HAHAHAHAHA
Other urls found in this thread:
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
twitter.com
This niggas are delusional
Kikes paying niggers to shill
Surprise surprise
You Biggorns going down to dat zerou white boyz
Why do black people hate eth so much? It's always black people for some reason
Look up vitalik buterin thats all you need to know.
XRP GOIN TO DA MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON
>black
>people
You get to pick only one.
These guys are on the XRP payroll, they appeared around the same time XRP was on that Ellen show. I expect to see them shilling TRON soon as well
they're dumb and ugly
White person here, Ethereum is retarded and so are you.
>we are the early adopters
Dumb money never realized all of crypto was speculative with no fundamentals. They got scammed with bank, government and enterprise partnerships.
> 100% in on XRP and if Garlichouse flips that damn switch and they start transferring over xRapid and they start transferring billions of dollars ...BILLIONS of dollars of cross border payments. That's all kinds of price action. It's going up, they don't need no bull run because they actually got some utility. It's actually usuful. I am waiting for dat to happen while all those other korns is sitting there bleeding out
Can someone give me the XRP blackpill?
cant wait to see their faces when garlinghouse flips the "exit scam" switch
>enormous premine
>centralized
>can wipe you wallet if wanted
>hyped by dumb money
>in league with globalists like Bernanke and Clinton
56% detected
>black
>buy high
>all in XRP
>love Trump
Yep yep. I think these guys are the "dumb money" alright.
And the difference between that and BTC is... ?
>non-minable
>not subject to mining politics
>USA's best best card at taking over crypto markets from China
>Soon to be a universal base pair
>Toppled ETH
>hated because it's a real threat
The crypto markets are so assmad about XRP gaining momentum. It's hilarious to watch. I guess they're in it for the tech because they clearly hate money.
Well BTC was created with the intention of moving away from institutions and was co opted by big money whereas XRP was big old money from the jump. Big philosophical differences at their creation.
I don't understand anything in this picture.
> the kikes actually BUILT XRP
> they only *STOLE* BTC
Oh, well, shit, that makes all the difference, by all means proceed mister goldberg.
> I don't understand anything in this picture.
What's not to understand? It's very simple. It's old and well understood by now, I saw it like a month ago and have seen it discussed extensively, I'm pretty confident I could answer any questions you might have on it.
>no differences between btc and xrp
t.brainlet
>may as well use a bank
t.dumb money
>they get in late in the game
>talk about their portfolio on jewtube
>no technical knowledge
>they got hacked
>they got slaughtered trading
>dumbasses
nah they're dumb money. I think they're funny and a decent thermometer to see where the dumb money consensus is.
XRP GOING TO THE MOOOOOOOOOOON
lol at this cope. Once again, if XRP wasn't a threat to your whimsical ideals, you wouldn't even care. We'll see you cope harder when (((((they))))) pump XRP while BTC hits 1k.
theyre pretty good , had a laugh
I don't hold or believe in BTC. I just think XRP is possibly the worst coin for a better future. Considering I've already /madeit/, having more money is not something I care about
> no differences is the same thing as illustrating there's no difference when it comes to the actual traits raised by the original poster.
Yeah, you're a cultist.
>Yeah, you're a cultist.
Can you explain it in simple terms. From the top, please.
And I'm not a muslim either, but if I honestly believe Muhamad is not a pedophile and rose to heaven on a white horse, I'm a cultist all the same.
You just explicitly stated provably false beliefs. Not my problem if you don't like to admit you've fallen victim to a con.
>jews are going to buy my heavy bags
>jews are going to turn me into a whale
>thinking that because the it was advertised to you as a """banker coin""" that bankers actually like it
>"oh look it's less than $1 that means I'm just like the people who bought Bitcoin at 0.25"
you fell for the bait just like all the other normaltrash
It is explained in very simple terms. What exactly do you not understand? The core point, if you'll excuse the pun, is that BTC is demonstrably centralised, and subject to the exact same parasitism as the traditional monetary system based on its present architecture, which itself was forced in by transparent sabotage and is completely contrary to the original architecture.
Ok, so the first post boils down to 'miners mine what is most profitable'.
The second post... I don't understand at all.
