/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.16005797]

> favors centralized entities
> no development
> price driven by speculators and memes
> 100% sure that the halving is gonna pump it again
> hash rate 100% retained by block reward that will disappear in a few years

Decentralization failed with Bitcoin now is a currency for normies. All the smart guys who bought BTC a decade ago are working to build open banking on Ethereum

[Anonymous No.16005851]

>smart people switched to a coin ran by commies with no monetary policy and plans on switching to PoS

Smart people are switching to BSV, numbnuts.

[Anonymous No.16005866]

>>16005797
> favors centralized entities
literally the only crypto where average joe can run his own node.
> no development
liquid, lightning, trampoline dont exist
> price driven by speculators and memes
as opposed to wework, uber, twitter, etc
>> 100% sure that the halving is gonna pump it again
one of the few cryptos with enough history that meaningful analysis can be done
> hash rate 100% retained by block reward that will disappear in a few years
*few years = 100 in this context

such low iq. so sad

[Anonymous No.16005887]

>>16005866
>average joe can run his own node

[Anonymous No.16005913]

>>16005851
>Fork Bitcoin
>Maintain the name as closely as possible (added only SV)
>hires souless pajeets and bots to shitposts everywhere

[Anonymous No.16005958]

>>16005913
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.16005988]

>>16005797
>Literally holds the whole crypto market together and actually doesn't need to do jack shit but just keep score. OP is a pajeet shitcoin nigger without any economics background. Literally an armchair geek with no money flow knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16005991]

>>16005887
I archived the yt video of the money button guy begging for donations because trying to run his own sv node was bankrupting him thanks to creg dumping gigs of weather data into every day....its a classic.

[Anonymous No.16006027]

>>16005991
>miner
>begging for money

[Anonymous No.16006030]

>>16005851
>Smart people are switching to BSV
only the utter brainlets
bsv is like everything that is willfully stupid and ignorant in crypto put together.

[Anonymous No.16006048]

>>16006027
that is not normal but on sv it is.

[Anonymous No.16006054]

>>16005866
> literally the only crypto where average joe can run his own node.
trading, lending and finance are all on CEX
> liquid, lightning, trampoline dont exist
https://devcon.org ETH is several steps ahead
> as opposed to we work, uber, twitter, etc
totally no understanding how bubble works
>one of the few cryptos with enough history that meaningful analysis can be done
100% sure that the halving is gonna pump it again
>*few years = 100 in this context
the last bitcoin will be mined in 100 years, but the ratio of block reward/fees reward will switch around 2032

[Anonymous No.16006067]

>>16006048
>he actually thinks this happened

[Anonymous No.16006074]

>>16006027
you don't know the difference between a miner and a node do you?
god low low low iq.

[Anonymous No.16006082]

>>16005988
>Speculator

[Anonymous No.16006087]

>>16005958
first of all segwit 2x spun off from the main chain and came to a standstill, it's a dead fork.

but that's the least retarded about that picture really. for example despite the incessant fudding about wormhole bch development shows zero signs of going into that direction. it was clearly just pre-fork fud. what they did instead they compressed the blocks in propagation (doesn't work if you use it as a data garbage dump) and added trustless tumbler to the client.

sv cucks truly are the most despicable liars on this planet.

[Anonymous No.16006096]

>>16006074
>god low low low iq.

I'm going to show you something you've never seen before. Ready?

The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.
6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the
chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

[Anonymous No.16006115]

>>16006096
you retarded pajeet.

a node = has a full copy of the blockchain

a miner = certifies blockchains

there are two different things. you can stop posting now as you've embarrassed your entire village.

[Anonymous No.16006125]

>>16006115
>a miner = certifies blockchains

[Anonymous No.16006163]

>>16006125
you must feel so embarrassed now. i'm actually in process of screenshotting this thread so in future i can show that bsv fags dont even understand crypto 101.
so embarrassing, but i guess thats what you get when you hire mechanical turks.

[Anonymous No.16006210]

>>16006163
You should actually make a thread about it right now.

[Anonymous No.16006251]

>>16006210
so you can tell everyone that miners and nodes are the same thing? and how nodes certify transactions...for vishnu's sake, you shouldnt do it.

