/biz/ - Business & Finance

more and more people will join team BCH. it is an economic certainty imo

seems like leaders of the Bitcoin community keeps edging towards the fire escapes

>>5100627
He figured out the scam.

Segwit was solely designed to decouple the block from the private key so that they can control people’s coins without their private keys and steal Satoshi’s coins.

Bitcoin Cash retains Satoshi’s original protocol with private keys inside the block and is the true Bitcoin.

The conspiracy was leaked here:

https://youtu.be/AkbSrmsYJ9c
28:50

“I think Satoshi’s a sellout”
“And I think that he could burn his private keys now and not risk the future economy of the world , with an unknown party holding 10% of it”
“Who may have given those keys to his kid, and his kid might be the next HITLER”
“Or he may have gotten a mental illness and gotten whacky himself”
“Or he has some other socially dangerous beliefs”
“He’s a variable that we’re unaware of”
“He could just burn his keys”
“He could be renouncing his control of his keys but he’s not.”
“Which means he’s either a bitch or he’s dead”
“Those are the only two options I’m aware of”

- Bitcoin core dev

>>5100627
if btc increases blocksize now I've been scammed hard by bch

>>5100627
"You’ll be pushed to other layers where you are economically insignificant and powerless to have any say in the protocol. I think this talk of having layer 1 be a settlement layer is promoting centralization, but in a very different way. It’s taking economic power away from the ordinary user and giving it to banks"

>implying people can have economic power on one layer but suddenly lose it by being "pushed to other layers"

No, people are either big fish or they aren't. There is no middle ground that changes depending on the number of layers used.

>>5101326
Now we’re you scammed?

One is segwit the other is the satoshi protocol.

>>5101289

He's part of the scam you dumbcunt, he's probably theymos as well. These kikes have realised they can't control bitcoin so they're going 10x and exit and leave normies and /r/bitcoin retards with the bags.

>>5101289
I hope Bitcoin Cash succeed just to see Richard Heart lose everything.

WTF IS HAPPENING??!?!!??!

>>5101566
true but no one is using segwit addresses now let alone if they actually increase block size

>>5101651
wouldnt he have just as many bch?

"noob" here, is increasing block size a long term solution ?

>>5101788
The only long term solution is killing yourself.
But other than that, yes.

>>5101705
no because most of them are sheeple and follow what core tells them to do. most sold, smart ones kept

>>5101788
BCH increases Block Size as it is needed, its not just from 1mb to 2mb or to 8 mb.

The size is allocated as it is needed.
So yes, it is a long term solution.

can't wait for shitcoin to choke the sooner the better, turned into the biggest scam of all time

>>5101856
:(((((((((((

>>5100627

Bitcoin Cash will win this war.

Remember this.

>>5101705

He's holding his BCH, he only gets his stupid viewers to sell like all Core cronies

>>5101956
I think Bitcoin Cash will overcome BTC, but I fear that once BTC goes down it will bring the entire market with it, 95% of the people invested probably dont even understand the concept of a Fork let alone why a Fork would be needed.

Core is boomer tech

>>5101956
The butthurt on Twitter is going to be incredible. I personally follow Max Kaiser for this reason, because he’s a fucking moron.

>>5101990
The media is covering Bitcoin Cash quite well, I think despite Bitcoin going down, BCH will rally as everyone is still looking to invest in the tech but BCH needs trading pairs like now or ETH will steal the show.

>>5101990
what would stop people from putting in their money back in straight away and get cheap coins?

>>5102088
fees

newfag here.
What about the Lightning Network? some guys defend btcore in the comments saying that thing will solve the problems the article talks about.

>>5101990
that would be healthy. its been parabolic for a while now needs to correct

>>5102093
why not buy alts then

My porfolio consists out of 80% BCH at the moment. Bitcoin Core will sink soon

>Investment banker reporting in

Wow, I had lengthy conversation with him just a few days when he banned me from /r/bitcoin

Looks like he's starting to understand what evil shit Blockstream is

>>5101675
The flippening

>>5102163
Deluded

>>5101705
If you watch the interview I linked it seems like a Richard Heart implies that BTC Core devs sold all their Bitcoin Cash in an attempt to tank Cash and thus destroy it.

You get this part of the conspiracy from the portion of the interview where he’s blaming Roger Ver for keeping the price of Bitcoin Cash elevated by using his segwit coins to prop it up.

>>5100627
Perfect timing. Ardor is launching its mainnet in about a month, and solves the scalability issues right away. In a couple of years it'll outcompete both BCH and ETH.

>>5102118
Personally I think it will only be useful in a handful of cases. This also still requires the users to take action. It could take years after launch before it sees a significant userbase.
Said launch may never even happen either, since Lightning relies on unsolved problems in computer science (its routing algorithm).

>>5101956
I'm starting to believe this. BTC can't possibly grow anymore without eventually crashing itself to oblivion anyways

>>5102258
Realistic

>>5102284
There are no scalability issues you idiot. I ran BTC Core wallet on my computer back in 2011 and I can run it 2017 on my laptop just fine. Are you people delusional?

>>5102118
You may also find this video insightful: https://youtu.be/UYHFrf5ci_g

>>5102286
Also if the network gets congested and you have funds in the Lightning Network they will get sent away to other users without your permission. Segwit is retarded.

>>5102340
The delusional one is you corecuck

>>5102284
>Ardor

not a fork of BTC, it's not gonna compete.

>>5102363
What?

Did you read my post?
>>5101289


THERE ARE NO SCALIBILITY ISSUES IN INCREASING THE BLOCK SIZE.

PERIOD.

Moore’s Law rules supreme.

>>5101788
Block size is irrelevant once they develop block sharding. So in a few years you can have raspberry pi's run on blocks that are 1 petabyte in size no problem. Sharding literally solves all of Bitcoin Cash's problems and the "problems" Bitcoin Cash has won't matter for another five years so there is time to figure out how to implement sharding.

>>5102413
Why did you say there are no scalability issues and then mention running BTC Core without problems? If you're talking about BCH sure, but I don't get why mention Core.

test

https://youtu.be/UYHFrf5ci_g

How the banks bought Bitcoin, the lightning network.

>>5101788
Increasing the blocksize along with all the other changes that they have planned is the best that any coin will be able to do for now.
Remember that BCH is on the bleeding edge. It's not some shitcoin with methhead devs that don't even own any coins.
BCH has a team of 40+ PHD scientists working on scaling and other issues full time, thanks to Satoshis coins (being able to pay salary).
Honestly the best thing to do is go watch a Craig Wright talk on youtube, like 1 hour long, way better than anything you can find on any website. Just listen to him speak about the future of BCH and you will know where to put your money.

>>5101842
>The size is allocated as it is needed.
>So yes, it is a long term solution.