>They're trump supporters
>They now have a politics channel about how great conservatives are
welp that explains a lot
nah my sub iq nigger, the banks aren't going to buy the bags. they're going to buy it on the cheap OTC and sell it to normies. as long as Fidelity and Big Jew can make a profit, they will shill the bags. institutions aren't looking to make a profit on an overblown asset, they are looking to get in on the ground floor.
OTC bags are going to fuel the next bullrun.
>muh institutions
>hacked
he downloaded a phishing scam app and literally sent his money to another address. thats how dumb these guys are
Which pair of soulless golems will serve as new vessels for the Bogs? The Winklevii or Hodgetwins?
He's saying the scamcoins BCHABC, BCHSV, bitcoin diamond and whatever the fuck other forks sabotaged BTC by splitting the mining industry into various sects.
Divide and conquer. Except they did it to themselves.
So you're saying it pulled miners away from mining BTC?
Why is this a bad thing? (serious, I'm an idiot)
I spend $100 on ETH every two weeks
lmao people actually hold any other crypto other than chainlink? what the heck
Recall what nakamoto consensus actually is. Pic related. What it means is that this consensus mechanism has failed, and it has failed no matter where you actually believe it should have guided whatever chain you believe is legitimate to. The problem boils down to identifying the correct evolution of the ledger versus an attack to sabotage the ledger. How do you actually identify which one it is, not as a matter of subjective opinion, but objective fact?
Nakamoto consensus, as illustrated in that image, is that you follow what the miners are signalling, because there is an assumed economic incentive for them to be telling you the truth. Why would they lie to you about what the legitimate chain is and sabotage their own economic interests by giving you the wrong information? But no matter what you believe is actually the correct information, miners have signalled against you now.
(c)
For example;
1) if you honestly believe that segwit alone and a permanent 1mb hard cap is the optimal and legitimate ledger moving forward, on November 12th 2017, 90% of miners signalled against you by mining BCH instead of BTC. They also signalled against you extensively in the months leading up to the BCH split by signalling for segwit2x at a 90%+ to 30% ratio vs segwit alone.
2) if you honestly believe that the BSV rules are the legitimate and optimal ledger moving forward, as of November 15 2018, miners signalled against you at 9 EH vs 4 EH. This equilibrium was never overriden, with miners constantly signalling directly against BSV during the period leading up until BSV's surrender even against their own profit motives. So this one is actually the worst possible case for Nakamoto consensus, and these are the guys who typically treat it as if it's a religious dogma that must never be questioned.
3) If you honestly believe that the BCH ruleset with CTOR and DSV as of the 15th of November, 4-1EH constant signalled against your perspective, and at points in BCH history hashing power has been below 4EH, demonstrating that hostile faction could have attacked what you believe is the legitimate BCH chain at many points in time in the past. This one actually comes the closest to correctly observing Nakamoto consensus, because never has majority hashpower actually continuously signalled against or hashed opposing rulesets for the BCH chain. But even then, it has on a 10-1 to 20-1 basis continually hashed a completely different chain than BCH in the form of BTC, so even BCH doesn't win on the basis of Nakamoto consensus.
(c)
He is making the point that miners don't actually tell you which chain is legitimate. They only tell you which chain they're being paid the most to mine, and thus it is trivially possible to bribe them to signal for whatever you like. Which by extension proves no matter what you think they should be doing, they're not doing it. That's just the reality. So now you need to construct security out of the landscape with which you're actually confronted. That is, create a secure ledger with indisputable evidence that n% of the hashpower will attack you if they're paid to do it.
Clear?
No, he very clearly recognises that BTC is itself the scamcoin fork, and BCH is the legitimate one. Look at the attack surface he goes into based on the architecture of BTC. That makes it clear he understands the sabotage and what it results in, and that this vulnerability doesn't exist in BCH.
daamn, are you David Schwartz?
First of all, let me say thank you for taking the time to try an explain this to me. I do appreciate it, despite being out of my depth.
So, why why anyone believe that miners would stick with any coin, say BTC, when there are more profitable things to mine? What would be in it for the miners to stick with BTC?
No problem.
> So, why why anyone believe that miners would stick with any coin, say BTC, when there are more profitable things to mine? What would be in it for the miners to stick with BTC?