[Anonymous No.16006296]

>>16006251
Yeah make a thread for debating what a node is. I'll reference the white paper and you can tell me about certifying blockchains or w/e lmao

[Anonymous No.16006306]

>>16005991
Kek, gib vid link

[Anonymous No.16006309]

Fuck bsv they all homos

[Anonymous No.16006321]

>>16005797
Unironically this. Whoever says differently has Stockholm syndrome

[Anonymous No.16006341]

>>16005991
he was running a node and not mining which is why he was going poor and that's how it should be
>>16006096
this is correct
>>16006115
you are a brainlet

[Anonymous No.16006392]

>>16006341
>having copies of blockchain distributed among different full-nodes is pointless. you need to spend at least $100K and be a miner to do that
vishnu vision.

[Anonymous No.16006517]

>>16006392
>having copies of blockchain distributed among different laptops is pointless

ftfy

Can you tell me about certifying blockchains. I'm just here to learn, anon.

[Anonymous No.16006623]

>>16006341
>this is correct
not for a long time
>Any computer that connects to the Bitcoin network is called a node. Nodes that fully verify all of the rules of Bitcoin are called full nodes.
since gpu miners and later on mining pools this nonsense about all nodes being miners were long gone.

[Anonymous No.16006642]

>>16005887
Bitcoin raises the bar for the average joe. It is not here to dumb down to the level of the current Joe. Those who adapt will live those who not will being livestock to their masters.

[Anonymous No.16006683]

>>16006623
>since gpu miners and later on mining pools this nonsense about all nodes being miners were long gone

All of those things are backed by hashpower. Your argument is invalid.

[Anonymous No.16006774]

>>16006683
>All of those things are backed by hashpower. Your argument is invalid.
because a fullnode checks the hashes of miners transactions, then therefore those nodes are themselves miners. in fact anything with a cpu is technically a miner.
please vishnu. please shiva...please dont let ppl discover that i creg post such embarrassing things on image boards late at night

[Anonymous No.16006831]

>>16006683
terminology evolves today individual miners don't even run bitcoin nodes anymore. only pools and services do.

[Anonymous No.16006845]

>>16006774
>in fact anything with a cpu is technically a miner.
no, just no

[Anonymous No.16006900]

>>16005851
>my centralised shitcoin is better than yours

[Anonymous No.16006932]

this thread makes me bullish for btc

[Anonymous No.16006958]

>>16006774
full nodes check the rules and simply do not propagate blocks that are not valid. because they are fucking network nodes.

the miners of course could ignore them and keep on mining invalid blocks but for everyone on the world this would look like no new block found for hours no transaction going through.

that's the power of full nodes. and since miners are actually in a race to propagate their blocks so that everyone can "see" their rewards and they can spend it, they will make sure network nodes see and propagate their tx.

it's really not complicated only sub 60 iq sv cucks don't get it.

[Anonymous No.16007005]

>>16006774
>because an SPV checks the hashes of (miners transactions?)
ftfy
sure
>then therefore those nodes are themselves miners
no
>in fact anything with a cpu is technically a miner
no

An SPV can check to verify if a payment it received was legitimate, but has no recourse to do shit about it (except obviously deny service/sale to whoever they were dealing with). The network however is different. If a miner doesn't follow the rules, SPVs can literally do nothing about it. It requires a miner to check a miner, not a fucking user with an SPV.

>>16006831
>individual miners don't even run bitcoin nodes anymore
That's not entirely true. Maybe for a hobbyist who just wants to join a pool. Just because a node is receiving its hash remotely doesn't make laptops nodes.

[Anonymous No.16007034]

>>16006932
>proof?

[Anonymous No.16007042]

>>16006958
>the miners of course could ignore them and keep on mining invalid blocks but for everyone on the world this would look like no new block found for hours no transaction going through.
Wrong. The users don't rely at all on SPVs. They rely on nodes.

[Anonymous No.16007047]

>>16007005
>Maybe for a hobbyist who just wants to join a pool.
nobody mines bitcoin solo anymore. it's pretty much pools only that find blocks.

