/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>9271171
Hope Bcash works out and replaces Bcore. either way, bitcoin is still a shitty version of an awesome idea.
DPOS POS and distributed POW (IOTA & NANO) are all much better long term.

Just 5 that are green against BCH now, one of which is barely hanging in there...

>>9271171
>muh white paper
>muh digital cash
Nano will render this shitcoin useless even more than it is now

>>9272775
ok tell me why without linking anywhere

>>9271171
white trash coin. enjoy biannual pump faggots

>>9272821

>>9272805
because anything bcash does, other coins can do better.

>>9272805
because adding more horses to a carriage won't make it compete with planes

>>9272839
>>9272870
what the heck do you two even mean, speak plain.
you're not doing nano any favors here.

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for core cucks

down to only FOUR green ones now.

BCH keeps going up while the rest goes down.

>>9272931
nano is the real bitcoin you dumbfuck. bch is really bitcoin core which means it's actually bitcoin cash.

>>9273345
For every post that someone can't explain exactly why they believe in Nano is good, in their own words, I'm more and more convinced that I should ignore Nano completely.

>>9273404
show me a crypto that has a real use. :p
Nano isn't really good for anything, but it's the only instantly transferable 0 fee coin that actually works as a currency and is easy to use.
You shouldn't put a lot of shit into it, but if you're into alt coins you you're into gambling and that means you shouldn't completely ignore nano.

I've made money on nano, but not as much as I would have if I had sold at $35.

>>9271224
I hope my cock stuffs your face in another life sometime....

>>9273404
It's fast and has no fees. How many words do you need you fucking brainlet.

>>9273465
ok so to go back to the original post that guy made >>9272775
>Nano will render this shitcoin useless even more than it is now
so far I've heard that Nano has 0 fees. alright, so that's why it will render BCH useless or is there more bitcoin-crushing things to know about?

>>9273560
ok ignoring random insults here. we've established 2 things, Nano has no fees and it's fast.

A BCH transaction has 1 cent in total fees and completes within 10 seconds.

Let's keep listing things that will crush the Bitcoin, so far I still don't understand it.

>>9273404
Bcore and Bcash both use delegated POW. True POW is only present in NANO and IOTA.

>>9273570
It's much faster and could actually function as a currency.
It's less safe than bitcoin.
It's never going to be an actual currency and is essentially useless - but so is bitcoin.

That's pretty much it.

>>9273487
Use your words.

>>9273609
It doesn't complete in 10 seconds, 0conf is a meme. It completes when it's in a block, on average 5 - 10 minutes.

>>9273609
1 cent in fees means you have to explain fees to the user, which means you have to explain blocks and POW.
It's ok when people just leave BTC/BCH in a custodial service, but a hindrance to actual adoption

>>9273648
interesting, explain what you mean?

>>9273677
1) BCH works within 10 seconds, which basically mean that you can trick people into it being instant by showing a "confirm animation" on their phone.

2) Less safe doesn't sound good! Dunno what you mean though.

3) Crypto isn't useless at all.

>>9273696
0 conf is a very real thing my friend! As long as it's used for small payments no sane attacker would try to double spend - the cost of even trying to double spend wastes more money than just paying for the thing. And chances of success are so low you'd just end up paying more for your successful purchase.

>>9273705
Writing something like "Network Fee: 1 cent" isn't too much of a bother. I'm sure most people understand that there are fees associated with using VISA/MasterCard too.

>>9273767
> Writing something like "Network Fee: 1 cent" isn't too much of a bother. I'm sure most people understand that there are fees associated with using VISA/MasterCard too.
Yes but the consumer doesn't pay the fee. Many people view credit cards as a way to get cash back on purchases. Genius tactic, really.

POW is required to post transactions for both IOTA and NANO. It's a way to make the computational costs for spamming the network very heavy. With bitcoin, very few miners do the computation (and they all know each other). Bitcoin miners have formed cabals, with the largest likely owning more than 51% of the hashing power.

>>9273835
I know for a fact I pay a yearly fee for having VISA.

That's a fee, you know. Divide the cost with the number of VISA transactions you make per year and you have the fee per transaction.

also very many (nor few) do computation in BCH and BTC. they connect to a few different mining pools.
>that part about mining pools forming secret groups is speculation

Bitcoin Cash will destroy Bitcoin.

>>9273767
>3) Crypto isn't useless at all.
so what's the real world application? I mean, it's been 10 years.

>>9273918
>that part about mining pools forming secret groups is speculation
https://medium.com/cryptovalley/chinese-miners-oversee-77-percent-of-bitcoin-hash-power-6a531e689f79
China then threatened to shut them down. Then backtracked. Very suspicious and potentially malicious.

Why take the risk? At least with POS china has to make everyone rich first.

>>9271171
>24h
post week or month

>>9273918
Thats your fee for having the card. Merchants pay a fee for every transaction.

