/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.7798822]

Anyone else sick of retarded BCash (BCH) shills all over /biz/? It's like they're mentally degenerate or something falling for such an obvious scam

>Let's keep ASICBoost for Jihan!
>Let's leave out SegWit even though none of us retards know what it is or that it's LITERALLY an important bug-fix
>Let's increase the block size and prevent the majority of users from running a full node, which is the entire point of cryptocurrency - one of the primary security methods afforded to the network

"Hurr we don't care about raspberry pi full nodes" do these idiots not realize that the point is so any merchant can run their own full node and validate any incoming transaction to limit the effectiveness of double spending and network partition attacks?

Sick of these retard shills who don't know anything about network protocol design

Does the BCash node topology look decentralized to you? The shills literally just spun up VM instances of full nodes to pretend like the network is being used. Compare this to the REAL Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.7798984]

>>7798822
But..but...muh low fees...MUH SPEED

[Anonymous No.7798987]

>>7798822
Shit the bottom got cut off BCH when I copied the two pictures together so it artificially looks more decentralized than it really is. The situation is even WORSE than the OP pictures represents. See pic related:

[Anonymous No.7799024]

>>7798822
All these /biz/retards don't understand why their shitcoin is a SHITCOIN. The king will reach 100k in a few months because TRUST and DECENTRALISATION does not exist in any other coin.

[Anonymous No.7799066]

>>7798822
BTC already got a block size increase with segwit anyway. it effectively raised the block size to 4mb.

[Anonymous No.7799103]

>>7798822
they are getting paid to shills, there is no stopping them unless mods start to ip-bans.

[Anonymous No.7799106]

>>7799066
MUH BLOCK SIZE

Kys retard

[Anonymous No.7799119]

I'm just here to laugh at your impotent rage

[Anonymous No.7799141]

we know op. the only reason bch is a thing is because the chinks saw an opportunity and took it.

they got to keep asic boost, they got to push through the change undoing satoshi's proof of work algo so they can jump in and out of mining bch to make a shit load of money, which is why bch got inflated so much compared to bitcoin.

they knew what they were doing, even roger knew what he was doing, its the sheep following them that seem to have gotten confused about the real purpose bch has.

[Anonymous No.7799179]

>>7799119
t. pajeet

[Anonymous No.7799198]

They're both shit, cashies and cories please kys.

[Anonymous No.7799203]

Non-mining nodes don't do much 2bh. Actually too many non-mining nodes can be harmful

[Anonymous No.7799212]

>>7799198
And tell me how your shitcoin is better faggot?

[Anonymous No.7799244]

>>7799203
Wrong, how do you independently validate transactions as a merchants without a full node?

[Anonymous No.7799252]

BlockStream FUD

All founder devs of Bitcoin Gavin, Satoshi (Craig), etc. are now developing BCH

[Anonymous No.7799264]

>>7799244

>as a merchant

Yeah, only merchants need to run nodes. Users don't

[Anonymous No.7799299]

>>7799203
you dont understand how bitcoin works then.

miners are the janitors of the network. they get paid as long as they're cleaning the right building. they can go and clean some other building if they want, but we're not paying them for it, and they either starve, or come back home.

[Anonymous No.7799306]

>>7799264
Merchant is shorthand for anyone receiving incoming transactions. Nice irrelevant strawman and in fact you're arguing against yourself without realizing it. Indeed, anyone receiving BTC should be running a full node even if it's non-mining.

[Anonymous No.7799373]

>>7799244
you don't need a full node, you just need the merkle tree to prove a transaction is in a block without having the whole 150 GB

[Anonymous No.7799380]

>>7799306
talking of nodes is missing the point anyway. miners mine because they get paid. nobody is going to start paying bitcoin prices for an altcoin.

[Anonymous No.7799383]

>>7799212
Disclaimer: I don't hold any of these but for P2P payment: Ethereum, Stellar, Ripple, Icon, Nano, hell even Dogecoin, and Litecoin blow your legacy shitcoins out of the water.

The only reason you should invest in bitcoin is for speculation or to not get raped in a bear market. The only reason Bitcoin is still a thing is because it's the first mover, that's it. It's an abomination and it will die once crypto gets fiat pairing.

