???

just jihan wu and his gay faggot friends throwing a tantrum. ignore.

>>2849279
No lol. I saw this site too. If they split and make a new coin it will be ignored and plummet to near-0 value. So there's literally nothing to worry about.

>>2849286
>>2849293

but this shit looks like it's definite.

Wasn't this entire moon/doom shit recently based on a hardfork happening or not? I'm so confused now wtf

or is this version of a hardfork not a big deal for some reason...?

>>2849310
>Wasn't this entire moon/doom shit recently based on a hardfork happening or not?
Almost. We were facing a potential softfork. For the longest time it looked like Jihan and his buddies would completely reject signaling SW, and thus people basically gave them an ultimatum with the UASF. The soft-fork would've rejected any blocks that don't signal SW, forcing signaling to 100% and consequently activating SW. That would've been a way worse scenario because we would've experienced a way bigger split of users, and on a softfork where people would rebroadcast any transaction from one chain to the other (aka replay attacks) just to be assholes. The NYA was a compromise to avoid this scenario, and so far it's looking like a success.

As for Bitcoin cash, you can basically look at it as an altcoin where distribution is based on a snapshot of Bitcoin's blockchain. If you hold BTC in a wallet you own the private key for, you will basically get free money thanks to this hardfork. If you take certain precautions, you can move Bitcoin Cash without it being susceptible to a replay attack as well. Expect Bitcoin Cash to be worth relatively little compared to BTC, but who knows, it might gain traction later.

Also keep in mind that we might have yet another hardfork in November if the NYA goes after plan.

>>2849310
>this shit looks definite
How fucking new are you? No nothing is definite and nothing important will happen, chill the fuck out

There will be a hard fork on August 1st. BTC and BCC. BCC is rejecting Segwit and going with larger blocks. You can already trade BCC futures on viabtc.

Beyond that, Segwit2x is the plan. However the UASF people may try to force the miners to drop the 2MB increase and only do segwit. That is when things get interesting.

tl;dr in a few months we may have 3 bitcoins, segwit only, segwit and 2MB, and 8MB.

File: 1300945095480.jpg (32KB, 610x357px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 610x357px

>>2849561
When would the third coin come into effect, hypothetically?

I readed a warning on btctalk to store to wallet. First chinese exchanges locked their btc

Who the fuck proposes the hardfork on aug 1?

>>2849688
Odds are around November or October. There isn't a hard date for that right now, unlike the 8MB hardfork on Aug 1. Right now it looks like Bitcoin Core are trying to increase the UASF nodes even after Segwit2x has passed, which means they are going to try to force the miners to keep the blocksize at 1MB or smaller. So it really depends on how much the miners will allow themselves to get pushed around.

>>2849731
People who are simply sick of this shit.

>>2849786
Right, thanks.

Planning my future ICO investments around these sorts of things.

>>2849496
How can you be sure your tx's stay on ABC's chain and only on it? It'll suck to move your coins on ABC and later find it affected the Core chain as well.

>>2849561
> However the UASF people may try to force the miners to drop the 2MB increase and only do segwit.
Why? Aren't the UASF pro big blocks? Why would anyone be against big blocks except for the miners?

>>2850890
See here: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/56874

The first method works by making the transaction invalid on the main chain, the other works by making the transaction invalid on Bitcoin Cash. No idea if software will be ready to make these transactions in a user-friendly way before it hardforks, but from what I understand, the second method there should be trivial to implement and is probably possible to do using the console on the Core software.

>>2850900
Simple, core and blockstream need onchain fees to be high to encourage demand for off-campus transactions. Core will ALWAYS oppose block sizes increases except when needed to advance off-campus technology.

>>2849561
do not listen to this new fag. he knows nothing

How will ltc play into this?

How do I take advantage of this split with an electrum wallet?

>>2851257
How does Core justify that? It's not even proven SW could work on a big scale.

Oh shit niggas the dip is coming

Welp. I'm moving everything away of from the exchanges. I was looking forward to let it sit there because of the fucking TX fees.

Might as well sell into USDT now that the price is high.

