/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>3222553
Just use 1/4 of your old bitcoins to buy some bitcoin cash bitcoins.
Whoever wins, you also win.

>>3222553
>muh bitcoin conspiracy
Nah, he's full of shit.

>>3222562
So it is occurring.
Is it being suppressed on here? have you noticed?

>>3222599
see>>3222562

>>3222589
I've been hodling all year, so still got bch from the split

>>3222553
idk, sure seems like a pile of bullshit to me. I'm sure you disagree, of course. Why don't you go ahead and tell me how I'm wrong.

>>3222613
I don't hence why I cam on here asking, have you read >>3222562
I was more curious if it was being suppressed on here along with BCH

>>3222553
>BCH censored on 4chan
where is the proofs?? :D

>>3222599
>>3222613
if you don't think its the case, could you provide info to disprove >>3222562 just calling something bull shit isn't really making an argument is it

Nigga where have u been all week THERE HAVE BEEN HUNDREDS OF BCH THREADS so shut the fuck and go suck a chink dick

>>3222642
Yeah thats the bit that seems wrong to me, I'm mean clearly the patent exists, I was just curious if anyone had experienced any of the suppression

as soon as they said moores law they where wrong and so was satoshi. there is no bitcoin jesus thank fuck

Why the hate? It's a free market. The best coin will win

>>3222652
clearly I haven't been here hence why I came and asked, thanks for clearing it up so eloquently, do you no anything more about the segwit patent?

lol at anyone saying bcash in censored on idiot chan FUCKING LOL FOREVER

>>3222668
well desu BTC i dont agree with the direction that btc is going but bch is a scam miners are pumping out coins like crazy.Ive been reading alot about this drama and i would say to stick with BTC

>>3222693
well desu i dont agree*

>>3222708
I'm just gonna hodl both since the split

>>3222562
holy fuck its all true. this whole time core devs have been saying there arent any patents which is true SO FAR. Core cucks about to get exposed

why the fuck would anyone come to 4chan for financial advice. are your 12 fucking years old?

>>3222661
And it wont be btc nor bch

>>3222553
Why would anyone seriously take any advice from someone who can't even spell "patents".

>>3222771

bump

>>3222562
Fud. The legal threat has nothing to do with the patents afaict.

>>3222727
They said there were no segwit patents. The patent in that image is not for segwit.

>>3222962
what is it for

>>3222553
>Bitcoin's price scales according to Moore's Law: an exponential increase based on the userbase.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read on /biz/.

>>3222986
It's a method of getting a transaction from a main chain to a sidechain, it's like one of many possible ways of going between the main blockchain and a second layer.

>>3223023
u mean like lightning network?

it is true look it up for yourself faggot everyone has google

>>3222553
>Bitcoin Core and Blockstream want to be the Visa of Bitcoin
You know that fees don't go to them, right?
Regular transaction fees (including the fees from opening or close an LN channel) go to *miners*.
The fees for using an LN channel go to whoever runs the LN channel. Anyone can run an LN channel (it's not like it requires special hardware like mining), and LN transactions are free to pick among LN channels, so competition means the LN channel fees will trend toward being absolutely minuscule, and Bitcoin Core and Blockstream aren't in any privileged position.

>>3223032
Yes. But there would be a lot of ways of doing the same thing that aren't patented. Basically that image is a lot of hype.

You have to ask yourself why they're saying segwit has patents, then putting up a patent that isn't for segwit as proof.

It's FUD.

They want your bitcoin.

ITT: bitchcoin crash shills getting more and more desperate to post FUD and nonsense. they are pretty scared segwit + LN will solve the scalabilty problem and the chink miners wont be able to asiboost anymore.

>>3222601
Actually, yes. I have. I saw one this morning and now when I go back to my history link I get a 404. That thread was deleted.

I actually used to bash BCH whistleblowers until I saw this reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/

TL:DR - Blockstream received funding from AXA Group, whose CEO is Henri De Castries, the freaking chairman of Bilderberg.

This is bad news. BTC has unfortunately been compromised. I don't agree that we need to be purists and stick to a pure version of Satoshi's vision, but Ln moves things off-chain, which defeats the whole purpose of Blockchain in the first place.

((They)) are in control of Blockstream, which has infiltrated and taken over BTC Core. Its what they are best at doing.

However, this is 2017, not Christmas eve on 2913 when the kikes pushed the Federal Reserve through congress. This is akin to pushing the FED through Bitcoin. We can stop them.

>>3223058
(cont)
And the funny thing about that comparison is that LN can actually make Bitcoin's capability be comparable to Visa without Visa's downsides.

wtf just bought 100k bitcoin plus

>>3223074
Bitcoin is totally in Bilderberg's interest, retard.
>"the Bilderberg Group's theme is to "bolster a consensus around free market Western capitalism and its interests around the globe"
Bitcoin is their dream coin which could make their Hayekian economics come true.

>>3223074
>but Ln moves things off-chain, which defeats the whole purpose of Blockchain in the first place.
The purpose of Bitcoin isn't to be an inefficient broadcast-everywhere medium. It's to do transactions in a trustless manner. It just turns out that until LN, broadcast-everywhere was literally the only way we knew how to do trustless transactions.

LN still has the same trustless guarantees of normal transactions. There's no double-spend or counterparty risk.

Complaining that LN works without requiring transactions to be immediately broadcast to everyone and then waited on to be confirmed is completely missing the point. It's like complaining that cars miss the point of travel because you don't get to bond with a horse!

>>3223074

And if that's true, you think the best choice is to put your money with Mr fuck your mother if you want some fuck instead of the fucking chairman of the bilderlberg group?

No reason why you are poor

>>3223074


BCH will have their own offchain solution. Block size increase just kicks the can down the road.

>>3223106
>>3223108
>>3223113
None of this matters. BTC Core has been compromised. Those bastards are doing what they did in 1913 and subvert our currency, step by step. This is just the beginning.

>And if that's true, you think the best choice is to put your money with Mr fuck your mother if you want some fuck instead of the fucking chairman of the bilderlberg group?

Man, you don't get it. You and any offspring you have are going to get fucked in 5-10 years if BTC becomes the dominant currency. We ALL will.

