/biz/ - Business & Finance

Thanks fren. Just sold 100k

Zoom out

>>18091526
Is there any incentive at all to buy bitcoin anymore? Other than speculation, what is it used for?

>>18091568
Cryptocurrency as a concept is brilliant and it is undeniably the future of currency. The bet is whether or not Bitcoin will be 'the one'. It could be. It might also not.

>>18091590
LINK 1K EOY

>>18091568
No, there is no reason to buy bitcoin anymore. It had its big test and has failed. Its better to sell and just buy gold at this point.

>>18091526
The difficulty already adjusted -16% a few hours ago. Bitcoin is working exactly as designed

>>18091790
Why not ETH or litecoin? Was ETH not designed to handle similarly?

>>18091568
You buy Bitcoin, then you buy Chainlink, that's your incentive.

Meanwhile s19's are sold out

>>18091836
If the difficulty to mine is lower, isn't also its value? If I could go mine 1000 tons of gold in my backyard it would definitely be worth less.

>Plague canceled, quick pivot to the hash rate fud!

>>18091568
It lets you keep your money in the form of a number on an account. Most people would prefer not to sit on top of a pile of physical gold and cash as long as possible, but they would also not like their money-as-a-number-on-an-account to suddenly disappear or become frozen because their bank failed. Bitcoin solves all logistical money woes.

>omg its dying
really?again?

>>18091790
I disagree. All Bitcoin had to do was not bottom out well after the stock market. We haven't seen the bottom of either yet, so the test is still underway, but it handled the first leg like a champ.

>>18091546

this

>>18091526
Oh no. Better sell quick. How scary.

>>18092084
>handled the first leg like a champ
By crashing to 3k? Absolute delusion.

>>18091526
Little miners shaken out by big miners. It's all about removing the competition man. Nothing is wrong. This is exactly how it's supposed to go.

>>18091790
>failed
Holy cope. Bitcoin has succeeded and there is zero doubt to anyone with the ability to use their brain

remember what happened before every time miners capulate

>>18092286
>value vanishes 60% overnight
>this is a quality asset
Bitcoiners are fucking absurd.

>>18091970
You can't mine extra Bitcoin like you can gold, that's the whole point of difficulty adjustment. It meters it out so that its only every 10 min on average. The last two weeks it was taking 12 min on average to solve blocks because hash rate dropped so that's why difficulty was reduced

>>18092036
>because their bank failed. Bitcoin solves all logistical money woes.
because their power went out

Imagine the power goes out in your country for 2 weeks. How are you buying anything?

>>18092370
You cant mine extra gold other than what's on earth (at the moment, and creating gold in the lab is more expensive than what it is worth scrap value)

>>18091526
The difficulty adjusted today of course the hashrate fell retard.

Now that the difficulty is down we will see 3 weeks of increasing hashrate.

>>18092344
>crashes so hard it becomes only 20x what it was worth 5 years ago
> rebounds
>now only 30x what it was 5 years ago
jesus christ zoom out you peasant

>>18092500
You might see a dead cat bounce, but the fact is that the hash is collapsing because the miners know that bitcoin is a failed experiment. Actions speak louder than words, get out now while you still can.

>>18092308
>mingers copulating

>>18092148
While everything else was crashing and then rebounding while all other assets fell?

>>18092569
Nothing else crashed 60+%

Lol, everyone is just dedicating their rigs to Folding@Home for CoronaCoin.

>>18091568
>Is there any incentive at all to buy bitcoin anymore?
to sell it 20 minutes later

>>18092487
Sure but there is an unknown amount, and the rate of issuance will increase as more energy is put toward mining it. Bitcoin keeps its issuance fixed with difficulty adjustment, its the most genius part of the protocol and insures it will never die

>>18092476
With cash. Bitcoin is for keeping your real money, not your bread buying money. We're not talking Mad Max shtf, just Great Depression with banks collapsing tier scenario. But even in true shtf, your bitcoin, like your buried gold bars, is for buying a house after things get back on track, and your ammo and meds are for getting you there,

>>18092634
Bitcoin crashing 60% is a regular Thursday. It didn't go to 0.

