/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>24237151

>>24237151
>>24237156

>>24237156
posted in 2017 i assume?

>>24237151
>>24237156
>>24237183
You lost, get over it.

>>24238340
the worst thing about this whole thing is people like you that didnt even understand what it was about

>>24238003
no, 2020
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/1265432073587875847

>>24238731
I know it infuriates me... Now Africans will never be able to buy coffee using bitcoin.

>>24238768
oh he has started posting again? thought he had stepped away from crypto, cool

>>24238813
if you get the issue but still bitch about BCH and defend BTC not increasing the block size limit, you're just dumb.

>>24238731
it was about use case
if you wanted store of value then making transactions valuable by constricting block space was the logical move.
if you wanted cash then making transactions dirt cheap by making the blockspace have no value was the logical move.

most bitcoin devs wanted their bitcoins to go up in price fast as possible. they were hodlers of significant positions and made the logical choice.

the end result is evident by the valuation of the tow forks today.

>>24238978
If you don't get how I was mocking your narrative as missing the point, you're just dumb. I argued with plenty of bcashiers in 2017 and told them if they hodl according to their views they'd get rekt by history. I was right and thus obviously not the dumb one. Time for arguments is over, no one wants to relitigate a subject over and over for those who were too slow to learn the lesson the first time.

>>24238768
looks to me two morons who don't know what they are talking about arguing over spilled beans.

the community split because some people just don't get the idea of consensus.

>>24239158
if you didn't sell BTC in 2017 you're even dumber than i thought

>>24239140
bitcoin was always meant to be borderless peer 2 peer digital cash. it can't be that with 1000% fee on transactions. splitting the community, implementing segwit/block weight/implementing sidechains, losing adoption, it made NO sense compared to just increasing the block size limit. blockstream cannot be forgiven.

>>24239289
what they did to gavin andresen is unforgivable (locking him out of the project satoshi handed to him) and it's painful to read how the people treat him in that thread

>>24239564
>bitcoin was always meant to be borderless peer 2 peer digital cash.
but that's not now you make max profit on it. i'm with the dev s they have my best interest at heart.

>>24239564
>it made NO sense
lol you still stuck on this? who cares what made sense to you back then? who gives a fuck? see you at $100k and $1million!

>>24239607
>>24239648
i mean if you're not a believer in the original goal of bitcoin i don't know why we're even talking. just hodl and cash out that fiat, right?

>>24239831
i'm a purist i still want the exact same thing from bitcoin as i did from day 1. and it's doing it. cashing out to fiat is not how you think it is.
bitcoin has an average annual return of 360%.
even calculating with only 150% it absolutely beats all other form of investments. after a while you are unable to make a dent on it's increase in value by withdrawing a hefty salary.
basically you make it on bitcoin in 5 years on average if you dca in for 3.

>>24239939
all you're saying is you were not a believer from day 1.

Let bitcoin be bitcoin, we have hundreds of other coins that can be cash

>>24240266
i believe that bitcoin is the only one trustless permissionless yet publicly auditable and secure ledger in existence. and i believe despite all my other legal asset (from my real estate to my bank accounts) being confiscateable by my retarded thieving governments thugs bitcoin is not something they can take from me.

owning bitcoin is literally knowing a secret. can't be proven or disproven. can't be detected at a border cross or when boarding a plane. they can x-ray my asshole all they want. bitcoin is the only asset i truly own.

buying coffee is of no interest to me.

>>24240322
anything can be cash that's not a use case you need crypto for. fucking entries in an rdbms can be cash (see paypal)

>>24240558
yes you believe in something, just not bitcoin as it was meant to be. it's okay.

>>24240781
it is how it was meant to be exactly with the addition that it is also a completely inflation proof store of value. and safe from all jewish central bank trickery.

>>24240558

are you using a cold wallet generated by a permanently offline device? if not, then your btc is no more secure than any physical asset. much less so, in fact.

>>24240828
have you seen the title of the bitcoin whitepaper and still argue that BTC is where it was meant to be?

>>24240933
i have read it a few times. from start to end. you stuck at the first line. i'm personally convinced that anyone that truly wanted to make cash would have chosen different properties for it. the fix supply cap makes it impossible to funtion as cash outside the hyperinflationary early period.

>>24241052
I'm wasting my time on you.

No other coin that starts now can be used as a store of value, bitcoin is what it is, let it be this whale in the ocean, other coins can have cheap fees

>>24241137
I think the goal of bitcoin was that no one controlled it, that Satoshi was not god, and could make mistakes.. he gave it to the world, for the world to do what it wants with it. Nick Szabo (who either is satoshi or had huge influence on him) and other big brains support small blocks; It's more decentralized.

>>24241245
>I think the goal of bitcoin was that no one controlled it

early miners control it.

it's a slow and expensive transaction processor. that is the correct way to look at it.

suppose they called it "bitledger" and avoided any references to "mining" or "coins". do you think it would be nearly as successful? i think you people are seeing more than there really is.

>>24241245
small blocks are relative. 10mb today is smaller than 1mb when satoshi implemented it.
that's not the real reason.

>>24241353
>it's a slow and expensive transaction processor. that is the correct way to look at it.
that's the brainlet way to look at it.
bitcoin can do billions of tx/sec as is. and taproot gonna blow this capability up.

>>24241476

no it can't. isn't taproot just a small subset of what eth and flare and lots of other tokens natively supported from day 1? why would anyone who doesn't already have a vested interest in bitcoin care that bitcoin finally gets a few smart-contract-like features?

>>24241476
this. logically speaking nobody should give 2 shits about tx speed until bitcoin is like 1 mil minimum

if paypal hadn't propped up bitcoin when it did the bubble may have already burst. there are plenty of coins that are way more interesting than bitcoin and its "store of value" proposition doesn't hold water.

