/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.6341099]

This was Satoshi's dream not the monstrosity that people refer to as """"Bitcoin"""".

[Anonymous No.6341195]

Hal Finney actually wanted something very similar to the Lightning Network and Nick Szabo hates Bcash.

[Anonymous No.6341203]

>>6341099
Evangelicals also call their version of christianity the truth.

[Anonymous No.6341233]

>>6341195
damn so the 2 most likely people to be satoshi hate bcash? intredasting

[Anonymous No.6341236]

>>6341099
That's why it tries so hard to steal wind of actual bitcoin huh.
And now it's bitching on it huh.

[Anonymous No.6341243]

I'm Holding 27 of them. Finally I am an early adopter!

[Anonymous No.6341274]

>>6341195
LN will be on BCH though. The problem with Blockstream Core is its required.

>inb4 its not required anybody can pay >$100 fees and wait 6 days for payment

>>6341203
Yes, crypto has taken a religious turn. That doesn't negate whats happening.

[Anonymous No.6341314]

Satoshi's vision was actually most akin to what ripple is doing but everyone here is too dumb to realize

[Anonymous No.6341335]

>>6341314
>asking permission to transact
>satoshi's vision

Fucking kill yourself, kike.

[Anonymous No.6341350]

>>6341274
LN depends on SegWit you fucking god damn NoTech NoCode faggot get the FUCK OFF MY FUCKING BOARD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.6341393]

>>6341350
It literally doesn't. LN has always existed on Bitcoin. Its the level 3 shit you're thinking of, that is still vaporware. Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.6341562]

>>6341393
You're a fucking idiot or you're being as misleading as Roger Ver

Is it possible to use the Lightning Network without segwit, but all of its useful features for privacy and security wouldnt function at all.

Fucking kill yourself, kike.

[Anonymous No.6341669]

>>6341562
>he said blindly with no evidence at all

[Anonymous No.6341775]

>>6341562
>Lightning Network
>Useful features

[Anonymous No.6341798]

>>6341195
Yeah but Satoshi aka Craig Wright loves BCH so your irrelvant dead people dont matter

[Anonymous No.6341883]

>>6341669
youre doing exactly the same thing. have some self-awareness

oh wait i forgot, youre being paid to shill or youre bought my bag at .4 BTC

[Anonymous No.6341902]

>>6341798
craig wright isn't satoshi

he's just another bcash scam artist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qLI3VIHuKU

[Anonymous No.6341917]

>>6341883
You're making the claim that LN on BCH wouldn't be secure, while it would be secure on BTC. Where are you getting this from?

[Anonymous No.6341970]

>>6341902
I'm not convinced 100% that he is either, but really the person doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.6341990]

>>6341917
bch was forked to avoid segwit
ln requires everything that segwit functionally accomplishes

[Anonymous No.6342084]

>>6341233
the only reason blegacy is worth anything is because it co-ops the bitcoin brand

[Anonymous No.6342145]

>>6341990
No it does not. LN has always been on bitcoin and level 3 hasn't been proven to work with or without Segwit.

[Anonymous No.6342185]

>>6341990
>segwit functionality
lol the "upgrade" that was a soft fork making it optional but now it is mandatory? You know why they made it a soft fork? Because it would have been CONTENTIOUS. It's a ton of useless technical debt. Does the Core wallet even support it yet?

[Anonymous No.6342266]

>>6342145
>>6342185
you shills dont understand the tech
segwit creates a way for the ln protocol to refer to unsigned transactions
it completely enables ln
bch will add in segwit if they want to use ln but they will call it something else so you faggots dont get angry like "b-b-but you said no segwit"

[Anonymous No.6342354]

>>6342266
yeah if more mastercard agents come into BCH once it becomes BTC again and try to segregate my signatures we will fork around them again.

Open source bitch.

[Anonymous No.6342397]

>>6342266
There is literally nothing wrong with adding second layers, nu-coiner. Its the fact that its required on Blockstream Core. See >>6341274

Although I seriously doubt BCH will ever add Segwit or any variant of it because it decouples digital sigs from transactions which is a massive security problem.

[Anonymous No.6342410]

>>6342354
yea its hilarious that bch uses 99.9999% code that core developers sweated to create and then turns around and bashes them
no humility whatsoever
but expected from retards

[Anonymous No.6342449]

>>6342410
>BCH is using code Core created

[Anonymous No.6342480]

>>6342410

[Anonymous No.6342481]

>>6341314

That's not how you spell Lumen, you idiot

[Anonymous No.6342521]

>>6342449
>He posted a reaction image again, what an incredible argument

[Anonymous No.6342617]

>>6342521
You're the one who thinks Core made Bitcoin's protocol.

