[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance


View post   

File: 420 KB, 1000x1000, BTC11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13413300 No.13413300 [Reply] [Original]

How can i speed up my bitcoin transactions. It's been 6 hours. HELLLLPP

>> No.13413306

>>13413300
use litecoin.

>> No.13413317

>>13413306
This

>> No.13413330

>>13413306
>>13413317
I"ve sent BTC to an account but its been hours :(
Is there a way to speed it up Besides buying LTC? don't have LTC rn :(

>> No.13413363

Bitcoin is only for rich people, use some random shitcoin.

>> No.13413414
File: 95 KB, 1000x693, 1555876020649.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13413414

>>13413300
heh sorry kiddo, unnecessary transactions only litter the mempool. Small fish transactions get thrown in the back.

>> No.13413433

>>13413414
This is one of the most insane posts I've seen in my life

What the fuck is wrong with white people, why do we feel the need to excuse and tolerate complete bullshit

>> No.13413470

>>13413433
Blame white pepo
Math is racist

That post is dumb but the point is if you can't afford the tx fee dont use the mainchain

>> No.13413476

>>13413414
>new paradigm
This really is a shitcoin

>> No.13413500

>>13413433
> fellow whites...
Oy vey

>> No.13413508

>>13413476
Imagine being this stupid

>> No.13413525

>>13413300
don't worry it's the bip69 which enabled forced hodl mechanisms when sending btc because of the rise in prce

>> No.13413546

>>13413300
Use NANO

>> No.13413551

>>13413525
A mempool fee market beats giving throughput control over to miners like ETH
You retarded don't get it but bitcoin is the only coin that can survive adverse conditions

>> No.13413615

>>13413551
But what's the point if it can't survive favorable conditions?

>> No.13413620
File: 54 KB, 608x374, 1555868799664.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13413620

>>13413470

>> No.13413644
File: 558 KB, 699x518, frog39.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13413644

>>13413300
Didn't you get the memo? SegWit Coin is not for transacting, you're supposed to hold on to it.

>> No.13414468

>>13413300
Bitcoin cash

>> No.13415592

>>13413433
How the fuck do you know this shitskin post is made by a white person?

>> No.13415607
File: 245 KB, 1804x704, 1_aldOUUgbGyW15iyF50f79g.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13415607

>>13413620
And people still are in denial that the BTC chain was taken over and sabotaged by the banking cartel.

It's clear as fucking day.

>> No.13415615
File: 53 KB, 765x534, 1555950453750.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13415615

lol

poor people

set your miner fee higher and drink some bull cum

>> No.13415632

>>13415607
yep yep fuck BTC

>> No.13415638

>>13413300

Lol

Blockstream coin is so retarded

Can't believe people fell for this hijacked scam

>> No.13415765

>>13413433
because it's fellow white people who made the bullshit in the first place

>>13413551
>bitcoin is the only coin that can survive adverse conditions
I wish that were true since it is my biggest hodl but you were deluded

>> No.13415992
File: 134 KB, 1080x1267, 56681377_1218001465034260_2706957712835654973_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13415992

>> No.13416014
File: 104 KB, 720x708, 1555997664754.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13416014

>>13413300
1. Look at the current fees here: https://bitcoiner.live/
2. Bump your fee with RBF

>> No.13416111
File: 44 KB, 631x292, i.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13416111

>>13415607
Gavin Andresen warned about Blockstream too
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/859390357552979968

>> No.13416178

>>13415607
>>13413620
crypto.com has already solved the 3rd party step

>> No.13416772

>>13413300
Use the real Bitcoin, Bitcoin BCH

>> No.13416789
File: 49 KB, 679x927, btcisking.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13416789

>>13416772
Still trying? BCH is just a crappy off-brand copy

>> No.13416805
File: 12 KB, 258x245, 354deaa3770912621bb816da070346ab.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13416805

>>13413300
Pay higher fees just like Blockst- Satoshi envisioned!

>> No.13416814

>>13413470
>pay thousands in fees and wait weeks for transactions to clear, poorfags need not apply ;)

>> No.13416827
File: 105 KB, 640x720, 1555459779689.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13416827

>>13416805
>>13416814
Dude, with BTC I pay about $0.00005 in fees...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>> No.13416833

>>13413620
>>13415607
The eternal C*re dev and supporter.

>> No.13416837
File: 220 KB, 1920x1200, fc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13416837

>>13416789
All BTC have left is price. Take that away and there's nothing to ever bring it back.

>> No.13416863

>>13415765
You're an idiot just sell you obviously don't understand this
The amount of retarded trash on biz is unfathomable
You fags buy link holo cum ass and lose post red wojaks and say but bitcoin is broken
Everyday it's the same shit, I've posted hours of quality content explaining this shit and you guys still don't get it
Be poorfags I don't care anymore

>> No.13416864

ITT retards who think storing information and broadcast it until the end of time on a decentralized trust less system should be free.

