/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.16376267]

Anybody know what’ll happen to bitcoin cash?

[Anonymous No.16376344]

>>16376267
Bitcoin trash

[Anonymous No.16376350]

>>16376267
crash

[Anonymous No.16376448]

>>16376267
No crypto has more adoption in actual payments than BCH. BTC has more but is crippled by fees.
Cashshuffle makes BCH reasonably private without overdoing it. Its fast and cheap to transact and has a cultish following and you can buy actual stuff for it.

BSV has a cultish following as well. BSV is right now primarily attacking the storage niche and storage of apps with metanet. Whether this will gain real industry adoption remains to be seen but it is HIGHLY shillable since you can just send somebody a link of a website or app "hosted on muh blockchain". They have great PR and paid shills and the most delusional real shills of all. highly agressive. Unwriter is a real asset as well

- They are competing for different markets for now
- They both will have a halving soon
- They have absolutely delusional communities and nicely shillable products


Anons who do their research hold both bad aussie and deluded ancap Bitcoins. BSV and BCH will be the largecaps with the hardest pumps this bullrun. They are the perfect middleground between high risk shitcoins and boring largecaps. Higher gains and higher risk but not suicide shitcoin risk. They aren't going to die anytime soon and have deluded shills and are usable for things.
Its the perfect storm for massive gains.

TLDR; Buying both corn forks is the perfect choice if you want to outperform BTC and dont go for shitcoin-level risks.

[Anonymous No.16376613]

What effect will halvening have on BCH in the next year?
I want to buy it, but I'm afraid it might crash terribly once block rewards get reduced.

[Anonymous No.16376662]

>>16376448
>crippled by fees
worst meme ever

[Anonymous No.16376666]

>>16376267
Bcash will halve before bitcoin and will be attacked during that period. Roger will abandon it for dash.

[Anonymous No.16376707]

>>16376666
What a garbage post.

[Anonymous No.16376751]

>>16376662
its true though. many projects on bch that you cant do on btc just because of the fees. like memo.cash

[Anonymous No.16376761]

>>16376448
t. rogers employee
Do u just paste this in every bcash thread

[Anonymous No.16376778]

>>16376448

>No crypto has more adoption in actual payments than BCH

Christ we got retards in here

[Anonymous No.16376844]

>>16376778
>no argument detected
20.000+ bitpay merchants are enough to beat everything except BTC and BTC is crippled by fees. I don't even have to start listing the countless others.

>>16376662
Would you pay an extra 3$ for fees when ordering pizza and paying through bitpay?

[Anonymous No.16376847]

>>16376761
My BSV bag is bigger

[Anonymous No.16376864]

>>16376448
>>16376662
one cent to send hundreds or thousands is not crippling

[Anonymous No.16376889]

>>16376864
yes thats possible on BCH and BSV.
One cent fee tx will not get into next block on crippled BTC

[Anonymous No.16377034]

>>16376844
>Would you pay an extra 3$ for fees when ordering pizza and paying through bitpay?
why would i? i would need to pay about $0.003 with lightning.
but moving millions on-chain in a trustless permissionless manner? sure even $50 is small change.
>>16376864
obviously but that's not what i meant.
what i meant is miner revenue. bitcoin has the same blocksize as sv now roughly. yet bitcoin miners get a few thousand times as much in revenue from fees. so sv would need to churn out gigabyte blocks to even come close to btc.
sooner or later tx fees will be the main source of income for miners. a unit of space in unbound blocks is infinitely cheap.

[Anonymous No.16377114]

>>16377034
Sorry to let you know lightning does not and never will work, unless it becomes completely centralized with a couple of supernodes.

[Anonymous No.16377193]

>>16377114
>lightning does not and never will work
contrary to evidence? lol.
also there is little hurt that comes from lightning centralization because the entry and exit is trustless and permissionless on-chain. so ln hubs can't really abuse their supposed power until there is some competition. imo ln hubs will be just like banks or actual banks. also once ln gets some adoption direct channels for 0 fee payments with hypers and highly frequented places make absolute sense.

in fact you can set up a channel as you walk into a tesco by clicking a barcode and by the time you done shopping the channel confirms and you can pay instantly and settle the channel by the time you get home if you wish or leave it open for next time. if the channels maintenance will be expensive this is not a workable scenario of course.

