bitcoin cash is waaay up

[Anonymous No.7482798]

wtf why is this up 25%? did tether switch targets or something?

[Anonymous No.7482918]

Next stop $4k.

[Anonymous No.7482950]

>>7482798
the tether conspiracy is retarded
you can actually use bitcoin cash through a trustless system without fees
it'll probably be the number one crypto soon. Idk why people get so emotionally attached to BTC

[Anonymous No.7482991]

>>7482950
if they would've done a hardfork on BTC & gave it bigger blocks then no one would've cared, but sense they changed the name then oh god must cry about Roger Ver & shit.

[Anonymous No.7483028]

>>7482798

People realizing bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin

[Anonymous No.7483113]

It and Bitcoin Gold are up. Expect whole market dumps over the next few days

[Anonymous No.7483160]

>>7483028
this

[Anonymous No.7483244]

Another PND.

People already forgot about the Coinbase PND orchestrated by Verr.

[Anonymous No.7483275]

Get ready for it to be the one to lead the market out of this mess Bcore got us in

[Anonymous No.7483305]

>>7482798
cashies like the taste of korean cock, just another korean pnd with westerners as the idiots falling for it

[Anonymous No.7483310]

Lol, the more BCH goes up, the more desperate Corefags get, as evidenced by the amount of FUD posts they make.

[Anonymous No.7483319]

>>7483244
Take your pills.

[Anonymous No.7483335]

>>7483275
for real though. Imagine when BCH is king & doesn't have to tank because it scales perfectly fine unlike segwit lightening thing. Your precious shitcoins won't take a 50% hit because the main fucking crypto doesn't actually function well.

when a store of values value becomes zero

[Anonymous No.7483376]

>>7483305
yawn, if you're going to dog something then at least try harder man

[Anonymous No.7483380]

>>7482950
>Idk why people get so emotionally attached to BTC
Its late adopters who didnt get free BCH or got bamboozled by reddit and sold at 300.
Its also soyboy redditros with communist tendencies who cant deal with successful men spearheading the BCH train.

[Anonymous No.7483392]

infowars

[Anonymous No.7483421]

>>7483392
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97g-zbR0aU

[Anonymous No.7483459]

>>7483335

Fucking this! All altcoin bagholder should realize this

[Anonymous No.7483501]

Bcash is a scam coin, they intentionally mislead normies in thinking Bcash is the real Bitcoin through using Bitcoin.com and @Bitcoin and /r/btc. A cult of deluded morons.

[Anonymous No.7483556]

>>7483501
>hurr durr bcash is a scam because roger ver sold firecrackers and jihan wu is chinese
Its literally the real bitcoin

[Anonymous No.7483560]

>>7483335
It functions pretty well when your deluded Bcash cult isn't attacking the network for their own gain.

[Anonymous No.7483585]

>>7482798
Most of the counterparty volume was in BTC.
Perhaps the BCH faction saw this as an opportune moment to strike? They know core political factions have been unloading BCH by the truckload and making a big show of it, seemingly without realising that this necessarily is throwing away ammunition to stave off a speculative attack by BCH, and the massive crash that ended with the firm rejection candle with a volume so thick that it hadn't been seen since the beginning of 2017's bull run may well have put the BTC faction in an extra weakened state where they are even less able to fend of an attack, couple all that with the hash power divergence between BCH and BTC being at a very low ebb and BCH can extremely cheaply buy off BTC's hash power, choking it out at the same time inheriting the victories BTC just won against the capitulation rejection at 6k?
And putting aside strategy, there's the simple fact that BTC is complete shit and doesn't work, and BCH at least does work.

[Anonymous No.7483605]

>>7483560
What do you suppose the graph would look if it represented patrons at a popular restaurant who couldn't deal with the increased volume and people got tired of it?

[Anonymous No.7483608]

>>7483560
>another core shill celebrating the loss of all marchant adoption
You will be even happier when bitpay fully switches to BCH this quarter. Even less transactions will do wonders for BTC :)

[Anonymous No.7483625]

>>7483560
Man, why complain to the lambo owner that your shitty prius is slow, get some little sense brainlet.

[Anonymous No.7483646]

>>7483605
they'd be booking months down the line if its that popular you stupid retard

[Anonymous No.7483659]

Roger pumped it for the interview

[Anonymous No.7483665]

>>7483501
Satoshi's and Blockstream's fault for not patenting and copyrighting Bitcoin and making it closed source.

[Anonymous No.7483681]

>only time this happens is before an interview
>no other news to justify volume

seems legit.

[Anonymous No.7483683]

>>7483659
It was well known the interview would be happening. I bought as well.

[Anonymous No.7483702]

>>7483556
> hurr durr i'm a moron that can't read so i'll put words in people's mouth (i never said anything about the lives he risked with storing that much firecrackers - basically a bomb, maybe one day you'll burn to death in an apartment thanks to an innocent guy who stored that much firecrackers)

> hurr durr bcash is the real bitcoin even though only 20% of hashing power forked bcash

> hurr durr lighting network will use financial insitutions as lighting nodes, even though i can make a node right now ... so that makes me a financial institution

> hurr durr it's offchain ... DURRRR

> hurr durr fees are too high because our cult congested the network with coordinated 1-5 satoshi spam transactions

> fee's will be cheap and fast again once the congestion is cleared (almost done).

wait until segwit is adopted more, so that it can still be cheap/fast even during your pathetic attacks, even without lighting network.

Bcash Bcash Bcash Bcash

[Anonymous No.7483706]

>>7483646
Or perhaps they'd just go somewhere else.
Good thing we don't have to speculate since your chart clearly shows that's exactly what people are doing, you can make it even clearer by putting it next to a transaction chart for the other working major cryptocurrencies also.
But you're a religious fanatic, so that won't accomplish much.
Enjoy your delusions.

[Anonymous No.7483728]

>>7482798
Roger went on Alex Jones and pumped it to look better.

[Anonymous No.7483834]

>>7483728
People simply bought the rumors knowing good PR drives up price. Also, BCH just had news that OpenBazaar is now accepting Bitcoin Cash payments. Merchants are accumulating BCH to get ahead of the future adoption.

[Anonymous No.7483847]

>>7483702
Wow almost every bcore lie and character assassination in one single post.

Its obvious you don't know how lightning even works.
You celebrate Bcore losing its transaction volume. It will be even less soon as people switch to the chain that scales.

yea you can make a node right now while the devs themselves say it doesn't fucking work yet:
https://twitter.com/starkness/status/953434418948927488

To run a node with just 500 channels with 0.5 BTC each by the way, you would need 250 BTC on hand. aka only banks, corporations and rich people will run them.

[Anonymous No.7483853]

>>7482798
Will you answer the call?

[Anonymous No.7483870]

>>7483853
>scale it

[Anonymous No.7483925]

>>7483560
>using the network is spam

[Anonymous No.7483928]

bye bye bitcoin it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous No.7483971]

ACCUMULATING AS FKKKKK

Seriously though, this is going to overtake BTC sooo hard in the next couple of weeks.

[Anonymous No.7483975]

>>7483706

> judges transactions count by mempool size
RETARD, don't try reading charts if you can't distinguish what the chart is showing you.

this is the chart that you want, the transactions count chart. we're healthy than ever, despite your pathetic spam attack.

[Anonymous No.7484000]

>>7483975
You can twist it however you want. The reality is that even complete newcoiners are aware of BTC being a slow shitcoin now.

[Anonymous No.7484019]

>>7483925
how many times did your mom drop you ...

the chart shows an influx spam of 1-5 satoshi transactions that coincidentally pop up when Bcash is pushing their agenda. deluded and retarded cult.

[Anonymous No.7484037]

>>7483556

Nice pic, saved!