>> No.13416870

>>13413306
I came here to post this.

>> No.13416874

>>13416827
Hi newfag. Did you just get your first btc in the past couple months? Average fees are around a dollar rn and that's cheap compared to what the rest of us dealt with a year and a half ago. You'll see, stick around.

>> No.13416879

>>13416837
... and you forgot to mention highest hashrate (and therefore security) and the biggest network of accepting merchants.

>> No.13416890

>>13416864
>thinks sending 400 bytes of data should be expensive

>> No.13416915

>>13416874
I'm in BTC since probably more time than you.

And no, payment fees are about $0.00005 at the moment (or any other small sub-cent amount).

>> No.13416931

>>13416915
Litecoins fees arent even that cheap, youre lying. BItcoin costs 5 dollars when litecoin costs 22 cents, at about 16k. Cut it in 1/3, you have over a dollar right now.

>> No.13416943
File: 120 KB, 960x622, 1555795443560.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13416943

>>13413300
What makes you think you even deserve to make transactions on the Bitcoin network?? Maybe something like Nano Bucks would be up to your speed.

>> No.13416948

>>13416931
Btw that means Bitcoin will cost 25$ to send a single satoshi when it reaches about 80-100k value.

>> No.13416950

>>13416915
Stop lying on the internet, nigger. You've never moved them off Coinbase.

Otherwise go to your wallet, history, go to a recent transaction, details, screenshot and post.

Average fees are over a dollar. The best LN can do on fees is 1 sat per byte which is already available on bch or sv.

>> No.13416953

>>13416890
400 bytes * all BTC nodes = storage
400 bytes * need to broadcast it to all nodes * all future nodes that'll exist = bandwidth

yeah buddy, it ain't gonna be cheap

Why don't you go use ETH where the full blockchain is already 2.2 TB and no one really even runs a full node, they use the "trust me" model and see how that works out in 5 years.

>> No.13416969

>>13416953
>users should have to pay for all transactions not just their own

Do you want to know how I know you're a communist?

>> No.13416970

>>13416953
Or you could just use Litecoin which shares all the benefits of Bitcoin with none of the flaws.

>> No.13416979

>>13416970
>segwit

>> No.13416991

>>13416979
Segwit is a thing. Explain how its a bad thing.

>> No.13417002

>>13416991
Removes digital signatures from transactions. Read the whitepaper.

>> No.13417009

>>13417002
Thats irrelevant to anything.

>> No.13417010

>>13416969

How is it communist? This system says you want to be ahead in line? You pay more. You bid on your own transaction getting mined. If you're not bidding a high price for that to happen, you wait longer. It's 100% capitalist. Communists are the ones complaining about the high fees AKA OP and other fags that think putting transactions onchain should cost them nothing because their $1 transaction paying $0.01 fee aren't getting mined. They think that transaction is the same as someone paying a higher miner fee.

>>13416970
If litecoin is as decentralized as bitcoin, the same issue applies. All data needs to be stored across all participating nodes and broadcasted until the end of time.

There's no such thing as on-chain scaling, the only way to scale is offchain on L2 or above, which is what bitcoin is doing. Even though ETH needs scaling a lot more (because their chain is already 2.2 TB in size) bitcoin is doing it first. Now ETH is like "oh yeah we need L2 to scale"

fucking idiots still think ETH is "ahead" in tech when bitcoin is building on L2 already even though ETH needs L2 a lot more than BTC.

>> No.13417015
File: 1.10 MB, 2048x1024, 4699FF1F-F45E-470E-8075-4F79461CA054.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417015

>>13413433
>my fellow white people

>> No.13417021

>>13417002
That's a straight up lie, signatures are put in a different block. You can still verify every transaction but it's in a different location. Then again brainlet shills like you are just good at repeating one thing over and over but have no technical understanding of what's happening

>> No.13417022

>>13417010
When it comes to scaling it will either be solved or we will all end up using something like Zilliqa. Thats a long way out, Im prepared to use DASH at that point.

>> No.13417025
File: 10 KB, 748x200, 1ml.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417025

>>13416931
>>13416950
LOL! Are you a newfag or what? You don't even know it's dirt cheap.

https://1ml.com/statistics

>> No.13417032

>>13417022
>>13417010
Like Litecoins not going to have a problem at 5k, raise the litecoin cap from the 5B its at now to 100B like bitcoin, then times it by 20x. Only then will it start to become a problem.

>> No.13417045

>>13417009
Retard.

>>13417010
Tl;dr

Bitcoin is "first seen". Rbf is fake and gay excuse to get a banking layer.

>>13417021
Not attached to the transaction. It's not valid. Read the fucking whitepaper.

