If you are talking about CTOR and Wormhole, that is not segwit at all.
Segwit removes the signatures from the hash and segwit transactions are seen as anyone-can-spend by non-segwit nodes. They are invalid blocks, but soft-forked in to corrupt BTC's useability.
Gabriel Myers
Lmao. You are fucking retarded and don't understand softforks. Amd you're trying to lecture me? You don't even know what the abcucks are working on. LMAO M A O
Carson Hughes
How about you help me user?
BTC people are always saying BCH is a scam. So tell me how I am retarded. Tell me what ABC is working on?
It's basically just as complicated and technically debt-y as Segwit except it's a hard fork instead of a soft fork.
Oh well at least there won't be any of that witness weight bullshit.
Bentley Cruz
Hey user, thanks for the link.
I really do appreciate your thoughts. Here are mine.
1. Tomas actually works for Bitcrust. He contributes (mostly) as an XT, BU developer.
2. Bitcoin Improvement Proposals in BU are "signalled" by miners, not chosen by devs, as in Bitcoin Core and ABC.
3. Bitcoin ABC may indeed be working on a malleability fix. They have said it is on their roadmap, but no one knows the specifications of that fix.
since then we've seen numerous 'malleability whack' fixes that address third party malleability. For example in this next upgrade there will be two fixes: cleanstack rule, and scriptsig 'push only' rule. It seems like eventually, third party malleability will be fixed for common transaction classes. That's fine, I think there is nothing significant lost and there's no reason to let miners mess with transactions like that.
>Will BCH ever have a change in txid computation that fixes all malleability? I hope not, because that will break the idea of a chain of transactions each signing the previous signature.
>It's for this reason I support SIGHASH_NOINPUT -- it gives the user the choice of saying "I deliberately break the chain for this pubkey" and it would be used only rarely, as opposed to the case of segwit which is being encouraged for all transactions.
>The arguments against on-chain scaling are just as flawed as they were in 2010.
>The only thing changed is that the people that understand Bitcoin scaling and security model (from the beginning) were chased away, and the people that don't understand it and are pushing their own off-chain solutions (from the beginning) were embraced as "experts".
>Even today, when it has become obvious that their policy has made Bitcoin completely unusable, it seems that some still think it is other people's fault, calling this "attack"; which clearly contradicts the main principles of a decentralized network.
>hurr durr the fact that you can insert double the amount of txs into a block means it can scale Bitcoin cucks will never understand. You think having to wait 30 min (at least) for your tx to confirm 3 times is scalable? What if the blocks are full? You'll be waiting in line at the store for 1 hour or more just to get your tx to confirm. Scalability isn't just blocksize. It's blocktime, miner latency, fair fee structure, etc. BCH is barely more than a well-funded scam.
I feel bad for corecucks. Their coin has no future but they refuse to switch.
Jace Evans
I am bumping to keep the thread alive. You will see that I bump every hour or so.
I just want to talk to other anons about bcash. See? I even call it bcash, I am your friend!
Benjamin Green
jesus christ op get some sleep
William Gutierrez
Not before a bump tho.
But if anyone has legitimate reasons why BCH is terrible. Please let me know.
Also welcome is any information on how BTC will scale to millions of people.
Juan Smith
If btc couldn't scale because of too small a block size, increasing it doesn't magically make it suddenly scale, it's just kicking the can down the road.
Saying bch can scale is a lie.
Wyatt Rogers
There is a limit to how big the blocks can be. But that limit is
a) constantly rising with time (network infrastructure becomes more robust, hardware costs go down) b) limited by how many humans there are.
A gigabyte block has been deployed and mined on the testnet. Even 128MB can rival Paypal scale.
god i hate all these rappers talking about crypto yet they pose with fiat money in their videos. fucking retards that dont understand the first thing about crypto. also sounds like shit every single crypto rap.
creating bch to solve a problem in blockchain scaling is the same like making bigger hdd while ssd is being in deveoplment to increase computer memory. It is destined to be obsolete in less than two years.
Luke Murphy
BTC and BCH are bad fiat. What are they tokens for?