[Anonymous No.7484057]

>>7484000
that's fine, it's the normal process of believers and non-believers. the technology, both bcash and bitcoin are not ready for mass adoption - except, Bitcoin are getting ready, what is your shitalt coin doing for a permanent solution?

[Anonymous No.7484072]

>>7484019
>unsubstantiated claims

Perhaps corecucks should try to "spam" BCH, I'd love to see it.

[Anonymous No.7484081]

>>7484019
transactions that pay fees are not spam. Besides micro-fee transactions CANNOT slow down other transactions

[Anonymous No.7484088]

I just think I realized whats going on...fuck I really don't want to sell my current holdings for fucking bcash, especially at this price.

What would it mean for current trading pairs if BCH becomes dominant?

[Anonymous No.7484096]

>>7482798
btc merchant adoption is shrinking bch adoption is growing
there is not a single reason to cap blocks at 1mb (non mining nodes do nothing)
segwit destroys the mining nash equilibrium incentivising the collusion of miners to change the UTXO without owners signatures. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY
You can only trust jihan and roger to not be doing this right now.
why introduce segwit before a blocksize increase when lightning network requires 133mb as specified in the lightning network whitepaper
why introduce segwit at all when it is not necessary for second layer solutions
lightning network will not be decentralized because to solve the routing problem is NP hard
why would anyone want lightning network when it is not a decentralised ledger? the whole point of bitcoin is to scale on chain as that is what makes decentralised uncensorable money which can free all the people in the world from the financial repression of central banks

[Anonymous No.7484107]

>>7484019
Completey deluded. Low fee transactions have virtually no impact on the network. The spam attack conspiracy theory is just a pathetic attempt to cover-up Bitcoin's problems.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Spam_transactions

>Very-low-fee flooding
>A simplistic attack that people often try is to send tens of thousands of zero- or very-low-fee >transactions at once. This makes the "mempool" number shown by some websites go up >massively, which sometimes causes people to panic, but in reality it is only a slight drain on the >network's bandwidth resources, and hardly a problem at all.

[Anonymous No.7484145]

>>7484072
they tried. pic related
IT HAD ZERO EFFECT ON BCH FEES.

Thanks for the fees corecucks. Your spam is not spam to us. Please spam more.

[Anonymous No.7484169]

>>7484096
I love this pasta because I saw it about 20 times and not once did it yield a coherent rebuttal

[Anonymous No.7484172]

>>7483975
Elegant attempt to conceal the fact you're back to the same transaction volume as early 2016, a full year before the scaling ceiling was even hit.
I really don't know why you people even bother. If you're being paid for this, you're doing a shitty job, if you're not, maybe you should just do something productive with your time like necking yourself.

[Anonymous No.7484179]

>>7484088
dw it'll never happen

[Anonymous No.7484181]

>>7483244
>Coinbase PND orchestrated by Verr
Do you have evidence to back this up?

[Anonymous No.7484188]

>>7484088
This is the largest hurdle atm. Merchant adoption is in the bag, but trading pair support is dragging its feet heavily. The only exchange I use that even has them is Kucoin and not only is the volume weak but so are the total pairings. This NEEDS to be addressed.

[Anonymous No.7484198]

>>7484019
You absolute fool of a Took.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SPAM
They paid the fee they have a right to use the network

If a bunch of BCH dweebs can crash you're precious network it ain't worth shit.
You think bitcoin will be a global payment system where anyone can just ruin it with spam?

Fucking corecucks I'm getting real tired of this shit

[Anonymous No.7484241]

>>7484181
>corecucks
>evidence

Wouldn't hold your breath.

[Anonymous No.7484253]

>>7484145
I get why core cucks that are heavily invested in BTC and sold their BCH thinking it was a meme and now are butthurt are so emotionally invested. I also get that people with loads of money would be paying shills for similar reasons. But I think most of this is just retards , like voted for hillary tier, still believe in "muh russia" level retards. They are just easy to manipulate.

[Anonymous No.7484259]

>>7484181
Even if it were them, how would it be bad.
Crypto is libertarian. You can buy/sell pump/dump with your money whatever you want.
Literally the definition of be your own bank. buy whatever you want whenever you want at whatever quantity you want.

[Anonymous No.7484295]

>>7484169
It may seem that way good fellow, but on closer examination, you will recall;
>Roger Ver sold explosives.
>Jihan Wu is Chinese.
>Use of the network since the scaling ceiling was hit was spam.
>It takes a full time army of people employed by blockstream to correctly educated the masses about the situation.
>Blockstream acts in the interests of the network, because if they don't have that first layer the business model they admit to having where they squeeze transactions onto other layers and charge fees for them wouldn't possibly work.
>Gregory Maxwell has a really nice beard.
>Luke-jr is a good catholic.
>Matt Corallo petitioned the SEC to protect Bitcoin from the evil clutches of old school cryptoanarchists.
These are the things it's important that we don't lose track of.

[Anonymous No.7484306]

>>7484107

all you're doing is showing how thick your cult is, no wonder you're so gullible to believe in Bcash.

low-fee spam causes a congestion for other legitimate low-fee transactions. so if legitimate low-fee transactions want to get processed, then either they wait in the queue to be processed after all that spam, or they pay higher fees to be "ahead of the queue".

not to mention, it happened at a time when Bitcoin was the receiving end of alot of hype, which caused problems because you have morons like Coinbase who haven't implemented Segwit, and old wallets/applications that purely use low-fees without giving users the ability to change the fee ... thus leading all low-fee transactions to be slow as fuck because of all the "back log" caused by the spam, and panic of legitimate transactions and the additional transactions from the media hype.

[Anonymous No.7484308]

>>7484253
As soon as I seen "muh Ver" constantly instead of any kind of actual argument, I knew for sure I was picking the right coin. Literally on the same level of "Blumpf's a racists!".

[Anonymous No.7484330]

>>7482798

man, the fucking corecuks just won't go away already

[Anonymous No.7484354]

sure smells like bcash astroturfing in here

[Anonymous No.7484375]

>>7484306
>muh evil spammers
Spam is a social construct.
If a tx pays fees its not spam. Use a coin that actually scales and celebrate the fact spammers are feeding your networks miners.

[Anonymous No.7484390]

>>7484306

It causes congestion because bcore can't scale.

[Anonymous No.7484396]

>>7484188

I just wonder how much my alts will tank, I'm trying to just hold onto the coins I have selected, and I don't want to just sell those to buy bch (no extra income to invest rn) and attempt to time the market to buy back into my alts. What if pairs get introduced and alts become more tied to dollar value?

[Anonymous No.7484410]

>>7484306
>morons like Coinbase who haven't implemented Segwit

Yo dawg, I heard you like slow adoption, so we put more adoption in your adoption so you can adopt while you adopt.

Segwit is retarded, LN is even dumber than that. Even though BCH has to start with like half the network effect, it won't matter. Corecucks have put themselves in a position where the effective adoption of their coin doesn't matter, because people are required to keep adopting retarded shit for no apparent reason. So instead their going elsewhere, see dominance.

[Anonymous No.7484423]

>>7484308
can you tell me how bcash will solve scaling permanently? roger ver stated the blocksize limit is only a temporary solution.

Bitcoin's argument is simply: Segwit adoption & Lightning Network.

What's yours? To keep increasing the blocksize limit until centralization (although it already technically is centralized since it's mined by a group of friends)?

[Anonymous No.7484431]

>>7484308
same. that and the censorship that was just like r/politics

[Anonymous No.7484438]

>>7484295
We need to reduce the blocksize to increase btc store of value

[Anonymous No.7484451]

>>7483113
bitcoin gold is money for miners right now, especially ones with asics

[Anonymous No.7484455]

>>7484423
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FFly8VF950

>muh spam
>muh scaling

[Anonymous No.7484463]

>>7484410
>Corecucks have put themselves in a position where the effective adoption of their coin doesn't matter, because people are required to keep adopting retarded shit for no apparent reason

That's a very good way of putting it, you deserve a (You)

I think ethereum will win though.