>> No.13417053

>>13417025
Ive used bitcoin. I started with Bitcoin. I switched off Bitcoin because it was obvious it was never going to live through scaling when it costs 5$ at an ATM on top of the ATM free on top of the ATMs charging higher than market value, so 5$, to get sent to your wallet, 5$ more to get sent to the exchange and then another 5$ to get it off the exchange, presumably another 5$ when you want to move it from there, selling it I guess. Thats only at 15k. Raise it 30k 45k, 60k, 75k, 90k, 105k. Youre now paying 35 dollars per transaction, hundreds to buy from an ATM after everything is said and done. Bitcoin is obsolete and only living off retarded newfag sentiment.

>> No.13417057

>>13417025
>LN

SV has more adoption. LN has 5M in liquidity, kys. Also your hubs will be DDoS'd.

>> No.13417060

>>13417045
Not an argument. It doesnt fucking matter.

>> No.13417064

>>13417022

It doesn't matter what crypto it is. I repeat again, there's no such thing as on chain scaling on a decentralized system.

The problem is that every piece of information on chain needs to be stored and broadcasted until the end of time. This is a requirement for a trust-less, decentralized network and the cost for it is not zero. In fact, the cost increases when more decentralization occurs. As you add more nodes to the network, more information needs to be broadcasted to other nodes and more information needs to be stored. So the bigger your decentralized network is, the more it costs for each transaction on chain. That's why scaling can only happen on L2 or higher.

If your goal is to remove transaction fees on chain, then it becomes a centralized network. So why would you use a centralized system? Might as well go back to JPMCoin or some other shit because you no longer control your coins.

>> No.13417075

Litecoin is about 80 dollars. When its 32,000 dollars it will have scaling problems and be having the problems Bitcoin is having.

>> No.13417081

>>13417064
Monero is doing it with Bulletproofs and Litecoin can too.

>> No.13417094
File: 194 KB, 634x649, bsvheadquarters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417094

>>13417057
SV has more adoption haha you've got to be kidding me. Show me all the shops accepting BSV, I'll wait. It's also constantly dropping in value in comparison with BTC. What's the point of low fees if your purchasing power is bleeding even faster?

You don't even know what liquidity is. 5M liquidity can support an unlimited volume of transactions.

If LN nodes can be DDoS'd then so are the SV nodes.

>> No.13417120

>>13417094
>5M liquidity can support an unlimited volume of transactions
Yikes

>> No.13417125

>>13417045

Are you talking about the BIPs? There's literally a BIP called

"Transaction Signature Verification for Version 0 Witness Program" which is BIP 143

But just think for yourself for a second. If all segwit transactions have no signature, it means I can take all the money from any segwit wallet (as I no longer have to prove I own that BTC address) and give all that money to me. It is fundamental to crypto that signatures exist otherwise no one can prove the own the funds.

>> No.13417130

>>13417094
Every ATM has bitcoin, almost none of them have BCH and literally none have BSV, never will. Just look at the daily volume, BSV doesnt even have trading pairs on exchanges.
When normiefags with 20$ and a phone want to buy crypto, they will end up in Bitcoin, or Litecoin.

>> No.13417143

>>13417130
Exactly that's my point.
100% of the shops accepting crypto, accept BTC.
A few of them accept BCH, LTC or a few other alts.
None accept BSV.

>> No.13417153

>>13417081
It's not about proofs. Proofs are signatures to prove who's who. I'm talking about that information needs to be stored onchain. You can't store it on a decentralized, trust-less system for free. Scaling must be on L2 like lightening where both parties sign 2/2 multisig, agree the initial set of funds onchain. Then do a bunch of transactions off chain where they sign each other's transactions, then broadcast the very final transaction on chain again to get the final settled value. That way, they can do a million transactions with each other but the bitcoin onchain network only knows about 2 of those transactions. That's one of the logical & reasonable ways to scale, adhering to bitcoin's core principles of trustless, decentralized networks.

>> No.13417163

>>13416915

Muh Lightning Netwuuuuurk

>> No.13417168

>>13417153
It reduced the amount of information needed in a transaction which reduced the amount of information that had to be stored on the chain.

>> No.13417181

>>13417163
I don't know about you, but I like low dirt cheap fees, so I use Lightning

>> No.13417193

>>13417168

Yes, that's a good optimization but as people have said, it'll always reach the limit when crypto is more wide spread. Optimizations are good but it doesn't solve the problem. You can optimize a piece of code but there's no such thing as optimizing it to where it takes 0 CPU cycles. That's just not possible. Even LN is an optimization because it takes any amount of transactions between two parties and reduce it to 2. So it can be a million, a billion, a trillion transactions but at the end only 2 transactions on chain.

>> No.13417205

>>13417193
When Litecoin, which has a 5B cap, runs into problems that Bitcoin had at 300B, Ill be long out of the market and a millionaire.

>> No.13417222

>>13417153
>>13417181

My dudes, I fully advocate for the lightning network. Is the only downside [of LN] at the moment that is it too centralised?

