/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.11213521]

is lightning network a meme or no?

bcash roger parasites not welcome. rather buy xmr instead of a fork IF btc got kiked.

[Anonymous No.11213531]

>>11213521

BRRRTAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPFFFFFGSHDSGHS *sounds of wet shitting*

*sniff*

Ahh, much better!

[Anonymous No.11213546]

>>11213531
why are all you incels into shitting, and smelling shit. you fucking disgust me. roger ver is a closet faggot. lightning is not a fucking meme, it is very real. give it a month or two and you'll LN everywhere.

[Anonymous No.11213587]

>>11213546
citation needed

doesnt ln only have like 1m total volume my good sir

[Anonymous No.11213670]

>>11213546

[Anonymous No.11213712]

>>11213521
sauce

[Anonymous No.11213776]

>>11213521
Lightning Network is not a meme at all, once you understand how it works on a fully technical level it's a very sound proposal for a second layer protocol on top of the Bitcoin base protocol

>Layer 0
>Bitcoin
>Secured by Proof of Work (PoW) - not falsifiable due to the laws of thermodynamics

>Layer 1
>Lightning Network
>Secured by game theoretical incentive structure that requires one to waste massive quantities of money (Satoshis) to compromise the integrity of the network

>Layer 2
>Who knows, something will come though

Ignore any BCash shills saying Lightning Network is centralized or won't scale or that it breaks Satoshi's plans for decentralization guarantees - Satoshi himself specifically implemented the OP_CheckSequenceVerify opcode to allow time locked contracts with revocation, and invented side channels and said that they would need to be used to scale off-chain in the future - Lightning Network is literally a combination of the two used to scale off chain. Lightning Network was literally Satoshi's plan for scaling Bitcoin

[Anonymous No.11213781]

>>11213776
As for the centralization claims specifically, the more centralization that occurs i.e. the larger the nodes of the biggest players who are pushing towards centralization get, the more BTC the node has to stake to lock into the Lightning Network to run the node. And very importantly, if a node tries to commit an outdated or otherwise invalid channel state to the Layer 0 Bitcoin blockchain, anyone who is scammed and discovers this can point it out and it will be cryptographically provable that they lied, and the node then forfeits their ENTIRE Lightning Network locked funds and must give it to the address whose channel state they lied about. And not only can you do this yourself but you can delegate it to others who will be cryptoeconomically incentivized to offer reliable 24/7 "watchtower" services for a small fee.

This means if LN gets centralized and one of the big nodes tries to scam someone, they literally forfeit their entire LN locked up funds to the person they scammed

Here is Satoshi discussing his LN plans, forgot to post the link in my last post:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-April/002417.html

[Anonymous No.11213789]

>>11213521
you dont have to use lightning. its just an optional time / space saving feature.

[Anonymous No.11213800]

>>11213776
>>11213781

so why do bcash tards even exist? what is rogers and jihans endgame?

[Anonymous No.11213853]

>>11213521
I'd pay 1 eth for a single sniff

[Anonymous No.11213875]

>>11213800
Jihan Wu is a co-founder of Bitmain, they want BCash to be considered the real Bitcoin because Bitmain has billions of dollars invested in specialized hardware called ASICs (application specific integrated circuits) specifically meant for mining Bitcoin, but they gained one of their main mining advantages using a method called ASICBoost which no longer works after the transaction malleability bug fix required to implement SegWit (Segregated Witness), therefore Bitmain strongly opposed SegWit for their own gains, not for the benefit of the network. If BCash dies billions of dollars worth of hardware becomes obsolete and no longer has its advantage. This is Jihan Wu's motivation and he has lots of money to influence people like Roger Ver to think this way, he literally has billions on the line

As usual, the explanation for "why is there this weird splinter group that has tons of shills but they have no actually intelligent reasons to support their viewpoint" is "someone has lots of money to gain if their view is supported, and lots to lose if it's not". You see this everywhere.

https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/asicboost-the-reason-why-bitmain-blocked-segwit-901fd346ee9f

[Anonymous No.11213902]

>>11213875
so he splitted the community up forever because of pure greed?

did he fuck up now for good or might this nigger chink out completely and fuck us up with this hashpower or whatever? i doubt he will easily surrender

[Anonymous No.11213917]

>>11213902
51% attacks are always a risk on the network, he can try to fuck us up but he doesn't have 51% so he will fail. Also if he was going to execute a 51% attack, months ago would have been the time to force BCash as the majority proof of work chain, so it's clear he can't because he didn't. Over time as we reach Moore's Law, 51% attacks will become harder because everyone will have access to better, more resilient hardware that can run with less electricity, and massive ASIC manufacturers will have less of an advantage over general consumers. I wouldn't worry about it, just ignore retarded BCash shills

[Anonymous No.11213933]

>>11213917
thanks anon, last question: didnt satoshi mention in the forum that the blocksize can change when needed? how is that what happened last december okay with fees spiking to 100$ lol

do you think core will up the blocksize in the future?

