/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11975789
You're fucking retarded.

>>11975799
why tho?
isnt that what forks are, miners deciding on the protocol?

>>11975813
No, software developers make the fork. Miners support the network if they want.
If the limit was changed it would be bitcoin in name only and people might not mine it, let alone use it for transactions.

Also
>Posting Uchemba

>>11975836
so it could, enough miners would just have to agree.
then the exchanges just go with the one with most hashrate.

>>11975859
Sure.
But people might not want to adopt the new fork, even if it has the most hashrate. Then it has no value.

No be ause user nodes are more important than miners. Miners are just payed security guards by the users. You can see from uasf that user and nodes can refuse blocks from miners. Thus miners mining for no reason. Only way the 21m limit changes is if there is consenus in userbase and node count. Not miners. Users are the deciding factor, running software at home and no1 tells you which software to run.

There's no profit in wasting hashpower on an invalid chain. Pow is only used for determining the longest valid chain. If two valid blocks are found at the same height, then eventually one chain will be longer and the other block gets orphaned. That's all that pow does, there's no social contract that says "we'll change the rules if there's another chain with different rules and more pow", or else bch would be dead.

>>11975789
The current btc chain would still exist exactly as is. A fork creates a new chain. You would keep your current bitcoins, of which there will only ever be 21mil. So, no.

>>11975789
I know shes supposed to be attractive but....ughhhh

>>11975789
https://medium.com/@super.crypto1/end-of-21-million-bitcoins-as-you-know-it-792e08cf3b24
:o

>>11976408
Gay?

>>11975789
Deflationary asset that over time, less = more in value. It will be harder to mine and the reward per block decreases every 4 years. Bitcoin can be beaten, but never destroyed. BTC is not a good form of money for purchasing small items on the go like coffee. Its mining is centralized and whales manipulate the prices everyday. It is no longer a decentralized currency only known to cypherpunks. It's going to be a government controlled medium of exchange once it reaches the trillions in market cap.

BTC is still Bitcoin. You don't have tp use lightning network and your coins will be confirmed. In one way, as long as you know nodes will connect and miners will mine blocks, the chain will stay alive. Ethereum is a better choice for smartcontracts.

>>11975789
Fork is a copy/paste OP, there can only be one original BTC and only 21mil, no one can change that, not the miners, not the developers, no one. BCH and others are copies, imo scams designed to steal real btc and give you worthless shit in exchange.
BTC is king, same as gold, silver can never replace gold

>>11976431
fractional reserve BTC lightning network incoming.

already been done////////////////////////

This is an opinion.
There are a lot more than 21 million bitcoin
If Bitcoin’s value is based on limited supply, with no more than 21 million in circulation, how do you think another 184 billion bitcoin would affect the price?
(Hint: Bitcoin’s price would be much lower.)
184 Billion Bitcoin Heist
On August 14, 2010, hackers created 184 billion counterfeit bitcoin (BTC), which the hackers sent to two addresses, and are now untraceable. According to the official story, the hack was identified, code was rewritten, and blockchain rebooted within just five hours, stranding the 184 billion bitcoin in cyberspace without the requisite 120 confirmations for inclusion into the blockchain. Satoshi and the early bitcoin development team took quick action. As a result of their efforts, they maintained the cap of 21 million and laid the foundation for future growth and global adoption.
There’s just one huge $3 quadrillion problem with this story – the 184 billion bitcoin are real, they exist in someone’s wallet, and are just waiting to be laundered back into the system.
A Bitcoin For Your Troubles
Imagine your doorbell rings. Standing on your porch is a man in a black trench coat and striped fedora. In his right hand, he holds a black inconspicuous looking briefcase. “It’s full of $100 bills – $10,000,000 in total,” he says with a thick accent. He continues, “It’s real money – and I want you to help me spend it.”
Your mind races: “How’d he get this money? Money laundering? Drugs? Human trafficking?!? And now he wants me to help him spend it? Why me? I can’t do this! But…it’s $10,000,000.” Your thoughts drift, “I could do so much…”

>>11975789
in theory if everyone agrees sure. if miners try to force the issue the majority may or may not go with it if most people sell their forked coin for shits it will be unprofitable to mine it and miners can throw out their equipment. as for how smart the 21 million coin limit is i don't know. there will always be coins lost if there is no new suppl we should do something about recovering lost coins. miners should be able to take block rewards from unspent outputs over a few decade old. that would solve the lost coin issue and all you have to do is transact once a decade to keep your coins forever.