[Anonymous No.16007056]

>>16007042
you need to rephrase that retarded sentence because it makes zero sense.

[Anonymous No.16007072]

>>16006958
sv shills tend to be too entrenched in black/white code and whitepapers to actually know how people interact with things or basic market principles

[Anonymous No.16007076]

>>16007047
>he thinks pools are ran by people who don't do mining themselves
Seriously?

>>16007056
It makes perfect sense if you know what the difference between a node and an SPV is.

[NJ No.16007080]

>>16005797
Check out Telecoin as they are the a new project in the market and they are currently having all the feautres as other coins but updated and a better version..

[Anonymous No.16007083]

>>16005797
Bitcoin is the only indestructable crypto. Time will show this.

[Anonymous No.16007094]

>>16007072
>sv shills tend to be too entrenched in black/white code and whitepapers
if only, but they always ignore black and white facts that are inconvenient to their agenda. for example how the forks happened, who broke compatibility and how and stuff...

[Anonymous No.16007112]

>>16007094
I mean their central talking points hinge importantly on what "satoshi" said in his whitepaper whilst missing the entire point of the system

[Anonymous No.16007114]

>>16005797
> hash rate 100% retained by block reward that will disappear in a few years
this was in a bear market
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate?timespan=2years

[Anonymous No.16007123]

>>16007083
I have respect for BTC, but fuck CEX. Coinbase, Poloniex, Binance, Mtgox etc...are the same shit bank is. You can't run BTC without CEX

[Anonymous No.16007132]

>>16007076
looks to me you need to hit the dictionary yourself.
spv is a protocol it allows verification of a specific tx with known id is included in a block in a trustless manner without downloading and validating the blocks. an spv client needs a full node for verification.

also even if you participate in your own pool by definition you are not mining solo wtf is wrong with you?

just fucking think before you write, read other posts think it through look things up!

[Anonymous No.16007137]

>>16005887
There are cased when you (as a service) have to run your own node and you CAN'T run a SPV node because it's limited

[Anonymous No.16007140]

>>16007114
>https://bankless.substack.com/p/btcs-monetary-policy-is-overrated
>https://docs.ethhub.io/ethereum-basics/monetary-policy/

[Anonymous No.16007165]

>>16007123
That's a consumer perception issue and is not solved by a "better" crypto. Consumers need to learn it is better to buy from exchanges that incorporate proof of reserve or work little in infrastructure to hold custody. Also avoiding KYC exchanges if possible. And if that is impossible due to government regulation than use other technologies to increase privacy of your tx.

[Anonymous No.16007179]

>>16007132
Nope, because if I'm running an SPV I'm going to query from miners, not some idiots laptop. Holding the entire blockchain and not mining is pants on head retarded (unless you can justify the costs another way). All the information you got came from a miner, so the integrity of your database is 100% reliant on honest miners already. Again pants on head retarded.

>>16007137
Limited in what way?

[Anonymous No.16007189]

>>16007165
>imagine CEX in >50 years. No thanks.

[Anonymous No.16007193]

>>16007112
it's almost like a war on some religious text they insist on an outdated interpretation that makes no sense considering the evolution of the protocol the use cases and terminology. satoshi at first did not anticipate pools because pools are centralized trustful services basically which is a complete anathema to bitcoin. yet they work. and we will never go back to individual miners looks like. slush pool changed the bitcoin topology and terminology forever.

[Anonymous No.16007200]

>>16007179
SPV nodes cannot query arbitrary transactions. SPV nodes are not for every use case, sometimes full nodes are needed.

[Anonymous No.16007209]

>>16007083
>have CEX

[Anonymous No.16007218]

>>16007179
>Nope, because if I'm running an SPV I'm going to query from miners, not some idiots laptop
doesn't matter, the network gives you the longest chain with the bitcoin headers, and any node can serve you the merkle branch which you can check in a trustless manner. why would miners bother with answering your queries there is no money in it for them. they could or they could not. someone will.

[Anonymous No.16007232]

>>16007193
Yep, exactly brother. Their foundations are so warped they have made up a false prophet and false meanings from fallacious points.

