Bitcoin Is the only coin you should be holding right now.

> bitcoin will be superior to altcoins in every way.

k :)

All this time, effort, drama and in-fighting JUST to develop and execute 3,000 lines of code

Good luck catching up to what Ethereum, Bitshares, Decred, IOTA, Monero and other top alts are doing.

Stick to doing what Bitcoin does best, sending and receiving money. Core guys are WAY behind in the development field.

>>3000728

BTC is already the most superior coin dude, we just use shitcoins to profit over market fluctuations, and Bitcoin Trash is just another shitcoin which the only difference from SIGT or BitBeans is how much Bitcoin it is worth.

>>3000728
Litecoin has had segwit for years tho

>>3000728
>not seeing the iota flippening

File: faggotsite.png (12KB, 150x40px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 150x40px

>200,000 reddit subscribers

This is exactly why Bitcoin will be replaced by a superior coin and fall to 0.01USD

>>3001064
iota is a cool coin, but the supply makes you unable to get any decent returns

not to mention the developers have plans to increase the supply, by atleast 100%

it just needs too many billions $ to get any decent percentage return unless you bought when it was ATL at 17 cents

heck, just for a 10$ per MIOTA price, it would need a 28 billion dollar marketcap, taking eth's place

doubt that's going to happen anytime soon, but who knows

>>3000812
The correct answer

Btc can keep it's spot at the top legitimately, but blockstream/core need to get their heads out of their digestive tracts

Until then, it's a shitcoin walking

>>2999999

>>3001129

Yes it's getting scary now after segwit is done they are now talking smart contracts, privacy features, the whole enchilada, I mean dude you guys railed against even a minor 1MB blocksize increase, now you want to cram every innovation in the alt market into the core code? As if that is not bloat or a danger? This is proof alone they are full of shit and are liars.

>>3001151
Don't worry. 2MB won't happen without another hard fork into a 3rd Bitcoin.

>>3001151
It's not even like the issue was that hard.

Set up a test net. All with the purpose of people using it, stress testing it... Really just trying as hard as possible to break it to pieces.

Shit, set up like 50 test nets for each different protocol change. Add bounties for finding bugs. Bigger bugs = bigger bounties.

Set up weekly commits for changes after bugs are found. Repeat ad infinitum

Congratulations, core. I just did half your whole fucking job

>>3001575
they do have a testnet you fucking moronic monkey. Who the fuck do you think you are? Some armchair fatass neckbeard sitting in his moms basement telling the people who have maintained a 99.9999999999% uptime on the bitcoin network for the last several years how to do their job lmao

get your head out of your fat ass you fucking chimp. You think you're fucking special or something? Lmao. You literally have no idea how any of the protocol changes work and are telling them to do what they're already doing.
Unbelievably ignorant.

>>3001575
are you literally retarded? honest question.

>>3001600
I'm aware. I'm glad they applied any fraction of it's real use during the 2 years the scaling debate happened.

My point is they have resources and squandered them on petty internet fights

>>3001575
Holy fuck, I'm browsing a board with mouth breathers like this cunt

In an ideal world without pragmatism or compromise, bitcoin would have fixed Tx malleability to enable second layer solutions and received a modest blocksize increase or blocksize scaling mechanism to increase throughput without risking spam.

The problem is that BCH didn't fix Tx malleability, which IMO is a user-hostile solution since the vast majority of Txs that occur daily in the world aren't important enough to confirm and store on the blockchain (nor would most people WANT all of their Txs stored). At the very least it is a privacy concern, which is pretty funny considering the number of conspiratards that supported the fork

But what is going to be really messy is when the 2x discussion heats up. If core reneges there will be a MASSIVE backlash from the miners. It's likely they fork again, or it could be just as likely that they simply switch back to mining BCH.

It's for this reason I've started accumulating BCH for 10 cents on the $ compared to BTC. I think there is >10% chance that the above scenario plays out (or at least that enough hash rate leaves BTC to significantly increase the value of BCH even if it doesn't overtake BTC). IF BCH fixes Tx malleability via FlexTrans or whatever I will buy even more.


>>3001151
we already have that coin, it's called NEM

>>3000728
I thought, oh maybe i should read this as you might have something interesting to say, but turns out you're just plain stupid. Most altcoins are not competing with bitcoin, they are either a completely different product or a way to accumulate bitcoin for some

>>3001691
shut the fuck up you retard, you don't even know why the fucking debate happened. it's BEEN on the testnet, it's BEEN on litecoin too.
Jihan ver just dont like the fact that their asic boost shit and miner tx got fucking rekt by segwit.
The miners are the ones that must run the code you fucking faggot, and the miners are the ones that spam attacked the 1mb blocks you fuckface. Literally the moment segwit2x locks all spam attacks died. Jihan supported 2x. The fuck is that? Not rocket science here.