[Anonymous No.6342738]

Bcore is cucked
>Fork it

[Anonymous No.6342747]

>>6342617

And bitcoin is Free open source software, it was designed to be improved upon

[Anonymous No.6342788]

>>6342617
I'm actually a dev myself and don't give a shit if bcash overtakes Bitcoin in USD value because I own equal amounts of both.

It's just funny the absolute state of you shills. Constantly bashing Bitcoin (your source code) and pledging allegiance to a shitcoin that pales in comparison to 3rd gen blockchain payment solutions such as raiblocks or even LITECOIN lmfao

[Anonymous No.6342801]

>>6342747
Which Blockstream Core blocked. Which is why Bitcoin Cash happened, friendo.

[Anonymous No.6342816]

>>6341099
There is a simple reason why BCH exists

[Anonymous No.6342826]

>>6342788
I'm not bashing bitcoin fuck face. I'm bashing Blockstream Core, ffs.

[Anonymous No.6342847]

>>6342801
>T. someone who hasn't written a line of code in their life let alone contributed to an open source project

[Anonymous No.6342863]

>>6342788
People who actually worked on the source code like Gavin Andresen work on BCH now

[Anonymous No.6342884]

>>6342826
And yet despite that claim, you still fail to address my arguments.

[Anonymous No.6342905]

>>6342863
kek, no he doesn't, he's off working on shit no one cares (BTC or BCH) about because of the terrible trade offs

[Anonymous No.6342941]

>>6342847
You don't need to know how to program to understand Satoshi's vision.

[Anonymous No.6342944]

>>6342847
>>6342884
Make an actual argument retard. For a programmer you should have already realized that DAGs can't replace Blockchain. DAGs have existed for fucking years, moron. There is a reason they aren't DLT solution.

[Anonymous No.6342968]

Did Core make one of the biggest fuck up in BTC ever? Now that they went 100% offchain they'll never have:
1. ZK-starks, 2. colored coins, 3. Smart contracts
I don't see BTCore surviving even one year having to compete with BCH which does all the three.

[Anonymous No.6342992]

>>6342863
Yet, the majority of oldfag devs continue to contribute to Bitcoin for a reason.

Speculators don't understand open source culture, contentious forks are encouraged because the market speaks for itself

[Anonymous No.6343012]

>>6341314

[Anonymous No.6343132]

>>6341195
>Hal Finney
>trusting a literal sloppering retard
>pic related
Stay cucked corecuck

[Anonymous No.6343137]

>>6342941
Lol

Nice bait
>>6342944
The argument is there is no reason to use bcash over any other superior tech shitcoin, man you gotta learn to read before you can have an authority on software development.

[Anonymous No.6343179]

>>6343132
I hope you die from ALS you piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.6343180]

>>6341902
> craig wright isn't satoshi
There's proof he was involved in it in the very beginning. Either way it doesn't matter at all, no one owns bitcoin, it's code and not a religion.

>>6342266
You can do LN without SW. The purpose of everything Core does is to entrench itself in BTC.

>>6342410
But it's exactly the other way around, Corecuck. The base layer is shared by both forks, but only Core has LN. Every advancment you see in the base layer advertised falsely as Core's is really made for BCH. Gavin Andersen is working on BCH and Corecuck shamelessly advertise his work as Core's. There's absolutely no way around this, since BTC will have to hardfork at some point and use optimization done for BCH, otherwise the LN will be useless.

[Anonymous No.6343193]

>>6343132


Even in that state Finney was richer and more influential than you will ever be, kys

[Anonymous No.6343211]

>>6341099
fuck off BCASH nigger. you are fucking clueless.

your leader is tech-illeterate faggot just like you

[Anonymous No.6343214]

>>6343137
You shilled DAGs here >>6342788, stupid kike.

Shitcoins literally have nothing over BCH. BCH transactions are instant and cost under a cent, ffs. With color coins and smart contracts coming it'll compete with ETH.

[Anonymous No.6343249]

>>6343211
Blegacy
L
E
G
A
C
Y

[Anonymous No.6343261]

>>6343132
That's fucked up dude, he was a genius with a horrible medical condition

[Anonymous No.6343298]

>>6341195
1. The BCH fork wasn't done over disagreement on the LN, but because of Core's take over, 2. LN has almost no use case right now, not on 1MB blocks, it could only work on top of much bigger blocks, and as evidence even Adam Back was pro raising the blocksize

[Anonymous No.6343337]

>>6343214
He still thinks 0 conf is safe

[Anonymous No.6343373]

Bcashies are literally the scum of the earth I hope each and everyone of you retards get cancer and dies in agonizing pain.