[Anonymous No.7484465]

>>7484306
All you're showing is how delusional you are. Go believe whatever you want. I have a legit source while you're just making up lies to make yourself feel better.

[Anonymous No.7484467]

>>7484410

Shouldn't this be a prime opportunity to move away from the Bitcoin family entirely to better alternatives, or are you that obsessed and attached to the Bitcoin brand?

[for many things mostly coz of (...) No.7484485]

>>7482798
becasue they go lower and lower. Now they are tinfoilhat coin. BIg conspiracy going on with bitcoin so Roger hasto involve Alex.

[Anonymous No.7484509]

>>7484438
Exactly, his holiness Luke-jr suggests 300kb. I think this is a good start. He may be a little liberal though, as revolutionary and daring as he is.

[Anonymous No.7484526]

>>7484465
Haha, that's exactly how you bcash trolls respond when you can't counter-argue something valid and logical. Your bcash altcoin will be useless once Bitcoin is truly complete. then you can be like "hurr durr blocksize limit".

Dipshit, just renounce your citizenship like Roger Ver.

[Anonymous No.7484531]

>>7484509

100 kb seems best. We want every human on the planet to run a node to maximize nodeness

[Anonymous No.7484539]

>>7484467
Look into BCH some more my man, there are no alternatives long term. However short to medium term I hold other solid coins like Monero.

[Anonymous No.7484574]

>>7484467
Im betting on ETH, BCH and a few promising alts.
But honestly if the May fork of BCH brings what it promises and adoption keeps ramping up until then, I will go all in on BCH at that point.

[Anonymous No.7484605]

I'm an early Bitcoin adopter. I got into mining in 2010, used Silk Road, bought a bunch at $30, etc. etc. Been following for a long while. As of now, I have zero BTC and have converted my entire stack into bitcoin cash. I think it really hit me when I realized that BTC was just not the original Bitcoin that I came to love and see as a potential global currency that anyone could use as digital cash. It pains me to see this fighting and name calling and to see the Bitcoin community divided like this.

[Anonymous No.7484607]

>>7484531
that way we can buy 2 raspberry-pie nodes for every single fee we collect!!

[Anonymous No.7484613]

>>7484539
>Look into BCH some more my man

It's Bitcoin with its future transaction speed and fees problems kicked further down the road and is a bit more centralized. Doesn't fix any of the other issues inherent to Bitcoin when it comes to acting as an actual decent currency of the future

[Anonymous No.7484614]

>>7484526
How does it feel knowing that if people actually did give enough fucks to attack your network, they could just look up the publicly displayed IPs of the centralized LN hubs and DDOS it all fucking day?

Wew lad, that could cause some serious damage...

https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/

[Anonymous No.7484617]

>>7484531
What about those who only have access to smoke signals and abaci?

[Anonymous No.7484630]

>>7484526
Fucking retard, you're the one who can't come up with an counterargument. Go ahead an explain why that Bitcoin wiki citationi is wrong. You can't because all you can do is regurgitate shit from reddit.

[Anonymous No.7484634]

>>7484605
almost same but 2012 here

[Anonymous No.7484649]

>>7484613
see >>7484455

and do some reading on it. It literally doesn't increase centralization, that's a meme and a bad one at that.

[Anonymous No.7484672]

I'd rather kms than participate in this ponzi-clone.

[Anonymous No.7484675]

>>7484617

You're right, shit. best to get rid of the blocksize all together. Move it all to the LN. Mining is overrated

[Anonymous No.7484681]

>>7484649

I trust anything Craig Wright says about as much as I trust anything the Core devs say

[Anonymous No.7484686]

>>7484613
storage literally is a non-issue and channels/layer-2 will come to BCH as well.
Google graphene blocks and the other shit they got cooking.
Nchain will also release some juicy patents and gift them to BCH

[Anonymous No.7484689]

Chinese PnD from OKex

[Anonymous No.7484696]

>>7484672
t. boomer

Go back to stocks old man.

>>7484681
Eh, don't investigate more idc.

[Anonymous No.7484724]

>>7484630
Did you notice that shill suggested you should "just renounce your citizenship like Roger Ver"?
I'm starting to wonder if USG is heavily in on Blockstream's sabotage and hijacking of Bitcoin, and this slip of the tongue pushes it more in this direction. We know Bitfury are USG, and we know they're staunch Blockstream lackeys, we know who is bankrolling Blockstream, and we know all the parties involved, we know Blockstream launched a satellite stream of the BTC blockchain theoretically to provide an undeniable channel for worldwide BTC access from absolutely everyone, and we know that move only makes sense in the context of an action from a USG ally (because USG could trivially choose to shut down the satellite stream with a subpoena to the Satellite company, so it's no kind of denial on them at all).
Perhaps BTC is being groomed by USG as a replacement for the ailing and soon to die post Nixon shock financial order?
Everything seems to be falling into place for this. So these shills would of course view their opponents as enemies of USG, and a slip of the tongue demanding they renounce their US citizenship goes quite a way to validating that.

[Anonymous No.7484747]

>>7484675
I've got a Jewish friend who could set us up with a nice centralised ledger...

[Anonymous No.7484757]

>>7484455
>unironically linking Craig Wright

That 1GB block is false marketing, it's what they got assuming 10 minutes of propagation based on their worldwide simulation, while in reality anything over few seconds leads to enormous orphan rates.
That size is something like 16MB though.

[Anonymous No.7484759]

>>7484686
BCH already has payment channels, it just doesn't have cross channels like Segwit (technically they don't ether, shit isn't stable). It can be done, but its harder without Segwit. I don't think they're in a hurry to do it, because there is literally no demand for cross channel LN when you can just use the goddamn blockchain for less than a penny.

[Anonymous No.7484788]

>>7484724
Take your pills.

[Anonymous No.7484793]

>>7484686
>patents

God this is the fucking worst shit. The point of crypto is to create the best possible currency solution to free us from bank control, not hoard tech like a bunch of faggots because you're worried you'll be irrelevant without the exclusivity

[Anonymous No.7484798]

>>7484757
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M

[Anonymous No.7484806]

>>7484724
yikes dude, >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.7484818]

>>7484793
giving away patents for free to an open source project != hoarding

[Anonymous No.7484836]

>>7484788
Oops, meant to quote >>7484689

[Anonymous No.7484837]

>>7484788
Already there, now you.

[Anonymous No.7484838]

>>7483560
>my system works well when it isn't used!!!
>>7484306
>legitimate low-fee transactions. so if legitimate low-fee transactions want to get processed
>tx's are legit until they become too much for my coin to handle then they aren't legit

[Anonymous No.7484846]

> Roger Ver holds Bitcoin's.
> Roger Ver pushes for Bcash fork.
> Roger Ver now owns FREE Bcash.
> Roger Ver still hasn't sold his Bitcoin's and refuses to sell them.

Pretty sums up the agenda that your deluded bcash cult support.

[Anonymous No.7484856]

>>7484806
>yikes
turbonormie detected. That shit isnt even a theory lel

[Anonymous No.7484860]

>>7483971
>bcash newfags are this delusional

the flippening guise!! just 3 weeks away!!

[Anonymous No.7484861]

>>7484757
That's wrong, everyone has a mempool in their node. You just have to send out a list of transactions that was confirmed in the block. So each transaction comes in as it's broadcast and each block just sends out a list of transactions.

[Anonymous No.7484879]

>>7484806
Maybe we should just ask him
>>7484526
Hey Shareblue, is that you man?

[Anonymous No.7484884]

>>7484757
The point of the 1GB testing is to prove that it can be done. Don't expect such a block size on Mainnet tomorrow.

https://news.bitcoin.com/gigablock-testnet-researchers-mine-the-worlds-first-1gb-block/

[Anonymous No.7484888]

>>7484846
Yea I know. Rich people shouldn't be allowed to act in their economic best long term interest by ensuring the system they push isnt a shitcoin.

