/biz/ - Business & Finance

https://youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0

The truth is most of the shill thread of any shitcoins always claim they are bitcoin or bitcoin 2.0 and it getting bored af

>>9813159
>>9813164
>I'm so smart in hindsight, I totally knew that Mt. Gox would be hacked a year later in 2013

>>9813177
So many 17 yr olds will neck themselves for being true beliebers in shit like ETH and bcash.

>>9813201
>Hacked

>>9813201
>Solvent
Mt. Gox used Willybot to pump Bitcoin prices. You actually buy at these prices because Finex and Gox bots keep pumping it, now they made bank and let it crash and you're stuck holding the bag.

>>9813159
BCASH - going out to promote bitcoin usage in the paces where it's needed most, engaging with businesses, vendors, industry.

BTC - complaining ab out Bcash and praying lighting network solves all of the issues.


Why are people so convinced BTC is going to win here?

>>9814354
I think neither of the two will win.

core sucks no way it wins

>>9814512
t.deluded btrashie.

support bitcoin... run a full node.
>https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#what-is-a-full-node

>>9813159
There's no "replacing" going on. It was Bitcoin all along. BTC is something else entirely.

>>9814695
51% attacked all the same, because nodes don't secure the network.

>>9814820
no shit faggot they are meant to secure it against 51% attacks...

>>9814695
>muh raspberry pi node

>>9813159
"bcash" will top out at 20k during the next real bull run, at least .5 btc when it happens, watch

>>9814881
nodes do not secure the network, period. it is a lie. it is that simple. What the miners mint into the blockchain is what goes there, if they don't want your "shitty valid chain" to have any transactions, they can just push empty blocks infinitely.
Nodes do not secure the network, anything else is a lie. Hashpower secures the network, hashpower fundamentally executes the changes that the market highlights it wants for the chain, and nodes sit and listen or fork themselves off the network onto a useless alternative chain.

>>9814820
> nodes don't secure the network.
> illiterate
>>9814904
what ever floats your boat.

>>9814102
How Work Rock Market=?

>>9814925
alright turboshill.

>>9814925
Yeah that satoshi what a retard including useless nodes that do nothing.
Why did he even fucking bother!
What a dumbass!

>>9814943
>>9814963
>>9814973
COPE

>Supporting a coin created to fight the banks that was taken over by a bank
Human stupidity is truly infinite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BZoKH-hX_o

>>9814985
Yeah great response retard
>Hurr bcash is so good listen to all these smart guy arguments I learned from a youtube video I'm so smart
>Oh fuck! I'm getting destroyed! Better go back to spamming memes

>>9815019
SEETHING

>>9815046
bcash

Users ("nodes") are NOT miners!
Bitcoin (BCH) is the only known true p2p currency because the users don't have to know each other, it doesn't change a flying fuck if you "verify" your own tx because an SPV server could do it for you. Core wants people to verify their own tx's so they'll... run the LN which moves the tx's off-chain...

>>9815002
>Blockstream is the Bogeyman
>conspiracy
>the Earth is flat

>>9815081
>Bitcoin (BCH)
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/

>>9814973
> nodes don't secure the network
> therefore they do nothing
being this fucking retarded baka

>>9815081

>>9815073

>>9814102

>implying this isn’t true of any globally traded asset

>>9815170

>>9815171
Mate, I would fuck you up. You have no idea.
But that's standard cashie, ranting and raving absolute nonsense about things they know nothing about.

>>9815182
>stale memes
Bitcoin Cash is the Pro-Holocaust coin... I truly love when cashfags post propaganda like this.

>>9815202
>projecting like a typical narcissistic corecuck
It's the corecucks that are ranting and raving while thrashing around in their straight-jackets. Wipe off the drool and sort yourself out. Bitcoin (satoshis vision) is the true bitcoin spiritually. It will beat bitcoin in usage in the future.

>>9814915
>flippening on the 15th of may, just watch
>flippening on the 15th of may, just watch
>flippening on the 15th of may, just watch
>flippening on the 15th of may, just watch
>flippening on the 15th of may, just watch
>crickets
>shift goalposts yet again
the absolute state of the bcash cult
JUST

>>9815202

>>9815217
the 7 billion

>>9815217
> willingly subjecting yourself to the gas because you're too fucking stupid to notice it's gas is "pro holocaust"

>>9815235
>satoshis vision

>>9815461

>>9815535
only true idiotic retards attempt to "interpret" a whitepaper's ABSTRACT.