[Anonymous No.16007241]

>>16007200
>SPV nodes cannot query arbitrary transactions.
there is no other point to it. it's practically the very purpose of spv. you can query the merkle branch of a tx in a block. that's it. from that you can verify if a payment you requested (and the tx was submitted to you by the sender) had enough confirmation.

[Anonymous No.16007242]

>>16007034
fuck off cia

[Anonymous No.16007246]

>>16007232
yeah it's basically cult lingo at this point.

[Anonymous No.16007259]

>>16007189
Are you hard of comprehension? CEX is a construct of the mind. It is a hurdle that is conquered by the individual not values to be forced on by a programmer.

[Anonymous No.16007275]

>>16007200
Why are you worried about Bob and Alice's transactions?

>>16007218
>why would miners bother with answering your queries there is no money in it for them
Where is the money for the guy with the laptop?

[Anonymous No.16007276]

>>16007241
the merkle branch, not the transaction itself

[Anonymous No.16007297]

>>16007276
All you need is proof the event occurred and is valid.

[Anonymous No.16007310]

>>16007276
you have to ask by tx id. but you can get all the information from public services like blockchain.info, or from the sender, it's the trustless verification that spv helps with. so you don't ultimately rely on a centralized service for security.

[Anonymous No.16007328]

>>16007275
>Where is the money for the guy with the laptop?
you have to ask him m8. i presume everyone would have their purpose. some from altruism, some part of their business model. some for data mining purposes. some would be the cia.

[Anonymous No.16007400]

>>16007328
>altruism
The whole point of Bitcoin as a system is incentives. Besides this same line of thinking can be applied to people who run nodes. So again there is no point in going to the guy with the laptop, however... I will say it could be business model for someone who isn't mining. Not much legs on BTC because well there isn't much risk in storing it's blockchain in hopes of selling data services to others because its small blocks and puny data. Storing big blocks on the other hand could actually be profitable for someone in the future to offer data services to consumers. Much more risk/reward. What will likely happen is mining will continue to specialize further with departments that focus on hash and others that focus on connectivity, etc.

[Anonymous No.16007538]

>>16007400
>Besides this same line of thinking can be applied to people who run nodes.
miners have been proven to be altruistic or benevolent a few times. it's just we should never count on them doing so. the moment we have to it's fucked.

i don't know what incentives will prevail for spv servers. for now there is none. lot's of block explorers and other services have no clear business model either.

[Anonymous No.16007564]

>>16007400
>Storing big blocks on the other hand could actually be profitable for someone in the future to offer data services to consumers
highly unlikely that this will be worthwhile ever.

but i agree the spv client makes more and more sense the bigger the blocks and the blockchain is. as for btc pruning full nodes could be just the thing most services would use.

[Anonymous No.16007571]

>>16007538
>miners have been proven to be altruistic or benevolent a few times. it's just we should never count on them doing so
We don't. We count on them making money.

>the moment we have to it's fucked.
agreed

No amount of laptops is going to change this.

[Anonymous No.16007579]

>>16007564
>highly unlikely that this will be worthwhile ever.
It would be more likely than small blocks. Besides I'm just spitballing your concept here. I think it'll fall on people already storing the data.

[Anonymous No.16007618]

>>16007571
>No amount of laptops is going to change this.
i explained to you, it's like bittorrent, you got a network one fucker starts sending out chunks that are altered, but the network will not propagate them. thy validate the chunk and throw it away. the network insulates and routes around bad actors that try to poison the torrent. same is true for bitcoin. the network maintains consensus about the reality commonly perceived. miners need to produce blocks that this consensus will accept or their effort is literally wasted invisible to the network.

[Anonymous No.16007663]

>>16007618
This implies nodes rely on laptops, which they don't. They rely on proof of work they can validate. If all the laptops went down today BTC would hum along as if nothing happened (because as far as the network is concerned nothing did happen). If all the nodes went down so would BTC.

[Anonymous No.16007682]

>>16007571
>We don't.
yet they have despite all expectations. they have formed an alliance and reorged the chain to save some users from selfish miners. https://cryptoheroes.ch/report-two-bch-mining-pools-plotted-a-51-attack-to-stop-hacker/

[Anonymous No.16007722]

>>16007682
This would be impossible on BTC I don't support this kind of thing at all. Telling CZ to go fuck himself was the most based shit ever.