>>24241592
>no it can't
kek you know nothing lemme get that pasta...

>a single lightning payment channel can do 25k tx/sec and you can make almost 150k of them per day which puts bitcoins testbench throughput to around 3.75 billion tx/sec after first day of doing so.

>>24241623

doesn't it seem a bit far fetched that all these organizations are going to build upon bitcoin's very limited feature set and transaction throughput when so many good alternatives exist?

>>24241592
taproot is fundamentally different from simple native blockchain script. it allows for greatly decreasing global burden on huge smart contracts. it does a lot of things but in the end it dramatically reduces space that deterministic smart contracts take up on he blockchain and also execution time of scripts.

>>24241592
>bitcoin finally gets a few smart-contract-like features
also are you fucking retarded? bitcoin had smart contract since the very first release.
p2sh greatly expanded on this capability and segwit made it possible to partition burden better taproot is a great great capability multiplier on these.

>>24241801

give me an example of something taproot does that would be impossible in eth

>>24241635
>there are plenty of coins that are way more interesting than bitcoin and its "store of value" proposition doesn't hold water.
you're too poor and uneducated to understand that you don't get to make that decision. Rich people who control the current system get to make that decision, which they already have, and it's bitcoin. stay poor.

>>24241857
make a 15 mb smart contract based on an audited template execute with 400 bytes global burden.

>>24241857
also there is the quantum resistant part and the added privacy as option. but i also like the non-custodial shared liquidity pools made possible by taproot.
kinda kills the last leg of banks in crpyto.

I sold 100k of this at $200 and I have no regrets. This piece of shit has order books thinner than Roger Ver's cock.

>>24242003
you know what else is quantum resistant?
dickcombs
get your dickcombs here, selling dick combs of all sizes!

>>24242067
i will stick to my bitcoins they been nice to me over the years. shitcoins come and go al the time.
even if you make a good one nothing stops an other dude to make a better one or just copy it next day.

>>24241975

no doubt provably correct smart contracts can be written in solidity. i'd like you to explain your last point though. what enables taproot to be more efficient?

>>24242134
>provably correct smart contracts can be written in solidity
if they can i have yet to seen evidence of it kek. that's why everything gets hacked left and right...

>>24242134
basically you an think of a smart contract as a giant decision tree. and taproot allows for only showing the single path that executed (which had it's conditions satisfied) because it forms a merkle tree for the script itself that can be verified by the root hash. kinda like spv for bitcoin blocks.

>>24242199

that's actual fud. the usual rules of floyd-hoare logic can certainly be applied to smart contracts to verify their correctness. it's not a hard thing to do in just about any reasonable programming language.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4tB-qWKzpk
Marc De Mesel has two wives and donates to bitcoin cash projects all day

>>24242253
>basically you an think of a smart contract as a giant decision tree. and taproot allows for only showing the single path that executed

but programs are almost never just a bunch of nested branching statements. programming languages are designed to enable more efficient descriptions of a program.

imagine trusting bitcoin's PoW when the majority of the hashrate is controlled by the CCP

>>24241949
>you're too poor and uneducated to understand that you don't get to make that decision. Rich people who control the current system get to make that decision, which they already have, and it's bitcoin. stay poor.

in that case, what do you care if i raise legitimate criticisms? bitcoin does not store value. nobody needs it to produce anything, and it costs a lot of money to produce and transact with itself. a few wealthy idiots with more money than brains promoting bitcoin will not change that fact, and unlike paper fiat, it doesn't serve as a currency either. i'll pass.

>>24243082
I'm sorry it is what it is and not what you want it to be. Ego is a mother fucker huh anon? I hope you realize you aren't as smart as you think you are before it's too late.

>>24243301
>I'm sorry it is what it is and not what you want it to be

that's exactly right. and i'm not the one who wants bitcoin to be a tax-free, inflation-free, cosmopolitan digital gold with zero liability.

>>24242755
Imagine trusting a proof of stake network when exchanges will inevitably become primary validators of the network. In bitcoin the miners still have to mine valid blocks according to the massive set of full nodes run by common users

>>24243599
Nice try buddy, /biz/ has laid upon you the ID baghodler, and forever a baghodler you will be.

and if there are established coins like ltc with a lower marketcap, then new users would more likely be attracted to those than bitcoin. what stops this treadmill where people spill over into faster, lower-marketcap coins, possibly having higher block rewards or tail emission? eventually people will recognize it for the farce that it is and abandon POW.

the only exception i can see is XMR due to its excellent asic resistance and reasonable (for a POW coin) scaling capability.

if i had to predict the survivors of the coinocalypse, they would be xmr, xrp, eth 2.0, and probably a few other consensus / proof of stake coins. i really can't see genuine utility or potential in anything else. bitcoin was an interesting proof of concept but i think it's getting silly now.

>>24243777
Fuck you, yours is 0 prick you dickless bitch

>>24243914
sorry anon, my holy digits already confirmed the truth, thus it shall be so

>>24243905
cont.

actually i think we can say XMR is 100% ASIC-immune.

>>24237151
my kinda thread :) hehe

people were skeptical about bitcoin even when it was pretty quick and there were few competitors, but it has long since outlived its usefulness.

>>24237151
Imagine being still salty at blockstream after 3 years lol. Get over it already.

>>24240828
>safe from all jewish central bank trickery.
Even though blockstream was funded by jewish banks and paypal is going to be the main place for btc instead of the actual blockchain it was built on? Are you retarded?

>>24243599
>massive set of full nodes run by common users
There is not a massive set of full nodes run by common users. There is less than 10K

>>24243914
Bagholder bitch