>>18091526
>he doesn’t know
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jfx7PnMtCeY

>>18091526
It's crashing just like the price. It looks even worse when zoomed out.

https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/hash-rate?timespan=2years

https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/hash-rate?timespan=all

>>18092539
Never selling

>>18093346
Idiot

>>18093388
enjoy your empty bags
better to go down with the ship than to cut your losses short, eh?

>>18091526
Zoom out faggot

>>18093505
Log scale

>>18093557
lmao, how can you look at that chart and not see that it's about to flatline and plummet?

>>18093576
Well you see I have an IQ above 80

>>18093579
and a ton of empty bags by the sound of it

>>18093505
You clipped off some data points on the right.

This is the sharpest drop in BTC's hash rate ever.

>>18093298
>your ammo and meds are for getting you there,
Retarded American obsessed with weapons

>>18093620
how convenient for his narrative
I'm sure it was an accident

>>18093588
Empty bags? As in I'm looking to fill them? I wish I had the spare cash. I've been around long enough to spot a retarded faggot when I see one though. What do you hope to accomplish on /biz/ of all places?

>>18093620
>>18093636
I didn't clip anything. You're looking at a different chart.

>>18093651
I mainly browse to monitor the general sentiments of normies like you
and no, as in BTC is about to plummet to zero, and you're not going to be in time to get rid of yours with that attitude

>>18093678
>and no, as in BTC is about to plummet to zero
oh no I better sell ahhhhh!!!

Jesus dude are you even trying?

>>18091526
$2K or lower by summer / fall. Christmas recovery. That's my bet.

Kleros will continue gaining against ETH.

>>18093692
yes, unironically, you better sell indeed
the sooner the better for your sake

When miners leave, others will fill the void. I'm happy with my POS cryptos, like Algorand - long-term game plan is to HODL and earn passive income at the side. KEEP IN MIND I USED MINE BTC/ETH/ZEN (miss the thrill of mining, but its a such a fast-paced industry)

>>18093703
Oh, so you're just here to warn everyone with your insider knowledge, unlike the 10,000 other low IQ trolls that have been saying the same thing for the past 10 years. How nice of you.

>>18093719
I already told you why I'm here, and that's not it, so perhaps you should consider reading what people write more carefully
and it's not insider knowledge that BTC is about to plummet to zero, anyone with half a brain can easily see that

>>18093674
I got it from blockchain.com. Your chart doesn't look like it has the latest data.

>>18093709
Without miners the whole system collapses. If BTC doesn't double in value after the halvening how the fuck are miners going to afford their electricity bills?

>>18093740
> anyone with half a brain can easily see that
So what you're claiming is that literally everyone holding bitcoin right now is stupid? Wow where have I heard that before...anyways I'm going to bed. You should reconsider your life choices my dude, I feel pity for you.

>>18092539
>miners
>many miners are chinks
>many chinks are dead or missing
Imagine being manipulated by chinks and their government.

>>18093758
exactly, and most of them will abandon ship before the halvening actually occurs
see image attached to >>18093588
>>18093766
yes, people holding Bitcoin right now are completely retarded

I guess I just don't understand.. If price doesn't go up and it isn't profitable people will turn off their miners.. that being said, the miners that survive would be raking and the difficulty would be lower no?

I don't see any reason for bitcoin to go down now. If anything it's gonna go up because people don't have anything to do except sit at home and buy bitcoin.

>what is difficulty readjustment?

>>18093851
>that being said, the miners that survive would be raking and the difficulty would be lower no?
The payout is still gonna be halved, it'll be like survival of the fittest and whoever has the cheapest maintenance prices will stay in the game

>>18093851
>>18093884
>>18093953
the more it halves, the less miners will stay, and as the price plummets to zero that effect will be even more pronounced
the reason for this is because BTCs mining reward model is completely dysfunctional, and was rendered thus by Core
it was made clear by Satoshi from the beginning that miners would have to rely more and more on transactions fees, and that the fixed block reward was just a subsidy to bootstrap the network to begin with
again, see image attached to >>18093588
also
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48#msg329
>In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for [mining] nodes. I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
>—Satoshi

BTC dies in 48 days. Miner profit is cut in half overnight. If the market price doesn't double in response, miners go out of business.