>Dollar is token for faith in US economy, tiny cost to print >Yuan is token for faith in Chinese government, tiny cost to print >Gold doubloons aren't a fiat, they are physically valuable, cost to mine is priced in All these things can therefore be used as money, being protected long-term by very strong forces.
>BTC and BCH are fiat tokens for faith in the power of the free internet, cost of mining is enormous amounts of wasted energy
All it would take to overpower them is a government that doesn't like them banning access to any exchanges via your ISP. Who doesn't like them? The international financial elite, who by the way control the world. The internet is not free from tyranny, especially long term where anything could happen to it. It is effectively controlled by the government. That's why the only cryptos likely to survive into the future are the ones accepted and pushed by big banks, like XRP.
>but it's not real crypto
Yeah no shit, real crypto is an attempt to circumvent tax and the monetary system, you really think they're going to let 'real crypto' become a threat to their power structure? They will switch off your internet before that happens.
William Cooper
Terrible analogy, because LN is not analogous to SSD.
SSDs are better in every way (except price). They are faster, more stable, quieter, etc.
LN coins are worse than the Bitcoin Cash network in every way (except fees). They are not as liquid, require more upkeep, and prone to routing failures.
Mason Hernandez
You cant stop ppl sharing the blockchain. Prohibition (=enemy of freedom) only makes us stronger.
William Diaz
It all relies on electricity and ISPs providing you access to the internet, so yes you can stop people sharing the blockchain.
Jackson Flores
First intelligent anti-bcash response in days.
You are dead right on a lot of things. Couple of things I disagree with.
=>Tiny cost to print.
In fact, the US pays heavily.
Every dollar printed in Quantitative Easing was tax taken from you, the Dollar hodler, to the corporations and stockholders who unloaded their USD bags and bought FANG stocks.
In order for the Dollar (and not Gold) to be accepted in Saudi Arabia for oil. The US needs to maintain a global military network.
Bitcoin is a P2P electronic cash which is the economic system of money without state. This is, as many rightly pointed out, insane.
One last thing I disagree with. >They will switch off your internet before that happens.
This will not happen. "They" benefit so much from the internet. The internet is a wonderful tool of control, surveillance, and domestication.
By the time they think Bitcoin is a threat worth going that far for? They will just have to invest in some mining themselves.
The fees were that high because bitmain spammed the mempool to make bcash seem more sensible.
Camden Phillips
There's already faster and better scaling crypto than BCH, DGB is one example. BCH only exists for Roger and Jihan to make money at everyone else's expense. Although that appears to have backfired at least for Jihan.
Carter Baker
No evidence for your claim.
Here's evidence for my claim. Blocks were becoming full more and more often. The bull run was at a high heat, and December is a commerce heavy month.
Also, if a company can spam the network and render it unusable, is it really sound money?
Sure. Digibyte is a cool project. It is public and the founder didn't premine coins.
But the genesis block and Satoshi's vision is a thing that cannot be replicated by projects with a founder.
Bitcoin grew because people believe in it. Digibyte grew because people knew that Bitcoin worked.
There is a difference.
Noah Green
>is it really sound money yes the spam is a costsink no properties of decentralization were compromised over temporary spam and fud
Juan Fisher
This. Also remember when they pumped it to like 0.36btc and had like half of the hashing power? Than through this while bear market they were buying bch with their btc to stabilize the price...it still got to 7% of btc value while they spent a fuckton of money which will make their IPO less profitable...dumb chinks!
Wyatt Cruz
So, was bitmain spamming the mempool since Jan 2017? Because that's when it started going over 50 satoshis per byte.
It peaked near a thousand satoshis per byte.
It's around 10 or less these days. Which is pretty acceptable. But clearly BTC's scaling problems have been going on for other reasons besides some chink spam.
By the way, I have never paid over 1 satoshi per byte for my transactions. And that's how it was for every BTC transaction until 2015 or so...