I'm not saying to invest in BCH. What I AM saying is that its clear BTC has been compromised and it would be better for all of us to knock it off the top spot.

>>3223078
so to be clear who runs a ln node?

>>3223139
Alex Jones-tier clockwork elves

>>3223141
Whoever wants to. You could have like an Amazon hub uploading all their tx at the end of the day

>>3223150
You forgot "tinfoil hat" in your typical response

>>3223154
but if blockstream is hypothetically patenting lightning network, even if amazon were to setup a node im sure some kind of fee structure would be built into amazons node so that blockstream would get a cut, no?u know kind of like visa? isnt rusty russell a LARGE contributor of ln?

>>3223139
Ok so I suggest you sell all your compromised btc and start building a bunker to protect yourself from the apocalypse in 5-10 years. And please gtfo too.

>>3223178
It's not a patent for lightning either, it's a patent for moving between the main chain and lightning.

>>3223191
well yea they get a cut everytime someone opens a node right?

>>3223180
Really? You're gonna say shit like that after such clear evidence? Go fuck yourself, moron.

>>3223176

It is a bit tinfoil now you mention it

>>3223207
Unless they connect using a different method of which there would be a fuckton.

Or if they just use the patented method and don't pay anyway, which is how patents roll with China

>>3222553
It's all true, except Satoshi passed the baton to Gavin, and he was swarmed by jews until he relented, thats how bilderbergcore/bankstream/LN conglomerate took the reins.
I didn't know it was being censored here but if it is, I suspect that's only afer it goes to archive. At least the discussin is allowed to rn its course. This has had several threads the last few days and none got 404'd or archived ealry that I saw and no comments disappearing.

Theymos channels are an abomination, Bitcoin was made to be anti-censirship and look what this jew does. And more importantly, Bitcoin by definitin was PEER-TO-PEER.

>>3223113
>And if that's true, you think the best choice is to put your money with Mr fuck your mother if you want some fuck instead of the fucking chairman of the bilderlberg group?
My money's with BITCOIN, THE PRODUCT NOT THE LABEL.

Got a little more BCC, sold all my BTC for ETH and XMR.

>>3223141
Anyone with a positive amount of BTC and a computer staying online can. Running an LN channel just requires that two parties do a transaction together that lock up some BTC temporarily. So me and Bob both put 0.2 BTC in. Before finalizing that transaction, we also create a pre-arranged transaction which unlocks our money and sends it back to each of us (0.2 to me, 0.2 to Bob). At any time, we can broadcast this transaction to close the channel.

Once me and Bob have the channel open, whenever we want to pay each other, instead of doing a regular transaction (which is slow to confirm, requires regular transaction fees, and bloats the blockchain for literally everyone), we just update the unlock transaction. Say I paid for Bob's lunch and he wants to pay me back 0.005 BTC. We just update the LN-closing transaction so instead of sending 0.2 BTC back to each of us, it sends 0.205 BTC to me and 0.195 BTC to Bob. We don't broadcast this on the blockchain yet until we decide to close the LN channel. (You might be wondering if Bob could take back that 0.005 BTC by choosing to broadcast the earlier version of the LN-closing transaction that sent 0.2 BTC back to both of us. LN solves this because when we create the newer LN-closing transaction, we also create special transactions which invalidate the older LN-closing transaction.)

Now say I want to quickly send some BTC to Charlie, who I've never met before and who I don't have an open LN channel with. If Bob has an open LN channel with Charlie, and I have an open LN channel with Bob, then I can actually create a special transaction that Bob relays to Charlie that goes through LN channels. The transaction is only valid if it gets all the way to Charlie; there's no way for Bob to decide to take the transaction for himself without relaying it to Charlie. To encourage Bob to keep his LN channel open so I can do this again in the future, I might make the transaction send half a penny to Bob.

>>3223221
how? everything on chain is congested. core wants SMALLER blocks. what would that do? force people to use lightning network. Look its all about money it always has been. i thought bitcoin was supposed to be open source lol

>>3223236
You're supposed to hodl both chains you fucking cuck

>>3223178
LN nodes aren't so expensive to run that companies would be the only one running them, and they aren't so rare that individuals would be forced to use LN nodes with shitty restrictions. Any individual capable of running the normal client software could participate.

>>3223255
HODL BITCOIN = B C C

SODL BANKCOIN

>>3223207
Uhhh, no. Where did you get that idea?

>>3223255
no you are supposed to hold btc and dump bch. that's what smart money does.
>>3223208
Bilderberg members are against national regulations which hurt their business. Bitcoin is exactly the kind of thing that would help them bypass national regulations.

>>3223277
im just speculating i dont know. its hard to understand why blockstream/core are so against block increase for security reasons when its been tested already. anyway i have both so i really dont care either way

>>3223249
small blocks is a scam for LN, but even smaller blocks? Get ready to pay hundreds of dollars per transaction, or use Lightning Network which is basically a bank.

Ver and the Chinks literally saved Bitoin from complete takeover.

>>3223247
thanks for the examples and explanation

>>3223306
LN would profit more from bigger blocks retard

>>3223294
Bilderberg members like regulations that transfer your money to their pockets, like segwit.

>>3223311
No one would subscribe to LN if there were 8MB block limit. There would not be one single advantage.

LN is a bank channel and (the real) Bitcoin is anti-bank.

>>3223316
What do you think segwit is?
>>3223294
BCH won't go anywhere as long as people can sell big block mining equipment

>>3223247
(cont)
>Before finalizing that transaction, we also create a pre-arranged transaction which unlocks our money and sends it back to each of us (0.2 to me, 0.2 to Bob). At any time, we can broadcast this transaction to close the channel.
Just to emphasize something here: at any time, either of us by ourselves could broadcast this transaction to close the channel. I don't need Bob's permission or help. If Bob drops off the face of the Earth or tells me he'll only help me if I pay him a bunch of money, it doesn't matter. I can take the LN-closing transaction to the blockchain and get out of that relationship with all of my funds intact.

>>3223343
>What do you think segwit is?
Banker trojan horse to weaken bitcoin security and destroy its vision of open ledger.