Since there is 0 new demand for BTC, gambling on the price doubling miraculously for absolutely no reason is folly.

Tick tock.

>>18093623
Shill.

>>18094121
well, miners aren't stupid, and are going to abandon ship well before it actually occurs

>>18094121
thats just not true. miners already mine at a loss. they mine to hold for future value of btc.

>>18094117
This guy gets it. The economic model of BTC is fundamentally broken. It can not survive long term as the mining subsidy fades and no new transaction fees are coming in from massively increased volume to offset it.

Only thing that can save BTC in the short term is a 60 billion dollar Tether bailout.

>>18094139
and the more obvious it becomes that this "future value of BTC" will be zero, and not an increase, the more they will leave

>>18091526
U wienerhead

#FinNexus is not just one protocol, but in fact a collection of multiple
protocols which together compose the #FinNexus ecosystem

>>18094158
looks a bit like the graph of Enron stock price

>>18094157
you make no sense whatsoever.

Your points reside on the fact that BTC will be zero. You are putting the horse before the cart. If what you stated were true, there would be no miners at present.

>>18091526
>Bitcoin should be treated like a somewhat necessary service. Why? People like bribing others to get shit to go their way. Bitcoin is a service. Just like tax havens. Maybe is a tax haven. Dunno, never really thought about it. It's just showing its true market rate right now.
>>18093407
for reference

>>18093588
It's a bit of a paradox isn't it?

Total value for mining goes down -> many miners leave the pool -> remaining miners have a larger slice of the pie -> miners remain in the game and are profitable, there are just fewer of them.

>>18092148

Remember when you thought it was going to go under $3500 then some whale pumped and dumped $100m sending it to $4200? That was last April. I remember...

>>18091526
I don't understand how people are still having trouble with this very simple concept. If hashrate drops due to unprofitable miners going out of business and withdrawing from the network, the mining difficulty adjusts and makes it easier for other, more efficient miners to be profitable. Even if hashrate dropped 50%, difficulty would drop significantly, to the point that it would make it more profitable for existing miners to continue their activities and even for new miners with more efficient enterprises to come online

>>18094176
there would be miners at present; the ones who still don't realize the fact that BTC is headed to zero
>>18094202
it's not a paradox at all
remaining miners will have a slice of a pie which is headed towards zero, since the block reward will keep halving without the huge transaction volume required to reward miners exclusively with fees
again:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48#msg329
>In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for [mining] nodes. I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
>—Satoshi

>>18094234
Right, but zero is still a long way off. The miner question is self-correcting for now.

>>18094234
Why do you keep presupposing the price is headed to zero? Thats the part of your postulation I have issue with.

>>18094274
because the block reward is headed to zero, and BTC does not allow for the huge volume of transactions required to compensate miners by transaction fees exclusively
I've repeated this a number of times now
it's not what I think, it's the truth of the matter

From what I'm seeing if Bitcoin hit 100,000 with no block rewards the fees would pay the same amount as now no?

>>18094290
Can the price of BTC be pushed up by demand alone?

Why would the miners not have left at previous halvenings then?

What happens as technology increases efficiency of mining rigs?


Im sincerely interested in what you have to say. I don't have any BTC btw.

>>18094290
can't wait to buy millions of Bitcoin when it's at zero

>>18091526
no worries it's only old 10nm miners

>>18094290
>BTC does not allow for the huge volume of transactions required to compensate miners by transaction fees exclusively
this is a common misunderstanding, if you look at btc fees per block compared to the shitforks you will understand why it is faulty. bitcoin miners get significant portion of reward in fees. and this will get more and more significant compared to subsidy.