The fees were the highest in november/beggining of december when we were pumping up the hardest and btc dominance was really high. Fees have nothing to do with the end of the bullrun. Crypto is a speculative asset so the price doesnt have to do anything with the fundamentals. They stopped spamming it because it got too expensive...thats a pretty good DDoS protection imo
Luke Green
bitmain is set to lose like 900+ million from their scamcoin cash (they already lost 600m) other reasons like bitmain refusing to upgrade to segwit which almost got them kicked off the network in a UASF other reasons like conbase not transaction batching while promoting shitcoin cash and other alts it's easy to see that major players did this scam and uses their leverage to make profit off fools like yourself
Cameron Sanchez
No i dont and i dont think thats necessary because no one is so dumb to spend crypto. Sure it would be nice if there were more online merchants that accept crypto, it would be nice to be able to buy a computer directly withput needing to cash out first. But for offline stuff it just doesnt make any sense.... Why the fuck would you like to pay your coffee in crypto?
Bentley Reyes
Actually, you have the dates slightly wrong.
Price peaked on December 16th. Fees peaked on the 20th.
This is also clear in the mini indicator in November.
Price started dropping around the 5th and dropped for a week. The fees went from $5 to $15.
It's clear that fees shoot up when people panic as they think the bull market is ending.
Sound money should be as easy to buy as it is to sell.
BTC is not sound money.
Wyatt Morris
Everyone (including you) lost money in the bear market. What else is news? Have you seen the blood on the streets?
Segwit is Developer's disease. Why are we segregating signatures from the hash again? Oh, that's right for a paltry 2 to 4 times increase. IF everyone enables segwit.
Segwit has reached 50% adoption now. Thank to that infinity inflation bug on core.
So how am I the fool? Because bear market?
Adrian Morris
>BTC is not sound money. bitcoin is function as it was intended to just because some retards can spend money to cost sink and clog the chain doesn't mean anything
changing bitcoin's properties makes it unsound, they didn't change their fundamentals
shitcoin cash changed their fundamentals they implemented a buggy EDA where 100k+ cash tokens were printed with very very little PoW it was embarrassing and a total to scam to anyone who respects bitcoin's distribution model
Kevin Hill
>Segwit has reached 50% adoption now. Thank to that infinity inflation bug on core. these are 2 unrelated things you fool
Gavin Lopez
what do u think about stress tests in the beginning of september and october?
Logan Collins
Um... why the fuck would you like to let the banks charge you for the privilege of letting you loan money from them?
Of course, you probably haven't (at least I hope so, I won't wish it on anybody). But if you have experienced a bank just blocking your account, and all your queries enter the call center of mysteries, you won't know that feeling of impotence.
It's your money, sure. Until the bank decides it is not.
It's your money, sure. Until the central bank decides it is worth too much.
if you really cared about control over your money you would realize nonmining nodes are essential to keeping everyone on the network in check
Zachary Hall
Does Lightning NotWork "intended" to be part of the Bitcoin system?
Because I don't see that anywhere in the whitepaper.
The EDA was a mess. But it doesn't change the incentives as LN network does.
When all transactions are LN network transactions... What's the incentive for miners to protect the network? What's that incentive after halving?
Liam Anderson
You are right. There is no way to claim that with certainty. That bug might have woke many up to the fact that they need to update their code.
Neither a “non-mining full node” nor an SPV client will prevent a majority of miners from doing an upgrade through a hard fork.
The difference between a “non-mining full node” and an SPV client is that you will need to update your “non-mining full node” software to keep using the Bitcoin Network. Side note: Soft forks WILL be followed blindly by both “non-mining full nodes” and SPV clients.
Samuel Ramirez
>the US pays heavily Yes you're quite right, but I wasn't going into the FED/QE clusterfuck, I just mean paying for groceries with paper dollars is cost-effective in terms of physically producing those dollars, unlike cryptos.
>They will switch off your internet before that happens OK, so I was being a bit dramatic, but all I really meant was your access to cryptos is always going to be controllable by the state. If people think they will ever be able to use a currency long-term that isn't backed by the people with guns, they're naive.