Have fun with your marginal gains you brainlet.

[Anonymous No.7799398]

>>7799373
that's how ethereum works, but bitcoin doesn't have that luxury, you still need to download that 150gb at some point, even if you dont keep a local copy.

[Anonymous No.7799418]

>>7799373
Yeah that definitely prevents double spending anon /s

[Anonymous No.7799445]

>>7799306
>Merchant is shorthand for anyone receiving incoming transactions

That's stupid. How does forcing everyone to run nodes strengthen the network? Only hashpower leads to security. It's unnecessary to have a billion nodes and could lead to sybil attacks.

Plus, even if Nodes can notice fraudulent activity by miners, it can't do anything to stop it. Miners decide what goes in each block. 1 miner and 10,000,000 nodes is still completely controlled by the 1 miner

[Anonymous No.7799453]

Easy ---

1. Run an SPV client which downloads the full blockchain headers (~50 MB, independent of block size!). With SPV it is impossible to fake confirmed transactions that are merkle leaves of the blockchain.

2. If you really want to accept zero confirmation then running a full node is not enough -- you need to consult a multi-node prober like blockcypher to check that the whole network has the same tx in the mempool.

[Anonymous No.7799459]

>>7799383
All the shitcoins dedicated to speed alone through increased centralization and 51% attack risk due to increased block size and lower difficulty will die once LN gains mainstream adoption anon because their claim to fame isn't unique anymore

[Anonymous No.7799462]

>>7799383
the reason bitcoin is still a thing is because every single early adopter and influencer owns some, late adopters wish for those gains, but the reality is that's all they're thinking about, speculation.

they can't accept the fact that early adopters, whales, smart institutional money will be pushing for lightning, because they already have huge bitcoin positions, and have no reason to pump some shitcoin with theoretical scalability so they can make a short to midterm play.

[Anonymous No.7799480]

Funny. Satoshi would have supported bch.

[Anonymous No.7799499]

>>7799445
hashpower is security against 51% reorganization or tx dos attacks, that's all.

for protecting against everything else, you need validating nodes.

[Anonymous No.7799501]

>>7799445
Individual end-users running their own non-mining full nodes does not cause sybil attacks anon

And invalid blocks are rejected anon, merchants running their own non-mining full node is how they detect invalid blocks instead of relying on third party authorities to tell them whether their transactions went through validly.

[Anonymous No.7799506]

>>7799418
Do you even understand what you're talking about? You need 51% of the network's hashrate to attempt double spending. One single merchant cannot cause double spending, neither does he need a full node. A light node is sufficient. Full nodes are for miners validating the network. Running a full node as a standard user is completely pointless, you have such an insignificant amount of hashing power you contribute nothing to the network. In fact, a non-mining full node is more detrimental to the network than beneficial.

[Anonymous No.7799517]

>>7799383
>>7799383
Naw dawg , bitcoins value comes from it's robust, secure, proven network.

[Anonymous No.7799533]

>>7799480
your late adopter is showing. the chinks had to literally undo protections satoshi built into bitcoin to let their alt survive.

coincidentally they also opened up an attack vector that made bch very very profitable for them, but i'm sure that wasn't intentional.

[Anonymous No.7799534]

>>7799480
No, Satoshi designed for Lightning Network style second-layer solutions ahead of time anon.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-April/002417.html

[Anonymous No.7799571]

>>7798822
>do these idiots not realize that the point is so any merchant can run their own full node and validate any incoming transaction to limit the effectiveness of double spending and network partition attacks?

[Anonymous No.7799579]

>>7799534
Lol he was talking about basic bitch payment channels (which both BCH and BTC have, by the way), not lightning network.

[Anonymous No.7799599]

>>7799534
>april 2013
that's not satoshi, since he disappeared in 2010

[Anonymous No.7799607]

>>7799506
Do YOU even understand what you're talking about? How exact does an end-user validate that their incoming transactions are valid and confirmed without running their own full-node? Through trusting third-party authorities - their peers. Which can be malicious

[Anonymous No.7799621]

>>7799534

Craig wright supports bitcoin cash you muppet

[Anonymous No.7799625]

>>7799499
>>7799501

Nodes don't protect you from anything, dipshit. If miners want to fuck you they can fuck you. It's not like you can fight back against them with your non-mining node. Having a full node just makes you more aware of your coins being double spent.