>>9815535
educated white people read the actual paper. More importantly we draw from the CONCLUSION like pic related. notice zero mention of cash. The actual paper is about the PoW mechanism that solves double spending only IF honest nodes (Jihan Wu is not honest) control the network hashrate.

>>9813159
OP, you must be new here. Bitcoin Cash is literally the original Bitcoin. It's on the original chain, whereas BTC is on a fork. This isn't hard to grasp.

>>9815683
Which part of >>9814925 "Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism" Are you not understanding? Hashing power, not fucking nodes is the consensus mechanism, deal with it.

>>9815689

You must be special.

>>9815683
>still confusing full nodes with non mining nodes
:thinking:

>>9815707
I'm sorry you get your information from reddit, but my explanation is the truth

>>9815703
>>9815712
paid Jihan Wu shills misinformation campaign designed to perpetuate the validating node vs. mining-node confusion.
please refer back to pic related >>9814695
> a powerful miner ... execute serious attacks... with full nodes... miners could not... destroy Bitcoin.

>>9815720
To who? No one uses Bitcoin Ass
https://txhighway.com/

>>9815720

twitter actually

>>9815707
>>9813159
>>9815756
https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Publications/nistir/8202/draft/documents/nistir8202-draft.pdf

We have too many reddit noobs in biz now

>>9815763
>>9815764

>>9815756
>https://txhighway.com/
btc tx in progress = >1000
bch tx in progress = 2

>>9813159
When will you faggots accept that it's not about Roger who it's about what satoshi had in mind for this world.
Faggot

>>9815764
>bch overthrow the govt.
>the govt is not to be trusted
>here's proof bch is btc the govt said so

what a fucking looser.

>>9815755
>bitcoin.org
>still assuming a "validating node" contributes to consensus
still :thinking:

>>9815813
>I can't refute your evidence, so here's a low effort meme
the absolute state of /biz/

>>9815793
Awkward you think you are being smart you aren't. Maybe I am just being dumb. No comma bitcoin cash bitcoin ass same thing. You read it as no one uses bitcoin, Ass.

>>9813210
BCH>LTC
Before taking shit about BCH. Let's not forget LTC is the grandfather of all shitcoin

>>9815829
Please grade my meme anon

>>9815814
>no proof to back up statements
whatever looser
>>9815829
>low effort meme
it's your homosexual crush Ver's twitter avatar
>https://twitter.com/rogerkver
so, I guess you are correct when you say low effort. like bch.

>>9815835
I cannot understand what you are trying to convey here. what is it that are you attempting to say?

Bitcoin cash is the original idea, Bitcoin (BTC) got taken over by people who claimed satoshi's plan was impossible. What they are turning it into is certainly not Bitcoin.

>>9815901
>no proof
It's fairly common knowledge to anyone who actually understands how the network works. It's understandable that a low iq rat like yourself would never have any chance understanding such simple concepts, unless they are explained to you step by step. Here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM_Ski2eK6A

>>9815908
>What they are turning it into
this would imply that something has changed in the code. Where in reality nothing has changed. the entire bitcoin network is backwards compatible. that means someone running a version 9 software can use the same exact chain as someone using version 16 (current version). SegWit is optional as is Lightning.

>>9815958

1 MB blocksize a shit.

>>9815927
I've seen this idiot before. Obv paid shill. I'll watch his content since you linked to it... I will be back in 20 mins to discuss.

>>9815996
>the 1mb blocksize limit is optional

>>9816011

Everything is optional until it isn't 2bh

>>9814923
based bay

>>9815996
>states opinion
nice facts there buddy

>>9816026

>Some people LIKE paying high fees!

>>9816051
one month in the last 10 years had large fees... in that month it was proven by reddit users, that a coordinated attack consisting of low fee transactions spam (Bitmain) and poor wallet practices (Coinbase) artificially raised the fee structure. this is the cash shill favorite piece of hard evidence. What they don't say is that there have been several months before and after December 2017 where bitcoin fees were actually lower than bitcoin cash fees.

Dismantled..... Destroyed..... by rick

Wow /biz/ is relatively smart today

>>9816343
not median fees

>>9814810
Did Satoshi ever go over the ways it can cope with extreme size? What is the debate here why aren't we just going with what he said?