>>2851311
It doesn't. Again, it's basically just an altcoin where distribution is based on a snapshot of the BTC blockchain.

>>2851324
Just make sure your coins are in your wallet and not on an exchange before it forks. Once it forks, don't make any transactions on any of the chains before you are able to split the coins using one of the methods mentioned in >>2851221. Just check out /r/bitcoinabc or something when it forks and you'll probably find instructions on how to split them.

>>2851351

because they were bought out by kikes a long time ago. The kikes will lose this one though, eventually blocks will increase/become unlimited or there WILL be a split and core can fuck off and die with their shitcoin

>>2851351
right now there are two scaling "solutions" being presented, one is the original "raise the blocksize" camp, the other is "keep the blocksize at 1MB or smaller and develop second-layer applications so people don't even directly use bitcoin - thus actual transactions on the bitcoin blockchain are kept to a minimum".

A lot of the people who work on the Bitcoin Core client also work for Blockstream or other companies working on "second layer solutions", thus it is directly against their interests to ever let the blocksize be raised, as that would disincentivize people from using their proprietary solutions.

SO after 3-4 years of debate, censorship, banning, flaming, gaslighting, we got to the point in early 2017 where there was a stalemate amongst miners as to what direction to go, raise the blocksize or implement SegWit (a .7 MB increase in the blocksize, theoretical MAXIMUM, but in reality lower), Core wants SegWit as it both keeps the blocksize small, and makes developing their "second layer" easier. Most traditionalists, liberatarians, etc want a simple blocksize increase. So a few months ago Core started blackmailing the miners by advocating for a UASF, which would soft fork the network and implement SegWit by force. To avoid this, all the miners basically signed on and agreed to implement SegWit2X, which gives Segregated Witness AND a 2MB blocksize increase. That just passed.

Some people don't want SegWit contaminating the blockchain though (it reorganizes transactions, splitting them up and doing funky shit with them), so they are forking before it is implemented on August 1. This is the UAHF/BitcoinABC/Bitcoin Cash hard fork.

File: 1500603447456.png (400KB, 1000x525px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1000x525px

>>2851913
>>2851351
Now, even thought they've gotten SegWit, Core does not like the 2MB blocksize increase which should come in the next few months, so they are organizing to stop it and keep it at 1MB, by stepping up the UASF. In the next few months we will see what happens. The miners might simply get sick of Core's shit and stay with SegWit2X, in which case a fork will happen, or they will get bitchslapped around like they always have and will acquiesce and run Core again.

So 2 Bitcoins are basically a certainty at this point. Wether there will be 3 depends on how much of a backbone the miners have.

HOW TO GET FREE BITCOINS COME AUGUST 1ST

1) Have your BTC ready in your own wallet
2) Wait for Jihad Wu to fork into this piece of shit altcoin
3) Recieve your coins on the BCC chain
4) Dump this BCC crap for free BTC

>>2851257
>>2851904
Go to bed, Roger.

File: blocksize.jpg (151KB, 1324x762px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1324x762px

>>2851913
>. Most traditionalists, liberatarians, etc want a simple blocksize increase.

This is so fucking retarded. No OG bitcoin whale supports a rushed hardfork into JarzikCoin 3 months from now. If you go into that you will lose your bitcoins.

BITCOIN WITH BIG BLOCK SIZES BECOMES CENTRALIZED.

Seriously, you are going to get taken care off very soon.

>>2852629
>>2852550
>Jihad
>Calling people Roger

This is exactly the type of low-information /r/bitcoin faggot that has caused this bullshit.

What are you faggots going to do when the blocks are full yet again in a few months because you decided to blow Satoshi's designs out your ass?

What do I do if I have my BTC on a ledger nano? How do I move the coins from the new fork?

>>2852550
this. like literally doubling your money for free.

>>2852654
>rushed hardfork

Like you ultra fags with your UASF bullshit? Couldn't convince ANYONE that your Lighting vaporware was worth anything so you decided to try to force the issue.

>>2852662
Just make sure you are in control of your private keys and you will automatically have coins on both chains.

>>2852685
Okay, what about sending the coins from the new chain to somewhere else?

>>2849293

Just like ETC did, amirite?