>>3223316
where goes the transaction fees? that's right, in miners pocket, fucking retard

>>3223359
not ln transactions, they go to whoever is running the node and i have a feeling blockstreams is going to run some serious nodes

>>3223332
LN confirms instantly, has smaller fees (even if you had bigger blocks), and doesn't bloat the blockchain for everyone.
Bitcoin can do 3 transactions per second with 1mb blocks. It could do a whole 24 per second with 8mb blocks. LN doesn't have a theoretical limit; it's the only way you can get near Visa's *thousands* of transactions per second.

>>3223332
>to weaken bitcoin security and destroy its vision of open ledger
see >>3223108
>Complaining that LN works without requiring transactions to be immediately broadcast to everyone and then waited on to be confirmed is completely missing the point. It's like complaining that cars miss the point of travel because you don't get to bond with a horse!

>>3223395
rusty russell is the biggest contributor of lightning network. it just so happens that he works for blockstream. is it a coincidence that the patent, althought doesnt say lightning network, is pending for blockstream. could there be ANY economic incentive for them to use ln?

>>3223359
You're the retard retard. Weak and dishonest argument.

The fees will go through blockstream to the bank cartel. The miniers arent the ones pushing small/smaller block, it's the devs. They're well-compensated for this.

>>3223395
>LN confirms instantly, has smaller fees (even if you had bigger blocks), and doesn't bloat the blockchain for everyone.
BCH does all of these things and more, and doesn't require a third-party (A BANK) to facilitate. THis is the definition of what Bitcoin does.

Your other point is unclear but it appears you don't want transactions "broadcast to everybody". Have you read Satoshi's white paper, do you understnd what BTC was/BCC is?

Peer-to-peer, no-bank transactions are literlly made possible by "broadcasting to everyone." That was Bitcoin's technological breakthrough.

>>3223462
>The fees will go through blockstream to the bank cartel.
And what I mean by this is, nobody will pay the per-transaction fees anymore, there's totall unfeasible at $15 now so imagine them at 3 or 400. You will have no choice but to use LN and pay subsciption/banking fees.

Bitcoin was supposed to be INSTANT and FREE.

>>3223497
>BCH does all of these things and more, and doesn't require a third-party (A BANK) to facilitate. THis is the definition of what Bitcoin does.
BCH doesn't confirm instantly and can't scale to thousands of transactions per second without an off-chain solution like LN.

>Have you read Satoshi's white paper, do you understnd what BTC was/BCC is?
Do you? You don't even appear to know what confirmations are. Or how transaction fees work:
>The fees will go through blockstream to the bank cartel.

>Peer-to-peer, no-bank transactions are literlly made possible by "broadcasting to everyone." That was Bitcoin's technological breakthrough.
And the ability for horses to move people was a breakthrough forever ago. Doesn't mean that they're the only or best way to get around.

>>3223554
just kys faggot. bitcoin is currently being attacked by your little chink friends just so they can say shit like this. just kys retard, you lost the battle.

>>3223554
>Bitcoin was supposed to be INSTANT
Are you kidding me? Do you know what confirmations are? A bunch of the original whitepaper is just dedicated to showing how its transactions are only secure if they go through long confirmation times. Bitcoin never had any hopes for "instant" until LN was thought up.

>>3223569
We are all going to lose if ((they)) gain control of crypto. YOU FUCKING PETTY MORON

>>3223558
>can't scale to thousands of transactions per second without an off-chain solution like LN.
Can scale fine to the current market with 8x the block limit of BTC. As need increase block limit will increase too, Satoshi's blueprint specified eventual 32 MB blocksize.

>>3223558
>Do you? You don't even appear to know what confirmations are.
based on what, you dirty, lying jew.
Or how transaction fees work:
At 1 mb or less there willl be no per-transaction fees, everything will move on Lightning paid for by subscrption fee as I expained here

>>3223558
>And the ability for horses to move people was a breakthrough forever ago. Doesn't mean that they're the only way muh
I'll explain it to you like you're 5 years old:

>Bank take your money, bank bad
>bitcoin buy stuff no bank
>btc LN is same as no bitcoin = everythng go through bank
>>3223554
There's no substance or truth to your propoganda, so you act like (((this))).

>>3223558
You're a liar. Btc was supposed to scale. Original was 32mb.

Thrre is no compelling reason to constrict the blocksize. None. Blocks team cannot give any good reason to constrict.

It's quite clear what the plan is. For those of you calling others conspiracy theorists in 2017 is a joke considering so many conspiracy theories have been proven correct.

This is not 2005 where you can make fun of people taking a video like Loose Change seriously.

>>3223645
>bankers
>(((this)))
Why not skip to the point and shill nazicoin instead?

Blockstream is funded by the chairman of the bilderberg group which might as well be the top elite themselves. Core has been compromised.

>>3223672
If you have a solution that gets you to thousands of transactions per second with low disk usage and low network usage, and you have a solution that gets you to *tens* of transactions per second with 32x disk usage and even higher network usage, why the hell would you pick the latter?

Both solutions are decentralized, double-spend-free, and free of counterparty risk. Oh and the first solution also gets instant confirmations.

>>3223686
>not an argument

>>3223686
Oh, so you've migrated from pol now shills? Looks like biz is the secret battleground no one mentions.

>>3223719
One of my all-time favorite images. Tight round ass, narrow waist, delicious creamy skin, bobcut, and wielding a stabbing implement with confidence. I don't care what her face looks like, I would live inside her vagina.

>>3223715
And this was an argument?
I'll explain it to you like you're 5 years old:
>>Bank take your money, bank bad
>>bitcoin buy stuff no bank
>>btc LN is same as no bitcoin = everythng go through bank

The only argument there isn't technical, it's the allusion to bankers and (((jews))). You're pandering /pol/ memes to shill shitty bcash. You didn't address anything there.

>>3223732
but if bitcoin is open source why would blockstream feel the need to patent something like moving from on chain to off chain "cough ln cough". is it really security? it seems like a monopoly is in the works althought i dont know what the patent covers

>>3223732
I've laid everything out more than once. It's like I'm talking to a wall.