Literally nothing, and they don't. The rule for 90%+ of hashing power under ordinary circumstances at the moment is that they mine the chain that provides the highest immediate rewards. So say tomorrow the IMF launches FedCoin which is just a transparent copy of the present global monetary ledger and it's also a sha256d POW coin, but it pays 400% more than BTC/BCH/BSV to mine it. BTC would effectively cease to exist. BCH and BSV would adjust difficulty downwards and likely continue on ideological mining alone (and they would likely have only a very thin armour plating of POW), but based on the BTC DAA, it can't do that fast enough and would simply die and need to be hard forked in order to recover.
This is why it's important that other mechanisms than simple POW are taken into account in order to maintain the function of decentralised ledgers. People who tell you otherwise simply don't grasp the actual situation we're in.
No, I'm just an oldfag who was here from the start and perhaps naively and honestly believed in the original promise of Bitcoin as something that could destroy states and central banks. I'm also a software developer with an extensive amount of experience in distributed systems and cryptography, so I understand it at quite a deep level and can see where the cracks are.
I'm still hoping the original vision of an anarchocapitalist system that overthrows states and central banks can pull through, but I'm well aware of the fact that given the present landscape, that's a long war to fight, and not something that's simply granted like a lot of people tend to believe, and definitely not those who are actually on the ship that was transparently hijacked to be directly contrary to that original vision but they're still steadfastly in denial of that fact.
So what coins do you think have a future/do you keep your eye on?
Where should I start reading to really comprehend exactly what you're saying?
BCH. It is under constant brutal propaganda and otherwise attack for good reason; if it actually delivers on what the original promise of Bitcoin was, that's it, game over for states and central banks and the global financial order of the past near half century since the collapse of bretton woods and into our present fantasy system of money. That unironically would actually be amongst the greatest transfers of wealth in history, and would once again make western civilisation actually accountable to a hard money asset, with everything that implies.
If BCH dies we get to a very, very bad place. Potential replacement candidates are DASH, NANO, DCR, XMR, ZEC, but all of them have their drawbacks and hangups, and we would have lost massive momentum and initiative to abandon the original ledger that got us to this point. Ideally BCH really does just need to win, despite all the attacks in the world against it. If it can face down the absolute constant storm of steel with which it is faced and still prevail, it will be unstoppable when the enemy finally runs out of steam and actually has to compete rather than play dirty tricks.
It's all scattered all over the place, and the propaganda campaigns that have been mounted to cover up the truth mean there's simply no singular narrative that will give it to you without question. What you really get is just fragments in the historical record that make you question what's going on, stuff that doesn't fit. And when you've digested all of it and pieced it together, only the BCH position actually remains as legitimate.
I'm happy to answer any particular questions you have. I have a collected set of imgur galleries containing a lot of content regarding this that I've been collating over the past few years as it all unfolded that make it very clear the "official story" is a load of nonsense.
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
A lot of it is snarky zinger memes and shit that I find somewhat distasteful personally, but at the end of the day it all is what it is, and it incontrivertibly and conclusively proves the blockstream / core narrative for a complete fabrication.
Thanks. Although I feel I don't know enough about the crypto sphere to comprehend what is contained in what you have written/your links. How do I get up to speed?
Start with the white paper and genesis block, the genesis block gives the reason this all happened; it was a response to a specific global financial event from 2008. That's your motive. The white paper is a means to that end, how to provide a global tamper proof ledger by using the system itself to actually incentivise its own security measures and insulate it from interference from the economic interests that would otherwise seek to dismantle or subvert it. It was very successfully meeting that goal until the segwit fork and the permanent 1mb hard cap, which can both be proven to be contrary to the original architecture of the system, they can also be proven to provide an apparatus for tampering with the supply in a very easy way which has extensive historical precedent and could not have been implemented on the original system, and from there it really is just actually investigating the specifics of every single incident when POW based defense mechanisms for the ledger were tested in the real world. the BCH / Segwit split proved conclusively you can't force everyone to keep to the same chain, so they invalidated the justification for the BTC DAA. The BCH / BSV split proved conclusively that you can actually bribe a very large fraction of miners to act in an irrational way directly contrary to the long term interests of the ledger, no matter what your perspective is on what those interests are.