>>9816484
because then bitcoin would actually be a threat

Essentially, cashies want to sacrifice long term decentralization and authentication for short term throughput, whereas core argues the opposite. All this conspiracy about Axa funding blockstream belongs under a tinfoil hat. Axa is simply hedging against the inevitable collapse of the dollar by buying bitcoin and improving it as much as possible. Cashies have no argument and are absolutely deluded

>>9816502
Do we have a source of where Satoshi is describing the way bitcoin can cope with extreme size? I never see people talking about the solutions that Satoshi <possibly?> put forward

>>9816543
>>9815927

>>9816582
>cope with extreme size
It's what he designed the system to do. You increase the blocksize to scale the network.

>>9815908
There have been almost 200 BIPs. If Satoshi knew everything there would have been no need for any of them. Bitcoin is an ongoing project and Satoshi fucking abandoned it

>>9816619
there is a difference between improvements and intentional limitations.

>>9816582
The solution was to increase the block size, which is done in bch and solves (for now) the problem of scaling.
Bcore refuses to ever increase the blocksize, kicks people appointed by Satoshi with repo access who wanted to increase the blocksize, all so they could waste years and millions in developing LN and profit from that later.

BCH would not even happen and Ver would be happy if only Maxwell would increase the blocksize but no, lightning network is "coming soon"

>>9816680
Searching through bitcointalk archives now looking for where Satoshi says "increase the block size" is I have designed bitcoin to have more than 15 million transactions per day.
1mb block size was put it so that people couldn't spam the mempool right? Are people not spamming the mempool with spoof transactions on the bitcoin cash network now?

>siding Blockstream instead of Satoshi

>>9816762
It was put in to prevent a miner from creating huge blocks so he could get an advantage on mining the next one.
>spoof transactions
You have to define what you think this actually is.
But it's incredibly obvious you're just pretending to care.

>>9815927
>>9816588
>btc is the original chain, bch is backwards incompatible and a separate blockchain from bitcoin
>running nodes is about personal authentication and verification of transactions. If you don't run a node you are TRUSTING a third party wallet and company with your money. This is fine for buying $60 of weed online, but not for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of transactions. If a business is marginally profitable and the cost of running a node is rising eventually it can't verify transactions and is forced to TRUST third party software, which is anti-bitcoin
>email is a good example, if you want secure communication you must locally generate PGP keys and encrypt your message, otherwise your TRUSTING google/comcast/whatever
>furthur development will allow anyone to run a lightning node and exchange any amount of bitcoin instantly up to the pre funded allocation in the channels, without TRUSTING any third party
>non-mining nodes are not about power, they are about VERIFICATION
>decentralization mean no single party has overt influence over the system, which means you don't ahve to TRUST any single party, only the system as a whole
>yes, you should be able to run a node and VERIFY, not TRUST
I can't even finish this. Clearly funded by the miners to promote a coin for the miners. Those fucking fake ass laughs are killing me. Stay retarded cashies

>>9816827
Who are you quoting?
Sad to see rick take down another one.

>>9815927
>exclaims that there is no value for users to run full-nodes...
does not back it up with hard evidence or facts. email server to validating node analogy is pure conjecture.
hosting your own email server is easy, secure, you are not reliant on third party assholes who monitor your writings and spy on you for ((them)) (terms and conditions may apply), etc...
>claims "hosted" services are more capable than local
LDAP, Exchange, IMAP, ciphermail encryption.. the list goes on are all standard protocols
>exclaims that the "privilege of enjoying trustlessness" of running a full- validating nodes is insignificant.
>exclaims that a powerful mining attack can be rejected by validating nodes and the mining attack will continue without the validating nodes because " that's how the game is played"
If there is a powerful mining monopoly that can distort the network so bad that my node rejects their blocks... the NEW, compromised, hijacked, chain "football game" continues on without me... I'm okay with that.
>says that there is no description of what decentralization means.
Webster's dictionary does a good job of describing the definition of decentralization . only a misinformation artist would try to convince you that the word means something other than it's actual definition.
>says no one explains why decentralization is even necessary says that decentralization is not good for the network .
>quotes random twitter user. Comcast and Be Serious
pure opinion not stating facts
He fails to provide metrics on how many people subscribe to Comcast or similar plans worldwide compared to how many people actually have 1 Gb/s connections... worldwide.

claims world-scale services is 1Gb/s while only referring to 2 countries that may have 1Gb/s connection speed to the premise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds

the top average internet speed worldwide is 28Mb/s which is NOWHERE near the 1Gb/s this douchebag quoted

>>9816860
I had bullet points in mind. Nice argument tho. Please continue proving my point that cashies are fucking retarded

>>9816885
There's nothing to argue you never bothered watching the video and just went on some autistic rant.

