What is so bad about 8MB block sizes? How does increasing the

I'm starting to think maybe you lot dont actually have a clue what you're on about, and you just heard the words "chinese miners" and started freaking out

>>2952336
bitcoin core will eventually get to 8MB block sizes, they are just being fags right now because the node operators that arent chinks dont yet have the infrastructure to support such an increase in blocksize, and the chinks do.

rest assured it is entirely necessary for bitcoin block size to scale up to 2mb, 4mb and then 8mb in the future.
People just don't want it "now" because then they wouldn't be able to reap the money they have been reaping, and instead the chinese would.

>>2952348
The puzzle is starting to fall into place for me now.

Why does it require better infrastructure (i presume this means computer hardware?) to mine bigger blocks?

I've never mined before so I dont really understand it, but for some reason 8MB doesnt actually seem particularly ginormous to me

>>2952336
8 MB block size is band-aid solution, taking Bitcoin from 2.5 TX/s to 20 TX/s.
VISA handles over 1000 TX/s.

>>2952370
And segregated witness, literally just takes some things out of the 1mb block, to use more space in there? how is that going to drastically increase TX speeds?

>>2952336
Bigger blocks = bigger propagation times = bigger edge for pools with bigger hash.

No matter how big you make blogs tx will always take an average of 10 minutes which is the average block time. If the average time it takes for a node to see a new block becomes a non-negligible fraction of the average time it takes for the network to find a new block we've got a problem.

Engineering is about making things more efficient, not mindlessly cranking up power.

Kys or at least go back to your cancerous leddit board.

>>2952382
Segwit is a % decrease, you are literally cutting out a portion of the block to make for easier speeds. Its optimization. Segwit has been chosen because Core would rather do the optimization now before brute forcing it through block increases.

By increasing block sizes you're also affecting miners and people who maintain the network. With bigger blocks comes bigger data to handle throughout the network. 8MB doesnt sound like much, but it adds up.

Core is smart, they want to delay getting bigger blocks as much as possible. It will be easier to scale Bitcoin into bigger blocks later, when there is more adoption. Right now Bitcoin in the grand scheme of things is nascent and small.

Something like 80% of bitcoin core full nodes are estimated to not have the bandwidth to relay 8MB blocks to dozens of peers every 10 minutes, which means they would be unable to participate in the network. It's already hundreds of GB a month in download and upload quota to run a full node. What would end up happening if you increased block sizes now, is that mining would end up in big data centers and major nodes - smaller people would get pushed out. Bitcoin wants to maintain decentralization for as long as possible.

segwit is a massive design improvement that greatly increases security and enables off chain transactions in the future that will scale 1000 times better than what just crudely bumping up the block size does. 8mb alone won't scale. core has like PhD devs working on this

>>2952369
thats because you have no idea how blockchains work and the sheer amount of data transfer required for them to operate. it's not like downloading a 8MB file off a website.

>>2952419
>Engineering is about making things more efficient, not mindlessly cranking up power.

If society was all about efficiency then we wouldn't see 3mb .gifs on the internet or streaming HD video. The internet scaled up to offer a better experience, so will Bitcoin.

>>2952348
Chink internet it's one of the main bottlenecks of the network, 8 MB blocks would make shit even worse
>>2952452
The internet didn't scale up, specially upload wise
Americans have it much worse with Jewish shit like data caps

>>2952348

no they won't you absolute fucktard, they want to strangle the network by reducing the size of blocks to 30kb so they can setup crypto transmitters/middlemen that slug you a fee for each transfer you make.

Strangling the blocksize is the only way to ensure block fees rise too high for daily use, forcing you onto their lightning bullshit

>>2952461
>The internet didn't scale up, specially upload wise

You shitting me, I remember waiting 30 minutes to watch a one minute long 320x240 quicktime clip or a minute for a porn image to load. I'd sit there patiently with my hand on my cock while it slowly loads from top to bottom, "OMG I can see her tits...oh now the pussy!"

All the people crying they can't support more blocks, if you could support 2MB blocks in 2009 when Bitcoin was first invented, you can at the MINIMUM support 4MB with the advancement in broadband.

>>2952461

again you are a fucking retard, chinks are pushing for the 8mb increase so you're wrong. This is about expanding the capacity of the network and the chinks are the ones pushing for that expansion

jesus you cunts are so misinformed. Drop your btc bags and buy bcc before you lose your chance to buy cheap bitcoin.

I'd just like to point out that this small block bullshit will inevitably fail, it will simply result in people using a different blockchain (obviously BCC) but if BCC should fail then decred/monero or something new.

>>2952336
crappy internet connections

the world has a very crappy internet. people with high speed internet obviously won't see what is the problem, the same way rich people don't care about people with no healthcare or food.

synchronization is an issue, so centralization is the answer, but the spirit of bitcoin is gone.

>>2952499

read my posts you sheep

>>2952468
You dumbass, middlemen already exist, its called miners

Reducing blocks is even better, it makes for a faster and way more efficient network you retard

>>2952481
The majority of the network right now cannot handle 8mb blocks unless you are a data center, huge miner or chink you idiot

I haven't been able to find much information about how off-chain transactions would even work. Would anyone be able to handle them like the blockchain nodes, or only companies like Blockstream?

>>2952382

segwit fixes a bug in Bitcoin called tx malleability. fixing that allows for more features like the upcoming lightning network that is intended to handle thousands of smaller transactions instantly. it is a much, much better and elegant solution than just bumping up the block size. 8mb, 16, 32, it doesn't matter. without segwit it can never scale.

>>2952442

lightning network does not require segwit or small blocks, sorry to tell you but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>2952523
lightning does not require segwit but its much more compatible with Segwit.

read: https://blockstream.com/2017/07/31/segwit-myths-debunked.html

>>2952521

anyone can use them. anyone that can make a transaction today could use the lightning network, for example, in the future. look up the lightning network. basically you tie up some funds in incomplete transactions on the chain and you can pay people instantly by sending them the key to complete it. it will allow for thousands of small, instantaneous transactions that are just as secure as on chain transactions. but it requires segwit.

>>2952513
>The majority of the network right now cannot handle 8mb blocks unless you are a data center, huge miner or chink you idiot

So they could support 1MB blocks in 2009, yet almost 10 years later with all the advances in technology they can't support at least a doubling or tripling of block size? Sorry, I don't buy that bullshit.

>>2952440
>It will be easier to scale Bitcoin into bigger blocks later, when there is more adoption.
why?

>Bitcoin wants to maintain decentralization for as long as possible.
>as long as possible
So you're implying it will one day inevitably become centralized anyway? When bitcoin becomes wide spread? Well doesnt that seem like a wasted effort?
Also what is the issue with "centralization"? People talk about it as if it is the creation of a bitcoin central bank, where they control the entire currency.
I don't think bitcoin can ever be fully "centralized" as there is always an opportunity for other people to establish their own mining centres to it will always be open to competition. Especially as computer technology improves and better hardware is created to cope with the larger blocks. It should in theory become less centralized over time as the technology industry makes their own progress.

>>2952548
In 2009 there were only a handful of people actually using the network

File: 1501848834404.jpg (58KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x375px

Called some BCH haters "star wars fans" on steemit. Brb checking the responses

>>2952442
>off chain transactions

is this the beginning of fractional reserve bitcoin?

>>2952523
>>2952537

chaining transactions do

>>2952340
it's centralized because 1 group of people is doing all the mining. This would make it extremely vulnerable to the 51% double spend attacks. The entire crux of fucking bitcoin is that many people have to mine it so there can't be any attacks.

That's the complaint.

Also, nobody cares about the technology any more. It isn't about that. People like Bitcoin because it's the brand they know and the default currency literally everywhere in crypto. It's not the technology.

>>2952555

in 2009 I was fapping to pornhub daily, I'm pretty fucking sure all that porn was larger than 1MB you fucking cuck

there is also literally no disadvantage to segwit besides the fact that it wasn't in the original Bitcoin white paper.

>>2952452
Are you retarded? Video compression today is amazing, with our Internet we wouldn't even be able to stream raw DVD footage.

Thanks to engineering we came to a point where it's possible to easily stream 4K content without any problem.

T. Electrical Engineer with masters and specialization in Telecommunications.

>>2952551
>why?
Because, hopefully, there will be advances in the industry that will help scale Bitcoin. In fact it may not even ever be scaled into bigger blocks; they might want to cut it down. Regardless, when there is more adoption there should be even more advances in the technology.

Remember crypto is still in a very young phase right now.

>Well doesnt that seem like a wasted effort?
We dont know for sure what will happen. Maybe it will become centralized, maybe not. I mean eventually its going to have to be data centers mining bitcoin because of the massive amount of hashpower involved. That's not necessarily a bad thing because at that point Bitcoin will probably not even be used by regular people.