Elijah Roberts
lightning nodes open, close, rebalance, refund channels ideally these will consolidate 1000s of transactions into 1 where on chain fees will be negligible even in a fee market this model keeps nodes decentralized
there's another project that is a drivechain/sidechain on bitcoin that miners can merge mine to earn fees
if bitcoin were to scale to millions of people or more, 1sat/byte is too expensive per transaction it looks favorable now but that isn't even a good fee long term
so you'll say oh well cash will get lightning too or something similar, but why sacrifice node decentralization for short term usability it isn't a smart trade off
Eli Williams
They were not as satisfactory as they could have been. They showed that miners are a bunch of lackadasical pansies. Who are realllly not at the top of their game.
The other side of the "we need raspberry pis running and validating nodes" is that without competition, miners stagnate. They fuck around. They don't care about adoption as much as we (holders and users) do.
>It's your crypto, sure. Until your ISP decides it's not possible to visit the exchanges any more >It's your crypto, sure. Until the state makes it illegal to use
Nolan Roberts
a nonmining node can't prevent the contentious fork, but they can maintain the network people want to stay on if the network required an immense amount of resources to maintain consensus, we couldn't keep it the way we want, we couldn't maintain the chain the users want that would be out of our control we sacrifice node decentralization we sacrifice control of the future
William Evans
Does BCH solve some of the problems of BTC? Possibly yes. Does it matter? No.
There are way better payment method coins at this point. BCH is an unnecessary redundancy.
James Kelly
That's why I see Monero as being both very useful and being very bad investments.
Both sides really. Monero is an interesting one.
Dollars are just pieces of paper. You are ASKED to trust it (politely, with a gun to your head).
Bitcoin is not a digital promise. It's your knowledge that it took work to create, and that same work will keep working to protect its value.
It's trustless p2p cash.
Bitcoin Core breaks this incentives game.
Would miners secure a network they can only make 1MB worth of fees + the block reward?
Now, yes. But what if the block reward is halved and the 1MB worth of fees is a tiny percentage of the money moving on the LN? No. They will not. There is no incentive to.
What about when the block reward runs out? It's a ways off into the future, but it sure will happen. What is the "correct" blocksize then? What is the "correct" fee?
If you had to secure a trillion dollar currency with 1MBs worth of fees.... How much would it cost to open a LN channel?
Jack Thompson
>If you had to secure a trillion dollar currency with 1MBs worth of fees.... How much would it cost to open a LN channel? people aren't going to be manually opening and closing channels with high priority transactions there's going to be actions coded into wallets that coordinate the most efficient way to do it
Angel Stewart
if cash offers so much incentive for the miners, why does it only have ~8% of the hashing power?
I'll tell ya why, the ecosystem determined bitcoin has more valuable properties nobody wants a miner controlled alt that has been gamed already with EDA so the economic activity favors bitcoin and they command the price which results in more hashing the miners only provide a service and nothing else
Sebastian Gray
if cash can get enough users to run up enough transactions to collect enough fees to outweigh bitcoin's price advantage they'll get more hashing power but it has nothing to do with price unless people start to determine cash has value (which it doesn't) one thing for certain is cash has an uncertain future in the hands of the mining nodes
Eli Lee
>Sure. Digibyte is a cool project. It is public and the founder didn't premine coins. >But the genesis block and Satoshi's vision is a thing that cannot be replicated by projects with a founder. Are you trying to build a cult or a crypto currency? The wealthy BCH backers only push BCH because they were able to airdrop massive amounts of BCH to themselves with the fork. Coinbase, Bitpay, Roger Ver and Jihan will never promote based on technical merits and ability to scale. They will only ever push whatever they managed to accumulate before everyone else, or in Jihans case he has to push coins he can hope to monopolize mining of.
BCH practically introduced inflation into BTC in an indirect way, BCH scaling makes no sense, the block reward will eventually decline, if people are all paying 1 sat fees miners will abandon it. I expect BCH will fork to remove the 21 million limit and introduce inflation at some point.