>>18094404
>Can the price of BTC be pushed up by demand alone?
only temporarily, but like Enron stock, this apparent price is irrelevant when people start abandoning it, and as the block reward diminishes and the crowd of speculators dwindles, more and more abandonment is inevitable
>Why would the miners not have left at previous halvenings then?
block reward still high enough for them to be kept afloat by mindless speculators who have heard of these blockchain or cryptocurrency buzzwords
the block reward keeps diminishing, as does the crowd of irrational speculators
>What happens as technology increases efficiency of mining rigs?
completely irrelevant, since mining is primarily a coopetition against other miners
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/the-proof-of-work-concept/
>When a person upgrades their mining computer, they mine at a faster rate and therefore earn more bitcoins. However, when everyone upgrades, the mining does not become more efficient as a whole. There is only supposed to be one new block every ten minutes regardless of how hard the network is working. Instead, the network updates the difficulty to require more stringent conditions for future blocks. All miners may work harder, but none is better off. It is rather like a forest, in which every tree tries to grow as tall as possible so as to capture more light than its fellows, with the end result that most of the solar energy is used to grow long, dead trunks.
>Why tie each bitcoin block to a difficult Procrustean bed? The correct way of thinking about the proof-of-work concept is as a means for a group of self-interested people, none of whom is subordinate to any other, to establish a consensus against a considerable incentive to resist it. Bitcoin could operate perfectly well without proof-of-work, as long as everyone was perfectly honest and altruistic. If they are not, then reaching a consensus is difficult.

>>18094441
yeah, I'm sure people will love to pay a $1000 fee to move their Bitcoin
dream on in your delusional fantasy world

>>18094469
That last point is really interesting. Out of curiosity, what crypto's do you hold if any?

>>18094418
right, I'm sure you'd buy Enron stock when it was down to $0.01 as well

>>18094492
only Bitcoin

>>18094477
they won't have to fees on average will be below $1 spikes up to $5 in times of congestion that neatly resolves itself via fee market.

>>18094506
Haha what? Why do you dislike it so much then?

>>18094514
yes, when block rewards are literally zero, I'm sure miners running operations costing millions of dollars will be kept nicely afloat by $5k per block
you are delusional, either keep dreaming on in your fantasy wonderland and get wrecked by reality, or get real

>>18094532
I don't dislike Bitcoin at all
BTC is the dysfunctional shitcoin which has been rendered useless by Core, not Bitcoin

>>18094542
by the time block rewards decrease bitcoin blocks will be increased proportionally. bitcoin block limit have been effectively 4x-ed so far with segwit further increase will come as needed.

>>18094514
Fees went up over $30 per transaction during bubble peak

>>18094224
Regardless of how efficient mining hardware or how easy the mining difficulty would become, the main limit is still the cost of electricity. That means Bitcoin's network would become even more centralized as the only profitable miners would be those that reside in areas with cheap electricity. Lowering the difficulty won't remove that advantage.

>>18094555
Im lost mate im not a BTC nor crypto person. Could you explain in laymans terms?

>>18091590
Cryptocurrency in its current form is a scam that's a borderline pyramid scheme slash multi-level marketing, due to being very easy to generate coins as creator and extremely difficult as a user, which ensures that the creator gets all the money (that matter) by siphoning them out of users' pockets.

It will never be used as a real currency due to its deflatory nature, it continually and very strongly encourages people not to spend money, which causes massive market damage - not unlike what coronavirus is currently doing to us. Except coronavirus will pass, and crypto never stops being deflatory.

>BTC will go to $0
>Because miners won't produce more BTC in the distant future
>But now they are producing BTC everyday and the price just keep going up nicely
>B-but trust me dude I read Nakamotino Institute!!

>>18094568
only for immediate inclusion. you are allowed to post a $1 fee and wait for your tx to confirm in non congested times.

>>18092476
Well
If you saw the bakup generators and the backup backup generators the banks have to keep their networks running, the grid can go to shit as long as we have diesel

>>18094591
yeah shitcoins are awful scams 99.999% few honest projects that got adoption still started out as devs printing their own money.

>>18094560
in your dreams man
keep dreaming, I'm sure you're having a nice and comfortable sleep
>>18094575
sure
there are several networks who allegedly are implementations of the Bitcoin protocol as described by Satoshi Nakamoto in his famous whitepaper
BTC is one such network, but by reading the whitepaper and gaining a more thorough understanding about how Bitcoin is supposed to work, and then reading what Satoshi himself intended from his old posts, it becomes evident that the changes made by the developers of BTC, a team generally called Core, has rendered it completely dysfunctional, and nothing like how Bitcoin is supposed to work
I'll leave it as an exercise to you to find out which network is in fact the real Bitcoin network based on its implementation
here's another quote by Satoshi to get you started, in addition to the one I provided earlier
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532#msg6306
>The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
>—Satoshi