[Anonymous No.11214004]

>>11213933
The block size can indeed change when needed, but it's not needed right now. There was a big spike, but it was nothing more than a massive spike. It was bad at the time, but it's okay now. Anyone has to admit though that yeah, it's bad, and the scaling issue needs to be fixed. But it is being fixed, by mass adoption of SegWit which decreases the size of each transaction on the blockchain, and through Lightning Network taking more transactions off chain.

This comes down to software engineering philosophy - every single change you make has to stay in the software forever as legacy code cruft. Since Bitcoin is so revolutionary, it's extremely important that we get it right. We don't want any hacky temporary fixes, because they always come back to bite you in software development. I can't tell you how many times I personally have been bit by temporary fixes from long ago, and it's worse on protocols such as this because every implementer has to be aware, not just one.

Basically block size increases cause increases in centralization because less hardware can run non-mining full nodes which severely decreases the ability of the individual to verify their transactions quickly and reliably. It's not good to just do them for no reason

This is an area with a lot of debate and it's hard to fully explain to someone who isn't a software engineer and who isn't fully aware of the game theoretical underpinnings of Bitcoin's decentralization guarantees, so you will see lots of people who are very confident that block size increases are okay because they don't understand why they aren't. I won't tell you to just flat out believe me and ignore them because that's an anti-intellectual debate tactic, but that's the gist of it essentially.

Anyone who shills in favor of BCash has no idea what they're talking about, I've never seen a single one exhibit technical understanding of Bitcoin, but many of them are sophisticated enough to pretend like they do have it

[Anonymous No.11214027]

>>11214004
based anon. biz was not a faggot board today, thanks.

do you think the halvening will have a big impact in 2 years on the price? do you think 60k$ is possible? you sound like you know your stuff

[Anonymous No.11214044]

>>11213933
>>11214004
Fees need to go even higher than that so that block rewards are big enough for the network to be secure in the future when the block reward is virtually nothing. Monero's tail emission solves this problem. Monero is like the well thought out practical implementation after the success of the initial experiment that is bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.11214065]

>>11214004
To elaborate on this point, basically block size increases as a scaling tactic are primarily supported by BCash shills because they present them as an alternative to LN which they don't want because SegWit is required for LN and Bitmain doesn't want SegWit because SegWit requires the transaction malleability bug fix which costed them billions of dollars in useless hardware, therefore they are against LN and therefore they artificially inflate their position in favor of block size increases because they have no alternative to LN for scaling. Their scaling method, block size increases, in fact go against all software engineering principles since it's what's called, in algorithmic complexity analysis terms, an O(n) algorithm (linear algorithm) which requires a linear scaling of block size for a linear scaling in transaction throughput i.e. you have to double the block size to get double the transactions - this is flawed. We need better-than-linear scaling which LN provides, in fact LN provides exponential scaling since 1 Bitcoin layer 0 transaction can facilitate arbitrarily many LN transactions

[Anonymous No.11214073]

>>11214027
Typically in markets, events like the halvening which are known about ahead of time are already "priced in" i.e. everyone who is buying BTC should know that it will occur and continue occurring, so it shouldn't affect the price. In reality though there are psychological affects that make it so it does affect the price, you see this in traditional financial markets too around holidays etc. People will psychologically feel like the supply of BTC is decreasing so they should buy more, when in reality this was known about ever since Satoshi created BTC and they shouldn't be FOMOing, but they will. The halvening should most likely result in a price increase. It's hard to know though because people could have stocked up early and prepared to dump during the artificial halvening FOMO price increase. That's why it's hard, you have to second guess over and over back and forth.

For this reason we can't make strong predictions on any events like that, all we can know for sure is that BTC is one of the few truly scarce resources in the world, therefore as adoption increases, demand increases, but supply is always static so price should increase expinentially over time. This is almost guaranteed, I see no reason why we shouldn't reach $60k eventually

HODL, don't try to merch this shit anon. Just buy and hold for a few decades.

[Anonymous No.11214100]

>>11214044
Monero barely scales because transactions are gigantic and there is no good way to get around this. I love Monero as much as the next guy, but the agile development technique of the Monero team i.e. making PoW changes regularly to break botnets, is not a good longterm plan.

Bitcoin is stable, it has much stronger decentralization guarantees than Monero because nobody can fuck with it and we won't be making mistakes because so many people are involved.

