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

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 69 KB, 1072x904, logo-bitcoincash-straight-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9436860 No.9436860 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Countdown @ https://cash.coin.dance

What does /biz/ think of the protocol upgrade (hard fork) of Bitcoin Cash happening at 4:00PM UTC? What effect will this have on the price of BCH? Do you like the upgrades that will be deployed in the protocol upgrade?

Some links:

- Bitcoin Cash protocol upgrade on May 15 -

- May 15th Network Upgrade
Bitcoin Cash is adding opcodes and 32mb blocks -

- Upgrade Time: Bitcoin Cash Plans a 32 MB Hard Fork -

>> No.9436887
File: 61 KB, 932x761, Sowell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


Nothing makes sense in this market so I'm not counting on any moon shots. Still happy about bitcoin cash growing into usable money.

>> No.9437391
File: 573 KB, 2048x1280, 1525256426378.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Slow and steady wins the race

>> No.9437409

I was unironically gonna say "whats the fork for? 32mb fucking blocks"? turns out i was right, these bcash fucks are hopeless..

>> No.9437433

32 is max though and the nodes can handle it. The fact that BTC has 1 and can handle max 7 tx/s is plain retarded.

>> No.9437444

Larger block size limit ensure that when there's a massive increase of TXs, adoption won't be stifled by an artificial cap. Block cap should always be ~100x current usage, and eventually should be phased out entirely.

More usage = higher price. That's the goal with BCH.

>> No.9438202

It's happening tonight boys, strap on in!
We gonna past BTC by a long shot!

>> No.9438215
File: 968 KB, 760x1520, info5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Do you unironically know someone who was early adopter who still holds and doesn't support BCH now?

>> No.9438249

Everything in BCore is tetarded, like "don't trust, verify" is one of the most tech ignorant things, no one gives half a shit if you found a block which doesn't follow the protocol.

>> No.9438335
File: 250 KB, 747x373, Screen Shot 2018-05-14 at 9.49.10 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I heard ANTIFA is starting to have bcore meet ups now.

>> No.9438375

Bitcoin Cash will make us all rich! It's the real Bitcoin!!

>> No.9438404

can't even fill 1mb of the current blocks and they are upgrading to 32mb
nothing more than marketing to brain dead retards who think more ram makes a computer go faster

>> No.9438414

this is irony, right?

>> No.9438415

>market dominance
oh look, a Brainlet who cant into simple multiplication and division

>> No.9438426

"ram makes a computer go faster"
But it does! I just got a Solid State Driver and it made my whole PC faster! You Bcore cucks are retarded.

>> No.9438428

of course, does anyone think blockstream are the only contributors to btc development?
Lmao "one dev team", I almost passed myself laughing at the pure ignorance and stupidity of bcash shills

>> No.9438440
File: 26 KB, 521x251, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.9438460

Blockstream has complete control though, and whats even more ridiculous is that the Lightning Network gives the fees directly to Blockstream.

>> No.9438582

they literally have zero control.
you fucking faggot.
>whats even more ridiculous is that the Lightning Network gives the fees directly to Blockstream.
who tells you this?
holy fuck anon, LEARN SOMETHING FUCK

>> No.9438593

A solid state drive isn't ram you fucking pajeet retard.

>> No.9438656

Then what is "ram" corecuck? Lol you scammers get triggered so easily...

Who tells me this? Facts, real facts based on reality not scams - I have done over 10 hours of research on this topic and I consider myself a expert on the topic, I feel sad you spread such hatred and fake news on this world.

>> No.9438671

This is a dangerous strategy. I see what you're trying to do. You're saying things in a jingoistic way which appeals well to stupid people who mistake confidence for accuracy, and therefore will believe the nonsense you just said. The problem with that strategy is that it's correct, you will actually convince the idiots with that stuff. And they're presently all on the core side, so you're shooting yourself in the foot.
It will convince absolutely nobody on the BCH side though, because as the minority that only values correctness over confidence, we can see you're simply full of shit.
You should go back to lol bcash.

>> No.9438705

Bags heavy?

>> No.9438826


>> No.9438831

keep up the good work anon, i'm sorry i doubted you.

>> No.9438977

not really since btc did a 20x from the point where it started losing "market dominance"
and 1000 shit coins were created and valued entirely off the performance of btc

>> No.9439000

why are cashies so keen on pushing the word "upgrade" for forking? is it to convince people that bcash was an "upgrade" when it forked from btc?
forks can just as easily fuck everything up. like when some bcash supporters tried to push through the s2x fork to divide and conquer btc chain, but were so inept at coding that they left simple iteration bug that froze the forked chain at fork block.

>> No.9439021

Bwahaha yes anon sure...their ln implementation is the shittyest one and people are gonna probably use the ln labs one but blockstreem will still get the fees, also babyes are going to die because of it

>> No.9439032
File: 301 KB, 1511x1481, 1524859503457.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because that's what it is.
Just because maxwell lied and coretards bought it doesn't change the fact. The real truth is that *not changing* when it is called for can fuck things up just as badly as changing badly when it's not called for.
Coretards managed to fuck both of these things up at once, permanently canceling an essential change that was always the original plan, and replacing it with an unnecessary change that actually destroyed the essential value of the product, to the point where it flatly is not what it once was anymore, that being peer to peer electronic cash.

>> No.9439045

how is btc not peer to peer digital cash? more people use it as peer to peer digital cash than bch...

>> No.9439049
File: 29 KB, 720x211, dashnew.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's what BCash is trying to be like but never will.

>> No.9439084


>> No.9439149
File: 352 KB, 1684x902, 1524925753334.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Lightning network is designed as staked and routed hub and spoke network, that is, it is designed to recentralise the previously decentralised product.
You are observing that people can use the decentralised fraction of the capacity of the system, whilst failing to note that capacity is restricted to such an extent almost nobody can use it without causing massive fee inflation. If the system gains traction it doesn't threaten the banking networks of the world because they simply take control of the spider they built on top, knowing that basically all transactions will be forced to go through their centralised network due to artificial capacity constraints on the original network.
At that point they have control of the transactions and the money again and can implement their classic fractional reserve scam and it is business as usual.
All the while useful idiots that have no idea what's going on cheer their own enslavement, and rage at those fighting it and keeping them actually free.