Until the blocks need to be 1gig, filling up the average person's computer in a single day and centralizing the mining under huge corporations, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF SHIT CRYPTO WAS DESIGNED TO AVOID.

bcash is a centralized shitcoin.

>>5101990
I'm waiting for it to crash and burn so that I can buy in.
Please dear god above in heaven, if you exist, crash this market with no survivors amen.

/biz/ seems to believe bcash will take Bitcoin's place.

Therefore, bcash is garbage that will crash.

Always to the opposite of what /biz/ says.

>>5102479
Because BTC Core blocksize didn’t become important until recently. It was under 1mb.

>>5102536
Mining is already centralized just due to competition and economies of scale, your argument is worthless.
The only way for mining to become and remain decentralized is for Bitcoin to become valuable enough to many unconnected parties feel like competing for their share of the hashrate.

>>5102536
You are retarded. Google blockchain sharding. Block size is irrelevant.

>>5102536
When blocksize is 1gb a hadrive will be 10,000 TB.

>>5101705
He dumped them all back in early august. He said BCH is going to 0 and is a complete scam and the miners are stealing money.

>>5102616
Blockchain sharding fixes this problem indefinitely. Why are no corecucks responding to any of my posts where I mention sharding? Perhaps because it means BTC Core is for retards.

>>5102678
because they are paid shills who have to stick to certain talking points

>>5102678
I don’t care about sharding you idiot.

There’s literally no problem to solve except increasing the blocksize and morons advocate 1000 different uncesessarily complex solutions.

>>5102736
You don't care about a protocol that allows users to operate a node regardless of the processing power of their device and regardless of the size of the block? Sharding is literally the holy grail of blockchains. The absolute state of Corecucks.

>>5102536
How do you determine or measure centralization? The fees being $20 for a transaction already prices out 99% of the world's population from using it.

Bitcoin Cash will won't work due to the confusion with Bitcoin. It's like the marketing of the Wii U and the Wii. Lots of normies won't know the difference and just buy bitcoin

>>5102791
Nope. I’ll be able to run it just fine on my laptop without sharding.

>>5101364
It's about having direct control of your funds instead of tertiary layered IOUs

>>5102822
sound logic

>>5102616
you underestimate how fast merchant adoption could increase the required tx/s for the blockchain

that said
/sharding/ fixes it

>>5102861
Listen you retards.

There’s a saying if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

Bitcoin Cash increased the block size which fixed a problem. And now they want to fix the same problem that doesn’t exist?

>>5102822
After the Bitcoin chain fails we will just rename BCH to Bitcoin, problem solved.

>>5102840

For a biz model like this to work you have to get the normies aboard too

So, if I'm reading the thread right:

- Bitcoin has been a "scam" all along, someone is pulling out?
- BCash will be/is the true bitcoin
- Bitcoin is gonna crash?

If wrong, what the fuck is up in this thread?

>>5102914
Bitcoin Cash people have to stop shilling for nChain bullshit and just stick to Satoshi’s original protocol.

Otherwise there will be another fork.

>>5102999
Bitcoin Cash is the original Satoshi(2009-2017) protocol where blocks contain private key signatures.

Bitcoin Core is a new protocol (Segwit) where blocks are decoupled from private key signatures.

What do you have trouble understanding?

>>5103063
By Bitcoin Core you just mean "Bitcoin", correct? As in, the "original" "first" cryptocoin?

And so BCash implements the original Satoshi protocol that Bitcoin USED to use, or never did? Wasn't Segwit a new thing?

Sorry. Just confused in relation to just, how this will affect prices of coins.

I think it's best to not put anymore money into BTC or any other forks of it. All seem to be kinda off it seems...

>>5102999
Basically Bitcoin was a currency, and was created as such. Now high transaction fees and sluggish speed have made that impossible.
Bitcoin Cash makes it fast and cheap again, as it was supposed to be.

>>5103136
Bitcoin cash is a fork from the bitcoin blockchain, it has a claim to the bitcoin name.

>>5101289
Those treacherous core cucks

>>5102436
Sharding is a pipe dream, see CAP theorem.

>>5103136
Bitcoin Core is Bitcoin which is trading at 17,500.

Bitcoin Core used Satoshis protocol from 2009-2017. Bitcoin Core soft-forked and implemented a new protocol called Segwit.

Bitcoin Cash hardforked from a Bitcoin Core after Bitcoin Core implemented the Segwit protocol, removed Segwit and increased the block size. Bitcoin Cash trades around 1,700$.

>>5103263
Thank you for explaining, and so this guy Cobra pulling out, what are the implications of it? And reading a bit something about how because Bitcoin CORE went and moved to Segwit, it's not insecure/scam?

>so this guy Cobra pulling out, what are the implications of it?

>Co-owner of http://bitcoin.org & http://bitcointalk.org

Something is fishy as all hell

>>5100627
tl;dr

>>5101289
>private keys inside the block
>public ledger

think about what you are saying and how stupid it is

>>5103386
This. I don’t know what he’s up to.

>>5103263
BCH forked before segwit.

>>5103341
There are a number of possible problems with Segwit.

Watch this: https://youtu.be/hO176mdSTG0

>>5103386
This is also the same guy who proposed to rewrite the whitepaper.

>>5103386
Fuck it's true

>>5103969
That’s weird.

So why is he jumping ship?

He seemed to be an accomplice

>>5101956
No, ethereum will win this war.
It's hilarious how few people realize that ethereum is going to be an astronomically better store of value because staking is going to be profitable, as opposed to decades of inflation and mining with btc/bch.

>>5103341
>>5104121
Implications of Cobra Bitcoin bringing this up is interesting...

Apparently he has some ownership share in bitcoin.org...
And we've never known his identity, for the longest time he was thought to be an alt of some big name Blockstream member.

tinfoil hat time:
Blockstream have realised that they have painted themselves into a corner wrt the blocksize/scaling debate, looking at the current mempool state, seriously look at this shit it's ridiculous.
And this post by Cobra is the start of an attempt to try and rewrite the narrative, paving the way for a future Core blocksize increase.

>>5104289
The whole point of Segwit is to STEAL your coins without your private key signature.

Look at these fats on leddit shilling for segwit. Obviously some kind of paid shills.

>>5104289
God damn dude I think you may be right. That’s not nearly tin foily as other theories.

>>5104446
>>5104289
Of course they’re going to increase the block size.

Otherwise BCH will take over and destroy their plan on stealing Satoshi’s Bitcoins and controlling everyone’s else’s.

>>5102023
He's a fucking shark! Buy what he's pumping BUT remember to not get greedy and always sell when he's at his most shouty.
I rode his Silver-shill back in the day and made bank.
Rule number 1=Never trust a Yuppy!

>>5104446
There’s one issue there: Miners won’t agree to that.
Hence the BCH hardfork.
Fucking shit that’s how all this is gonna go down, I can’t believe how much has changed in the past few hours.