Anyone who cares to look over the thread can see which one of us is lying.

Stop shilling your centralized Bank of CHina coin.

>>3223730
Good eye brother. However, pay attention to the message as well. The shills are here in full force and they want you to buy your demise, the one world currency, and Jihan is their fall guy, making it seem like a false dichotomy when really he was meant to crash it and get a nice slice from blockstream.

Eth is also part of the false dichotomy, making it seem like there's an alternative when really eth is already an nwo scam shillcoin.

They're playing multiple angles here.

>>3223787
>implying you wont get censored by the cabal on theymoschan

>>3223730
Like Scarlett Johansson before she got fat.

>>3223791
whoa

>>3223791
Do you have any proof of this?

>>3224009
Just follow the money, and the miner politics. Also the relationship to bilderburg secures this, they're trying to fed up every crypto that anyone would want to use/invest in. I bet their next target is Monero somehow, they're already trying to nudge it out with zcash.

>>3223791
Not gonna lie, former BTC supporter here. This is fucking hilarious watching BCC crash and burn. But in all seriousness we can't let Jihan get his hands on the nuclear codes.

Is this what a paid Blockstream shill looks like?

https://bitcointalk org/index.php?action=profile;u=1024303;sa=showPosts;start=0

>>3224820
He already has the codes. That's why he's crashing bcc, with no survivors. Blockstream devs and jihan will be the Rothschilds of crypto and we're letting it happen.

>>3224893
If jihan wanted to be a rothschild of crypto he would need to get through satoshi's stack

>>3224957
Implying satoshi ever existed or his stake exists at all?
The entire "mysterious creator" stuff screams cia. Trust me, I want a decentralized currency, but btc is co-opted and being used to set up this new wave of tech elites.

Yall should look when that bildeburg fella became the ceo, which was what sept 2016? But they decided to invest in around feb 2016? How does that make sense,>>3222553

>>3225008
They plan in advance. Every time.

>>3224893
Well, we all knew this would happen, after all who controls the money supply? They do. They could buy out the whole crypto ecosystem if they wanted to. The only way we come out on top is if we simply do not use the currencies backed by them. But its impossible to do so. So its a catch-22 for us.

>BTC anon explains how you don't need third parties with the LN and transactions are still confirmed on-chain even through the second-layer
>BTC anon explains that lots of coins already have Segwit, which makes it obvious to the most retard of the retards in the whole world that Segwit is not patented otherwise they couldn't do it
>BTC anon explains that big blocks are not only useless in obtaining scalability but are also bad for a great deal of reasons: less nodes will lead to less decentralization; polarization of hashrate will further centralize the already centralized mining; LATENCY WILL GO UP AND WILL ALLOW MINERS TO DOUBLE SPEND AND CREATE MORE BITCOINS THAN THE ONES THAT SHOULD EXIST, THUS DESTROYING THE WHOLE PURPOSE BITCOIN WAS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE
>BTC anon points out that BCH was created with the purpose of stealing Bitcoin's hashrate at certain intervals, thus making transactions temporarily slower and allowing the astroturfing r/btc goons to claim we need big blocks so that a Miner cartel can get their hands on the network
>BTC anon points out that even if they fail, they will successfully have convinced cashcucks to give Jihan their BTC in exchange for pre-mined chinacoins that will be worth nothing in the future

------

>BCH cuck keeps autistically writing ((((((((((((((((((((they)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>muh subscription
>muh blockstreamcore
>muh satoshi vision
>while ignoring literally everything and pretending not to read
>using the same formatting, the same words, the same pictures over and over again
>pointless /pol/pandering just to appear like they are "part of the 4chan gang" although Jihan's only non-chinese mining farms are literally in TEL AVIV

I REALLY FUCKING WONDER WHO THE PAJEET ASTROTURFERS ARE IN EACH AND EVERYONE OF THESE STUPID FUCKING THREADS.
I HOPE ALL YOU CASHKEKS GET CANCER AND DIE BECAUSE I COME HERE TO /BIZ/ TO HAVE FUN NOT TO HEAR RANTS BY STREETSHITTERS PAID 0.10 RUPEES PER POST.

K
Y
S

>>3225067
That's exactly what they want you to think. Any truly decentrilized coin will allow us to break away. The sole fact is that they will do anything to stop that at this point, even - like you said - buying out huge chunks of the market.

They need the fed ponzi to continue on into a one world currency, and the heads of that ponzi will be the new Rothschilds.

>>3225105
Big blocks work, you aren't tricking anyone. Get over it bitch boy.

>>3225117
>big blocks work
keep telling yourself that chink nigger

>>3225137
Remember when they mined a 4mb block in an hour with 1% of btcs hashrate? No ofcourse not because you're pic related.

>>3222744
Lotta people here made tonsa gains from /biz/, yes biz is retarded fucking 90% of the time, but the 10% of rational folks really hold it together when it comes to advice.

>>3225105
They think they missed Bitcoin's moon mission and they see that bcash is low relative to it, so they're channeling all their desperation into bad arguments to try to meme bcash up with them.

>>3225185
>bad arguments
>centralizing a decentralized coin makes it something different

>>3225105
>BTC anon explains how you don't need third parties with the LN
If it goes on a private, third party channel, it's third party.

>BTC anon explains that big blocks are not only useless in obtaining scalability
Satoshi disagrees, but if the scalability wasnt caused by block size, then what caused it?

The block limit was put in place for the epress reason of preventing spam, at a blocksize so high it didn't interfere with transaction speed or cost at all.

Now it's being used deliberately to slow down transactions and make them cost more, to pressure users into centralizing their transactions.

>>3226264
>If it goes on a private, third party channel, it's third party.
literally all wrong, as explained itt countless times but you cashcucks just pretend not to know you are parroting bullshit
>Satoshi disagrees
Literally all the possible candidates to being satoshi agree
>if the scalability wasnt caused by block size, then what caused it?
Wtf are you even talking about you fucking moron? Everyone knew since the beginning that the first layer wouldn't be enough to sustain wide adoption. Hal Finney already mentioned this in 2010. Raising the blocksize isn't scalable because the rise in transactions is negligible, whereas the negative side-effects are significant. Having a second layer improves transactions throughput significantly while having virtually no negative side effect.
>Now it's being used deliberately to slow down transactions and make them cost more,
Jihan is deliberately spamming the network to slow down transactions to help you astroturfers with your bullshit.
> to pressure users into centralizing their transactions.
literally the opposite. The second layer decentralized bitcoin further, whereas a blocksize centralizes the network

>>3225157
dumb frogposter

>BCH

Will this SHITCOIN JUST GO THE FUCK AWAY

>>3222553
Doesn't matter.