[Anonymous No.6343407]

>>6343337
He thinks we will pop that pussy for bcrash

[Anonymous No.6343415]

>>6343214

[Anonymous No.6343416]

>>6343337
Maybe because it is. RBF is the most kiked up thing ruining Blockstream Core's project rn.

At any rate, provide proofs of 0-conf being unsafe or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6343428]

>>6343415
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.6343467]

>>6343261
>>6343193
>>6343179
deleted because I actually like Hal. You are still faggot redditors for getting offended though

Where do you think you are?

[Anonymous No.6343497]

>>6343298
fuck outta here nigger.
when LN gets fully deployed, your faggot ass BCASH is going to go to a few hundred bucks if you're lucky. EVERYONE who isn't a shill, retard or a noob knows that BCASH is a fake counterfeit bitcoin. get over it. No one wants your shitty coin.

[Anonymous No.6343546]

>>6343416
kek, RBF is turned off by default and anyone can see an RBF enabled transaction

provide proof? https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/248.pdf
research paper from ~2012~ before blockstream and the term "o conf" was ever thought of

[Anonymous No.6343563]

>>6343337
Its literally safer than accepting dollars in cash which has higher likelyhood to be a fake note than the likelyhood of a zeroconf getting doublespent IRL.
0-conf perfectly safe for day to day transactions up to 300$

[Anonymous No.6343660]

>>6343563
double spend attempts are literally free dumbass, anyone running a non trivial amount of hashpower can preferentially accept higher fee double spend attempts, there is nothing preventing it in the code

[Anonymous No.6343717]

>>6343546
>>6343660
RBF is not on Bitcoin Cash you dumbass. Transactions are first come first serve. The RBF double spend exploit is only in Blockstream Core.

[Anonymous No.6343772]

>>6343660
Good luck stacking up enough hashpower to predictably mine the next block right after you make your purchase. Oh and good luck finding a vondor accepting high enough 0confs to make it wirth it

[Anonymous No.6343807]

>>6343717
Ahahahaha, RBF isnt needed to double spend, transactions are not 'first come first served' it would fork the network to shit if that rule was enforceable, educate yourself

[Anonymous No.6343886]

>>6343772
I don't need to, any miner willing to accept a higher block reward can at will though, Bitmain could release a double spending app tomorrow

and 'worth it' is any purchase more than the extra transaction fee because DOUBLE SPEND ATTEMPTS ARE FREE KEK

[Anonymous No.6343954]

where we are going... you don't need to worry about RBF.
so sorry your faggot ass coin still has a tx malleability problem and you can't and won't deploy LN. You and your chain will remain RETARDED, literally.

[Anonymous No.6343987]

>>6343807
This is perhaps the most idiotic post I've ever seen. RBF is needed to double spend. With the first come first serve rule, whatever transaction is spent first is the only one accepted so double spending is impossible. How do you not get this?

[Anonymous No.6344039]

>>6343987
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

did you not see the research paper I posted from 2012 before RBF was a thing? Do you think the network forks every time someone sends a double spend attempt at the same time as a transaction, jesus your stupid anon

[Anonymous No.6344071]

>>6343886
Not really since blocks are never full. Miners will still include both your real tx and doubletx in the same block and process the first one

[Anonymous No.6344093]

>>6343987
YOU ARE SO RETARDED. GO WATCH PRICE IS RIGHT. THIS IS TOO MUCH FOR YOUR LITTLE FAGGOT ASS BRAIN TO TAKE.

[Anonymous No.6344118]

>>6341099
>This was Satoshi's dream

satoshi himself just recently bashed bitcoin cash on twitter

[Anonymous No.6344122]

>>6343954
>wanting LN
whew

[Anonymous No.6344250]

>>6343497
>when LN gets fully deployed
He doesn't realize that at 1MB blocks and 4,000 transactions a block it will take 24 years for everyone to open a channel and 24 years to close it. And unless Lightning is a centralized the average user will need around 14 channels otherwise payments won't be able to be routed. So that's a full 336 years to get the Lightning Network fully operational for todays population and an additional 336 years to get them off. Enjoy the wait.

[Anonymous No.6344255]

>>6344071


>Be Miner
>2 transactions come in, 1 has 10x fees
>which do you choose? more money or cuck yourself for the good of the network? I know what I'm picking

[Anonymous No.6344333]

>>6344250
Everyone on Earth I mean. There are 5 billion people on earth who could use Bitcoin (kids don't use money) and you can only have 210 million transactions a year. You do the math.