[Anonymous No.7484912]

This should be the main version of bitcoin, rather than the one maintained by bitcoin now, but since it isn't, and won't be, it has zero reason to have any value
How is this shitcoin even the fourth highest market cap coin
Makes no sense to me

[Anonymous No.7484923]

>>7484793
BCH doesn't have to buy the patent.

[Anonymous No.7484948]

>>7484856
dipshit, it's the majority of hashing power that determines which version of the code is run. if they want to change something that blockstream doesn't want, they can, as long as they have majority.

bcash had only 20%, so it was forked, which is why it's an shitcoin like Bitcoin Gold, and all the other trash.

[Anonymous No.7484953]

>>7484846
Dude I still have a small Core position as well, only a fool goes "all in" on anything. Though I'm mostly BCH/XMR.

[Anonymous No.7485002]

>>7484818

If they're only giving the rights for use with BCH then yes it is hoarding. As far I've seen nobody has mentioned any kind of Apache License for the developed software from Craig's company (most people talk about how it'll kill BTC because only BCH will be able to use it)

[Anonymous No.7485006]

>>7484948
Jihan and Vers pools could literally move a shitload of hashpower over to BCH today if they wanted and make the distribution about 50/50, but they didnt so far since they know BCH will win on merits alone.

[Anonymous No.7485027]

>>7484948
Everyone had blind faith in Core and the light hadn't been shined on Blockstream for most people back in August. I held my forked coins just because. I assumed Core knew best as did many others. It wasn't until I got redpilled by increasing fees and lead times I began to investigate. I've probably learned more about bitcoin in the past 6 months than I have in the past 4 years.

[Anonymous No.7485036]

>>7485002
Sure nchain is acting in its own interest by doing that. But why wouldn't the inventor of some patent get to chose who uses his idea.

[Anonymous No.7485050]

I never saw in my whole time in the sphere a coin attacked more by bots in Twitter than bch, even xrp didn't have anything near to it in its campaign

[Anonymous No.7485051]

>>7484172
>>7483975
the absolute state of corecucks

[Anonymous No.7485060]

>>7485050
this is how you know you are on the right track

[Anonymous No.7485072]

>>7484798
That's literally that presentation.

>>7484861
>That's wrong, everyone has a mempool in their node. You just have to send out a list of transactions that was confirmed in the block

That's wrong, everyone has a different mempool. They actually tested that in the video linked by >>7484798 which is what I mentioned.

Look at 9:50. They have a model t = 0.2s + blockSize*0.6s/MB. So for 16MB you get a very high 9.8s, which means a 1.62% orphan rate. That's very high.

Use this calculator https://mathcracker.com/exponential-probability-calculator.php to calculate the orphan rate. Enter 600 as the mean and the target propagation time in the left tailed field.

Anything above 16MB isn't going to work with many miners, too many orphans. 8MB gives a 0.83% orphan rate.

[Anonymous No.7485082]

>>7485036

Because crypto as a whole becomes worse overall with that shit inhibiting it

[Anonymous No.7485113]

>>7484953
It's because a part of you, just like a part of Roger, really believe Bitcoin is the king, and it will always be king. A part of your cult still believe Bcash will become obsolete and it will do so in good time. This is why Roger Ver and you, will still continue to hold Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.7485127]

>>7485072
https:// github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/152
Header first mining + graphene = extremely low orphan rate, and very low block propagation time, at the penalty of an extremely low empty block rate.

[Anonymous No.7485145]

>>7484846

>Blockstream marketing team write articles, shill in social sites, and advertise in the media to build up hype for Bitcoin.

>Bitcoin whales/Blockstream play the victim card by spamming their own network to try to cover up Bitcoin's problems.

>Blockstream shills the LN vaporware to relieve investor worries over BTC's slow network.

>The 1K people who own 40% of Bitcoin sell their stash Bitcoin ATH, crashing the market.

Pretty much sums up the Bitcoin scam.

[Anonymous No.7485152]

>>7485113
Or we realise there are stupid and/or duplicitous people like yourself who money can be made from while they hold that perspective, and they are willing to pay us 300k USD per block on their shitty sabotaged chain, which we can then use to go and make crypto great again.

[Anonymous No.7485176]

>>7485113
Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with trading pairs. If you aren't agile in this market, wtf are you doing?

[Anonymous No.7485180]

>>7485072
that's why BCH is getting Graphene

[Anonymous No.7485195]

>>7485113
>put all your eggs in one basket like a brainlet or your arguments are invalid
corecucks getting creative over here

[Anonymous No.7485202]

>>7485127
Uh you are literally arguing with bch's own simulation results by throwing out buzzwords.
"Graphene" is just another way to reference transactions already in the mempool that's a tiny bit better than xthin. It can do nothing about transactions that aren't.

Header first mining only allows empty blocks. It does nothing for throughput.

[Anonymous No.7485211]

>>7485152
The thing is with cults like Bcash, they're morons, just like the KKK. You can never talk any sense into them no matter what you say.

I'm still wondering, what is Bcash's permanent solution to scale for mass-adoption, unless you are that deluded to think raising blocksizes infinitely will scale without making it even more centralized than Bcash already is.

[Anonymous No.7485225]

>>7485211
>bcash = KKK
This is shareblue level shilling. Made me giggle IRL

[Anonymous No.7485263]

BCash is dumb - if you want to get million/tx/s, that just can't be done onchain. LN is also terrible, but if you want blockchain based payments, you're going to have to not use the blockchain.

[Anonymous No.7485277]

>>7482798
whales pumped it up, should cash out soon before the following massive dump.

already sold all my BCash at 1340.

[Anonymous No.7485297]

>>7485263
>BCash is dumb - if you want to get million/tx/s, that just can't be done onchain

Not even visa does that much. On-chain scaling into like 100M daily is possible but requires proof of stake.

[Anonymous No.7485306]

>>7485195
Keep telling yourself that weak argument "I hate Bitcoin and push for Bcash as the real Bitcoin, but I don't want to hold all eggs in one basket, so I hold both, Bitcoin I paid for dirt-cheap years ago, and Bcash my free altcoin".

[Anonymous No.7485307]

>>7485263
>if you want blockchain based payments, you're going to have to not use the blockchain

[Anonymous No.7485311]

>>7485202
You realise transaction propagation is different from block propagation? You realise a transaction set slowly transferred and assembled ahead of time via graphene is exactly the solution that allows you to get header first mining + faster transaction propagation?
Header first mining prevents centralising force that benefits large miners, but creates empty blocks in the chain.
Graphene goes significant way to fixing empty blocks in the chain by having the propagation of the transactions built up by bloom filters and IBLT.
Put both of them together and you solve the slow full block propagation problem whilst negating most of the empty block penalty for the increased centralisation provided by header first mining.
I can tell you as a miner regardless that *everyone* is doing header first mining, because doing otherwise is leaving money on the table.

[Anonymous No.7485332]

>>7485306
I love Bitcoin (BCH) though, corecuck.

[Anonymous No.7485338]

>>7485211
did you vote for Her? I bet you did.
Bravo. Hi shareblue. How about *you* renounce your citizenship.
git gitmo'd.

[Anonymous No.7485343]

>>7485211

you are one ignorant faggot LOLOLOLOL

[for many things mostly coz of (...) No.7485345]

>>7482798
Its as new crypto snake oil. Roger war at infowars yesterday. Question is how can he go lower than that to promote this shit.

[Anonymous No.7485359]

>>7485211
this shilling is so bad it's almost like he's a double agent - but no, core cucks really are just this shallow thinking

[Anonymous No.7485372]

>>7485345
>Question is how can he go lower than that to promote this shit.

Buy Brain Boost exclusively with Bitcoin Cash!