>>5104632
Meant for
>>5104572

>>5104446
And it makes sense historically, if you look at the sort of things CobraBitcoin has said in the past.
He's backed up the core story before, was onboard with NO2X etc.

Back when Blockstream where trying to undermine the role of miners in the network, Theymos said this:
>This belief (that miners control the network) is one of the most dangerous threats to bitcoin, since if most people think that, then bitcoin ends up controlled by only a handful of people
>Although this issue is mentioned in a few places on Bitcoin.org, I’ve been thinking that Bitcoin.org should somehow act against this more than it is already.
And CobraBitcoin backed him up with:
>The white paper is to blame for all of these dangerous beliefs
>We seriously need to rewrite it, or produce a completely new white paper and call that the Bitcoin white paper

What happens with Cobra/Core in the future will be telling as to whether Cobra is a mouthpiece for Core narrative - "controlled opposition", or not.

>>5104572
>>5104289
I don't get why there's no mention of the Lightning Network here. The obvious theory is that Core want to keep Bitcoin unusable to force people to use the Lightning Network, so that the companies that they're friends with can collect fees from the LN. This is a common theory and makes a lot of sense.

>>5104289
yup now it makes more sense

>>5104711
There's no mention of LN because it's vaporware.
It's possible that even Blockstream is realising that LN isn't going to arrive fast enough, if at all.

>>5104786
LN failing + Bitfinex Bankruptcy = perfect storm

>>5104824
Problem is that this isn't going to happen.

Blockstream will just set their goons out to change the prevailing narrative.
We'll hear about how they were wrong to oppose the blocksize increase
How sorry they are for all this shit
How they are going to fix Bitcoin now

>>5104632
The Chinese miners will either be complicit in the theft or they will enforce their own rule. We have to pray the Chinese are benevolent, because these other people are obviously pure evil.

I’m assuming someone is panicking right now. Their plan was going smoothly and all of sudden it’s coming to a grinding halt.

And Coinbase announced today they will switch to Segwit in 2018.

>>5104669
CobraBitcoin today:
>everyone is so focused on attacking the Bitcoin Cash people for how stupid it is to have huge blocks, and how this will lead to centralization

CobraBitcoin a week ago:
>I'm definitely not Bitcoin Cash friendly, I think it's a parasite coin that was only created out of anger and frustration by Chinese miners. It offers nothing useful (fees will increase if it gets more usage) and it's too centralized
>it's too centralized

CobraBitcoin a month ago:
>Why are you people so triggered by “Bcash”?

If Blockstream suddenly change their minds and go for a block increase to let's say 2mb, doesn't that completely legitimize bitcoin cash?

They are basically saying a block increase is a good idea. So what's the point of Segwit at all?

>>5105066
Dude do you have a twitter account I want to follow you if so. You are totally on point.

>>5105090
To steal your coins noob.

Who do you think is behind it?

The best option is to stick to Satoshi’s original blockchain, which is Bitcoin Cash. And make sure if doesn’t deviate from the original protocol.

>>5104280
That isn't a store of wealth you just described

>>5105257
Nope I don't use twitter, only read it.

also don't trust cobra he's a jew kike faggot trying to squeeze his way onto our side to cause harm.

>>5104355
Not sure if you actually believe this, or you think such weak FUD about Bitcoin is the best way to give Bcash an advantage.
Either way, its a bit pathetic.

>>5105300
SegWit is a Trojan horse thrown into Bitcoin by some unknown entity that is purely justified by the size of the blockchain and some decentralization meme.

They created a problem by limiting block size so that they could create a solution to the artificial problem they created. The solution they create then segregates private signatures from the block and and who the fuck do you think coded and thought of that?

>>5105433
So fucking paranoid. Bitcoin and bcash can coexist, chill out

>>5105473
Paranoid?

I figured out the little plan after watching that goofball Richard Heart rant about himself being a master of game theory in video.

Now it all makes sense.

>>5103444
>he doesn't keep is private keys on a public ledger
why not anon do you have something to hide? why would you keep those keys private from me??!!

>>5105637
Signatures you retards.

>>5103763

Thank you, anon. Very valuable!

>>5103140
It's deflationary nature is the real reason it will never be a good currency

>>5105720
You can hardfork that. There’s still time.

>>5105708
Except that the guy is full of shit. The witness data is not deleted but pushed to the end of the block where it is verified by miners and full nodes.

How do Core enthusiasts convince themselves that bitcoin is Gold 2.0

There is no way that a (10 year old ) brand will ever compete as a store of value with gold which has use cases at least 4,000 years

I went back and forth on the core vs cash thing.

Me thinks bitcoin unlimited is fantastic - I just don't see how bitcoin cash is relevant.

Bitcoin is good at buying cars and houses. That's what matters today. Large sums of money sent for a RELATIVELY tiny fee and in a RELEATIVELY short time with RELATIVELY low risk.

If transactions are REALLY the issue here, almost everything out there is better than bitcoin cash.

Even if bitcoin core was horrible and bitcoin cash was better in every way ... there's stuff like RaiBlocks and ByteBall which don't have the baggage of bitcoin cash.

Interesting thread though.

>>5105795

I'm just listening to opinions here.

The point of that talk is: miners don't have an incentive to actually verify those signatures.

He also say's he's less concerned about segwit than we was before preparing the talk.

>>5105433
Who?

>>5105903
We are moving into a new age sonny. Try let yourself understand all the possibilities the future offers.

>>5106045
>this time its different

Sell bro, and you win the game

BTC will likely see $2,000 in 2018

>>5105795
Really?

The point "bitcoin is gold 2.0" is not about it being like gold coins, but a gold bar.

Normal people haven't seen a real gold bar in their life. Museums maybe.

Moving gold has a high "transaction cost".

I think it's ok to keep the block size low and let transaction fees go up. Poorfags are less likely to pay a premium to save time.

Fedex vs USPS.

Miners will always be incentivized to keep the price of bitcoin rising. (Or their mining will stop mattering and they'll be left with a LOT of expensive scrap).

Miners aren't stupid. And they don't like switching coins.

So even "centralization" probably doesn't matter, because bigger miners will sacrifice short term profits to keep the ball rolling.

Incentives are more important than policies or "muh satoshi vision!". Because people respond to incentives.

Especially the guy buying coffee for crypto.

>>5100627
Enough fuding get some good signals
https://discord.gg/tYxZhbb

>>5106290
Were talking about the ability of them to steal your Bitcoins via Segwit you imbecile.

>>5106327
actually that's just the narrative you keep pushing.
first of all, if this were true, no one can steal your coins if you don't use segwit transactions.
then if someone did manage to steal segwit coins, that would just instantly undermine the value of the coins they just stole.

