/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>25066270
>All time low in sats, -84% over the year versus BTC
>BTC is also one of the coins that will survive law so BSV is fucked anyway
Have fun holding this shitcoin. Ari's $5 prediction will come true in 2021.

>>25066865
Be greedy when others are fearful.

>>25066909
No one in BSV is fucking fearful that's the point retard. Find me genuine BSV hodler bears they don't exist right now, all sucking CSW & Ayre's dicks. Next stop unironically sub $60 you faggots heard it here.

not buying your bags faggot

>>25066865
>BTC is also one of the coins that will survive law

You should try reading the report that the DoJ just put out.

>>25067424
Link? I'll actually read the thing unlike 99% of the schizos on here. Afaik BTC and BSV remain highly similar in regards to law. No staking, segwit isn't relevant enough and the law man doesn't care about block size.

>>25066270
I dumped my link, xrp and eth for BSV
wagmi

>>25067079
I would buy so much if it dropped to 60 again

>>25066270
no regulator will care about that piece of shit probably it will die on it's own.

>>25067655
Is about anonymity, traceability and an actual useful protocol.

BTC is a target because it's basically just liberty reserve.

BSV is more like a communication protocol like tcp/ip.

You wouldn't ban tcp/ip just because someone's builds on illegal webpage.
You would ban it if tcp/ip is the danger itself.

Small blocked Bitcoin with segregated witness shoot itself in the foot by becoming the money for the internet instead of the internet itself.

>>25067655

https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1326061/download

>>25067912

What do you think regulators care about?

>>25067992

LN is uber fucked in this regard. Pretty much all the privacy and second layer infrastructure stuff in BTC is fucked beyond belief and they dont even know it yet.

>>25066270
You can't make individuals or companies responsible for public goods like Bitcoin so all Craig and pals have to do is demonstrate widespread usage that's not initiated by them and that they can't shut it down. Since BSV is not a public good unlike Bitcoin BSV will be regulated. It's a money making scheme by a select group who have complete control.

>>25067992
>Is about anonymity, traceability and an actual useful protocol.
BTC doesn't differ from BSV on the first two and the being not useful isn't illegal (in fact it's mandatory in a lot of places).
Unless you're talking about Lightning, which is of course a piece of shit and probably going to be banned. But BTC's core protocol code is not illegal.
None of the arguments made are valid in making BTC illegal. They are in the eventual failing of that project, but that could be literally 15 years down the line. Ain't nobody got time for that.

>>25068003
so they didn't even let him in with a tourist group?
kek

>>25068003
>What do you think regulators care about?
usd hegemony and the ability for usa to swing the swift around like a club.

>>25068220

You are in for a huge wake-up call soon if you actually believe anything you just said.

>>25068436
he is right tho, but sv will fly under the regulatory radar because it's grossly unsuccessful. so no one cares.

>>25068215
Yes

Segregated witness destroyed the lawful part.
Replace by fee or RBF destroyed the money part.
Small Blocks destroy the usability part.

It's a pure useless timebomb Ponzi scheme now.

BSV on the other side, works within the law, can be used as a money transfer system and has endless usability.

The important thing to know is that BSV tokens don't need a price to work, BTC token have are a price tag but nothing to work in.

Also like it or not, nChain patented most use cases and nChain is one of the big BSV supporter if not the biggest since they allowed Calvin to invest.

>>25068789
i don't care about the retarded sv ideology, just gonna comment on the technical part.

>Segregated witness destroyed the lawful part.
what a stupid thing to say, segwit is literally just a different tx format.

>Replace by fee or RBF destroyed the money part.
it's opt-in you don't need to set the flag if you don't like it but it will gain you nothing of course no idiot accepts 0-conf anymore even with rbf disabled

>BSV tokens don't need a price to work
smells like cope

>>25066270
The only holocaust coming is the one that central bankers policies will cause next two years with hyperinflation starving billions.

>>25069634
> of course no idiot accepts 0-conf anymore even with rbf disabled
Exactly it's not safe anymore on BTC

>>25066270
>peer to peer network
>central authority regulation

kek

>>25066270
Survive the holocaust?
BSV will create the holocaust, it will destroy every other coin in the sphere.