>>9816897
I literally debunked each of his claims point by point. Yet again, no argument. Pic related, it's you

>>9816897
Here I'll give you reddit spacing so it's easy on your brainlet eyes

btc is the original chain, bch is backwards incompatible and a separate blockchain from bitcoin

running nodes is about personal authentication and verification of transactions. If you don't run a node you are TRUSTING a third party wallet and company with your money. This is fine for buying $60 of weed online, but not for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of transactions. If a business is marginally profitable and the cost of running a node is rising eventually it can't verify transactions and is forced to TRUST third party software, which is anti-bitcoin

email is a good example, if you want secure communication you must locally generate PGP keys and encrypt your message, otherwise your TRUSTING google/comcast/whatever

furthur development will allow anyone to run a lightning node and exchange any amount of bitcoin instantly up to the pre funded allocation in the channels, without TRUSTING any third party

non-mining nodes are not about power, they are about VERIFICATION

decentralization mean no single party has overt influence over the system, which means you don't ahve to TRUST any single party, only the system as a whole

yes, you should be able to run a node and VERIFY, not TRUST

>>9816864
>no hard evidence or facts
Do you have any? It seems all empirical to me.
>If there is a powerful mining monopoly that can distort the network so bad that my node rejects their blocks... the NEW, compromised, hijacked, chain "football game" continues on without me... I'm okay with that.
and you are then left with nothing and the entire network has failed anyways.
>decentralization
he's saying how retards throw the word around without actually knowing what they are actually trying to say.

You've skipped over a majority of what he's said. How it's completely retarded to expect users to actually run a full node let alone have it be useful to them. Then from there not scale the chain for that very same reason.

>>9816959
>>9816937
>decentralization means no single party has overt influence over the system, which means you don't have to TRUST any single party, only the system as a whole
can we agree on this for a start?

>>9816959
what do you think I've skipped over? I had to condense for 4chan post rules... I'll be more than happy to debase all of his claims for you and everyone here.
>and you are then left with nothing and the entire network has failed anyways.
at least we can agree on something.

>>9816937
>btc is real chain bch is seperate
dont care, they share the same miners anyways and the game theory is the same. Whatever coin is the "real" bitcoin is completely irrelevant to the game theory.
>trusting third parties
You are actually trusting the entire network and since the network is incentivized to fuck over cheaters you're ok. Your shit node receiving the data after everyone else doesn't protect you, the game theory of bitcoin does.
>lightning
not relevant but I'm still interested in seeing how that pans out.
>non-mining nodes are not about power, they are about VERIFICATION
That was the argument I was having with another guy. Glad to see you can agree.
>decentralization
which you just said these non mining have no say in.
>>9816989
What miners have full control over btc?
>>9817009
Yeah and the miners who performed the attack lose everything too. What a great incentive.

People fail to see how the miners have the biggest stake in these systems over everyone else. The only people who are incentivized to destroy the system are those who lose from its success

https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-non-mining-full-nodes-are-a-terrible-idea-ad3c49f7a7b6

>>9817130

Corecucks can never explain what non-mining nodes do.

>>9813159
- - Don't Touch that.

>>9817091
>dont care, they share the same miners anyways and the game theory is the same. Whatever coin is the "real" bitcoin is completely irrelevant to the game theory.
was responding to the bch shill video
>You are actually trusting the entire network and since the network is incentivized to fuck over cheaters you're ok. Your shit node receiving the data after everyone else doesn't protect you, the game theory of bitcoin does.
unless you are running a node you are trusting a wallet provider or exchange to handle your transactions for you, and they could easily have incentives to disappear with your btc
>not relevant but I'm still interested in seeing how that pans out.
lightning is relevant because it provides what cashies want, which is low fee instant transactions, they just aren't patient enough to wait for it and would rather jeopardize the entire system
>which you just said these non mining have no say in.
no. non-mining nodes encourage decentralization because if you only use hot wallets for your transactions then you are trusting a CENTRALIZED wallet provider. the only way to get decentralized is by running a node and validating your own transactions

>>9816937
Plus spv allows you to verify. You don't need a "full node" to do this shit.