If fees increase it doesn't matter because most trivial transactions can happen on LN off chain, and LN channel settlement transactions can be a bit more expensive, this is not an issue, since each Bitcoin transaction would represent arbitrary N LN transactions, so the fees can be arbitrarily decreased by more use of LN, and there is an equilibrium balance here

[Anonymous No.11214147]

>>11214044
Furthermore, in refutation of both Monero and altcoins in general, Bitcoin will succeed because it has the strongest chance of surviving a 51% attack. Monero could be destroyed right now if any major Bitcoin ASIC manufacturer decided to develop ASICs to implement a 51% attack on Monero before they could change their PoW algorithm

This hasn't happened with Bitcoin yet and likely could not happen

[Anonymous No.11214178]

>>11214100
Monero transactions are x times bigger than bitcoin transactions. When computer power is increasing exponentially the 10x or so difference is transaction sizes is fairly insignificant.

Monero's approach to asics is not set in stone but is so far keeping monero more decentralised by limiting mining to the most commoditised hardware available (currently CPUs and GPUs).

>we won't be making mistakes
https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative/http-coryfields-com-cash-48a99b85aad4
This one was made in 2016 and was only caught very recently by a bcasher. That's right not all bcasher are as retarded as you make out and bitcoin isn't so infallible either. This was a very fucking bad bug.

>fees
In this future normal people will only ever be able to use LN coin and pay to use the channels that are setup by big banks. People like Saifedean like this and seem to mostly have a hard on for bitcoin because its like gold but since it's transparent they can audit the fed!

[Anonymous No.11214247]

>>11214178
>Monero transactions are x times bigger than bitcoin transactions. When computer power is increasing exponentially the 10x or so difference is transaction sizes is fairly insignificant.

Even fluffyponza, a core maintainer of Monero, is fully aware that XMR cannot scale to the level BTC can without sacrificing security guarantees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/7pwu4g/no_fluffypony_monero_scales_better_than_bitcoin/dskrahl/

>>11214178
>Monero's approach to asics is not set in stone but is so far keeping monero more decentralised by limiting mining to the most commoditised hardware available (currently CPUs and GPUs).
It has "worked" so far but it can't go on forever and it simply shifts centralization forces from ASIC manufacturers to botnet operators

>>11214178
>This one was made in 2016 and was only caught very recently by a bcasher. That's right not all bcasher are as retarded as you make out and bitcoin isn't so infallible either. This was a very fucking bad bug.
This is not a longterm direction decision mistake, this is an uncaught bug. That is not what I was talking about at all if you'd read the context.

>In this future normal people will only ever be able to use LN coin and pay to use the channels that are setup by big banks. People like Saifedean like this and seem to mostly have a hard on for bitcoin because its like gold but since it's transparent they can audit the fed!
This is a very common BCash talking point and there is no more evidence in favor of this than there is for claims that in the future we will only be allowed to use one government provided BTC address.

You do not understand the technical implementation of LN if you think it will centralize. That's not how it works, at all, there is massive decentralization pressure because of LN locked fund sacrifice in the event of false channel state commits to the layer 0 blockchain, either intentionally or due to a bug i.e. incentive to not have big nodes

[Anonymous No.11214249]

>>11214147
Yeah that's why currently Monero changes the algorithm faster than an ASIC manufacturer could possibly hope to achieve ROI.

https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/06/23/bitmain-nears-51-bitcoins-network-hashrate
Bitmain practically has 51% of bitcoins hashrate already. The only thing bitcoin has going for it in this respect is a larger block reward due to its higher valuation. Relative to fiat currencies though its still tiny. There's no reason Monero couldn't surpass Bitcoin in valuation if you believe Bitcoin can surpass current incumbents.

[Anonymous No.11214372]

>>11214247
>scaling
Yeah obviously. What I said is that it's still fine and not a huge problem like you were implying with
>barely scale
>gigantic
>no way around it
Yes monero transactions will be larger than bitcoin transactions but they're not exponentially bigger so its fine. Were bitcoin transactions too large 10 years ago? No? Well since then following Moore's law tech should have doubled about 5 times meaning 32x larger transactions should be currently feasible. In 10 more years 1024x larger should be fine. Monero's "scaling problems" as defined as a 10x larger transaction size become hardly relevant as time goes on.

>botnets
Botnets are not centralized and they are rational economic actors when it comes to mining.

>implying having more people makes for better long term direction decisions
At best it means no changes ever happen which can itself doom the project.

>LN
The point is with 1mb blocks (which I don't see any realistic prospect of changing) very few people out of the global population will have access to the base layer.

[Anonymous No.11214388]

>>11214372
And my ID is changing because I'm going between mobile and a dogshit WiFi network sporadically.