I mean this whole argument over BTC vs BCC is entirely moot, because Bitcoin's fate is obvious - its going to be digital gold. That's how the market is already starting to treat it. It's going to be used between governments, corporations, banks etc. Regular people are not going to be using bitcoin. That's my instinct anyway.

Eventually as technology improves most likely a more transaction based currency will be used by regular people.

>>2952569

One person was mining in 2009 and I can't recall you bitching about centralization back then. Obviously the network hasn't spread out yet, the difficulty is dropping, after it drops mining starts to become profitable.

I'm pretty certain you're a paid shill for blockstream at this point.

>>2952590
you stupid cuck, in 2009 bitcoin had maybe 100 people on the network. Thats why they could support 1MB transactions. Now its a different story.

>>2952603
>comparing bitcoin in 2009 to 2017

literally kys you stupid cuck, dont you have rogers or jihan's ass to eat?

>>2952348
Chink internet it's one of the main bottlenecks of the network, 8 MB blocks would make shit even worse
>>2952452
The internet didn't scale up, specially upload wise
Americans have it much worse with Jewish shit like data caps
>>2952590
>t. typical jihanmarine

>>2952370
>band-aid solution
>700% increase

>>2952633

i couldn't give two fucks about either of them, at least they're not trying to subvert the network and turn it into a kike controlled banking system you moron.

>>2952652
>invokes ((them))

you lose sir

>>2952548
I don't buy it either, but I haven't personally tested.

8MB every 10 minutes is nothing unless you live in africa.

I'm going to set up a full BCC node for fun at home just because retards keep saying a normal computer can't handle it or it's too expensive.

File: Blocks.jpg (199KB, 1297x743px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1297x743px

>>2952336
>>2952369

BCC is a boring piece of worthless shit that's one week old with no merchant adoption in sight, no development, but with same 10 minute blockchain and only like 5 lines of code changed from BTC -- NOTHING NEW OR EXCITING. Also centralised Chinese ASIC miners is truth.. just look at the blocks mined so far it's public knowledge and so far looks pretty centralised and I don't think this will change much in the future.

>>2952648

Stop lying, the time it would take me to upload a 1 gigabyte file in 2009 vs in 2017 off a standard home broadband connection is IMMENSELY faster.

>>2952665
Okay, looks like I didn't consider actually relaying the blocks to other nodes.

However, even looking at this chart >>2952671, by the time we hit those numbers it doesn't seem unfeasible to run full nodes at those sizes. RAM usage is the most worrisome looking metric, but normies with shit computers aren't the ones running nodes anyway.

What bothers me is people claiming that nodes are going to cause centralization rather than the miners, which are centralized almost entirely on China regardless of what block sizes you use. So even if you find some weird solution, how are we going to stop chink miners? Bitcoin is doomed to be centralized to China as long as we have SHA256 PoW.

So my question is, how is any of it relevant when the hashpower itself is inherently centralized?

>>2952650
that is literally nothing, nothing compared to what btc will eventually support. block size will simply not be a bottleneck in the future.

File: 1401029175532.jpg (135KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 501x585px

>>2952671

are you even trying?

Post something new, with some actual arguments. The changes to BCC are freely available at bitcoincash.org along with development progress

>>2952696
>SHA256 PoW

WHO IN THE WHAT HOW

>>2952696
Traffic is not cheap everywhere on the planet

>>2952688
>what is compression

read: http://gizmodo.com/why-americas-internet-is-so-shitty-and-slow-1686173744

>>2952733

Compression has nothing to do with it, I am a graphic designer by trade, I've been uploading huge files .zip files for 15 years now and the speed to get files to my clients are alot better now than in 2009. Photoshop files haven't shrunk since then, but speeds have increased.

If you think it's shitty now, it was MUCH shittier in 2009.

>>2952757
It has everything to do with it. People can stream 4k because of compression. Internet speeds have increased, but not anything to support the level which a cryptocurrency network like bitcoin would require for most people.

Also the .zip compression has also advanced over the years. Don't think that .zip's in 2009 were the same now.

>>2952348
>the node operators that arent chinks dont yet have the infrastructure to support such an increase in blocksize,

Are you fucking retarded? An 8MB block takes like a second to download on a broadband connection. I literally have a 5 year old $200 Kmart netbook running a node, and 8MB blocks are effortless on the old Celeron.

How long does it take you to download 8MB?

>>2952832

uh.. you have to dl and store lot more than one block, it's in the hundreds of gigabytes

>>2952369

It doesn't require meaningfully better infrastructure to mine 8MB blocks on an ordinary broadband connection. If you've got some 56k dialup modem, yeah, it could theoretically disadvantage you by a few seconds to get the larger block. But who the fuck is invested in mining and doesn't have a reliable internet connection? Miners also only need the headers of the new block to start working on the next one, which is much smaller than 8MB.

>>2952850
1. You don't actually have to store the entire blockchain on a fully-validating node. You can prune it.

2. The blockchain is already well over 100GB, so you already need at least a modern hard drive. With 8 MB blocks being CONSTANTLY full, you'd fill a $100 drive in ~10 fucking years. The drive is more likely to die before you're able to fill it! That's not meaningfully increasing the barrier to run a node.

>>2952860
4MB seems like a maximum for 2017 if you look at my chart here >>2952671

>>2952711
>bitcoincash.wix

>>2952912
BCH has a 2mb soft limit.

>>2952926
and?

>>2952907
Stop telling them dude
Just stop trying
it's a waste of your time, let them wallow in their own shit.

>>2952860

Finally some common sense, as if I am supposed to shed crocodile tears from fuckers making millions a day mining claiming they can't afford fast internet.

>>2952563
That's exactly what it is. Now you're beginning to understand why it's being pushed so hard. Segwit is the first step in pozzing btc.

>>2952597
The entire point of bitcoin is to be something involved in daily transactions newfag. Literally read the original white paper. The digital gold thing is fucking retarded.

>>2952950
That's a shitty attitude. At least some people are attempting to have some sort of discussion without throwing around ad hominem every other sentence.

I'm still on the fence regarding big blocks, SW, and LN. Half the arguments don't make sense to me even after literally reading the code and technical details, and seem like they could apply to both parties.

I still fail to see the argument against big blocks when we have centralized mining, but Lightning Network can be done in a decentralized manner since the whole point of it is to have an open ledger with anti-cheat balances, so I don't see how it's going to fuck up Bitcoin. Yes, there will be less total nodes compared to the full network, but the same will happen with big blocks. Both solutions "centralize" certain aspects of the BTC network in a way.

Plus, it's not like LN will be forced on you. Normal tx will still exist and function normally. I fail to see how both solutions can't coexist or why people can't just choose to opt out (at least with LN).

Other than ulterior motives, what benefit is there to forcefully excluding one of the solutions? They don't seem incompatible with one another.

>>2953053
Hard mode: 'satoshi's vision' isn't an argument.

File: rbtcfanatics.jpg (33KB, 271x357px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 271x357px

>>2952988
>Off chain

Its not off chain:

Myth #5: SegWit takes transactions off chain.

SegWit does not take transactions off chain. SegWit increases capacity by making blocks bigger, upgrades a number of bitcoin features, and provides a bug fix – specifically a transaction malleability fix – to improve multi-clause contracts. The transaction malleability fix does benefit payment channel mechanisms such as Lightning, but SegWit as a whole benefits everyone using the Bitcoin blockchain, regardless of whether or not Lightning would also be of interest to them.

Although Lightning uses SegWit, it is a separate technology. Every Lightning transaction is a valid Bitcoin transaction that can be posted to the Bitcoin chain, but Lightning provides a caching mechanism so that most transactions are netted between Lightning users without needing to be written to the chain. In that sense Lightning does delay and replace transactions (via netting) that might otherwise go on chain. This creates more capacity for more usage, opens up new use cases and applications, and enables new economic activity that wasn’t possible before.

But other than Lightning being made better with SegWit, SegWit itself does not take transactions off chain.

https://blockstream.com/2017/07/31/segwit-myths-debunked.html

I'm so sick and tired of hearing this

>>2953025
>muh whitepaper
>Satoshi's vision

Grow up cuck. Did you really think bitcoin will be involved in daily transactions when it hits critical mass? It's literally an invention. It's going to be worth alot of money, people are not going to see it as a transactional based currency. This is why we have altcoins.

Its too late. It's digital gold.

Do you even know what fractional reverve banking is? LMAO

If there is a conspiracy there would be many more people crying foul in the crypto world. Not this bullshit with r/btc.

File: blocks_are_too_big_mayn.jpg (46KB, 825x746px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 825x746px

>>2952918
You are right OP and if people just took 3 seconds to think before repeating what theyve heard they too would realize. The thing is that core is in a constant propaganda battle and as soon as one thing is starting to get shot down they introduce another, ad infinitum, so it's kinda hard to win.