What does this sec stuff mean for other coins like Ada

>>25067676
i dumped all my BSV last month for bitcoin CASH

>>25069634
>RBF is opt-in
more like opt-out, even if a transaction has RBF turned off i doubt there isn't a miner out there that won't include a replacement transaction with a higher fee.

i don't think it's built into the protocol that other miners should disregard blocks that include transactions that conflicts with another transaction seen in the node's memory pool, so there's no penalty to try and mine a faulty transaction

besides, the other miners don't know that the issue may be that the original non-enabled RBF transaction just didn't appear in the mining node's mempool. that miner might just not know about the earlier RBF disabled transaction.

so every transaction is replace-by-fee no matter what any flag says because there will always be some miner that ignores it

>>25071403
Replace-By-Fee (RBF) is a node policy that allows an unconfirmed transaction in a mempool to be replaced with a different transaction that spends at least one of the same inputs and which pays a higher transaction fee.

Different node software can use different RBF rules, so there have been several variations. The most widely-used form of RBF today is BIP125 opt-in RBF as implemented in Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 and subsequent versions; this allows the creator of a transaction to signal that they’re willing to allow it to be replaced by a higher-paying version. An alternative form of RBF is full-RBF that allows any transaction to be replaced whether or not it signals BIP125 replacability.

>>25071600
let me rephrase since you got confused: all transactions are replace by fee because miners won't respect previously seen transactions saying they aren't replace by fee. so the miner (not whoever makes the transaction) can "opt-out from RBF" by respecting the rules that other miners won't respect

start begging calvin, on all fours
nobody is buying your bags

>>25070253

>>25071203
stiff
bch is probably more pumpable but we'll see

>>25070253
extremely based

>>25069868
it was never safe on any chain
>>25071403
well duh hello

>>25071855
>miners won't respect previously seen transactions
it would be a completely unenforceable rule anyhow.

>>25072587
that's what i said if you read what i wrote
>besides, the other miners don't know that the issue may be that the original non-enabled RBF transaction just didn't appear in the mining node's mempool

bitcoin protocol and network does not order transactions before a new block is made. transactions are only objectively ordered by being included in valid blocks with the appropriate proof of work.

individual nodes may try to implement simple measures but this is misguided and inconsequential. only good as minor anti-spam measures.

note that any pathetic attempt at pre-consensus can be easily weaponized against the very intent that gave birth to that idiotic idea.

>>25072841
yes people that think 0-conf is a good idea simply don't understand bitcoin protocol. it's mostly cashies so no surprise there.

>>25072879
i'm a cashie tho. mined BTC in 2010.
no im not a billionaire, it was mostly for fun.

>>25072904
there are a few cashies that are not completely retarded for example peter rizun. i never understood how this can be. but still 99% are mouth-breathers.

>>25072947
well probably 95% of bitcoin maxies are also imbeciles. maybe more.

>>25072947
all i wanted was big blocks so that you could pay for something without adding 5% fee on top of it. then bitcoin cash started changing this and adding some complexity like ordering of transactions in blocks.
so i held out with BSV, they kept it simple, but after 2 years of nothing i'm back on BCH.
i still have some BTC as well but i don't believe in it and i fucking hate the retards that control it for not just increasing the blocks. all that adoption lost and splitting the community, and for fucking what. BCH proved that 100% of all miners and all exchanges immediately upgraded their software. BTC even did it once in 2018 due to a serious security flaw discovered by a cashie.
oh well.

>>25073159
>without adding 5% fee on top of it
without adding 50% fee on top of it, i meant to write.

>>25073159
i wanted big blocks too back then. we didn't really see what we see today about miner profitability. it seemed like a really good idea. even self evident.

but the moment bch went through despite all signaling a minority shitfork without consensus in any regard be it community or miners it was an abhorable shitcoin. end of story.

blocksize is a minor detail. not even remotely the most important aspect of bitcoin.

i fully supported bu right up to the point where it was evident they are going full retard and forcing a chain split.

>>25073159
are you seriously blaming btc devs for he fucking split? wtf...

>>25066270
>regulatory holocaust
yes and when is the fat fraudulents cunt next court appearance? been awful quiet of late - he choked on Calvins dick? Questions, questions.
>>25068003
>JimmyInFrontOfRandomBushesInSwitzerland.jpg was funnier, somehow.

