906821
blocks aren't even 1mb retard

[Anonymous No.18907882]

>>18907550
>the routing part sucks ass for now but given time it will either improve or get worked around.
You're kidding, right? This fucking blows. Also there's another issue with BTC: Replace By Fee. It got removed from BCH and BSV for good reasons as it enables double spending. Not good for vendors.

[Anonymous No.18907910]

>>18907781OK can you describe these layers for me?

>LN will never work without a custodial service managing your channel liquidity and connectivity to services.
False

>Your grandma will never set up a home node to always be online to receive/send money.
yes she will, just like she turns on her iPad or her jitterbug phone and the tcp/ip protocol stack is already on there


>Even if you try without a custodial service, 1MB will take years to get everyone on the planet to make 1 TX into one payment channel. I've read that you'd need at least 12 channels open to stay sufficiently decentralized.
False

Is there anything other than LN i should be aware of?
Read about the early development of the internet and linux, there are reasons why when open source software is deployed it stays the king.....open source protocols are extremely difficult to beat. Why is there no "new and improved internet!" and no "new and improved LinuxCash!" ???

[Anonymous No.18907935]

>>18907854

Huge apologies anon. I profusely wish i would remember that blocksizes could vary in size and be anywhere from 0 to 1.5

the point still stands. blocksize is still not big enough to transfer everyone onto LN with their own transaction

[Anonymous No.18907940]

>>18907810
Being decentralized means consensus its impossible to achieve. The value is in it being inmutable otherwise politicians could change it into whatever the fuck they parroted. Its not different than 21mm coin limit.

[Anonymous No.18907945]

>>18907756
>>18907723

I'm amazed that you can talk unfavourably about decentralization with respect to BCH, when layer 2 technology is exactly that. It is a hundred times more centralized than BCH. It only benefits banks and financial institutions, and those who want to see Bitcoin fail. Adopting Bitcoin Core means that roughly five people, all employed by the same company, decide the Bitcoin protocol for everyone else.

The blocksize limit literally censors the Blockchain from use by 99% of humanity, who cannot afford to use it.

[Anonymous No.18907971]

>>18907808
yea, sending an email used to be difficult as well.

it will only be a few years before people are buying phones with the bitcoin/lightning protocol stack installed/running/and new blocks being streamed from a satellite in space

also, all of that will be happening and the user won't even know it, just like the current tcp/ip stack

[Anonymous No.18908000]

>>18907945
>Adopting Bitcoin Core means that roughly five people, all employed by the same company, decide the Bitcoin protocol for everyone else.
deluded

>The blocksize limit literally censors the Blockchain from use by 99% of humanity, who cannot afford to use it.

decentralization at layer 0 is not cheap

[Anonymous No.18908031]

>>18907910

[Anonymous No.18908073]

>>18908031
channel openings can be aggregated into single tx's so you would be able to on board 100's of thousands of users with a single tx

[Anonymous No.18908123]

>>18907767
>Sidechain solutions rely on centralized systems of permission
not necessarily you can make them merge mined with bitcoin, also the exit will be trustless via bitcoin smart contract so subverting a sidechain can not be profitable for any federation or entity.

[Anonymous No.18908139]

>>18908031
I think you are getting caught up on what's possible' vs impossible in "the digital universe"

What may help you is to come to the realization that in the digital universe we are THE GODS (not literally god but "the gods of that domain")

We can do anything we want essentially, all of the actual limitations exist in meatspace, we must adhere to the laws of physics etc etc etc

So any issues you have with how something works would be better focused on meatspace issues, it just so happens the meatspace issue is the issue of double spending/inflation/censorship, everything else is pretty much secondary and falls into place when those issues are solved (as satoshi has done)

[Anonymous No.18908143]

>>18907971

Lightning Network, even by its own admission, can only support 21 million people. That isn't mass adoption even if it actually gets used to its full potential. It also _must_ be centralized in order to scale. Even BTC advocates admit this, the same people who, a few years ago, were saying that we needed to limit the block size for decentralization. See e. g. IvanOnTech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARx8UVfvG2o&feature=youtu.be&t=806

In BTC's future, you will have anonymous transactions for the wealthy banks and corporations, who can afford to do on-chain transactions, and then a banking layer, powered by the Lightning Network, which is tracked and centralized, for use by the masses.

[Anonymous No.18908156]

>>18907882
>Replace By Fee
it's an optional flag if you don't like it don't use it...
the whole rbf debate is moot you can double spend anyhow with or without it. rbf defines what is a legal double spend.

[Anonymous No.18908198]

>>18907882
also note that relying on no rbf is basically a weird attempt at preconsensus that is not at all byzantine fault tolerant. if it was we wouldn't have a blockchain to begin with.

[Anonymous No.18908211]

>>18908143

>Lightning Network, even by its own admission, can only support 21 million people. That isn't mass adoption even if it actually gets used to its full potential. It also _must_ be centralized in order to scale. Even BTC advocates admit this, the same people who, a few years ago, were saying that we needed to limit the block size for decentralization. See e. g. IvanOnTech:
False


>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARx8UVfvG2o&feature=youtu.be&t=806 [Embed]
might watch, probably won't


>In BTC's future, you will have anonymous transactions for the wealthy banks and corporations, who can afford to do on-chain transactions, and then a banking layer, powered by the Lightning Network, which is tracked and centralized, for use by the masses.
False

[Anonymous No.18908227]

>>18908123

It is far easier to control 1000 Lightning Network hubs globally than hundreds of millions of Bitcoin clients.

[Anonymous No.18908263]

>>18908227
and easier to control 14 mining nodes or 10 exchanges meh technically anyone can permissionlessly enter as an ln hub.

[Anonymous No.18908267]

>>18908211

The most charitable estimate is 50 million. That's 0.1% of the world's population even on a cumbrous Layer 2 solution.

[Anonymous No.18908291]

>>18908073
but aren't you paying a sat/b fee? isn't that transaction huge?

[Anonymous No.18908296]

>>18908227
every single device on the planet will potentially be running the bitcoin/lightning stack, so no

[Anonymous No.18908303]

>>18908291
fuck thats dumb af. ignore my ra

[Anonymous No.18908333]

>>18908291
yea, someone may be paying for their share of the fee per byte from the 1000's of users but that doesn't change the fact that it's aggregated and still makes it into the block

[Anonymous No.18908370]

>>18908267
yea, that's just false

since it's the second layer, the scaling is relatively easy because not all participants on the network need to be notified

[Anonymous No.18908399]

>>18908139

>What may help you is to come to the realization that in the digital universe we are THE GODS (not literally god but "the gods of that domain")

You're right. This is why we go to BCH, where the technical problems have already been solved. BTC is where they haven't been, and cannot be solved.

