/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.9073380]

Serious blockstream shill discussion thread.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Do you guys think that those retards trying to spread fud about BCH are actually paid shills? Here's my list of assumptions going from most likely to least likely:
>Most likely
They are literal retards and 15 year olds who have no friends, so getting an imaginary pat on the back by the "popular" trolls feels like belonging to a community. Little do they know that most fud accounts weren't even real, but thankfully these kids are poor as shit so they can't move the market anyway
>second most likely
There's still paid blockstream shills on here alongside the retards
>less likely
They are also cashies who want to exaggerate how dumb corekeks are. In reality, BCH FUD threads to indeed turn into something positive for Satoshi's vision, because anyone can read how every corekek is a retard and cashies are overall reasonable people with good arguments. It's unlikely though, because it assumes intellingence in corekeks, and if they were even mildly intelligent, they wouldn't be corekeks.

[Anonymous No.9073758]

I am sure that there are *some* paid shills. there is nothing stopping it, so someone will be doing it.
But most of the interested masses will have just chosen "their" team by some arbitrary coincidence, and now be defending their "own teams" position in any way they can because "we are good and they are bad" Simple tribal mind. This effects people of any age, look at middle aged sports fans and how strong their commitment is to local football team X. Meanwhile one state over, an almost identical group of boomers are strongly believing that their local team Y is superior in all regards.
Nothing wrong with this, commitment to a causes and fighting and losing are necessary for the process of evolution. The team that is more fit-for-purpouse will win most of the time.

[Anonymous No.9073849]

Everyone who cares about freedom chooses BCH

[Anonymous No.9074129]

>>9073758
There's certainly tribal behavior on both sides.
But calling out fraud for what it is doesn't need paid shills or tribal behavior.
Selling someone Bitcoin Cash and claiming it's Bitcoin is fraud.

[Anonymous No.9074173]

>>9073758
>It took 6 years to have that baby

[Anonymous No.9074220]

>>9074129
>Selling someone Bitcoin Cash and claiming it's Bitcoin is fraud.
Bullshit
Selling someone btc (a ponzi) and claiming it's bitcoin is fraud.
There's tons of online material explaining how bitcoin is revolutionary technology which allows p2p cash payments. If someone buys BTC based on this information, aren't they defrauded? If they buy BCH based on it, they aren't, because it follows everything that has been said about bitcoin 2009-2015.

[Anonymous No.9074319]

>>9074220
You don't know what a Ponzi is.
Bitcoin is still Bitcoin which Satoshi Nakamoto published in the whitepaper. Specifically, it's the majority chain which has the most PoW invested into it.
Bitcoin Core is a client that runs on the Bitcoin network, and has some non-breaking "upgrades" which allow additional features which do not upset the behavior of all other well-behaved clients on the Bitcoin network.
A Bitcoin Cash client literally won't run on the Bitcoin network because all of the well-behaved clients, following Bitcoin's rules and mining the majority PoW chain will reject their blocks.

[Anonymous No.9074340]

>board relentlessly astroturfed by bcashies seeminlgy appearing out of nowhere
>bcash is bitcoin! Ver is a chad! Blockstream ponzi! Corekeks! Core S.o ys!
>some people reply in one of the 17 bch threads in catalog in favor of bitcoin
>shills! Paid corekek 14 year old shills!!
It is not going to work Ver. Nobody fucking comes to biz anyway its all shills and sock-puppets

[Anonymous No.9074390]

>>9073380
>blockstream shill
Why do you think there are blockstream shills here, but not paid BCH shills?

[Anonymous No.9074410]

>>9074319
First of all, none of them work on a 2009 client, good luck using segwit on one, lol.
Second, I know exactly what a ponzi is. BTC is one - it has no value other than the hope that someone else will buy at a higher price.
BTC from 2013 was not a ponzi, because instead of speculating on someone being dumb enough to pay more for useless internet tokens, people were speculating on future adoption, which would naturally create a price bottom.
I've been explaining to normans why BTC isn't a ponzi on a daily basis 2012-2016, but nowadays I'm out of arguments, because kikestream literally destroyed all my arguments.

[Anonymous No.9074436]

>>9073849
>choosing known scam artists and deceivers (bcash)

[Anonymous No.9074465]

>>9074390
all we see here are paid bcash shills, this thread is one of many examples in the current catalog.

[Anonymous No.9074510]

>>9074340
There are actually far far far more corecuck shills. Also, have you actually listened to what Roger Ver says? Or are you just denying that your coin has been co-opted and destroyed from above because you’re desperate to not lose your investment?