[Anonymous No.7485379]

>>7485345
>InfoWars is low
>interviewed Trump during the election
>now he's the president

Really made me think.

[Anonymous No.7485400]

>>7485345
your tears are the best promotion
just bought 20usd worth

[Anonymous No.7485402]

>>7485332
>>7485338
>>7485343
>>7485359

Funny how you get so mad when you can't answer with a permanent scaling solution. Retards.

[Anonymous No.7485408]

>>7485345
I remember when Drumpf went on infowars and lost the election due to it. Good times

[Anonymous No.7485428]

>>7484259
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.7485430]

>>7485402
Ah shit he got us now! how will we ever compete with LN

[Anonymous No.7485439]

>>7485402
>The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size. By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

>I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.

>Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that.

Did they teach you who said that in your shill classes son?

[Anonymous No.7485450]

>>7485430
this is how your bcash cult responds to a question you can't answer

[Anonymous No.7485464]

this troll bait is keeping the thread bumped you noobs

[Anonymous No.7485495]

>>7485311
>You realise transaction propagation is different from block propagation?

That equation from the simulation includes xthin. The graph is literally titled 'Xthin block propagation'. Graphene is only a bit better.

>Header first mining

You can't wait too long for the rest of the block or it opens the network to nasty attacks. Imagine that I propagate a valid header but not the rest. Now what? So there has to be a cutoff point after which blocks not propagated in full are ignored.

[Anonymous No.7485510]

>>7485439
rekt

[Anonymous No.7485549]

>>7485450

that's an appropriate response to an asshole corecuck

[Anonymous No.7485557]

>>7485402
it's cause we're in the KKK. We're just mad all the time. Also hate niggers.

[Anonymous No.7485564]

>>7485439
>Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards
>Never moving off of PoW

RIP Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash

[Anonymous No.7485590]

>>7485495
Now you just propagated an empty block in the case that you managed to hash at a difficulty level which had a mean block rate of ten minutes within less than the time required in order to propagate the full set of transactions within the block.
Meaning the likelyhood of it happening again is astronomically low, and so on, and so forth. Graphene just makes it even less likely to happen. The point is header first mining is necessary in order to have a scalable decentralised proof of work system, and with the block times BCH has, the likelihood of the equilibrium which you're speculating on is infinitesimally small, and it is made even more infinitesimally smaller by Graphene.
In this context, saying "forget all that, let's just keep a permanent 1mb blocksize" is completely fucking idiotic.
I see that you have a preference for Ethereum, note that the on chain throughput for Ethereum is orders of magnitude higher than BTC, Vitalik didn't view the core strategy as acceptable, and neither does anyone else who actually understands the underlying technology in question. It never was a technical question, it was always just a way to force segwit / lightning and re-implement Bretton woods via lightning with BTC as the gold substitute in the system and the lightning hub "banks" handling all the transaction volume for the proles in the economy.

[Anonymous No.7485607]

>>7485564
What's the total market cap presently protected in real cryptocurrencies by non proof of work based systems, just quietly?

[Anonymous No.7485644]

>>7485564
>unironically advocating for the rich get richer ponzi scheme known as PoS

If ETH ever moves to PoS I'm dumping what little I have. I don't even like holding ETH atm, but its been profitable over the past few months.

[Anonymous No.7485672]

>>7485060
Precisely.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

[Anonymous No.7485725]

>>7485590
>Now you just propagated an empty block in the case that you managed to hash at a difficulty level which had a mean block rate of ten minutes within less than the time required in order to propagate the full set of transactions within the block.

That's not how it works, header contains the block size. You can either mine empty blocks infinitely hoping it's not invalid or revert after some predefined time. Mining longer than several seconds enables many attacks.

[Anonymous No.7485740]

Bitcoin has got to replace settlement and be a global currency so it needs to do more than VISA. 100M tx daily is impossible on chain, Moore's law is inefficient and propagating transactions is too slow on bandwidth. Also, these transactions need to be confirmed in seconds/milliseconds to be used for payments. Even BitShares which uses incredibly powerful nodes can't top 2000tx/s. An off-chain solution is necessary since blockchains are inherently too slow.

[Anonymous No.7485798]

>>7485644
>rich get richer ponzi scheme

Also called interest which is the basis of the modern civilization.
Feel free to dump in the beginning of the greatest crypto bull in history. Right now ~$17M of mined ether is dumped daily suppressing the price.

[Anonymous No.7485802]

>>7485725
>
That's not how it works, header contains the block size.
I'm afraid you're misinformed.
bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#block-headers
The thing is, what you're saying happens all the time in many blockchains, what they look like is very fast empty blocks quickly added to the chain after the hashing of a previous block.
The situation on which you're speculating would result in a collection of these blocks in rapid succession, it empirically does not happen, so whether you believe me or not about the probability distribution of finding a block in less time than it takes to propagate the final canonical transaction set is irrelevant, you can just look at the actual chain and observe that I am correct.

[Anonymous No.7485839]

>>7485798
t. doesn't understand interest

You get interest on risk. There is no risk with PoS. Biggest wallet wins.

[Anonymous No.7485893]

Core shills are scared absolutely shitless of BCH. The amount of BCH bashing you see is a credit to the power that it holds. No other coin strikes so much fear into the crypto community when it goes on a bullrun.

[Anonymous No.7485921]

>>7485893

The funny thing is they'll all disappear the moment Bitcoin Cash flips Bcore.

[Anonymous No.7485937]

bch is a long term hold, there will be many alts pump and dumps but it's here to stay because Blockstream completely fucked up btc for good and it's trivial to move from btc to bch.

[Anonymous No.7485981]

>bch is the real btc
corecuck tears slip hot and salty across my tongue with every globalist blasting investment into bitcoin cash

[Anonymous No.7485987]

>>7485802
>bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#block-headers

This is wrong, they cut out two first fields which are 'magic' and 'blockSize'. In any case the size is still implicit in the transaction merkle tree. Because of that you can't treat the block as empty.

>it empirically does not happen

Because blocks are small so that they propagate fast enough duh. That's why anything larger than ~16MB is not going to happen anytime soon.

>>7485839
>You get interest on risk. There is no risk with PoS. Biggest wallet wins.

That's not how PoS works. If you sign self-contradictory statements your deposit gets slashed. And in general you don't get interest for 'risk' it's simply a form of payment. Interest is payment for locking your ethers.

[Anonymous No.7486018]

>>7483310
Plebbit is under Core bots attack, they downvote and upvote and comment based on keywords, that's how you know they're bots.

[Anonymous No.7486028]

>>7483702
>(i never said anything about the lives he risked with storing that much firecrackers - basically a bomb, maybe one day you'll burn to death in an apartment thanks to an innocent guy who stored that much firecrackers)
Hahahaha. Firecrackers are bombs now guys. Firecrackers can blow up apartment buildings now guys. Even though they sold the same firecrackers in stores like Cabela's and had them on shelves that little kids walked beside. Roger is going to kill us all.

[Anonymous No.7486085]

>>7485839
Also you actually have to be online 24/7, if you don't generate consensus messages when it's your turn you get penalized

[Anonymous No.7486087]

>>7485987
Interest is literally based off of risk. Just because the government has pounded it into your head that banks are "risk free" doesn't make it so, not that anyone is earning much interest these days in savings. The risk is the bank makes bad investments with your money, but since the entire system is a ponzi the wool is pulled over everyone's eyes and everyone has forgotten just what it means to have a bank hold your money.

[Anonymous No.7486156]

>>7486087
>Interest is literally based off of risk

No, that's wrong. Interest is simply a payment method. Risk is only one of the inputs. Another is opportunity cost ie. what else could I do with this money. Which is why even with zero risk interest rates would be non-zero. At least on the market, central banks have a monopoly so they can even charge negative rates to some extent.