>>18908263

Satoshi addresses this in the white paper.

"If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth."

Even if you manage a 51% attack, your nodes and your mined blocks will be manually blocked by configs in the miner nodes across the world, and everything will return to the way it was within a day or less.

[Anonymous No.18908420]

>>18906754
think I'm about done guys, hopefully I cleared up some things or at least helped you to start question some things

[Anonymous No.18908455]

Bsv and BCH can't compete with visa. So what value do they offer that BTC does not?

[Anonymous No.18908474]

>>18908399
they haven't been solved by bch

broadcasting or relaying a gig block is very very difficult and will make it impossible to run the bah protocol stack on normal hardware for the foreseeable future and possibly forever, that's really the core issue here and one that no one can get around

it's physics and a physical limitation that cannot be overcome because of the laws of the universe

[Anonymous No.18908499]

>>18908370

You sound just like Tony Vays when he vehemently claimed that Segwit would fix all scaling problems. The narrative is always changing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWvKMu7OYV4&feature=emb_title

LN doesn't solve any problems in a better manner than what it is supposed to replace. It is simply racketeering.

Why the Lightning network Cannot Scale

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/continued-discussion-on-why-lightning-network-cannot-scale-883c17b2ef5b

Lightning network will fail due to several possible reasons:

https://medium.com/@curt0/lightning-network-will-likely-fail-due-to-several-possible-reasons-336c6c47f049

Mathematical Proof Lightning network will fail:

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

[Anonymous No.18908642]

>>18908474

You were just saying that hardware improvements would be the panacea for BTC. >>18907219

>It will be possible to run the bitcoin protocol stack on a microchip the size of a grain of sand in a matter of time because the scaling of the stack is being out paced by the engineering advancements of computing tech etc etc etc

The next generation of video will consume gigabytes every hour simply to watch television. Hardware will always keep pace with what is required. Bitcoin Cash already has a capacity glut. Right now, it can handle blocks which are an order of magnitude greater than what was the peak demand of BTC.

[Anonymous No.18908647]

>>18908499
tone vays is a fairly good technical trader but completely tech illiterate as far as bitcoin or any crypto goes. i wouldn't listen to him for fundamentals or scaling. small wonder roger mopped the floor with the bald manlet in their debate.

[Anonymous No.18908668]

Regardless of technicals of LN

The "Store of value" narrative is dumb as fuck. the only value you'll get for it is the one yo're able to sell it for. Bitcoins "inherent" value is literally 0. If you'd be the only one on earth with bitcoins your life would not be any better

[Anonymous No.18908671]

>>18908455

BTC can't compete with Visa, because it offers nothing that Visa doesn't: with Layer 2 it will have no privacy, no decentralization, and high fees. But BCH has, and always will have, privacy, decentralization, and minimal fees. Hence it fulfils the unique use-case of Bitcoin, and the reason why we had a bull market in Bitcoin in the first place.

[Anonymous No.18908705]

>>18908399
if you ignore the longest valid chain it is not bitcoin anymore it's dead. also ip addresses are cheap to come by there are proxies and vpns for practically free the config thing is retarded.

an attacker can't do whatever he want's with 51% hashpower but he can easily censor transactions which makes bitcoin not permissionless anymore. he can also go after any fork attempt with little to no effort. there is no running away from 51%.

[Anonymous No.18908738]

>>18908671
what bch doesn't have is security and byzantine fault tolerance. because it's a minority hash shitfork. so it doesn't fulfill anything bitcoin related.

[Anonymous No.18908764]

>>18908668
I'm sorry you missed so many of the points being made and it seems you're lacking the ability to think in probabilistic terms

hope everything works out for you, cheers

[Anonymous No.18908819]

>>18907610
BTC is shit. Lightening doesn't work. Not enough txs to subsidize miners. Price has to be about $13k before they even break even, so unless there is a big pump bad news post halvening.
BCH has a scam tax and a dev team trying to squeeze $ out of investors.
BSV has circa 1 project a day being launched on its blockchain, just had world record for txs per block, scales, is working with the Polish government (and probably others behind closd doors), supports microtransactions and is the electronic cash BTC was always supposed to be. Everything else is a lie and fud. Learn to separate Creg from the project. It's a dog and pony show.

[Anonymous No.18908829]

[Anonymous No.18908921]

>>18906754
ah, all this fud against BTC reminds me of 2017 all over again.

See you guys at a new ATH for btc.
Also fuck captchas

[Anonymous No.18908991]

>>18908738

Block size doesn't matter for security; only the active proof-of-work which secures the chain does. Bigger blocks make BCH more efficient, because they give it the potential to have many more users than BTC could ever support. It will easily outpace BTC's security in time.

>>18908819

>BCH has a scam tax

You're talking about a mere donation of 1% from all the Bitcoin miners.

[Anonymous No.18909002]

CRAIG HAS THE PATENT FOR LN
>https://patents.google.com/patent/US9830580B2/en?assignee=nChain+Holdings+Limited
LMAO GET FUCKED GREG

[Anonymous No.18909022]

>>18907679
Seconded.
Fuck low iq subhumans

[Anonymous No.18909060]

>>18907935
you will find that many of your assumptions and jumps-to-conclusion are inaccurate
you are missing the forest for the trees
likely cause you have a low IQ

[Anonymous No.18909382]

>>18907553
there is, but that implies there's nothing special about btc and it's just a fad. People recognize that by buying they are really buying the bags of previous buyers, so gambling interest starts shifting elsewhere with less bagholders

[Anonymous No.18909433]

>>18909382
this is wrong for many reasons

[Anonymous No.18909441]

>>18909433
yet you didn't provide any

[Anonymous No.18909658]

>>18909433

Bitcoin went up in the first place because it provided intrinsic value and an important use-case. Speculative ignorance keeps it afloat, but that can only get you so far. Even gold and silver have had, historically, a certain amount of speculation; but imagine if you woke up one day and learned that the intrinsic value backing them was gone, and that they had become fundamentally worthless. The price would collapse, and that's what will happen to BTC. Imagine, too, that you heard of other metals, newly discovered, which did do what gold and silver had previously done. That's BCH.

[Anonymous No.18910374]

>>18908671
Can't you see everything on the block chain

[Anonymous No.18910466]

>>18910374

The blockchain is pseudonymous. It doesn't offer absolute privacy, but it does offer an excellent deal of privacy. On the other hand, hamstringing Bitcoin so that it has to go through layer 2 and third party solutions to function will make it trackable and completely unprivate, just like owning money in a bank account.