>> No.9439160
File: 158 KB, 960x767, bcashlol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.9439169

>lightning network
post discarded right there
lightning network is a secondary layer
it's not bitcoin
Bitcoin is not LN

so I ask again, why isn't bitcoin peer to peer electronic cash?

>> No.9439172
File: 42 KB, 1168x326, 1524660682917.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.9439184

so I read your post again

>restriced to capacity almost no one can use it
except everyone that uses it? btc costs cents to send on the next block, look how many more translations there are than bcash trash
even doge has more tx than bch

>> No.9439204

I think some traders buy before any fork in case of free coins, but this one will go smoothly and the price will drop afterwards.
Long term very bullish for BCH.
Short term I think more sideways is needed.
HOWEVER: The market can take off at any time and I could get proven wrong.
The untapped wealth of BTC that could easily switch to BCH once something 'happens' is like a pile of dynamite just waiting to be lit. Someone on here was talking about pending lawsuits earlier.. and I'm hearing noise on other chans about lawsuits in other areas as well.. I think that the next couple months will be interesting.. but over the next week or two? Probably not so much. Don't quote me on it.

Just buy when you can and hodl.

>> No.9439210

because it's unusable?

>> No.9439231

I loaded up BCH for this, but the market seems to not care :/

>> No.9439237

and yet more people use it than bch?

>> No.9439239

Traders like you are probably why the price is headed down short term
Don't quote me on it.

>> No.9439267

The controversy between bitcoin and bitcoin cash will rip tgem both away from the #1 spot. You win when you show you have the best tech not when you gave a shit tgrowibg competition over who is the real bitcoin. The name does not matter. All that matters is the tech so tgey should advertise their own tech. Period.

>> No.9439274

No one gives a fuck about the shitflinging on the chans.
Real work is happening behind the scenes. Winner will be decided by adoption and the market. Long term.

>> No.9439284

The problem is that right now Bitcoin isn't used very much at all.
It was used a lot during december/january and the network got totally congested.
BTC does not plan to raise block size to avoid this situation again in the future.
BCH is already able to sustain the december/january needs with 8mb blocks and will go a step further with 32mb blocks.

>> No.9439288
File: 31 KB, 375x500, 1525970079733.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.9439290


Bitcoin never needed more than 1mb (ish) per block, until it did... and then the network had constant 230k unconfirmed transactions and fee hike. It made every critic's claim that it can't be currency valid. It showed all it's flaws and the only response to this was off chain scaling and 2nd layer settlements... potentially effective but not imminent and certainly not intrinsic to Bitcoins ethos.

This sentiment is exactly why BCH exists and needed to fork off, because what was good once under limited use, won't always be good under heavy use. Have a little foresight and extrapolate the effect of heavy traffic.

>> No.9439294

1GB blocks and 1 million dollar coins.

>> No.9439304

btc had 209,000 transactions yesterday.
dogecoin had 23,400
bch had 19,000.
nobody at all uses bch...

>> No.9439322


>> No.9439345

With current number of transactions I get it, why even bother with something else?
BTC can handle currently max about 600k tx per day.
Now image during the next bull run there will be a need for 6 million tx per day. That means most people will be left unsatisfied and looking for alternatives.

>> No.9439364

> post discarded
Thank you for illustrating my point that people duped by core are raging to the point of prideful ignorance.
A "secondary layer" that processes the vast majority of service transactions is in fact a primary layer. Saying otherwise is to assume you have a modern transportation network because you have a single length 5km hyperloop track to service a country the size of France and the "second layer" is millions of horses and buggies.
That which processes the majority of the transaction throughout is in fact the primary layer. The core blockchain is actually now a secondary layer, and an extremely artificially limited one at that, equivalent to not more than a fire trail.

>> No.9439373

so delusional

>> No.9439385

> btc costs cents to send on the next block,
Only when nobody is using it.
When people actually try to use it in even barely more than the 14kbps total throughout capacity, fees shoot to 50 USD plus per transaction. I'm sorry you've been duped, but it's a simple undeniable fact that it has been sabotaged.

>> No.9439395

This is what desperation looks like

>> No.9439416

aaaany day now it might pass doge!!!
much wow
very history

satoshi himself put the 1mb limit in himself quietly without telling anyone.
prove me wrong.

>> No.9439422
File: 215 KB, 2758x454, utgp5jpdl8g01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Yes. I realise you're out of arguments. But thank you for making it clearer.

>> No.9439451
File: 106 KB, 640x640, wQGyklWmNXj1gwt8099fqejqGGWG_Y7piBggc0J3JBI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

OK >>9439422
This has been going on a long time and nothing in saying is in the least bit controversial. Core has been sabotaged. Deal with it.

>> No.9439509

tx never cost more than $50
even during peak if the congestion u was still getting through at $20

>> No.9439520
File: 469 KB, 2543x3602, SatoshisVision.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

maybe since your butt buddy craig claims to be satoshi, he can explain to us why he did this in his own words.

>> No.9439541

Lol bcash

>> No.9439584

That's a lie. Also it's irrelevant to the simple fact that for any actual genuine on chain throughput the entire network collapses. There couldn't be a better insurance policy against bitcoin for the banks than that. But they're going to lose anyway because cash has fixed the sabotage, and they have no power on any chain they didn't blow 70 million in direct investment and countless more in astroturfing and wash trading to sell their nonsensical narrative.
They're dead any way you look at it. The only question is who goes with them.

>> No.9439602
File: 27 KB, 807x448, fees.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.9439628
File: 235 KB, 1251x692, j9hf1hcwb9x01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Saved, so much bullshit from these idiots these days I'm going to run out of space saving all the evidence they're lying. Thanks for fighting the good fight anon.

>> No.9439679

Really, are you cores that fucking despret at this point? Saying anything at all you can think of to *trigger* people? kek

>> No.9439684

Satoshi put in the 1MB limit to prevent poison block attacks
aka someone miners a single 1MB transaction which chokes all other miners
attacking miner gets a head start on the next block while others are still validating the poison block

the poison block cause was solved LONG ago, it's not possible anymore.
1MB limit is not needed anymore

As a 2011 Bitcoiner now fully in BCH, i want BTC to keep the 1MB limit.
It just helps us win.

>> No.9439693

No worries mate. At this point I've come to the conclusion that in order to win, all we have to do is wait.