Of course, miners have no economic incentive to destroy the blockchain

[Anonymous No.7799626]

Oh boy another thread where core cucks pretend they know what they're talking about, but just continue to show us they're clueless brainwashed idiots. Listen, BCH is Bitcoin, not BTC. All the fundamentals are lined up in its favor. Educate yourself without getting all your information from the Theymos controlled echo chambers and maybe you'll manage to get off the sinking ship in time.

[Anonymous No.7799635]

>>7799571
given that the most important part of any decentralized network is it's lowest layer, yes, you need to be able to trust it.

you can't flip a bch and turn the base layer into a hugely demanding network and then expect to add decentralization on top, thats not how decentralization works.

[Anonymous No.7799659]

>>7799625
read my post. i outlined everything miners can do. you seem to be confused.

[Anonymous No.7799664]

>>7799607
>I don't understand block headers and merkle trees. I have no idea about SPV which existed from the very start.

[Anonymous No.7799696]

>>7799621
Craig Weight is a fake you fucking cuck

>>7799625
>Having a full node just makes you more aware of your coins being double spent.
No shit retard that's the point?

>>7799635
This. Decentralization on the bottom layer is of utmost importance. On second layers it is less relevant because it gains the decentralized properties of the base layer through delayed Lightning Network state settlement

[Anonymous No.7799709]

>>7799579
lightning network is even better than what he envisioned, Roger.

[Anonymous No.7799711]

>>7799607
What do you think a blockchain is? The network validates the transactions, it's not done by a single user.

[Anonymous No.7799718]

>>7799659

Please outline in the white paper what exactly Non-mining nodes are supposed to do. Please, you're beyond fucking stupid.

Plus, only MINERS have an incentive to be trustworthy. They're the ones investing into the blockchain. Why would a non-mining node have any fucking reason to relay trustful transactions? They spent like, what, $20 on a node? I'd rather connect to an honest miner.

Kys

[Anonymous No.7799719]

>>7799626
please, you're just embarrassing yourself. it's always the same tired arguments from you late adopters, it's either about trying to catch up to us early adopters in gains, or having some kind of vendetta against those that are already rich, and wanting to take those bitcoin holders down.

there's no technical reason for bch's existence, no matter how hard you look, or how much backstopping you do. bch was a miner invention from the start.

[Anonymous No.7799725]

>>7799664
>Merkle Trees give mempool info
kys

[Anonymous No.7799740]

>>7799626
>X is Y

[Anonymous No.7799769]

>>7798822
>Let's increase the block size and prevent the majority of users from running a full node, which is the entire point of cryptocurrency - one of the primary security methods afforded to the network

Oh no, it's retarded. Unless you're a mining node, you do LITERALLY nothing.

[Anonymous No.7799777]

>>7799625
>Of course, miners have no economic incentive to destroy the blockchain
Which is why miners can't fuck anyone but themselves if they don't behave.

[Anonymous No.7799818]

>>7799696


Lol what makes you believe so? Of course the cunt kept it ambiguous. Hes a target otherwise. Hes in perfect place where people know he is but no official proof.

[Anonymous No.7799826]

>>7798822
>>7798987

No shit, bigger blocks = more centralization. No one is arguing against that. But with BTC you have transactions offloaded to off chain, centralized servers like coinbase, etc. If LN actually works and allows for off chain transactions to be secure then that's obviously the best solution but a lot of people doubt it will work. That's we have BCH to sell to them if they don't know about other altcoins that are much faster.

[Anonymous No.7799829]

>>7799718
the non mining nodes prevent the now centralized mining operations from being able to do whatever they want, and getting away with it.

they can't simply start mining an altcoin, and trying to force feed it to users as bitcoin, because nobody else checks them on their bullshit.

they start changing the protocol, and exchanges reject their coins, wallets reject their coins, payment processors reject their coins, etc.

you should really think for yourself instead of eating up the shit being force fed to you.

the days of 1 cpu = 1 vote are long over. bch had a chance fo fix that, they didn't, instead they took out the straw man, and their crops got eaten.