>>3226464
>argument
Where is it? I can't see one

>>3226466
I want it to stay, I love this shit flinging satoshi drama.

>>3226504
because you made none you fucking moron. Your frogposting makes literally no argument.
What is claiming that they mined 4mb blocks with 1% hashrate supposed to demonstrate exactly in your inbred streetshitting kike mind?

>>3226539
It isn't a claim you can see it on the chain and the data is also there to back it up.
>big blocks don't work
>perfect example of it working perfectly while at the same time btc btfo
>WHAT ARGUMENT HUH BIG BLOCKS DON'T FUCKING WORK DUDE PRESENT SOME EVIDENCE THEY DO FUCKING FROGPOSTER
mfw

>>3226608
>we are able to mine big blocks on a centalized altcoin therefore big blocks work and are not bad for Bitcoin
it's incredible how someone can be unironically this retarded. Literally all the arguments presented for why big blocks are bad have nothing to do with the ability to mine them you fucking retard.
Read up on how bitcoin works, read up on the technical reasons why big blocks are bad for the network. If you still don't get it, kindlgy remove yourself from the genepool.

>>3226630
Yeah I've read them and they don't factor in technological improvement whatsoever let alone the fact that as blocks have been getting gradually bigger over the years the amount of mining pools have increased. But of course once again you wouldn't be know because you are pic related arguing that segwit + LN is somehow not going to centralize the coin.

>>3226657
>Yeah I've read them and they don't factor in technological improvement
there's no technological improvement that can fix latency you fucking moron. Blocks have to be propagated globally, to the whole world. Fucking China where most big pools are even has an internet speed bottleneck that makes this worse. Let's not even mention TOR nodes from countries with less freedom that would be automatically cut out of the network thus making the censorhip characteristics of BTC disappear even more. Let's not even mention how this way the hashrate would concentrate even more in the very centralized pools, many of which are owned by Jihan himself.
Noooooo these are all stupid arguments because MUH BIG BLOCKS, MUH DICK MUFUGGA DIP DA DOP GIB BIG BLOCK NIGGU
Literally kys nigger.
>t alone the fact that as blocks have been getting gradually bigger over the years the amount of mining pools have increased
The amount of mining pools hasn't increased, most of the new pools are all in China and owned by Jihan you fucking retard.
In the meanwhile nodes have decreased, and ASIC manufacturers have decreased.
>ut of course once again you wouldn't be know because you are pic related arguing that segwit + LN is somehow not going to centralize the coin.
Segwit + LN literally decentralizes the network and you can keep ignoring all the arguments made over and over again while that is the case but the truth won't change
>b-b-but I post frogs so I am totally right a-ah, r-right guys?
kys pajeet

>>3223247
>we both put 0.2 btc in
This right here is why it will fail. It requires both parties to have funds. Not to mention it's over complicated as fuck. The wallet providers that plan to support it had better pull some html voodoo and abstract all that shit down to a few clicks or no one will even use it.

>>3226730
https://medium.com/@ACINQ/announcing-eclair-wallet-a8d8c136fc7e

>>3226696
Sick boogieman post filled with bullshit. Refuted absolutely """"literally""""" 0 of my arguments whatsoever while larping about LN not being a centralized shithole.

>>3226730
So if i want to send bob some money, bob has to already have the exact same amount of money I want to send him in order for an LN tx to process.

but if bob already has the money why the fuck am i sending bob money at all?

None of this LN shit makes any sense.

>>3226785
>hurr durr you wrong me right
I literally gave you a shitload of arguments, whereas your only argument was implying I was dumb by posting a frog.
You made no other argument, absolutely zero. Your claim that the LN centralizes Bitcoin is refuted by facts, whereas my claim that big blocks harm the network is grounded in facts.
You don't like it? Your own problem, but don't come here wasting everyone's time and go back to r*ddit where you can jerk off to pictures of supreme leader Jihan Wu with your fellow r*ddit cucks

>>3226817
Anon was only making an example. Read up on how the LN works.

>>3222656

this guy and yesterday someone banned me for "racism"

>>3226608
You are a frog of simple mind.

You are the point missing point misser.

>>3226831
agree the mod was wrong, he should have banned you for being a retard

>>3223139
>political conspiracy theory on a business board
>w-why my threads get banned!!!!
Literally too stupid to read and understand /biz/ rules.

>>3226820
>muh evil jihan
Sick speculative bullshit arguments I'm eternally btfo

>>3223571
Zero confirmations were in use 2 years ago, when you didn't know what bitcoin is.

Newfags are destroying BTC for all of us, thank God for Roger Ver and BCH

>>3227075
>being this retarded
Zero confirmations are simply not secure enough. You can't have worldwide adoption without security. Normies have nothing to do with it, this was always as Satoshi intended it. He literally created Bitcoin to solve the problem of double spending, and zero confirmations is not secure enough for that. Also stop LARPing faggot every early adopters knows this, the fact you come up with zero confirmations as an argument is because you are a nucoiner who got brainwashed by the only person who unironically uses it as an argument: Roger Ver

>>3227015
>d-d-don't insult my supreme leader you meanie
You have to back spineless shill

>ITT: bagholders, chink shills and /pol/ schizos team up to shill for BCH

Seriously though I think (You) should stick to pol or reddit. It's hard to tell now with the bitmain shill invasion we're having this summer, but up until a month ago you could see the regulars of biz have a good idea how bitcoin works and were on to Jihan's shenanigans. So tone it down or take it elsewhere, I doubt you're getting any actual 4chan user to buy your propaganda or your shitcoin.

