Archived threads in /biz/ - Business & Finance - 2019. page

File: image-79.png (145KB, 550x367px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 550x367px

>>3138771

>>3138771
>he actually fell for it

File: 8a4.jpg (30KB, 316x202px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 316x202px

>>3138771
>so after reading all the posts on 4 chan, i decided to I put most of my holdings in BCC

>>3138616
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go tor/btcand do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.

>>3138623
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network.

Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problemr/bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.

>>3138632
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.

Someone else is pumping. I'm about to keep it going, how high we wanna go? I'm feeling generous.

>>3138412
At least 700 sats let me feel like I could break even if I wanted to

File: BizPatricianStarterPackToRiches.png (739KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

739KB, 1920x1080px

>>3137966

literally go all in on NEO. you'll double your money soon

>>3137972
literally no, it's too much of a risk to trust these chinks with all my m0ney

I was at work, wage cucking as usual

link?

holy fuck it begins
bitcoin really is going to die during the eclipse lmao

>>3137869
I quadrupled my money with
NEO --->BNB

Very easy to do. Just look at who's shillign which ICO's. ICO = free 2x gains

>>3137869
Assuming a 50% chance of doubling,its (1/2-1/4-1/8-1/16.......)
The chances of you getting struck by lightning is higher

One thing's for sure.
Saying it like this, and actually doing it are miles(or kilometers) apart. Going all in with 10k+ is probably a bad idea. but hey, if it works that'd be great.

My only regret is that I don't have more to put into it :(

good thing is its not even a pump and dump.
legit coin from legit team.
moontime!

is there any info i can read about the rebrand, when / what is it, etc.

>>3137817
Hodl, it'll be $5,000 by the end of September

>he fell for the beaded lizard jew

it literally has the word lizard in it

BUY BUY BUY

OAX esketitt

>>3137632
BAT

check em

DIGIMARINES

>>3137523
>I'm still on time r...right?
Actually yes.
BTC might actually die if enough pools convert to BCC. And they will convert to BCC because it's just many times more profitable.
Unless BTC rises now to $10k, and BCC goes down to half

>>3137523
BTC failed to kill off BCC on the first day and they're now facing the consequences

>>3138074
you cant be this stupid? you either troll cause you are a retard and we are on 4chan or shilling like a mofo for that shit coin.. either way you ll be gone next week dipshit

fuck yeayh

File: 1501903321479.png (8KB, 419x249px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 419x249px

Here we go boys

File: 1500312882461.jpg (56KB, 686x844px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 686x844px

>>3137520

took some money out of OMG to put into BNB because I'm a poorfag.

Feels bad mayne.

However, I have really really good hopes for BNB in the next few days. Currently holding about 300 BNB.

Feels sucky I missed the boat on ZRX and ARK. How did you guys know to invest in those?

File: ECigPic.png (364KB, 499x395px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 499x395px

SOJ
comfy gains, mang

>>3137482
I did anon, and I bought.

You and I are the 'pajeets' remember?

File: image.jpg (4MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3264x2448px

Such a perfect graph too

>>3137479
THAT'S the new logo? jesus

>we have recently rebranded

why

Espers on youbit are the old dead chain. Not ESP2. Which is also dead. Wespers on waves is legit.

>>3137474
Do we know what they are?

Where did you see this and what time? They didn't tweet about it.

You're a phony.
a big fat phony. Proof of all of your phony claims fag
nigger fag.

File: queen_bitch_of_the_universe.jpg (20KB, 289x440px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 289x440px

the beggings of the poor please me

>>3137314
>homeless
>has internet
Fake as fuck.

Prove it and I will give you what I can spare, though I am very poor as well