>>2953053

What is fucked up to me is there has never been a meaningful discussion about finding a way to pay people for running nodes. I mean there is a disparity that miners are expected to reap all the rewards yet people validating transactions are supposed to be good little angels leaving their computers on 24/7 sucking up energy out of the goodness of their hearts, that's bullshit. Not saying they deserve alot of money but at least some token of appreciation for decentralizing the network.

>>2953089
Ironically that's what LN has. If you "catch" a cheater on LN, you get paid. However, given the rules of the network it's highly unlikely that this would occur since you'd never get away with cheating on LN.

>>2953082
The only reason it will be "digital gold" is because retarded cucks like you shill to keep confirmation times and transaction fees high. Then it will be gold becsuse its so fucking shitty and slow.

If you and your army of core dicksuckers spent 1/10th the time making bitcoin scalable and fast as you do sucking dick then bitcoin could have been fast as fuck by now. If bitcoin is fast, it will be used as cash, not just MUH DIGITAL GOLD

Gee it's almost like that's why the new bitcoin is called bitcoin cash, rly makes you think. Old bitcoin will die if it doesn't become scalable. Nobody wants to invest in a currency that's slow as fuck.

>>2953053

Not really a bad attitude, a lot of people are indoctrinated with blockstream's propaganda campaign, which as been fairly successful for a few years due to the fact blockstream control development, /r/bitcoin, and bitcointalk forums. Additionally I'm certain they hire shills to sway public opinion.

Of course the more learned individuals see straight through their lies and have become tired of arguing with those who refuse to educate themselves.

As to why the Bitcoins can't survive side-by-side, they're both using the same hashing script and hardware, meaning the one that becomes profitable to mine steals the hashing power, slowing the other down (such as how BCC is right now with their hour-long block times).

Soon BCC will become more profitable to mine than legacy Bitcoin and their block times will start to slow, compounding the effects of the constrained blocksize it is likely to cause cascade effect ushering in a mass exodus to Bitcoin Cash.

So yeah, buy Bitcoin Cash, if you're smart you already have.

>>2953133
You're right and it makes me sad that people on biz can't see through blockstreams bullshit. I suspect it's because 99 percent of this board only cares about how much it's worth, the one percent are the autistis like you and me who care about how the coin actually works and the philosophy of it. The 99% will go along with whatever and all the retarded reddit shills will go along with whatever bullshit blockstream is shilling even if it means pozzing bitcoin and ruining it

I especially love the anti big block fags, if big blocks are so bad then why does every other alt have big blocks

File: 6a00e5547fc2938834014e6079a5dd970c.jpg (38KB, 400x280px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x280px

>>2953128
>>2953133
>The only reason it will be "digital gold" is because retarded cucks like you shill to keep confirmation times and transaction fees high. Then it will be gold becsuse its so fucking shitty and slow.

You people are so fucking stupid and utterly brainwashed, its embarrassing. You talk about propaganda yet you are the ones that are indoctrinated.

You, yes you, literally ignored why I told you that it is considered digital gold. It has nothing to do with confirmation times and tx fees. Do you know why? Because the average crypto user doesnt really care about that. In fact bitcoin is supported by so many merchants in a transactional sense.

Bitcoin is digital gold because it is the original cryptocurrency invention. Have you seen the ICO's coming out for new altcoins? You dont get it, every altcoin that survives the coming hyperinflation is going to be worth lots of money and have its own place within the crypto ecosystem. Bitcoin is digital gold, plain and simple, LTC probably becoming silver.

You are SO FOCUSED on increasing the blocksize its become pathological. Its a FUCKING RELIGION to you and your delusional psychopaths on r/btc.

>If bitcoin is fast, it will be used as cash, not just MUH DIGITAL GOLD

It's not that simple. Bitcoin is the biggest and by far the most used crypto-network. You seem to think scaling it is magic, its not. Core is playing the long game, not brute forcing it through increasing blocks that alienates miners and centralizes everything.

>>2953053
>Plus, it's not like LN will be forced on you.
Without increasing the block size on chain transaction fees will continue to increase pricing out many and forcing them to use LN. Core has made it clear they have no intention of increasing block size. Luke jr has even called for a block size reduction to 300kb. They're clear intention is to turn Bitcoin into a settlement layer.

>>2952548
In 2009 my ISP didn't have data caps

Now I have a 250GB data cap unless I pay an extra $100/mo for their TV package

So yes, broadcasting 8x the bandwidth will cost me $$$

>>2953188
but after segwit everything will be fine
what's the problem bro

>>2953133

bcc is worthless. maybe a good buy at 0.01btc because a bunch of Chinese shills like you still desperately try to pump it, wouldn't mind more free money from the Chinese trying to clone Bitcoin for a quick profit.

miners won't make money because no one uses bcc, and Bitcoin will continue to be developed to support much more capacity.

>>2953177
Here he goes again with the miners and centralization meme again. This is truly the "without central banks there will be hyperinflation" of our time. Hint. Bitcoin is already "" centralized"" by the Chinese. Centralization doesn't refer to who is majority mining, it refers to cuck solutions like segwit which literally move shit off the block chain to somewhere else.

There is literally no reason why bitcoin shouldn't and couldn't be fast enough to be involved in daily fast transactions like visa. Literally none. It will only be gold(a store of value) if the coin remains forever cucked by high fees and high transaction times.

If bitcoin is fast, it will be both a store of value AND a currency. If bitcoin remains pozzed by core, it will only remain a store of value. And if you core cucks want it to just be a store of value, why bother with segwit or LN at all? Then TX times wouldn't matter.

File: rbtcsss.jpg (74KB, 615x375px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 615x375px

>>2953167
You know what's really sad? The fact that its clear this is a shakedown in the confidence in BTC before it breaks $3k and goes to new highs with Segwit.

If you REALLY cared about the state of the blockchain, you would have made threads on /biz/ and /g/, warning people about how evil and bad Segwit/Blockstream is and how we should support a different method of scaling.

BUT NOPE. You only come on here now to spread the worst FUD I've ever fucking seen in BTC's life. And I've seen plenty of fud. You should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. You know what you are doing is wrong.

That's how I know ultimately this is nothing more than a shakedown. If you REALLY cared about the integrity you would have made threads and warned people but dead fucking silence RIGHT UNTIL BCC COMES OUT.

Fucking shills, kill yourselves. How many times have you been ousted in debates in r/bitcoin? How many times? How many times does Roger and Jihan get their butts whooped in live debates?

Fucking scumbags.

>>2953133
>>2953167
Literally nobody gives a shit about the technology except us autists.

In fact, I think the bigger blocks don't matter in the long run. Chinks rule Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Unlimited, BitcoinXT, whatever the fuck you want to call it - they're all the same SHA256 PoW centralized in China. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I don't care if BTC turns into "Bitcoin Settlement". I don't think both coins can thrive, at least not even remotely close to the same price point.

There are just too many other coins that if we actually gave a shit about strictly using them for nothing but day-to-day payments, they'd "just werk". What makes BCC so special? Why not any of the other 1000 shitclones?

>>2953188
Lukejr is a fucking psycho christfag nutjob and I don't even think Core fags take him seriously.

>>2953177

Here is where you're mistaken, the fork happened, but you're not holding bitcoin anymore (if you flogged it off for next to nothing).

The true continuation of Bitcoin is currently called Bitcoin Cash, once it supersedes legacy Bitcoin it will once again simply be known as Bitcoin.

As for that digital gold mumbo jumbo, it's ahh... a meaningless statement. Value is not derived from advertising lingo, you're not selling vacuum cleaners.

Lastly, merchants and those developing and supporting software actually don't need to make many changes to convert over to Bitcoin Cash.

I'm not replying anymore I have better things to do than to debate the deaf/blind/dumb/shill, take your pick.

File: 1500704534484.gif (2MB, 288x377px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 288x377px

>>2953215
>if bitcoin is fast, it will be both a store of value AND a currency. If bitcoin remains pozzed, it will only be a store of value

Holy shit, FINALLY somebody on /biz/ fucking gets it!! They want bitcoin to be slow so it can't be used as an actual currency. That way they can make it digital gold, hoarde it all, and then make a new crypto backed by bitcoin. The same scam they ran for a thousand years everywhere else.

Bankers don't want a digital gold that is fast and can be divided into insanely small values. Imagine if gold worked like that in real life, then they wouldn't be able to make currencies backed by it.

Bitcoin is dangerous if it remains both a currency that's fast AND is a store of value. But, if you poz it so it's only a store of value, it opens the door to a lot of kikery.

Open your eyes biz

File: file.png (74KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 250x241px

>>2953250
This post is literally nothing but meaningless platitudes and circlejerking ("DUDE THAT'S NOT BTC YOU'RE HOLDING LMAO!!!") about how Cash will succeed Bitcoin with not a single argument (ease of conversion isn't one without a reason for said conversion).