[Anonymous No.7799833]

>>7799579
> "It may contain payments by multiple parties."
>~Satoshi
na he's pretty clearly not talking about basic bitch payment channels.
what he's talking about is not possible on bch.

[Anonymous No.7799849]

>>7799252
Craig wright isn't Satoshi
Not surprising bcashies believe this shit though

[Anonymous No.7799850]

>>7799777

That's the purpose of the PoW. Miners invest in mining rigs in a sort of arms race to secure hash power, making the network more secure in the process.

A non-mining node user has no reason to invest into his node. Why? It doesn't MINE anything. It doesn't compete with anything. Simple fucking shit in the whitepaper

[Anonymous No.7799853]

>>7799826
>Nobody uses BCH so the fact that it's centralized doesn't matter as much
KYS retard. It's easier to not have scaling problems when you don't have scale

[Anonymous No.7799898]

>>7799850
>A non-mining node user has no reason to invest into his node
You're a fucking idiot. The benefit of the non-mining node a user is running is TO THE USER first and foremost, not to the network. P2P block propagation is just an added benefit

[Anonymous No.7799904]

Friendly reminder that no one fuds shitcoins that are destined to do nothing. No one cares about them and they fade into nothing. BCH on the other hand gets more fud than anything else, even link. Either some people are very scared of it, or they want to keep accumulating.

[Anonymous No.7799942]

>>7798822
>"Hurr we don't care about raspberry pi full nodes" do these idiots not realize that the point is so any merchant can run their own full node and validate any incoming transaction to limit the effectiveness of double spending and network partition attacks?
Sure they can validate on-chain transactions but what does this matter if there is no room in the blocks for these transacctions and when fees makes it too expensive to make these transactions? What does it matter if a merchant can run their own node if most transactions are made off-chain anyway? How it is useful for them to store something that is just a settlement layer.
Even if the blocks were 150mb small business owners could store the new transactions. It would require 8tb/year. That's around $150. Having visa support is much more expensive than that so it is very affordable.

[Anonymous No.7799954]

>>7799898
What economic incentive does a user have to use a non mining full node? Economic incentives are all that matter here, not some hand wavy "BECAUSE THE USER WANTS TO" bullshit

[Anonymous No.7799969]

>>7799898
>TO THE USER first and foremost,

Meh, it's unnecessary. Only merchants need it for 0 Conf.

[Anonymous No.7799970]

>>7799904
nah, most of it comes from those that missed out, and either have something against the now rich bitcoin early adopters, or are trying to make a quick buck expecting bch to somehow overtake bitcoin based on name appropriation alone.

bitbean got a lot of shit too.

[Anonymous No.7799986]

>bcash is dead
For the 100000000th time yet its still here kek must frustrate the hell out of you op

[Anonymous No.7799991]

>>7799725
the mempool of a single non-mining node proves nothing either

[Anonymous No.7800000]

The flippening is going to happen and there's nothing, corecucks can do about it. The money is flowing from BTC to BCH and it's not coming back. After you take the redpill there's no going back. This trend will accelerate once BCH/BTC is over 0.2.

[Anonymous No.7800030]

>>7799969
Which is hilarious, because BTC no longer supports 0-conf, instead it uses the worse replace-by-fee (RBF) causing a race to the bottom with ever increasingly sat/b fees. But even that doesn't matter because merchants are ditching BTC support and BTC's transaction per day are at a 2 year low.

[Anonymous No.7800048]

>>7799970
That describes people who invest in every alt, desu. BCH is here to stay, and BTC shills are going to be posting btrash threads until the very end. Honestly, the more fud I see, the brighter I see BCH's future.

[Anonymous No.7800052]

>>7800000
What the fuck are you even talking about? There's no money flowing from BTC to BCH

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/

[Anonymous No.7800064]

>>7800000
but that's not happening. the volume for bch is hugely korean speculators. no institutions have any interest in bcash, no whales other than those looking for power, like ver, and those simply looking to take a political position against bitcoin, like coinbase, or the chinks.

all that bch is doing is accelerating brain drain towards ethereum.

[Anonymous No.7800082]

>>7800000

Kek has willed it

[Anonymous No.7800144]

>>7799942
when was the last time you started a full node?
i'd invite you to try it out.