>> No.13417233

Please help, my bank transactions is late its been 6hours, the bank said they are going on easter vacation and I have to wait until next Tuesday......
helpppppp

>> No.13417244
File: 25 KB, 553x337, laughing-vikings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417244

>>13417233

>> No.13417252
File: 1.01 MB, 1920x808, 1555466044197.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417252

>>13417222
There's more than 8,000 nodes and growing, plenty of them have a lot of capacity, lots are reachable over Tor, so it doesn't seem centralized to me.

>> No.13417254

retard, fees are like $1.50 to get into the next block if you really need it quick

https://bitcoinfees.info/

>> No.13417258

>>13413470
I prefer using Ripple for payments desu. If you've ever sent it to one of your other (non-exchange) wallets, you'd see why.

>> No.13417289
File: 226 KB, 680x493, angry apu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417289

>>13413363
BUT I WANT TO BE RICH LIKE YOU

>> No.13417292

>>13417205
I mean... sure. This is purely from a technical perspective. If you believe in decentralized, trust-less hard money... it has to work until the end and not just be an exit scam, regardless how much you can trade your coins for fiat.

>>13417222
Lightening has the cost of running your own full node and the cost you open a channel with onchain and closing it. The participation barrier is low (by the way, it's low for a reason because it's decentralized and the devs aren't idiots that just give in to block size increases which means running your full node will cost more).

Lightening becomes more interesting when you have more people in the network. If A wants to pay B, A doesn't need to have a direct channel with B. A can pay B through some intermediary, C. If C charges a fee, then A will find the least cost route to B. That means when the network is sufficiently big, the fees will be small and if some "big" LN node tries to do anything (like increase the fee by a lot), A will just find another route to B. Furthermore, A can always just open a channel with B regardless.

>> No.13417312

>>13417292
Its not an exit scam, its pragmatic. If people were that easy to switch onto the better platform there wouldnt be a Bitcoin right now, nor a Litecoin because Dash would have replaced them, Cardano would replace Neo which would have replaced Eth by now, EOS would have never been adopted at all because its trash, same with Jewple. Really, wed all be using Zilliqa like I said because it can do 1k transactions a second or something.
People will switch when they need to. When Bitcoin retards are tired of paying the fees, they will jump to Litecoin, and when Litecoins done, they will jump to something that solves their problems with it.

>> No.13417317

>>13417292
>>13417252

Was just a question... so if it's not centralised (which you've told me it isn't)

Why has this not taken off yet? At what point will LN become the defacto way of sending BTC transactions? I am looking into running my own node once I move house in the next few months.

>> No.13417326

>>13413300

Stop gambling retard

>> No.13417327
File: 460 KB, 540x378, 1521658752217.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417327

>>13417254
>https://bitcoinfees.info/
This website sucks, it severely overestimates.

On-chain fees are 97 sat/b for fast tx according to https://bitcoiner.live/

97 * 141 vbytes / 100,000,000 * 5,560.33 = $0.76

so about 50% cheaper.

>> No.13417357

FUCK bitcoin

>> No.13417372

>>13417317
It's actually growing pretty fast, considering it went live since barely a year or so :)
https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning

Look at all the places where you can use it: https://lightningnetworkstores.com/

Adoption takes time, but every month there's new nodes, mores capacity and new shops appearing.

>> No.13417389

Why do people continue to speculate on this clearly flawed technology

>> No.13417392

>>13417312
sure, makes sense. From a developer's perspective, you need to find solutions and for it to work until the end of time while adhering to BTC's values. But as a user, if you think it becomes too annoying you should have the option to exit. For me, I'm only trying to explain things from a dev's view.

>>13417317

> Why has this not taken off yet? At what point will LN become the defacto way of sending BTC transactions? I am looking into running my own node once I move house in the next few months.

When people stop complaining that their $1 transaction isn't getting through when they're paying $0.01 in fees and saying shit like BTC is old tech, Bitcoin cash/sv is the real bitcoin, etc. It'll be awhile.

LN is experimental still but it's the only one so far in existence. ETH's blockchain is 2.2 TB and they need something like LN much more than bitcoin but bitcoin gets all the hate for some reason. The amount of FUD and people who don't understand that bitcoin's #1 goal is decentralization and for that to happen, you cannot push the cost of storing data forever and broadcasting it forever to be $0. It simply goes against BTC core values but from a user's perspective, they just want to send $0.01 a million times at no cost (on chain). It simply will not happen on chain in a truly decentralized network.

>> No.13417395
File: 155 KB, 960x767, bcashlol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417395

>>13415638
>muh blockstream..

>> No.13417475

>>13413300
- Replace By Fee (it depends if you sent a transaction with RBF)
- Child (tx) pay for parent (this should work in any case)
- You pay a miner to broadcast and accelerate the transaction (ViaBTC or similar)

>> No.13417562
File: 215 KB, 415x386, laime.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417562

>>13416879
hashrate will drop with the price and "accepting merchants" are just using services that auto-exchange crypto for fiat so they never have to touch the actual BTC. those services support a whole bunch of cryptos. whatever merchant edge BTC once had was lost in 2017.

no, the only thing BTC have left is the price. true believers in the idea of global cash left, actual crypto merchants left, on-top-of developers left. BTC is a trash project now replaced by Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV.

only thing that could possibly save it is to just increase the max block size to 32 (which is supported by the bitcoin protocol right now without changes) but the segwit mess/complexity increase is never going away. and all the lost faith might never come back.