>>5106474
You may not be able to steal coins, but if you spam the network with transactions then those transactions trying to clear the Lightning Network that cannot get sent off randomly to other users. So with Segwit it isn't hard to make everyone lose their Bitcoin. Yes some will be returned to you, but not all. Also the fact that it drops the value of the coins to zero is the point. If I am the lead developer of an alt-coin and I can get every Bitcoin Lightning user to lose their coins then Bitcoin drops to zero in price and the market must choose another coin. On the other hand if anyone successfully commits a 51% attack versus Segwit coin then they can do this immediately. A 51% attack on Non-Segwit coins only means the network shuts off for awhile. But for Segwit coins a 51% attack means all your coins get sent to other people and you can't stop it.

>>5106327

> Were talking about the ability of them to steal your Bitcoins via Segwit

Not OP - medium.com article doesn't mention theft.

Rizen's talk mentions theft, but he said he isn't too concerned about segwit anymore.

Theft happening is one thing. The issue is it going unnoticed.

Just to be clear:
- YOU are talking about the segwit theft thing
- I'm interested in listening
- I don't think small blocks are an issue for bitcoin
- I don't believe bitcoin HAS to become a world currency with VISA-level transaction speed
- I think bitcoin cash is pointless
- I'm in favor of keeping signatures in the blockchain - but I'm not deep enough to have a competent opinion
- I don't think transaction costs are a big issue
- I don't think bitcoin is centralized in a way that matters

The biggest danger is normies losing trust in bitcoin due to theft or fear of theft. I'd sacrifice by keeping high transactions and small block size to avoid this any day.

>>5106682

So ... for bitcoin cash to win, they should exploit segwit to attack bitcoin?

And if they do, how does that help anyone, really?

>>5106751
The article in the OP is one of the biggest bitcoin coreshills admitting small blocks and transaction fees are a problem

>>5106815
No dude Bitcoin Cash will win because they can scale, and Bitcoin core is stuck with small blocks forever because miners won’t agree to the increase. That’s why cash hardforked in the first place.
The writing is on the wall, buy BCH or regret it.

can't they just decrease block difficulty as it goes?
its not like anyone would manage to hack it anyway

>>5106290
>dunning-kruger, the post

>>5106845

Yes, and that's exactly what I DISAGREE with. His arguments just don't convince me.

To me, bitcoin outgrew "normie needs", like "muh coffee".

It's fine for institutions and rich people to use it. More economic growth with less resources spent on dumb bank clerks/lawyers/accounting/taxation/IT jobs.

Normies will have less reasons to use bitcoin, but that doesn't mean the economy will suffer.

Normies have other options. (E.g. LTC, XRP, etc.)

All because it's too expensive for poor fags, doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

All because not everyone can afford a lambo doesn't mean lambos are teh evil.

>>5106883

You'd have to define "win". Having usage among majority of normies?

If so, other coins may be better. Like RaiBlocks (instant, no fees).

The ONLY things going for BCH is the shared brand name: "Bitcoin".

>>5106994
Oh ok I see you’re a store of value guy.
I mean good luck but you’re wrong so whatever.

>>5106883

If miners have incentives to have small blocks and high fees - and there are people paying those (instead of moving to other coins) ...

... how is that really a bad thing? (My main point).

>>5106994
Who the fuck are you going to transact with on Bitcoin core? Why does JP Morgan need your Bitcoin? They'll just blacklist you and the Jews will transact between themselves using microSatoshis, hell they could even use USD as the second layer

>>5106994
>XRP
Ok you’re trolling I’m out

>>5107077
No yeah you’re totally right damn how could I be so stupid thanks for this incredible insight.

>>5106991

Those are my opinions. If they're flawed, please do tear them apart.

You have my attention.

It should be easy for you to point out where I'm wrong.

>>5106815
Kills the competition. Creates a massive bear market that lasts for years. Then the altcoin developer who killed Bitcoin is the only crypto left standing. Also any government that doesn't like Bitcoin can kill a Segwit coin no problem. You cannot kill Bitcoin Cash though.

>>5107044

>I mean good luck but you’re wrong so whatever.

Were talking about the ability of them to steal your Bitcoins via Segwit

If I'm an idiot, expecting me to convince you doesn't make sense.

Explain where I'm wrong in simple words.

I'm not debating - I'm listening for better perspectives. If my opinions are shitty, I'll be glad to flip 180.

>>5107085

Exactly! And why would I care with so many other coins available?

If I'm poor, a lot market cap coin is just as good.

>>5107132
For years I've defended Bitcoin against ponzi scheme accusations. I truly believed that Bitcoin had a chance to be the currency of the future, censorship resistant p2p cash for everyone. And it's current value was always based off of this future.

But if Bitcoin isn't going to be a world currency, if it's just going to be a store of value, then it's really no better than a ponzi scheme.

If it's a future currency, then the answer to "why does it have value" is that it has value because of it's potential as a future world currency.

If it's not, then the only answer to "why does it have value" is that it's a ponzi scheme/tulip style bubble.

>>5107195
Segwit doesn't make it possible to steal coins, any more than it's possible to steal BCH.

What it does create though, is an awkward economic incentive for miners, wrt verifying signatures.
Verifying signatures takes time, and with Segwit there is a risk that some miners will just not bother, and will just assume that the sigs are valid.
Because they no longer need to do the verification to create the block.

>>5106751
The whole point of Bitcoin is peer to peer electronic cash that was supposed to be usable by the whole world and help the millions of people who can't afford to even be in the financial world the wealthy nations currently play in. High fees are the BIGGEST issue. Bitcoin has no point, no value, and has failed as a project if fees are high and only the wealthiest individuals can participate in it. You think that's even useful to the wealthy? They already can move their money around for a shit ton less of a hassle and less fees than that future state of Bitcoin will be. There's no reason for them to care about Bitcoin either at that point. What do you think Bitcoin is still valuable then to hide your money or get out of fiat? Buy fucking Monero then. Core's Bitcoin has no future.

>>5107097

Not trolling. If someone asked me to say why bitcoin cash is better than XRP, I honestly wouldn't have a decent counter argument.

Market cap? Supported exchanges? Shops don't accept it? If I can switch to BCH just to pay in a shop, I might as well have BTC and switch to whatever else when needed.

There is no benefit where ONLY bch makes sense.

>>5107132
Where do I start? Half of your post is obvious factual information and the other half is bs presented with no evidence to refute whatsoever

>>5107121

It's not an insight. It's a stupid-simple thinking.

E.g. OP:

> You basically have two choices if you want to scale to millions of users (...)

Yes, but why would I want to scale to millions of users in the first place? It's not like bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency right now.

Any time someone says something bad about segwit, what they are really saying is that they are betas with no understanding of bitcoin.

Also check this post by Hal. Kinda makes you think...

>>5107281
Prime mover users (most important), 8 year tested protocol, hashrate, business supported protocol, development support, follows the Satoshi whitepaper. It's conservative and trusted, and scales on-chain

>>5107281
>I honestly wouldn't have a decent counter argument.
I don't understand network effects the post

>>5107149

THIS.