>>3227139
>Being this dumb
Satoshi never set a specific number of confirmations, retard. And if you weren't a newfag you'd know that 0confirmation WERE LITERALLY IN USE before transactions stopped even showing up because of the clogged mempool.
Yet you're here, claiming that they're impossible.
Not every transaction is a car sale.

Fucking dumbass

>>3227015
You've been thoroughly owned, Pajeet. Your shitting street awaits.

chinese miners are greedy, connect the dots. all the rest is just a bullshit smoke screen to hide the real facts that everything they want for btc will benefit them 100x more than the users.

>>3222553
It's all true.
However there is a LOT of money at stakes and people care more about their shekels than "satoshi vision".

go in BCH now, wont go much less

>>3227192
>pajeet astroturfers are THIS retarded
Fucking subhuman monkey, I never said zero confirmation transactions are impossible, I said they are not secure. It is confirmation that enables BTC transactions to be called secure because those confirmations avoid double spending. Without confirmations there's no solving the double spending problem, i.e. there's no Bitcoin.
Bitcoin now is too big to use zero confirmations, as the value of the network and the value of a single satoshi is too high. Businesses are not going to accept payments with a currency that not only is volatile (but that of course will be fixed with time), but that is also NOT SECURE. Why would they not use traditional channels instead? If a fraud happens there, they have insurance, they can get their money back. With BTC that does not happen, so it has to be 100% secure for them to accept payments in BTC.
Regarding confirmations, you fucking retarded nucoiner goon from r/btc, the more confirmations the more secure the transaction is. 6 confirmations is simply a rule of thumb, in the sense that after 6 confirmations the transaction is secure enough that you can be statistically sure it went through.

Let's see how you keep strawmanning you ignorant moron.
LEARN AND STUDY BEFORE ASTROTURFING, WATCHING ROGER VER, A LITERAL NORMIE WHO READ 2 BOOKS IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE IS NOT STUDYING. GO BACK TO PLEBBIT AND STAY THERE

Basically, buy Ethereum

I see BTC crashing this year because of higher fees and all the fake tether propping BTC up tumbling down.

That my friends, is when the flippening will commence and most normies will be stuck holding the bags of the wrong coin.

>>3222553
So BCH is the exact same as the old bitcoin, but with better capacity, while BTC (with segwit) altered the concept pretty dramatically by taking smaller transactions off the public ledger and onto a proprietary network?

>>3227746
no, the OP post is pure astroturfing propaganda

>>3222599
Hi blockstream

>>3227760
how is >>3227746
wrong though?

>>3227760
Why is that?

>>3227770
>>3227776
read the whole thread and you'll see why it's wrong, it's been explained several times

>>3227796
Ok, I'm willing to sit down and learn. Why is BTC taking transactions off of the blockchain better then simply increasing block size?

>>3227746
Jesus christ guys watch a fucking developer's video explaining how the fucking lightning network works.

>>3227910
So it doesn't alter the fabric of bitcoin?
Every single transaction is still in the same public ledger?

have these fucking jews taken over bitcoin already?
THEY CANT KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THIS SHIT

>>3222553
/r/bitcoin reminds me of how /r/dogecoin was in 2013.

/r/bitcoin used to be full of early adopters, tech savvy people. Now its full of cult members who spout how Segwit and LN will make fees go down to nothing but they dont understand how either works and theyre fine to keep it that way.

All the while fees continue going up.

>>3227889
>Why is BTC taking transactions off of the blockchain
it isn't
>better then simply increasing block size?
it's been explained countless times ITT pajeet, learn how to read

>>3227981
>le early adopter meme XD
how to stop the astroturfers. If you are looking for cult members go to r/btc. Either way r*ddit is shit in general, so if you go there you are welcome to go back and never come here again

>>3228000
*spot

>>3227922
Is it propetary network?

>>3228017
Apparently Segwit/lightning network is patented, so yes.

>>3227988
>it isn't
Wait, so all transactions are still on-chain?

>>3228017

yes

you send your tx there and the LN send them to the blockchain

>>3228043
Wrong

>>3222562
Bump

>>3223067
It's for sidechains built on SegWit you Mongoloid..

>>3228095
That image is a heap of shit. Read the thread.

>>3228104
Its a method of interaction between mainchains and sidechains. It's not a patent for segwit. It's not a patent for lightning.

Prepare for a IOTA overtake.

>>3228124
>mainchains and sidechains
So BTC is an altcoin now?

Was it really impossible to keep the exact same system, but up the capacity?

t. srs questions frogs

>>3228043
>>3228058
They aren't patented and the transactions get added to the blockchain when the channel is closed.

>>3228153
Increasing the block size doesn't allow you to multiply the number of transactions by thousands which is what we need to do to make it usable long term. BCH will get sidechains.

>>3228153
It's literally the first few minutes of the developer's seminary, go see it yourself instead of asking to be spoon feeded.

>>3228165
It really doesn't sound good to me that TXs are routed through a different network for which someone else has patents.

It seems like someone is literally latching their shit onto bitcoin.

>>3228195
>the developer's seminary
LInk?

>>3228204
Show us these patents.

The only patents that exist are for one method to get transactions between a main chain and side chains.

There would be many other possible methods.

Segwit is not patented and the fact that they say it is, shows they have an agenda

>>3228354
>The only patents that exist are for one method to get transactions between a main chain and side chains.
Well that would count, wouldn't it?
Without that patented bit it wouldn't work I imagine.

>>3228416
>There would be many other possible methods.

Yes. Yes it would.

Sidechain FUD is FUD. BCH will need sidechains. Nick Szabo, most likely Satoshi, supports sidechains.

>>3228435
If we get sidechains, and you don't want to use the patented method, USE ANOTHER METHOD!


>>3228416

>>3228435
it's clearly just a defensive patent anyway

>>3227607
>I said they're not impossible
>The transaction NEEDS to be secure
Then which one is it, retard? What NEEDS to happen is for merchants to decide, isn't it?

If they're not impossible and they were being used before blockstream fucked everything up, then why do you have a problem with them not being secure by your standards.

Merchants found them secure enough. They were willing to take the risk, in order to expand their user base with a new payment method.