The point is that while the “stranded” 184 billion bitcoin are quite literally off the chain, as the saying goes, they’re as real as the money in your pocket. If someone gives you a briefcase full of money and then erases the transaction from their books (like rewriting the blockchain ledger), the briefcase full of money still exists whether or not it’s accounted for on the ledger. The real challenge now is how to put the 184 billion bitcoin, like the briefcase full of dirty bills, back into circulation without detection.
Money Laundering Bitcoin Style: “Segregated Witness”
On August 23, 2017, after two years of debate, Bitcoin officially adopted Segregated Witness, a technology that was arguably designed to boost blockchain capacity.However, much of the developer community felt so strongly that the security compromise outweighed the purported benefits of SegWit that they forked a new currency called Bitcoin Cash on August 1st, 2017. Bitcoin Cash forked ahead of the SegWit adoption in order to preserve the intended purpose of Bitcoin as a decentralized, secure currency.
So why did the developers oppose SegWit?
This excellent Bitcrust post explains that SegWit shifts the incentives to miners away from verifying transaction signatures – which creates the opportunity for aforementioned mystery hackers to spend their 184 billion bitcoin.
If the miners no longer validate transaction signatures, then it doesn’t matter that transaction 74638 failed to achieve the requisite 120 confirmations. Just like our briefcase of dirty money, these counterfeit bitcoin can be spent like any other provided that someone helps them spend it.
Miners: A Conflict of Interest

>>11975789
yes,
yes,
yes.
That's why the most important feature of any currency is governance. How the rules are changed is more important than what the rules are.

>>11976491
>There’s just one huge $3 quadrillion problem with this story – the 184 billion bitcoin are real, they exist in someone’s wallet, and are just waiting to be laundered back into the system.
no nigga bitcoins are not in wallets. if it's not on the ledger it doesn't exist (assuming any of that story is true).

>>11976519
>Money Laundering Bitcoin Style: “Segregated Witness”
ooooh, best bitcoin conspiracy ive heard

>>11976555
dunno man it's lame as fuck

>>11976561
more likely than bitcoin AI or nsa creating bitcoin

>>11976489
don't worry whoever made that up doesn't understand how lightning works. to send out bitcoins they have to come from somewhere if they don't come from an other node they come from the hub. for the recipient it doesn't matter.

the real problem with lightning is setting up and settling the channels is still too expensive, the btc 1mb block limit won't allow it to even function medium term assuming they can really get it to work and scale up to demand. which means btc requires a hardfork to increase blocksize anyhow. which will start the entire shitshow again.

It's a revolutionary idea.
But it needs adjustment. The fundamentals are sound, but even Satoshi couldn't predict the outcome.
He even called it v0.1 upon release.
> supply is too low. Boomer will not pay with 0.00000001 BTC pajeet can easily scam for 10-100x money with this system.
> Coin emission is too low to cover mining cost, so in order to keep it profitable fees have to rocket.
These are fundamental shortcomings. Aside from all the scaling and second layers.

>>11976571
yeah i loved the bitcoin ai... the human brain has a processing capacity of 20 million billion bits per sec roughly the neurons don't exactly fire digitally it's closer to an analog bit these are spikes and the intensity and frequency matters but whatever. so most people are pretty dumb right they couldn't plot to take over the world with all this capacity. but an ai that goes with 7 tx/sec can do before the sun gets cold form a coherent though? hehehehehehehe.

>>11976624
A blockchain dedicated to that, maybe can become an ai. bitcoin is just currency.

>>11976687
an ai would be greatly hindered by blockchain if not impossible to base it on. neural nets are the closest constructs we have for learning and intelligence. if you tell someone that coded or worked with a neural net before that blockchain could be used for such a construct he would laugh at you most likely or spit his coffee at least.

>>11977080
If you have an AI that alters its own code, you'd want to leave some base layer of code that's immutable. and a blockchain is a great data structure for that

>>11976519
How does segregated witness work again? What’s he supposed to be witnessing? And why is he being segregated

>>11977158
first of all no you dont want it to alter its code the descision tree may be adaptable
but it carries the risk of getting stuck on indirect logic loops if you dont severely restrict it

second the blockchain has no valid role in any of it anyhow

>>11977176
segregated witness removes the public keys and signatures from the block only keeps the hash of the witness in the block itself

>>11975789
Shes sexy af

>>11977214
I don't consider it real AI if all you have is a decision tree. the singularity happens when you get an AI that generates new AI

>>11977240
sorry remembered wrong the pub keys stay only the signature is separated

>>11975789
Oh brainlets...
What will you come up with next?

>>11977253
descision trees are required for real time finite descision making for now its not a true ai i agree

>>11976534
My god, someone with the absolute truth. A rare find around here.

>>11976460
>Ethereum is a better choice for smartcontracts.
yea but we are here to make money, not to jerk off to some stupid smart contracts or dapps

>>11977509
>here to make money not jerk off
Jesus Christ newfag, did you just discover /biz/ today?

>>11977531
all I'm saying is that there is like 100x more upside for bitcoin as its competitors are gold and eventually FIAT currencies, what is the upside for ethereum? it's a fucking joke I don't care how great of an idea it is, it's an inflationary shitcoin only used for a few ponzi games

>>11975915
Increasing hash rate means adoption though. Competing miners increases hash rate and makes it cheaper for users. Decentralized and secure.