>>7800030
actually august 2017 was lower still, and imagine that, it hit an all time high after that.
tell me why I should put much weight on that?

[Anonymous No.7800152]

>>7800030
the miners killed 0conf when they started picking and choosing transactions based on fee instead of time. RBF formalizes something that the miners had already been doing.

there's no way to make 0conf transactions secure. a 0conf tx is orders of magnitude less secure than a second layer transaction, and yet bch fanboys seem to have such a huge problem with the latter, and mourn the former.

>>7800048
maybe bch is here to stay, i don't know, which is why i still haven't sold any of my airdrop. i do know though that the perception of bch is entirely different to the perception of bitcoin, and you will find very very few people that prefer bch over bitcoin, and don't also prefer ethereum over both.

[Anonymous No.7800164]

corecucks, please disprove this

[Anonymous No.7800206]

>>7800164
>ln is not peer-to-peer
do you guys even understand the words you throw around?

[Anonymous No.7800207]

>>7800164

corecucks don't have arguments. They're wrapped in double think and expose simple misunderstandings about how bitcoin operates

[Anonymous No.7800215]

>>7800144
>when was the last time you started a full node?
>i'd invite you to try it out.
It is times like these where sadly remember that my Molyneux-folder got destroyed 'cause that's not an argument

[Anonymous No.7800254]

>>7800215
so never then because you'd understand the argument if you have.
go ahead and try it out big fella.

[Anonymous No.7800274]

>>7800164
>BCH HAS CASH IN ITS NAME SO IT'S CASH AND BITCOIN ISN'T
Go invest in IQ and KYS

[Anonymous No.7800278]

>>7800207
this coming from the late adopter who thinks users have no need to run a non-mining node. you realize you guys are a laughing stock to all the early adopters and whales out there, right?

if you're going to pick an alt, at least pick one with legs.

[Anonymous No.7800300]

>>7800274
no you dumb fuck, BTC cant act as cash because the fees are too high. Jesus christ, you are thick as shit

[Anonymous No.7800304]

>>7800152
>a 0conf tx is orders of magnitude less secure than a second layer transaction
This is entirely false. An on-chain transaction is by default more secure than an off-chain transaction. 0-conf transactions are meant to be small value transactions. It'd cost you far more money to attempt to double spend a small value 0-conf transaction. Also, miners don't release Bitcoin Core updates, Blockstream does. They killed 0-conf.

[Anonymous No.7800345]

>>7800278

Satoshi was the earliest of early adopters and he thought users didn't need to run a full-node. I'm not saying it's wrong or right to run a full node just because he said it, but your statement is wrong

[Anonymous No.7800357]

>>7800300
That's not because of BTC itself, that's because it's so heavily used. BCH only has lower fees because they traded decentralization for lower fees you fucking retard. Let's see who has lower fees when BTC's Lightning Network usage picks up and BCH is unable to ever implement it because they have NO dev team and because they didn't implement segwit, in order to help Jihan Wu continue making profit off his ASICBoost-utilizing hardware

You're so fucking stupid and you are incapable of looking at the situation from every angle

[Anonymous No.7800360]

The battle is over and Segwit and the boys lost they just dont know it yet.

[Anonymous No.7800397]

>>7800278
>what is a SPV wallet

[Anonymous No.7800404]

Prediction: LN will not be released for general use in 2018 or 2019.
You can remind me if you think im wrong and if you believe in core's vaporware.

[Anonymous No.7800424]

>>7800304
Do you even fucking know what 0-conf is? 0-conf is not on-chain, and off-chain is not necessarily less secure than on-chain with the right signing mechanisms and on-chain settlement techniques - coincidentally exactly what LN uses. Even LN is more secure than 0-conf.

[Anonymous No.7800438]

For all the retards arguing about "Satoshi this Satoshi that ...", literally just go read his second email:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

[Anonymous No.7800451]

>>7800360
This sounds like some Trumpian rant, I see no technical discussion there. Why am I even talking to you low-IQ morons. Let's see if BCash exists in 5 years retard.>>7800438

[Anonymous No.7800456]

>>7800254
I don't understand the "argument" that you appeal to accomplishment.
Now we say that I have actually run several full nodes. Make your case then you imbecil.