Let me guess, you are the kind of person who bought bitcoin literally once and then hodl till death? Never need to send a transaction amirite? Just hodl. Nice currency you fucking cuck. Bitcoin Cash is going to destroy people like you and it’s a good thing.

[Anonymous No.9074520]

>>9074390
>Why do you think there are blockstream shills here, but not paid BCH shills?
I think BCH has way too much grassroots support for rich cash holders to even consider paying for shills (not worth the risk of being exposed). Theoretically it's not impossible for paid BCH shills to exist, but every early adopter I know switched to either Ether, BCH or both.
And I can clearly remember the period around May last year till the first BCH pump where organic big blocker posts online were drowned in paid spam. I was also there when even censored cesspools like /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk.org were 95-99% big block supporters.

[Anonymous No.9074562]

>>9074410
Bitcoin has hard forked in the past, but the majority of mining power moved onto the hard forked chains, which is the current Bitcoin chain.
Bitcoin Cash does not have anywhere near a mining majority, and to put in the same amount of work that the Bitcoin network has would require ungodly amounts of hashing power to switch to mining Bitcoin Cash and leave Bitcoin. It may eventually become the case that this chain would have the majority PoW invested into it, in which case I would concede that it is Bitcoin.
It's a shame that people see Bitcoin's biggest strength, that changes require a majority decision, as something they must sidestep.

[Anonymous No.9074606]

>>9073380
There are more lightning nodes than bcash nodes, and Lightning isn't even out of beta.
Give up Roger.
It's over.

[Anonymous No.9074649]

>>9074562
>It may eventually become the case that this chain would have the majority PoW invested into it, in which case I would concede that it is Bitcoin.
If BCH overtakes BTC in terms of value, the lack of DAA on BTC would most likely mean the end of BTC anyways. And the only reason it hasn't is because the coin that had nothing to do with the BITCOIN idea got to hold the bitcoin name.
If Satoshi's vision got to keep the name Bitcoin and the BTC ticker, and the full blocks, high fees + buggy LN chain was the alt, it wouldn't be in the coinmarketcap top 100. Meanwhile BCH begins adoption from scratch, but I can totally see a filppening happening, even as early as November.

[Anonymous No.9074675]

>>9074606
LN doesn't scale. It's inferior to on-chain scaling

[Anonymous No.9074698]

>>9074606
>There are more lightning nodes than bcash nodes
>Blockstream paid for more $5 servers than there are non-mining (aka useless) BCH nodes
Who the fuck cares, faggot? Here's another metric:
LN has lost people more money due to bugs than it has locked in. And the money locked in LN right now is worth less than my car. Lol @ you global currency attempt.

[Anonymous No.9074709]

>>9073380
I think it's just ignorant people that don't know any better. They've come to understand that Bitcoin is king in crypto therefore Bitcoin Cash can't possibly be king.

People will come around. Gonna take a while.

[Anonymous No.9074756]

>>9074173
it's supposed to be a six year old but whoever drew that must have not known what a six year old looks like. i doubt most mothers could lift a six year old child like that anyway.

[Anonymous No.9074759]

>>9073380
You niggers are more annoying than fucking shareblue, cant wait for this shit to stop. At least stuff like LINK and Ambros still is funny in some way, but you guys are just litearly paid fucking dumb pieces of shit shills, not even trying to be funny, because its your job, not because you like what you do.

>Nuuuuu you are a buttcorn core shill because the marketcap leader that sneezes and every crypto immidently bends over needs to be shilled xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDdDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDd

[Anonymous No.9074768]

>>9074709
>People will come around. Gonna take a while.
Sad thing is that it wouldn't happen unless we get a huge pump, and the most probable cause of a huge pump (we're talking $5k and above) is Roger, Jihan and Calvin pouring money to draw attention.
I wish more people would try to get informed about how these things work... Yes, I had more time to accumulate now and 210 BCH might be enough for me to retire, but I'd still trade these gains for the time we lost in the adoption game. I legitimately want to stick it to governments with bitcoin, I really want this project to succeed damnit.

[Anonymous No.9074793]

>>9073758
Its more than just "their" team. I mean both sides want to win for financial reasons, which is also why this battle is so brutal. One side will ultimately be left in ruin. Fortunately it'll be coretards.

[Anonymous No.9074835]

>>9074649
Your "Satoshi's vision" memes are so absurd when you've forgotten to read the part where it says "proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power" in the fucking abstract.
BCH adoption wasn't "from scratch". It was a mass adoption by users already invested into the Bitcoin network who could now cash out their Bitcoin amount on two separate networks.
Bitcoin works fine with the presence of LN. It doesn't even know LN is there. LN happens off chain, and all Bitcoin sees is a few multi-sig transactions.