Not saying it's got longterm potential, but there's a chance to make some dosh certainly.

>>2852654
>BITCOIN WITH BIG BLOCK SIZES BECOMES CENTRALIZED.

https://medium.com/@johnblocke/decentralization-fetishism-is-hindering-bitcoins-progress-11cfa5c7964d

READ, FAGGOT

I know it's longer than 140 characters so you might have difficulty grasping it, but at least make an attempt.

>Seriously, you are going to get taken care off very soon.

The fuck are you gonna do, faggot? DDoS Bitcoin ABC nodes? Spawn another 10,000 twitter shills? Fuck, I'm fucking terrified.

>>2852685

my BTC is in the poloniex wallet, will i get the new coins? or do i have to withdraw them to a personal wallet?

This doesn't make any sense.

On August 1st all my BTC will be worthy in 2 different chains?

Then I can choose one, transfer the other there and double my money?

If this is true, than BTC should see its value fall in 50%, right?

How is this fork going to work?

>>2852702
I am fucking am terrified actually.

This is going to tank bitcoin hard.

Bitcoin Cash is an altcoin. Why all the fuss?

>>2852698
YOu can trade them on any exchange that supports trading them.

>>2852703
Idk, ask Poloniex. They might, they might not (they probably will tho, they'll let you trade anything).

The safest thing is to always keep control of your private keys though.

>>2852710
>On August 1st all my BTC will be worthy in 2 different chains?

Yes. It's a hard fork. Happens all the time, believe it or not.

>Then I can choose one, transfer the other there and double my money?

You can do that, sure. Personally I'm going to hold both and see how things play out. But if you're ultra confident in a particular outcome, you can certainly trade the two on any exchange that supports them.

>If this is true, than BTC should see its value fall in 50%, right?

Possibly, possibly not. Look into the ETH hardfork last year, but even that probably won't be a 100% guide.

>>2852720
>This is going to tank bitcoin hard.

Hard forks are good. They let people with irreconciliable differences go their own way. Bitcoin has been hindered by this bullshit for 4 years now. Imagine where we'd be if the hard fork happened back then. A lot better off. The sooner this happens, the sooner we can move on.

>>2852736
>muh altcoin

No, the coin that fucks Satoshi's design to hell and back is the altcoin. Bitcoin Cash keeps his original plans and design operating.

>>2852749
Yes but how do I send them to the exchange? Wait until there's a wallet for the new chain?

>>2852793
Sure. Just import your private keys to whatever wallet supports the fork. I know Electrum has a wallet almost out already, for example.

How will the volume change affect the price of BCC? Sure you copy over ledger history, but if people chose not to convert to BCC..how do you preserve the price with the volume drop?

>>2852804
fair enough.

>>2849279
Will Poloniex give me my Bitcoin Cash or will they steal it?

File: 1499997570638.jpg (85KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1920x1080px

>>2852749
>No, the coin that fucks Satoshi's design to hell and back is the altcoin. Bitcoin Cash keeps his original plans and design operating.

False you fucking retard. I'm seriously in disbelief how people like you have invested in crypto let alone know how to turn a computer on.

Let me break this down for you so you can understand:
1MB blocks = 7 transactions per second (roughly)
10MB blocks = 70 tps
100MB blocks = 700 tps
1000MB = 7000 tps

When will the increase stop? 10MB? 100MB? No more like 300-1000MB every 10 min.So the bloat to the blockchain for having visa level tps(2000-56,000+ tps) would be so massive there would be no full nodes to run the blockchain except for big players willing to add like 300MB every 10 min...centralizing the network to its death with the enormous packs of data. 2MB debate is retarded because it's just gonna get filled almost instantly...It's obvious we need layer 2 solutions like lightning network( which needs segwit to run well).