Most compelling argument so far, thanks anon.

Let me get this straight:

> if bch kills bitcoin, bear market = we all lose
> if btc has segwit, a gov can kill it = we all lose

So bch is "plan B". Except probably China can confiscate most of the mining equipment behind the hashrate, so it doesn't seem 100% safe.

But if bch is "plan B", I'm wondering: why the vicious attacks on btc? Doesn't a major bear market ruin us all?

>>5107379
>they can work with the banks

Fuck off.

>>5107442
>>5107379
>btc has segwit, a gov can kill it

brainlet detected

>>5107442
No, your response should be:

>btc has 1MB blocks, it kills itself

bitcoin is becoming nokia right now

>>5107239

THIS

Thanks anon.

I concluded that the biggest value of bitcoin is: TRUST.

In business, trust is PRICELESS. The big guys make agreements worth hundreds of millions often just over a handshake.

Today, we don't trust governments nor banks no corporations. Not even ourselves.

Bitcoin changes that. As long as bitcoin doesn't change.

But even if it does, there's already competition to keep the IDEA behind bitcoin alive.

That's it: the IDEA behind bitcoin is more important than bitcoin.

Poorfags won't understand the value of bitcoin, because they have nothing to entrust to begin with.

Ironically, poorfags are most afraid of theft. (Even when they literally have nothing to lose).

The solution to poorfagdom is not "better crypto tech" but better thinking and better education.

>>5107566
Trust = protocol + hashrate

The Bitcoin core protocol is shit even though their hashrate is #1.

Once people recognize that BCH is a better protocol there will be pressure for miners to switch ($$$). Since they don't have to change equipment or make other big alterations, the barrier to entry is low

>>5107244

>peer to peer electronic cash that was supposed to be usable by the whole world

Yes. Except the tech didn't keep up. But, it became good for other stuff. ("Gold 2.0", and "muh settlement", etc.).

> help the millions of people who can't afford to even be in the financial world the wealthy nations currently play in

Sad, but not a complete loss. Bitcoin fails at "multipurpose". Specialization always works better.

E.g. RaiBlocks has 0 cost fees and running a node costs $3/month. And there's already a working wallet. A tiny investment and a lot of businesses would spring up in poorfag villages in Africa.

I'm sure there are even better coins/options for these cases. (Not shilling RaiBlocks here specifically).

> There's no reason for them to care about Bitcoin either at that point.

Depends whether the rich want btc as a store of value or not:

- normies abandon btc, value CRASHES (but tech stays the same)
- rich leave btc, value CRASH (but poorfags now own most of btc again - incentives to adapt tech)

Again, FedEx vs USPS.

Forcing FedEx to be part of USPS doesn't make sense to me.


> Buy fucking Monero then. Core's Bitcoin has no future.

I sometimes say that Monero is the "real" bitcoin. Mostly coz it's true to the original "culture".

Good point though. Suggestions WHY btc is going to shit help a lot.

>>5107781
If you scale the blocksize it will keep up until it can't and then there will be huge financial pressure on tech manufacturing to stop jewing everyone

>>5107379

THIS

I agree with this so much. There's a difference between private banks (that almost don't exist anymore) and central banks (plus those regulated/constrained by them).

Central banks suck. Private banks help boost economies.

When people say "banks", they actually mean "central banks". (Even if they don't realize).

>>5107442
> Doesn't a major bear market ruin us all?
its the idea behind it, the faster it goes down the faster it goes back up

>>5103263
fuck off roger

>>5107442
Let it burn, IDGAF. I've learned several times to just keep converting fiat to crypto. The noobs will still and then it will rebound yet again

>>5107415

Good list.

Ironically those points server institutions and corporations more than average people.

Kek to realize that I guess.

>>5106290
>Miners aren't stupid. And they don't like switching coins.
Speaking as a miner this is bullshit, miners mine what's most profitable and most have an automatic tool to change what they're mining as profitability changes.

>>5107944
>scales on-chain
>supports banks more than individuals

Pick one.

>>5107425

You mean: BCH wins the popularity contest with XRB.

Can't argue with that.

>>5102536
Bitcoin is centralized too. Bitcoin core controls the development 100%. It's not even remotely profitable for the average person to mine Bitcoin nowadays. Only large companies can afford to mine Bitcoin.

>>5107944
Can you fuck off?

You’re mentally disabled, go teach kindergarten.

>>5107492

> brainlet detected

True. I'm no expert whether a government has the resources to exploit segwit.

Not sure if threat or FUD. Could plan for both I guess.

>>5108024
That’s only because of ASIC mining.

Go to China and buy some chips because the retards here that made a lot of money didn’t want to.

They’re fucking useless, then they blame the “Chinese miners” for their problems.

And the whole point of crypto is so that you own your own money, not the bank. And the proof is in then blockchain.

Segwit subverts this and removes ownership of Bitcoin.

>>5107546

I imagine you being right if both rich and poor move away from btc because of block-size related issues.

Even though I believe "muh gold" and "muh settlement", I don't believe those two alone would keep the price up.

And if price doesn't go up, it stops being a store of value.

>>5107548

kek

wojak if true. It's not like btc is nokia and bch is apple.

I believe and hope more people will heavily diversify to alts. That way a btc crash (if ever) doesn't cause a giant bear.

>>5108121
You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

Go crawl back into your basement.

>>5108157
Your alt coins will go down 90% you god damn ape.

Are you fucking braindead?

>>5107637

There are different kinds of trust. Trust can have nowhere near reality though.

e.g. bch = "chinks in control!"

BTC survive massive adversity: mtgox, china ban, futures, the flippening.

If btc "survives" bch, it won't be a surprise to anyone.

>>5108185
Thankfully he's using a tripcode so if anyone ever sees him try to make a thread giving advice on an altcoin people know to sell immediately.

>>5108121
>And if price doesn't go up, it stops being a store of value.

wut

Ideally it just needs to beat inflation. In reality it just needs to be immutable.

>>5108221
>There are different kinds of trust

False

>>5107837

> pressure on tech manufacturing

Sounds interesting. Would appreciate your time explaining, anon.

>>5107883

Good point! Very few things don't recover in crypto.

Even chainlink has 35% swings every now and then.

Thanks anon.

>>5107379
Fractional reserve banking with btc sounds like hell on Earth. As 8n worse than the hell we live in currently.

>>5107939

True. I think crypto-crashes are overrated.

Even if btc crashes because of high transaction costs ... well, obviously that will solve the transaction problem for a while.

There will always be a congestion/bottleneck SOMEWHERE. Might as well just pick the least worse option.

>>5108055

It's simple.

To steal the segwit coins, these all need to happen:

1) Fork after segwit activation (after Aug 1st).
2) Enforce pre-segwit consensus rules (by downgrading almost all nodes to core 0.13.0, for example).
3) Convince everyone that this fork is BTC. Miners, exchanges, users.