>>9817146
>>9817204
holy fuck

>>9817146
validating nodes actually validate. It's in the name you fucking illiterate waste of organic material. kill yourself.

Why do corecucks keep creating BCH FUD threads? Is it fear or are you trying to push they price down so you can buy in?

I assume it's both. Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin.

>>9817225
What the fuck is a "centralized wallet provider"? Are you just pulling buzzwords out of your ass? A hot wallet is one connected to the internet. A person can easily steal your money from a node if it's online and you download some malware

>>9817236
you know what the fuck he's talking about. stop twisting his word shill fuck

>>9817204
You don't need to run a full node to have decentralized control over your own funds. This is a fundamental property of bitcoin. Lookup an spv node or a cold wallet for more info. Of course nobody should trust an exchange for longer term storage.

>>9817232
>validating nodes actually validate
By being redundant?

>>9817337

yeah they validate the blocks already validated by miners. They do a lot! Gotta keep those pesky miners in check on our trust-less system.

>>9817205
you are still trusting nodes to follow consensus rules, rather than verifying they do so
>>9817236
by that I mean using a third party for conducting your transactions

>>9817262
Yes, have your SPV node connect to my fully validating archive node for information.

>8. Simplified Payment Verification
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep
a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying
network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch
linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for
himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it,
and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it.

>>9817352
And if they aren't that means the network has already forked/failed. Miners are incentivized to discard bad blocks or steal rewards. It's basically >>9817341

>>9817337
>redundant
AKA trustless peer-to-peer network.

>>9817365
and if that node is connected to the rest of the system then you are fine and not because of the non mining nodes, as we've already established they have no power.

>>9817398
>confusing the word trustless with power

the absolute state

>>9817455
Because the miners are the only ones who have power and a vote. They are the ones who create the trust less system through a series of incentives. Keep backpedaling rick destroyed you and i'm kicking around the ashes. I am a true alpha male. You little pathetic weak men have no economic understanding of the system you "defend". Somehow to you the system just werked over the last 9 years because the superior non mining nodes whipped the miners into submission, fucking pathetic.

>all you need to do, is increase the block size, as per communities wishes. in the meantime, pursue your lightning network pipe dreams to your hearts content.
>warp and destroy the network by being obstinate instead.
corecucks...

>>9817536
If bitcoin is functional they can't sell sidechains to businesses. Blockstream is a for profit company

I stand over the ashes of the defeated, the weak insignificant mongrel horde aka corecucks. Bask in my glory. This happens every single time.

>>9817481
you kind of have a small point however, we have been taught by Capitalism that a monopoly is the opposite of decentralization, and without healthy competition, a monopoly will charge whatever premium they choose, stifle advancements and creativity in design and manufacturing as well as customer service quality. the whitepaper keeps referring to cpu power with no mention of asic. I believe (since we have been interjecting conjecture for scientific evidence itt all day) Satoshi had every reason to believe that the bitcoin network would gradually move from desktops running full nodes to servers running full nodes to data centers of servers running full nodes (I mean full mining nodes here). Nowhere have I seen evidence that he predicted the advent of an asic mining machine (which is not a desktop nor server).

A mining monopoly can and will control the network with power.It, potentially, can add whatever it wants to the block. If bad actors wanted to they could easily double spend millions of dollars worth of bitcoins without anyone stopping it. And, if everyone ran SPV wallets connected directly to the mining monopoly, no one would even know that the double spend 51% mining hash rate attack had happened.

>>9817481
>over the last 9 years... the miners

have changed from a desktop to an asic to entire asic mining farms. today's "miner" is NOT the node Satoshi described in the whitepaper. don't get it twisted sister.

>>9813159
It's kinda obvious that Ver has been blackmailed / coerced into shilling anything that has the remotest potential of slowing down Bitcoin. He flipped in 2015 and backed every possible fork and offshoot. Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin unlimited, and dumped them when another variant came along. He finally gained some ground with bcash. Ever wonder why all of the major players supporting Ver are shady individuals too? Probably because they've got something to lose too and / or are also being coerced.