File: 1499483217964.jpg (106KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1200x1200px

If BCC actually goes live, which I don't think it will, it will be dumped to the floor by big holders almost instantly. If it was the case that big holders did not support Segwit then the price would not be rallying right now.
If it was the case that the market did not support Segwit, but supported BCC then the market would be crashing right now in anticipation of buying BCC and rejecting Segwit. i.e that guy who said he sold all his BTC for BCC futures, he had like 1 Bitcoin. If there was someone who thought like him in China with 10000btc, you get the picture. Evidently there isn't, price of BCC is certainly being propped up right now and I believe Viabtc will only release BCC if the market indicates they are not happy with Segwit, which is certainly not going to be the case based on the last few days. This is how you can already know for certain what will happen if BCC becomes tradable. The market has already spoken
Irrespective of purely economical reasons the small chain will very likely be attacked as soon as the difficulty adjusts which benefits all of Bitcoin and the entire community, to only have one version and not suddenly double the amount of coins.
It is also very likely BCC is just the Chinese BIP148, so they can pretend that they too muscled the discussion so to not lose face. That is a part of Chinese culture and Chinese business culture.
EDIT: The fact there is not not even one real figure head in the community supporting this, not even Ver, and no USA exchanges even support it while Coinbase actively will not support says absolutely everything there is to know about the seriousness of this implementation without having any ability to comprehend the aforementioned market related points.

Bitcoin Cash difficulty should be low when it first starts out. I wonder if it will be possible to mine it with a 1070 graphics card before it attracts a lot of ASIC hashrate?

>>2852749

Bitcoin Cash changes the difficulty adjustment mechanism to cope with the likelihood of low hashrate therefore it cannot be Bitcoin. It may still have value of course but it won't be Bitcoin.

>>2852875
yes, exactly.

>>2852848
Poloniex will "probably" give it to you but seriously, hold your own damn private keys.

>>2852852
>Muh slippery slope fallacy, it'll get too big!

Retard, look at what Monero has done to END the blocksize debate for once and all. I know it's hard, but do your research outside twitter.

As another counter, decreasing the blocksize should de-centralize this shit even more, right? Why do you Segshit fags NEVER advocate that? Maybe because you all actually know you support bullshit? Why do you think you are smarter than the guy who fucking made the entire goddamn thing?

>>2852884

I want to mine BCC because it may have some value but I fully understand that it isn't Bitcoin and can never be Bitcoin. Everyone else should understand this too.

>>2852861
>nobody supports it, it'll get dumped, etc

BCC futures are being traded RIGHT NOW, it already has the support of multiple large mining pools, wallets are being made, exchanges have pledged support, etc.

>nobody can disagree with core and get away with it!

Take your disinfo and blow it out your ass.

This shit is why I just got our of bitcoin. If you think this is going to go smoothly, you deserve what you get. Pushing price up to sell to you while accumulatng alts. Good luck with your 2/3 variations of bitcoin.

>>2852736
>>2852710

Bitcoin will become an altcoin. Bitcoin Cash will become the primary, free of centralized control (hello kikestream).

Yes bitcoin's value will crash, its a bit obvious isn't it.

>>2852852


>my lighting network
>muh decentralization

https://youtu.be/MpfvhiqFw7A?t=412

''connected to each other, where users send funds through 1 central service or suck as an exchange or crypto bank''
lighting network makes bitcoin centralized

>>2852550

What if the market goes with BCC though?

File: 1499182002028.jpg (18KB, 420x470px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 420x470px

>>2852885
>Why do you think you are smarter than the guy who fucking made the entire goddamn thing?
and folks here we have, this logical fallacy is brought you by "Appealing to Authority" as seen in religious extremist and other nuts. Everyone agrees that scaling Bitcoin is important, but Satoshi was not omnipotent and there are things that need to be solved before just opening up the maximum blocksize limit. For example the issue of quadratic hashing of transaction signatures. Hardforking to larger blocks is not safe without solving these issues first

>>2852861

I sure as fuck hope it gets dumped on, because I'll be there to snap it all up.

>>2852925
Trust me, it won't. The market has already decided otherwise there would be panic and people would be dumping BTC as we speak.

>>2852550

Dumping BCC quickly may be a bad idea. When ETC split off from ETH it got dumped down to less than a dollar but is over $16 today. BCC may not replace Bitcoin but it could still become an extremely valuable altcoin.