>>25073318
the maximum adoption should one hundred and forty four megabytes a day

>>25073348
you're god damn right i do, they left true believers in the idea of peer-to-peer digital CASH no choice. hard to fight against the established brand though even when you have the better product. and not enough miners that were believers so they just follow the fiat.

>>25073449
it's not really a problem when btc can easily do billions of tx/sec with lightning. you couldn't even match that capability with terabyte blocks.

>>25073484
>they left true believers in the idea of peer-to-peer digital CASH no choice
fucking terrorist talk there it's not like you can only do a fork at a given date and if you don't have consensus then you can't try later...
there is absolutely no excuse to what the cashies pulled.

>>25073484
also it's laughable to call bch a better product to btc which is light years more advanced now.

>>25073519
a lightning transaction is not a bitcoin transaction. (Travelling salesman problem)
People want bitcoin not lightning
each lightning channel requires a bitcoin transaction to open. can't scale

>>25073627
oh no this stuck record again.
you fags not gonna enjoy 2021.

>>25073730
>the most btc will ever do is 100 floppy disks a day
it's asinine

>>25073802
no the thing is you tech illiterate mongrels thin the block size is a feature. but it's just global burden. you are not adding capability to bitcoin you are going full retard.

>>25073855
>a 2mb block does not have more transaction capacity than a 1mb block
asinine

>>25073802
also it's totally unlikely that the base block size will remain 1mb forever. it could where are ways to add extension blocks with soft forks it's just not gonna happen.

first taproot gets rolled out and with it bitcoin effective blocksize grows to about 4-6mb maybe more. it's hard to tell depends on the size and complexity of smart contracts in the future. could be even more.

but after taproot is out eventually trustless pruning network will be rolled out. reducing global burden from hundreds of gigabytes to a few gigs.

then when we have the main capability multipliers and dealt with the bloat then we will increase the block size.

but you cashie mongrels not gonna last that long anyhow. no endurance no patience no consensus.

>>25073577
>>25073617
yeah bye

>>25073900
actually bitcoin with 1mb blocks can do more than your retarded shitfork with 100. that's kinda funny. or poetic.

>>25074018
nope

>>25074009
same to you:
you fags not gonna enjoy 2021.

taproot is being rolled out peoples idea of what bitcoin can do will do a radical shift next year. i would ditch your shitcoin while you can and get all the btc you can before this happens. but i know you won't.

>>25074049
doesn't contain ln.
how did you say? asinine. you are comparing dogshit to oranges.

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.

>>25074049
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/blocks?q=&s=size(desc)#

>>25074108
lightning can run on bsv better than on btc because you can open more than 5 channels per second

lightning is absolute shit anyway https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning

>>25074123
like i said you think this is a feature and that's hilarious.

>>25074222
>transaction capacity is not a feature of a peer to peer electronic cash system
asinine

>>25074196
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/06/26/lighting-network-transactions/

>>25074196
like i said you not gonna like 2021 not one bit.
some nasty surprises will be coming.

but most importantly you forget a free forming network based on natural incentives will find it's efficient shape. on it's own. and on certain topologies the routing problem doesn't even exists. in certain uses cases there is no routing even.

it's gonna be fun.

>>25074244
but exactly in transaction capacity bitcoin beats the living shit out of your shitforks rofl. in transacted value too. it's like you are talking against your own shitcoin here.

>>25074304
>free forming network based on natural incentives will find it's efficient shape
hahaha exactly bro and blockstream neckbeards setting the arbitrary number of 1mb/10min is not that.

>>25074479
obviously meant network topology not your retardedness also satoshi set the limit you are talking about with his own hand by recommendation of hal finney.

>>25074501
>26 posts by this id

>>25066270
Or you could, you know, buy YFD and earn passive income through staking. And never work another day in your life.

20K total token supply.
16.5K reserved for staking/yield farming/community redistribution
3K in circulation.
0.5K dev team

>>25075003
27

Imagine replying 27 times to a thread about a shitcoin called segwit lightning, defending the reinvented wheel as the original speeds ahead in a friendly regulatory manner in all but price

>>25067655
umm sweety...
they are looking into the segwit scam, what you're watching on the charts right now is an exit pump rug pull

>>25075748

Bingo

>>25072947
what is rizun´s beef with csw anyway?