At the end of the day where you start depends on what it is you're actually trying to establish specifically, but the above gives the broadest view I can think of.
What about BSV?
I sympathise with their perceptions. I can very much understand how from their perspective, it must seem exactly like the situation with BCH / BTC. Here we have some changes to the consensus rules that are causing disruption in the space, so why can't we just stick with the same rules we've always had? If the BTC rule tampering was obviously bad, which we now have a full year's worth of evidence it indisputably was, why should we not believe that the CTOR/DSV rules are going to be equally bad?
That said, the cases are different because the motivations for the changes are different, and the effect of them as well as not implementing them we now have concrete observable evidence in both instances. Even if you assume that every single party on the BSV side is saintly and acting according to their genuine conscience on the issue, the actual result of their rejection of CTOR is that now they can't exceed 10mb constant throughput on their blockstream, and this is exactly what was demonstrated empirically by BU years ago, and BCH in real world empirical stress tests at multiple times prior to the fork. Block propagation optimisation is not like segwit, it's not something going in there to change the architecture and topology of the system, it's to simply make the existing architecture and topology of the system function more optimally, and from what actually happened on the BSV chain *we know that is actually required*.
Just take a step back and even consider *why* it would be other than what we've already proven it is. We both agree that BTC from the start had no intention of scaling on chain, and wanted to hobble the chain to a throughput of 1mb. We know the nature of the actual problems with the on chain scaling, no parallelism in transaction validation, very little work done on large block propagation, etc. And why *would* they do these things when they never wanted the system to ever scale beyond its present limits?
So everything makes perfect sense at a technical level when we're actually observing what happened. But it gets so much worse than that. Look at what the actors behind BSV are actually *doing*. Pic related, pushing for photo id for miners, having no issue at all with all the nodes in the world being in a single data center, etc.
Ironically every significant criticism that the BTC faction levelled at the original BCH faction is more readily applied to the BSV faction.
1) They honestly don't actually care if all the nodes are simply in one data center, which provides a transparent and obvious mechanism for the state to coerce them into doing whatever the state wants them to do.
2) Consequently they further don't care at all what the impact of block propagation across the world is, because it's all going to be in one data center, so of what consequence is it?
3) They really don't understand the actual technical challenges of scaling on chain, which although we have the hardware to handle, sure, we definitely don't have the software to handle. They really do think you can just naively increment a block size number and everything will magically work. (and this is now conclusively actually proven wrong)
4) The entire infrastructure and effort is literally owned by a single guy who very much appears to be acting as a state cat's paw.
5) They are radically technically incompetent, picking a rivalrous fight with everyone else in the BCH space and having been utterly defeated in every way in which it is possible to be defeated, and yet still waving around lawsuits and threats as if they had any impact in a decentralised global jurisdictionless space like this.
Bitkone.
And last of all of course, let's not forget pic related, which I believe comes from the Antiguan for "Look mom, I got a plea bargain"
Be gone shitskin faggot
Why do you guys talk about xrp like you know the facts when you obviously dont? using that "banker coin" can save those banks an extra 30% on fees they get ass fucked for by swift. But banks dont like money... wait
What do you think the chances are that BCH actually survives and dominates?
That all comes down to the people behind it at the end of the day. You and me. Strangers a half planet away from one another.
To me, this has been a forging experience.
To understand that the world isn't like we were told it was all our lives, and what our instincts drove us toward, this vision of free people in cooperation and competition in a global free market economy, rather than mindless slaves to political authority, that's the real world. That is who we are.
But we have to fight for it, and we have to fight hard, because those powerful entities stand to lose everything if we succeed. The only reason we even have a chance is because of the drastically slanted asymmetry in favour of the defenders when it comes to the cryptographic landscape, but that asymmetry really is insurmountable, and it doesn't matter how much money the enemy throws at it, they will never be able to break it. And in turn if we wield it correctly, they will never be able to break us.
For those who feel as I feel, you don't know me. you've never seen me, but you've bled and flourished with me for years, and I have bled and flourished with you. And I will bleed to death with you if that's what it takes, because there is nothing else left in me but that dream, and I'll be damned if I surrender in the face of any adversity, let alone this laughable sleet within which we find ourselves.