[Anonymous No.7486285]

>>7486156
You're right about opportunity cost, but that doesn't negate the fact that interest has to be more than just "free money". Putting cash under your mattress doesn't gain you interest.

[Anonymous No.7486309]

Does anyone else find it suspicious how bcash suddenly has a legion of supporters who all call you a shill if you question them or critique Bitcoin Cash, Roger Ver or Jihan in anyway?

[Anonymous No.7486327]

>>7486285
Well yeah which is why I explained that you have to be online 24/7 and not sign contradictory statements.

[Anonymous No.7486370]

>>7483501
>pretending if blocks are bigger than 1mb bitcoin will explode

Kys you fucking idiot. Ln is a joke, not needed, not wanted

[Anonymous No.7486381]

>>7486327
That is a non-competitive system. I can't innovate or otherwise improve my mining equipment/find some other way to out perform other miners in the market in PoS. Biggest wallet wins and that's all it takes. PoW miners have to fiercely compete with each other.

[Anonymous No.7486388]

>>7486309
We have been here all along and BCH has of course gained ground whiile BTC became shittier every day.

Core is the side with the censorship and paid shills by the way
see >>7485050

feel free to post coherent arguments though and nobody will call you a shill

[Anonymous No.7486422]

>>7486388
It just weirds me out how there's suddenly dozens of bitcoin cash supporters, all with the same exact arguments and the same exact responses to criticism.

Almost makes you think they're reading from a script or something.

[Anonymous No.7486429]

>>7485987
> This is wrong, they cut out two first fields which are 'magic' and 'blockSize'
No they didn't, you just said the wrong thing, you said header contains the block size, the actual truth is that the block *structure* contains the magic number, and then the block size, and then the header, which does not contain the block size, except as you accurately observe in the case of it being implicit in the transaction merkle tree, but you don't *have* to treat the block as empty, so I think you may well be just very confused about the nature of header first mining.
All it is is referring to the previous block hash and mining a currently empty block, that is, your hash reference to the previous block is still correct, you're only mining a theoretically empty block before the full transaction set from the previous block is in and allows you to construct a canonical UTXO set so you can actually build a valid transaction containing block.
Once again, read github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/152
> Implement "head first mining" : propagate new 80-byte block headers as quickly as possible across the network, and give miners the opportunity to start mining an empty block as soon as they hear about the block header.
> Miners will switch to mining a regular block as soon as the full block is received and validated.
Emphasis mine.
The attack you're speculating about where mining an empty block is a ticket to mine more empty blocks really quickly simply doesn't exist, and as I said, it's easily empirically demonstrable from the fact that most mining now is already header-first, and you find no such attacks in actual blockchains in the wild.
> Because blocks are small so that they propagate fast enough duh. No, they don't, which is *why* there are already empty blocks from header first mining because of simple variance in the actual hashing time of a given block. This is all empirical, once again, not speculative.

[Anonymous No.7486441]

>>7485311
Why do some miners mine empty blocks? Is it because they have to scan the entire chain and it takes time?

[Anonymous No.7486462]

>>7486422
2+2, 1+2, 3+3, 4+7.
Answers please, and don't be reading from a script, if they're predictable kys.

[Anonymous No.7486512]

>>7486441
Because in order to mine a valid block, you only need the header of the previous block. But that block if it contains invalid transactions, would be invalid, but since you don't know what transactions were in the previous block, you cannot certify that the potential transactions in your block are valid yet, so you mine an empty block and collect the block reward with your lottery ticket you just got from hashing the new block faster than the propagation of the actual transactions in the network for the previous block.

[Anonymous No.7486528]

>>7486381
>Biggest wallet wins and that's all it takes.

The probability of being chosen for generation depends on your deposit.

>PoW miners have to fiercely compete with each other.

You are arguing for work for the sake of work here. PoS is several orders of magnitude cheaper and is likely to offer a much higher security because even a short attack would result in slashing of several percents of the entire market cap. That's a much higher security guarantee.

>>7486429
>but you don't *have* to treat the block as empty,

It's you who claimed they can while they obviously can't
>>7485590
>Now you just propagated an empty block in the case that you managed to hash at a difficulty level which had a mean block rate of ten minutes

It's not an empty block, it's a header of a non-empty block.

[Anonymous No.7486558]

>>7486528
> It's you who claimed they can while they obviously can't
I said they can treat *their* block as empty, not the previous block. Treating their block as empty is the only solution available to them prior to receipt of the transactions contained in the previous block.

[Anonymous No.7486604]

>>7486528
>It's not an empty block, it's a header of a non-empty block.
It's the header of a non-empty block, that is the previous block header, in a block which contains no transactions, that is the present block header, which makes it an empty block, that is what empty block means.
An empty block is not null, an empty block is a valid block which contains zero transactions beyond the block reward to the miner.

[Anonymous No.7486607]

>>7486462
The more you deny being a shill honestly the more I start to get suspicious.

[Anonymous No.7486621]

>>7486558
That doesn't answer the attack scenario in any way. You have to revert to last full known block at some point or it may turn out you are mining on top of a block that's intentionally never going to be released.

[Anonymous No.7486648]

>>7486607
I am a shill, in the sense that I hold BCH and want to see it succeed. I am not employed by anyone in order to tell people why BCH is good, which is also the reason that I hold it, but I reap benefits by making people aware that it's actually a good product, just like I do for anything I'm holding.
Your claim though that if you give predictable answers to questions with predictable answers marks you out as an actually employed by an external party shareblue style shill though simply holds no water and I demonstrated it by giving an example which made it clear.

[Anonymous No.7486659]

>>7486528
>The probability of being chosen for generation depends on your deposit.

This didn't refute anything.

>You are arguing for work for the sake of work here.

There needs to be a way for new entrants to compete beyond just holding the largest stake, which again isn't competing. PoW wasn't implemented just because Satoshi was too stupid to figure out PoS.

[Anonymous No.7486673]

>>7486607
>still not posting arguments

[Anonymous No.7486693]

>>7486621
> You have to revert to last full known block at some point or it may turn out you are mining on top of a block that's intentionally never going to be released.
You can't mine on top of a block that is intentionally never going to be released, because you would not have the fucking block header of the block in question which is intentionally never going to be released.
You do not understand how mining works and your attack does not actually happen despite the existence of rare empty blocks which are a side effect of widely deployed header first mining, these are the empirical facts of the issue, end of story.
Your speculative attack enabled by the presence of empty blocks simply does not actually empirically manifest.
I am running out of ways to re-state this simple truth, and so I'm going to have to end the conversation with you at this stage, good luck figuring it out eventually if you ever get around to it.

[Anonymous No.7486704]

>>7486648
Sorry but I'm a neutral observer (I don't really care if BTC or BCC win because I'm an ethereum guy) but the way Bcash supporters argue comes across very poorly, makes me suspicious like you guys are paid to shill.

You can get mad at this all you like, but that's just the way you come across. You should work on it if you want more people to take your coin seriously.

[Anonymous No.7486730]

>>7486673
You all spam the same "not an argument" style stephan molyneux cliches too.

Again, repeating the same lines in unison makes me think you're a paid shill.

[Anonymous No.7486762]

>>7486704
You used the word "bcash" which instantly discounted any regard I have for your opinion at any rate, I've only even continued this part of the thread with you to demonstrate the fallacy in the argument you raised. And since that's done, I'm done talking to you now and go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.7486795]

>>7486762
>And since that's done, I'm done talking to you now and go fuck yourself.
This is why nobody takes your coin seriously. When a discussion does not go your way, you throw a tantrum and leave. It's not really a good look on Roger, so why would it be a good look on you?

[Anonymous No.7486830]

>>7486659
>This didn't refute anything.

It's not 'biggest wallet wins', everyone gets income proportionally to their deposit.

>There needs to be a way for new entrants to compete beyond just holding the largest stake

umm no there isn't.