>I'm not replying anymore I have better things to do than to debate the deaf/blind/dumb/shill

Retarded shills like you that can't grasp how stupid they sound when they shill non-facts on both sides of the debate are why we can't have nice things.

What it boiled down to for me is that if BitcoinABC was actually serious about creating a better cryptocurrency with long-term potential, they would have fixed Tx malleability along with the 8MB block change. They didn't, and I consider this to be user hostile. The only reason WHY they wouldn't fix Tx malleability via the HF is because they want to maintain their competitive advantage (read: centralization) via covert ASICBOOST.

>>2953250

bcc is lke a shitty Chinese generic version of Bitcoin. "real" satoshisvision™ Bitcoin Lmao!

>>2953291
>fix Tx malleability via the HF is because they want to maintain their competitive advantage (read: centralization) via covert ASICBOOST.

Technically speaking, how does TX malleability allow ASICBOOST? The two are completely separate things.

>>2953215
>This is truly the "without central banks there will be hyperinflation" of our time.

So you're for centralization and vulnerability to 51% attacks. Great to know that's compared to the great lies of central banking.

> Hint. Bitcoin is already "" centralized"" by the Chinese.
Bitcoin is not...but Bitcoin Cash is :)

>Centralization doesn't refer to who is majority mining
Then it's pretty clear I'm not speaking with someone who has any clue of what "decentralization" actually means in crypto, nor cares to know.

>There is literally no reason why bitcoin shouldn't and couldn't be fast enough to be involved in daily fast transactions like visa. Literally none.

It will be fast enough with Segwit and the coming LN upgrades, Schnorr, etc

> It will only be gold(a store of value) if the coin remains forever cucked by high fees and high transaction times.

No, you dont understand, YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE SENTIMENT OF THE MARKET.

You're not the average joe. The average joe is going to see Bitcoin, and it already does, as digital gold. It's a store of value first, transactional currency second. You can kick and scream all you want, it doesn't matter. This is how the market sees it. Bitcoin is the first mover, it is the original invention, hell it is a timestamp in the history of great inventions that will ripple across time.

This is what is one of the major problems with supporters of bigger blocks, they dont see the forest for the trees. It's not cucked that way. This is bigger than just Bitcoin now - there is an entire crypto-ecosystem out there.

Do you really think Bitcoin can compete with the likes of newer altcoins built on newer tech? No, it can't, not in that sense. It's riding on older tech. Bitcoin's main advantages are 3 things:

1) It's the original invention

2) Security

3) Reputation

Those 3 things make it into digital gold. Even when we increase the transaction times, that's where bitcoin is headed.

>>2952832
Kek he's probably a Poojeet running an even older laptop than you on free Facebook internet.

File: top_jew.jpg (290KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 960x1280px

>>2953269
>>2953215
These two posts are EXACTLY it. I highly, highly encourage /biz/ or people who want to learn to watch the secret of Oz by bill still.

https://youtu.be/Sboh-_w43W8

Watching this video will clue you into all perspectives of the bitcoin debate and why they want bitcoin to not be fast and usable as a currency. If bitcoin is fast, you can't rent seek by doling it out. If bitcoin is a shitty settlement layer it lets people lorde it's power out by lending it.

Fast bitcoin is literally freedom from financial institutions because it acts as a currency AND a store of wealth, slow bitcoin is gold, too slow to be used as an actual currency, useless for the common man. and we know the hands of whom gold always ends up in, don't we /biz/

File: 7675765bhfg.jpg (3KB, 157x118px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 157x118px

>>2953269
>Bitcoin is dangerous if it remains both a currency that's fast AND is a store of value.

I hope this is a troll post kek.

That can literally be said for any altcoin.

>>2953269
>>2953341
niggers dropping redpills in this thread like niggers drop parental responsibilities
>>2953331
Anon, bitcoin being just gold isn't a good thing, it needs to be commonly usable like cash too.

Op, verify your own transactios and you will learn

>>2953353
Dangerous to the banks, silly. Not dangerous to us

>>2953341

except Bitcoin with segwit will be 1000 times more usable as a currency than bcc.

>>2953331
>Bitcoin is not...but Bitcoin Cash is :)

[citation needed].

Out of the first 12 blocks, 75% of them were literally mined by a single miner.

Since then, we've had a bunch of blocks from no-names which is a good sign, but given that we know the hashpower on the network, it's more likely to just be that miner or other chinese still mining in secret than a true decentralized process.

Regardless, it's ALL Chinese. There is not a single SHA256 coin that isn't dominated by some fucking gooks paying nothing for electricity/hardware. To think anything else is pure delusion. It doesn't matter how you decide to implement your code, if it's a SHA256 PoW coin, the chinks run it. That's the reality.

I agree with your other points re: digital gold though. Bitcoin is here to stay just because it was first and holds a reputation as digital gold, so I don't care if it's used for purely settlement reasons.

>>2953358
>Anon, bitcoin being just gold isn't a good thing, it needs to be commonly usable like cash too.
No it doesn't. There will be altcoins for that. Bitcoin is not the end all be all. There is an entire crypto ecosystem being built. There are going to be coins and tokens for many, many things.

This is already under way. The Ether network is building a huge, amazing ecosystem for a whole host of things to come. It's pretty awesome.

>>2953358
>>2953341
Money lending is going to happen regardless if Bitcoin is slow and treated like gold.

File: 1280949942423.jpg (72KB, 414x577px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 414x577px

>>2953331
51 percent attacks is a meme. Bitcoin is inherently democratic, if 51 percent of miners choose something else, then THAT is the new bitcoin. The core devs are afraid of this, which is why they push for solutions that take the power out of people's hands. And you have the gall to cry centralization, KEK.

>>2953358
I agree with the fundamental sentiment that bitcoin should be used as a currency, but why is Bitcoin Cash the answer? Why not some more modern, better altcoin with faster confirmation time, less centralization, and larger networks? Why not something with privacy or fungibility already built-in?

U guys! I now understand that Sotoshi's true vision was a Blockchain we had to trust others to verify our transactions on. I've been so blind x.x

>>2953382
Why do you have this mindset where you don't want bitcoin to be fast and usable like a currency when that was its intended purpose

It's supposed to be digital gold and also fast enough to be a currency at the same time. If you remove the currency part, you're going against everything it stands for, and turning it into some jew shit

>>2953397
because he's an obvious samefagging shill thats paid to desperately try the pump the Chinese Bitcoin clone

>>2953388
>51 percent attacks is a meme.
Do you even know what a 51 percent attack is?

go back to r/btc where you belong

>>2953397
Why not have bitcoin do both, like the white paper states? If you don't want it to do both, then you're literally hijacking it and turning it into something else.

The title of the white paper is this:

>Bitcoin: a peer to peer electionic cash system.

Not bitcoin, a value of storage.

>>2953422
You're the shill nigger

>>2953412
>>2953438

again, Bitcoin with segwit will be 1000x more usable as a currency than the Chinese clone bcc with no developers

>>2953445
Where's the proof because from what I've seen bitcoin cash is already much faster than bitcoin, and the Core team wants to DECREASE the block size.

>>2953412
>Why do you have this mindset where you don't want bitcoin to be fast and usable like a currency when that was its intended purpose

Where did I say that? Learn to read, Bitcoin is going to be fast with Segwit. But you have to be blind not to see where its headed.

> jew shit
Making something a store of value is not Jewish, lol. Kike claims is serious business in /biz/ and usually signals defeat in the argument.

>>2953463
Segwit moves info off the block chain. Here's the bitcoin abstract for you.

"Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work."

Hey idiot, segwit is the first step at adding a third party and removing parts of the blockchain. How can you not see this

>>2953457
>bitcoin cash is already much faster than bitcoin

are you fucking high?

>>2953489
He can't see it because he's a shill.

>>2953489
there are types of Tx that do not belong on the blockchain. I don't need 10000 computers across the world to send money to/from my friends

a business doesn't need 10000 computers to receive money from a customer they have ID for and have had for 10 years

either these types of Txs move to another blockchain completely or they use lightning and are settled on BTC

>>2953457
block size won't be the bottleneck anymore. core has PhD devs working in it. you chinese shills just take one parameter, jack it up and think that's the answer to everything. 8, 16, 32mb, doesn't matter it will never scale.

File: 1tkqe2.jpg (26KB, 350x224px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 350x224px

>>2953489
>>2953502
It literally does not you shills.

https://blockstream.com/2017/07/31/segwit-myths-debunked.html

How many times do I have to link this article? My god.

Myth #5: SegWit takes transactions off chain.

SegWit does not take transactions off chain. SegWit increases capacity by making blocks bigger, upgrades a number of bitcoin features, and provides a bug fix – specifically a transaction malleability fix – to improve multi-clause contracts. The transaction malleability fix does benefit payment channel mechanisms such as Lightning, but SegWit as a whole benefits everyone using the Bitcoin blockchain, regardless of whether or not Lightning would also be of interest to them.