The rest of your post is basically explaining the whitepaper as a non-tech normie. Trust me, I read this paper in 2010 and I've developed on top of it. You seem to be proud of having some basic knowledge. Pretty pathetic.

I bet you didn't even use capslock and held the shift key, angrily typing with your fat fingers. Go see a shrink.

>>3225105
That OP is from 8/pol/ which for the past months they've been calling Blockstream Jewish and agreeing with each other on it.

>>3228479
Shut the fuck up go...guy!

>>3228479
>Merchants found them secure enough
They didn't, stop believing Roger's lies you filthy nucoiner. You identify yourself as a person who never actually bought with BTC irl.

>The rest of your post is basically explaining the whitepaper as a non-tech normie. Trust me, I read this paper in 2010 and I've developed on top of it. You seem to be proud of having some basic knowledge. Pretty pathetic.
Keep LARPing Pajeet, it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about

>I bet you didn't even use capslock and held the shift key, angrily typing with your fat fingers. Go see a shrink.
In your whole post there were literally 0 arguments except repeating like a parrot Ver's lies, pretending you are an early adopter and developer (clearly false given that you literally don't know how bitcoin works) and insulting me. 0 arguments as always, just a streetshitting subhuman monkey using buzzwords to astroturf 4chan.

>>3228491
is that supposed to be proof that it's correct? Everytime I have seen a thread on Bitcoin on 8/pol/ 90% of the posts were nocoiners calling crypto a ponzi and a scam, it's the last place where you can find genuine information about the topic.

>>3228526
>"c-call them jews Raj, that will surely make them look wrong because 4chan is a neo-nazi website a-ah"
>"sure thing Pajeet, I'll reply to your thread and I'll create the impression that other normal people agree with you although I am an astroturfer like you. Ahahaha we are so smart Pajeet, mr. Ver is going to pay us 2 rupees this time ahah"

>>3228473
riiiiiiiiight

Is bitcoin backed by the honor system now?

>>3228435
>>3228463
>use another method
Like any news in this regard wouldn't cause crashes and more forks and generally shit up bitcoin.

>(((X))) is most likely satoshi and he approves!
Red flag.

>>3228556
Since every argument you've thrown around is just speculative bullshit and then when confronted you cover behind your jihan boogymans. I'll go ahead and say your a submissive little kike shill who has no idea what the fuck he's talking about.

>>3228565
It's a method to get transactions between main chains and side chains. Please tell me how using another method would cause a fork?

>>3228565
>Is bitcoin backed by the honor system now?
no there are clear guidelines and open source organizations that certify patents as conducted fairly, and Blockstream is in line with those guidelines. Again, as pointed out countless times, many coins have Segwit and none of them were asked to stop because of patents. Furthermore, Blockstream isn't developing sidechains, Rootstock is (and Rootstock is financed by Jihan Wu).

>>3228586
>post a pepe Raj, it always makes you look like an oldfag
>an angry one?
>nono u dumb, a smug one. Neonazis love smug pictures
>smug anime?
>nono, a smug pepe. For punishment you use toilet tonight
>-o-ok

The only thing you show with each and everyone of your posts is how ignorant and low intelligence you are. I would gladly accompany you to the oven, shove you inside it and turn it on schlomo.

>>3228621
pajeet or schlomo can't tell and still unable to form an even basic counter argument to my original point.

Is it over ?

>>3228531
How can I not insult you when you're a retarded fatass.

I've paid with 0 confirmations in 3 different places in the Amsterdam, 1 in Berlin and 2 in Sofia. Even as late as 2015.

I haven't been in the Netherlands since, but both Bulgarian cafes that accepted Bitcoin stopped doing that. Even the Bitcoin ATM disappeared. Wonder why?

The fact is that you have to twist the truth (hurr durr no merchant ever accepted btc) for your arguments to make sense (aka you're a poor blockstream shill). Or maybe you're simply a dumb burger (Nobody in bumfukville Alabama accepts bitcoin, therefore no merchant ever accepted bitcoin, durr).

Either way you're wrong, stop lying to newbies.

>>3228668
In Amsterdam*

>>3228632
Your argument that businesses believed zero confirmations to be secure is simply wrong. The counter argument is that anyone who's bought with BTC irl and isn't actually a pajeet that owns 0 BTC knows this. You wait for confirmations before leaving the restaurant.
Besides, as pointed out previously, even if that were the case in the past (and it wasn't), it wouldn't make it ok now. If big retailers need to accept Bitcoin, since there is no possibility to recover money from fraud or insolvency, they need to be sure it will be secure. Without confirmations that is literally impossible.
Last, but not the least, zero confirmation wouldn't even speed up the possibility of transaction much; it would make it some minutes faster, but the number of transactions possible would be the same. Furthermore, at a certain number of transction it would become not only more insecure, but completely insecure.
It is simply a retarded way to even think about scalability, one that only a complete retard like Ver could come up with. Literally nobody else advocates it, except a pajeet who was literally paid to do so, or a subhuman who watched one of his youtube videos and fell for the meme out of complete ignorance

>>3228668
>Hey Pajeet, I'll come help you with the shilling
>ok thank you Raj
Stop LARPing nucoiner, you literally own 0 BTC and you know it

>>3228644
It was always over. Jihan got your Bitcoin and you faggots gave it to him. Can't make this shit up, literally natural selection at work

>>3228717
So you switched from "You lack evidence" to "You own 0 BTC and you know it". Another blockstream troll showing why he's paid so little. Dumbfuck.

You're almost right - I own 1 BTC right now - sold DNT high and didn't know what to put the BTC in. Will have 0 in a day or 2.

But I also own 50 BCH. And a few Ethers. And DNT. And SAFEX. And RLT even. And SONM (yes I thought it had hit rock bottom). And ICN. And TaaS.

I wish I could just keep my BTC and get on with my life but your employer fucked up the currency. So I have to trade to keep its value (and increase it, too, but at the expense of my time and focus).

You on the other hand have no argument except the blatant lie that no merchant ever accepted 0 confirmation transactions. MANY DID. In both Japan in Europe. Idc about bumfukville Alabama.

Call me pajeet all you want, retard, doesn't make you slimmer.