[Anonymous No.6344334]

>>6344250
>Being this retarded

Come to me when BCash actually develops something of importance instead of something already seen in 100 other shitcoins, but somehow worse.

[Anonymous No.6344418]

>>6344334
Ok, they are developing extension blocks that can potentially include within their network the applications of all other cryptos. Without massive block sizes you cannot offer this function as the blockchain can't handle the bloat. So Bitcoin Cash will be the first crypto to be all cryptos. How's that for pioneering?

[Anonymous No.6344467]

>>6344334
Also good job avoiding the fact you will be dead before Lightning is functional.

[Anonymous No.6344483]

>>6344255
What part of RBF not included in BCH do you not understand?

[Anonymous No.6344537]

>>6344118
No he didn't, link you faggot. The most recent thing he said on Twitter was defending 10 minute block times because it protects smaller mining pools.

[Anonymous No.6344622]

>>6344483
The part where RBF is relevent to the discussion, do you really not know you can double spend without RBF? did you really not bother to read the thread before posting?

[Anonymous No.6344649]

>>6344418
Source

[Anonymous No.6344732]

>>6344622
Show me a real world example of a double spend transaction happening on Bitcoin Cash or stfu.

[Anonymous No.6344800]

>>6344649
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/how-bitcoin-extension-blocks-are-backward-compatible-and-how-theyre-not-cm776598

Here you go.

[Anonymous No.6344832]

>>6341203
It's tough to be right.

[Anonymous No.6344882]

>>6344732

...you....want me to show you something that isn't recorded...I mean do you think double spending isn't possible on BCH? did you not read the research paper from 2012 I posted higher up that says 0 conf isnt safe on Bitcoin (before RBF was a thing)? with adversarial thinking like this I'm sure you will go far in this world anon, daddy Jihan would never cuck you, no sir

[Anonymous No.6344926]

>>6344622
You can try to double spend in Cash but you cannot succeed without a 51% attack. This is opposed to Segwit which uses RBF and means that you can reverse transactions without having any mining power.

[Anonymous No.6344971]

>>6344882
Without a 51% attack double spends aren't successful on BCH. You can try, but it doesn't do anything. I have personally done several double spends on Bitcoin Segwit and I have no mining power.

[Anonymous No.6344975]

>>6344882
Its not possible to double spend without hashpower to carry out a 51% attack.

[Anonymous No.6344982]

>>6341099
FUCKING STOP CHANGING THE COLOR

STOP CHANGING THE ADDRESS FORMAT

STOP CHANGING THE LOGO

BITCOIN CASH IS THE REAL BITCOIN, IT SHOULDN'T CHANGE SHIT

[Anonymous No.6344995]

>>6344800
>No mention of BCASH anywhere
What?

[Anonymous No.6345016]

>>6344971
>>6344975

Where in that research paper I cited does it say that? because it pretty clearly says the opposite

[Anonymous No.6345071]

>>6345016
You mean the research paper that has yet to bare any fruit? Currently the only double spend attacks that have ever happened have happened with RBF and no hashpower.

[Anonymous No.6345094]

>>6344975
>>6344971

honestly this is weapons grade stupidity, I'm done posting here anon, gl in your endeavors, I'm sure you guys will do great, kek

[Anonymous No.6345137]

>>6345094
>33% dominance face

[Anonymous No.6345513]

>>6345094
We know that there are technically attack vectors guy, the probability of those vectors succeeding is lower than the rate of debit card fraud. That means zero confirmation transactions on Bitcoin Cash are safer than anything else on the market. Are they perfect? No, but they stop almost all forms of attack. Unless a 51% attack happens these edge cases will be rare to an extraordinary extent. Furthermore, if you are worried about these double spend attacks for Bitcoin Cash then Bitcoin Segwit must terrify you as the risk of double spends with that shitcoin are exponentially greater. Quit comparing Bitcoin Cash to perfection you tard, compare it to other existing systems. The double spend protection of Cash is massively greater than Bitcoin Segwit and measurably greater than the current debit/credit cards in use today.

[Anonymous No.6345728]

>>6344995
I thought you could connect the dots if I explained extension blocks to you, but I guess I'll have to spoon feed you.

https://www.yours.org/content/adding-zero-knowledge-to-bitcoin-cash-95a2a022a387/

[Anonymous No.6346510]

Bitcoin the failed high school science project of 2018

[Anonymous No.6346898]

Suprised they allowed a bitcoin cash page to remain open long enough to get his full, usually its off the front page in a few minutes