[Anonymous No.16007770]

>>16007259
No. CEX is a black box, you don't know what happens on backend. Also, they aren't permissionless. DeFI is whitebox and permissionless

[Anonymous No.16007832]

>>16007663
>This implies nodes rely on laptops, which they don't.
it's a network everyone running a full node is part of it. laptops servers or raspberries. they relay transactions (which they also validate) and relay blocks (which they also validate) they handle the sync up of new nodes and form a consensual reality that all other nodes see.

miners are the only ones with power to create new blocks, but they don't have the power to make invalid blocks propagate the network. they also can not alter the past.

the only serious issue with the non mining consensus is that it costs almost nothing to run a tainted node. however since all nodes can easily check consensus rules and proof of work this would likely go nowhere. best you can do is a ddos attack and p2pnetworks are fairly resistant to most attacks. the bigger the blocks tho the more resources such a taint would tie up. because sure you propagate a block header, then a block but when you find out the block is actually damaged or altered thus invalid you already downloaded the entire fucking 2 gigabyte block. there are ways to mitigate this of course. just something to keep in mind. small blocks have many advantages for network health and robustness and in keeping the network trustless and permissionless as well as secure.

cashies think only hashpower contributes to network security. but let's imagine there would be a miner with 500 exahash churning out blocks where he takes 100 btc as coinbase. so he has most of the hash. what would happen to the btc network? the answer is nothing. all the blocks mined by this miner would get ignored the chain would split in two: his (that only he sees) and everyone else's. the miners would happily keep on mining the shorter chain that actually can spend and is accepted. this is of course rather theoretical as the price would crash from the news in 5 minutes. but the network itself strictly would not give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.16007849]

>>16007722
>This would be impossible on BTC
exactly which is why i'm often saying btc is the only one true crypto. minority hash forks are the biggest fucking mistake. i really liked the unlimited crowd but they went full retard. most of their arguments were valid up till the fork.

[Anonymous No.16007850]

thanks just bought some more. everyday the price is red is a good time to stack sats you filthy scamming niggers

[Anonymous No.16007861]

>>16007770
I'm sorry you can't be saved.

[Anonymous No.16007884]

>>16007850
>proof?
Do you want to buy mine? >>16007034

[Anonymous No.16007890]

>>16007861
Based

[Anonymous No.16007926]

>>16007832
>they relay transactions/blocks
And get in the fucking way. They add nothing of value to the network by doing this and infact harm it's security because more laptops relying things on the network the more prone the network is to Sybils. Let me reiterate: they add nothing of value to the network, create relays which don't need to exist and harm security, they also have no power to enforce rules. Laptops can discover a rule breaker, but again it requires miners to keep invalid blocks from propagating to the chain.

If laptops discover miners are cheating the absolute best they can do is reject their invalid blocks. The miners are going to continue to cheat and propagate the fake and gay chain while laptops no longer even have a network. Just a copy of the block chain prior to all the miners going rogue.

What would actually happen is miners would reject the invalid blocks and continue working on valid blocks while the dishonest miners are forced to fork off. Or it is a 51% kind of situation and you're fucked anyway.

[Anonymous No.16007941]

>>16007849
Hashpower is the most important thing it has. The rest of the house is on fire. BSV is a gamble and its only because hashpower.

[Anonymous No.16008063]

>>16007832
also consider this, if this 50 exahash attack happens on a network where only miners run full nodes and everyone else runs spv clients, the longest valid chain services would see by hashpower would be the attacking miners and they would ask for verification of transactions from him (as you >>16007179 he would) which he could easily provide. hostile takeover and full capture in 2 minutes. and coinbase for example would accept the coins from his fraudulent block rewards if it was not running a full node also.

the non mining consensus is many fold and many faceted sometimes subtle and vague but it's still there. price discovery is a huge part of it. bitcoin price (and thus profitability) would immediately suffer the consequences of any hostile takeover.

the users (asset holders) consensus could easily change the hashing algo and restore the chain to the point before the attack. but the only ones that would participate in this consensus would be new full nodes and new miners. where would businesses go? i bet they would go with the most users and the majority asset owners where their cut would be from future business rather than the fork abandoned by customers.

in the end consensus does not originate from the miners (this is a cashie mistake) the miners prove that they are following consensus rules with their proof of work validated by everyone.

