/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>29940003
Your faggy little raspberry pi can't stop miners with actual hash from doing anything to the network. Only other miners with hash can as it's literally their job.

Now kys immediately.

>>18718933
I trust economics and incentives. Like it or not, you do to.

>>17406492
So you admit that listening nodes do nothing in this process. Miners keep each other in check. They do this, not because the are good people, but because they want to get paid.

>>17376813
What's wrong with using external data for smart contracts? How the fuck else are you suppose to do anything?

What's wrong with incentives to keep data providers honest? Incentives are the entire mechanism to keep Bitcoin honest.

>>16965825
The way it's headed is not looking good. There is nothing for businesses to build on because it's too expensive and slow to transact with. Price will continue to drop or stagnate. Since there is no throughput and a low price coupled with the halvening the security drops off. On BTAX we're seeing a cartel of miners tax the profits of everyone in the system. The more the hash falls on BTC the easier these cartels will be to form.

Instead what should have happened was scaling so not only would we have a higher price, but vastly more utility and business interest. If mining was that much more profitable, business could actually build then we'd be seeing a 50-100k Bitcoin right now. With that kind of dosh up for grabs mining would be far less centralized in China. The profits in such a system are simply too fucking good to ignore and we'd see more than just corporate interest, but governmental interest as well. Imagine that. Good luck getting the governments of the world to cartel up into one body and change the rules of the system. They'd tell all the other miners to go fuck themselves and just enforce the fucking rules instead of change them for once. Maybe some day.

>>16965853
>nigga
>business don't care about tx fees

Wrong on so many levels.

>>16965861
>>16965863
Because it's a shit solution. Just unbound the blocks. Problem solved.

>>16833517
>the bigger the blocks the more your blockchain becomes centralized because nobody can afford to run a node

Listening nodes contribute nothing to the network. Hobbyists are irrelevant. If you want to compete, compete. Otherwise just be a user like the rest of us.

Nobody runs a node unless they can make money from it. That is how Bitcoin is designed. If you can't make money from storing and servicing the blockchain then you're irreverent. Miners are kept honest by economics. Read the whitepaper.

>>16270970
Good luck with that. The only people who could destroy BSV aren't interested in doing so.

>>16266351
I trust competing miners to one up each other for money more than a set of developers creating conditions to keep themselves in power.

>>16120329
pic*

>>16111516
This isn't even worth refuting. Come back when you have a basic understand of incentives.

>>16103858
>Game theory bruh lern
but if I don't watch the game with my """F U L L N O D E""" the math that keeps miners honest doesn't apply.

>>16052339
>implying miners profit from this

lmao at your life

What does /biz/ think of economic incentives?

>>16007538
>miners have been proven to be altruistic or benevolent a few times. it's just we should never count on them doing so
We don't. We count on them making money.

>the moment we have to it's fucked.
agreed

No amount of laptops is going to change this.

>>15948520
>all this REEEE and no explanation of how miners magically add transactions to blocks without broadcasting or why other miners allow it to happen

kys my man

>>15769351
Everything about BSV screams Bitcoin more than the other two forks. So I'm either retarded or one standard deviation above.

>>15769354
I haven't clicked sell, but I'm sure its nowhere near others. I started buying after the delisting, but bought more on the way up because fomo. So really not too red, but red enough to feel it.

>>15769460
I still hold a little BCH. I'm spread across the 3 forks, but BCH is my smallest of the 3. I left BCH for the same reasons I left BTC. They're trying to do command control economics. I just a locked protocol with unlimited scaling, where miners compete and the market decides what is appropriate.. This shit where devs make major decisions and protocol changes is antithetical to Bitcoin/free markets.

>>15769491
I want creg to go away. He has some good insights on Bitcoin, but he's not why I'm here. Until he proves he's stoj, he's doing more harm than good being so public. If he's not (and there is plenty of reason to believe he isn't) then this entire stunt is the dumbest shit in the world.

Friendly reminder that a block reorg on BTC is actually a dangerous thing. Unlike Bitcoin, BTC has full blocks which means the transactions that got through before the reorg may not have gotten through after the reorg. On Bitcoin this is literally a feature not a flaw and in the event of a reorg nobody cares because the blocks don't ever get full and all transactions go through.

>>14652372
>served up by 1 maybe 2 giant server farms?
Where do people get these ideas? You faggots literally have no idea what the mining industry is or how it competes.

>>14147179
>competing for space on the next block

What an utter dogshit concept. The only people who should be competing on Bitcoin are the miners who receive a monetary incentive to do so. Making users compete for nothing in return and no added value to the network (like security) is pants on head retarded.

>>13559355
>in every which way
>yet can't give a single example

Do you even know what metanet is? Bitcoin (pre core) had a bunch of useful op codes and allowed for all kinds of different transactions. Bitcoin never restricted the data stored in the blockchain to just cash transactions. It always had the ability to build applications and contracts ontop of it. None of which alter the protocol. All SV is doing is restoring op codes, removing shit core added, and scaling. Everyone else like unwriter are just building apps ontop. This doesn't effect the protocol, incentives, security, etc at all.

>>13558686
Because economics. Its also not just a few miners.

>>13558710
Miners have control on BTC as well. Just because they've accepted retarded shit from Core doesn't change that.

>>13439076
You have no argument. All you're saying is your node that has limp dick hashpower is important, when its not. If you want to matter and make a difference on the network get some fucking hashpower. Otherwise stfu because nobody is taking the bait.

>I've given you many scenarios where if what you said is true, miners can do whatever they want but they don't
I never said miners can do w/e they want. Keep strawmaning me, niggerfaggot. You obviously don't understand the incentives scheme behind bitcoin or how the whole system is made trustless in the first place.

>>13427553
Someday you'll understand how mining works. Although I can't help but believe you're an unironic shill.

>>13421293
Why even have miners, amirite?