>>11976408
Cock sucker

>>11975789
nothing can change on bitcoin, every fork is contentious lmao

>>11976602
They understand how lightning works.
You don't.
You think a protocol level feature will protect you from colluding central hubs, which the protocol requires in order to function because that's how routed networks work; they have fucking centralised hubs.
You're wrong, stupid, and fucking annoying.
Fuck off.

>>11975789
where is that chick from, she cute

>>11975789

Of course it can be changed. Buttcorn is code, and code can always be changed.

Code is law only until rich people are about to lose their money. See THE DAO for the true power of unstoppable iron will code and smart contracts in action.

Bitcoin has been changed many times to unfuck reorgs, recursive attacks, and basic bitch bugs. Even if you don't change the meme 21 million corn limit, you can always fork it forever.

We're up to 2000+ altcoins already.

Also, every single thing about every single blockchain can be changed. But you will know it is being changed, and you can choose how you respond, and this is true for every other user of the chain also, which in turn is a policing mechanism that dictates how the chain will develop. This policing mechanism isn't perfect, it can most easily be subverted through lying to people (because people are fucking stupid) and bribing actors in the system, but at the end of the day even a tiny fraction of the chain who sees through all the bullshit can go right on without the rest of them and build the ledger that actually delivers global peer to peer electronic cash no matter what. It is impossible to stop them.
And if they succeed, they will change the world.

>>11979243
Bsv terranodes will be central hubs. What's stopping tge terra nodes from colluding again?

>>11979243
idiot, what do you not understand on that nobody can set up a channel with made up tokens? and if a channel only has real bitcoins locked in then you can only transact real bitcoins at every point of the graph. even if two hubs hub start routing imaginary bitcoins somehow between each other they take on the entire risk of that shitshow because the endpoints don't accept bitcoins that are not on the ledger. it would be like them lending on faith. not that ln works like that but i guess they could change it for hubs to be able to lend money.

>>11979969
hmm come to think of it you could probably put a 3rd layer on top of ln that acts as a trustful settlement for large hubs that know each other that can temporarily go into negative balance (which ln or btc addresses can't). if the end points only use ln, they are not at any risk any coin they receive the last hub has locked in on the ledger. for the hubs it would be like a futures contract somewhat. yeah maybe this could increase the throughput.

>>11975789
yes but then you would get a forked shitcoin

>>11980066
last time the majority of users went with the majority of miners (because it means security and prospects for the networks future). it's a sad trend that will likely continue up to the point where the miners cross the line so bad the userbase just spits and goes to an other crypto.

>>11975789
Oh the retardation in this post. Op please never post again, it’s for your own good. Mods can delete this now

>>11979969
Useless stupid fuckhead, what do you not understand about the fact that you can't fucking prevent multiple colluding central large volume hub nodes running a con on the external network from doing whatever the fuck they like until it exceeds the bounds of total outstanding locked coins visible from non colluding nodes? If they want to run fractional reserve in the shadows, there's fuck all you can do about it until they overdo it enough to cause a run to the chain. And if they fucking do that guess what? Your pleb ass was priced out of the market so they'll settle on chain first while the value of the asset is cratering from their scam and you'll get left holding less purchasing power by the time you can afford to sell your fucking worthless bags because everyone finally understands bitcoin was worthless from the moment lightning was shoehorned in.
Fuck me just use your fucking brain and think about the security model and topology and think how you'd attack it you stupid fuck. Stop assuming everyone will just play nice granted they never fucking have in this arena in the history of mankind.
Why are lightning cunts so fucking insanely stupid? Fuck.

>>11975789
Blockstream already can, there's a bug in the code that allows for any person to mint more BTC, they say they fixed it but have no idea if anyone has ever used the bug. Soon it will be clear that someone has (CSW did) and that person will use those Fakecoins to pretend he's Satoshi and crash BTC. YOU ARE WARNED

https://www.coindesk.com/the-latest-bitcoin-bug-was-so-bad-developers-kept-its-full-details-a-secret

>>11979838
Nothing, that's why BSV is a steaming heap of shit.

>>11980231
>what do you not understand about the fact that you can't fucking prevent multiple colluding central large volume hub nodes running a con on the external network from doing whatever the fuck they like
what i dont understand about this retardation is why would they risk it when they cant gain anything only expose themselves to loss?? unless you can present the profitability of this scheme stfu retarded cunt!

>>11980231
>Fuck me just use your fucking brain and think about the security model and topology and think how you'd attack it you stupid fuck.
present the attack or stfu!

>>11975789
>growing mold on your bug infested hair
This is what it looks like under her weave since they wear it for months at a time and don't wash their hair.

>>11981362
Thanks for keeping it real anon

>>11975789
Pow doesn't work without inflation. It's a moot point though, because bitcoin will be long dead before that happens.