Over and above this, BCH has optional privacy features. XMR (Monero) is lacking in some things which BCH is strong in, but it is even stronger in this respect, because it has mandatory privacy, which is why I buy both XMR and BCH.

[Anonymous No.18910509]

>>18907620
funny thing you say. take a look at fee rewards actual on btc and the shitforks!

[Anonymous No.18910538]

>>18910466
That's fair. I don't mind bch. I think it's a better fork than the travesty that is BSV, hope to see a way to integrate it with eth myself.

[Anonymous No.18910558]

>On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CCS.pdf
The most in-depth paper written on bitcoin EVER
Princeton university

>Beyond the doomsday
economics of “proof-of work” in cryptocurrencies
Monetary and Economic Department
https://www.bis.org/publ/work765.pdf

"Second, the transaction market cannot generate an adequate level of
“mining” income via fees as users free-ride on the fees of other transactions in a block and in the
subsequent blockchain. Instead, newly minted bitcoins, known as block rewards, have made up the bulk
of mining income to date. Looking ahead, these two limitations imply that liquidity is set to fall dramatically
as these block rewards are phased out. Simple calculations suggest that once block rewards are zero, it
could take months before a Bitcoin payment is final, unless new technologies are deployed to speed up
payment finality. Second-layer solutions such as the Lightning Network might help, but the only
fundamental remedy would be to depart from proof-of-work, which would probably require some form
of social coordination or institutionalisation."

[Anonymous No.18910738]

>>18906754

Store of value is the only value proposition in all of crypto.

A place where you can discretely stash some of your wealth and noone can take it.

The currency thing is a meme. Noone will ever use crypto to buy a cup of coffee. That isn't a value proposition anyone. A high turnover increases supply.

[Anonymous No.18910777]

bitcoin without block rewards will introduce selfish mining and undercutting as explained in the academic paper. Transactions will also be pushed off chain to avoid fees. Bitcoin also destroys planet earth by wasting resources, and one day there will be a massive campaign against this

[Anonymous No.18910813]

>>18906754
Are you claiming
1) store of value is dumb in general for a crypto use case
2) store of value might be good but btc isn’t suited for the use case
Both would be wrong, but best to argue against the delusions you actually have.

[Anonymous No.18910849]

>bcasher cope thread

You all know even if the flipboi delusions about bitcoin were true it would b ETH taking its place, not random shitcoins that nearly no one gives a fuck about.

[Anonymous No.18910856]

>>18907666
bitcoin was not supposed to change, and their is no legitimate way to change the core protocol, there will be civil war in the community, therefore splitting the value even more. POW is also fundamentally flawed

[Anonymous No.18910859]

>>18910738

See >>18909658.

People speculate on Bitcoin because they fantasize about making millions should it attain mass adoption. But a thing can't reach mass adoption through everybody speculating and gambling on it; it has to present a genuine use-case to the public. It must have some kind of intrinsic value. This is what Amazon, Facebook, etc., do. Even the LN only allows 0.01% of the world's population to use BTC, hence it has no use-case, hence the speculation and gambling ponzi will fall apart, hence the price _will_ crash.

It was the $100 fees and 1-week waiting times that caused BTC to crash from $20,000 to $3000 in the first place. People realized that Mike Hearn was right about BTC being a scam. For three years, all the Youtube moonboys have managed to achieve is a consistent pump and dump. The 50% March crash destroyed the BTC safe-haven narrative. When the price crashes again, BTC is done.

[Anonymous No.18910870]

>>18907679
it doesnt steal your purchasing power every time they brrrrrr, stop spreading false info. The dollar has more value than ever

[Anonymous No.18910882]

>>18910849

Ethereum isn't peer-to-peer cash; it's centralized. If you believe in Satoshi Nakamoto's vision, BCH is the way you go.

[Anonymous No.18910977]

>>18910859
march crash was bc of liquidity issues. Everything tanked, even gold. With the trillions currently printed and looking for things to get invested into and the upcomming halving I am long on btc, at least for now

[Anonymous No.18911067]

Bros, im going to make it.

[Anonymous No.18911090]

>>18910977

BTC price crash took place from December 2017 to December 2018, from $20,000 to $2,500. That's an 87.5% decrease. In the same period, gold went down from 1300 to 1200 (a 7% decrease), then rose to 1300 again.

[Anonymous No.18911159]

>>18910977
>>18911090

I should add to this that gold is now $1700, which is a 30% increase, whereas any one who bought Bitcoin over $9,500 is still holding the bag. If you want to protect yourself from inflation, buy gold. Crypto should be for speculation only and for investing in with only a small amount of your net-worth. When BTC crashes again, it is likely to crash the whole crypto market with it, temporarily.

[Anonymous No.18911176]

>>18910849
based and bcashpilled

[Anonymous No.18911204]

>>18910859
>It was the $100 fees and 1-week waiting times that caused BTC to crash from $20,000 to $3000 in the first place.
nobody gives a fuck about any of that. you have no fucking idea what ur talking about, faggot.

[Anonymous No.18911238]

>>18911090
I didn't say btc is as stable as gold.I said the march corona crash doesn't mean it isn't a store of value, because even what is generally considered a store of value - gold - tanked amid the sell-offs for short term liquidity.

also stop cherry picking, you might as well pick a period where btc significally outperformed gold

[Anonymous No.18911287]

>>18907155
>>18906792
>>18907011
>this is the REAL man behind BSV
this is also the real satoshi craig was his puppet trust me i know

[Anonymous No.18911398]

>>18908296
no they won´t. There is simply no reason to do that. They are not gonna bother with that because the demand isn´t there u retard

[Anonymous No.18911402]

>>18908267
>there are 50 billion people in world

[Anonymous No.18911657]

>>18908991
jesus the absolute state of cashies
please grow a braincell!

[Anonymous No.18911732]

Almost every in depth academic paper written has found flaws in bitcoins core design. Most of the smart guys in crypto knows its flawed, they just dont want to say it out loud. Why u think ETH is swithcing to POS? POW is flawed abd it destroys the planet. It will not work without block rewards and this will soon be well known. WIthout block rewards, miners will have different incentives to harm the network.