Although Lightning uses SegWit, it is a separate technology. Every Lightning transaction is a valid Bitcoin transaction that can be posted to the Bitcoin chain, but Lightning provides a caching mechanism so that most transactions are netted between Lightning users without needing to be written to the chain. In that sense Lightning does delay and replace transactions (via netting) that might otherwise go on chain. This creates more capacity for more usage, opens up new use cases and applications, and enables new economic activity that wasn’t possible before.

But other than Lightning being made better with SegWit, SegWit itself does not take transactions off chain.

>>2953513
with that said, there's no reason we can't have both, which is what the NYA compromise was all about

bitcoinABC reneged on that shit and I don't support them

if core reneges on it, I won't support them either

>>2953053
8MB blocks on segwit lightning network when

File: 1501610826481.jpg (12KB, 317x267px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 317x267px

>>2953520
>https://blockstream.com/2017/07/31/segwit-myths-debunked.html

Linking to "Segwit myths debunked" is like linking to "5 myths debunked about the Federal Reserve"

fucking kys

>>2953530
Now we're talkin

>>2953062

I sympathize with the big block argument but always hated this appeal to authority

>>2953533
>Not addressing the article

KYS cuck

>>2953397
This would be ideal of course, so maybe start shilling for iota. However, we don't live in a perfect world so as long as that is the case it's better that bitcoin makes a good impression instead of something that will slowly die and fail. I know it's hard to see which side is "wrong" since the whole thing is so technical and there's so many shills and fud, but maybe take a different approach and see who are the banners and shillers and admit that blockstream has already blocked the stream and already retarded a lot of the growth of bitcoin already and ask yourself if that makes sense in any universe.

>>2953540
|
>
|
3
|

>>2953388

Woah, this is an interesting point

>>2953545
Agreed

Again I refer people to this post
>>2953219

If they were really concerned about the integrity of bitcoin they would have been warning people and been making extra effort throughout all of these months instead of coming out of the woodwork right now when BCC comes out

It all reeks of shillery, manipulation, and FUD tactics, that's why I could never really take them seriously. They never took themselves seriously.

>>2953507

Perfect normie rundown, thanks anon-kun.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5u72va/axablockstream_are_suppressing_bitcoin_price_at/

>>2953574
yeah its not like people have been debating the scaling and blocksize for 3 years or anything, you acting like these people popped up suddenly and haven't been here are the ones being dishonest

File: file.png (318KB, 600x447px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 600x447px

>>2953633
r/btc has some of the most retarded conspiracy driven fanboys I've ever seen. It's almost like BLM - "WE WOULD BE KANGZ IF DUH WHITE MAN WUZNT KEEPIN US DOWN!!"

>>2952757
PSD has changed a lot, hell, Adobe has modernized most of their compression
There's a reason they still keep that "maximize compatibility" checkbox, dumb illiterate graphic designer

>>2953645
And youd think they would start some threads here talking about how there is this urgent kikery infestation in Core. You'd think they would warn us?

Oh wait, but now we're warned. Isn't that funny, we get this dire warning *ACT NOW* right after Bitcoin Cash comes out? Right before Segwit? Huh. It's almost as if people want unsuspected bizraelies to buy their bags...isnt that funny?

>>2953685
People were calling core a bunch of retards who were holding back bitcoin for YEARS now

Your argument is "they didnt complain until now" and that is 100% wrong, people have called core a bunch of kikes for ages, you picked the absolute worst narrative to push here, you lose.

>>2953302
ASICBOOST relies on the current header structure, and Tx malleability can't be fixed without changing part of it

>>2953706
>People were calling core a bunch of retards who were holding back bitcoin for YEARS now
Really? I'm trying to find the threads talking about this. Really, where are they? On biz and on /g/?

Where are all the threads warning us that Core has been taken over by bankers? Lmao

> you picked the absolute worst narrative to push here
Yes, you did once you and your ilk brought up the kikery meme. It's a losing position.

>>2953728
I don't know what to say other than you're fucking retarded, people have been calling out Core's bullshit for years.

the only people who get mad when people say kikery are jews. I don't see anybody bitching when you guys bring up the chink strawman.

>>2953743
> people have been calling out Core's bullshit for years.
We know that, but there is an influx of threads and r/btc idiots all of a sudden talking about how bad Core is and how we need to increase the block sizes. It's as obvious as night and day, and it reeks of manipulation.

Seriously. It really looks like any other major pump and dump operation on here. They werent here last month. Only in the last week or so did we get this invasion of morons from r/btc

>the only people who get mad when people say kikery are jews
No one is getting mad, faggot. But its a losing position because kikery accusations are serious business and you need to have shit backing that claim up. And right now its not sufficient.

>>2953707
Interesting, didn't know that.

If we know how ASICBOOST works, why exactly aren't we implementing it ourselves? Is there a specific part of it we can't RE for some reason?

>>2953769
Yeah it's almost like there's an influx because a fork just happened.

>>2953783
Yeah and its almost as if people want to dump their bags on us, shill

>>2953806
It's not about dumping bags retard this isn't mooncoin

>>2953728
>On biz and on /g/
/biz/ was created to stop crypto spam on /g/ newfag and majority of people on /biz/ couldn't explain to you how cryptos work they only care which shitcoin will moon. You don't get to hear about developer drama because outside of price nobody here cares.

>>2953782
It's patented, Jihan (((reimplemented))) aka. copied it and patented it in China

>>2953829
>patents
>China
lol

>>2953842
They work if you're on good standing with the CCP to stifle competition within China, of course they ignore foreign IP and repatent it as their own just like Jihan did

>>2953769
I wish I could easily pick a side, but both r/bitcoin and r/btc has reddit-tier Alex Jones conspiracy wannabes like you so it's really fucking frustrating and I end up having to try and be a centrist just because all of you are so fucking retarded with your shilling'fudding.

Like >>2953783 said, I've been around forever but only now give a shit because the fork is finally a reality.

>>2953829
No, I know that. That doesn't mean you can't reverse engineer and steal it. I highly doubt legalities are stopping it, hence my question. Also, since when do we give a shit about Chinese patents? Like they ever care about anyone else's LMAO.

>>2953858
The original implementation it's patented in the West, iirc in some EU country

>>2952926
Except they already mined a 4MB+ block, no problem.

>>2953863
It's just software though I thought. ASICs themselves can't have ASICBOOST, because ASICs are literally just simple circuits that do nothing but SHA256 hashes.

I suppose they have an extra controller there doing the actual ASIC Boosting, but I don't see why that can't be reverse engineered if it has such a ridiculous boost. 20% is a lot.

>>2953867
Two actually. Maybe more by now.

>>2953082
>It's going to be worth alot of money, people are not going to see it as a transactional based currency.

Derp, you just tell people to pay a couple microbits for their coffee or whatever. A high bitcoin price doesn't prevent it from being used as a currency/

>>2953886
As if the average joe is going to want to pay with microbits

As if the average joe will understand what microbits are

As if Bitcoin could be marketed towards the average joe in microbits

>A high bitcoin price doesn't prevent it from being used as a currency/

No one says it does. It's about marketing and perception.

I guess the core supporters are cool with slow transaction times and high fees - cos segwit and LN and shit. I wonder if you guys even use bitcoin or just use it to speculate. Let's reduce the fee to 30kb fellas, just like lukejr wants! Let's listen to him! He's god! These altcoin people who hf all the time and increase their blocks must not know anything i guess. Only lukejr and greg maxwell knows. So smert. Dey should just implement segwith. Free 10000000000x increase(actually only 1.6 mb with perfect conditions but this will TOTALLY LAST FOREVER DESU BECAUSE HF's are DANGEROUS even though we just had one).

We need to reduce the blocks to 30kb!! im sure that won't make the price of bitcoin go to zero in half an hour!! i totally trust this lukejr guy!! let's listen to him and greg maxwell that don't want to increase the capacity of the network when it's taxed because 200mb hdd's are so expensive for mainers naow!!!

think about the poor children in congo who won't be able to run their own mining op now and compete with the chinese!!! oh, noes!!! you want to destroy bitcoin or something?? dont'chu know that was evil man wu who was simply spamming the network!! he wants bigger blocks to get 0.001% more money mayn!! fees are totally the most profitable with mining man!!!111111 He supports bigger blocks because he's evil and the network can be totally fine with a blocksize on par with a diskette!!!!!111

>>2953942
this sort of spastic shit is why no one takes BCC or /r/btc seriously

>>2953922
conversions will be calculated automatically anyway

ITT: Switcoin Cucks doing damage control.

Lol if you think a High-fee low-utility Switcoin has value when there is cheaper alternative that is also Bitcoin.

I used to be able to send transactions for $0.003 when I first taught people about bitcoin. not 3 pennies, a fraction of a penny.

I tried sending one yesterday, and it was $0.48 and that wasn't even high priority.

