/biz/ - Business & Finance

BITCOIN IS DEAD
LONG LIVE BITCOIN

>>16433866
>-Why are there so many forks?
for the lulz

>-Why some people claim BTC is not the real BTC?
women like gossip

>-What's up with lightning network? Why is it good or bad?
chaotic neutral

>-What will happen to BTC and its forks in the future?
poo poo pee pee

>>16433866
1. There's so many forks because that's the quickest way scammers can make money by inventing their own version of Bitcoin (the biggest two of these scams are BCH and BSV)
2. See 1.
3. Lightning is a second layer on top of the main Bitcoin protocol layer which offers faster transactions at the expense of increased risk, perfect for smaller transactions, but without affecting the superior security of the main Bitcoin layer.
4.More of the same. Bitcoin has so much more hashing power keeping it secure compared to everything else it's really not an issue despite what all the shitcoin fork scammers might tell you.

People forget that proof of work was the recent innovation that made crypto work.

Proof of stake has been tried before with color coins from the 90s and early 2000s and all that crap can be manipulated through tax economics. Proof of work is like staking electricity a real, physical product.

Before we continue please keep in mind that global elites from all countries meet yearly. Although you might think it's china vs US vs Russia, it is actually a coordinated fasaad. The rich elite of the world like their status and are thus incentive to keep down the wage slaves of the world.

When bitcoin was new and shinny to the world it was really fucking scary to those in power. They had no idea were it came from. They did not know it was made by a computer forensic expert that was tired of seeing high level corruption.

With that said Blockstream took over the after satoshi went ghost. They pushed a bunch of contreverial PIPs, that took power from the miners even against majority votes.This is because they had an agenda and with unlimited funding in advertisement and news they managed to get everyone who is NOT a miner to get on board (ie all the price action tards). The bitcoin core protocol has long been altered taking control away from those mining and securing the network so that MINERS ARE NOT IN CONTROL.

They went on to push more changes with their massive PR campaigns and eventually managed to restrict the block size. In this case the majority does not win. By restricting blocks sizes they crippled the network to very low tx/s therefore taking bitcoin out as a major competitor to visa, western union ect. By blocking the stream, Blockstream managed to halt bitcoins performance to be unusable as an everyday payment network. Their agenda worked and thus made their proprietary payment channel more lucrative as a solution to scale the broken protocol. Payment channels like LN also allow funds to be seized, frozen garnished to allow for regulations ect.

>>16433866
>What will happen to BTC and its forks in the future?
btc survives the forks die off most likely

I have always opposed this blockstream tards. I personally believe that it is idiotic to use a ledger like bitcoin, to not use it by using second layer solutions like LN. LN is basically a smart contract, which in my opinion should only be used to automate or expand the functionality of the secure protocol ledger. A smart contract should NEVER BE used to scale the core protocol of any blockchain as it provides massive security gaps in the stores of proofs by potentially not tying them to electricity consumtion.

The security behind the core layer is key. Proof of work is the recent innovation being destroyed.

Satoshi himself early on knew big blocks will eventually happen at scale and actually wrote how he proposed to have varying block sizes set by the miners themselves. He wrote how eventually nodes could start charging fees to allow the node operators to profit from storing the blockchain. This IS KEY.

Let my miners choose how big the blocks go.

Let my nodes receive tx fees and thus be rewarded for the hardware and electrical expenses.

peepee poopoo

We pray to kek

kek

>>16433995
>Proof of work is the recent innovation being destroyed
idiot speak pow is with btc minority hash chains are retarded.

Anything better than Argumentum ad hominem?

We don't follow the majority here anon.

Because the majority is always brainlets.

Anon asked for a rundown I gave him one.

But no worries your contribution is important TOO!

BTC is useless, it can't do anything

BSV is Bitcoin

DYOR

i will explain in my next lecture. make sure to attend

>>16434274
if you did your own research you wouldn't spout retarded bullshit like that.

>>16434375

I've been researching Bitcoin for the past 3 years, probably hundreds of hours

BSV is Bitcoin stay mad

>>16434375
Oh no we make him mad mad because we have a contrarian view.

kek

bitcoin is literally a useless shitcoin

>>16434637
yeah its only provided a system to send value over a network thats up 24/7 100% uptime for the last ten years. who the FUCK needs that crap? lol right guys?

>>16434418
having a contrarian view and spreading outright lies and fud wrapped up in the most imbecilic shilling and retarded memeing possible is not nearly the same.