>>2852885

actually one of the blockstream kikes advocated reducing the block size to half a meg or some stupid shit like 2 years ago, thats when I exited bitcoin.

>>2852916
>Bitcoin Cash will become the primary, free of centralized control
I'm sorry your mom went through your birth, I understand the doctors were aware of you state of intelligence early on, but she's too much of a sweet person to pull the plug. I'm sorry for those who will suffer because of you idiotic nature, dolt.

>>2852937
Or whales are squeezing every God damn penny they can. 9 days is a long fucking time in crypto. That's why alts are rising. It's not new money coming in.....

File: 5bf.jpg (16KB, 480x318px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x318px

>>2852955

File: ex.png (20KB, 1699x502px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 1699x502px

>>2852937
exacly

>>2852955
9 days is 9 days you fucking retard.

>>2852962
So the entire market has been tanking for a month up until 2 days ago and you think new money is putting in cashing alts to rise with zero news during Summer which is typical bear right before the year long memed D day of August 1st? Say meme-in poor fag. And if you are bitcoin rich you'll be even poorer soon enough. Fucking dulusinal.

Lotta shills in here.
If you're smart you will be able to tell what's actually going on.
If not then go fuck yourself.

>>2852962
Luahg all you want fag, the Blockstream/Core roadmap for Bitcoin is primed for failure.

You're going to have full blocks AGAIN in just a few months after the split, with no Lighting vaporware to show for it.

An alt ALREADY came damn close to surpassing Bitcoin once this year, you can bet your ass that if you keep going down this road that will happen more in the future.

Network effect won't save your asses forever.

>>2852984
Last tip I will give:
Big holders will crash the value of the coin they don't like. Miners will switch.

v33r, stop being a faggot

>>2852984
>Lotta shills in here.
>If you're smart you will be able to tell what's actually going on.
>If not then go fuck yourself
Godspeed anon, your preaching hasn't fallen on deaf ears. Fuck them.

>>2852984
The majority is always wrong

ChrisJ needs to quit talking shit about Nomad

>>2852953

>personal attacks
>internet

pick one

File: 1498778277979.jpg (7KB, 160x315px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 160x315px

>>2853016
actually, he's talking about you notice how he said the plural form of 'shills'. You poor faggot.

so i have .3 btc, will i get .3 bitcoin cash?

doesn't seem wroth setting up a wallet for just .3 of this shitcoin that is probably only gonna be worth a few bucks

>>2853072

If Bitcoin Cash reaches the market cap of ETC it will be worth more than a few bucks.

File: 20170722_190733.jpg (59KB, 316x464px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 316x464px

>>2853039
I can promise you 2 things - I'm not shilling shit and I sure as fuck ain't poor. Have fun being an ultimate bagholder.

>>2853072
Naw it will be worth 0 the only reason we are talking about this is because it's fucking with btc. Guy is a chick for god sake he eats dogs for fun. He was a beet at home and got into bitcoin like 6 mouths after it was created. Now he thinks he is a god. Fuck that chick

File: 1497583219395.jpg (32KB, 460x461px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 460x461px

>>2853092
It's only a matter of time until your sucking the government teet for welfare — especially with your decision-making abilities on this message board today. It's quite evident, please don't embarrass yourself any longer. I recommend checking out a fast food teller position for your competency level. Hurry up too because automation will displace you soon.

A lot of noobs think the split crisis is over with SegWit activated but that's not the real crisis. Bitcoin will face its biggest challenge this November when bigger blocks will be activated. A lot of big interest like blockstream are opposed to it. Prepare you butts this November.

>>2853132
That's exactly what I'm saying. Segwit does not solve Bitcoin's capacity issues. Raising the damn blocksize does.

Guess what Blockstream is adamantly opposed to at all costs? Exactly what the miners have pledged to do in November.

They're already prepping to try to fuck the miners with the UASF still being ramped up.

File: 1497579047608-2.jpg (46KB, 600x913px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x913px

meanwhile, Bitcoin is about to hit 3k. kind of goes directly in the face to all the shills calling for it's demise. The market doesn't lie. Protip: Use the squishy grey matter between your ears.