“Impact on Bitcoin security. If any of the deviant mining strategies we explore were to be deployed, the impact on Bitcoin’s security would be serious. At best, the block chain will have a significant fraction of stale or orphaned blocks due to constant forks, making 51% attacks much easier and increasing the transaction confirmation time. At worst, consensus will break down due to block withholding or increasingly aggressive undercutting. This suggests a fundamental rethinking of the role of block rewards in cryptocurrency design. Nakamoto appears to have viewed the block reward as a necessary but temporary evil to achieve an initial allocation of bitcoins in the absence of a central authority, with the transaction fee regime being the ideal, inflation-free steady state of the system. But our work shows that incentivizing compliant miner behavior in the transaction fee regime is a significantly more daunting task than in the block reward regime.”

[Anonymous No.18911776]

>>18911238
bitcoin crashed WAY harder than gold did. So gold in the better store of value. History shows this. Bitcoin cannot work good without block rewards and the economics are total shit. The early bitcoin devs like Mike Hearn knows this. They never thought bitcoin would become this big, it was just a fun passion project for them.

[Anonymous No.18911865]

>>18910882
Bollocks.

BCH was born from a minority fork off bitcoin backed by some big businesses, with a difficulty algo hack by fucking Craig Wright the most hated fraud in crypto. Weeks later they had to switch algos again. All centrally planned, nothing new to the table.

ETH has vitalik, world computer memes and leads crypto defi.

[Anonymous No.18911909]

>>18906875
This is the way

[Anonymous No.18911921]

>>18911776
yet gold lost purchasing power to inflation and bitcoin didn't long term. so it all depends if you cherry pick timeframes and how.

[Anonymous No.18911928]

[Anonymous No.18911936]

>>18906754
You're not wrong. Although BCH doesn't have a chance.

[Anonymous No.18911955]

>>18911928

[Anonymous No.18912034]

>>18906875
Monero is the only other coin anyone should pay attention to besides Bitcoin (BSV).

[Anonymous No.18912067]

>>18906972
Literally nothing on this planet would take BTC to $1 mil outside hyperinflation. It's a do nothing shitcoin.

[Anonymous No.18912078]

>>18908267
>50 million. That's 0.1% of the world's population
>0.1% of 7,000,000 is 50,000,000

holy fuck lmao nice math professor

I hope you're not in charge of anybody's medication!

>here you go gam gam, time to take your 100 pills

[Anonymous No.18912080]

>>18912034
>bchsv
you lost me there pal it's the most retarded fork of bitcoin after bitcoin private

[Anonymous No.18912133]

>>18907253
Just 18 more months.

[Anonymous No.18912135]

>>18912078
you think the worlds population is 7 million? wat?

[Anonymous No.18912166]

>>18912133
oh... look at that, we got an other future date of some obscure implied habbening from a curry cashie... what a surprise!

[Anonymous No.18912175]

>>18912080
>pic related: bitcoin 2020

[Anonymous No.18912196]

>>18907416
LN is literally just a middle man payment processor. Bankers crippled Bitcoin to make sure they can still have parasitic control over a new monetary system. Simple as.

How did they do it you may ask? Well, they literally removed the ability for Bitcoin do payments (zero conf) and completely halted scaling (1MB blocksizes). They did this entirely to get in the MIDDLE and do payments for individuals because doing so on BTC now is impractical, especially at scale.

[Anonymous No.18912210]

>>18907550
>sidechains
Misnomer

[Anonymous No.18912286]

>>18907610
BCH fucks with protocol far too much and is just another small blocker coin. SV leaves protocol alone and allows miners to decide what blocks they will mine. I feel you on Craig, but SV is far more attractive than BCH and light years ahead of BTC.

[Anonymous No.18912305]

>>18907635
>the 1mb block is set in stone

It's nice to know that BTC will not be a threat in the future.

[Anonymous No.18912315]

>>18907663
this

[Anonymous No.18912317]

>>18906754
Can't prove you wrong because you're right

[Anonymous No.18912340]

>>18907697
False

[Anonymous No.18912365]

>>18907723
>I can do 100,000 trustless 2nd layer tx's per second right now

If this were true it would have been demo'd a long fucking time ago.

[Anonymous No.18912369]

>>18910856
POW is fundamentally Based. It's adoption has provided struggling energy companies and microprocessor manufacturers with additional source of revenue, not to mention those in impoverished nations with a passive income and entrepreneurs with a new and interesting market to exploit. It also adds an inherent 'valve' to the product - producing bitcoin costs money and so it should have value.
I can't say the same for proof of stake.. which follows an ideology of "I have some, therefore I should have more".. Synonymous to fiat currency IMO.

[Anonymous No.18912372]

>>18906754
thats correct
>but the opposite of that

[Anonymous No.18912375]

Does any other chain have satellites in space like the BTC blockchain? No? I’ll stick with Bitcoin over anything thanks.

[Anonymous No.18912383]

>>18907756
>with sidechains
Misnomer
>you don't necessarily have to transact in bitcoin to benefit from bitcoins trustless and secure nature
100% false

[Anonymous No.18912413]

>>18906972
It might go to even 100 millions thanks to speculation, but that wouldn't make it any less of a shitcoin

[Anonymous No.18912436]

>>18907910
LN literally requires 3rd party watch towers. It's just a shitty banking application that doesn't work because its hot garbage trying to solve a problem that can't be solved for one and didn't need to exist for two.

[Anonymous No.18912465]

>>18908073
>channel openings can be aggregated into single tx's
At your local bank. Yes, we know.

[Anonymous No.18912495]

>>18910859
Most of your rant could be talking about gold.. Or a few other assets
Regardless of how you look at it, buy $X a month since bitcoin came out and you'll always exit with profit. Dollar cost average baby. Bitcoin is like electronic gold.

[Anonymous No.18912536]

>>18908455
Sure they can. In fact if Visa moved their operation to BSV they'd save on overhead. TAAL is doing this now. Fiat payment processing is starting on top of Bitcoin and it gives a massive edge because the records are immutable and the costs associated are smaller.

[Anonymous No.18912554]

>>18908474
>normal hardware

[Anonymous No.18912611]

>>18908991
>You're talking about a mere donation of 1% from all the Bitcoin miners.
It's a tax. Also the last I checked it had no support, but I don't really pay much attention to BCH.

[Anonymous No.18912649]

>>18906754
There is only ever be one first cryptocurrency, bitcoin.
There will only ever be infinite altcoins/shitcoins.

[Anonymous No.18912687]

>>18910849
ETH is a bigger shitcoin than BTC.

[Anonymous No.18912728]

>>18912495

>Most of your rant could be talking about gold.. Or a few other assets

Both gold and silver have immense intrinsic value as metals. They also have an existing 5000-year-old monopoly on having status as money. BTC has no intrinsically valuable qualities. Only BCH and XMR offer something that gold and silver don't.