>> No.9439709
File: 86 KB, 2160x546, _20180515_121834.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's over. You lose. The historical record is clear on the fact that the 1mb limit was temporary abs removing it was part of the plan until Greg maxwell sabotaged the network. Nothing can hide this.

>> No.9439830

that's 10% of BTC transactions.

>> No.9439833

it's not a lie... muh $50 fees is a lie
bitcoin has the second most use of any coin (first being eth with erc20 shit coins and Ponzi games)
bcash has no use at all and it's hardly faster or cheaper than btc on its current state (ignoring zero conf scam transactions)
avg and it's still bullshit
in Jan I was getting transactions through on the next block for $5

>> No.9439859

Save the old bcash chain!!!!

Bitcoin Cash Classic is the REAL Bitcoin Cash!!!

>> No.9439863
File: 248 KB, 900x516, 1526227611406.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

> I'm not lying in thread which has graph that proves that I'm lying.
gas yourself cuntface.

>> No.9439869


>> No.9439915

>average (sum of all fees divided by number of transactions)
>What are exchanges and mining pools paying highest available fee
bcashies this stupid

>> No.9439921


>almost no innovation in plan

my sides

>> No.9439936
File: 45 KB, 317x293, 1500756393525.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>why 32mb blocks goy
>you won't need 32mb blocks goy
>how can I subvert 32mb blocks goy, it's impossble!

Jeesh guys we better not increase the block size

>> No.9439968

The potential usecase of cryptos is one world currency.
BTC doesn't even try to be that anymore, BCH is aiming in that direction.

>> No.9439977

Comparing Bitcoin cash to the Nazis.

How did that turn out for them? Didn't they loose?

>> No.9440017

Here's what I think they're going to do next. In the past few days since the last difficulty adjustment, about 5-10 exahashes of phantom capacity have been "attacking" the BTC block chain in the form of disappearing and reappearing at moments that push the difficulty adjustment out and make it look like actually it's BCH that is attacking BTC.
The current hashing capacity of the BCH network is about 5.6 exahash or so, if a significant fraction of that phantom hashing capacity is employed mining blocks on the old BCH network post the 32mb fork, the economic majority nodes and all of the nodes which have properly upgraded will be split from the SPV wallets which will follow the longest chain still mining the old blocks maliciously.
Core can milk that for a while while it looks like Cash incompetently managed the fork, get the reputational damage done, and then go back to mining the BTC chain for their rewards, having widely publicised the perception that BCH was incompetent and that hard forks are dangerous and we should all bow and follow our one true lord One Meg Greg.

>> No.9440034

Well, not having to live in a world full of lying subversive cunts who want to enslave the rest of it could not be said to be entirely a loss. The very fact we're presently even discussing another one of their attempts to subvert and enslave is illustrative of this.
At any rate, I don't give a fuck about politics and consider it the pursuit of small minds, all states must die, anarchocapitalism or bust, I simply view the right as superior to the left if I am stuck in a group of people that absolutely positivley must have some form of authoritarian dictator.

>> No.9440097

Accurate minimum fee estimation is an unsolved NP hard problem, demonstrated by Mike Hearn three years ago, thus the practical actual fee that you need to issue to guarantee inclusion in the next block must be much higher than that, and you can observe what it actually is by looking at the empirical data evident in that chart.
But, you're an idiot, so probably don't understand what that even means.

>> No.9440099

so edgy

>> No.9440107

Yeah, live free or die is so edgy it's been a rallying call of basically every successful society in the past few hundred years. I'm such a rebel, and you're such a square.
Don't you have an overlord boot to lick somewhere, slavegirl?

>> No.9440114

that graph is skewed by exchanges and mining pools getting ahead of everyone else
you're an idiot and typing like an autist doesn't change that

>> No.9440129

I point out you are too stupid to understand the cause of the observed trend.
You repeat your assumption invalidated by the observed trend.
Thank you for proving my point.
Kill yourself. Nobody who understands you wants you alive.

>> No.9440167


i use btc every few days and I've never payed above $30
I got stuck once for 8 hours, but I've had worse experiences with eth

>> No.9440210
File: 94 KB, 701x599, 1525954663052.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I support your view. I see the government as another form of parents
>don't do this
>don't do that
For 90% of people that is OK, they actually need parents all their lives.
But for the rest it is fucking annoying and we have had no choice but to live with the same rules.
With crypto and anonymous tech it will be possible to transcend the government control once you're ready for it.

>> No.9440219

Arguing that your anecdote trumps historical data while trying to make the case that your opponent is spouting gibberish.
Yeah, ok, I think I'm going to leave it at that, you're a lost cause and you will never even understand your own complete worthlessness. Your existence is punishment enough, I sentence you to yourself for the rest of your life.

>> No.9440236

Exactly, that's the real vision of all this, and that's why I'm here. To destroy the state and central banks. Those fuckwits that need parenting through their entire lives can get it from an agency that doesn't simultaneously insist on enslaving all of us who don't. Not negotiable.

>> No.9440265

your historical data isn't accurate
keep acting like it is though

>> No.9440861
File: 957 KB, 3840x2160, B for Cash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

hells yeah

i think all that's needed for BCH to skyrocket is for BTC's mempool to get overloaded again. a lot of people just don't remember how bad it was in december.

>> No.9440928

Why isnt bch mooning? Gemini added it and its getting an upgrade today....

>> No.9440987
File: 2.67 MB, 2628x1488, age of empires ii.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

there's been a slandering campaign going on for six months, i'd be surprised if half the people that are into crypto actually know about it

>> No.9440992

nice civ. Turks?

>> No.9441054
File: 706 KB, 1920x1080, Banished Walled City of Aurelia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

not sure, not my own screenshot

>> No.9441080
File: 44 KB, 885x593, bchgnarkill.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

what ever happened to the bch killing the btc FUD these cashie shills were promoting 2 days ago?

oh... nevermind. Cashies BTFO!!! suicide hotline 1-800-eat-shit.

>> No.9441127

Way too funny watching both bitcoin brainlet camps arguing. In 5 years both of those shitcoins will be nothing but a footnote in crypto history.

>> No.9441163

If you genuinely can't see a quality difference between them then you are the biggest brainlet in the thread. At least cashies know their coin is shit and just want to shill their bags.