[Anonymous No.11214524]

>>11213875

appreciate the info, fren

[Anonymous No.11214918]

BTC is a steaming heap of shit run by utter incompetents, practically every single thing in this thread that shills for it have said is flatly wrong, and BCH is how Bitcoin was actually designed to work, period.
Anyone with any technical software development experience who has read the white paper and properly understands proof of work knows this. The only people pushing the contrary are flat out fucking stupid. Look at the recent core bug which proved over 80 percent of "muh full nodes" do absolutely nothing, and all any miner would have to do to permanently split them off the network would be to mine a fork block with the fixed ruleset.
Look at the failure rate for lightning payments as the amount increases.
Look at the failure rate for lightning payments as you take down the large central hubs in the network.
Look at the fact that there even *are* large central hubs in the network.
BTC is abject useless shit whose actual production scaling strategy in light of the utter failure of lightning is now "let's create a completely centralised database owned by a corporation and we'll track all the ownership and transfers there". It is now more centralised and scammy than even fucking ripple, the sperg lord responsible for their most recent bug is tweeting about how stupid his cultist followers were for ever believing that bullshit they vomited about non mining full nodes, at the same time as his sperg lord geocentric dumb cunt colleague is literally trying to destroy the ability to even interact with the blockchain unless you use muh full node.
It's just sad that people are still trying to shill this shitcoin at this late stage of the game. If you think bitcoin is old news and better things have made it obsolete, fine. Go buy your eth nano xmr whatever, but there is literally zero fucking reason whatsoever to believe in the future of the transparent scam that is the shit tier fucked up btc fork of bitcoin. It's utter cancer.

[Anonymous No.11215070]

>>11214247
I've used LN on my phone but I'm a noob, and I wanna know if its gonna be possible to open a payment channel with no intial stake? If I wanted to send $5 of btc to my friend who's never used bitcoin I can't just do it with ease like I can right now on chain, he has to first open a channel (which is going to soon cost a fair bit of money when blocks are full again)

Also how is it going to be decided when fees are 'too high' for LN to even be used due to on chain fees opening payment channel?

[Anonymous No.11215079]

>>11213521
>that little smirk on her face

She knows what she is doing. what a fucking slut.

[Anonymous No.11215153]

>>11213521

[Anonymous No.11215509]

>>11213670
50 years ago
sending snail mail:
>its easy, just get some paper and ink, write or draw whatever you want and send it
sending email:
>first you need to get internet connection, by registering with isp and signing a contract
>next you need to connect to the internet over cli
>now you need a local server for your email, hope you know your way around unix
>next you need to configure your local server for email
>now you need to connect your local server to the internet, hope you know your away around tcp/ip sockets
>etc...

we all know how that rivalry played out.

[Anonymous No.11215592]

>>11215509
Your comparison is between communications mechanisms with different underlying physical mediums age transport mechanisms with corresponding different speeds that give a massive advantage to email.
The person you're responding to is comparing two mechanisms with nearly identical speeds, bch actually being faster to get into chain because there's no extra jump, but nothing like the magnitude of difference between snail mail and email, coupled with the fact that lightning/btc surrenders all the underlying advantages of the original decentralised blockchain architecture.
The comparison isn't simple and worse vs complex and better, it's simple and better vs complex and worse.

[Anonymous No.11215697]

>>11215592
if you consider having to record every single meaningless transaction on every full node for the whole eternity as simple and better, theres not much left to discuss here.
ffs, hal finney himself said that he expects bitcoin banks in the future. by his description they would be basically large ln hubs or something like bakkt, where you can transact between bakkt clients for a nominal fee and all the transactions are settled once a day/ week/ month/ whatever.

[Anonymous No.11215788]

>>11215697
False dichotomy, setting artificial transaction limits to force 99 percent plus of transactions to a centralised by design layer that specifically strips the immunities to censorship and manipulation of the first layer is not the same thing as every transaction ever being performed in any format being forced into that first layer. The correct solution is exactly what bch does; the people that actually validate those transactions and are responsible for their auditing set a market price on the performance of their duties for any given transaction. The block limit is utterly irrelevant to this process, and even when BCH was under stress test conditions which could have resulted in 32mb blocks, nobody actually mined them because it wasn't yet economically rational to do so considering the state of the software.
Arguments from authority demanding that banks must have absolute control over the monetary layer prove absolutely fuck all. For most of human history the function of banks was to secure value and provide investment services, neither of which required them to have root level access to the laws of nature to reallocate who has what gold bullion at will, and in fact would be contrary to the interests of a healthy market in the provision of those services.
Nobody gets root level access to control money, no matter how desperately the core cultists and their fuckwit coterie of cultists demand it. The last bug in their idiotic consensus ruleset conclusively demonstrated even they don't actually believe this to be true. They just sell it as propaganda to clueless halfwit 108er cunts like you.
Wake the fuck up. You're doomed.

[Anonymous No.11216404]

>>11215788
The problem for bitcoin (btc and bch) is that the finite supply means there eventually needs to be a fee market to pay for the security of the network. To have an effective fee market you need a cap on block space so most people will be excluded from the main chain. On bch high value transactions will be risky.

Monero solves this problem with its tail emission and a flexible blocksize that can increase as fee revenue increases from more transactions. At the same time second layers are necessary for scaling but at least you won't need to be a billionaire to make a base layer transaction once in a while.