>>16433866
>-Why are there so many forks?
Freedom of choice is good
>-Why some people claim BTC is not the real BTC?
They want to scam you, they also claim some aussie shitposter invented bitcoin with no proof keys passwords or knowledge
>-What's up with lightning network? Why is it good or bad?
Layer 2 network to handle transactions off-chain since the chain can't handle it all due to block size. It's shitty but technically works, which ends up looking horrible.
>-What will happen to BTC and its forks in the future?
More stuff will happen.

>>16434668
yeah who needs a trustless permissionless yet secure p2p distributed ledger and transaction technology that is byzantine fault tolerant? fuck that shit!

>>16434682
>Layer 2 network to handle transactions off-chain
it's basically bulk transaction settlement. you do a hundred tiny transactions and only make one or two on-chain. if that doesn't make sense i pity you.

bitcoin is all about the ledger. everything else is bullshit.

>>16434703
>bitcoin is all about the ledger. everything else is bullshit.
Pretty goddamn much which is why it's sad to see this team investing so much time and money in all this extra bullshit instead of just fixing the project itself.

>>16433966
>>16433995
Nice poasts

>>16434637
BSV is the only coin with utility.

>>16434731
keeping the ledger truly distributed and trustless and secure also viable long term is exactly why each and every decision was made by the core team.

there is one crucial step missing tho for some reason. a tiny change to the consensus algo could make bitcoin so much better. including the hash of the previous utxo set in every block makes it possible for a pruning network sync up trustlessly. which means old transaction data and assorted other junk can just be forever thrown away. cutting the blockchain size a 1000 fold. which makes it possible to slowly increase the blocksize without any additional undue burden while keeping it mostly full.

>>16433966
the resistance is real anon, look at HK

>>16434803
I've kind of been wondering with the whole 300GB+ chain why they haven't been pruning old transactions that have massive numbers of confirmations.

Why do I get this feeling Blockstream wants us dead?

>>16434864
the reason is simple all the imbeciles been doing retarded shit with the code but none of them made pruning nodes able to sync up a new node or each other trustlessly possible.

and it's as simple as i said
>prune old blocks that have no chance in hell of getting a reorg
>keep the last pruned blocks utxo set
>extend protocol so that every block references the previous utxo set immutably
>a node that wants to sync up will first get all block headers and verifies longest chain of pow
>node starts asking for full blocks at n depth
>node will also ask for the utxo set for n-1
>block n has the hash for utxo set n-1
>everything is verified and validated from that point like normal
>pow in longest chain and the tx-es validity for the received utxo base all verifies the node buit the correct ledger
>trustless permissionless secure publicly auditable
>bitcoin as intended

>>16433995
>Satoshi himself early on knew big blocks will eventually happen at scale and actually wrote how he proposed to have varying block sizes set by the miners themselves. He wrote how eventually nodes could start charging fees to allow the node operators to profit from storing the blockchain. This IS KEY.
Source on this?

>>16434927
Large scale always involved massive infrastructure.

>>16434953
he describes miners with that one obviously however spv is not nearly as useful as it sounds at first.

>>16433885
based

>>16433866
BTC can be split a million ways and BTC will always fork. For privacy, decentralized mining, faster TX, etc

Forks and airdrops pay BTC holders.

10 years from now I’ll sell some of my BTC forks from the last 3 years

>>16433995
Miners would abuse this the way they’ve spammed before

>>16434981
Nodes are miners. Shill harder faggot. Tell me more about how running a listening node at home totally means you are not likely to hold bitcoin.

>>16434403
>I've been researching Bitcoin for the past 3 years, probably hundreds of hours
You and everyone else here.
If you think a fork of a fork is the real bitcoin, you lost sight of what matters. The market.

It’s not about your idea of what’s best it’s what the market decides is bitcoin

>>16435022
>markets are static and unchanging

>>16433866
it's dead, so is bch
>can't scale
>miner profits ATL and barely in the green
>difficulty ath
>hash rate ath
>price is going to toilet
all in all, it's not looking good for the halving
BSV is the last chance for bitcoin to make something of itself before falling into another layer of the historic bubble chart

>>16435022
the real bitcoin is the one with the longest chain, says so in the white paper

>>16435029
They can change and still not swap frauds into bitcoins and Satoshi’s seat.

What bizarro world do you live in that you idiots can spend years shilling forks and their forks?