>> No.9441170

Just no. Stop trying to pretend your fisher price blockchain is going to take over the world. South Central bloods raising their flag over Fort Knox, Washington, Beijing and Moscow is just as likely. You don't fucking understand the nature of blockchains. They're not smartphones, they're supercastles.

>> No.9441178


The funny thing is you actually believe this. Bitcoin (BCH) will retake dominance, Bcore (BTC) will continue it's intentional slide into irrelevance.

>> No.9441207

I think that's the Saracen wonder on the left

>> No.9441210
File: 61 KB, 720x480, firemountain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

i haven't seen anything happening on the BTC fork for a long time. everybody just seems to be in "wait for lightning" mode

>> No.9441320
File: 705 KB, 2000x2000, Bcash_just.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Not just waiting for lightning, aggressively and quickly developing it. https://shabang.io/
The reason you think no one cares is because no one is invested "in" lightning, so they don't pageet shill it, but rest assured if some low-cap ICO had the development of LN it would be frontpage of biz all day, every day.

>> No.9441385


This guy is a paid shill, as you can tell from the low quality of his shitposts.

Lightning will never be able to function, has has already been proven. This piece of shit does not scale. When it eventually becomes apparent to the masses the story will change and a new method will be implemented to further turn Bcore into a banking layer.

This is why nothing else is occurring on the Bcore blockchain.

>> No.9441489
File: 84 KB, 320x572, ec2gIXbWrvlWnF-jJi163j_KzVwS30EMM8DJzqkUcsc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Let's not forget one of the best arguments against BTC is actually the hypothetical he ventures; that Maxwell'a vision was split out from Satoshi's vision to be independently valued by the market.
The reason that argument hits so hard is because everyone actually knows exactly what that valuation would look like, and it would unironically make Freicoin look good.

>> No.9441498

Literally every single sentence a verifiable lie. Why even bother typing that out?
The already functioning lightning network: https://explorer.acinq.co/

>> No.9441534

>The funny thing is you actually believe this. Bitcoin (BCH) will retake dominance, Bcore (BTC) will continue it's intentional slide into irrelevance.
How exactly? BCH plans for large blocks involve considerable centralization, potentially more serious than than any complaints about LN centralization. To reach Visa card levels of transactions the BCH network would be confined to massive data centers from platforms like Amazon AWS, MS azure and alibaba cloud services. Once confined to those it can easily be censored and people will only be able to access money through thin wallets provided by 3rd parties.

Satoshi cited moores law in regards to blocksize scaling however this was factually incorrect, internet speeds and storage do not grow in line with moores law. BCH does not have a reliable scaling solution unless it is to become as centralized as something like ripple. Adding smart contracts and eth features will only exacerbate the issue by filling the blocks with data that isn't cash transfers. Additionally BCH will consume more blockspace per TX than BTC and the majority of altcoins as they removed segwit.

>> No.9441560
File: 27 KB, 300x295, 1519627925623.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


I didn't lie. I said it wouldn't scale, it can't scale. It's fucking garbage.

You piece of fucking kike shit.

>> No.9441573


Explain how large blocks cause 'memtralization'

Also explain how a private business utterly controlling every aspect of Bcore's development is not centralized.

>> No.9441582

> To reach Visa card levels of transactions the BCH network would be confined to massive data centers
That's a lie. Bandwidth analysis in question was done two years ago by Satoshi based on current capacity and it was doable even then. The hypothetical centralisation pressures coretards speculate on have no actual evidence at all and only even theoretically manifest at orders of magnitude above visa scale networks, whilst the very real empirical centralisation pressure that the lightning network represents is *how it is actually designed to work*.
Core was sabotaged and the only people still there are idiots or shills. End of story.

>> No.9441591

Ten years ago

>> No.9441601
File: 11 KB, 585x136, please_clap.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Lightning will never be able to function, has has already been proven
That's what you said. Here is LN functioning right now, not even the future, RIGHT NOW.
You're a dirty fucking liar. But that's expected from cashies.

>> No.9441622


Posting a pedophile's opinion isn't likely to sway mine, kike.

LN is not functioning right now.

>> No.9441628
File: 195 KB, 512x512, wrong.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>it's not a lie... muh $50 fees is a lie



>> No.9441632

LN is functioning right now.

>> No.9441674


Not correctly it isn't.
Devs are still actively dissuading people from using it due to transactions failing.

>> No.9441678
File: 3.80 MB, 1457x1031, used-to-use-bitcoin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>tfw you carry a raspberry pi full node around with battery backup and satellite uplink so you can maintain your open lightning channel so you don't lose your bitcoins

>> No.9441704

Yes correctly. Lightning network is working right now. There's nothing to debate.

>> No.9441714


LOL no it isn't. Just because a payment or two has been received via the network nodes makes it functional, you're very mistaken.

Having said that, the fact you need to remain online is absurd. The fact you need to store money in a channel and periodically close the channel causing two $50+ transactions is also extremely unfeasible.

Since Blockstream are well aware blocks must be larger to drop the cost of opening a channel the only solution is larger blocks, and as we're well aware that is simply not happening under any circumstance.

The only conclusion an intelligent person will see is LN is designed to fail to force a hardfork to something that closely represents the current banking system.

>> No.9441722

that says TESTNET on it tho

>> No.9441732


There isn't anything to debate. The kikening network is not functional.

>> No.9441768
File: 94 KB, 550x574, big bumble bee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I've read up on lightning and not only is it very complex to use compared to just using bitcoin itself, but transactions fails half the time and judging from how routing works it'll only get worse the more people that use it.

If anything I'm in the "depression" stage due to how much of a setback crypto has had being forced to wait for lightning. Then I'll move on to accepting that BTC will not recover.

>> No.9441812


There's nothing to get upset about yet, you can 6x your Bitcoin by selling Bcore atm. Although I would have expected Bitcoin to be worth 50k or more by now if it wasn't for Blockstream/AXA/Mastercard's meddling.

>> No.9441825

LN is *worse* than broken.
It's sabotage exactly as people are saying. LN transactions are designed to be centralised.
Look, you understand that if the core devs whose balls you do desperately want to gargle suddenly said "lightning actually can never work but also blockchains can never scale. So as a consequence we're going to keep the on chain throughput at 13.33kbps forever and whatever fees go to is what they go to, and we recommend the use of PayPal or mastercard as a second layer " that would obviously be sabotage right?
Those networks are no more centralised than LN, so why do you view artificial restriction of on chain throughput as acceptable in that context when it's the exact same fucking effect?

