/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11789603
> I think you've been drinking more than I have.
That's wrong. I'm not drinking at all, you've clearly been drowning your sorrows.
> Sustained hashpower is the only hashpower that cares.
That's laughably wrong. Sustained hashpower on BTC has loudly announced it doesn't care in the slightest.
> Rented hashpower is
Effectively all hashpower is rented, because the economically rational play on any hashpower is to simply mine whatever is paying the highest immediate returns.
> ou are like Hillary Clinton. Corrupt as fuck, yet taking the moral high ground.
Says the guy literally cheerleading for a sadder, more s'oy version of HC who presents as having a cock and is constantly ranting about how we need to get on our knees and suck the dick of the state. No thank you very much, that's not why I entered this space ten years ago, and I'm not about to bend the knee now because fuckheads like you and him demand it.
> Behind the scenes SV scaling is outpacing ABC
That's wrong. CTOR gives a higher scale ceiling for onchain transactions than the absence thereof, period.

>>9611881
> 51% attack is irrelevant on bitcoin (BTC) in this context because it has 90+% of the sha-256 hashrate.
> BCH has a HUGE risk of miners attacking it the same way BTG was attacked.
You absolute fucking retard, pic related, you don't even understand the territory you're in.

>>9531541

>>9519983
Institutional money doesn't decide the fate of BTC, the miners do. They don't like BTC.

BCH.

What I mean by "minority POW" is when a political council of economic actors decides that they want to enforce a set of consensus rules, no matter how large that council is if they don't have more than the majority of POW in a given algorithm on board with those changes. The big case in point for this would be Bitcoin core, as it's a well known fact that the vast majority of POW is hostile to their consensus rules, and the only reason they survive at all is because said POW hasn't seen fit to destroy them at this stage.
First off, why is this desirable? Why should some small political council be able to enforce their consensus rules, no matter how ridiculous they are, over the objections of the global distributed POW that could otherwise mine their chain? I won't dedicate a lot of time to this one other than to observe that it already is somewhat possible simply by switching the POW algorithm to something else. If people see fit to implement a set of consensus rules in their economic bloc, no matter how idiotic they are, there is no reason they should not have the technical means to do that, even if the inevitable result is that the market values their instrument poorly based on the idiocy of those consensus rules.
(c)

I see we're still living rent free in your heads.
I guess you would be too in mine if you were a threat to our existence rather than silly digital beanie baby nonsense.

>>9503510
Quite the opposite.

>>9502905
>muh bcore, but BCH is worth less and it's legit blah blah blah

I've been saying this for months. The only reason the miners are mining BTC, is to use the profits to gather as much BCH as possible and take it off the market.

>thanks for the free BCH corecucks

>>9501835
No. Bcore will be shown no mercy and we will destroy all of you. Every single fucking one of you.

>>9497401
They were mocking bcore.

>>9498719
I would say that is very accurate.

See attached. Kek.