I sent a Bitcoin Cash transaction (confirmations are slow right now due to difficulty) but it only cost $0.02 to get in the next block.

We always knew that the only thing that would kill bitcoin, is a better crypto.
Who knew it would be Bitcoin that takes the spot of Bitcoin.

>>2953974
Ditto for core.

>>2953942
and segwith and LN will fix EVERYTHING!!! Just gotta hold on a bit longer guys, even though we lost half our marketcap to altcoins already and a lot of big and small business have already left bitcoin and we would be at 100 000 btc by now if it wasn't for the "increase to bigger than diskette size, blockchain debate".. BECAUSE IT WILL TOTALLY BE WORTH IT GAIS!!!1111 Trsut us!!!

You idiots know segwit hasn't activated yet, right?

>>2954036

it has on litecoin. yet no one uses the segwit part on litecoin either.

I thought it was supposed to be god's gift to crypto.

y no use if so good?

>>2954031
>thinks market cap can be applied to a currency
>thinks the block size is the problem and not the required bandwidth
>thinks bigger blocks will help small businesses accept transactions faster
>thinks core devs are illuminati tier

>>2954066
because no-one uses litecoin?

>>2954036
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/blocks
Curiously enough, block 478621 of BCC(!) was professed by SegWit.

>>2954023
Lol of course moon man hates core.

>>2952671

I trust 2-year-old cornell more than your autistic chart.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/cornell-study-recommends-4mb-blocksize-bitcoin/

>>2954016
I sent a bitbean transaction and it cost less then a cent.

So it's certainly better than bitcoin cash

Great logic, r/btc cucks at their finest people

>>2954083

post transaction id or you full of shit.

you can ride 1meg greg's dick , that's fine.

but have some class and don't lie about data to try to convince people your views are right.

>>2954098
>It's well known that you can get cheaper transactions from other alts
>Apparently doesn't know this
>Bitcoin Cash supporter

yikes

>>2954122
>122 ▶

>needs to censor ppl who point out Switcoin is shitcoin.

the r\btc meme is pretty gud though. I like it.

who the fook wants to use altcoins?
I write apps using bitcoin libraries. ain't no shitcoin libraries or even a community other than retard traders who try to pump/dump.

>>2954133
>replying is censorship according to this anon
>Asks who uses altcoins
>Doesnt realize he just used one with Bitcoin Cash
You're not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?

>>2954083
GREEAT ARGUMENT FRIENDO! EVERYONE but stupid people from /r/btc knows that more expensive to use = better. High five!!1111

>>2954070
well i don't know about LOOMINATI. But greg is a mason, that's fairly well known.

>>2954080
I don't hate core. I'm pro any solution that will help Bitcoin's future.

I'm pro-Segwit2x or SW/LN/Dynamic Blocks.

File: file.png (342KB, 2604x700px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 2604x700px

>>2953215
>>2953269
>>2953341
>>2952340
>>2952348
>>2952369


Holy shit we are unironically getting astroturfed by r/btc shills, aren't we?

Roger must be have gone completely insane and must be absolutely desperate if he's paying you to post here

>>2954171
blockstream gets 76 million dollars from wallstreet investors to push segwit and somehow people on biz are the shills lol okay

https://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-55-million-series-a/

>>2954171
yep, we are

r/btc really is a cult

>>2954184
>miners are trying to take over a multi-billion dollar industry with a series of contentious hard forks and somehow people on biz are the shills lol okay

Maybe you'd be better off posting some frogs. That'll certainly help you.

>>2954184
How dare they raise money!

>>2954184
>point out that the second layer has always been believed to be necessary since the beginning, which Segwit is necessary and a step towards
>HURR DURR THE ILARMINATY ARE CONTROLLING BLOCKSTREAM'S BRAINSSS REEEEEEE

I want pajeet to kys

>>2954184
blockstream gets money for liquid not for segwit lol

File: file.png (28KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 267x200px

>>2954171
>Hal Finney

F

File: anon.gif (1018KB, 300x167px) Image search: [Google]

1018KB, 300x167px

>>2954184
>stop private investors from investing in things reeeee
>why can't Jihan found the communist state of bitcoinland and why can't we have him as supreme leader reeeeeee

>>2954171
Also I'm replying again, because that image you posted, confirms everything the anons you quoted said, that bitcoin is simply just banking 2.0 and would allow them to leverage it out and do their scheme electronically. Good job I guess?

>bitcoin backed banks

lol. this is the future segwit shills and core want. a shitty currency that's too slow to actually use. Core certainly came a long way from " A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution"

Poor satoshi must be spinning

>>2954212
>Also I'm replying again, because that image you posted, confirms everything the anons you quoted said, that bitcoin is simply just banking 2.0 and would allow them to leverage it out and do their scheme electronically. Good job I guess?
no this confirms that r/btc shills are literally illiterate and cannot understand the points made. That thread was about whether banks would still exist when Bitcoin becomes the global currency. IT IS FUCKING HIGHLIGHTED WHAT THE POINT IS, I.E. THE SECOND LAYER HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF "SATOSHI'S VISION" OR HOWEVER YOU CULT SICK FUCKS WANT TO CALL IT.
>lol. this is the future segwit shills and core want. a shitty currency that's too slow to actually use
ever since Jihan decided to fork off the network is free and fast as fuck you fucking mongoloid pajeet
>. Core certainly came a long way from " A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution"
No they don't, and I have already explained you why you fucking cuck.
>Poor satoshi must be spinning
go back to r*ddit moron

man you bcc shills must be salty as fuck your day 1 pump did jack shit to hurt bitcoin

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6rhwoz/i_came_here_from_rbitcoin_and_i_like_this_sub/

>>2954239
That's a lot of anger and hostility but you're still 100% wrong, and what's funny is you're so fucking inept, that you posted a picture that proved the people you were replying to correct. LMAO. Anons said that bitcoin is just going to be gold 2.0, not to be handlded by plebs but to be held by banks so they can issue their money backed by it, and then you post an image confirming that, good job retard


Enjoy your coin that is, as Hal said, money that "serves as a reserve currency for banks to issue their own money", where "bitcoin transactions by private indiciduals will be rare".

Gee, no wonder core wants smaller blocksize. Why the fuck would you want a bitcoin that's so slow, it can't be used as a currency? This is the Core logic. It's everything this guy said >>2953269

>>2954263
you should go back to your beloved reddit

>>2954263
nobody cares about leddit you dumb nigger

>>2954239
oh right because on /r/bitcoin hal finney is satoshi. ahh. ok. i think if hal finney is satoshi it's kindof odd that he had two nicks on that forum and apparently a split personality. One he used to write the whitepaper and another he used when he loved banks.

>>2954274
no u

>>2954275
>pls don't look guise!!!

oh well. enough idiocy for today. have a good day.

File: 1501309093465.png (245KB, 1465x1209px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1465x1209px

>>2954272
Wow, this is exactly how it feels when you call support and Pajeet answers you:
>"Pajeet here at your service, number 3352"
>"So, this is why Bitcoin isn't slower than it needs to be and why we need Segwit and LN"
>"ok sir, satoshi's vision says that you should not have Segwit"
>"no, see, since 2010 people knew this would happen because on chain transactions aren't good enough for global traffic"
>"ok sir, my name is Pajeet, number 3352, did I tell you how Blockstream are literally the devil?"
>"well Blockstream isn't really important for the development of Bitcoin. Did you get what I said? We need a second layer to keep the network censorship-resistant, so governments cannot break it"
>"sir sir, I didn't hear you well, Pajeet here, number 3352, did I tell you that the network is slow and we need big blocks?"
>"listen Pajeet, the network really isn't slow, in fact it was spammed by Jihan exactly to convince people otherwise. Now that Jihan is busy with Bcash, there is no problem of congestion at all"
>"sir sir, Pajeet here, number 3352, I don't understand. Can I redirect you to a post on r/btc? It says that AxaBlockstreamCore gassed 6 million jews in WW2, we need to stop them"
>*click*

>>2954328
You're embarrassing desu.

File: 1444328096690.jpg (42KB, 454x453px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 454x453px

>only Hilary supports will support bitcoin core
really makes u think

>>2954272
>Uhh, he's 100% correct you stupid cuck. Bitcoin will never fully eliminate banks. That's the whole point of the post.

What you are posting here is a foregone conclusion. We ALREADY KNOW that banks are going to get involved.

Banking is going to form in some way or another, whether you like it or not. You can treat it like its some form of witchcraft, or you can treat it like an adult and embrace it. It's part of finance.

Now I know whats going to come next

>Muh Kikes
>Muh NWO

Stopping the Jew NWO doesnt start with preventing Segwit you moron. It starts with going after the people who want centralized banking and fiat currency. That has nothing to do with bitcoin at this time.