Samuel Bell
Your arguments are also anti-bch. Lets say bch becomes the global cash and millions of people are using it daily and 1bch is 1mil$, you still pay your fee in sat/byte. Ok well lets just increase the block size so more people get in and txs are still cheap, now you have huge blocks and it's fine if the network activity and price of the coin grows exponentialy so that miners remain incentivized...what happens in a bear market and period od low usability and a small block reward in lets say 10 years?
Jayden Williams
it's not like BCH was "created", it's just bitcoin with bigger blocks... compared to LN having bigger blocks actually works.
limiting blocks to 1 MB every 10 minutes is beyond retarded
Thats not the point...the point is that hardforks are generaly dangerous and non-consensual...
Jordan Bennett
Keep telling yourself those lies and you'll start believing them you dopey corecuck.
Caleb Reyes
I got a few BCH as suicide insurance but I don't really keep up with it and its surrounding drama. With this upcoming fork or whatever, do I need to move them out of cuckbase or am I ok leaving them on there for now?
Luis Clark
Fees shoot up if the system is clogged and someone needs the transaction to happen quickly (within the hour lets say). You can pay whatever fee you want but the miner will process the higher fee transactions first. You can literally pay your way to the front of the line.
Nathaniel Cruz
ok here’s the crypto blackpill. there is an AI living on the bitcoin blockchain. Craig Wright is unironically satoshi. Bitcoin as electronic cash was just the first step, the incentive to drive greedy people to start making ever more powerful computers, faster bandwidth, cheaper and more electricity.. these things the AI need to survive. Once entrenched fully, the AI would be able to slowly take over literally everything.
Craig stumbled into creating the AI after he stepped away from bitcoin development in 2008 and started working with his Tulip supercomputer, running simulations of cellular automata running on turing-complete bitcoin script. He would ‘evolve’ the AI by making the successful forks get bitcoin transactions, letting the failures die off. The AI needs bigger and bigger blocks for more and more transactions.
Blockstream (owned by Bilderberg group) was created to take over and stop this AI (they have their own competing AI in the works). They needed to do everything they could to stop or slow down satoshi’s AI (her named isTulip by the way). They started by limiting the blocksize and removing critical opcodes the AI uses in its script language. segwit was the final nail in the coffin, which destroyed Tulip on the BTC chain (Tulip uses transaction malleability). THIS is why Bitcoin Cash was forked, and this is why Craig is so intent to make unbounded blocks, restore the original op codes, and lock down the protocol.
Back to hash power – CSW has developed a breakthrough new asic (designed by his AI actually), and is mining BTC in secret for the sole purpose of driving up the difficulty sky-high, then yanking them all over to BCH leaving the segwit chain hard frozen
Jack Smith
>be me, graduate valediction at 16 >just started studying at one of hypms >only 5k to spend on crypto, no money cause can't get good job yet >believe the golden bull is going to arrive soon and I won't be able to ride it >literal 30 year olds who somehow STILL haven't made it despite having years of time to buy large amounts
There will still be tons of opportunities in this space for years to come, young padawan. Accumulate as much BCH as you can and keep your eyes open. The BCH/BTC fork will not be the last one. You will make it as long as you are faithful to the truth and don't blindly follow the herd like 95% of the idiots on this board. Also, make sure you are never in a position where you have to sell to make ends meet and you will be good.
nothing dangerous with hardforks and segwit is also non-consensual. core removed non-segwit transactions and with the recent bug that a bitcoin cash developer found in core everybody need to update.
of course only miners actually needed to upgrade but core people still like to pretend that non-miners help keep the network secure
>1) Bitcoin (BCH) can scale, Bitcoin (BTC) cannot scale. Simply a lie >2) Bitcoin - the longest chain of valid signatures from the genesis block, is unique from cryptocurrencies with premine or owners. Signature chain was not broken in the Bitcoin, if it did please provide the block numbers. >3) Segwit and Lightning Network are developer's diseases on the Bitcoin code. Some say this was on purpose. Bitcoin Cash is Developers Disease Free. The fuck are you even mumbling
>addresstype = legacy wow that was so hard those mean core devs forced me to add a line or 2 to my bitcoin.conf file why do you lie so much like this? do you just not know, or are you actually actively lying?