File: 1500324154382.jpg (75KB, 779x708px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 779x708px

>>2853180
>buying the news = long term fundamental strength

bagholders, everybody.

>>2853132

Bitcoin will never activate bigger blocks, if it were to do it it would happen the same time as segwit. There is literally no reason why it shouldn't happen at the exact same time.

Look to Bitcoin Cash as the future of bitcoin.

>>2852937
Have to love the constant bad advice on /biz/. Hey genius, the whales wouldn't dump BTC because that would be equivalent to dumping BCC.

>>2853393
it's a fucking futures market do I need to hold your cock for you too while you piss?

File: getout.gif (471KB, 474x379px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 474x379px

>the jihan lemming army has reached /biz/

don't care if you're a real idiot or a sock puppet, kys

File: trashman.jpg (14KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x251px

>>2853405
>i'm a gigantic faggot
>spent my whole allowance ($20) on btc!
>let me just move this goalpost over a little bit. Hope no one notices!

>>2849279

GREED.

and it will make sure these coins are worth at least 200 bucks each.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-22 at 8.06.22 PM.png (736KB, 1098x1098px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 1098x1098px

>>2853361
You have 0 understanding of how careful the developers are with this network. Do you know how much code review these top tier programmers go through to have things pass? Do you understand it's a good thing you Aboriginal nigger, stop huffing ICO retard gas. This will be your leader along with equally competent dog eating chinks who will crash BTC cash.

>>2853441
>A blocksize increase requires 4 FUCKING YEARS OF CODE REVIEW

>segshit doesn't, stop asking questions ignorant peasants

Jesus christ dude, take a step back and look at yourself.

File: 1095675.png (397KB, 460x460px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 460x460px

>>2853441
also

>pic related
>a top tier programmer
>trying to fuck up gentoo code since the early 2000's
>massive christfag to the point of even trying to force wallets to default to blacklisting online btc casinos

Something something glass houses, segshit shill

File: GregMaxwell.jpg (41KB, 569x378px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 569x378px

>>2853476
To say nothing of this gigantic fat faggot, who prefers shitposting on reddit all day to develping lightning network vaporware

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-24 at 11.32.06 PM.png (1MB, 1050x592px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1050x592px

>>2853450
>not understanding that Jihan and Roger / BU propagandist were holding up the deployment.

I honestly feel like I'm fighting off brain dead zombies at this point. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about aside from buzzwords.

Here's part of your retard crew who's been proven wrong because he got an equation wrong... this is one of you scam artist leaders you confide in....

https://twitter.com/i/moments/888788567497035776

>>2853497
>brain dead zombies

that is indeed what happens when you get on blockstreams payroll, you start arguing for shit like LOWERING the blocksize

What are you gonna do in early 2018 when the segshit blocks are full and the network is unusable AGAIN?

YOu raise the blocksize. That is how bitcoin was designed by its creator to handle this.

Take your Jewified "second layer solutions" and shove them up your ass.

>>2853476
luke jr is based as fuck. you don't have to use his wallets. every top tier programmer has some oddity about them. ignore it and be thankful these guys are working on it instead of shit-tier programmers or scam artists

>>2853527
>"top tier"
>can't handle scaling properly
>just trust us guiez, we're top tier
>almost had another coin surpass BTC, despite a huge head start
>blocks will be full again in just a few months, btc will be nigh unusable

>top tier

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-22 at 8.21.37 PM.png (424KB, 1262x1630px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1262x1630px

>talking shit on core

literally the most naive thing you can do.
https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/888506387030003712

File: 1495650255700.jpg (50KB, 306x545px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 306x545px

>>2853552
>defending core bullshit coding

Nigga.....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2006262.0

don't forget to always sage when posting in chinkcoin shill threads

>>2853441

var blocksize = 1;
//var blocksize = 1;

Wow that took 4 years.

How much are you getting paid to shill btw? I want in on that, I day trade so i'll dump all the BTC shitcoins on the exchanges the next day anyway.