>>3001710
Damn, your information seems legit. What other coins would you recommend buying?

>>3001710
There is no reason to have a "compromise" as Segwit2X is when big blockers miners didn't compromise and forked off to Bcash already. Besides, the whole NYA was made in secret by some corporate douches, it's not like it was the result of users asking for it. Literally nobody cares.
https://twitter.com/sovereign_ind/status/895036725323608073

>>3001735
>>3001600

Calm down, Luke.

Maybe you should take a nap and take a break from 4chan and Twitter for a while.

>>3001787
>literally nobody cares

Segwit2x signaling is currently at 93.1%

How much are you willing to bet that those miners don't actually care?

Seriously, what is your position? That they only wanted SegWit to eliminate covert asicboost? That's a legitimate stance but I've never seen anyone claim it on /biz/ yet.

>>3001749
not the place

>>3001151
>>3001710
you don't understand that Segwit already was a compromise, because it allowed both needed fix to the chain, improvements to allow future upgrades, and a blocksize increase. Segwit is so good exactly because it does a bit of everything everyone wanted, it's the ultimate compromise.
The people who shit on Segwit don't do so because Segwit is bad, they do so because they dislike the fact that the Core developers are independent and cannot be paid off and steered towards obedience like it happens with every other business sector in the whole world. It's all aobut some people seeking control. This is like a person asking a bus driver to take him to his own house, and calling the bus driver an "authoritarian undemocratic etc. etc.", like r/btc does with Core. Except the bus driver is only doing his job, and the bus is supposed to go to certain places that are good for everyone, and not only for the ignorant or ill-intentioned that scream loudly

>>3001821
>Segwit2x signaling is currently at 93.1%
wrong
>How much are you willing to bet that those miners don't actually care?
If they want bigger blocks they are free to fuck off to Bcash, but they won't because they know that shitcoin has no future.
>Seriously, what is your position? That they only wanted SegWit to eliminate covert asicboost? That's a legitimate stance but I've never seen anyone claim it on /biz/ yet.
Segwit, before Roger paid millions to astroturf as much internet as possible, was wanted by everyone. This whole blocksize debate is a farce.

File: file.png (4KB, 1289x32px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 1289x32px

>>3001844
>wrong
>pic related

>If they want bigger blocks they are free to fuck off to Bcash, but they won't because they know that shitcoin has no future.

The miners only wanted segwit to eliminate bitmain. I agree that until Tx malleability is fixed in BCH that it faces its own scaling issues. But which is easier? Getting FlexTrans on BCH or getting 2MB blocks on BTC? I don't know to be honest but I'm more than willing to bet on BCH at the current 10-1 odds.

>Segwit, before Roger paid millions to astroturf as much internet as possible, was wanted by everyone.

I don't know how you can say this with a straight face when 20% of the hashrate just left BTC to avoid segwit.

>The development time that has gone into this upgrade dwarfs all other projects

Whahaha TIME not wirk, its just a waiting game with fake news to buy time for blockstream

>>3001844
>This whole blocksize debate is a farce.

If it is a farce then why has it taken years to come to its supposed conclusion? Why has all this time and money been spent flying people back and forth between China and America to hammer out deals?

>>3001888
That's signalling for Segwit, there is no difference in signalling between the BIPs because the 2X part has literally not been written yet. So you can't claim support for it just by looking at that percentage.

>The miners only wanted segwit to eliminate bitmain
wrong. Everybody wanted Segwit, and Bitmain lobbied to stop it because it went against his interests, that's all. Also, I'll say it once and never again, MINERS DO NOT DECIDE CONSENSUS, THEY MERELY FOLLOW IT AND PROTECT IT.

>I don't know how you can say this with a straight face when 20% of the hashrate just left BTC to avoid segwit.
First of all mining Bcash is already a breach of the NYA, Bitcoin Cash itself is, and therefore the NYA is invalid by default. Secondly that does not matter. The main chain is the one used to transact, the other chain may have the biggest blocks in the world, but if few people use it then miners will mine at a a loss. Considering how the high price of bitcoin is bringing a lot of competition in mining (putin about to invest 100 million usd) they can't afford to do so. Again, miners can only follow consensus, that is how btc works.

>>3001901
>If it is a farce then why has it taken years to come to its supposed conclusion?
???? Everyone knew since the beginning it is a face, only newfags don't understand it because of the big noise made by r/btc's astroturfing.
> Why has all this time and money been spent flying people back and forth between China and America to hammer out deals?
There's no deals. There is the developers working on solutions that benefit everyone, and then some megalomaniacs and bad actors trying their hardest to become the new Rothschilds by getting their hands on the network. The problem is that Bitcoin made pretty much all developers rich, so they cannot be bought and told "code me some backdoors". And Bitcoin is too complicated to substitute them with the first code monkey that comes around, those people are literally the best in the world.