Would you support this chain? The miners would get the stolen coins btw.

Just want to make it clear that BCH cannot do this because it forked before segwit activation.

So the government in this case cannot do anything, because there are too many nodes and you can't control the majority. They can manipulate the miners, but then just change the PoW if you must. They can manipulate the exchanges but only within their jurisdictions. But then we get decentralized exchanges or equivalent.

They can't do shit.

>>5107954

> Speaking as a miner this is bullshit

I'd believe it's more complex. E.g. I believe the ROI from holding BTC is higher than from expanding mining ops.

But honestly, I don' t know shit about mining.

The point about automatic switching convinces me. I remember a miner complaining, so I assumed it was hard to do.

Thanks.

https://learnbitcoin.cash

he was right...

>>5102999
bitcoin wasn't a scam all along, SEGWIT was a scam all along. Making bitcoin only a scam since Segwit forked.

And don't fucking try to tell me segwit was a "soft" fork because there is NO SUCH THING. Bitcoin cash had to fork off before segwit was implemented because blockstream propaganda (and transaction spam) convinced all the UNEDUCATED newcomers that segwit would solve the problem in a "soft" way.

But the truth is, segwit is IRREVERSIBLE. Every other change made to bitcoin (every single code change is a "fork") can still be reversed. BCash could still revert to 1mb blocksize and standard DAA and be EXACTLY THE SAME as bitcoin was 5 minutes before the segwit fork. SEGWIT CANNOT BE UNDONE.

so really, segwit was the "hard" fork. Always trust a kike to sell you the exact opposite of what is really going to happen.

>>5101566
Was the EDA part of Satoshi's vision?

>>5102084

coinex.com is coming within 2 weeks.

BCH trading pairs. de-coupling it from BTC's price.

>>5103136
NO. bitcoin "core" is also a fork of bitcoin. The original bitcoin IS DEAD.

It's already dead! That's what will stop this inevitable rise, the inevitable mass realization that "bitcoin" exists in name only. We call it "bitcoin core" because thats how development team that hijacked bitcoin did it. They called themselves "core" and everybody swallowed it. Its not because its the original bitcoin.

Bitcoin cash is literally the original bitcoin. It's only called something different.

What is more important, the name or the tech?
To idiots, its the name. Do idiots decide or create the future? Only when blindly harnessed by sociopaths like blockstream.

>>5103263
cash forked BEFORE segwit. YOU CANNOT REMOVE OR UNDO SEGWIT.

That is why BCash is now the ONLY REAL BITCOIN. Because every other fork that can ever be created will be tainted permanently with segwit.

>>5107976

Distinction much appreciated.

I think I get what all the fuss is about.

It's whether BTC should compete with VISA (lots of small fee transactions) or banking (massive transfers of value).

Scaling matters only in the former.

Sure, "muh satoshi vision" is a meme, but having a single agreed on vision is incredibly important.

Because nothing else makes sense until people first make up their minds about what BTC shold REALLY be:
- VISA
- bank vault
- both

>>5108520

rogercoin

>>5108597

r\bitcoin is that way -> , buddy.

I mean, fag.

>>5105419
It's almost 2018. if you still haven't learned how to sniff out astroturfing from a mile away . . . God help you.

>>5105795
No, its not. It's (allegedly/ideally) verified by the block creator and that's fucking it. Once the next block is added . . .

>>5108671
Someone forced them to inject it,

>>5108459
I don’t have any problem with miners profiting more.

Bitcoin Segwit is undoubtedly moving towards centralization if it adopts a settlement layer. A spoke and hub system, or Lightning Network, will be similar to the ways banks operate now. Anyone can see this but they won't admit it because they are too invested in Bitcoin. That's fine if you're looking to get rich, but don't think there'll be a brave new world without governments.

>>5107239
>Segwit doesn't make it possible to steal coins
>will just assume that the sigs are valid.
Did you read what you just wrote? That literally means it's possible to steal coins.

They say it is much easier to fool a man than to convince him he has been fooled.

I'm inclined to agree.

>>5108764
The problem is they don’t control the network and if the miners abandon them the network is dead.

So to control the miners they raise the price. Once they stop raising it miners jump ship.

The biggest mistake they made was not fanning asic’s in 2012 in the US and they all fled to China to run some kind of ASIC scam, while the Chinese scammed them and made their own ASIC.

The Chinese hold all the cards.

>>5108842
Fabbing

>>5108671

Upgraded nodes (0.13.0 or later) will not accept those blocks as valid. The miner will be blacklisted from the network. They will get no reward.

The non-upgraded nodes will take those blocks as valid but will soon get reorg'd.

The vast majority of the network is running upgraded nodes.

>>5108888
wasted

>>5108756
I didn't ask if you had a problem with miners profiting more.

>>5101289
>Dozens of posts and self replies.
Worst case I of samefaggery I have seen in quite some time.

>>5108185

> Your alt coins will go down 90% you god damn ape.

I agree with you. That's why I don't want a BTC crash, no matter what tech/transaction issues.

By "crash" I don't mean "yawn another crash", but a confido-like crash. The kind the bch side keeps insisting will happen.

The reason I don't want bch to win, is because too many people there want btc to fail.

To me, bch is an altcoin - because it isn't used anywhere as a base currency.

By diversifying I don't mean people should put all their life savings into alts.

Just saying 100% in BTC may not be the best idea if they fear a crash or a segwit problem.

I personally don't believe BTC will crash any time soon. Except the usual "OMG! IT'S OVER!" stuff.

>>5108423
Every part of mining is automated. Which is exactly why segwit signature hashes will NOT EVER be verified by other miners before attempting to solve the next block. The miners that don't will beat the miners that do. Not every time, but on average. The result is inevitable. Do casinos go out of business when someone beats the house odds, or do they make shitloads of cash year after year?

Look, there's nothing wrong with being a brainlet, as long as you don't try to have an opinion on things you admittedly have no understanding of. You obviously aren't even remotely a cryptography enthusiast. I'd be shocked SHOCKED to hear that you had ever generated a PGP key.

>>5108922
I’m sure you’ll be shilling for Segwit when all your coins, if you have any, disappear one day,

>>5108575
how about
-secure
-trustless

>>5108225

> Ideally it just needs to beat inflation

Government bonds are already supposed to do that, anon.

inb4 my facepalm after someone suggesting I'm shilling gov bond

So what I just realized the recent media hype and priceincrease was to keep miners on the path of Segwit by basically bribing them with a couple billion dollars of liquidity.

>>5108185
>Your alt coins will go down 90% you god damn ape.

in sats or fiat?

>>5108983

> miners can steal segwit coins

>>5108459
Just means that BCH will inflate to 21 million faster. The adjustment was necessary for the network to work at all.