If you guys are so worried about something hurting your investment why not invest in it instead of just whining about it?

Less than a year ago BTC worked just like BCH, just with a smaller block size limit and with replaceable transactions.

>>9817875
Imagine in your example if the monopoly was to rig the game in their favor the entire monopoly would fail. Services will continue to run these observer nodes for their own benefit, services that the miners have no influence on. Double spends can't simply fly under the radar if the entire system was to become corrupt.
>>9817898
and if they attack the network the network would lose all trust and their asics are now worthless. You need to understand the simple game theory at play here. Miners are incentivized to work against other miners not with them. Miners are so pussy whipped by the system the wouldn't even go through with the 2x fork because it risked the integrity of the network and their money. Not including the time their miners might be spending on a dead chain.

stand.... stand on the ashes of the defeated. Uncontested, invincible with logic, knowledge and reasoning backing every argument.

>>9817948
I can see and agree with your point here. However, what you describe... mining nodes being "observed" by a few msb validating nodes, doesn't describe an autonomous, trustless, peer-to-peer network for everyone.
>Double spends can't simply fly under the radar if the entire system was to become corrupt.
>if the entire system was to become corrupt
>entire system was corrupt
like that hasn't happened before? or, like that isn't happening right now.
>pic related

> risked the integrity of the network and their money
ah, so you do argue for maintaining the integrity of the existing network... strange then that bitcoin cash would fork away backwards compatibility and be willing to loose so many participants by leaving them behind on dead forked chains. Unlike bitcoin where even today's chain can be utilized by users running versions of software form 2014.

>>9818322
Why not upgrade your software, is this somethings that's actually hard to do? I've never done it, but it hasn't been a problem for bch nodes. When you one day finally realize non mining full nodes don't contribute whatsoever to your vision of an autonomous, trustless, peer-to-peer network for everyone bch will be waiting. Having dollar fees also definitively goes against this vision and relying on third party vaporware to hopefully solve the solution is borderline retarded, especially when you consider the main chain would need to scale anyways for those technologies to serve a large userbase.

If you want a real thing to fear with the pow algo you should be looking at outside sources. Everyone on the inside of the system depends on it, some people outside of the system depend on the system failing. It would make sense financially for them to accumulate enough hashpower to attack the network by whatever means. Miner fearmongering just makes 0 rational sense.

>>9818390
I personally, update my software. but sure I've seen antiquated software running on more antiquated hardware. It is not recommended best practices or even widely supported but, it happens. To use the pervert in the video's email analogy it's like someone not being able to receive their emails to an Outlook 2003 client.

>>9813159
I like the rational arguments you provided. Top tier thread.

>>9813159
Hey, how much are you being paid to do these threads?

>>9818673
people that worship the state do it for free.

>>9813159

>>9816827
>Running a node for lighting with zero rewards so blockstream can rent LN channels
Imagine being so cucked

>>9817875
To make 51% possible you'd have to make the largest miners cooperate towards the goal of destroying bitcoins credibility. The largest miners today are probably also the largest hers of btc, this would be like shooting themselves in the foot.
The miners are suspected("proven" by some) to be fudding and driving the price of btc down literally for the simple goal of accumulating more and preventing more competition from appearing.
It IS in the miners interests to keep the blockchain's integrity.
Non-mining nodes are useless and a waste of bandwidth

>>9815712
running your own node is literally the only way you can use bitcoin without trusting anyone.

>Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.

Satoshi Nakamoto, 2008 November

>>9819702
While at the same time trusting the miners regardless

>>9819787

Satoshi understood that bitcoin was first and foremost, a competition between miners to get blocks out the fastest. Holding back the network so your raspberry pi can keep up is pure socialism

Lol. Everyone who's been around since 2014 or earlier have moved to r/btc and know that bitcoin cash is bitcoin. Bitcoin did a chain split. What happens from here remains to be seen. But you newcomers falling for AXA's smear campaign against Roger and thinking bitcoin cash isn't technically bitcoin are dumb as fuck.

