If he is the only one mining BCC doesnt that mean he can do all

Isn't core devs plan to make BTC scalable by 3rd partying transactions by depositing them into banks? They might be calling it lightning network but it seems like greedy chink is preferable to government holding your balls

>>2959234
Dude the first thing that I thought was fucked up when I used BTC was that the transactions aren't instant and cheap.

Its super confusing for normies.

I was like how the hell you gonna pay in a supermarket with it?

Im a programmer and I instantly thought of making a service where you can send you coins (and load your account like a prepaid card) and the service manages instant transactions for you.

Now segwit is like that but much better. Its like the thing that was holding bitcoin back is now gone.

Get fucked.

>>2959260
What's with the hate? Im just an investor, not a big blocker. I don't even own Bitcoin. I get 4chan hates gooks but miners have the last say.

Segwit or not, when the big blockers pull their resources and put it into BCC what will BTC do? They can't adjust the difficulty. They probably have to move to pos or it's game over.

>>2959313
The hate is obligatory

Btc has demand because it has an economic infrastructure, paymentsystems etc. Even if the miners switch this will not make people magically demand bcc

>>2959260
>I was like how the hell you gonna pay in a supermarket with it?
You're not. But coin is a store of value. Nobody pays in the supermarket with government bonds or gold either.

>>2959417
Why can't BCC take over the existing infrastructure once it becomes the only surviving chain?

>>2959552
it can. it's a fork of bitcoin only with segwit taken out and they fixed 0 conf again because core didn't like it(core don't want a usable network, they want an unusable one so that their "almost-there" LN network will fix everything(never gonna happen))

>>2959552
>>2959614
It will become the only surviving chain if its more profitable to mine BCC and thats not gonna happen because there is no real demand.

>>2959643
we will know the answer at the next difficulty adjustment in 6 days.. BCC has fast difficulty reduction, if that kicks in and the difficulty goes down, miners will hop en masse while starving the btc chain. That is the moment of truth.

>>2959234
This

>>2959260
You could do this until core made replace by fee

>>2959751
There are literally hundreds of other shitcoins that use the same algo as bitcoin. Why should somebody buy bcc which has the same economic structure as any other shitcoin?

>>2959851
because why should someone buy bitcoin when there's better shitcoins?: brand value.

no matter what you think about bcc it has the same ledger as bitcoin and is almost the same which means it will be fast to switch a system from btc to bcc which ultimately means it could take over bitcoin, and there's also a lot of people hating core that wants it, plus it will instantly fix fee and transaction speed issues which is also something everyone but propaganda victims like.

>>2959851
because bcc is the continuation of the Bitcoin blockchain. So many people consider it to be the real Bitcoin. And it is likely to have on board a lot of hash power and important people in the space.

Most altcoins were technologically better than Bitcoin but they just weren't "Bitcoin" the original.
BCC is closer to the original Bitcoin than core-coin is, since they introduced segwit which completely changes how it works, and they have a roadmap that is different from the original Bitcoin project. They basically plan to turn it into a settlement layer for banks.
In the long term it will be about the narrative, who gets to keep the "Bitcoin" name. From a technical standpoint, if BCC receives more hash power it deserves the name more, as it is closer to the original Bitcoin, segwit, even if it's a soft fork, is still a fork and a big change from the original protocol, both from a technical standpoint any in terms of vision. Core plans to have people deposit their bitcoins to banks 2.0, and then transacting with each other off the blockchain, through the banking network. This is a complete 180 from the original idea of bitcoin that was built to have peer to peer cash and against banks... time will tell which will survive

The issue I have with bitching about the chink miners is that anyone could've done it, and still could set up their own mining operation, if they really cared. It's a free market. This sort of situation is bound to happen to any proof of work coin as profitable as Bitcoin.

Chinks want to keep the fee revenue on their end, Core wants to find a way to tap into fees themselves. If anyone really cared about mining they'd go after the POW formula but it's probably impossible at this point.

>>2959260
Worst thing about bitcoin is that private keys give you full access to spend all the coins from that address. It makes sense programically: you can issue a transaction and no one can reverse engineer your private key based on your signature. Great. But normies don't know how to do that, so they're reliant on 3rd party solutions who need access to their private key to issue transactions, which makes the whole economy dependent on 3rd party trust, and because it's just a text string, it's easy to grab keys.

Now the same thing more or less applies to debit cards: get a card and a pin and you can drain the account, but in the case of banks there's a world wide institution based on building trust that the system works.

Actually, come to think of it, a good idea would be some form of blockchain based credit, where you can spend credit that you must later back up with actual tokens, but the token transactions you do from the relative safety of your home versus plugging a credstick in to some hole in a store. You can't spend more than you have in tokens, but you're not looking at an irreversible theft possibility. Well, except for people who receive credit that isn't eventually backed up, but that's a situation we're used to.