[Anonymous No.11216728]

[Anonymous No.11216742]

[Anonymous No.11216821]

>>11215509
difference is bitcoin needed a working scaling solution yesterday, not 5 years later. lightning network still doesn't work and BTC lost extremely much just by not upping the block limit to 2 MB. thinking about how awesome lightning network COULD be is irrelevant, when something is needed right now you need to adapt to reality. BCH came into existence just because BTC refused to adapt to what was actually needed at that moment in time.

[Anonymous No.11216853]

Look into ACM if you are interested in lightning network.
>85mil max supply
>privacy through tor
>lightning network
>cheap af right now

[Anonymous No.11216858]

>>11214918
Based and redpilled bch poster

[Anonymous No.11216885]

>>11216742
Kek. Meanwhile the only argument from Core is "Bcash" like a puppet.

[Anonymous No.11216912]

>>11213776
LN is layer 0
BTC is layer 1

LN encaptulates BTC.

[Anonymous No.11216946]

Check out Bitcoin Core's 4 universal truths:

https://youtu.be/D2WXxgZ8h-0?t=1552

The kind of presentation a cult leader would give to their members.

[Anonymous No.11217005]

>>11216946
>implying we aren't already there

[Anonymous No.11217286]

I noticed that Vitalik Buterin posted this nice suggestion on /r/btc yesterday:
https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9iral9/meanwhile_heres_a_new_technique_for_making_light/

Lots of interested comments there. He didn't post it on /r/bitcoin. Someone else posted it on /r/bitcoin 6 hours ago:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/9j0v2u/albassam_sossino_buterin_spv_security_increase/

No comments and 2 points (76% upvoted)... It doesn't surprise me that Vitalik shifts towards /r/btc because of Luke's reveal that he want to make SPV wallets worse:
https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1044220740109848578

[Anonymous No.11217726]

Luke has pinned a tweet about him offering to help you get into contact with a Catholic priest in Japan... Jikes!

[Anonymous No.11217760]

oh damn, BCH is pumping hard.
must be the bitmain IPO announcement.

[Anonymous No.11217772]

How about you test it yourself instead of listening to the buttblasted cashies on biz?

[Anonymous No.11217845]

>>11217772
if more than 5 people would actually use LN at the same time it would slow to a crawl and fail all transactions

all these videos of people "successfully paying with LN", lulz of course it works when you're the only one using the network at that point in time

[Anonymous No.11217992]

>>11216404
How far this fucking forum has fallen.
Think through the logic of what you're saying; Failure level 1)
"These chains have a problem that will result in a certain consequence, my alternative doesn't have this problem, because the consequence in question is part of the design"
Failure level 2)
"No product can have a price unless an artificial limit is set on production, that's the problem that the BCH chain has"
Failure level 3)
"I can't do the basic mathematics to figure out the return on a block that was the original target for tx throughput from back in 2008, so I need to make myself a target for humiliation and have some anon come along and do it for me and point out it's over fucking 175k USD per block assuming very low 25c transaction fees from said fees alone, which is over twice what the massively inflated dysfunctional shitcoin chain I am implying is superior by insisting that its solution is necessary. For my shitcoin of choice to compete with this with the artificial block size in place it would need to have TX fees of about 65 USD each. It has never gotten that high and when it got close, it was losing dominance at a rate of over 20% per month"
Why is this market so fucking stupid a full year after all the shitheads should've been toileted? Fuck me dead.

[Anonymous No.11217998]

>>11213670
the lefty bcashers can't meme.
so all I need to do to get bcash is show you my qr code?
seems legit.

[Anonymous No.11218016]

>>11217992
you are mostly correct, but it's a damned sight more than that in block revenue from fees because of what the impact on the price of Bitcoin will be with the same transaction volume as Visa. Price follows value throughput, if value throughput goes that high...

[Anonymous No.11218044]

>>11217998
OG bitcoiners who went to BCH are not leftists, they're ancaps.
Core cultists are hardcore economically ignorant leftist cunts.

[Anonymous No.11218095]

>>11218044
ancap hoodie citation

[Anonymous No.11218102]

>>11218044
the ceo of nchain is a gay faggot sjw that works for huff post.
we can cherry pick all day, but in the end that meme is retarded and clearly made by a leftist retard.

[Anonymous No.11218107]

>>11218044
outright secession citation

[Anonymous No.11218115]

>>11213546
neck yourself kike

[Anonymous No.11218129]

>>11218102
Got fired by this evil undertaker looking hypercapitalist motherfucker.
You have no clue what you're talking about, wake the fuck up. If you fell for the BTC scam, you got state'd.

[Anonymous No.11218138]

>>11217992
What would make tx fees 25c in bch? Roger likes to talk about them being virtually nothing and if there's no limit to the blocksize then why should there be a fee? Bitcoin on the other has unreasonably small blocks that can't realistically ever get bigger. Monero has a more sensible approach where fees are somewhere between $0 bch and $10k btc.