You are the same guy telling us ETC is the real ethereum in 16
Fuck off creg

>>16435052
The real BTC has satoshi holding it and until he sells no one will call your shitcoins bitcoin

>>16435053
Segwit was the fork. ETC and ETH are both shitcoins, who gives a fuck?

>>16435011
>Nodes are miners.
no you know exactly what i mean, 1 node hundreds of miners on lan. that's how every farm operates. or maybe not even 1 node but one per pool.

can't buy drugs with bsv directly therefore it's a shitcoin

>>16435036
bsv looks way worse for the halving than btc tho

>>16435246
fees per block on btc $2000 to $5000 on avg
fees per block on sv $1 on avg
fees/subsidy on btc 30%
fees/subsidy on sv 0.08%
with every halving it will be more evident that unbound blocks will not make it

>>16435313
3% fuck not 30
that's it i'm going to sleep

>>16433919

This. Any other answer is a guaranteed shitcoin shill.

>>16433995

Have fun with those ideas on your shitcoin scam known as BCash and leave us alone then phaggot. This is a BITCOIN thread

>>16433966
how are miners not in control

The forks are so indian scammers can trick retards into buying their coin thinking it's the "real bitcoin"

The truth is that even the real bitcoin (btc) still sucks and you should just buy eth

>>16433966
checked. Im a brainlet, can you explain why having most of the miners in china controlling btc is better than what you describe? Or am I mistaken?

If you start arguing for p2p currency, you will be called names and given large amounts of faulty logic designed to distract and confuse.
There are large organizations that hate the idea of p2p currency and would stop us in a heartbeat.

>>16436606
because blockstream don't have shit if they don't have the miners
now watch this.

>>16435313
small blocks really are sage

>>16433866
>What's up with lightning network?
>Why is it good or bad?

It's only for micropayments, which make up less than 0.01% of all Bitcoin transactions. It's bad because they wasted all the effort to "solve" a problem that didn't exist in the first place.

>>16433866
Buy the real Bitcoin, Bitcoin SV

>>16433866
>Why are there so many forks?
ulterior motives by the BTC github keyholders (they wanted to gimp bitcoin so that they could sell sidechains)

>Why some people claim BTC is not the real BTC?
they abandoned the goal of bitcoin, being digital cash for the whole world (even poor people)

>What's up with lightning network? Why is it good or bad?
it's bad because routing doesn't work, it can't scale. transactions fail more often the more people use it. nothing is up, no progress has been made to solve this problem.

>What will happen to BTC and its forks in the future?
btc lives on due to brand recognition but all the believers of its original goal has moved on to bitcoin cash or bitcoin sv. btc has negative adoption rate, its only "usage" is to cash out into usd at the right time. the future is with BCH or BSV, unfortunately it might be too late now that Libra comes online next year (regular people won't care that it's fake crypto)

>>16438273
most of what you wrote is the typical cashie bullshit. congrats.
>routing doesn't work, it can't scale
it evidently works and it obviously scales just probably not with mesh network topology.

>>16438273
Very nice analysis, easy to read for OP and all the brainlets that got into bitcoin around or after 2017 and thus are still on the bitcoin brand recognition name. I filter out all the haters and name callers. All they do is attack not discuss. The OP clearly wants a rundown, not to be shilled. I think a few of us have done that objectively without stating bitcoin or bsv is better.

This is how we feel about the series of events. You don't like it then keep HODL, and I trully hope you guys make bank, it probably will nice you and your families will have a chance at survival with such low IQs and hard heads.

The world is constant change. To be alive is to feel pain. Suffering is a choice.

kek

>>16433919
there is no way to avoid btc fees. when you load funds into LN you must pay a tx fee to put them there and you must pay a fee to get them out again. so in reality it's more expensive than an on chain tx.

>>16435061
Satoshi owns all the forks

bump

>>16438658
>Very nice analysis
no it's just brainlet cashie bias not analysis

>>16441190
and that is some core bias right there.

again don't really give a crap about BTC or BSV.

I personally as a developer do preffer BSV.

just expressing the sentiment to the series of events followed.

I kek at how personal you take this. I think your just bitter cause you were late to the party. Have you been hodling since 20k?

kek

>>16439272
>>16438658
paul le roux is satoshi

>>16442386
>I personally as a developer do preffer BSV
that's weird do explain to a fellow dev please why is a monolithic anti-competitive all-encompassing system that forcibly tries to displace everything else is a better thing then a varied ecosystem of coexisting specialized chains all secured by the hashpower of btc?

how does that even make sense when you think about the future?

>>16433885
Based misdrection shitposter.