>PoW wasn't implemented just because Satoshi was too stupid to figure out PoS

It's impossible to bootstrap PoS from nothing. It requires an existing basis that already has some value.

>>7486693
>You can't mine on top of a block that is intentionally never going to be released, because you would not have the fucking block header of the block in question which is intentionally never going to be released.

What? I can propagate only a block header.

>your attack does not actually happen

It doesn't happen because most bitcoin miners don't actually mine on headers only longer than the first few seconds.

>Your speculative attack enabled by the presence of empty blocks simply does not actually empirically manifest.

Which is a profoundly idiotic statement equivalent to not closing the gate because so far nothing has been stolen. You do realize that bitmain is mining bch even at a loss and it's the only thing keeping it alive? It would be absurd to assume that's going to continue indefinitely.

[Anonymous No.7486835]

>>7486795
I'm not leaving or throwing a tantrum, I'm still here and quite happy, just *you* seem like a shill to me, of the garden variety "bcash lol" idiot that is reading directly from a script in a discussion they are too brainlet to understand, and thus I am finished talking to *you*.

[Anonymous No.7486834]

>>7486730
>again, no arguments
If you want to expose shills you need to prove their arguments are not factual. Just saying people are shills doesn't cut it sonny.

[Anonymous No.7486864]

>>7486835
You are throwing a tantrum. Look at how angry you are.

And what's wrong with bcash? Can you explain why bcash is a poor name for your coin?

[Anonymous No.7486912]

>>7486087
my savings interest rate is 1.35% and it's FDIC insured

so the risk is infinitesimal

[Anonymous No.7486931]

>>7486830
What deposit are you talking about man? Your staking wallet? Have you ever staked before? Its literally a no effort task, jfc.

>umm no there isn't.
Yes there fucking is, just because you don't understand the economic implications of it doesn't make it so.

[Anonymous No.7486949]

>>7486309
You should be more suspicious of the Bitcoin community censorship.

[Anonymous No.7486968]

>>7486830
> What? I can propagate only a block header.
You said you better be careful you're not mining on a block that won't ever be released.
You need a fucking block header of the previous block to mine a new block on that chain.
If the block won't ever be released, how do you as a miner have the block header?
You seem to earnest to be pretending stupidity but you really need to correct your understanding of the process here.
> It doesn't happen because most bitcoin miners don't actually mine on headers only longer than the first few seconds.
Of course, because why the fuck would they miss out on the transaction fees they could get with a block containing transactions if they could actually do so? It has nothing to do with the propagation speed or "empty blocks as an attack offering an unfair advantage to the miner" or any such nonsense. Empty blocks are a simple innocent side effect of header first mining, and that's all.
> Which is a profoundly idiotic statement equivalent to not closing the gate because so far nothing has been stolen.
There's nothing to steal, your attack is incoherent and doesn't happen because it is based on a false assumption, that empty blocks provide some kind of advantage to the miner who mints them beyond simply normally mining. That is simply flatly wrong.
> You do realize that bitmain is mining bch even at a loss and it's the only thing keeping it alive? It would be absurd to assume that's going to continue indefinitely.
BCH Is presently more profitable to mine than BTC, "it must be mined at a loss" is not even fucking close to the truth. Wake up.

[Anonymous No.7486970]

>>7486931
>Your staking wallet? Have you ever staked before? Its literally a no effort task, jfc.

Which coin are you even talking about? I'm writing about ethereum.

>Yes there fucking is, just because you don't understand the economic implications of it doesn't make it so.

The purpose of PoS is to secure the network not achieve your social justice goals.

[Anonymous No.7486972]

>>7486949
I'm very suspicious of any censorship in crypto, but I've noticed that the way Bitcoin Cash supporters talk and all their talking points seem very... inorganic.

[Anonymous No.7486973]

>>7482798
waaay up you say
waaaaaay up?
do you intend to push it?

[Anonymous No.7486984]

>>7486864
>the arguments are flowing
The corecucks embarrassing themselves ITT are next level.

[Anonymous No.7487008]

>>7486912
>FDIC insured
>the risk is infinitesimal
This is precisely what I was talking about. In a fractional reserve system, of course you're insured. Because all the money is made up and the free market doesn't matter.

>>7486970
>social justice goals
Are you legit retarded? Free markets literally don't give a fuck about your feelings. SJWs hate competition so they favor systems like PoS.

[Anonymous No.7487017]

>>7486984
I'm not a corecuck, I think both bitcoins are shitcoins actually. But maybe cashies are either A) more delusional about their shitcoin status
B) paid to shill the coin

Whenever I've used BCC, it's been just as slow as core.

[Anonymous No.7487063]

>>7487008
I agree, but you can get way better odds than 1:200 on the FDIC insurance system failing from a bank if you want to make that bet

so the "risk-free" interest rate is ABOVE 1.34%, it's likely to be something ridiculous like 1.349% or higher

but the inflation is like 2% so the real rate is negative

[Anonymous No.7487098]

>>7487017
>More core lies.
All BCH tx go into the next block and it doesn't have RBF which means in IRL retail payments will be literally instant.

[Anonymous No.7487105]

>>7486968
>You need a fucking block header of the previous block to mine a new block on that chain.
>If the block won't ever be released, how do you as a miner have the block header?

I mine a block and only propagate the block header. I don't understand how it seems impossible to you.

>BCH Is presently more profitable to mine than BTC, "it must be mined at a loss" is not even fucking close to the truth.
>presently

Because of how difficulty adjustment works unprofitable blocks are a certainty and bitmain is mining them at a loss. Without them the blockchain would be stuck in that state forever.

>>7487008
>Free markets literally don't give a fuck about your feelings.

My feelings? It's you who has a moral problem with interest.

>SJWs hate competition so they favor systems like PoS.

PoS allows for better scaling, better security and at a much smaller cost in real resources.

[Anonymous No.7487106]

>>7482798
*crashes*

[Anonymous No.7487121]

>>7486972
Compared to Bitcoin supporters saying that Bitcoin will go up to $1 million?

[Anonymous No.7487205]

>>7487105
I don't have a problem with interest. I have a problem with anti-competitive practices. PoS will not win out over PoW long term.

[Anonymous No.7487223]

>>7487105
> I mine a block and only propagate the block header. I don't understand how it seems impossible to you.
Because then you would only be mining an empty block every time you mine, which you could indeed do, but you would be shooting yourself in the foot doing it passing up transaction fees in the mempool just there for the taking.
That said, that has nothing to do with what you actually said, which was "it may turn out you are mining on top of a block that's intentionally never going to be released."
If it's a block that's intentionally never going to be released, you would not have the header of it, period.
If it's an empty block that has been released, it's not "intentionally never going to be released".
There's no situation in what you're saying makes any sense at all.
> Because of how difficulty adjustment works unprofitable blocks are a certainty and bitmain is mining them at a loss. Without them the blockchain would be stuck in that state forever.
The present profit vs cost on mining a BCH block is about 83%. The "profitability floor" is so far below the status quo that it hasn't been touched since the chain genesis, and the new DAA specifically bids for SHA256 hashing power adequate to mine blocks at a rate of once every ten minutes, people stop mining, difficulty goes down immediately in the next block, it becomes more profitable to mine, there is no 2016 block adjustment period as in BTC.
Once again, you're simply flatly wrong.

[Anonymous No.7487284]

>>7487205
>PoS will not win out over PoW long term.

Energy is an increasingly limited resource. PoW won't win because it's a stupid way to limit coin supply. PoW isn't even competitive since it could be easily monopolize by those with more money.

[Anonymous No.7487336]

>>7484539
it's the opposite m8 bch is the working bitcoin as was intended short term to maybe mid term, but it's the same crap as bitcoin it won't live long. the blockchain is fucked mining is fucked crypto must evolve beyond these first baby steps.