[Anonymous No.11218171]

>>11213521
I want to put my face into her ass and die off of the lack of oxygen.
Will it ever happen bros?

[Anonymous No.11218200]

>>11218138
Because increasing block size increases block orphan risk, so if the fee for the tx doesn't justify the inclusion of the tx in the block, it doesn't go in the block, this is why even during BCH stress test given the shit state of the codebase that was optimised along assumptions that the coretard architecture was a fixed and optimal thing, blocks ever got above around the 27mb mark if I recall correctly.
And the point isn't that they will *definitely* be 25 cents, it's that they will be whatever the market will bear. That's how markets work. 25 cents was just a fast back of the envelope calculation for what a tx fee might look like given a throughput equal to the estimations in the picture in question.
Greg Maxwell is a halfwit neckbrained shitstained cumbucket, and he is fucking *wrong* about everything when it comes to Bitcoin. It is not ok for people to be active in this market and not have fucking come to fucking terms with this by now, pic related.

[Anonymous No.11218237]

>>11218129
>got fired
prove it faggot
also you're still deflecting from my original point that your memes are leftist trash.

[Anonymous No.11218240]

>>11218102
Muh no true scotsman.

[Anonymous No.11218281]

>>11218237
https://nchain.com/en/careers/job/chief-executive-officer/
Fuck off you stupid cunt, you don't have a point.

[Anonymous No.11218315]

>>11218281
if I have no point then i'll take 50 BCH please.

[Anonymous No.11218338]

>>11218281
wait WHAT

Jimmy is no longer the CEO of nChain?!

say fucking WHAT

[Anonymous No.11218343]

>>11218281
did you even read that you fucking moron?

[Anonymous No.11218356]

>>11218200
That's interesting, didn't think about orphan risk. Does bch ever expect to have some kind of second layer?

[Anonymous No.11218363]

>>11218338
My understanding is that he is being replaced and moving onto some "other leadership role". I cbf'd finding references so dyor or rely on my memory, but he's definitely either on the way out or out already.

[Anonymous No.11218369]

>>11217286
It's because ETH competes with Bitcoin and Vitalik is playing divide and conquer.

Bcash devs just copy paste from Bitcoin devs, so it isn't like bcash is some hub of innovation.

[Anonymous No.11218425]

>>11218369
I can't even tell if Vitalik's face is photoshopped in these pics anymore.

[Anonymous No.11218428]

>>11218356
Absolutely, it's a free market currency.
Lets say for the sake of argument that we get to a level of 10x 2008 visa throughtput, which is about 6.7 gigabyte blocks, and at this point in time market fees are around the 2$ mark. It could be an interesting business venture to setup a second layer payment system working on that underlying system to process micro and nano transactions, and since the tx fees on the first layer are set by market forces, miners have no issue with this situation. The new second layer is just more competition for layer one tx space contributing even more to demand for their product.
The only objection miners ever had to off chain scaling was that it was being *forced through* by the core devs, and not only that, but it was being forced through in a way that nullifies all the unique value propositions in Bitcoin. It was effectively turning Bitcoin into a shitty centralised unreliable and inefficient version of Paypal. So of course they forked an alternative to protect their interests.
It's like if you're managing a business very well, and the board of directors has some utterly fucking halfwit plan on how to increase revenue, and you think it's so fucking stupid you start a side gig to capitalise on their ineptitude, but the ignorant fucks in the broader market think it's a brilliant idea and push money at your employer hand over fist. You get a raise, and eventually your company goes bankrupt just like you knew it would because they had an absolutely fucking retarded strategy, but why quit? Why not just take the raise and do what they say until it's all over for them and the actual serviced volume that abandoned them in droves went over to your superior solution based on their failure?
That's clearly the economically rational option, and that's exactly what miners have done.

[Anonymous No.11218478]

>>11213670
>>11218315
>>11218281
i thought this shit was fast and cheap, where are my coins?

[Anonymous No.11218508]

>>11218369
No you stupid clusterfuck, it's because of this;
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1044230750424502272
Vitalik has always been anti-core, because core is a fucking shit show, this is only news to newfags.

[Anonymous No.11218524]

>>11218478
wow yeah you sure showed that guy, he didn't send you money so you must be right.
Did Adam have to hire a new astroturfing company or something? Quality has gone way the fuck down.

[Anonymous No.11218556]

Bitcoin BCH mooning fucking hard, corefags BTFO

[Anonymous No.11218560]

>>11218508
>core literally is *the* best development branch of Bitcoin where nearly all the compounding innovation is taking place, where all the eyes and hands of some of the most talented developers in the industry contribute
>"it's a shit show, guys."

[Anonymous No.11218570]

>>11218560
sabotage is not innovation.

[Anonymous No.11218577]

>>11218570
Which lines of code represent the sabotage?