>>18094575
He is shilling a copy cat version of Bitcoin. It's called the late term adopter syndrome i.e.people who didn't buy Bitcoin cheap and want a second chance through shilling a scam coin trying to convince enough idiots to pump their bags. DYOR

>>18094627
>>18094634

I've been doing some reading during this thread and pulled the trigger on 10k of the Bitcoin Satoshi Vision coin. From what I read online it is the real bitcoin and there is a few variants of it? I didn't want to get scammed and it seemed the cheapest on my local exchange and there is youtube videos of speeches given about it by the creator. is he the bloke who the forum you linked to is posting?

>>18094681
i can sell them if i need to on the exchange too

>>18094694
actually i can sell them but only get around 9k back if i do ?

can one of you guys please reply and explain to me what to do? Im starting to worry.

>>18094634
>>18094627

>>18094627
>in your dreams man
you seem to have no clue where bitcoin is headed you got your set of dogmatic delusions cemented in your brain that you built with no basis on reality whatsoever. you think bitcoin will never increase the block size? that's literally impossible. it will when it has to simple as that. miners get around 3% from fees on bitcoin and this will increase to 6-7% after halving. shitforks got like 0.1% or less.

>>18094575
Bitcoin is a very specific protocol described in the Bitcoin whitepaper.

The exchange ticker is BSV.

>>18094681
>From what I read online it is the real bitcoin
you have been deceived by malicious shills sorry for your loss.

>>18094754
what do you mean mate

>>18094743
it's a very specific protocol but the whitepaper is nonspecific. the bitcoin implementation is a billion times more specific and also unique. you could make countless implementations to the whitepaper one more literal than the other.

but there is only one bitcoin that was created by satoshi nakamoto and his consensus only lives on btc aka the real bitcoin unbroken.

you fags are doing this on purpose i know you are not this retarded. but it's unsightly.

>>18094681
BSV is indeed Bitcoin, congratulations
no, there aren't any variants of it, unless you count BTC and BCH as variants, but these networks are broken in ways BSV is not
and yes, Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, or more specifically the main genius behind the team going by the name, to the extent that it's more than correct to give him the credit for creating it
and no idea what exchange you've used for that to be the case, without major price fluctuations, you can buy and sell on any major exchange without losing remotely that much
>>18094738
enjoy your empty bags

>>18094765
anyone telling you btc is not the real bitcoin is a liar a scammer and a fraud. if you fell for it you are a brainlet.

>>18094784
anyone proclaiming BTC to be the real Bitcoin is a delusional bagholder

>>18094575
>>18094681
Yeah I'm sure you did it, ranjeet. From you not being a crypto person to making your own research and buying a shit ton of a meme coin in one hour. You are fooling no one

Ok shills there you have the real Satoshi predicting Lightning Network.

Here is how Satoshi explained it to me, in his words:

An unrecorded open transaction can keep being replaced until nLockTime. It
may contain payments by multiple parties. Each input owner signs their
input. For a new version to be written, each must sign a higher sequence
number (see IsNewerThan). By signing, an input owner says "I agree to put
my money in, if everyone puts their money in and the outputs are this."
There are other options in SignatureHash such as SIGHASH_SINGLE which
means "I agree, as long as this one output (i.e. mine) is what I want, I
don't care what you do with the other outputs.". If that's written with a
high nSequenceNumber, the party can bow out of the negotiation except for
that one stipulation, or sign SIGHASH_NONE and bow out completely.

The parties could create a pre-agreed default option by creating a higher
nSequenceNumber tx using OP_CHECKMULTISIG that requires a subset of parties
to sign to complete the signature. The parties hold this tx in reserve and
if need be, pass it around until it has enough signatures.

One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties.
They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement. The party giving
money would be the first to sign the next version. If one party stops
agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime. If
desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1
parties can push an unresponsive party out. Intermediate transactions do
not need to be broadcast. Only the final outcome gets recorded by the
network. Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes
broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.