[Anonymous No.7487404]

>>7487284
>easily monopolize by those with more money.
PoS is even easier. Any reasonably rich dude can buy a shitton of coins in one of the PoS coins and just be the main whale....
In a PoW coin he at least has to run minders, start real infrastructure and all that

[Anonymous No.7487415]

>>7487205
So let's it straight, it allows >10x as many tx/s, results in orders of magnitude less forced dumping because of minuscule real costs and it's going to magically lose? Yeah right

>>7487223
>If it's a block that's intentionally never going to be released, you would not have the header of it, period.

Only a header is released, not its contents.
So if the rest of the network either mines on top of it indefinitely I never release and start building chain from a previous block. Or knowing this I intentionally mine an invalid block and use to wreak havoc after several empty blocks.

>people stop mining, difficulty goes down immediately in the next block, it becomes more profitable to mine

You don't understand how daa works, the difficulty only goes down in the future blocks. To get to them at least one block with unprofitable difficulty has to be mined.

[Anonymous No.7487493]

>>7487415
> Only a header is released, not its contents.
Then it's a block that doesn't go in the blockchain and you don't earn a block reward for, great work once again shooting yourself in the foot.
> You don't understand how daa works, the difficulty only goes down in the future blocks. To get to them at least one block with unprofitable difficulty has to be mined.
You don't understand how BCH DAA works, look at the actual empirical chart of DAA adjustment, observe that it changes every single block, observe that it has done so for months now, and observe that we are well in the green on profitability.
You're just wrong.
fork.lol/pow/difficulty

[Anonymous No.7487545]

>>7487404
>Any reasonably rich dude can buy a shitton of coins in one of the PoS coins and just be the main whale....
if a pos coin is accepted worldwide ownership will mirror money distribution. some people are more rich but nobody will own a majority as this person would already be supreme ruler of planet earth.

[Anonymous No.7487627]

>>7487404
>PoS is even easier. Any reasonably rich dude can buy a shitton of coins in one of the PoS coins and just be the main whale....

These issues are already solved by limiting the reward for staking. Anyone can stake profitably regardless of the current coin supply, but most people can't mine profitably once a PoW has reached a certain supply.

>In a PoW coin he at least has to run minders, start real infrastructure and all that

All out of reach for the average person. The point still stands.

[Anonymous No.7487696]

>>7487493
>Then it's a block that doesn't go in the blockchain

Header first is literally the opposite of that, it means building (empty) blocks on top of it. So that header only doesn't go into the blockchain if miners are header-first mining only for a very short period of time, if at all.

Which means header first mining can't be relied on as a method to escape slow propagation.

>observe that it changes every single block

That's not the issue. The difficulty of any next block depends only on previous blocks, it doesn't depend on a time between that new block and previous. It's possible to have no blocks for 10 hours and the difficulty of the next block would be identical to one that's only 1 second after the previous.

Which means if that block is unprofitable it has to be mined at a loss by someone. That someone turned out to be bitmain so far.

[Anonymous No.7487763]

>>7486422

BCASH BCASH BCASH yeah Bitcoin Cash supporters are totally reading from a script brah, just look at the immense amounts of 'BCASH, BTRASH, VER IS THE DEVIL INCARNATE, JIHAN IS A CHINK' comments, not a single argument to be found in that garbage.

No fucking surprise Bitcoin Cash is rising, it's the real bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.7487788]

>>7487763
Your racist pic invalidates anything you wrote.
lol bcash

[Anonymous No.7487789]

>>7487627
>These issues are already solved by limiting the reward for staking.
that's not possible since you can't limit the number of accounts/wallets one person can own. stupid idea.

[Anonymous No.7487859]

>>7487789
We will have to ID everybody using blockchain sooner or later anyways.
I for one support bitfury in that endeavor

[Anonymous No.7487876]

>>7487788

nigger and crypto are unrelated you shitskin

[Anonymous No.7487923]

>>7487696
Which means header first mining can't be relied on as a method to escape slow propagation.
You misunderstand the purpose. It is so that block propagation does not affect mining centralisation. Any miners can just mine an empty block while waiting for the previous full block, they don't have to be able to propagate transactions or receive them as fast as the larger miners.
The expense is occasionally there are empty blocks.
The mitigating factor on that expense is more efficient block propagation like graphene.
Taken together they mean justifying the block size because block propagation is a mining decentralisation kill shot is just wrong and/or a lie.
> It's possible to have no blocks for 10 hours and the difficulty of the next block would be identical to one that's only 1 second after the previous.
Only if every almost the entire mining capacity went offline at once, and even then it would be fixed on the first block in BCH vs up to 2016 blocks in BTC, and the situation you're speculating on and claiming as normal is in fact extremely unlikely and has flat out never happened for the entire BCH or indeed even BTC block chain where it's more of a potential, though still very much not, threat.

[Anonymous No.7487968]

>>7487859
lol the way cryptos work escaped your attention completely i see. not only that, but you are creating a software problem at best an undergraduate can solve overnight that will structure wallets bought for peas from africa and india even if your intrusive evil new world order gets implemented.

[Anonymous No.7488115]

>>7487923
>Any miners can just mine an empty block while waiting for the previous full block

You are going in circles. How long do they wait? When do they revert if they manage to mine an empty block on top of it and transactions are still unavailable?

>Only if every almost the entire mining capacity went offline at once

There's no practical difference between switching from bch to btc and switching to a new block. So miners are either intentionally mining at a loss or are hilariously inefficient. Both cases can only be a temporary result of insufficient competition. The only profit maximizing strategy is to mine on the most profitable coin.

>and the situation you're speculating on and claiming as normal is in fact extremely unlikely

What? It happens almost every block.

https://fork.lol/reward/dari/btc

Every time one coin is above the other every miner should switch. They don't because recent price rise relaxed competition too much and they don't care. That's only temporary.

[Anonymous No.7488423]

IF YOU WANTED TO DESTROY BITCOIN FROM THE INSIDE, YOU WOULD MAKE EXACTLY THE SAME MOVES BITCOIN CORE MAKE

[Anonymous No.7488538]

>>7488423
nah it's simpler than that:
if you wanted mindless profiteering like there is no tomorrow because your mining scheme doesn't even scale a few years into the future then you would do exactly what they did.

[Anonymous No.7488955]

Alright, il just spend a little in it and forget about crypto for a year.

[Anonymous No.7490028]

>>7488115
> You are going in circles. How long do they wait? When do they revert if they manage to mine an empty block on top of it and transactions are still unavailable?
They don't wait, they mine an empty block, that is exactly the fucking point, oh wow I just found the hash on an empty block, 12.5 units for me, putting that header and block out there right now, not delaying at all.
> There's no practical difference between switching from bch to btc and switching to a new block. So miners are either intentionally mining at a loss or are hilariously inefficient. Both cases can only be a temporary result of insufficient competition. The only profit maximizing strategy is to mine on the most profitable coin.
What do you think you're actually accomplishing by saying this? Miners are not hilariously inefficient, and this is exactly what they do, they switch to whatever chain is the most profitable to mine in any given period.
> What? It happens almost every block.
No it fucking doesn't, the situation you're speculating on requires the vast majority of the total hashing power to instantly stop. That never happens, the closest it has ever come to happening was the events of November 12 2017 when BCH difficulty bid went low enough to pull 80% total of the hashing power away from the BTC chain, the result of that was that the chain throughput was dropped to 20% and the only people mining BTC were ideologically minded.
> Every time one coin is above the other every miner should switch. T
No, bullshit, once again, you're not actually understanding the purpose of the DAA, it isn't to maximise the miner's profits, it's to ensure that the block emission rate matches a predefined norm, at this difficulty rate, BCH requires far fewer miners than BTC in order to hit that norm. If BCH/BTC price equilibrium changed by 500% in BCH's favour, the events of november 12 would be permanent and BTC would basically be dead permanently.