[Anonymous No.11218631]

>>11218524
>oy vey! maybe if I call him a shill he'll stop pointing out our lies
the meme says all i need to do to get bcash is show my qr code.
prove me wrong faggot

[Anonymous No.11218999]

>>11218631
you need to be a decent human being also

btw looks like you begged for crypto in this thread, something which is not allowed on /biz/

[Anonymous No.11219020]

>>11218999
proving a point isn't begging you retarded nigger.

[Anonymous No.11219049]

>>11219020
sure dick, sure. especially since you totally proved a point with it.

[Anonymous No.11219085]

>>11219049
>"download this wallet app and show me your qr code"
I did that, but imagine that, no coins showed up.
where did I go wrong turbobrainlet?
the part about being a decent human being wasn't on the instructions, I didn't know that was a requirement to get bcash.

[Anonymous No.11219100]

>>11219085
you were not a decent human being and begging is not something people encourage around here

[Anonymous No.11219149]

>>11213781
That link does now show Satoshi discussing lighting network concept, it's Mike Hern, in 2013, talking about transaction replacement so high frequency traders can use bitcoin without clogging the network. It must not have worked because Mike Hern is now a bcash supporter BTW

[Anonymous No.11219150]

>>11219100
>>11213670
just following these instructions
so I can only get bcash if I'm a decent human being?
is that in the whitepaper?

[Anonymous No.11219240]

>>11213521
It doesn't scale and the incentive structure is way off. It relies on altruism to function.

[Anonymous No.11219262]

>>11213521
I don't know if Lightning's a meme or not. All I know is it ain't ready for prime time and probably won't be until it's too late.
Core Cucks are probably going to deposit their precious BTC into a bank (bakkt), so they can spend it.
It will be a fractional reserve currency and they'll get bailed in if they try to withdraw.
That's what the bitcoin standard is.

[Anonymous No.11219275]

>>11219149
Checked this out earlier today, drew the same conclusion as you -- someone claimed Satoshi said something about Ripple an email but never confirmed it.

[Anonymous No.11219281]

>>11219150
asshole beggars get nothing online just like they get nothing offline.

[Anonymous No.11219463]

>>11219281
I just tried to follow the instructions but I cant seem to get coins.
i'm not begging for shit you dumb cunt, if the instructions said i had to pay, i would gladly pay.
just so I'm clear, in order to get bcash, I download the app, show you my qr code, and the coins just magically appear, but only if I'm a decent human being?

[Anonymous No.11219729]

>>11219281
Don't you have better things to do than to shill and be wrong about BTC on the internet?

[Anonymous No.11219751]

>>11219463
keep your delusions to yourself and keep your begging on the street

>>11219729
?

[Anonymous No.11219800]

>>11213776
Found shkreli in that photo

[Anonymous No.11219818]

>>11218281
The happenigian in me assumes that this vacancy will be filled by someone that will shock the world.

[Anonymous No.11219865]

solid thread

[Anonymous No.11219874]

>>11219818
i just want to know what happened to jimmy, i think he was a good CEO. at least from what i saw of him at conferences. there's been little heard from nChain the last couple of weeks

[Anonymous No.11219892]

>>11219874
yeah I'm interested to see what happens too.
now is the time for lying low... october - december should be interezenting.

hopefully i have to energy to keep up with all the happenings.

[Anonymous No.11219931]

>>11213776
How can anyone read anything on those monitors at those distances? Are they ultra low res or something? Damn

[Anonymous No.11219934]

>>11219751

[Anonymous No.11219959]

>>11219892
i used to hope that the SV client wins in november but after reading up on the new CHECKDATASIG opcode im content regardless which side wins.

i still dont really get the need with ABC's tx ordering change but whatever. also Wormhole seems dumb, i dont know why anyone would burn BCH to create tokens when it's possible to create tokens without burning any BCH. burning doesn't magically add value to Wormhole tokens since you cant reverse the process.

>>11219934
photo of you in full begging gear?

[Anonymous No.11220009]

>>11219959
I'm pretty sure all the stuff currently being talked about is all for show.
I've read some really cool whitepapers out there that I think will transform the whole crypto space.. all this garbage being talked about on twitter and reddit these days is a distraction

[Anonymous No.11220172]

>>11220009
im into bitcoin because of its simplicity, if any new crypto comes out that isn't somehow simpler than bitcoin then i dont think ill be particularly interested myself. simplicity means it cant break and it becomes easier to build on top of

[Anonymous No.11220226]

>>11220172
bitcoin is going to evolve.

[Anonymous No.11220299]

>>11220172
True Bitcoin maximalism is crypto minimalism. Inventing different coins for different purposes is like everyone inventing their own language to describe the same thing.

[Anonymous No.11220371]

>>11213546
Bahahaha Christ you are gonna lose all your money

[Anonymous No.11220373]

>>11213800
>what's btrash gang endgame?

They'll swing from BTC to fork to token and from pump to dump for as long as it takes to make their BTC holdings bigger. The one thing they want is BTC, they know LN is the way and that their retarded scaling will require retardedly centralized infrastructures but they don't care.