>> No.9441833
File: 200 KB, 1185x665, LN.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>LN is not centralized

>> No.9441870
File: 20 KB, 400x324, coffee3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

uh why is the number of channels different from what's listed on https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/lightning-network?orgId=1

also different from https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/

in fact none of the numbers match. what kind of network is lightning if you can't even measure it accurately...?

I sold 2 BTC for 20 BCH earlier. Still holding a few BTC but I'm actually on the fence whether or not I should convert those as well... Really don't see a future for BTC but I'd kill myself if it turns out I was wrong 5 years from now.

>> No.9441881
File: 115 KB, 1000x594, 1526220539546.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This can't be emphasized enough. Lightning was literally designed to be just as centralised as the rest of the banking networks.

>> No.9441882

bcash was a mistake

>> No.9441897

if technology was all that matter we would use ETH or literally any other altcoin instead of btc.
Bitcoin cash may be better than bitcoin (((core))) but it will never become Bitcoin and muh satoshis vision wont change it, no matter how hard you shill it. Just get over it.

>> No.9441933
File: 430 KB, 1583x2048, Why Bitcoin Cash Is Surging.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


I can understand that. I sold all my BTC even before segwit2x 'failed'. I could smell the writing on the wall a mile away.

I was actually disgusted hearing about this block size 'debate' back in 2015 and nearly sold everything it was so fucking ludicrous and obviously still is.

With all the projects in the BCH pipeline I just can't see a future where BTC is relevant anymore.

>> No.9441937
File: 1.27 MB, 1098x1086, 1524865645244.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.9441944

>no matter how hard you shill it
That's why BCH has a chance to win - the shilling is through the roof. It's probably the fastest growing crypto payment method

>> No.9441946

>Explain how large blocks cause 'memtralization'
>Also explain how a private business utterly controlling every aspect of Bcore's development is not centralized.
The challenges with keeping every node and miners synchronized with huge blocks is immense, you quickly reach a point where you need servers with SSDs in RAID or the entire chain loaded into ram just to be able to run the node. Ethereum has already reached the point where it pretty much has to be run off a SSD or the blocks are generated faster than the computer can catch up. Accessing the actual data is much more IO intensive and doesn't get anywhere near the peak transfer rates of storage.

With visa card level TX if a government decides to ban BCH you have no real chance of getting around it, you wont be able to turn on your PC and run a full node to bypass any ban on BCH servers. It's easy to test out, throw a few TB of pirated movies on a public server with no restrictions and see how long you can keep it online.

>> No.9442055


What size blocks would you suggest require centralized servers? A few petabyte blocks? Exabytes?

The fact is you can run gigabyte blocks in your average home PC today, without the coming BCH blockchain enhancements which allow a couple orders of magnitude larger blocks to be transferred worldwide without additional bandwidth or throughput requirements and you're what? Whining about an extra fucking megabyte? One fucking single megabyte? Fuck off you lying piece of shit.

>> No.9442057

>btc chain will be destroyed by BCH
>BCH will live forever
Come on, you're not even trying.

>> No.9442061

I run a fully verifying Ethereum node on a USB 2.0 hard disk. You people lie do fucking hard it's unbelievable. It's disgusting. It really speaks to the magnitude of desperation in your camp when you're just ready to spew trivially provably false nonsense like that.
You are so utterly fucked. And you deserve what's coming.

>> No.9442078

Not an argument.

>> No.9442120

>This can't be emphasized enough. Lightning was literally designed to be just as centralised as the rest of the banking networks.
Complaining about centralization while promoting BCH makes no sense, it's literally Roger Ver and Jihan coin. It's debatable which is worse but for the moment BCH offers no real decentralization. There's other altcoins with better scaling options and decentralization, if BCH users cared about either they would have been promoting those. Also having Roger and Jihan controlling your money makes dealing with bankers seem appealing in comparison.

>> No.9442126

With current tx/s and near future SSDs are not required.
By the time there are visa level transactions in crypto, SSDs will be dirt cheap.
It really comes down to this, we don't have to eternally run the network on computer hardware that we use today.

>> No.9442146

Scream all you want retards. Lightning network is functional right now. Enjoy your big empty blocks. They're about to get a lot emptier.

>> No.9442177

Wrong. It's the original architecture for the system based on miners validating peer to peer, you can deflect to personalities and try to character assassinate til the cows come home and it won't change the technical realities of the architectures a single iota. LN is designed to be centralised. Bitcoin is designed to be decentralised. End of story.

>> No.9442190
File: 104 KB, 906x698, bch mining.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


It's literally fake news. Pic related. No one controls Bitcoin (BCH).

Thanks for the shitpost

Here's the door >>>/hm/ leave faggot

>> No.9442219

The desperation of you sad fucks.

>> No.9442244


LN isn't functional. You're in a Bitcoin (BCH) thread posting your lies for either of two reasons:

1. You're an absolute corecuck & you're terrified of BCH.
2. You're paid to shitpost by Blockstream

There's literally no other reason for you to be here, I don't go into Chainlink/Vechain/ETH/etc threads and harass them because I literally do not care.

>> No.9442246

Gigabyte blocks on a home PC? Hmm

>> No.9442253

why would you buy bch now instead of waiting to buy in during next bull at 0.04 ish

>> No.9442332

well, i meant that it was pajeet-tier shilling
of course it is possible but very unlikely to happen

>> No.9442335


Thank me later.

Also stop acting like we're actually going to be filling gigabyte blocks by next Friday.

>> No.9442344

Post yfw bch is obsolete after the fork

>> No.9442373
File: 1.14 MB, 1920x1080, bikejump.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Maybe you know why the lightning network stats are different across three sites? Small deviations I'd understand but they aren't even in the same ballpark...

>> No.9442383

Also not an argument. You're just spewing nonsense. I'm done with you.

>> No.9442389

Where can I sell some bch domains?

>> No.9442425

>It's literally fake news. Pic related. No one controls Bitcoin (BCH).
>Thanks for the shitpost
No need to control mining when Roger can literally edit stuff during the constant hard forks. Having my BCH seized because I said bcash or something online isn't appealing. Eth has a similar problem, you're relying on them not to tamper during the fairly regular forks. At least Vitalik doesn't seem malicious, Roger appears disturbed while Jihan is ruthless and greedy, no sane person would trust either of them.