>>2853524
>Let me break this down for you so you can understand:
>1MB blocks = 7 transactions per second (roughly)
>10MB blocks = 70 tps
>100MB blocks = 700 tps
>1000MB = 7000 tps
>When will the increase stop? 10MB? 100MB? No more like 300-1000MB every 10 min.So the bloat to the blockchain for having visa level tps(2000-56,000+ tps) would be so massive there would be no full nodes to run the blockchain except for big players willing to add like 300MB every 10 min...centralizing the network to its death with the enormous packs of data. 2MB debate is retarded because it's just gonna get filled almost instantly...It's obvious we need layer 2 solutions like lightning network( which needs segwit to run well).
Let me break this down for you so you can understand:
1MB blocks = 7 transactions per second (roughly)
10MB blocks = 70 tps
100MB blocks = 700 tps
1000MB = 7000 tps

When will the increase stop? 10MB? 100MB? No more like 300-1000MB every 10 min.So the bloat to the blockchain for having visa level tps(2000-56,000+ tps) would be so massive there would be no full nodes to run the blockchain except for big players willing to add like 300MB every 10 min...centralizing the network to its death with the enormous packs of data. 2MB debate is retarded because it's just gonna get filled almost instantly...It's obvious we need layer 2 solutions like lightning network( which needs segwit to run well).

bitcoin is just like TCP/IP layer of the internet. It mathematically can not scale. Unless you give up your right to run a node that would ELIMINATE your ability to 'VOTE' for what happens. You're trying to centralize it. I understand you don't have the technical chops/prowess. Let's let the big boys actually make the decisions so you can sleep soundly at night lil' timmy. We don't want your noggin to go for a joggin' too long you might bleed out your ears again.

File: lazy_ant_pepe-1.png (214KB, 738x542px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 738x542px

>>2853570
did you even read the second and third posts in that thread?

>>2853598
>>2852702
https://medium.com/@johnblocke/decentralization-fetishism-is-hindering-bitcoins-progress-11cfa5c7964d
>READ FAGGOT

File: supermale_may2015_2.jpg (41KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x900px

>>2853613
yup. did you read all of it?

>no

>>2853620
“The existence of a single monolithic development team .. does, in fact, create a single point of failure.”
Ignoring your weasel words (eg wtf is a “monolithic” development team?), this betrays a complete lack of understanding of how they develop software. Its designed, peer reviewed, implemented, peer reviewed, released, then peer reviewed again, and every single person in the network has the choice of running a Bitcoin Core client or any other modified client. Even if Bitcoin Core went *poof* and disappeared, Bitcoin wouldn’t fail. So.. its obvious that this situation isn’t a “single point of failure”.
The design of bitcoin allows anyone in the network to use whatever software they want. They can write it themselves, they can run a bitcoin implementation written by anyone they want. The fact is that no one else is writing good bitcoin software other than Bitcoin core. But even that doesn’t mean anyone is forced to run newer versions of the software that team produces. The power is and always will be in the hands of the network as a whole. So this “danger” is non-existent. The mere fact that anyone can use a forked version of bitcoin software is proof of that.
“the goal of Bitcoin has always been to become money”
I’m sorry, this sentence is so stupid I finally grasp how little you understand bitcoin. Bitcoin *started out* as money. The goal was accomplished with the very first running version. This is no longer the goal. The goal is *what type* of money is it going to be? Is it going to be money mostly controlled by giant companies and governments? Or is it going to be money controlled by mostly a more disperse group? This isn’t about “single points of failure”—this is about governance, ie who decides which blockchain is the longest valid chain.

>>2853620
>>2853620
Literally no one out there is worried about “single points of failure” in bitcoin. You just don’t understand what people are debating about. So go RTFM before writing idiotic blog posts like this.

>>2853598

mmm tasty pasta, this has been pasted like 3-4 times on different threads today btw

>>2852700
etc didnt split though, it was eth that split from the main chain (etc)

File: 1490585312739.png (307KB, 550x393px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 550x393px

>>2853651
sorry, do you have an argument or are you just spreading your boi pussy? It's not clear.

>>2853644
>Even if Bitcoin Core went *poof* and disappeared, Bitcoin wouldn’t fail.

Then why the constant bitching about people disrespecting the mighty development team? Shouldn't bitcoin be able to handle a little disagreement about scaling?