All they care about is how they will convince fools to buy their shitty bags so they themselves can swing back to BTC (THE KING) for cheaper than they swang out of BTC and into BCP (bcrap)

Literally a bunch of swinging monkeys throwing shit everywhere

[Anonymous No.11220378]

>>11219959
I'm personally on side ABC since by now I fucking hate the nonsense that Craig Wright is constantly spewing. I am so glad he has decided to split his own coin off from BCH because hopefully he will leave us the fuck alone.

Not only that, side SV seems to think just raising the block size cap and buying more CPUs for their nodes will solve the scaling issue which right now is primarily block propagation.

Also their opcodes (OP_MUL etc.) are useless crap. 32 bits is not enough. GIVE ME BIGNUMS RAARGH

[Anonymous No.11220446]

>>11220226
we'll see, I do think that SV have a point in that it is time to stop experimentation. changing tx ordering is more than just added functionality. new opcodes to be added should always be allowed, as was always intended:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611

>Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them. All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.

>>11220378
craig is just shit at dealing with human being, he really is smart. you need to watch the 4 hours long interviews to really see what he is capable of. this man definitely was one of the people forming the satoshi group and he do see the big picture.

i can only imagine how frustrating it must have been seeing BTC go the way that it did and now that he finally thought he had bitcoin back with BCH the devs started saying a bunch of stuff that he disagreed with and that isn't really needed, like pre-consensus and CTOR. knowing that craig is absolutely shit at dealing with other human beings it makes perfect sense for him to just finally go "fuck you all, let hashpower decide".

[Anonymous No.11220484]

>>11220373
> one thing they want is BTC, they know LN is the way
> All they care about is how they will convince fools
> BTC (THE KING)
>swang out of BTC and into BCP (bcrap)
>Literally a bunch of swinging monkeys throwing shit
Some compelling arguments here, Anon. Thanks for the post.

[Anonymous No.11220507]

>>11220446
this being said I don't really understand Craig's objection to CHECKDATASIG. to me it seems like a great opcode to add. it still only involves the data contained in the tx itself so why not?

though I remember him objecting mostly about the old proposition (DATASIGVERIFY). perhaps this newer CHECKDATASIG is more in line with how bitcoin opcodes should work?

[Anonymous No.11220528]

>>11215509
I don't remember doing much TCP/IP socket level coding to connect to an email server but maybe I forgot it was so long ago. Your analogy sucked I hope the walkers get you Eugene

[Anonymous No.11220554]

>>11215509
email eventually got rekt by sms/instagram/iMessage, it's used mostly for business purposes by boomers

99.99% of stuff is done via text message now, hell I even see commercials on TV that advertise exclusively with text for more info campaigns

[Anonymous No.11220656]

>>11220554
sms is for boomers who like paying more money to transmit a private message than it costs to permanently store data on blockchain.

[Anonymous No.11221442]

>>11215509
Lightning Network is a piece of shit too. Hold on let me try route some money to Lamborghini, oh that's right it's impossible. I'll just send C4$H (Bitcoin) like how it's meant to work

[Anonymous No.11221568]

>>11213521

It's a shitty "solution" to the scaling problem, only bitcoin maximalists with heavy bags and even heavier bias think it's a good idea. They don't want to accept the fact that it has to be build again from the ground up to be scalable. Which basically means we need a completely new crypto. That means their bitcoin bag would be worthless though so they don't even see it as an option. They got lucky for once in their lives and they will NEVER let it go. Every other coin will always be a scam to them.

[Anonymous No.11221977]

>>11213531
>Oooo, moch be'ttah!

[Anonymous No.11222654]

>>11221442
not to mention that routing in the Lightning Network is still an unsolved problem, transactions fail more and more the more people that use LN at the same time

https://youtu.be/4KiWkwo48k0?t=365 (6:05)

[Anonymous No.11222712]

>>11222654
4:11 is also good in that video. with 2nd layer solutions it makes it much harder to patch the 1st layer.

so if LN was actually in use today on BTC the recent security vulnerability would have fucked everything since apparently most people don't update their nodes, 80% still run insecure nodes

however all the miners have patched their nodes, this means that BTC admits that non-mining full nodes don't mean shit for the security of the network

a BCH dev discovered the security flaw in BTC for those that don't know. that fact it's not exactly discussed loudly on /r/bitcoin

[Anonymous No.11222793]

>>11215509
If email was slower than traditional paper mail AND more expensive, it wouldn't have succeed.

[Anonymous No.11222851]

>>11222793
and im sure that if someone made email expensive and slow today someone else would "fork off" from email and make a competitor that behaved just like the original

[Anonymous No.11223971]

>>11222793
>If email was slower than traditional paper mail AND more expensive,
it was... until it wasn't.

[Anonymous No.11224236]

>>11213521
Invest in materials that make flabby asses look tight