But first: tell me if you have ever build a crypto currency from the bottom because else your opinion on them are worthless. Have you ever been a merchant? Have you ever met Jihan? How do you know if he's really Chinese? Check mate faggot

[Anonymous No.7800465]

>>7800164
>peer to peer
BCash is peer to (((corporation running nodes))) to peer, so not peer to peer, and certainly not cash.

[Anonymous No.7800474]

>>7800438
That was back when he was still in defensive-justification-of-BTC-scaling-ability mode, this was not actually his long-term plan, as evidenced by his ahead of time planning for Lightning-Network-like second layer solutions to exist by adding the necessary script opcode

[Anonymous No.7800477]

Im into BCH for the pumpz
Wish me luck.Gonna all in today. Shit's extr low, Im feelin lucky

[Anonymous No.7800493]

>>7800404
>existing software
>vaporware

[Anonymous No.7800513]

>>7799954
You can't see why some bank or large retail store would like the ability to validate transactions? Really?

Kys cashie

[Anonymous No.7800545]

>>7800513
Exactly, but to further the point, it's not about them - they could run expensive nodes with good hardware and bandwidth. It's about poor people being able to validate their own transactions.

[Anonymous No.7800579]

>>7800304
no, it's not false. a 0conf tx has no safeguards, it's literally a transaction that a few nodes have seen, that's all. by the time it gets mined the inputs could be long gone. it is absolutely not an on-chain tx.

a second layer tx is backed by coins that can not be moved, and the channel can not be closed on a whim by either party, like a 0conf tx can.

please learn about these things before replying, seriously. you're making your "side" look horribly misinformed.

>>7800345
yes, satoshi also based this on 1 cpu = 1 vote. why run a non-mining node when running a mining node is easy, and profitable?

the times have changed.

>>7800397
and what does that have to do with non-mining nodes? and spv wallet lacks enough information to cause serious issues if miners attempt to attack the network.

we would need to make some fundamental changes to how the blockchain is stored, as ethereum did, to have truly secure light wallets.

[Anonymous No.7800661]

>>7800404
they already have the code, it's basically done, but without real world real value testing, it wont be deployed.

maybe it will take a year or two to get to market, thankfully we have coins like ethereum as a stop gap.

[Anonymous No.7800692]

>>7800345
Later on satoshi predicted how people would be against (((blocksize increases))) so they could still run full nodes. In fact, he designed it this way so there is never consensus, which means Bitcoin is inmutable, which is why it's valuable. He created an open source network which cannot be forked, since attempting to fork it creates an altcoin by default due lack of consensus. All attempts to fork it just give real Bitcoin users a stake on the forked chain which will put forkcoins on a constant sell presure.
The world must adapt to Bitcoin, not the opposite. Bitcoin needs hard people, not hard forks.

[Anonymous No.7800799]

>>7800692
Crying beautiful metaphorical tears of joy at the elegance of this invention. I don't really care anymore, continue on with BCash shilling - it doesn't matter to me because I will never use it.

What I worry though is that, since adoption isn't necessarily paired with technical knowledge, we might incidentally end up adoption a shitcoin which doesn't have the beautiful utopian qualities of ideally decentralized cryptos, which is what BCash shills are trying to create. It would be a shame. So actually I will never stop being against any shill and takeover attempts like BCash. Fuck BCash shills.

[Anonymous No.7800815]

>>7800456
what the fuck kind of claims are these?
>i build crypto from the bottom
>hurrr i met jihan
>check mate faggot
hahaha get a load of this guy.
prove chink faggot or fuck off lmao.
you are clearly triggered as fuck and either a huge bullshitter or paid shill, so which is it (obviously asian either way)?

[Anonymous No.7800861]

>>7800304
>make blocksize hyoge so niggers can 0 conf their kfc onchain
>pretend this is somehow a safe model
kys

[Anonymous No.7800879]

>>7800451
Trumpian rant is Satoshi rant dude, good call

[Anonymous No.7800899]

>>7798822
I don't understand people who call something a scam and then provide literally nothing to back up their claim.

Shouldn't it be really simple to point out the mechanism of a scam?