>>18911865

Gavin Andresen, whom Satoshi nominated as his direct successor, supports BCH. Mike Hearn respects the community so much that he does AMAs there. BCH is the legitimate successor to Bitcoin. The most passionate and dedicated part of the Bitcoin community migrated there.

>>18911921

Gold is up 8.5x since Brown's Bottom. If you invested $120,000 20 years ago, you now have a million dollars. Bank of America is now predicting $3000 gold. That isn't "losing purchasing power to inflation." Anybody who tosses their money away on BTC instead of going for a sure thing like gold is a fool. As I have said, crypto is for gambling with a small percent of your net-worth at best.

[Anonymous No.18912753]

>>18912166
18 months until LN is finished, newfag. jfc.

[Anonymous No.18912935]

Here you can hear the opinion of somebody who actually uses cryptocurrencies, gave BTC, LN and BSV a try and decided to stick to the most practical one of the mentioned three: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt1Rt4aPWKM

[Anonymous No.18913333]

>>18912728
now do the calc inflation adjusted and you will see gold only lost purchasing power the last 100 years.

[Anonymous No.18913350]

>>18912753
of course... just like $1200 bchsv last year right?
won't hold my breath.

[Anonymous No.18913351]

>>18912935

SV cannot scale in a decentralized manner. The enormous blocks which it produces are owing to a small network of miners owned by the same entities. The real community is very small; virtually non-existent.

[Anonymous No.18913358]

>>18910870
That's why Bitcoin and gold gains value against USD?

[Anonymous No.18913371]

>>18913333

[Anonymous No.18913381]

>>18906754
Hex is actually a better store of value than all of them. Its very design incentivizes people to hold and not dump. BTC is getting dumped by miners all the time.

[Anonymous No.18913462]

>>18913371
exactly gold is fucked not as fucked as the dollar but fucked enough. this little rally does not even begin to make up for it's purchasing power lost over the years.

[Anonymous No.18913524]

In 1932, the price of gold was 20 dollars per ounce. It is now 1700 dollars per ounce. Do you understand that this is an 8400% increase? Vice versa, a decrease from 1700 to 20 is 99%. Now look at the chart again. >>18913371

[Anonymous No.18913553]

>>18913462

In 1932, the price of gold was 20 dollars per ounce. It is now 1700 dollars per ounce. Do you understand that this is an 8400% increase? Vice versa, a decrease from 1700 to 20 is 99%. I invite you to look at the graph again and reconsider your statement. >>18913371

[Anonymous No.18913647]

>Existing [ethereum] whales have increased their position by more than 4% in the past 6 months. ($550M USD)
>That rivals the roughly $600M in new capital influx that Bitcoin was estimated to see last year.
>That means in the past 6 months, whales have bought more Ethereum, than all new Bitcoin inflow last year.

>16.2M ETH is in ‘active’ circulation meaning in the last 90 days it passed through a payment processor, payment gateway or smart contract (excluding exchange and multisig.)
>That means ETH is actually being *HEAVILY* used as money and gas.
>Compare that to Bitcoin where 57% of Bitcoin hasn’t moved in over a year (with 21% not moving since 2015).
>And only 0.36% of Bitcoin has been through a payment processor in the past two-years.
>When it comes to being money, ETH is used 440x more than Bitcoin for transacting.

https://medium.com/@adamscochran/the-10k-audit-42c100dd32bb

[Anonymous No.18913661]

>>18913351
>The enormous blocks which it produces are owing to a small network of miners owned by the same entities.
Which applies also to BTC and BCH.

>The real community is very small; virtually non-existent.
Who cares whether BSV has no shill army as opposed to BTC or BCH?

[Anonymous No.18913763]

>>18913350
I wouldn't hold my breath on a stable version of LN either. Nor would I risk any actual money ever using the pile of shit that LN is.

[Anonymous No.18913804]

>>18913553
do you know what purchasing power means? and inflation? do you have any clue wtf i'm talking about?

[Anonymous No.18913847]

>>18913371
>NOOO STOP IT, DELITE THIS, IT'S ALL DRUMPHS FAULT
>WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.18913867]

>>18913763
i will give it a try if i can use it in a meaningful way.
one fine example would be public transportation. the ticket system is fucked the prepaid card system is one step closer but still too burdensome. ln on the other hand is a perfect fit for these micro transactions and smart charging like charge by mile but have a cap for daily weekly and monthly charges so it substitutes not only tickets but passes.

[Anonymous No.18913879]

>>18913661

>Who cares whether BSV has no shill army as opposed to BTC or BCH?

What I said was that BCH had a large community, not that they were out there evangelizing. A "shill army" exists only in your imagination. I almost never see people talking about BCH on /biz/, for example. Even I don't intend to bother soon. The more intelligent part of the community here knows that XMR is a good buy; otherwise it's full of moonboys pushing the latest vaporware scam. BCH-buyers generally keep to themselves with a quiet sense of self-confidence.

[Anonymous No.18913929]

>>18913804

If you can't see, from the figures I just gave you, that gold has kept exact parity with inflation, there is nothing more that I can say to help you.

[Anonymous No.18913971]

>>18913879
I wouldn't pay much attention to the buyers but to the creators, i.e. the developers, for the cryptocurrency itself and applications alike.

[Anonymous No.18914020]

>>18913867
BSV is capable of microtransactions, no middle man required and it works now.

[Anonymous No.18914024]

>>18913929
no it didn't it consistently lost value to inflation because it's supply was inflating hard while the population capped hard.
econ 101

[Anonymous No.18914050]

>>18914020
bchsv is a joke man. stop trying to push your retarded bloatware on serious people.
no middle man required for ln either btw you can directly open your channel to the public transport company.

[Anonymous No.18914057]

>>18913879
>I almost never see people talking about BCH on /biz/

Almost all of us migrated to BSV. All the things that originally attracted me to BCH (stable protocol and scaling) now exist on BSV and only BSV.

[Anonymous No.18914099]

>>18914050
No serious person or business is going to take extra steps to use Lightning when contemporary payment processors already exist and are easier and often cheaper to use. Plus you can't do any cool shit on BTC anymore and certainly not LN. Either on the front end or the back end. BTC has no utility.

[Anonymous No.18914105]

>>18913647
yeah, ETH is far superior to Bitcoin. Eth actually have usecases, for normal folks and for bussinesses.