>> No.13417581

>>13417395
You keep using that image. I do not think it conveys what you think it conveys.

>> No.13417591

>>13417562

hahahaha your name: 'BSV will win'

...I don't know if you already know, but BSV is already dead

If you want to try and FUD Bitcoin, don't do it with that as your name, because you just sound like a bitter troll who backed the losing side.

>> No.13417616
File: 1.25 MB, 1280x1646, i_YHzmOrF8KfUE2nYAB8wC5EOC3c9O_ZJ8h6-sAg38w.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417616

>>13417395

>> No.13417622

Its depend on your miner fee, try set it with higher fee.

>> No.13417624
File: 2.42 MB, 300x225, tumbleweed.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417624

>>13417562
Still waiting for merchants to accept BSV

*crickets*

>> No.13417676
File: 72 KB, 700x764, plump6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417676

>>13417591
we'll see, won't we?

>>13417624
reckon it's accepted by most merchants that take BTC and a thousand other cryptos via third party

>> No.13417702

>>13417562

You're literally the guy that has a 1.44 MB floppy drive and when it runs out of space, you just buy more floppy drives instead of looking to NAND storage

Complexity is required to solve a complex problem, increasing block space is the laziest solution and will not work in the long run. You know why people build cities? Because land size is fixed and they have to build up. It creates new technology like steel, elevators, etc. Innovation happens. Your solution is just to build outward with wood houses and assume infinite land.

In fact, BCH and BSV at the end can't be successful and just keep blaming BTC. Once they do and they have full blocks, what do you think is going to happen? When will the block space increase end?

If people spam BCH / BSV with 0/1 sat transactions at a extremely high rate, the blockchain is going to be huge. Are you going to run a full node? Have you ever ran a full node in general? Because those are essential to a decentralized network. Can you imagine broadcasting 100 MB blocks?

Storage itself increases by 432 GB (600 MB * 24 * 30) PER month PER node and the bandwidth to broadcast it to just the current nodes is 432 GB * number of active nodes.

I'm not even considering future nodes and future bandwidth costs if the network expands. In fact it probably won't expand because no one will participate in this network and will no longer become decentralized.


If you're a shill please at least realize this. Don't believe in your own lies.

>> No.13417708

>>13413300
have you tried using nano?

>> No.13417720
File: 122 KB, 250x250, 1555712089063.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417720

>>13417676
Which 3rd-party? Which merchants?
What can I buy right now with BSV?

>> No.13417758

It took 45 min to buy something the other day with BTC. Why the fuck would someone pay over $5000 for one of these?

You could fuck 10 hot hookers for that. Ask yourself, 45 minute - 6 hours to send imaginary meme money or ejaculating inside hot females that you could never get IRL.

>> No.13417787

>>13417758

see >>13417064

>> No.13417846
File: 178 KB, 500x374, computer moon.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417846

>>13417702
not the floppy bullshit again, that comparison is so dumb. even IF it was true we can never uncap the blocks there is no reason to not increase it by, say a 1.25 multiplier per year or something, at least up to the current max support 32 MB (in the protocol TODAY). you'd get 15 years to make a 2nd layer solution that actually works, all while allowing BTC to grow.

just imagine the resources a global economic system would get. youtube needs what, 2 GB of storage per second? 2 TB of bandwidth per second? and that's not 30 years into the future. thinking your neighbour would run a bitcoin node at home in 30 years if it actually would be the global economy is not thinking straight.

miss me with that gay argument. all we wanted was 2 MB blocks to begin with and bitcoin cash wouldnt even have existed, niggers in africa can download 2 MB in 10 minutes. it was calculated that blocks would get full within 2 years back in 2015 and they did get full and blockstream ignored it because of ulterior motives.

>>13417720
i dont have any direct examples to feed you but places that uses https://www.coinpayments.net/supported-coins or other similar services.

>> No.13417859
File: 197 KB, 900x722, 1555985677569.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417859

>>13417758
45 min is still way faster to settle than credit cards. Credit cards take months to fully clear and become immutable (eliminating chargeback risk completely).

With Lightning it's even better, 1 second confirmation, infinitesimally small fees, and much more secure than 0-confs.

>Why the fuck would someone pay over $5000 for one of these

$5000+ is the price of 100,000,000 base units (sats), so yeah, it's expensive. But you don't have to buy so much, just $1 will net you 18,000 sats.

Finally, BTC can also enable you to insert your dick in females (yes, it's pretty popular among sex workers), and since it's resistant to inflation, a year from now you'll be able to use more holes than if you held dollars.