>> No.9442491

Relying on them not to tamper? On a public fucking ledger? You absolute stupid fucking cunt. The agents that sabotaged the core network tampered so hard they "mysteriously lost" 21 trillion USD and you are fearmongering about tampering on a globally distributed public network subject to audit by absolutely anybody?
You are clearly a paid shill. Nobody is actually this fucking stupid.

>> No.9442493

>Thank me later.
>Also stop acting like we're actually going to be filling gigabyte blocks by next Friday.
Internet speeds aren't even increasing in many places. You can't go around screaming BCH can scale to Visa levels then say "oh we can't actually do it now, maybe someone in the future might invent hardware that allows us to do it."

>> No.9442547


>Internet speeds aren't increasing in many places

Well fuck me let's cap the block size at 1mb for eternity. Jeez you really got me cornered with that argument corecuck

>> No.9442600

One block size increase in core would wipe out BCH forever, right?

>> No.9442620

What core network? BTC network has been running since satoshi forked it very early on in development. Of course you will be able to see if a public ledger is changed, what exactly are you going to do about it?

>> No.9442661

Core sucks donkeys - nobody wants it they are forced into accepting it for the time being, BCA$SH will change all that in due time

>> No.9442674

The core network presently consisting of the sabotaged fork of bitcoin trading under BTC.
And what you could do about it is sell all your stake and move it to a chain that doesn't tamper. Which is what you obviously fucking would do about it, which is in turn why it will never be done.

>> No.9442701

geez, why am I even trying to discuss? Then tell me why would miners completely abandon BTC? How low has btc price fall to make it happen? Why do you think there are not enough deluded corecucks who would keep btc alive until the next difficulty adjustment happen?

>> No.9442723

Because miners mine based on profitability. If the profitability for BTC drops at faster than about 7 percent per day, it will lose miners faster than the difficulty can adjust to account for them, and it will freeze. It's very simple and indisputable.

>> No.9442773

>Well fuck me let's cap the block size at 1mb for eternity. Jeez you really got me cornered with that argument corecuck
Core refusing to do 2mb or 8mb blocks was stupid, however endlessly scaling blocksize is a poor solution. I'm also uncertain if there was any legitimate need for for larger blocks at the moment, back in dec 17 when fees peaked it looked as though someone was spamming the network with low fee TX, they conspicuously stopped after the coinbase BCH listing failed to pump BCH. Increasing block size would not have much impact on malicious transactions clogging the network, it just becomes cheaper to spam.

>> No.9442803

>The core network presently consisting of the sabotaged fork of bitcoin trading under BTC.
As I said, the most recent BTC hardfork happened back when satoshi did one early in development. You seem confused.

>> No.9442836

I don't care what bullshit you're spinning. The soft fork changed the nature of the product, and the original non segwit chain ceased to exist, replaced by the segwit soft fork and the bch hard fork.

>> No.9442853
File: 84 KB, 1334x293, adqakc6dq9901.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.9442948

Bitcoin Cash is everything Bitcoin should be. Bitcoin failed as a world currency for everyone. If you believe in financial freedom, Bitcoin Cash is worth looking into.

>> No.9442961
File: 199 KB, 768x582, BCH coins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>The Bitcoin Cash blockchain is currently operating at 15.63% of the Bitcoin (BTC)'s difficulty.
last time i checked this page it was 10%. higher difficulty means more miners have switched over.
>It is currently 1.1% more profitable to mine on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.
the higher that number it is the higher chance of a miner jumping over to the BCH chain

>> No.9442969

> eight years ago, an intelligent man made the point that bitcoin could not scale on chain to *every single transaction made in any medium or form for any purpose at all, every, for all the foreseeable future including micro, nano and other transaction volume*
> therefore we need to permanently limit the capacity to no greater than 13.333 kbps and build a second layer that forces all other transactions into the hands and networks of the exact parties whom bitcoin was created to destroy.
Kill yourself.

>> No.9443050

>I don't care what bullshit you're spinning. The soft fork changed the nature of the product, and the original non segwit chain ceased to exist, replaced by the segwit soft fork and the bch hard fork.
You can still use non-segwit programs and addresses as before. Reality doesn't care about your feels.

>> No.9443060

Digibyte is everything Bitcoin cash should be. Bitcoin cash failed as a world currency for everyone. If you believe in financial freedom, Digibyte is worth looking into.

>> No.9443094


Valid transactions are not spam no matter how many kikes tell you otherwise.

>> No.9443095

Minus the capacity for the sabotaged segwit transactions, amplifying the sabotage of the previous legitimate transactions. The sabotaged transactions even get a discount.
Reality doesn't care about your feels. Your shitcoin is sabotaged. Deal with it.

>> No.9443220

They're extremely easy to spot, they're tiny transactions with thousands of outputs to bloat the space they occupy. I have seen the same used on BCH, you don't expect me to believe the time it was mining full 8mb blocks was just due to high demand do you?

These sabotaged transactions, have many failed or been hacked?

>> No.9443238

Btc small blocks cant even handle spam. Lmao imagine if a government attacked bitcoin this way. All they would have to do is clog up the network. They have the money to do it.

>> No.9443311
File: 126 KB, 1094x872, 1526063425977.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Yes, lightning transactions fail all the time, even coretards make fun of themselves for it. And yes, it's possible to hack segwit by simply forcing a hard fork between the segwit and non segwit sides of the softfork chain. Segwit nodes will not accept the transactions as valid and will fork off, pre segwit nodes will accept them as valid because to them they just look like anyone can spend transactions.
Further, the nature of LN as a second layer that holds custody of funds means that any vulnerabilities in that layer persist automatically over to the sabotaged primary layer.
In conclusion just more evidence you have no idea what's going on.

>> No.9443339

Big blocks don't prevent spam, if you control a large amount of mining you can spam to make money, you recover a portion of the fees spent spamming and the full blocks mean users pay dramatically higher fees as they fight for priority. Preventing mining centralization is the only real solution.

>> No.9443369

Yeah, sure thing, try to spam BCH and see how far you get.