[Anonymous No.16008112]

>>16007926
>They add nothing of value to the network by doing this
you must be severely retarded to think so.
>infact harm it's security because more laptops relying things on the network the more prone the network is to Sybils
bitcoin is not prone to sibyl attacks because it's not a reputation based system.
the nodes make the network robust and resistant to spam and ddos attacks also free up miners from servicing other nodes and sync ups

you got it all wrong.
>The miners are going to continue to cheat and propagate the fake and gay chain while laptops no longer even have a network.
some (probably most) miners will defect to the chain where they can spend their reward. this is econ 101.

>Or it is a 51% kind of situation and you're fucked anyway.
if a 51% attack does not follow consensus rules it's wasted effort. that's kind of the point. the 51% attack allows for censorship but not altering consensus rules. unless you start trusting miners like a retard and forgo a healthy p2p network btc has.

[Anonymous No.16008122]

>>16007941
>Hashpower is the most important thing it has.
it's direct consequence of the larger consensus about what bitcon is and what it is worth.

[Anonymous No.16008147]

>>16008063
>bitcoin price (and thus profitability) would immediately suffer the consequences of any hostile takeover.
Yes

>the users (asset holders) consensus could easily change the hashing algo and restore the chain to the point before the attack.
No

Some completely unproven economic system just appearing over night doesn't magically retain wealth from the collapse of the previous economic system. In the event of Bitcoin failing (via an attack that breaks the network) there would be no value in crypto and absolutely no value in a system that didn't exist five minutes ago. If it is to fail, you better have some goddamn gold and guns.

[Anonymous No.16008166]

>>16008147
>Some completely unproven economic system
noting unproven about it.
>there would be no value in crypto and absolutely no value in a system that didn't exist five minutes ago
i bet you would be proven wrong but i hope we never have to find out.

[Anonymous No.16008195]

>>16008112
>nodes make the network robust and resistant

Nodes yes, laptops no. Laptops don't prevent miners from suffering attacks, thus the don't enhance the network in any measurable way.

>>16008112
>some (probably most) miners will defect to the chain where they can spend their reward. this is econ 101.
You didn't even read my post. I was describing why laptops don't help in a situation where all miners go rogue and then even clarified in the next paragraph what would actually happen. I'm about done here.

>>16008122
>it's direct consequence of the larger consensus about what bitcon is and what it is worth.
Currently Bitcoin as you see it and arguably how a majority of others see it is as a speculative asset. I see it as the new economy.

[Anonymous No.16008201]

>>16008166
>noting unproven about it
Show me the whitepaper.

>i bet you would be proven wrong but i hope we never have to find out
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.16008204]

>>16008147
>Antonopoulos on failing Bitcoin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ftZgCEZos

[Anonymous No.16008394]

>>16008195
>Nodes yes, laptops no.
fuck off with the cultist lingo already! every bitcoin client that relays transactions is a node.
>Laptops don't prevent miners from suffering attacks
no idea where you wan to go with this.
>Currently Bitcoin as you see it and arguably how a majority of others see it is as a speculative asset.
i meant a lot more about "what bitcoin is?" but sure.
>>16008201
>Show me the whitepaper.
human history, it's quiet long i know, but it's out there. how we take action under hostile threat how we value things and so on. there will always be malcontents but you can count on the majority to reject a hostile takeover and participate in a new consensus. it's hard to imagine anyone who owns bitcoin would just let this go when they can continue ownership on new (technically airdrop) chains of which the largest consensus would take the btc ticker. price would recover after a while when the network is secure once more and the scarcity hits again.

the shitforks however would not likely survive. there would be new shitforks someone would definitely try to do a pos conversion, someone would try an asic resistant pow algo.

>Not an argument.
rofl the i bet part gave it away or the would be?

crypto will never go to zero. the absolute myriad of shitcoins that have absolutely nothing of value yet the market values them above 0 is proof enough.