>> No.13417885

>>13417846
You are imagining a world where Bitcoin is not attacked by powerful entities. Core is trying to make it so Bitcoin cannot be suppressed. If its trivial to run a node (relatively), then the network cannot be throttled by governments and ISP's. There is a very real possibility that Bitcoin becomes suppressed in various parts of the world or all over the world. For the use cases that actually matter, the fees are of negligible concern.

>> No.13417894

>>13417327
>https://bitcoiner.live/
sooooo
I still dont see with HD space, xpu speed and network speed ++ every year, why block size cant increase a bit every year like 2% or 0.5% or whatever. or a s - curve

That sucks the oxygen by cost of people just wanting to spam the blockchain.

I have said this several tiem on btc talk includining to gmax. who replied to me but failed to address that specifc point.

I feel block stream is wedded to the position of 1mb

the reason is the second the go larger, the BCH crowd win the argument, in a media sence.

but not a technical sense.

1 sat = 1 us c, or a 1M btc mean fees will be $200 to $1000 per transaction, when it could be a cent as per BCH.


There us no arguable reason BTC block cannot be 2MB or 4 MB right now.

>> No.13417907

>>13417846

Are you retarded? Go look at any blockchain explorer and look at the size of each blocks. It's bigger than 1 MB. Segwit was a blocksize increase. Segwit2x (NYA) would've increased the maximum blocksize to 8MB.

If you didn't take the time to look at the BTC blockchain to see that blocks are bigger than 1MB, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

I also did the math for you on 100 MB blocks. It would be for just that month. The blockchain is always increasing in size. For example, if you have 100 MB blocks, I turn off my node for 2 years. I turn it back on. Guess how much data I have to sync?

432 GB * 24 months. You have to have to buy at least 10+ TB of storage before you can even sync and someone in the network has to upload 10+ TB to you. If you take this scenario to 10 years it's insane.

If you don't like the floppy drive comparison, use the cities comparison. I can come up with more.

>> No.13417909

>>13416970
*just use Bitcoin(BCH) which is the real Bitcoin with none of the flaws

Fixed that for you

>> No.13417934

This thread really proves how shit Bitcoin and other miner coin currencies are. When will you find the light of XRP? The ledger has been working without incident since 2012, 43 million ledgers closed without issue. The whole transaction history from inception is abour 9 terabytes though, but XRPL validators have options to start from any date, they don't all have to download the first transactions forwards up to the current time. Hardware requirements are also basic, apart from the RAM perhaps where 32GB is reccomended. Yeah, and Ripple still can't control the ledger or do anything to anyone's wallet or transaction.

Whether you like it or not, XRP is the most stable, longest running super-low fee and fastest currency there is whilst having wide support across crypto debit cards and exchanges.

>> No.13417949

>>13417702
Hasn't read the whitepaper.
BCH has implemented new tech. A lot of it. Improving the block propagation by 99.4% compared to BTC.
Fees should be a human level: enough to keep out robot spam, low enough for poor Africans to use them.
Look up how bitcoin uses game theory, that the real innovation here.

>> No.13417967

>>13413508

Imagine being so addicted to gambling that you call any dissenter of your vapor tulips an idiot.

>> No.13417972

>>13417934

Go home Pajeet.

>> No.13417980

BTC had a block size increase in 2017, there was blocks in excess of 2MB being mined since then.

Thing is, this block size increase was done in a safe and backwards-compatible way to avoid a split (soft-fork).

If you naively increase the block size without taking precautions to avoid a split, you risk creating a new, incompatible coin (that's what happened with BCH, then again with BSV).

Most bitcoin maximalists are not against further block size increases, as long as these are done in a safe way and with consensus.
Since this is hard to do (nobody wants to end up split from the network), focus has been on layer 2 solutions, that can drastically lower the fees without even requiring block size increases.

>> No.13417992
File: 495 KB, 512x1420, alice.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13417992

>>13417907
>>13417885
jesus christ, having to explain shit for people over and over again is so too tiring. core is only protecting their sidechain interests and the only thing segwit accomplished compared to 2 MB blocks was increasing complexity by 1000 times and bandwidth+storage requirements by 4 times (not to forget breaking the signature chain and introducing a risk of miners not validating).

a simple 2 MB increase, no segshit complexity retardness, and there would be no bitcoin cash. just bitcoin. roger would be busy promoting BTC. no adoption would have left. no faith reduction. devs would still build on top of BTC. don't defend core or blockstream for ruining the dream we had of global digital cash for EVERYONE.

honk fucking honk.

>> No.13417994

>>13417292
>A can pay B through some intermediary
They're called banks.

>> No.13417996

>>13417980
who told you this?
This is not true and is the opposite of what happened.
Stop trying to change history.

>> No.13418001

>>13417972
My name is Andrew and I'm already at home. Bitcoin is a digital turd and the vast majority of the traders have no idea what it actually is.