>> No.9443396


I don't recall asking how many inputs a transaction has. If a fee was paid the transaction was valid, end of fucking story.

>> No.9443417
File: 81 KB, 630x630, 1524360605863.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Its funny how Bcash virgins are know making shitty knock offs of Bitcoin's memes and arguments. I saw one with the one from the matrix but with Bcash used instead. And now Calling it Bcore.

Come up with something original for once.

You will never dethrone the Chad Bitcoin

you are just being scammed by a Chinese man more shady than Sunny Lu and and the ManChild Ver.

Fuck off Rajeet.

>> No.9443437

Seeing as BTC hasn't hardforked I take it the segwit transactions haven't failed or been hacked? I'm not sure what lightning has to do with it, there's nothing to suggest BTC will be hardforked to exclude non lightning payments. Even if it were to happen there's no way to force users to abandon the existing chain, such a fork could only happen with large scale support from users, miners and exchanges.

>> No.9443441


Your non-argument has already been countered, Rajeet.

Refer to: >>9442190

>> No.9443443

it would be extremely simple to write a script that just sends low fee low amount transactions from one address in my wallet to another address in my wallet.

>> No.9443448

What's funny is this level of cope you cheap pleb fuck.

>> No.9443461

Literally happened a few months ago someone filled the 8mb blocks for a while. Anyone can do it, write a script that sends 1 sat transactions with 10,000 outgoing addresses for 0 fee.

>> No.9443483

Wrong. It could happen with a simple majority of the pre segwit total node hashing power. It would hard fork off all pre segwit nodes and they would be out of consensus with the post segwit nodes.

>> No.9443514

Lies. It was tried for a very short period, had no effect, quickly subsided.

>> No.9443785

No shit, but the effects would be negligible

>> No.9443857
File: 1.93 MB, 3472x2465, jaws ad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>0 fee
anyone can spam BTC with transactions with 0 fees as well but they won't be saved in the mempool or even relayed across the network

just like on the Bitcoin Cash network. contrary to popular belief it does actually cost 1 sat per byte to store a transaction

feel free to spam BCH and fill the 32 MB blocks, it'll only cost you *64500 USD per day (46.08 BCH in transfer fees per day)

*= gives your transactions the same chance to enter the blocks as legit transactions, so you'd realistically have to spend 129000 USD per day in order to increase the BCH fee to a whopping 3 satoshis per byte

>> No.9443917

There's no point in trying to explain to these people how 1mb blocks is a weakness and will ultimately lead to centralization because of market/adoption loss.

>> No.9443969
File: 42 KB, 620x350, girlfriend barcode.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Just six more blocks now until the update goes live.

>> No.9444032

New ATH soon.

>> No.9444225

Careful, these people are malevolent toxic saboteurs, it's very likely they're going to try fuck up the hard fork. Watch the legitimate upgraded hash rate closely.

>> No.9444230

I'm guessing one of the miners is going to fill a 32mb block or at least push one over 8mb by spamming some transactions right? Exciting stuff.

>> No.9444485

they fucked it up, as expected. roger foaming at the mouth right about now

>> No.9444560
File: 20 KB, 409x409, comfyasfuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>When the coretards finally fuck off leading to better discussion
>When core kicks the bucket, finally letting the cryptospace grow into a full fledged market. BCH at 50k+ because no fee market

Feels good lads

>> No.9444837

someone will certainly fill a 32mb block just to test it or to show it can be done for the luls

>> No.9444943

3 more blocks....

Everyone ready for a new king?

>> No.9444998
File: 45 KB, 442x428, hank.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

always good to test

>> No.9445146
File: 217 KB, 603x427, Screen Shot 2018-05-15 at 1.35.06 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Adam back admitting Blockstream Coin's purpose is to sell side chains. No wonder they wanted the keep the blocks size low.

Such rertarded-ness at an ATH.

In the attached image he even says side chains can't scale. LOL.

>> No.9445158


corecucks on suicide watch.

>> No.9445210
File: 27 KB, 290x408, goofy3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Man, gotta love Peter Rizun's voice. I always start of thinking he's pretending until I remember that he actually always talks like that.


>> No.9445292
File: 142 KB, 537x416, memes were a mistake.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

hm 40 minutes since the last block. almost starting to get a little worried.

this is true:
more people should see it

>> No.9445375

it just hit, 3hr average went from 6 to 4.33

>> No.9445409


>> No.9445411
File: 1.77 MB, 1280x720, sweat.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

it's almost like a lot of miners stopped their rigs last hour just to troll people

>> No.9445419

4 minute block, short block after long block to return to mean, so ... expected.

>> No.9445437

https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate looks regular as clockwork to me.

>> No.9445470
File: 89 KB, 925x727, dcSdKyA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.9445471

1 more block

>> No.9445477


>> No.9445558
File: 135 KB, 487x600, irrelephant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

last one was mined 10 minutes ago. this is it lads, hold onto something

>> No.9445583
File: 114 KB, 1016x944, motherfuckinwicks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.9445596


>> No.9445704
File: 26 KB, 920x751, bchgang.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

lets all play
to fill the block up

only do the 1000x bets ;)

>> No.9445722

>5 min

>> No.9445784

I'm looking for any weird sudden enormous activity, I assumed that smaller scale would make it more obvious, I'm more technical than finance, is there a reason I'm missing why that would actually be wrong?

>> No.9445830

Block just happened lads

Says so on my electron wallet

>> No.9445866

>The Bitcoin Cash network has now been upgraded!


>> No.9445870
File: 109 KB, 720x484, chocolate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


Make a transaction now to be part of history.

>> No.9445880
File: 54 KB, 480x360, Dump it.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>The fork happened?
>Claimed all forked coins

>> No.9445921
File: 1.92 MB, 280x211, 1525301403665.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>forked coins

>> No.9445958

Finally, now BCH needs to get listed on Gemini then we can start to BTFO BTC.

>> No.9445990

Let's not suck each other's dicks yet gentlemen.
The real test is what does the hashpower do now there is an actual divergence in the consensus rules.
If we're all good it should stay stable around 5 exahash.

>> No.9446036

Doesn't hashpower mostly just follow profitability?