[Anonymous No.16377223]

>>16377193
Wow tesco adoped LN? How do they deal with the literal 99% failure rate for amounts > 200$?

[Anonymous No.16377259]

>>16377223
you think with direct channels there was ever a single failure?

[Anonymous No.16377260]

>>16376267
Bcash has maximum three years to succeed as a replacement to the dollar. If it doesn’t happen in that period it’s future will be forfeit to the KING and only chaindeath will await

[Anonymous No.16377287]

>>16377260
>replacement to the dollar
that shit will never ever happen no matter how good or slid your crypto is. it's simply a completely different beast than the usd. different role different meaning. crypto and usd are not in the same league.

[Anonymous No.16377317]

>>16377259
Direct channels work great on all BitCoins. Sadly LN requires routing and has to solve the traveling salesman problem to accomplish it in a decentralized fashion.

[Anonymous No.16377344]

>>16377317
>Direct channels work great on all BitCoins
not without segwit
>LN requires routing
no it doesn't
>and has to solve the traveling salesman problem
not with direct channels

want to try again?

[Anonymous No.16377391]

>>16376267

[Anonymous No.16377398]

>>16377344
The ability to route your payment to users you don't have a direct channel with is literally what LN is.
want to try again?

[Anonymous No.16377486]

>>16377398
>The ability to route your payment to users you don't have a direct channel with is literally what LN is.
not necessarily. it's the actual transaction that decides if it needs to be routed or not.
i mean sure it's one of lns ambitions i'm jsut saying it would be plenty useful without it. it will be plenty useful with large degrees of hub centralization that makes the routing problem moot. and also in the future hubs could be able to form shielded pools with ring signatures to remove the liquidity and routing problem altogether. if this will be part of ln or a third layer i don't know yet. but burying ln is way too early. and i really don't see the routing a feature of ln it's more of a problem that needs to be solved.

[Anonymous No.16377515]

>>16376448
>TLDR; Buying both corn forks is the perfect choice if you want to outperform BTC and dont go for shitcoin-level risks.

This is your shitcoin anon. It does not outperform bitcoin and never will. It is the epitome of shitcoin risk.

Honestly, I feel bad for you bcashers. Roger really did a number on y'all--you're all straight delusional

[Anonymous No.16377534]

>>16377486
Without routing there is no lightning _network_

Sorry fren, you are clueless

[Anonymous No.16377564]

>>16377534
who said you can't route? i said you don't need to.

[Anonymous No.16377596]

>>16377564
Yes you do need to route to send LN payments to anybody other that the one hub you are connected to.
You literally have no idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous No.16377714]

>>16377596
You can open up channels with anyone running a lightning node you fucking neanderthal, not just hubs. Stop obfuscating the facts

[Anonymous No.16377790]

>>16377714
And by doing that you commit to paying a nice on chain fee every time you do open a direct channel.

[Anonymous No.16377815]

>>16377790
sure like a whooping $0.40 less if you are not in a hurry because you can think ahead.

[Autistic Bitcoiner No.16377835]

>>16376448
pretty good post desu

[Anonymous No.16377902]

>>16377815
>spend at 10 stores this week
>4$ on fees
>close out channel with 9 of them because I wont be going there again anytime soon and need the money I locked up in those channels
>keep open the channel at the local onions shop
>realize the channel is running low on funds
>have to add funds to the channel
>start planning ahead of where to shop to have direct channels with everyone. commit money to each of them.
>tons of funds are now locked up in my various direct channels,m unusable unless I spend at those exact shops
>a bullrun occurs
> fees go to 50$ like they did december 2017
>All my funds are stuck, cant close out channels

Im sold anon

[Anonymous No.16377946]

>>16377902
That's not how it works you tedious rectum sniffer.

[Anonymous No.16378010]

>>16377946
They came up with LN because direct channels are absolutely unpractical for IRL adoption.
Direct channels are great between exchanges and other high frequency trusted parties and have been in existence as a concept long before the LN whitepaper was released.

Lightning network == routing.

Countering the fact that LN doesn't work by proposing to use direct channels equals admitting LN is a complete and utter failure.

[Anonymous No.16378032]

>>16376344
>>16376350
These

>>16376448
Nobody uses Bitcoin for payments.