But the real thing about any crypto is that if the government decided to make it illeagal to trade and buy, the price would collapse in minutes, and would not recover

[Anonymous No.18914147]

>>18914057

I've seen a couple of people talk passionately about BSV here or there, but it's mostly a joke coin. People make Craig Wright threads to laugh at him here or there, and that's about it.

[Anonymous No.18914149]

>>18914105
Japan made it a case to make crypto an everyday thing.
No way any sane government would ban it.

[Anonymous No.18914157]

one of the other problems with bitcoin is that it´s becoming more and more centralized over time. Small miners being pushed out, only the big ones will survive, or miners that steal electricity.

If the US government announced that bitcoin trading would become illegal, the price would drop to below $1000 overnight from all the panic selling, which would kill the "currency".

[Anonymous No.18914178]

>>18914149
we don´t know that yet. It hasn´t been around for long, and governement and regulators haven´t catched up yet.

[Anonymous No.18914219]

>>18914147
Craig is such a wildcard. Listening talk about Bitcoin is interesting and you pick up a lot, but when you get down to brass tacks its not about him. BSV works how Bitcoin is suppose to work and it works now.

I didn't want the split, but it happened and I think the SV camp was correct. The protocol absolutely needs to be set and left alone and blocks to scale has large as the market demands. None of this central planner shit of deciding how large blocks shall be or what changes should be made at a protocol level. Leave it all the fuck alone and let the market do its work.

[Anonymous No.18914230]

>>18912536
Lol retard do you know how many customers visa serves? No shitcoin can approach that.

[Anonymous No.18914297]

>>18914230
time will tell

pic related

[Anonymous No.18914340]

>>18914230
Visa does 1,700 TSP. We'll say it's 2000 TPS. Back when SV had a block cap of 2GB it could handle 9000 TPS. It's unlimited now. The entire point of Bitcoin is incentives. Miners are incentivized to handle as many transactions as humanly possible because they're paid to do it. The more transactions that are happening on the network the more money they make.

[Anonymous No.18914368]

>>18914340
That sounds awesome.

[Anonymous No.18914395]

>>18914219

The BCH community is extremely attached to the principles of anti-censorship and freedom of speech. People who despise them can come on their forums and say whatever they want. Wright, on the other hand, besides being a liar and con-man of the highest order, tries to shut everyone down with litigation. It is simply dangerous to put power into his hands and the hands of his minions. I must bet on the community that values liberty.

Incidentally, Satoshi himself seems to have supported the BCH model:

"We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15139#msg15139

[Anonymous No.18914474]

>>18914395
In terms of censorship its also worth mentioning that it's possible for BSV miners to freeze coins and that's the only thing about BSV that puts me off.

[Anonymous No.18914477]

>>18914395
Bitcoin started with unlimited blocksize. It got capped for flood control because at the time Bitcoin had no monetary value. So there was no actual incentive for miners to deal with a mass of throughput. That is not the case today.

[Anonymous No.18914525]

>>18914099
hahahahahah
okay we will see. if nobody uses it it will die that's not a problem either. it's cool tech but adoption is about need and advantage. and bchsv has none.

[Anonymous No.18914624]

>>18914477
That would be a very intriguing piece of history of Bitcoin. Would you provide a source to back that up?

[Anonymous No.18914678]

>>18914624
it's true hal convinced satoshi to implement the dos protection.
perhaps bitcoin doesn't need it because it has the hashrate pretty well distributed and participating but the shitforks sure need it. because it's trivial to attack bchsv with terabyte blocks for practically free with only like 2% of btc hashrate.

[Anonymous No.18914723]

>>18914678
also block extension attacks technically work without any mining power as nobody can check a hash or signature on any stream of data not fully downloaded.

so there is that. the dos protection protects the entire network and all nodes not just the miners.

[Anonymous No.18914761]

>>18914678
>>18914723
If this is true, why hasn't the BSV network been spammed to death already?

[Anonymous No.18914774]

>>18907882
You CANNOT disable replace by fee. The mempool is not and never will be consensus. The only way you have consensus is when a transaction is confirmed in a block. Miners will always pick and choose from competing transactions and select the one with the best fee. RBF just formalizes this natural process

[Anonymous No.18914817]

>>18914761
this attack is only worth it financially if you have the ability to safely short the asset on a well established futures market preferably in fiat as the crypto market is unpredictable.
so i guess being an obscure shitcoin probably saves it.
also let's not forget there is always a risk in any 51% attack that it gets reorged by white knight miners. there have been examples of this behavior. nobody expects miners to be anything but self serving cutthroat capitalists yet the big pools sometimes do the opposite when someone plays funny.
so it's never riskless and takes some money to pull it off.

[Anonymous No.18914843]

>>18914774
it's an opt in flag so you can disable it otherwise correct.

[Anonymous No.18914856]

>>18914817
So in case of BSV, on shouldn't mind it then.

>>18914774
>You CANNOT disable replace by fee.
shitty fud

[Anonymous No.18914959]

>>18914525
>it's cool tech
There isn't anything interesting about a routing/banking network that fails relentlessly.

>>18914761
Everyone is invited to try. You'll go broke before outpacing miners and only enrich them in the process. Bitcoin is an anti DDoS machine.

>>18914843
There is no first seen rule in BTC. idk why you perpetuate this constantly.

[Anonymous No.18914990]

>>18912365
If you actually go download a modern lightning wallet instead of swallowing Roger Vers loads you'll realize how easy it is. Only a complete brainlet would think that every single full node on the network should validate every transaction, even Satoshi knew that which is why he talked about payment channels.

When you make the blocks bigger, you make it incredibly hard to generate fees necessary to secure the network. The block subsidy is literally almost gone already, Bitcoin is running out of time to have a fee market. 95% of Bitcoin are mined by 2025. Btc actually has 6% fee relative to subsidy right now because people actually have to bid for limited block space. Bch and Bsv this ratio is completely pathetic because there is no need to bid on block space.

Brainlets can't see it but the only way Bitcoin survives is with small blocks that create competition to get confirmation. All the forks will continue to get hash rate destroyed at every halving until the eventually are forced to add permanent inflation to the chain. A reasonable block space limit is the only thing that protects the 21 mil cap.

[Anonymous No.18915029]

>>18914959
https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/
just educate yourself...

[Anonymous No.18915033]

>>18914843
The point is even if you "disable" rbf, the miners can confirm anything they want, and they will logically choose based on what pays the higher fee. 0 conf is the biggest meme there is, it will never be secure because the mempool is not consensus

[Anonymous No.18915106]

>>18915033
>The point is even if you "disable" rbf, the miners can confirm anything they want
obviously which is why the "first seen" rule is retarded as fuck it's impossible to enforce by the consensus mechanism
>0 conf is the biggest meme there is
yeah shit is fucked unless you can easily cancel the order with no cost in which case it's acceptable. you can use 0-conf in most online purchases because if it doesn't confirm before delivery you cancel the order and that's it.