[Anonymous No.9074897]

>>9073380
They're partly shills and partly fuckwits that fell for their propaganda. When blockstream dies the shill brigades go away and it's all over.

[Anonymous No.9074925]

>>9074465
>cash supporters are finally being proven right after being battered relentlessly in price over the past quarter
>come out of the woodwork in record number when buying starts up again

I'm sure this never happens in any other space.

[Anonymous No.9074949]

I'm not sure who have a bigger victim complex Linkies or Cash shills.

[Anonymous No.9074957]

>>9074835
>Bitcoin works fine with the presence of LN.
In the case of actual adoption it would require $1000 fees. In practice it won't.
>Your "Satoshi's vision" memes are so absurd when you've forgotten to read the part where it says "proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power" in the fucking abstract.
As for majority PoW - in due time :). As for the fact that BCH doesn't have majority PoW yet - it would have if the chain that's actually trying to be p2p money held the bitcoin name and the chain that's essentially a pre-alpha banking suite had a different name. Unfortunately due to newbies being scammed into thinking that the BTC they bought was online money and not a ponzi, the flippening of PoW would take longer.
>Bitcoin works fine with the presence of LN.
Theoretically, except in the case of mass adoption, no-one would pay $1000 fees to use it. If you're ok with something working so perfectly fine that no-one would use it, maybe you need to understand reality better, and I'm trying to be nice here.

[Anonymous No.9075017]

>>9074606
Hows that LN merchant adoption coming along?

[Anonymous No.9075045]

>>9074949
>victim complex
We're not the victims, literally all cashies are early adopters who saw what happened to bitcoin. We've all profited greatly from the fiasco (hint - most of us bought ETH when we got tired of blockstream). The victims are the oppressed people around the world who needed a global currency, and whose hope at the time was crushed when blockstream turned an actual working censorship-resistant currency into a ponzi.
As for
>linkies
Their fault for not selling at x8 a week after the ICO, lol. The next actual pump might not happen before 2020, I've seen the LINK repo-s, their project is in a very early stage. I do intend to buy more LINK myself in the future, though, but probably during a bear market and maybe more than a year from now.

[Anonymous No.9075059]

>>9074759
>guys are just litearly paid
>checks chart

In some ways, yes.

[Anonymous No.9075098]

The abstract thought of off-chain transactions is so foreign, so overwhelming for Roger Ver that it's no wonder he was arrested for hiding explosives in his apartment building.

[Anonymous No.9075120]

>>9074768
we'll get there one day, even if nobody pumps BCH it'll rise slowly on its own due to actual usage

[Anonymous No.9075131]

>>9074768
I'll pass on that, senpai. I don't want BCH to pump hard like that, I'd prefer a slower steady rise. The only reason BCH pumps the way it does is because the FOMO is real. There are probably more fence sitters than there are fanboys of either camp. I'd wager that many on the fence probably recognize that BCH is superior and are tired of getting fucked by Core, but are afraid to make the leap. Then when the price goes up a decent amount pure emotion takes over.

[Anonymous No.9075163]

>>9074835
>LN

Literally "blockchain for me, but not for thee".

-Bankers

[Anonymous No.9075305]

>>9074957
If LN is successful, the number of transactions that actually need to happen on-chain will be fairly small. It will eventually be possible to sign up for some online wallet service and have your funds effectively given to you over an existing LN channel.
People are too quick to write LN off before it's even been tried, but resort to shitty non-complaints about "lol banking hubs", which shows a big misunderstanding about the technology (that anyone can open a channel to anyone, and can route anonymously through any channel which allows them to).
I can't say for sure if LN will be a success, because nothing like it has ever been tried. It's new technology and we've only tapped the surface with what is possible with it.
But even if there is an immediate and pressing need to increase on-chain capacity, there are better ways to approach it.
One way would be to introduce a UAHF, where active nodes can signal that they intend to increase the block size at a specific sequence number, in which point all active nodes can decide whether or not to participate. This approach (UASF) was pretty successful in getting SegWit adopted.
But we know the reason why Bitcoin Cash wasn't approached in that kind of fashion. It was because a disgruntled miner whose business was under thread due to SegWit adoption, chose to immediately transfer his hashing power onto a forked coin (Bitcoin ABC), and then began a rebranding and marketing campaign to gain adoption.

[Anonymous No.9075314]

>>9075131
I would too, but I think it's gonna happen. It's actually a nice way to attract attention and increase adoption, kinda counterintuitive, but stores aren't interested in adopting the #4 cryptocurrency (despite the fact that none of the top 3 is a currency).

[Anonymous No.9075359]

>>9075314
>Cashie
>Pretending to be rational
You're not fooling anyone.