File: file.png (315KB, 660x346px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 660x346px

>>2954344
>"sir, Pajeet here number 3352, you are embarassing me. I call boss now, he pays good money and is rich and powerful. He will tell you why big blocks good and small blocks bad. Can I link you to r/btc dear sir?"

>>2954351
>"sir, Rasheed here, number 2580, I call to tell you about the flat earth, and about why Hillary Clinton who never even heard about bitcoin is behind Blockstream, the Bilderberg and 9/11. Yes sir, I know in Podesta leaked emails they even say Bitcoin is shit and to uknwon and shitty corporate virtual money, but that is totally not proof that Hillary killed Satoshi. Hello sir? Can you please leave a message with your review for my work? Dank you very much sir"

Lol you r/btc faggots think you can astroturf biz, think again. Get BTFO

Crawl back to Roger

>>2954363
If bitcoin becomes fast enough so it can be used as both cash and store of value, it can't be fucked up by bankers. If it goes down the path of core(they want 300kb blocks), it will eventually become so slow that it's only traded between banks like in this pic>>2954171
, and banks will issue their own crypto, backed by bitcoin.

That's not what bitcoin was supposed to ever be, that's cancer. It's supposed to be digital gold that laymen can also use as cash. It's not supposed to JUST be digitial gold that's too slow to prevent it from being used as a currency by normal people. Once it's this, it will be held by banks so the banks can issue their own crypto backed by it.

Who the hell wants this? The ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF BITCOIN IS SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND YOU WANT IT TO BE CONTROLLED BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

Stop fucking shilling

>>2954328
>Jihan spam meme
Prove it. Bitcoin network spam is nothing new. We had dust spam attacks since fucking 2011/2012.

Even if you could directly link it to Jihan, so what?

You're acting as if nobody else could perform the attack.

If they could, then the network is inherently susceptible to the attack. That congestion will happen naturally with wide scale adoption.

If anything Jihan's spam literally proves his point. If it's not Jihan and Chink Co, it will be real tx congesting the network, so it's literally not an argument.

None of this is really relevant, because both scaling solutions work and people are just circlejerking each solution with different ulterior motives and because they're part of a fucking cult. Both Segwit/LN and big blocks clearly work, so I'll be glad when SegWit2x is finally adopted and there's a fully functioning BTC. Only thing missing after that will be dynamic blocksizes if LN doesn't solve the block problem.

>>2954408
t. theymos shill

>>2954418
In what universe does small blocks == banking? Segwit/LN both exist as an alternative to bigger blocks.

>>2954418
>If bitcoin becomes fast enough so it can be used as both cash and store of value, it can't be fucked up by bankers
if bitcoin scales only on-chain, then only banks will be able to run nodes and verify transactions, you fucking subhuman shill. Literally Kys.

>>2954431
just look at traffic bloat chart you fucking moron. Can you do 2+2?
>tripfag
oh that explains everything. Here's your last (you)

File: hqdefault.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

alright listen up fags
you want to make btc
you're going to want to use the same
broker that Martin Shkreli recommended
in his livestream:

https://1broker.com/?c=en/home&r=33934

shrekli seal of approval

>>2954436
If bitcoin is too slow to be used by normal people, only banks will hold bitcoin, and they will use that bitcoin to issue their own crypto and then you'll run into fractional reserve kikery. You kys.

Bitcoin isn't something you BACK money with to issue out a new money. Bitcoin IS money.

>>2954436
Why do you believe this is any different than big block nodes? Both types of nodes require heavier resources than existing solutions. Nobody has presented a technical argument for why either big blocks or segwit/ln fails to work on consumer nodes and magically has to be run by "banks and corporations".

>>2954446
not an argument

>>2954431
>If they could, then the network is inherently susceptible to the attack. That congestion will happen naturally with wide scale adoption.
Spam is expensive you fucking moron. Holy shit grow a fucking brain faggot. You can only do spam for a short time, and only to create a narrative, which is Jihan did. One of the fixes in Segwit is exactly what will stop such attacks from having any effect. Why am I wasting my breath? Fuck off moron.

>>2954418
except Bitcoin with scale many times faster than bcc

>>2954457
Make sure to bandage those arms from being so fucking edgy faggot. Still not an argument though, since real tx aren't spam and will net the same effect.

>>2954451
>If bitcoin is too slow to be used by normal people
it isn't
>only banks will hold bitcoin
banks can only own bitcoin if you sell it to them shit for brains
>and they will use that bitcoin to issue their own crypto and then you'll run into fractional reserve kikery
you cannot issue things with bitcoin you fucking moron. At the best you can use it as reserve like gold is used today, or as an asset to exchange value. Holy shit democracy was a mistake.

>>2954451
>Bitcoin isn't something you BACK money with to issue out a new money. Bitcoin IS money.
there are about 1000 currencies that are issued with the backing of bitcoin you fucking retard.

>>2954464
>muh edginess
WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE FAGGOT? JUST GO BACK TO R*DDIT AND TAKE YOUR SHIT TRIP WITH YOU

This thread in a nutshell:

>Jihan attacked the network therefore we need big blocks
>even though segwit solves the same problem

>Bigger blocks causes centralization due to banker nodes
>even though SegWit does the same thing

>rand([segwitcoin, bcash]) causes centralization
>even though SHA256 coins are mined almost exclusively in China by a handful of companies

>>2954464
>real tx aren't spam
THEY WEREN'T REAL TRANSACTIONS. PEOPLE SENDING BTC TO THEMSELVES AT 50 DOLLARS FEE COUNTLESS TIMES IN A DAY AREN'T REAL TX. CONSIDER SUICIDE. It is people like you that ruin everything with their whoring themselves out for a couple of cents to people like Roger and other power-hungry retards smelling their own farts

>>2954470
Bitcoin shouldn't be some gold standard shit, where the only purpose of bitcoin is used as a reserve to issue out an entirely different currency.

Bitcoin is just supposed to BE the currency. Not backing anything, no settlement layer stupidity

>>2954479
It's not necessarily bad if a crypto is backed by bitcoin, it's only bad when bitcoin is so slow, that it's only traded between banks and held by them whom then issue out their own crypto.

>>2954418
You poor indoctrinated shill. That's not going to happen, Segwit is going to make it much faster it's already been tested.

If Segwit does not succeed in making Bitcoin faster, then the market will make the appropriate choice.

>, and banks will issue their own crypto, backed by bitcoin.
>That's not what bitcoin was supposed to ever be, that's cancer. It's supposed to be digital gold that laymen can also use as cash.

If it gets to that point, then it is up to the market and the people to say no to fractional banking and to get that to stop. It's going to get to that point one way or another, through Bitcoin or another altcoin currency.

If they dont subvert bitcoin then it would be another altcoin.

Right now I just dont see Bitcoin being subverted. Right now what you are doing is that you're crying foul before we even see the results of Segwit.

If Segwit results in slow Bitcoin, then perhaps your accusations have merit. From what I've heard its been thoroughly tested and transactions are fast. LN will make it even faster.

Financial institutions are going to exist regardless of cryptocurrency. What you're really fearful of is central banking - having a new Federal Reserve issue crypto. And I agree with that sentiment, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

You sound really shrill and hysterical which is why no one can take r/btc seriously. It's time to go back to r/btc

File: 1499269635979.gif (832KB, 299x235px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 299x235px

>>2954487
take out your trip faggot. It is clear as day you have a trip so you can shill more reasily without having to solve captchas. Go back to r*ddit and stay there.
You keep repeating those retarded lies and those strawmen as if you are a literal walking wall with no brain. Kys.

>>2954505
>it's only bad when bitcoin is so slow
it isn't
>that it's only traded between bank
it isn't and it never will
>held by them whom then issue out their own crypto.
banks can issue their crypto if they want, that is not going to harm the value of bitcoin in anyway.
Now, with big blocks instead, only banks will be able to validate transactions, and therefore the network won't be censorship-resistant anymore, not only harming but destroying bitcoin

>>2954511
>Having a trip prevents captchas
?????

File: _____.jpg (82KB, 1333x1000px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1333x1000px

Ancient diversity

>>2954522
It doesn't fucking matter who mines the coins, only who controls the total quantity of the coin. And the quantity of btc is finite.

This scenario in your head where big blocks somehow lead to banks owning all the mining farms is stupid as fuck

>>2954505
Segwit: Almost 3 years of hard planning & testing.

8 MB: 2 weeks of planning, a website made using WIX and a SPV wallet that doesn't work.

>>2954536
>It doesn't fucking matter who mines the coins
first of all, it matters, secondly I was referring to nodes that validate transactions you fucking moron
> only who controls the total quantity of the coin.
That actually does not count at all you fucking idiot
>And the quantity of btc is finite.
you should tell Roger, an NChain, and Jihan, who all have already said that should be changed in the future
>This scenario in your head where big blocks somehow lead to banks owning all the mining farms is stupid as fuck
That is a fact you fucking moron. In fact, Craig Wright literally admitted and started claiming that if you don't want only corporations validating transactions then you are a stalinist and a north corean.