>>9819853
The whole "mainstream" crypto sphere is pandering towards btcore, and there is no need for a Ver-smear campaign since he does it all by himself (with help from Wright).
It's difficult to learn about it because the whole community is now on a bandwagon to shill Bcore and trashtalk Bcash

>>9813159
bitesizebitcoin is the fucking G O A T

>>9819699
>Non-mining nodes are useless and a waste of bandwidth
opinions are not facts... try again

>>9819853
that's why there is no traffic on your chain

>>9819955
Roger has literally just had one outburst over half a year ago and written about bitcoin cash on bitcoin.com along with calling BTC 'bitcoin core'. That's nothing. And Craig Wright? He barely even gets any coverage on r/btc.

The only reason why there's even such a 'mainstream' bubble of people who don't understand what's going on is because AXA own r/bitcoin and censor and ban anyone who points things out, and astroturf the shit out of the sub. So this recent wave of newcomers in 2017 have never actually been exposed to r/btc more than a glance.

>>9820021
Yep. Can't wait for BCH trading pairs so all the BTC transactions can be done with BCH instead.

>>9820002
Lmao. You serious? How the fuck would non mining nodes make any difference to the network whatsoever? The only use they can possibly have is for exchanges and merchants themselves.

Whats hilarious is that bch guys cry about blockstream while sucking off Craig Wright. Like who gives a fuck about nchain and their patent trolling, r-right? nchain will be way more of a centralized authority than blockstream ever could be. But that doesnt matter because muh axa kikes vs muh lying plagiarist.

>>9820079
read the rest of the thread dickface. i feel no need to repeat myself this entire fucking thing for you lazy illiterate shill fucks

>bch trading pairs...

you cash cows are fucking so delusional. There is no traffic on your network. nobody uses bitcoin cash. And now with Samsung and Intel entering the asic market... Bitmain's days are numbered. so fuck off with your bcash shill lies

>>9820151
>releasing and forcing tech down peoples throats by limiting the main chain
vs
>releasing and forcing tech down peoples throats by being so good it would be stupid for them not to participate
hmmm :thinking:

>>9820151
Nope. Craig Wright is barely even mentioned at r/btc. Stop parroting what you've read on r/bitcoin dumb fuck.

>>9820157
Oh let me guess

> BCH has lower amount of transactions than dogecoin lolololol

Dumb fuck.

>>9814820

non-mining full nodes are literally useless. you don't need them to propagate anything; miner's full nodes will take care of that. Non-mining nodes really have no say in the validity of transactions either because ultimately verification is when a miner starts building a new block on top of the last. Fuck your home node; use a block explorer.

>>9820206
Non argument

>>9820157
Our argument seemed to end with you raving about the need to monitor the miners double spends. That being the only use of a user run node. The fear that miners would collude, double spend and then it would go unnoticed. Now you're admitting to the mining scene getting more competition. I really don't get it. All I can say is I'm glad people like you have a single place to propagate.

>>9820238
.... What? You literally said

> Whats hilarious is that bch guys cry about blockstream while sucking off Craig Wright.

>>9820276
And I see bcashies sucking fake saotshi dick all day long here. Idgaf about reddit and the fact you know what goes on there means you should gtfo

>>9820289
> ohmagawd fuck reddit guise

Doesn't change the fact that r/btc is the strongest place in crypto and has been for a while.

And no, you're wrong. You're making it out to be as if everyone pro-BCH here is running around sucking Craig Wright's dick, when there's been minimal amounts of that. You're one of the funny ones that's for sure.

>>9820289
Nobody likes Wright, not bcashies, not blockstreamies. Just because he chooses to associate himself with bch doesnt mean bch community loves him, it's quite the opposite in truth.
also
>being involved in crypto without any idea on what's going on on reddit
You're either a shill on his first day or just a delusional parrot

>>9820240
>people like you have a single place to propagate.
I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm assuming it is an attempt to attack my character or intelligence or both. If so... that is sign of a weak mind or weak argument or both.

why the fuck does bcash have a raging hard-on for non-mining, fully validating, archive nodes? What is it with you knuckle dragging mouth breathers that turns your little pricks inside out when you hear the word full node? The only thing I can think of is it's the Jihan Wu mining cabal narrative to keep normies using SPV wallets so the miners can do whatever the fuck they want with the network.

>>9820360
>classic shill deflection tactics..

you are a truly useless pile of garbage kys

>>9820360
>>9820343
Oh so now bcashies hate fake satoshi. The only flippening is going on in your minds, lmao.

>being involved in crypto without any idea on what's going on on reddit
Dont need to. Reddit is as irrelevant as 4chan.