>>5109155
bingo. segwitcoin must continually increase in value to stay alive, or BCH will suck up all the hashrate and BTC risks chain death spiral.

thus since the fork you have seen a basically vertical giant green dildo on the btc/usd charts with tether printer working overtime

how long can (((they))) keep this up? are they really going to destroy the world economy via hyperinflation to prop up segwitcoin?

>>5109155

The 125 000 BCH coins they got from the EDA is the real bribe.

Omg people still think bcash is going to be a thing? They must hate money. It's not Bitcoin, and never will be.

Even litecoin doesn't pretend to be something it's not.

Bch is so wannabe haha

>>5102259
Who the fuck is this guy anyway, first time seeing him is in this Ver interview.

>>5109155
Probably not. You're just becoming an increasingly paranoid and delusional cashie.

>>5109202
Biologically tomato is a fruit, that's not wrong, I don't get it.

>>5109263
They printed 6 trillion to keep the US Govt. solvent.

>>5102344
Great vid.

>>5109434

I think it's more because a vegetable has no meaning in biology / botany haha

>>5102519
How do BCH developers have access to Satoshi's coins?

>>5109615
craig wright controls satoshis coins, he was part of the team that created bitcoin

>>5108618
seriously why does /biz/ have so many bcore shills?

>>5101289
>his kid [Satoshi's] might be the next Hitler
Looks like I'm staying with BTC then

>>5103140
You forgot to mention that blocksize has been purposely kept small by the Core devs and Blockstream.

>>5109637
I don’t really trust Craig Wright to be honest with you.

His solution for losing your private keys seems to be storing individual parts on exchanges so no one entity has access to your key but it just introduces unnecessary complexity and more points of failure.

Is there any evidence of them moving Satoshi’s wallet?

>>5102344
>>5102512
>totally not coordinated
I like how that guy still accepts btc donations.

>>5109683
Satoshi has BCH too.

>>5109390
But it all makes sense now.

>>5109317
Not exactly sure.

>>5109705
theres no evidence but there are very telling clues
some that i cant share in a public forum

but you shouldnt trust him
thats good
just go listen to the ideas and decide for yourself
then live with your decision.

>>5103389
Lightning Network will ultimately lead to banking kikes controlling the network.

>>5109202
The civil war was not about slavery. Goddamn this image is retarded as fuck.

>>5105921
Genesis block, its Satoshi's chain.

>>5109778
ur image is stupid

>>5106290
Store of value is a secondary use case and if transacting isn't the first use case of bitcoin because of fees and slow speeds, then the secondary use case doesn't exist either.

>>5109753
I just don’t understand why he wants to make it more and more complex when it’s works fine as it is?

He obviously doesn’t want to make it a store of value. Thus you need a way to secure your key and be able to use it indiscriminately.

I don’t mind it being a store of value, but high fees are unnecessary even if it is.

>>5102284
Ardor is a BaaS product, not intended to be used as a currency. Learn what you're shilling at least.

I love Ardor, but come on m8

>>5106290
There are literally blockchains that move gold for zero transaction fees (GoldMoney is one). This meme that gold has high transaction fees needs to die. It used to have high fees a hundred years ago, but it does not anymore.

>>5106751
>>5106994
Tripfags are literally the worst.

>>5109770
but we already knew this? is the awareness just spreading or what?

>>5101956
BCH 'winning' would destroy crypto.

>>5101990
This.

Normies are watching now. Confuse them too much and this market is dead.

>>5109934
your comment is a clusterfuck
go read some more.

>>5104355
>The whole point of Segwit is to STEAL your coins without your private key signature.
EXPLAIN IN TECHNICAL DETAIL

>>5109965
good fuck normies and fuck the market
things were better before all of this bullshit
BTC used to flow freely like water
now its not fun

>>5102340
donkey

>>5109947
You can’t move gold unless you physically move it you jackass. Even gold has negative properties. It can be confiscated by decree, it can be stolen, it’s not an elegant solution for a currency, etc.

>>5109965
I sure hope that BCH does drop the market 95% or more. That's just cheap coins. And it will get the retards like all you corecucks out of this space.

>>5109947

Isn't GoldMoney technically "off-chain" like LN?

>>5109992
I don't know if you've ever heard of clearing houses, but you can transact in gold without physically moving it. I can literally do transactions in gold today that have zero transaction fees. Zero.

>>5109970
I’m don’t know what problem nChain is trying to solve.

Can you identify to me the problem that Bitcoin had that needed to be solved?

>>5105757
What do you have against deflation?

>>5107781
The tech has kept up just fine. 8MB block sizes are hardly taxing at all.

>>5109992
>It can be confiscated by decree

Just like Bitcoin.

https://www.coindesk.com/us-government-to-sell-off-10-million-in-seized-bitcoin-and-bitcoin-cash/

>>5110012
the coffee problem, or the microtransaction problem, niglets in africa / remittance problem, none of these can be solved with bitcoin core due to fees

bch 8mb blocks gives us some immediate breathing room to allow fees to go back to basically zero, but we need a serious increase to transactions per second if we are going to scale globally on-chain in the future

nChain isn't working on fixing what is broken in bitcoin cash, they are working on making sure it will be ready in 5,10,25 years from now

>>5110004
Technically it isn't offchain because it is a second layer for gold, which isn't a blockchain. GoldMoney is also centralized. Comparing gold and blockchains in terms of blockchain protocol doesn't make any sense because gold is not a blockchain.

>>5110009
Do you know that the US government confiscated Gold in 1933 you retard?

>>5110012
>>5110044
also the idea of using exchanges without giving up your coins
very big deal
you say its complexity
but bitcoin itself is already a very complex system, its just all abstracted away from you

could you code bitcoin from scratch right now?
didnt think so
your argument about complexity has no relativity

>>5110042
Where can you hide millions of dollars of gold?

>>5110074
We are talking about transaction fees dumbass. The fact that the government confiscated gold in 1933 does not change the fact that I can do transactions in gold today with zero transaction fees.

>>5110093
You don’t own the Gold just like you won’t own your Segwit coin.

>>5109637
LOL

>>5110044
I don’t necessarily disagree with his intentions but he has a lot of ideas that don’t conform to the simplicity and elegance of the original Bitcoin.

>>5110093
send me some gold right now.
here is my address
1134 crescent st
ventura, ca
55424

go on
do it.
for free?

>>5109637
There's no reason to believe that Wright controls the coins. Otherwise he could have proved he was Satoshi years ago.

>>5109978
>some that i cant share in a public forum
If segwit allows you to steal coins how come no one has ever stolen litecoins?

>>5107415
>>5107425
BCH is BTC without the network and name
Ethereum already handles more transactions than both BTC and BCH combined, so it would win if BTC died.

>>5110120

You are being misled by that peter video.

You cannot take segwit coins on the BTC chain. You can only do it on a fork, and only if segwit rules are abandoned on that fork.