[Anonymous No.7800926]

>>7799066
BTC averages like 1.1MB blocks MAX

Why? Because all of my funds are STILL in non-segwit addresses. Maybe I should use this opportunity to consolidate them, actually.

[Anonymous No.7800958]

>>7800799
we don't need adoption (as in average joe) anyway, they are broke. Anyone with enough money to matter will park their wealth on the original blockchain, with unbeatable uptime and therefore unbeatable track record (serious investors will look at certainty over anything else).

[Anonymous No.7800967]

> BCH as low as it gets
> "dem BCH shills", when it is alose to no-existent
> playing the old "chink scam coin" record

Is it just me or op is trying to make us sell the bottom?

Also, it can be the shittiest coin there is, which won't stop most traders from buying to speculate on it

[Anonymous No.7800982]

>>7800879
Go to bed, Wright.

[Anonymous No.7801015]

>>7798822
>comparing node topology/centralization on a 5 month old fork to the original chain
Yeah that makes fucking sense. Give it another couple years and let's see how the BCH nodes look. All you corecucks love your cherry picked statistics, meanwhile ignoring how centralized your own nodes actually are.
I support both because they are each trying to accomplish something completely different. The idea that both cannot succeed is retarded.

[Anonymous No.7801182]

>>7800879
>Wright is Satoshi
lel he's still falling for it

[Anonymous No.7801216]

>>7800164
>Fees are currently lower than bcash's
>LN is completely peer to peer, it's also peer to peer to peer to peer to peer etc.
>If a financial institution ran a BCH full node, would BCH suddenly not be Bitcoin?
>Side not about "trusted third party", the lightning network is also a trustless network. By calling LN a centralized/trusted system you may as well call any network of nodes a trust based system.
>Finally, all transaction processed on LN are hashed in to the ongoing chain, LN cannot change previous records, and the longest chain still prevails as the real chain.

Anything else need refuting?

[Anonymous No.7801323]

>>7800815
Dude you are so dense that you don't even get when when you are being made fun of.
I would again refer to the fact that you made a logical fallacy of appealing to accomplishment and then maybe tell you how that's possibly the most stupid fallacy you can make on an anonymous message board since you don't know and cannot check what an anon's accomplishments are.
But then again, if you haven't gotten it by now, there's probably nothing I can say that will make you understand

[Anonymous No.7801371]

Segwit coin has numerous fatal life ending flaws and security issues that will bring it down for good.

[Anonymous No.7801592]

Another thing you can get over the asicboost rant as it was an after market add one by a us customer that never really took off or used much at all.

[Anonymous No.7801687]

>>7801323
>oh yea? I met satoshi. I create millions of coin. i thousands of merchant. ting tang tong bing bong!!!! check mate faggit!!
kek

[Anonymous No.7801734]

>>7801687
Oh no. You have done one of dem trolololings on me. Epic lmao xD

[Anonymous No.7801993]

>>7799626
>Educate yourself without getting all your information from the Theymos controlled echo chambers and maybe you'll manage to get off the sinking ship in time.

[Anonymous No.7802110]

>>7801371
Do you even know what segwit is? No, you just heard someone call Bitcoin "segwit coin" once and you're repeating it. Prove me wrong and explain what segwit is retard.

Protip: IT'S A BUG FIX YOU RETARD

[Anonymous No.7802123]

>>7800164
protestantism was a mistake

[tsass No.7802124]

BCH morons are really the most stupid crypto sheeple. So when Craig Wright wanted to stay anonymous as most of you morons say, or ambigious, why come out with it in the 1st place. Also if BCH is so superior why didn't he then transfer his genesis account BTC to BCH? You guys are really so stupid to follow that embarrassing wannabe Satoshi, the purpose of cryptography is to fend off scammers like Wright, he is an embarrassment and besides the fucked up block size that entails issues that most can't comprehend, DOS etc. the problem is with BCH that idiots like Wright and Ver are not trustable, one is a joke the other is a convict. You guys just can't live with it as others said that you missed out. And you will miss out again, cause you are that dumb. Everyone saw and read that embarrasing charade with Wright and Wired just because you faggots on average hold a Microsoft Certified "degree" if anything at all does not mean anyone else buys this shit.