Also 50BTC and 0BTC will soon have the same price in USD, so I can't wait to see you post pink wojaks.

Just remember, Blockstream is threatening legal action against Segwit 2x :-). (((defensive))) patents that (((defend))) against (((attacks))) on the network :-). Get ready for this thread to disappear :-).

>>3228804
>I'm all in on BCH

Shill detected

>>3228858
Segwit2x had no replay protection and is designed to dump both BTC and BCH. This is incentivised through BCH EDA

Game theory.

>>3228871
>25% of my portfolio
>all in

Pick 1, blocksttream retard.

>>3228897
>>3228804
>You're almost right - I own 1 BTC right now - sold DNT high and didn't know what to put the BTC in. Will have 0 in a day or 2


I'm literally telling everyone to hodl both chains, retard.

>>3228804
You're pathetic as fuck and it's obvious you have only been in bitcoin for a couple of months. Fuck off shill. And stop shitting in the streets, use a toilet.

>>3228964
If I was Adam Back I'd lower your paycheck. Pathetic.

Just proved you liars wrong and this is what you resort to. You're unqualified to be a shill. Kys.

>>3222562
Fixed Typo in title

>>3228992
you didn't prove shit Pajeet. All you've done is oust yourself as a shill who doesn't know how Bitcoin works

>>3228531
>is that supposed to be proof that it's correct? Everytime I have seen a thread on Bitcoin on 8/pol/ 90% of the posts were nocoiners calling crypto a ponzi and a scam, it's the last place where you can find genuine information about the topic.
No it's my comment that they're an echo chamber. Chances are, in general, if you disagree they'll namecall some combination of Jew or nigger.

>>3228996
Eric Lombrozo isn't part of Blockstream you fucking moron

>>3228996
That patent isn't segwit. It is a lie.

>>3229052
its for lightning network :)

By the way, the reason this thread hasn't been deleted is because guerrila censorship is a thing now. You really think the mods are willing to lose their herd of sheep for the 5th time? Nah. They'll let this argument play out and instead throw shill-power at it.

>>3229070
1: the post says the patent it's for segwit, which proves the poster is lying.

2: it is not for lightning. It is for one method OF WHICH THERE WOULD BE MANY to get a transaction off a mainchain - not necessarily Segwit - and onto a sidechain - not necessarily lightning.

It would interact with segwit and lightning but isn't a patent for either.

>>3229021
Sure. And literally thousands of merchants in Europe and Asia didn't know this either. They probably wish they were as smart as you.

Or maybe we're all dreaming and they never accepted 0confirmation transactions.

Stupid burger, your problem is that all you know is the whitepaper. You're too dumb to realize that the gained profit from being "that place that accepts bitcoin" overweights the risk of being scammed some guy spending hours to write a mobile app that enables him to spend a $5 coffee at the risk of getting caught.

So go ahead and insult. You're literally proving my point. You guys are all paid shills and you're so bad at it that you're introducing more people to Bitcoin Cash.

>>3229112
what are the other ways of going off chain?

>>3229100
>I was only pretending to be retarded

>>3229129
>OF WHICH THERE WOULD BE MANY to get a transaction off a mainchain
how

>>3229123
Shall we write the code for one now?

>>3229145
so is the patent covering ALL the ways to move off chain if its not specific to ln?

Christ, the shilling in this thread, I'd almost swear I was on /pol/

>>3229158
No. It is covering one single method. There is literally no reason that only one method would be the only possible way

>>3229100
The reason this thread hasn't been deleted is because it's actually discussing the coins instead of politics conspiracy, you fucking retard.

>>3229203
Usually I'd ignore a post that I didn't believe at all. Especially when I'm interested in the discussion of both coin's use-cases and what makes them each their own "bitcoin". Odd that you'd take the time out of your day to respond and discredit my post though :-). LOL

>>3229181
what other ways are there? genuinely curious.

> mfw used to post the BitBay shill thread every day and never got baleeted

If mods baleeted even one bitcoincash thread and someone shows me proof I will throw 10% of my stack into it right now. This is srs business and I smell some filthy shills in this thread, not going to say which side i think they're on.

>>3229220
>10 second to post
A lot of time for sure m8

>>3229245
As many as there are grains of sand my brother.

It is not the way of the world that there is only ever one set way of doing things. And if there were, I'm pretty sure patent law would make patenting such a thing illegal.

You need to exist in the universe for a while.

Enjoying the silence as the previous 5 lies by blocksteam shills were corrected.

They must be thinking of a new narrative now. Let's give them time...

>>3226449
This is nothing but lies.

Lightning ISN'T PEER TO PEER BLOCKCHAIN.

Without speculating who he is (and I don't believe a word that comes from block$tream), Satoshi said the limit should rise to 32 MB as needed.

Basically what you're doing is trying to con people who don't understand what made BTC succeed and why it's become a ponzi scheme.

Just a little update. I've been shadow-banned from my IP! Thank goodness for mobile connection's :-).

>>3222553
blockstream is the hillary of bitcoin
banker backed and censorship, we know how that ended ;)

Everything on LN still gets written to the public ledger. LN is the only way Bitcoin will ever see widespread adoption, as you'd need gigabyte sized blocks to deal with the number of transactions credit services see today. And years later when storage tech is cheap enough for that, transaction counts will be that much higher. Bigger blocks is not scaling.

>>3228616
>Please tell me how using another method would cause a fork?
because another party might claim to have the superior method, obv

>>3228621
>guidelines
Doesn't sound very bitcoin-y

>many coins have Segwit and none of them were asked to stop because of patents
"Many coins" =/= bitcoin
Also, doesn't mean dick.

>>3229745
so much this.

Bold, empty lies, repeat until true.

>the patent isn't for LN it's only for one single method guys!!!
>no other methods seem to exist
>any time a method is invented it is patented

>>3229898

This, BNB, or both?

>>3229947
No strong opinion on BNB but you could say the same for almost any alt coin. They're only going up because of BTC's (((low block limit))) and most of them are bankcoins.

I have some BNB not a lot, waiting to see if it retraces losses (I expect it to) and if it grows with Binance (don't know)