Jihan's Mining Rig Company Holds 70% Market Share of ASIC Mining

>>3167096

Thanks for the racist diatribe, meanwhile Bitcoin Core is threatening legal action against SegWit2X, an open source fork of an open source project

Fuck these American nutjobs, time to get behind the Chinese revolution or get crushed.

Kek, it's not like the US hasn't done the same to them. I give him props for being clever, greedy miners wanted the biggest, fastest equipment at any cost.

>>3167096
Proofs?

>>3167118
I feel safer with chineese right now...

>>3167096
>Chinese companies have a long history putting backdoor in their own product
So do American ones.

>>3167132

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-August/000259.htm

Faggot core devs keep digging themselves a bigger hole, trying to make believe that huge amounts of the community don't support SW2X

>>3167138

I used to hate the chink miners, now I admire them. They took a HUGE risk choosing to mine a pseudo-anonymous currency in the heart of a communist dictatorship, guys like Jihan could have easily been dragged away and thrown in a dark prison cell for upsetting the status quo, that takes balls and real entrepreneurial spirit to start mining cryptocurrency where they live. It is an ethos that the West has totally lost in the last several decades.

>>3167096
FUCK THE GOOKS, COIN WAR NOW

>>3167118
>Thanks for the racist diatribe, meanwhile Bitcoin Core is threatening legal action against SegWit2X, an open source fork of an open source project

yeah because there's no replay protection

>>3167228

Only Americans would rather involve the courts in a dispute than offer a competitive product. This is an attempt at regulatory capture to ensure only Bitcoin Core can make changes to the protocol

If that doesn't make you want to dump your BTC, enjoy holding worthless bags in the near future while these people backed with banker money continue to drive BTC into the ground

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-26 at 2.42.50 PM.png (412KB, 478x756px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 478x756px

>>3167118
Um, it's "racist" to call the actions of a Chines company?

Did Mao fuck you in the ass as a child or something?

We can point out the obvious, which is that I don't want to support something run by the Chinese government, and not be a racist.

Bitcoin is an INTERNATIONAL project.

See how it works, chink?

Core shills should stop bitching about Jihan and start a company that makes better mining rigs.

For fucks sake, this is crypto you sobbing little bitches. People want to use his shit for a reason. Satisfy your potential customers better and they will use your crippled core shit.

Till then, shut the fuck up. You were wrong about scaling. You were wrong about Bitcoin Cash, and you continue to be wrong about Bitcoin Cash. You are wrong about Jihan. You are wrong about the general theory and ethos of crypto for fucks sake.

Sit down, shut up, learn something, until you stop being wrong. Then feel free to pipe up again.

Yet you want things to be run by fucking kikes, goy cocksucker.

>>3167311
Like it's that easy.

Jihan is being SUBSIDIZED to create his dirt cheap mining rigs.

>>3167167
>I used to hate the chink miners, now I admire them. They took a HUGE risk choosing to mine a pseudo-anonymous currency in the heart of a communist dictatorship, guys like Jihan could have easily been dragged away and thrown in a dark prison cell for upsetting the status quo, that takes balls and real entrepreneurial spirit to start mining cryptocurrency where they live. It is an ethos that the West has totally lost in the last several decades.
Haha who exactly do you think is backing him? You don't seriously think someone with no experience in programming or engineering cornered the ASIC market while somehow getting free electricity to mine? Most likely the whole thing is an elaborate scheme by the chinese government to seize control of bitcoin. Since mining is centralized in china they can manipulate it and track things however they please.

Blockstream are stupid as well, everyone needs to move to something other than BTC/BCH those are effectively dead now.

>>3167327
US government can subsidize their mining hardware too. You've only got yourself to blame.

File: c3910915c88f02d11b93f8f1c3f2bdc9.jpg (15KB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 360x240px

>>3167311

Fucking THIS

China created Bitmain and eBit, and some of the most heavily regulated exchanges for consumer protection.

US created Butterfly Labs, GAW miners, and obliterated the New York Bitcoin markets so a senator could make millions charging people to get around his own laws. Not to mention Washington state that threatened to drive their huge mining farms out of state because.... reasons?

Now the American devs are determined to control Bitcoin's development even if it means destroying the network and everyone's money with it

China is already the new superpower, Americans are just too blind and or stupid to see it

>>3167118
Hey Kumar, I know you're probably used to dropping trou and stretching your buttcheeks for the chinese like a good sub-asian slave. But we're not so keen on that shit.