>>5110222
my trips confirm this btw

>>5110173
You need an account at GoldMoney dumbass. That's like asking someone to send you Bitcoin Cash for free and giving them your physical address. Also I'm not sending gold to a Corecuck.

>>5109202
nice ironic self-referential dunning-kruger-effect-dunning-kruger-effect.

This just keeps getting better and better. Keep going!

>>5109436
Yeah, and that's THE WHOLE REASON BITCOIN WAS CREATED.

Have you even seen the genesis block??? (obviously not)

>>5110180
They are in a trust. I'm not gonna spoil the fun, but they are locked up until 2020 or the end of 2020, I cant remember.

And he doesn't want to be satoshi . . . there's a lot of liability in being satoshi. Part of the trust terms included not divulging the identity of satoshi. So there's about a trillion dollars on the line.

>>5110269
>GoldMoney
so retarded
its just a company that moves around numbers on an excel sheet
you aren't moving gold unless you physically move it
if its in their vault then its their gold

>>5110318
It might not be the reason but intrinsically there is something tranquil in knowing that only you can access something and only you have ownership of it and that it cannot be confiscated by force.

Thanks anons (from both sides) for your wisdoms and courtesy.

Tell me, does a brainlet like me get it? (more or less?)

bch side:
- bitcoin is corrupt with segwit, which means you can lose your coins
- bitcoin should have larger blocks so it scales to handle poorfags micropayments all over the world
- bitcoin cash needs to kill bitcoin, because bitcoin is corrupt
- transaction fees and confirmation times are a serious problem
- miners are bribed to stay on segwit
- banks and govs will control bitcoin
- bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin
- Wright is Satoshi
- bitcoin core devs are evil

btc side:
- segwit fud is just fud
- LN is for transactions, main net is for storage of value
- segwit is essential for LN
- scaling is not an issue
- bch is just a money-grab fork that dilutes value and it's a brand name parasite
- btc won't crash

Me thinks:
- bch arguments more like conspiracy theories (need more work?)
- sounds like fud with no substance (demonstrable proof should be possible)
- ironically miners stealing bitcoins requires ... consensus (kek), so not scary enough

For now, I'd rather be a corecuck than not.

Sorry BCH folks, I'm betting on BTC for now.

Still learned a lot, thanks!

>>5110417
Which is what Segwit destroys.

>>5110506
no skin off my back.

congratz on genuinely absorbing information though, seriously. I'm still gonna shit on you because you're a tripfag, but yeah.

>>5110387
>There are literally blockchains that move gold for zero transaction fees (GoldMoney is one). This meme that gold has high transaction fees needs to die. It used to have high fees a hundred years ago, but it does not anymore.
This was my original post. I only reference transaction fees. Tell me where I said GoldMoney was decentralized. What the fuck are you trying to argue with me for? I never even brought up what you are talking about. I was talking about fees. Gold has no fees if you use it well. It requires the use of centralized companies, just like the U.S. dollar requires the use of centralized banks in order to be used without fees. But there are no fees. You cannot argue with that and I don't know why we are still talking about it.

>>5109778
The absolute STATE of American education.
What was it about then? States' rights? To own slaves, specifically? Read the CSA Declaration, brainlet.

>>5110506
god damn you're still here.
but no you don't get it

>>5110670
I thought there was a concerted effort to shadow him.

>>5110506
That's a good start. You forgot about the ASICS boost controversy. Segwit means less money for miners, especially Chinese miners. Also, look up antbleed.

>>5110506

You snooze you lose retard, if you think BTC is worth $17k you're just another normie retard waiting to get wiped out

>>5110506
Logic and reason is not on the side of bch. You summed things up well.

>>5110741
>muh asicboost

never been used, it is obvious if you are using it. also I see no problem with it, if a miner figures out how to mine more efficiently than the competition why is this a bad thing? this is not socialist utopia, this is raw capitalism. it is brutal and it fucking works.

>>5110741
>making mining more efficient is bad

>>5110506
bch side here.

>- bitcoin is corrupt with segwit, which means you can lose your coins
there's only one guy here proclaiming that.
>- bitcoin cash needs to kill bitcoin, because bitcoin is corrupt
no, bitcoin core will strangle itself with its own fees.
>- miners are bribed to stay on segwit
no, they just follow whichever coin is more profitable.
>- Wright is Satoshi
no proof, no satoshi.

>>5110506
>sounds like fud with no substance (demonstrable proof should be possible)

Lightning network Hub. Boom
Its like a rabbit hole the second you begin asking questions. The Hubs will be expensive. They will spy on users. They will allow black lists. The IRS can audit the hub owner for info on every transaction.

This isnt conspiracy level shit. PLAIN AS DAY FUCKING OBVIOUS. You literally need to be in denial to think these hubs are not completely fucked.

>Core gets LN and block size increase in January
>Bcash bumboys silent

>>5110881

The conspiracy with asicboost is that bitmain wants to keep their (patented) advantage, so they block everything that can brick it (because they have so much hashpower), even if those upgades help bitcoin.

I don't think they care that much anymore since the BTC price is so high. They may also have a way to do it even with segwit (or tx mal fix).

>>5110741
So Chinese miners are sparing us from central banking theft because ASICBoost doesn’t work with Segwit.

And Segwit cucks are whining about this?

>>5111050
LN is one of the primary reasons people are leaving.

>>5111050
At this point the cat is out of the bag about the lightning network anyway. If they actually went ahead and set it up and we all get to see it in action it would be instant death of the coin.

"Oh I need at least 2 grand a month to even maintain it? Better let the chase bank handle that shit down the road."

"Oh neat I can subscribe with my bank to get faster cheaper transactions!"

>>5110644
maybe its you who should dilligently seek information other than what was shoved down your throat in public school hiSTORY class.

You know, DYOR. It's a waste of time spoonfeeding people like you. You'll never listen until 10 years down the road when you stumble across it yourself

>>5111112
>>5111114
Both have transferred 0 of their BTC to BCH

>>5110642

> still gonna shit on you because you're a tripfag

I'd expect no less.

>>5111112

Did you miss that bull run from 11k to 21k when LN rc1 was pushed?

>>5111128
At the moment I got out of both Bitcoin AND Bitcoin cash. WHile Bitcoin is fucked up and heading to bank street Bitcoin cash is constantly in a slump and getting shit on non fucking stop.

FUCK BTC AND FUCK CORE.

>>5111194
>the price is going up so that shit about bankers controlling it doesn't matter

>>5111249
What's the reasoning for this?

>>5111249
You sound worried anon.

>>5111320
lol that picture makes my dick hard every time... these guys are going to make me so rich

Funny how Bitcoin Cash guys are all PhDs, cryptologist and alpha males while core cucks are scrawny pseudointellectuals betas.

>>5111320
DIE BITCOIN, DIE!