>>18094813
not bad
glad all of that can be done on-chain

>>18094794
cashies exist because some people just can't understand bitcoin and the nakamoto consensus.
curry cashies exist because some people just absolutely refuse consensus in any form.

>>18094813
>An unrecorded open transaction can keep being replaced
except for that dysfunctional shit right there
anyway, no reason to have a Lightning Network when you can transact as much as you want on-chain with fees on the order of fractions of a cent
also, I strongly doubt Satoshi wrote that

>>18094844
actually, once you understand Nakamoto Consensus properly, you realize it doesn't apply across completely different networks at all, it's just the mechanism whereby any given network agrees upon which chain is the valid one
i.e. it has nothing to do with determining whether BTC or BSV is more "useful" or "valid", or anything comparing the two, but rather there is one consensus for each, determining which is the valid BTC chain at any given point and what is the valid BSV chain at any given point respectively

>>18094829
You can't do it without centralizing the network making BTC non censor resistant nor trustless thus making it completely useless. Trusting three huge nodes vs VISA or MasterCard or whatever.

>>18094869
yes, you absolutely can
as Satoshi predicted, obviously mining will end up in data centers
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532#msg6306
>The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
>—Satoshi
however, that doesn't at all mean centralization
there will be hundreds of such data centers, one or more for every developed economy in the world, all in coopetition with each other, and with few such operations unlikely to control more than a percent or two of the total hash rate at any point in time

>>18094829
it's actually done off-chain until settled if you read it. yeah it's basically almost like lightning which also settles on-chain. what lightning adds to this is the ability to route payments in a trustless (bu obviously not completely permissionless) manner making it more secure and robust by removing malleability and easier on the blokchain by segwit.

>>18094868
>actually, once you understand Nakamoto Consensus properly, you realize it doesn't apply across completely different networks at all
no it doesn't apply to alts that's right. alts don't have nakamoto consensus. they have a cheap copy of it that is completely meaningless and not byzantine fault tolerant.

>>18094869
as for "censor resistant", even with hundreds of operations all across the globe, miners will still be beholden to international law
in other words, if an international court tells miners they have to do something, they must comply, or they'll have to shut down their operation, that's how law works
on the other hand, this still means no single operations or nation states will have the power to do this
in others words, it's as decentralized as you can possibly get while still preserving the rule of law, just like international law governs nations without any single nation having authority over any other

>>18094868
>it has nothing to do with determining whether BTC or BSV is more "useful" or "valid"
if you read the whitepaper tho you will find the way to _objectively_ determine what is bitcoin and what is not.

and it goes something like this: the longest chain with the most accumulated proof of work done. and that is bitcoin. no questions no appeals no whining required from you.

>>18093752
kys

>>18094900
that's not what I wrote
and "alt" is meaningless in this context
every network implementing the Bitcoin protocol has its own Nakamoto consensus
like I stated clearly, BTC has its own consensus for what the valid BTC chain is at any given point, just like BSV has its consensus for what the valid BSV chain is at any given point
any hash rate expended to mine on either network is useless to reorg on the other chain, because these networks are independent
if you wanted to attack the other network, you would have to actively move hash rate over and keep it there, but it would quickly become apparent to anyone trying this that such would be economic suicide, or at best completely pointless

>>18094928
again, that's a mechanism to determine the valid chain on a given network, not across completely different networks
common misunderstanding, but also completely wrong
see: >>18094937

>>18094634
Buying ether made me much more money than bitcohen.
I would say it's more a first mover fallacy like
>since Bitcoin is first it will never ever be overtaken by another (better designed) protocol

It didn't work out so well for Myspace or Blackberry

>>18094952
but you are wrong. especially when the has translates in a matter of seconds. you are not wrong in that bch and bchsv are not the bitcoin network thus not part of the nakamoto consensus that is 100% accurate.

>>18095019
you clearly don't understand even the basics of Bitcoin
good luck to you is all I can say, you will need it
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532#msg6269
>If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

>>18094885
No, you can't. Satoshi predicted we should be able to handle larger blocks through Moore's law. It didn't happen.
This is Satoshi some months later

>Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

>Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

>The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

>Fears about securely buying domains with Bitcoins are a red herring. It's easy to trade Bitcoins for other non-repudiable commodities.