[Anonymous No.9075362]

[Anonymous No.9075374]

>>9075017
>Beta
>Merchant adoption
Ok

[Anonymous No.9075383]

>>9075362
>DLC out May 15th

[Anonymous No.9075392]

>>9075362
If you start at being near worthless then any gain looks like a big gain.

Put it into a different perspective:

Bitcoin: up $3k in a week
Bitcoin Cash: up $1k in a week

[Anonymous No.9075410]

>>9075374
>merchants don't want to ever deal with buggy shit that doesn't work and requires extra steps when they could just use Visa instead for roughly the same lead times and fees

Yeah that's pretty much what I thought.

[Anonymous No.9075432]

>>9075305
>disgruntled miner whose business was under thread due to SegWit adoption
Blockstream had to demonize something in order to create the tribe mentality for their stupid supporters. In reality, Jihan could have killed BTC if he wanted to, but he was actually ballin' during the $50 fee period, there were some blocks that had more btc in fees than block reward. He obviously doesn't like segwit, but he loved everything that happened to BTC and clearly supported it throughout the entire fiasco.
>People are too quick to write LN off before it's even been tried, but resort to shitty non-complaints about "lol banking hubs", which shows a big misunderstanding about the technology (that anyone can open a channel to anyone, and can route anonymously through any channel which allows them to).
You complain about us misunderstanding the subject while you clearly paste blockstream propaganda and have no clue how routing is supposed to work (I don't blame you, neither do lightning devs, otherwise they would have countered the "fud").
>But even if there is an immediate and pressing need to increase on-chain capacity, there are better ways to approach it. One way would be to introduce a UAHF, where active nodes can signal that they intend to increase the block size at a specific sequence number, in which point all active nodes can decide whether or not to participate.
I ran a XT node once, kikestream DDoS-ed it successfully despite my host's ddos protection. Clearly a nicely funded attack

[Anonymous No.9075441]

>>9075410
Uh ok, congratulations on having a coherent thought I guess?

[Anonymous No.9075626]

>>9075392
>80% gain is worse than 30% gain

[Anonymous No.9075665]

>>9075626
lol these images are hilarious, dunno why anybody would use them to try and discredit someone

[Anonymous No.9075668]

>>9075432
>You complain about us misunderstanding the subject while you clearly paste blockstream propaganda and have no clue how routing is supposed to work (I don't blame you, neither do lightning devs, otherwise they would have countered the "fud").
I understand perfectly how routing works, as currently defined. It's a simple onion routing protocol where every node knows about every node and his neighbors via a gossip protocol. Routing at present is done entirely by the node wishing to initiate a channel and he knows most of the topology of the entire network.
The issue with routing isn't how it's defined now, but how it is going to scale. The network must be segmented so that each node doesn't need to see the entire network. We don't know for sure yet how best to implement it. It's an ongoing area of research and there are multiple different ways it can be approached.
But people like to spread the fallacy that the only way a network can be segmented is via a hub and spoke approach, where we must give special privilege to some nodes to route payments on behalf of everyone else. "The internet works this way, so Lightning must work the same".
Bullshit. Mesh networks have been researched quite well, and there's no single approach to creating them. A regular node doesn't need to only see one "segment" of the network as an internet user does because he only has one cable running between his home and the exchange. Nodes in LN can connect to an arbitrary number of nodes - there's not a single point of failure, however much cashies would like to tell you must use it like a bank.

[Anonymous No.9075709]

>>9075626
An 80% gain is better for investors.
My point was that, 3x more people are putting their money into Bitcoin than into Bitcoin Cash.

[Anonymous No.9076036]

>>9075668
>gossip protocol
>DAGs

LN is worse than I though.

[Anonymous No.9076118]

>>9076036
>gossip protocol
Bitcoin and every other cryptocurrency, and even older technologies like bittorrent work via a gossip protocol. The gossip protocol is required to avoid centralization. If you require someone to connect to a special node to tell you about the network, you've already lost.
A gossip protocol is you connecting to several random nodes and asking "tell me about the nodes you know".
Also, what has LN got to do with DAGs? Are you even familiar with the concept of what DAGS are?
There's no limitation for channel routes to be acyclic in LN, so routing channels would form DGs rather than DAGs.
Clearly your brain is worse than you thought.

[Anonymous No.9076180]

Why talk marketing when one could talk mining. Like adjusting your difficulty at EVERY BLOCK.
>bch gets pumped
>lets mine it
>Block every 7minutes
>difficulty rises too fast
>Unprofitable
>lets stop mining
Like a gummy ball securing your front door in the deepest getho.
Bcashies are frauds. Periode

[Anonymous No.9076189]

>>9074340
It's all so tiring.