Did you know that successful restaurants make 3-5% in profit? Credit card fees are 2-5%. Many restaurants could literally double their profit by cutting out credit cards. That's a very large incentive for adoption.

>>9273971
1) buy stuff: https://acceptbitcoin.cash/
2) buy illegal stuff
3) buy stuff the government doesnt want you to have
4) hide money
5) tip people over the internet
6) transfer money (USD -> crypto -> send -> sell for whatever other currency). if done within the same day you wont lose much money and you can bypass banks that simply refuse to deal with certain countries
7) increase anonymity for paying for stuff that you dont want listed on your bank statement (stuff your wife shouldnt know about etc)

im probably forgetting some usages. you can of course also store stuff on the blockchain. there's actually small child porn images on the BTC blockchain right now and nobody can do anything about it.

>>9273977
all of this is till speculation and even IF true the thing about having 51% hashrate is you have 51% of the bloody coins mined. who in their right mind would risk crumbling that income to double spend something? only parties interested would be those that want the crypto gone completely.

>>9274049
yes, i know. accepting crypto is very good for the merchants

ALSO if you want to make the customer experience just tell them to send 1 cent's worth less. that the store will pay the transaction fee.

>>9271171
29 days before it's <5% of BTC. Just sayin

>>9273404
Ignore the sad nano newbies that don't understand the market properly yet. I have 80 percent plus of my folio in BCH and I know it's going to be where most of the action is in the immediate future. But nano is a genuinely interesting and potentially revolutionary idea if executed right and no gotchas pop up. It is basically what we would want iota to have been, but saw that it never would be due to the coordinator. Nano has no coordinator. Clients need to pow to send transactions, and holders assign stake to delegates which resolve disputes on transaction ordering.
It's different enough it's going to take a while to get traction, but if it does it could well be huge long term given performance, even if it's just something like a second layer for BCH nanotransactions in practice

NANOFAGS GET OUT!

NOBODY WANTS YOUR SHIT DAG

DAGS ARE FOR FAGS

>>9274103
> only parties interested would be those that want the crypto gone completely.
Yes, exactly. Communist party does not fuck around and they have done even more drastic things than sink an internet currency to maintain their power.
Not worth the risk.

>>9271171
Kek

>>9274161
>laughs in free transactions

>>9274130
You know the attack you think is going to accomplish this failed with bitcoin clashic, right?
And you also know BCH having many more days like today would permanently freeze the BTC chain?
You coretards are strange. How can you be so oblivious.

>>9274199
I own BCH and not BTC. That said BCH is still a shitty solution that refused to innovate at the core level due to vested interests from miners.
Delegated POW was a mistake.

>>9274103
I'll add that bitcoin.com's store sells Amazon gift cars for BCH.

https://store.bitcoin.com/collections/gift-cards

Meaning you buy these with crypto, receive the gift card code in your e-mail and then you can buy whatever you want from Amazon.

If that isn't useful I don't know what is.

>>9274142
First time I've seen a bit of useful info on Nano in the thread, thanks! But now that Bitcoin isn't so stubborn about changes I'm wondering what's to stop them from just implementing anything useful that any altcoin comes up with. Though it does sound like implementing that idea from Nano would take quite a lot of changes to what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin.

>>9274168
After >>9274142 I finally understand what you're talking about. We'll have to see what happens, crypto is experimental after all. I still wonder if any country with that much hashpower wouldn't just come to the conclusion that they benefit more from simply mining on the crypto instead of trying to destroy it.

>>9274265
I have my own questions about pow. But I think it's pretty indisputable that right now of all the options available it's the most effective and battle tested.
My thinking at the moment is along the lines of; ok, btc was a hijack attempt and it was correctly recognised as such by miners who protected the currency from it by forking away and preserving the legitimate original vision and not letting everyone fall scam to a blatant hijack attempt.
But....
They played both sides, they did their fork and everyone who knew what was really going on could preserve their wealth by holding it there, but at the same time simple rational economics compelled miners to majority mine the btc chain, because blockstream's propaganda was so effective that chain has had better mining returns for ninety percent of miners going on nine months.
So that's the assurance battle tested pow gives us? If you understand the technical arguments that provoke a fork and you choose correctly, you'll be ok, but the miners will happily fuck everyone else mining the sabotaged chain because it is in their short term best interests to do so, and then they'll let it die horribly when all the idiots figure out they've been tricked, and he who moves slowest gets left holding the bags of core shit?
That doesn't sound like a perfectly optimal outcome to me. I grant it could be worse, but I can't help thinking it could also be better.

>>9274272
I think the nano core architecture is just too drastically different for bch to adopt it. If there's any cooperation imho it would be in the embrace of nano as a second layer for bch transactions. Blockchains may be able to scale well past the artifical core limits, but they do have actual limits. Something like nano I think would make a pretty great second layer.

>>9274405
The whole field is 10 years old. POW is battle tested but only small skirmishes.

>>9274597
I don't know if I'd call the past nine months a small skirmish.. But yeah everything before now has been.