>If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade. The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both. The second signer can't release one without releasing the other.

BSV is trying to do exactly the opposite. So much for da real BitcOiN
>>18094910
Wrong

>>18094937
>every network implementing the Bitcoin protocol has its own Nakamoto consensus
there is only one nakamoto consensus, started by satoshi himself and untampered with. it's a slow process but i believe you fags can understand this shit eventually.

the nakamoto consensus is a way to reach consensus on a ledger but also to reach consensus on protocol changes (as described in the whitepaper) and reach consensus on what bitcoin is and what it is not. it is motherfucking CONSENSUS. and when you fuck with the consensus algo and break the nakamoto consensus you have no pretenses left on being bitcoin whatsoever. NONE.

>>18095047
it did happen, the actual Bitcoin network (BSV) has removed the blocksize limit completely
we're preparing for gigabyte blocks within 1-2 years and terabyte blocks within 3-5 years
also, what you're describing there is just what Satoshi says here, i.e. that users will only need to download a small part of the blockchain to use the parts they need, which is the entire reason for using a Merkle tree
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532#msg6306
>The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
>—Satoshi
this is exactly what BSV is doing

>>18095054
wrong, that's not how Nakamoto consensus works at all
I've already explained why very precisely here: >>18094937
it is absolutely not a way to reach consensus regarding protocol changes, it is exclusively the method by which miners on a given network agree upon which is the valid chain on that particular network, nothing more

>>18091568
Bitcoin is digital gold. What is the purpose of gold?

>>18095103
Gold looks pretty and has unique material properties that make it important for niche products

>>18095076
I already showed you proof of how Satoshi despises everything Craig is doing in BSV. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917

No one is going to trust three nodes that can maleable the network at will. That's what you get with huge nodes.

>>18095103
gold is useful because of its valuable qualities as a metal, such as being highly non-reactive and thus not tarnishing with time, one of the best electrical conductivities of all metals, the single most malleable metal there is, as well as being fungible since that's an inherent quality of all metals

>>18095129
I already explained to you how that post is exactly what BSV is doing
here's the key sentence
>Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.
that's precisely the concept behind SPV, and how users do not need to have the entire blockchain to be able to verify payments, and exactly why Bitcoin is structured as a Merkle tree
it does not even remotely suggest that these different parts of the network need to be stored on different blockchains, which would be laughable and absurd

>>18095032
and yet satoshi provided a link where he explained it earlier unlike you faggots who just try to wiggle out of proving your unprovable points by trying to play it cool but being butt frustrated and gnarling your teeth. good.

>>18095090
>>18094937
>wrong, that's not how Nakamoto consensus works at all
cashie delusions, like i said you fags have no clue what consensus is even as it bites you in the ass.

>>18095129
>No one is going to trust three nodes that can maleable the network at will. That's what you get with huge nodes.
not even remotely true
first of all, Satoshi never changed his mind from this
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532#msg6306
>The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
>—Satoshi
secondly, like I've stated earlier, there will be hundreds of mining operations, one or more in every developed economy, so it's moronic to assume there will be "three nodes"
in fact, any given node will be unlikely to control more than a couple percent of the total hash rate, perhaps one or two might reach as much as 5%

>>18095133
>>18095127
Why is Gold then more expensive than Palladium and some rare earths which are more rare and have more application use-cases?

>>18095129
yes they couldn't be 2 more different people if they tried on purpose. but hey craig said "bloody" must be satoy right?

>>18095157
I've already proven your absurd notions about what Nakamoto consensus is and is not thoroughly wrong, so not going to deal with that anymore
reread this again and again until you get it: >>18094937

>>18092244
Car les communistes français veulent acheter vos ordinateurs pour faire du télétravail et embêter les hackers américains

>>18095146
You are running in circles. This is one of the last posts of Satoshi. And Craig is doing exactly what Satoshi told us NOT TO DO:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Fears about securely buying domains with Bitcoins are a red herring. It's easy to trade Bitcoins for other non-repudiable commodities.

If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade. The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both. The second signer can't release one without releasing the other.