File: bitcoin bank.png (292KB, 2604x700px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 2604x700px

>>2954509
>Right now I just dont see Bitcoin being subverted. Right now what you are doing is that you're crying foul before we even see the results of Segwit.

Segwit is the first step on the path to the end game which I described though. Pic related, the steps are to

If you're really fearful of central banking, a fed reserve of crypto, you should be fearful of segwit and the core ideology of keeping bitcoin as slow as possible. Why do you think transaction times for bitcoin only get higher as time goes on

and i don't know why you keep parroting this fucking rbtc boogeyman

>>2954579
>you should be fearful of segwit and the core ideology of keeping bitcoin as slow as possible
You fucking moron, with LN transactions will a million times faster than the biggest blocks ever imaginable could hope to be.
>Why do you think transaction times for bitcoin only get higher as time goes on
They don't
>and i don't know why you keep parroting this fucking rbtc boogeyman
t. r/btc shill

>>2954560
>first of all, it matters,
it literally doesn't
>That actually does not count at all
it completely counts

Oh okay if big blocks lead to corporations owning everything then I guess I missed the part where nabisco is mining bitcoin cash and also the part where corporations own literally every other altcoin which has big blocks

kys

File: d91 (1).gif (2MB, 331x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 331x197px

>>2954579
You sound like a broken record, you're repeating the same thing over and over again
> the core ideology of keeping bitcoin as slow as possible.

Literally lol, you cant make this stuff up. They have an upgrade called "lightning network" sounds pretty fast to me huh?

I've seen the pic. It's meaningless, that post was from 2010. Thats the whole point, banks are going to get involved one way or another.

Like I said if the network turns out slow then the market will make the right choice and maybe your claims are valid. As of right now its a bunch of hot air and foregone conclusions.

>>2954614
>Like I said if the network turns out slow then the market will make the right choice and maybe your claims are valid.

well then strap in buddy because as time goes on and blockstream fucks their shit up as they've been doing you will see that I was right, I want them to make bitcoin fast like everybody else, but they won't. it's only high fees and cuckery from here on out

>>2954606
>it literally doesn't
it literally does
>it completely counts
it doesn't. What matters is the network. If you have more BTC you are richer but you don't own the network because of it, although Roger the fucking moron Ver would like to believe otherwise.
>Oh okay if big blocks lead to corporations owning everything then I guess I missed the part where nabisco is mining bitcoin cash and also the part where corporations own literally every other altcoin which has big blocks
what the fuck are you even trying to say here you fucking idiot? Literally nobody is mining bitcoin cash, and nobody will because everyone know it's a shitcoin. Corporations would be the only ones validating transactions if the main bitcoin chain was co-opted and big blocks were enforced. It wouldn't happen in a single day. Holy shit how fucking retarded are you?

>>2954628
do you have this vision in your head where its 2009 and people still mine on their cpus? bitcoin is already too hard to mine for the layperson. this "big blocks will be too hard to mine" FUD is nonsense

>>2954627
> I want them to make bitcoin fast like everybody else, but they won't.
other coins aren't faster, they just are less used. Shorter block times would make the network less safe. Of course you don't give a shit about security when your coin is called DGB and is only a meme not used by any actual business, because you don't need to be. And despite this lots of altcoins get hacked all the time and double spent. Bitcoin can't afford to let something like that happen.

>>2954636
>this "big blocks will be too hard to mine" FUD is nonsense
there's plenty of small miners mining that would get cut out by bigger blocks. Also it is about validating nodes, not just miners. Those are fundamental to keep censorhip-resistance. Every time the blocksize was raised, a lot of nodes went offline, and the security of the network became worse as a process. That is why Core understood that way was going to destroy bitcoin in the long-run and the second layer was created. Which btw is already in testnet and it won't take many years to have it deployed on the mainnet, as Roger claims.

>>2954645
oh my god the small miners bullshittery again. as for nodes, it's a fucking meme argument.

if blocksize was increased, you're maybe looking at 500gb tops after many, many years. 80 bucks for a 2tb hdd .if you can't devote a couple hundred gigabytes in hd space to run a node then fuck off, you're telling me these "small miners" can afford thousands of dollars on dedicated mining hardware but can't afford a fucking seagate hard drive.

File: 1486762406498.jpg (87KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 645x773px

>>2954670
>oh my god the small miners bullshittery again.
they exist, whether you like it or not
>as for nodes, it's a fucking meme argument.
it isn't
>if blocksize was increased, you're maybe looking at 500gb tops after many, many years. 80 bucks for a 2tb hdd .if you can't devote a couple hundred gigabytes in hd space to run a node then fuck off, you're telling me these "small miners" can afford thousands of dollars on dedicated mining hardware but can't afford a fucking seagate hard drive.
Network has to be pervasive and be everywhere, even poor places. It isn't just about hard drive, it is also about bandwith and a lot of other factos. For example having blocks too big would make it impossible to run a node through TOR, which would stop a lot of people from running it (remember that not everyone leaves in peaceful zones, and that governments constantly try to seize the network or destroy it so anonimity is of prime importance to nodes).

Either way you keep missing the point. Segwit + Shnorr + LN isn't just more elegant, but also an overall better solution that has 0 disatvantages and countless advantages. That itself already makes it the best choice by default. Everything else? Roger is pissed off because he's crypto rich, but unlike rich people in the "old world", he has no power on the network, he does not decide the policies like Roshschild for the FED does. He has lots of bitcoins, he can have an easy life, but that's all he has, nothing else. That is why he's buying websites millions of dollars just to sell this new bitcoin where he and a handful of others have all the control, without the peer review, the open sourceness, the accountability, the criptography and the science.

>>2953133
>profitable to mine

note that "profitable to mine" actually means "easy to sell and with a wider margin".

>>2954701
I refuse to buy the argument that a 500gb node is hard to run. How can these small miners blow 10k on mining hardware but break the fucking bank for a western digitial 1tb.

Why won't somebody think of the poor brazilians with computers from 1999???

Literally nobody has explained how either segwit/ln or bigger blocks lead to centralization, because both sides keep parroting to the other that the opposing scaling solution will lead to it despite that same argument applying to themselves.

Enthusiasts will upgrade machines to support bigger blocks, that is a fact.

LN will allow scaling without upgrading machines, also a fact. Somehow this causes centralization because of funds requires to route payments. This becomes irrelevant when SegWit2x also increases block size.

Remind me what the fuck is wrong with SegWit2x again that we had to fork (though don't get me wrong, I'm loving the free money)? It would eventually have LN for those who want it and bigger blocks for those who don't.

If 2x ends up not activating on the main chain I may just dump both my BTC and BCC and invest in some meme alt. God knows if BTC can't make it I might as fucking well.

>>2954723
I have already explained you anon, you are literally just repeating the debunked argument and pretending not to understand. You're a shill.

>>2954724
Still here Pajeet? Take off that trip or fuck off

>>2954736
I'm not a shill. Suggesting that 500 gigabytes of harddrive space is expensive is utter fucking lunacy.

File: file.png (626KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 600x600px

>>2954736

>>2954723
BANDWIDTH IS THE PROBLEM NOT STORAGE YOU FUCKING FAGGOT
GOD DAMN

>>2954743
I already explained to you that is a strawman. Learn to read or fuck off

>>2954750
the funniest thing is that it was chinese miners who originlly complained about latency on the network due to their own shit internet. Because of the big wall of China, it is a huge problem to have bigger blocks without latency problems

>>2954750
hope you realize that the bandwidth is fucking negligible. It's like stepping on the gas from 15mph up to 18mph.

>>2954763
*big firewall of China

>>2954764
GOD DAMN ANON please tell me you are trolling.
I might kill myself when I have to read another shit post from you.

I don't even get the whole bankers want a slow Bitcoin meme because Bitcoin is going to be many magnitudes faster than the dead fork bcc whether they used 8mb or even 8gb pages, it doesn't change the confirmation time. bcc tries to "fix" the completely wrong bottleneck

This kind of blind fanaticism can come from only one place... a subreddit... R/btc

File: bitshares.png (21KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1024x1024px

>PoW
>in 2017

l o l

holy shit, this thread is a perfect fit for that meme where the guy goes into the thread looking for a discussion about a topic and is overwhelmed with various stereotypical responses that inevitably degenerate into a giant melee

To sum up the thread, so basically blockchain is a shit technology? Sell your bags and buy fiat.

>>2952696
>itself is inherently centralized
Cost of Hardware Production + Cost of Electricity is lowest in China, so there really isn't any way of dealing with this issue. It's a problem inherent to PoW.

>>2955477
That's exactly my point. No matter what solution you pick it's going to be centralized.

>>2955461
>sell your bags and buy IOTA or BTS

FTFY

>>2954133
>I write apps using bitcoin libraries.

What kind of apps? What do they do?