[Anonymous No.18915122]

>>18914990
Your reply didn't refute anything I said. The only way BTC can survive is via large payment processors. Since this is a pants on head retarded approach that solves nothing, nobody will opt for it. Causing BTC to be a dead end and unsustainable.

Having millions of transactions that are user oriented with small fees on the other end will find all kinds of uses and be sustained.

>>18915029
>Opt-in Replace-by-Fee (RBF) allows transactions to be flagged as replaceable until they are confirmed in a block.
>he thinks this means first seen rule is completely intact and he's not a moron

[Anonymous No.18915144]

>>18914990
It's going to take a long time until LN is usable if there isn't a better second layer solution coming up. Until then, BTC is going to be tossed from its throne either by BCH or BSV. If necessary, the Lightning Network solution could be also applied to both. But to actually solve the problem for giving miners an incentive beyond transaction fees would be to make Bitcoin inflationary. Actually your post really makes me want to see BTC crash and burn.

[Anonymous No.18915145]

>>18915122
please stop being retarded! first of all the "first seen" rule is retarded as fuck. second you can disable rbf obviously in which case most clients will reject the double spend transaction even with higher fee.

just never go full retard, that's the golden rule.

[Anonymous No.18915155]

>>18915033
>>18915106
>yeah third party payment processors that have to employ third party watchtowers using ledgers that are separate from the blockchain are totally more secure

B-BUT THE SETTLE ON CHAIN THOUGH!

[Anonymous No.18915168]

>>18915145
It effectively means you've disabled nothing. RBF is still a network rule, cancerfaggot.

[Anonymous No.18915178]

>>18915144
Nah, anon. Just 18 months. For real this time.

[Anonymous No.18915233]

>>18915122
How dumb do you have to be to think that having terabyte sized blocks that can support the world is sustainable? Why don't you shitcoiners care about nodes at all? Without empowering as many people as possible to run full nodes you give control of your coin to the miners.

The average user doesn't give a fuck about decentralization, so making it even harder for the diehards to validate the coin is how you destroy it. 99% of the population will be more than happy to be onboarded directly into lighting with a channel factory on top of a statechain, paying little to no fees, while the 1% of real bitcoiners can run nodes and secure the chain. This is just UX design really, the only people that care about implementation details are faggots like us on forums, and if you have a brain you realize storing everything on chain is the dumbest thing imaginable. Blockchain is only good for security, you achieve scaling through other means

[Anonymous No.18915254]

>>18915168
you are going full retard again, like that anon said there is no such thing as consensus in mempool.
that's not bitcoin. cashies never understood bitcoin or consensus that's their problem.

[Anonymous No.18915281]

>>18915233
full nodes don't mean shit in terms of securing the network.

[Anonymous No.18915288]

>>18915155
Eltoo pretty much makes watchtowers irrelevant. You guys are literally betting against the ingenuity of the collective human race because you think the problems see too hard to solve because an idiot like Roger Ver or Craig Wright can't solve them so they just increase the blocks like literal fucking retards

[Anonymous No.18915293]

>>18907016
traded in all my BCH and BSV before they both dumped in sats. dead coins.

[Anonymous No.18915317]

>>18915281
Ding ding ding, we've got a retard!! Knew it all along. Enjoy following whatever double spend invalid block chain the miners create for you. You clearly don't understand Bitcoin at all

[Anonymous No.18915322]

>>18915233
>you give control of your coin to the miners
Miners already control the network, dimwit.

>>18915254
How do you not understand this? It's fucking annoying.

>>18915288
I'm sure in 18 months that will magically be true too.

[Anonymous No.18915341]

>>18915317
Imagine thinking you can stop miners from doing anything with your """"""""""""full node""""""""""""

[Anonymous No.18915347]

>>18915317
As long as miners run their full nodes everything is alright. There's literally no need for every user to run a full node.

[Anonymous No.18915387]

>>18915322
They can only propose blocks that are valid according to the consensus times if you have lots of full nodes checking them. If the blocks are invalid then the full nodes ban them in the p2p protocol and stop accepting data from them. This cuts off the influence of bad actors

Now use your 2 braincells and imagine what would happen to the chain if you didn't have a bunch of full nodes checking the blocks the miners create

[Anonymous No.18915469]

>>18915387
>Now use your 2 braincells and imagine what would happen to the chain if you didn't have a bunch of full nodes checking the blocks the miners create

Miners would keep other miners in check despite listening nodes, because that's what already happens. You faggots are completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.18915479]

>>18915347
No because the miners can modify full nodes and run code that allows invalid blocks or double spent transactions. Bitcoin relies on users running nodes too. Its the entire value prop of Bitcoin. Its called decentralization

[Anonymous No.18915505]

>>18915479
What a load of bullshit. Those invalid blocks would never be accepted by the network.

[Anonymous No.18915577]

>>18915469
If you want to rely on the miners alone to decentralize your coin then sounds great. The only way 51% attack can do any real damage is when you let the people coordinating the 51% attack control the majority of nodes. If they only have majority hash the damage is much more limited.
How many loads from Roger does a person have to swallow before they start thinking full nodes in Bitcoin of all things are irrelevant?

[Anonymous No.18915593]

>>18915479
this. if you own a significant amount of bitcoin and don't run a node to verify the legitimacy of your investment you are a moron.

[Anonymous No.18915606]

>>18915505
Ok now I think I'm being baited. Good game biz, gonna go eat some fish sticks and mac n cheese now. Boy I really got triggered there for a sec, cya later!!

[Anonymous No.18915656]

>>18915577
>rely on the miners alone to decentralize your coin
You're relying on them now. Again listening nodes do nothing. The entire game is secured by miner incentives, nothing else.

[Anonymous No.18915703]

>>18915656
If a miner sends me a bad block my node will reject it and ban them from sending me more blocks. Imagine an entire network of nodes doing that and you have Bitcoin. Imagine not having that and you have Bsv

[Anonymous No.18915789]

>>18915606
If you fetishize small blockchains so much, use Litecoin then. Now go eat your chicken tendies, good boy.

[Anonymous No.18915912]

>>18915703
Dude... There is NO incentive for a miner to accept an invalid block from another miner. In fact there is incentive to block his invalid block. These guys get paid to be honest and propagate valid blocks.