>>18095168
rarity in and of itself isn't enough
fact is that your second assumption is completely wrong, palladium doesn't have remotely the same use cases as gold does, since gold is both more malleable and a better electrical conductor
also, the fact that gold is less rare actually makes it easier to reliably use in industry
if silver didn't tarnish and was as malleable as gold, it would likely compete with gold in value, although gold still would have the edge in jewelry, which is an often mocked and neglected use case despite its ubiquity throughout the millennia, due to its brilliant lustre

>>18095199
no, you are running in circles, because you keep repeating the same garbage again and again despite me having addressed your points thoroughly
Craig is doing exactly what Satoshi is saying in that post, and no wonder, because Craig is Satoshi, as anyone with half a brain has figured out by now
as I've said, what he's saying in that post is that it would be impossible for users to download all the data needed for both, or all such systems really, to use any given one of them
his point was not that miners shouldn't keep all of it on the blockchain, only that users shouldn't need to keep all of it
this is EXACTLY the same point as in: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532#msg6306
>The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
>—Satoshi
all he's saying is that users will only keep a small subset of the data, the subset they need, and that SPV will be utilized for this, which again is the entire reason for using a Merkle tree

>>18095203
>which is an often mocked and neglected use case despite its ubiquity throughout the millennia, due to its brilliant lustre
literally "ME WANT SHINY STOOOONE"

>>18095250
indeed
or rather, "me want shiny stone which seems to never tarnish and which is extremely easy to fashion into cool things"

>>18095203
read about palladium catalysed reaction (Heck,Suzuki,Negishi) it is really fucking useful

>>18095054
>but also to reach consensus on protocol changes
Totally wrong. There is no such thing described in the white paper, because the protocol was never meant to be changed. Satoshi was explicit about that.

>>18095239
Shit anon can you read?

The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices

>The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices

The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices


>The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices


The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices

>>18095239
IMPLYING MOORE'S LAW WILL ALLOW IT TO KEEP BTC DECENTRALIZED, CENSOR RESISTANT AND YADA YADA

>>18095286
>because Craig is Satoshi, as anyone with half a brain has figured out by now

Yea you need half of a brain to think that , the other part must not be working to think that.

>>18095402
It's pretty obvious that he is Satoshi. You literally have to be a paid shill to deny it at this point.

But you probably are, so that makes sense.

>>18095256
>>18095239
>>18095172
>>18095090
>>18095076
>40 posts by this ID
>bsv shilling

>>18094591
> massive market damage

damage to some deranged, unsustainable boomer fairty-tale economy.

when growth stops - and it will at some point - there won't be any need for inflationary fiat clown coins to "match the growth" and keep prices stable.

bitcoin, by its very nature, is designed to work in a sustainable "stagflation" scenario.

>this entire thread

>>18091790
> Low energy forced shill.
You sound like a wagecuck in the office
Buy signal

>>18092344
USD value vanished 50% overnight ftfy

what's this pattern called?

>>18095903
consolidating before a bigger barting

>>18095903
crabbening

>>18095172
>reread this again and again until you get it
i get that it's bollocks. the nakamoto consensus is only meaningful and byzantine fault tolerant if majority hashrate honestly participates. therefore if majority hashrate does not participates it's not nakamoto cosesnus. it's craig stephaine wright non-consensus bullshit.

>>18093313
And that's absolutely why it's nothing like gold and is doomed to failure.

>>18095282
>They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
-SN 2007

Who cares about Shitcoin anyways.

>>18091526
Or buy an Asic miner and start mining so you can profit ?

>>18091970
Supply doesn't change with difficulty, overall the same amount are mined

>>18092286
Obvious newfag, you know why it's been declared dead so many times? Because it has no intrinsic worth, people sold at $2, $100, $400 and $20k none of them were wrong to do so, the price just went much higher than logic or reason dictated. This was driven by increasing hype. The hype is dead, 2017 saw Bitcoin and cryptocurrency labelled as a scam by the general populace.

>>18096391
>Enforce
You need a dictionary to understand what this word means?

>>18091526
oh look it's this thread again.

Daily reminder China has infinite essentially free electricity and zero pollution laws. Your BTC is safe.

>>18091537
Yeah me to, sold all 100k bitcoin of mine :/ I thought I was gonna be rich fuck this shit life