>> No.13418004

>>13416931
And then if everyone hopped on the lite coin network the fees would be just as bad. There is still no solution to this problem so stfu

>> No.13418005

>>13417327
Imagine using this website and not understanding what's to come as price and unconfirmeds rise.

>> No.13418020

>>13417702
>solutions have to be complex

>> No.13418033

>>13417702
>he also thinks full nodes aren't miners
>doesnt know that fake and gay nodes only need to store the block headers and not the previous transactions to be valid
>has never read the whitepaper

>> No.13418042

>>13417859
>With Lightning it's even better, 1 second confirmation
Confirmation doesn't happen until its settled on the block. LN literally works the same as your credit card example (and that's the point).

LN = fake and gay

>> No.13418045

>>13417053
Fucking commie. Those atm owners deserve to be paid for investing in that machine. The exchanges deserve to be laid to secure your funds.
Quit bitching about fees. You dont like them, make your own free network that is decentralized. I'll laugh at how fast your "free shit" burns to the ground overrun by the other leaches you live in your fucking commune with. Faggot. KYS

>> No.13418058
File: 55 KB, 570x779, c36.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13418058

>>13417992
>segwit is 1000x more complex

lol dude, segwit basically just moves signatures to a 2nd Merkle tree that's committed to the coinbase.
That is dead simple.

>core is only protecting their sidechain interests

explain to me how the ridiculous $0.0005 fees I pay on Lightning are benefiting Blockstream/Core & co

>introducing a risk of miners not validating

you know even without segwit miners can just ignore signature validation...
In all cases if they mine a block with an invalid sig they'll just get orphaned/rejected blocks

>bandwidth+storage requirements by 4 times

lol dude, you're shilling for Gigameg blocks and you complain about the bandwidth of Segwit. The irony

>> No.13418078
File: 11 KB, 478x523, 1555610533110.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13418078

>>13417996
Block #540107
Size: 2259.447 kB

Now kindly go kys

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000000000000021868c2cefc52a480d173c849412fe81c4e5ab806f94ab

>> No.13418120

>>13418042
Excepted that with LN you can be overwhelmingly sure that you'll be able to make the correct balance confirm.

0-confs can be double-spent at any time and there's nothing you can do to prevent that if that happens.

>> No.13418137

>>13418058
>Gigameg blocks
Kek

>> No.13418202

>>13418120
LN requires watchtowers to monitor for fraud. Again nothing is confirmed until it's on the block. With LN you're moving to the same confirmation times the banks currently use. In order for LN to be even a little efficient (especially for large hubs handling most of the transactions on the Network) channels won't close for weeks and most likely months.

>> No.13418248

>>13416789

I realized BTC was trash last year when i sold $50 and was charged a $20 transaction fee.

BTC has no chance to exist as a currency and therefore has no reason to exist other than being a ponzi scheme

>> No.13418326

>>13418202
Still better than credit cards. It's all about the certainty of finality. With cards you're uncertain to get your funds until months after the transaction takes place. With LN, in 1 second you're 99.999999999999% sure the funds are yours.

Monitoring for fraud is easy. You don't even have to be online when the fraud attempt happens (if any). You just have to be online some time after it occurs and before the justice timeout expires (which you can set to any length of time you like, weeks or months if you wish).

In today's age, I don't know a lot of people who use online payment systems (be it crypto, Paypal, online banking whatever) that are offline for periods longer than weeks or months.

IMO that's worth it to enjoy instant, cheap tx, without blockchain bloat.

>> No.13418334

>>13418001

Right, but XRP isn't?

Btw, when you say your name is Andrew on the phone with your thick poo accent, no one believes you Pajeet.

>> No.13418352

>>13418326
Its literally the same as CC and actually worse in a lot of ways. It improves on none of they way CC are used and makes it more convoluted and complex. It only exists as an excuse to have contemporary banking exist ontop of btc.

>> No.13418379

>>13413300
use Nano

>> No.13418387

>>13418352
You basically didn't read what I wrote and you're not even elaborating your point ("it's worse, just because").

>> No.13418444 [DELETED] 

>>13417317
>Why has this not taken off yet? At what point will LN become the defacto way of sending BTC transactions?

Because it's only designed ONLY for micropayments, not for transferring large amounts of BTC.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf


>>13417392
If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work. There's nothing deeper to "understand". There's no rocket science here.

>> No.13418463

>>13417317
>Why has this not taken off yet? At what point will LN become the defacto way of sending BTC transactions?

Because it's designed ONLY for micropayments, not for transferring large amounts of BTC.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf


>>13417392
If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work. There's nothing deeper to "understand". There's no rocket science here.

>> No.13418505 [DELETED] 
File: 145 KB, 670x424, 1555285456656.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13418505

>>13418444
>LN doesn't work
Joke's on you. I use it almost every day to send and receive. Works good.

>> No.13418567
File: 145 KB, 670x424, 1555285456656.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13418567

>>13418463
>LN doesn't work
Joke's on you. I use it almost every day to send and receive. Works good.