And so we fight, because if we don't, all we will ever be is slaves in the decaying cattle farms into which we were born, unfit to contain men like us, and with us will die the last hope of free men in this dying world.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Who the fuck ARE you? Christ, I didn't even know I could still cry.
I didn't ask for this.
fuck crossing the rubicon I want to fucking storm it
Uhhh.. guys.. was that a signal, or is this just a coincidence?
Are these light skinned niggers in crypto now? what the shit, I used to watch these guys videos in 2011 for comedy when they were in to lifting.
This was extremely uncomfortable to read as a BTC supporter.
Fuck. If you're a liar may you burn in hell, because you are a very good one.
Tfw.
>Toppled ETH
You are aware xrp use to be number 2. Eth toppled you for some time. Dont act like this is some feat.
If actual banks and shit are getting into this then I don't know what makes all of you think you know better than they do
I used to think it would be better to just remain completely in the shadows, but the longer I see this go on and the more I see various public identities compromised and turned against the original purpose of our movement, the more I think maybe there would be some value in being able to privately identify myself to those who would care to know.
I am bitcoincash:qp92apezmhgu556wjnvfhn93q2h85cg4vght2evcm7 and if I ever need to prove it I will sign with that address from here on in.
signature for above message follows IOXx3JjUGRfemqOJXaA6s01emWT5ZGPQV9GnwWJIAjbaFinavsEhcYH1hyiJ32CWry11ZKixCbq7CBj50kHg8q4=
NIGGERS BTFO YOUR SHITCOIN LOLOLOOOOOOHAHAHAHAAHJFJFBFBVDBD
Bless you
I actually thought they were making fun of ripple holders by acting like low IQ niggers at first. Then I realized they act like that in every video.
damn
>People still don't know hodge twins are a comedy channel, i.e. not fucking serious
Requires high IQ to understand the value of ethereum and the ecosystem of fintech built on it. Requires slightly above average IQ to vaguely intuit that "most smart people seem to be of the understanding that ethereum will be "the" public blockchain, so I'll throw my lot in with them".
The vast majority of people, and disproportionately so the vaster majority of black people, especially in the US, are not cognitively equipped to comprehend. To what extent this is emergent from biological and/or social factors, I don't really care to argue about.
I'm black btw.
>Requires slightly above average IQ to vaguely intuit that "most smart people seem to be of the understanding..."
Even people with much highers IQs don't have a good grasp on the consensus of smart people. Nobody really does. The average normie not at all, because most smart people aren't truthful to them about what they think.
With crypto there is an obvious incentive to play the public.
This. "High IQ" people also believed in Madoff and Enron. That being said, through all the shitcoins in crypto, ETH is one of the most useful and promising.
not "high iq" as in "smart money" investors (they're not that smart or knowledgeable), but as in where the majority of smart developers and (tech savvy) businesses are throwing their lot
The technology behind ETH is interesting and promising, but that doesn't mean ETH is going to be worth much.
No, the cryptoeconomics of it (including important emergent properties like token velocity) together with forecasted usecases and use rate for various use cases (including the degree to which people are likely to use it as a medium of exchange and/or store of value give all the rest), and then looking at whether credible competitors will disrupt any of this, is how you guess at ethereum's future worth, if you're smart.
If you're just somewhat above average, what you do is you guess well at what kinds of people would forecast well and look at where they put skin in the game and what they have to say.
This. Burgers hate Eth for some reason.
Hey Untermenchen, you trailer trash 56% mutts are getting the rope as well. Inbreeding is despicable.
True to a point. But BTC still has the most hashpower despite BCH, BCH ABC, BCH SV all around. Miners may mine some of each block and even shitcoin minable coins but the majority isnt budging from BTC for long.
>BCH.
>Potential replacement candidates are DASH
lmao ok never mind you just outed yourself as a retard. Dash is garbage premined scam and no oldfag would ever endorse it. BCH is a joke from the start that miners wanted to prevent individuals from ever mining and prevent it from becoming distributed. Large blocks would force out new miners from being competitive, it would lock in the current mining cartels.
It's almost like he didn't directly mention they all have drawbacks or something... And almost like you think hashpower matters when it is obviously signalling for a sabotaged chain that doesn't actually deliver on the premise of the original project at all.
thanks for the black-pill suppository. you should make a trip-code as well mate.