>>9820483
was supposed to be for >>9820343 but, you can kys too

>>9813159
this is that roger ver is technically retarded. You cannot increase block size infinitely because >muh hardware

Increasing blocksize makes bitcoin more centralized and unsecure. And at this point that's bitcoin's only advantage. If you're gonna make bitcoin insecure, why not use eth?

Roger ver is legitimately going to kill bitcoin and bitcoin cash with his stupidity. He's not an evil shill. He's just stupid.

All these cucks arguing between each other for which of their SHA-256 mined shitcoin is “the REAL one”

>>9815217

whats wrong with being pro holocaust? do you know where you are?

>>9815683

nodes are miners in the white paper brainlet (if honest nodes control "A MAJORITY OF THE CPU POWER". non-mining nodes control zero cpu power obviously).

the absolute state of a corecuck

>>9815755

you're absolutely wrong

>>9820446
because your to limit the entire chains scaling for the sake of being able to do virtually nothing. You've pointed out the failure of your own argument without even realizing it. That's why I'm glad you and the retards that think like you are not anywhere near this project and have your own place to spout nonsense. I spent the last 30 posts making you look like a fucking retard through your constant backpedaling and goal shifting, bringing this to light doesn't make my arguments weak.

>>9821022
also forgetting to mention your entire platform is based upon character assassinations which you did yourself in the same post you criticize me for attacking your character. The hypocrisy is comical at this point.

>>9820559
Wait what

>>9820526
People hate craigs character. Hating craig for nchain is reserved for the marxists. People are just waiting for him to actually do something before sucking him off.

>>9820619
>Increasing blocksize makes bitcoin more centralized and unsecure.

My god... No it doesn't. Not unless you go past a 3gb limit or so.

>>9821111
I've been following this since the start of bch's creation. It mainly started with stupid people, then it transitioned to the dishonest, and now finally as the majority of dishonest people are gone we are left with the stupid again. The devout followers who actually drank the kool aid and sometimes run their own nodes.

>Bitcoin was once promoted by Mt. Gox
>Somehow, it's not a scam.

That double standard.

>>9815901

what do you mean proof? Consensus is peformed by a group of miners running SHA256 calcs; creating hashes with random nonces until one of the miners finds a hash with enough trailing zeros. The miner who finds that qualifying hash has the block they created added to the chain and receives a block reward. This is literally the consensus process and it has nothing to do with non-mining "validating" nodes.

>>9821145
Actually, it goes even farther back than that. These people were going crazy about their full nodes and big blocks causing centralization even back in the end of 2015. Mainly the dishonest ones, the AXA shills on r/bitcoin. This was when people moved over to r/btc.

>>9816343

show me hard proof spam was proven

>>9816484

BCH is literally doing what he proposed. I'm not going to bother to find you the quote but it is one of his more popular ones. It talks about most users not running nodes in the futures and saying that datacenters would be the ones running full nodes.

Lol bcore

>>9821158
>Bitcoin was once promoted by Mt. Gox
>Somehow, it's not a scam.
The shittiest strawman I've ever read.

Roger ver is such a hilariously obvious chancer. I cant believe he unironically has adherents, i mean ones he didnt just buy loyalties.

So many time he has been caught lying and defrauding, and it just slips as water under the bridge because some folk need a figurehead to believe in.

The only reason anyone even knows his name is because he fell into a pot of money from buying ridiculous amounts of BTC (the same BTC he is now trying to kill on an ego trip) back in 2010 when doing so was a ludicrous, uneducated risk that just happened to work out for him. I mean he blundered into cash the same way zuckerberg did for eg when he started a site called "the facebook", but with even less value provided to the world. Having someone with Vers temperament luck into kind of cash to act on it is unfortunate af for all.

Whole thing is just ridiculous.

>>98168

Trusting a block explorer is fine for 99% of transactions. I'd say 99.999% of all tx are only ever verified by block explorers; not people running nodes. Is this about adoption or about 100% utilization of every aspect of BTC even when it is absolutely redundant and unnecessary. Even for huge transactions you don't need to verify it yourself. Wait for enough confirmations on enough block explorers. There is a difference between trusting the NETWORK ITSELF and the nature/integrity of the chain versus worrying about double spending. Not verifying transactions yourself does not nullify all of the more important benefits of using BTC; primarily the censorship resistance.

>>9815217
Oy vey remember da holohoax