>no, gotta protect the geniuses

> Is it going to be money mostly controlled by giant companies and governments? Or is it going to be money controlled by mostly a more disperse group? This isn’t about “single points of failure”—this is about governance, ie who decides which blockchain is the longest valid chain.

THis is ironic as all FUCK given that it is Core that is expressly FORCING people off chain, morphing Bitcoin into a slow, high fee, expensive settlement layer that only companies and governments can afford to use.

Don't sit there and bitch about centralization when the very code is being changed by a group of corporate shills to prevent everyday usage of Bitcoin. YOu're damn right it is about what kind of cash Bitcoin will be. Thing is, it is your side trying to morph bitcoin into a zombiefied corporatecoin.

You are so far up Core's asshole you can't see straight. Seriously. Full blocks, high confirmation times, expensive fees, these all favor the little person, right?

No you dense motherfucker, they benefit corporations, and Blockstream.

I would pay good money to see your faggot shill ass in November trying to move your segshit coins off a congested as fuck network, and failing, because the vision of bitcoin you shilled so hard for has turned around and fucked you.

>>2852916
This is bait. Stop responding

This is the first of many and it's going to fail. But, ultimately, I doubt Bitcoin will survive Democracy.

>>2853667

You mean an imposed fork like cve-2010-5139 ?

File: 1479647300642.jpg (41KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x375px

>>2852654

>he thinks doubling the blocks will kill bitcoin

then bitcoin is already dead because its useless if it can't scale beyond all neckbeards in the world using it at the same time

>>2851258
Because increased blocksize drastically increases the resources needed to host a node, which means that only merchants, businesses and miners will be running them. These entities happen to be easy to regulate through governments. The more centralized the network nodes become, the easier it is for governments and other malicious actors to exert influence over the protocol.

The entire blocksize debate comes down to two camps. Those who want adoption first with increased centralization and control, and those who prioritize decentralization above all.

how would one go about splitting BTC to BTC BCC after august without sending to ViaBTC?

File: az6uoe8cs43z (2).jpg (73KB, 643x745px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 643x745px

>>2853626
>yes
read greg's post again. obviously the code is not perfect and work could be done... but there are diminishing returns to optimizing user facing shit. that work takes a back seat to advancing the protocol. nitpicking about trivial qt-client inefficiencies seems strange considering the accomplishments like libsecp256k1 and the future upgrades to the blockchain we have planned. unbroken consensus code is needed more than C++ "gurus" rubbing their dicks to code that is slightly more optimized w/r/t the hardware. this is not HFT. it is a user-facing desktop app. how many coins like zcash and ETH have had consensus or scripting vulnerabilities? we don't see that in bitcoin because the consensus-critical code is great.

>>2851913
I have a far simpler method for lowering fees by decreasing size: move from tx's to denominations. The users will have to change their god damn coins on their own.

File: 1500163389730.jpg (2MB, 1446x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1446x1920px

>>2851913
Thanks a lot, /biz/raeli! But what does this mean?
> don't want SegWit contaminating the blockchain though (it reorganizes transactions, splitting them up and doing funky shit with them),

> So a few months ago Core started blackmailing the miners by advocating for a UASF, which would soft fork the network and implement SegWit by force.
Is the UASF a mass rebellion in which users switch to another client which doesn't accept the miners' version?

>so they are forking before it is implemented on August 1
If they fork it after, what will happen? Will the old chain disappear all of a sudden?

>This is the UAHF/BitcoinABC/Bitcoin Cash hard fork.
What's wrong with a hardfork if it won't affect the Core mainstream blockchain, and what stops a group of people from doing a fork whenever they doesn't like his "new balance"?

>>2852992
Who cares about an alt rising? The endgame is to have any cc unbeatable by the joos, it doesn't have to be BTCore.

>>2849279
lmao no one wants to use bitcoin anyway, we just use it because it's already big

why have another clunky ass bitcoin?

>>2852702
Thanks for the link. How am I supposed to verify tx's myself with such huge hardware requirements? >>2852654

>>2852861
That's why they should change the PoW to X200 or sth.