>>3167266
He's not a chink lad, they can't into english. The chinks are likely behind it but they tend to hire pajeets to do their astroturfing for them.

>>3167363
I love how people turn totalitarian State-sponsored monopolies into the "entrepreneurial spirit".

What a crock of shit.

>>3167393
It's almost as if an anarcho-capitalist society has no ways of defending itself LMAO

>>3167379

It is even worse, while China is buying up silver, gold and Bitcoin, we have our own treasury secretary making public statements like, "Well I hope there is still gold in Ft. Knox!", our country has literally been looted from within for decades and we will be paying the pied piper soon.

>>3167118
There is nothing wrong with racism.
The problem is that Core team is backed by jews.

>>3167483
Name the Jews.

I hate Jihan

>>3167508
I more hate chinks as a whole. Jihan is just one of many.

>>3167507
AXA

>>3167559
>>3167508
Chinks > Jews, coreshills

>>3167118
>muh racism

Back to redit for you fagget

These arguments are beyond autistic.

The drama will never end and buttcoin will always have some degree of centralization thanks to miners.

This is why I prefer iota.

>even after the retarget BCH will still be more profitable to mine which will cause BTC to hemorrhage even more hash power pushing their retarget further and further
>by the time BTC retargets the price will have dropped even more and BCH will have mooned
This is history in the making here
Jihan is the chink crypto version of Soros, he is will ruin the entire crypto community for years just for a profit

>>3167635
>>even after the retarget BCH will still be more profitable to mine
Now that's patently false.
http://fork.lol/
BTC will be 134% more profitable to mine after the adjustment.

>>3167118
>racist diatribe

Fuck off, leddit.

>>3167393
Don't forget - inside every gook there is a kike trying to get out.

>>3167167

The chink government secretly loves bitcoin, who do you think is buying all the property/assets in the western world? The chinks in government laundering their cash of course

They block the common gook from investing overseas by restricting money that can be sent, all the while allowing bitcoin to operate completely unrestricted.

>>3167650
except it won't
you need BTC price to go up and BCH to go down for BTC to be more profitable with just the next BCH retarget
meanwhile in reality BTC continues its death spiral

>>3167697
Are you dense? BCH will get a 300% upward difficulty adjustment in hours. It's only 70% more profitable to mine than BTC right now. It WILL be less profitable when the adjustment comes.

File: file.png (28KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 224x225px

>>3167363
>Freedumb aint free
LETS GIVE BLOCKSTREAM ALL THE CONTROL THEN!

>>3167747
>people won't side with the devil they know

Give it up, pajeets. You're fighting a battle that can't be won.

>>3167118
Another chink from Reddits BCH discord PnD?

>>3167816
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-August/000259.html

>decisive action against it, both technical and legal, has been prepared.

Bitcoin Core is and has been preparing legal action.

Legal. Action.

The idea that this is even being considered should tell you all you need to know about your small-block puppet masters at Blockstream.

>>3167846
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-August/000259.html

How the fuck can Core take legal action, on a decentralized currency they don't own LOL, would love to see a judge toss that shit out.

>>3167846
Don't say we didn't warn you. >>3167846

>>3167447
I haven't heard of Fort Knox since the 2007

>>3167868
It's about patents. It is heavily suspected that Blockstream has filed patents for SegWit, or at least the crucial parts and design of it. If people run code that is patented, they can be controlled by the patent holder, aka blockstream, aka blockstreams owners/investors, legacy financial company AXA.

This is what this multi-year fight has been about. One goalpost move after another by blockstream to keep people using their client, which is patent encumbered. Now that people have hard forked away (Bitcoin Cash), that hard fork was a success (blockstream trolls, including the bitcoin core dev team said it would crash and burn immediately!), important people are calling their bluff and no longer using bitcoin core's client.

Soon bitcoin will be split in 3, and blockstream/core's power will have been shattered as they really only control a crappy legacy chain that people hate using.

>>3167868
Last I checked that was fake news. But anyway crypto businesses have money at stake on the BTC blockchain, so a contentious hard fork without replay protection is a direct attack on that chain. I'd guess businesses would have a case along those lines.

Replay protection is trivial to implement with a hard fork, not so much without one (I'm not even sure if it's possible at all). s2x is forking in the first place so it should implement replay protection at the time of it's fork.

>if core users don't want to hard fork then they should do a hard fork

Does this really sound reasonable to you?