Speaking of which BTC has only mined 1 block in the last hour! lul


>> No.9446092

Yes, when choosing between two liquid cryptos on an exchange, hash power will match profitability given the DAA equilibrium between BCH and BTC. *But* if someone is being a subversive cunt, as core have been known to be, they might throw some hash power at the old chain in order to confuse SPV wallets for example into following that one, rather than the new chain with the updated consensus rules, if they can dedicate say 2.7EH to that then they could fool SPV wallet while they keep it up.
Or, who knows what other kinds of potential attacks they might have up their sleeves.
They desperately want us to fail and they have proven themselves not above just plain lying (see http://bitcoinclashic.org/)

>> No.9446163

Ah I see. Well in that case they'd need to act fast, right? Because after a few blocks it gets insanely harder to attack.

>> No.9446203

Nope, the method I'm speculating on actually relies on writing to the "ended" side of the chain, what would otherwise have no activity on it has activity on it and keeps mining blocks and minting coins and processing transactions just as normal, so when an SPV wallet looks around for a node with "the most completed proof of work" if that side of the chain still has the most, the SPV wallet will think that is the legitimate chain, despite all the exchanges and mining pools and full nodes knowing better. It won't matter how many blocks get mined on the actual legitimate chain for that attack.
If it happens, the sign will be dropping block emission rate on the legitimate chain and thus dropping hash rate and lowered observed difficulty.

>> No.9446204
File: 431 KB, 554x724, funny57.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

lulz, the block after was mined too quickly. only 6 transactions made it into that block.

>> No.9446249
File: 172 KB, 950x535, chill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The most anti-BCH early adopter I know still holds all his BCH from the fork, he just wouldn't convert his BTC into more BCH.
Most of the others are all in or close to all in BCH.

>> No.9446303

Core attackers can't do this without leaving their own chain vulnerable and also such an attack would cost them money as well. I won't say it isn't possible, but I don't think anyone would be interested in doing it because the incentives fuck them all up.

>> No.9446396
File: 35 KB, 598x308, xa71uovqkuw01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

STFU and start using it.

>> No.9446406

Well, I was hoping for a massive pump and nothing happened.

Just sold.

>> No.9446445

2.7EH would not leave their chain that vulnerable. It would certainly cost, but it might be worth it to attack an existential threat.
There doesn't appear to be a drop in the block emission rate anyway, it's going back up to the mean given the 4.33 average just before the fork. So we're probably safe.

>> No.9446555
File: 375 KB, 1250x1600, Pinochet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.9446615
File: 91 KB, 800x800, Moltenpepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>No pump

>> No.9446677

Well the whole market is down and this wasn't a cash grab "get your forked coins" scheme. This is better for long term growth and stability imo.

>> No.9446703


>> No.9446716

I'm still going with my long term prediction that BCH will drop to at least 5% of the value of BTC in around 20 days from now. Screencap this all you want.

>> No.9446755


>> No.9446756

>payment sent

What did he mean by this?

>> No.9446768


he sounds like yogi bear

>> No.9446875

holy fuck people are abusing the op_codes to freeze addresses like what happened to ethereum parity wallet problem dear sir yes my dears

>> No.9446902
File: 32 KB, 500x500, holy shit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

wow, BCH price has already climbed 45%

>> No.9446936

>Core attackers can't do this without leaving their own chain vulnerable
LMAO Bitcoin has nearly 10 times more hashpower than bcash, bcash could be 100%ed, never mind 51%, and Bitcoin wouldn't even notice the drop in rate.

>> No.9446983

proof pls. Otherwise you and the other coretards can fuck off.

>> No.9447003


Bitcoin is Bitcoin (BCH). Bcash is some kikery nickname for some altcoin.

>> No.9447064


>> No.9447072

BitcoinCash is an altcoin.

>> No.9447087


You're mistaken. Bitcoin Cash is unironically the real Bitcoin.

>> No.9447105

No chance, that would definitely provoke a response from bitmain, and would probably end up fucking them completely as a result.

>> No.9447134

so bcash continues to drift further and further away from satoshi's actual vision.

at what point do bcash late adopters stop trying to convince people that bcash is anything resembling what satoshi actually designed?

>> No.9447137

the incentive isn't there.

>> No.9447143

>2 confirmations

Lying Corefaggots will be hung from the lamp posts.

>> No.9447148

> cites a failure to properly set Ethereum permissions as happening on bitcoin.
Yeah you're a slow one aren't you?

>> No.9447150

Please post proof that would make my day
Ok retards CMC says Bitcoin is worth $8500. I'll sell you BCH right now for 7k. That's a bargain right?

>> No.9447160

They forked off BTC.
Makes Bcash an altcoin.

>> No.9447169

>satoshi created the opcodes
>satoshi wanted onchain and offchain scaling

>> No.9447176

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>> No.9447213

No that's Segwit, small brain.

>> No.9447223


Bcore forked off from Bitcoin. Bitcoin upgraded to Bitcoin Cash, otherwise known as Bitcoin (BCH).

I think you need to step away from the computer and the turds at /r/bitcoin who've filled your mind with horseshit.

>> No.9447226


>> No.9447228
File: 1.14 MB, 1106x1012, pepelooking.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]



Thank god. It's not a useless pile of banker funded shit.

>> No.9447560
File: 43 KB, 575x1024, Dc1dXkBWAAA8uuk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Bcore forked off from Bitcoin. Bitcoin upgraded to Bitcoin Cash, otherwise known as Bitcoin (BCH).
Yes Roger that's totally how it happened. No one will ever take BCH seriously when proponents keep outright lying. Hopefully the stupid slap fight kills both BTC and BCH, they're both shitcoins anyway.

>> No.9447625

The irony of accusing the opponents of dishonesty on a thread full of your side spouting provable lies, some of which you yourself are guilty of.
Jew harder.

>> No.9447683
File: 2.38 MB, 2918x2901, 1526411735117.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.9447885
File: 49 KB, 400x400, 1962israel100shekelrev400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Good goy, continue your autistic battle and drag each other down while I short using leveraged derivatives. I will allow you to gaze upon my cyber-shekels as a reward.

>> No.9448000

BCH forked at
>block 478559 (see also size: 1.9 MB)
>August 1
Then Segwit got activated on
>August 23

>> No.9448214
File: 2.25 MB, 600x300, 1526166215979.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Friendly reminder to Gas the Kikes, Race War Now

>> No.9448290
File: 237 KB, 360x202, baited4.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


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