Further if all miners decided to mine invalid blocks there would be fuck all you and your listening node could do about it. You do not propagate blocks, you do not enforce consensus rules. You do nothing.

The entire game is based off of this! To add a bit more, if miners did all collude and mine invalid blocks they would effectively sabotage the entire thing it was they invested millions to sustain. So the value of the asset they mine falls to zero and their very specialized equipment falls to near zero. It's a lose lose situation for miners. That's what makes Bitcoin so goddamn brilliant from a mining and security perspective.

[Anonymous No.18916144]

>>18915912
>you do not propagate blocks
>you do not enforce consensus rules
This is literally the purpose of a full node. Removing casual users from the checks and balances is bad for the chain. I don't know how it can be more simple than that

[Anonymous No.18916199]

>>18916144
Do you really think a casual user would be fine with paying transaction fees ranging from $17 to $30? What should he do? Use a risky barely functioning second layer solution?

[Anonymous No.18916263]

>retards actually trying to FUD bitcoin in 2020

top kek, enjoy watching it go to 50k

[Anonymous No.18916291]

>>18916144
Listening nodes do not enforce rules or propagate blocks, ffs. If they did miners wouldn't be necessary as that is literally what they do. Again. Your listening node DOES NOTHING. They don't even rely shit between miners. Miners talk directly to each other. They are self important do nothing retards who think they are hurr derp decentralizing da blockchain.

[Anonymous No.18916302]

>>18916263
Since I hold a small stack of BTC I would even moreso enjoy watching it go to $100k.

[Anonymous No.18916507]

>>18916291
They literally do both of those things. How do you think miners get their blocks broadcasted in the first place? They use full nodes you absolute moron. The only thing a full node can't do is create new blocks, which is why you need miners to create the proof of work. Nodes validate and propagate the blocks after that. Have you ever even run a node? If you look at the traffic going in and out of your node it is forwarding blocks and transactions it has heard about to gossip to other nodes. If it gets invalid transactions or blocks from another node it bans them and stops listening to that node.
If the miners collude and you don't have honest nodes then they can take over the chain. How is Bitcoin 12 years old and you don't understand what a fucking node does yet?

[Anonymous No.18916617]

>>18916507
Okay, faggot. Because your literally who node has proof of work behind it. Don't conflate the two and pretend everyone running a listening node is basically a node being run by a mining pool, you absolute nigger.

[Anonymous No.18916803]

>>18916617
I'm not conflating that dumbass. Its like debating somebody with downs syndrome. No shit my node doesn't have proof of work behind it but if miners collude and start building a chain that violates consensus rules then my node and all other 10000+ regular nodes will REJECT THE BLOCKS. Miners are stuck building something nobody cares about and the rest of the network will ignore them.
If only the miners run nodes then guess what, if they collude then nobody else is there to reject the blocks and the chain will just be whatever the miners want it to be. This is why lots of nodes are important.
Not sure how to dumb this down anymore for you because you are literally one of the biggest idiots on biz apparently.

[Anonymous No.18916858]

>>18916803
Okay so you admit they are different. Your pointless listening node and a node ran by a miner and YET fail to understand how your node is powerless to stop miners from colluding. It's insanity at this point.

[Anonymous No.18916984]

>>18916858
Anybody can collude at any time. The point is the rest of the network will not accept their collusion if you have nodes.
Pretty obvious I completely destroyed you in this argument so I'm done. I'd have better luck explaining how Bitcoin works to my dog than you

[Anonymous No.18916998]

>>18910870
Based retard. Keep telling yourself that loser. I bet you believe the 2% inflation target rate the fed sets. Unironically kill yourself. Bet you havent even looked at CPI charts. And if you are glownigger fuck you double.

[Anonymous No.18917008]

>>18916984
God you're fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.18917022]

>>18906792
Surely this will be the end of BitCoin and Craig Wright

[Anonymous No.18917049]

"There is an even deeper problem with proof-of-work, one that is much harder to mitigate than the concentration of mining power: a misalignment of incentives between miners and stakeholders. Indeed, in the long run, the total mining revenues will be the sum of the all transaction fees paid to the miners. Since miners compete to produce hashes, (5) It is possible that a new technology will supplant ASICs who themselves replaced FPGA boards. However, the pace of this type of innovation is nowhere fast enough to prevent miners from forming dominating positions for long period of times; and such innovation would benefit but a new (or the same) small clique of people who initially possess the new technology or eventually amass the capital to repeat the same pattern. (6) the amount of money spent on mining will be slightly smaller than the revenues. In turn, the amount spent on transactions depends on the supply and demand for transactions. The supply of transactions on the blockchain is determined by the block size and is fixed. Unfortunately, there is reason to expect that the demand for transactions will fall to very low levels. "

[Anonymous No.18917074]

"People are likely to make use of off-chain transaction mechanisms via trusted third parties, particularly for small amounts, in order to alleviate the need to wait for confirmations. Payment processors may only need to clear with each other infrequently. This scenario is not only economically likely, it seems necessary given the relatively low transaction rate supported by Bitcoin. Since blockchain transaction will have to compete with off-chain transaction, the amount spent on transactions will approach its cost, which, given modern infrastructure, should be close to zero. Attempting to impose minimum transaction fees may only exacerbate the problem and cause users to rely on off-chain transaction more. As the amount paid in transaction fees collapses, so will the miner’s revenues, and so will the cost of executing a 51% attack. To put it in a nutshell, the security of a proof of-work blockchain suffers from a commons problem[9]. Core developer Mike Hearn has suggested the use of special transactions to subsidize mining using a pledge type of fund raising[10]. A robust currency should not need to rely on charity to operate securely"

[Anonymous No.18917386]

Bitcoin was fucked from the moment it launched because the emission goes to zero. BTC, BSV, and BCH are all just coping in different insane ways.

>if we keep blocks tiny the people will need to pay enormous fees
>if we make blocks massively large an enormous amount of people will pay fees
>roger ver can adjust block size to ensure the optimal amount of fees

Monero's tail emission and auto adjusting block size is a bigger deal than the privacy even. Bitcoiners don't know about it because they are committed to having their heads in the sand.

[Anonymous No.18917435]

>>18917386
I don't trust anyone to control blocksize. Just let miners decide what they want to mine. I don't see the issue. Monero's tail emission is nice, but I don't think that's enough to sustain the chain forever, even it needs transaction throughput IIRC. That said Monero is good option regardless, as it's really the only alternative to Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.18917436]

In 2012 I bought my first dozen Bitcoin. One of those I still hold, more for sentimental reasons but nevertheless it kind of held its value nicely