/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.17406043]

Defend this.

[Anonymous No.17406055]

>>17406043
Wtf are those values

[Anonymous No.17406076]

>>17406043
literally the only way to keep btc settlement layer decentralized

[Anonymous No.17406081]

>>17406055
It's a pretty simple chart to read, guy. Y is confirmed transactions a day and X is dates from mid 2015 to now.

[Anonymous No.17406089]

>>17406043
just as a small penis is more elegant and pleasing to a woman so also is a small blockchain state elegant and conducive to decentralization of the protocol over the long term

[Anonymous No.17406101]

Could you not use log scale like a moron so we can accurately evaluate the data?

[Anonymous No.17406119]

>>17406081
Yeah I'm asking why those Y values were chosen

[Anonymous No.17406122]

>>17406076
>>17406089
Small blocks don't increase decentralization.

[Anonymous No.17406135]

>>17406122
yes they do

[Anonymous No.17406144]

>>17406135
No they don't.

[Anonymous No.17406183]

>>17406122
Small blocks allows millions of 10$ raspberry pi to verify that craig is a scammer and you cannot seize btc because muh drugs otherwise you kill fungibility for the rest of 99.9% users
GOOD LUCK ENFORCING PROTOCOL RULES ON SCAMMY FORKS, BTax ON THE LEFT, BSeizureVision ON THE RIGHT
WE WILL NOT LISTEN TO ANY GOD, PROPHETS, OR KIKE ECONOMIST TELLING US WE NEED INFLATION

[Anonymous No.17406207]

>>17406183
Hashpower enforces rules, not raspberry pis. If your node isn't backed by hashpower then it's just a listening node and irrelevant. Future money isn't something you run out of your moms basement.

[Anonymous No.17406218]

>>17406101
Lmao. More white space = more aesthetic

[Anonymous No.17406284]

>>17406207
miners are just wasting their time if our nodes reject their blocks
and btw, pic related

[Anonymous No.17406345]

>>17406207
>Future money isn't something you run out of your moms basement.
Yes they are, that’s the entire fucking point
Settlement layer has to be small, if you want to store weather data just use Amazon AWS or IPFS, cause nobody wants polluting spam on their chain

[Anonymous No.17406364]

>>17406284
>miners are just wasting their time if our nodes reject their blocks
Simply not true. That would imply listening nodes are vital to the network for Bitcoin to work and they aren't. They aren't even a consideration.

As long as miners are accepting each others blocks and building on top of them Bitcoin goes on without a hitch. Actual nodes do not need your listening node even in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.17406373]

>>17406345
>Yes they are, that’s the entire fucking point

Wrong.

[Anonymous No.17406414]

>>17406364
>listening nodes are vital to the network for Bitcoin to work and they aren't
they are vital simply because they are verifying blocks
you mine invalid blocks? They get rejected by billions of raspberry pi nodes, so in this case miners are just forking away and nobody cares
protocol violations and coin seizure BTFO by a 10$ raspberry pi

[Anonymous No.17406453]

>>17406414
If my block is accepted by other nodes, there is nothing listening nodes can do about it. Miners build off each others blocks, not listening nodes. This is like day one shit.

[Anonymous No.17406492]

>>17406453
>Miners build off each others blocks
That’s correct but if you violate BTC protocol you are mining a fork
If you are not mining on our chain, with our rules it’s all pointless, nobody using BTC cares about LTC miners, same goes with scamforks

[Anonymous No.17406523]

>>17406043
well, we're up to 500k from 100k in 5 years, and we're hitting the same amount of transactions per day as during the 20k top, which is bullish divergence. sorry to defeat you so easily OP

[Anonymous No.17406530]

>>17406492
So you admit that listening nodes do nothing in this process. Miners keep each other in check. They do this, not because the are good people, but because they want to get paid.

[Anonymous No.17406545]

>>17406523
Blocks are full. Throughput is capped. If Bitcoin wasn't limited, adoption would be much much higher by now as would application development.

[Anonymous No.17406606]

>>17406545
core is either retarded or malicious (funded by bilderberg group), probably both. bitcoin's dominance is a testament to Satoshi's original whitepaper and decentralized currency in spite of sabotage by core

[Anonymous No.17406648]

>>17406530
Larry stop pointing that fucking gun at my dad!

[Anonymous No.17406733]

>>17406606
We haven't even begun the real climb up in the S-curve of this technology's adoption. BTC retains its dominance for a number of reasons, but primarily because "coin go up!" and the ticker. While that's nice, it isn't enough to fundamentally drive the technology. There won't be another 2017 for BTC. It simply isn't possible. Before there was the assumption that BTC would become a global cash system, that doesn't exist anymore.

BTC has set Bitcoin back at least five years. It's going to take so much fucking work and in a hurry to get us back on track again. We can't rely on "coin go up" for adoption. We need utility and imo it'll be businesses using Bitcoin (SV obviously) as a backend for business solutions. Things like ERP logs or w/e driving adoption.

[Anonymous No.17406782]

>>17406043
>Visa does around 1,700 transactions per second on average (based on a calculation derived from the official claim of over 150 million transactions per day).

No can do

[Anonymous No.17406834]

>>17406733
yeah, fundamentally speaking, both BCH and BSV are leagues ahead of BTC in technology and usecases, but i'm a long-term TA trader and as of now the chart says there's no reason to sell my corecoins, even if i'd like to

[Anonymous No.17406916]

>>17406834
As far as I'm concerned BCH is just another small blocker coin with a butchered protocol. Unbounded blocks and original op codes are the only way to do it.

I still have some BTC and BCH. Mostly due to laziness. I can see BTC petering along for another good while. I don't see BTAX making it much longer though. Insanely bullish on BSV.

[Anonymous No.17407260]

BITCOIN BTFO