>> No.13419270

>>13418248

Idk about a ponzi scheme, in a ponzi scheme you have no way to verify what you invest in. Sure bitcoin is literally nothing but anyone can verify the coin.

>> No.13419298
File: 1.99 MB, 1400x1297, mh8hl5fzufk21.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13419298

>>13418567
lmao

>> No.13419309
File: 55 KB, 581x525, 1555632298909.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13419309

>>13419298
>thinking the 1st iterations of the Casa node represents the entirety of the network

>> No.13419311

>>13413300
You get ETH within minutes at most.

>> No.13419320

>>13418567
People lose money on LN all the time, large reason why liquidity is next to nothing. Only peak soiboys actually even bother with it and they typically spend $300 raspberry pi like this >>13419298
to run their """full""" node.

How many Blockstream stickers have you bought?

>> No.13419367

>>13419320
you can get your own raspberry pi and install bitcoind and your choice of the bolt implementation. Most people use lnd.

casa node just makes shit easier

but let me guess, you just are holding a bunch of alts on binance and have never used bitcoind or lnd while shitting on others trying to advance their knowledge and be closer to the tech (which every decentralized system should encourage their users to do)

>> No.13419394

>>13419367
>you can get your own raspberry pi and install bitcoind
No shit retard, way to miss the point. I don't hold many different coins. Just btc, bch, sv and xmr and all are in cold storage except for my trading account. So idk how about you kys.

>> No.13419431
File: 25 KB, 856x467, qTCklLi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13419431

>>13419309
Yes lightning truly is a marvel of software engineering, worth sabotaging Bitcoin, a truly world changing technology for.

>> No.13419440

>>13418058
he won't answer your post
you got him good
he has no copy paste for that

>> No.13419457

>>13419320
>People lose money on LN all the time
Are you referencing the dude who was operating a custodial game and lost money because his own code had glitches? It was his fault, nothing to do with Lightning, it would have happened even if it was on-chain if his own code had bugs.

LND got integrated backups now so there's very little risk to lose funds.
Eclair wallet also got remote encrypted backups.

>> No.13419597
File: 289 KB, 716x715, 20190423_230506.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13419597

>>13419431
C*recucks are proud to lose money on a shitty banking layer that doesn't work.

>>13419457
No, faggot. Its common and it still is. The lead dev (some cunt, don't remember her name) literally explains people can lose funds using the network.

Pic related is a sticker from Cringestream. These idiots think they're badasses because they risk losing all there money on a shit network.

>> No.13419629

>>13419597

You know lightening is the implemention of the BOLT specification right? There's different implementation of lightening like lnd and c-lightening

Are you talking about the BOLT specification being wrong or just an incorrectly implementation of BOLT is wrong?

Do you know how many LN transactions are happening right now and you can buy stuff like gift cards to a lot of places? You think that they're losing money but they don't notice it or something?

>> No.13419631

>>13418334
Ok Rajinder. Time to stop projecting your curry frustrations on me please. XRP is objectively better than Bitcoin.

>> No.13419635
File: 12 KB, 318x318, npc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13419635

>>13413300
Bitcoin isn't for making transactions
Just HODL

>> No.13419653

>>13419631
god damn you idiots are stupid

xrp printed all the coins right from the beginning, they have all the coins and they release it to you for $, so they literally generated money for themselves out of thin air

every transaction destroys xrp, which leads to there will be no xrp left or no one wants to transact so they don't destroy their xrp

guess what's going to happen next? xrp will print tokens (aka money for themselves again)

There's no way you can call this decentralized. It is a complete scam. There are some serious syncing and consensus issues as well but that's for another time. What I've said so far should convince you you're buying someone's bags that they generated out of thin air at literally 0 cost.

>> No.13419672

>>13419653
so xrp is doing what the central banks have been doing for centuries. Smart really, don't fix it if it ain't broken

>> No.13419701

>>13419629
>>13419461

>> No.13419727

>>13419672
Yep, look at how close they've gotten to banks and try to get them to sign on. Also, they rather spend money to get bill clinton to talk on stage than invest in their fucked up consensus algorithm and fix it

Your money, buying worthless xrp tokens, are being used to paid Bill Clinton to have a speech on stage.

I'm sorry to tell you this anon, but if believe xrp is the future you have brain damage

>> No.13419755

>>13419727
kek I dont hold any xrp. I dont hold any btc either tho, ETH is were its at

>> No.13419878

>>13419629
I gotta try this out.
I may be a BCashie at the moment, but I'm open to anything that works

>> No.13420056

>>13417562
COPE
OPEC
PECO
ECOP

>> No.13420144

>>13417992
you shill SV as a meme right?
you didn't actually buy any?
I didn't even bother selling my forked coins lmfao.

>> No.13420256

>>13417372
>growing pretty fast
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. There's like 6 million in LN. There's dapps you've never heard of on ETH that run 6 million through them in a week. Face it. It's over. Bitcoin is a complete failure.