I don't get it Jow Forums

Bitcoins network effect was destroyed by not increasing the blocksize in 2017.
It was the first year of negative adoption and losing market dominance

doesn't matter. satoshi (nickszabo) supports the decision. and there's ETH and a million other cryptos that aren't in an any less advanced state than they were in 2017.
and fucking eric schmidt shilled eth in 2017.

Institutional capitulation to the money to be made in Bitcoin. Many institutions don't "believe" in Bitcoin but realised on the last pump that it is here to stay and ripe for manipulation.
On that realisation, they realised that China had way too much of a stake in BTC, they had beaten everyone to the punch and had a standing advantage in the form of cheap power.
Upon realising that Chinese mining farms were propagating like mad and that this would lead to huge gains for China moving forward, it was necessary to dump the BTC price below the mining price until the powers that be control a large enough proportion of the network that they're willing to let it rise again. They don't want to be caught out again.

Attached: prep.jpg (2767x3374, 604K)

and i mean the not 2xing was a debateable decision, but the lightning network, if bitcoin actualyl ever wants to become a currency, is the only way to go. if it was going with craig wright's vision and it became world currency, everyone who ever wanted to operate a node would have to download every transaction of everyone, like everyone ever buying a pack of cigarettes from the shop on the corner. nobody can seriously think that's a way.
i pity no 2x, but the lightning network is the only way to go

and still there's ETH with vitalik no longer fudding the price (he did it in 2017-early 2018 ever since the price went above $100), lowering miner payouts, and overall making thing look really good yet it's all tanking the same way

I hope to god youre all in btc

nah im half-half BTC/ETH because i think vitalik is the best developer by far currently in crypto.
but long term ofc i think BTC has much better odds to be super valueable.

also hold a bunch of sitcoins because u can never know in crypto

Non mining nodes do not affect consensus as bitcoin is proof of work not proof of stake
Lightning network is impossible to route peer to peer making it centralised and no different than the current keynesian fractionally reserved monetary system.
Not only is a block limit an adoption limit it makes btc a ponzi as there will be no incentive for miners to secure the network.

If you are paid shill working against the adoption of peer to peer cash you are a species traitor and you are too dumb to understand your own incentives or you are a comped pedo

>Non mining nodes do not affect consensus as bitcoin is proof of work not proof of stake
and?

>Lightning network is impossible to route peer to peer making it centralised and no different than the current keynesian fractionally reserved monetary system.

its entirely different because the underlying currency is not centralized. you're not forced to use the lightning network, and you can also create your own lightning node without relying on a central authority, unlike with FIAT

The justifcation for not increasing the blocksize was it would reduce the number of non mining nodes which would make it more centralised. That is a lie because even if you had 10000000 non mining nodes and 1 mining node the mining node would have complete control.
The underlying currency does not work without scale because there is no one to get paid to secure the ledger without a high volume of fees. Substituting on chain adoption for off chain via lbtc or lightning destroys the security of btc and is not necessary in the first place as there is no downsize to increasing the blocksize

this is what sv pajeets believe
but i's all wrong. miners do work but the reality of the majority of crypto users us shaped by full nodes that dont mine but serve spv wallets.

consensus is geeater than the miners but it only becomes apparent if the miners try to defect.

as for lighyning changing bitcoins inherent properties thats ridiculus. the properties of water are not changed by ship sailing on it.

that was not the reason for the block size not being increased it was simply trying to incentivise early adoption of segwit by lower fees proving the concept and its safety. it was a bad move overall and showed jow undemocratic the process of btc development is.

but its an opensource project in the end it can be reclaimed any time. this is what cashiss dont understand the majority has to fork off or its worthless.

Proof of work not proof of stake.
There is no action an spv wallet or non mining node can take to change the action of a miner. Why would you even want proof of stake.
Every transaction in an open lightning channel instead of a block takes security from the ledger.
A 1mb cannot scale for world currency, you can not open or fund enough lightning channels with 1mb blocks.
Btc is going to zero

you dont understand how it works defective behavior is ignored and not propagated. the miners only get money if they follow the rules. otherwise might as well burn their money.

So the reason to limit the on chain capacity to 1mb per 10min was to implement a virtual block increase when you could of just increased the blocksize?
No, the scaling debate was sophistry by blockstream to stop adoption and allowed to happen by jihan who is either a fucking moron or a chinese communist.

>Every transaction in an open lightning channel instead of a block takes security from the ledger.
thats just retatded sorry

You are literally trying to argue btc is proof of stake, it is not if a node cannot do work it cannot affect the chain. Saying a non mining node can change what is put in blocks is like saying someone watching a tennis match on tv can change the outcome of the game. If you run a non mining node that does not agree with what miners are doing you have just forked yourself onto a chain with no hashpower

yes almost nobody would adopt segwit if the blocksize would have been increeased and transactions were dirt cheap. why make a switch if a tried shit works just fine? at least that was the real logic behind it.

Your argument is fucking retarded. Youre saying limit the blocksize to force people to adopt a solution to the problem we created

>You are literally trying to argue btc is proof of stake
definitely not but there is a controll mechanism to miners behavior where the collective which provides demand for a coin and discovers price is free to decide which reality they wish to participate in.
when you upgrade your wallet you vote with your wallet. when you trade a coin you vote on its price. miners can only do theif best to ensure you vote in their favor of risk losing a huge amount of money.

im not saying im in favor of it nigga im saying why they really did it.

This faggot doesn't realize if BTC fails the entire system fails and crypto was nothing but a fleeting meme.

>lol guys let's just flip BTC and move from one speculative store of value to the next

The second that happens all of the cards fall. There's second layer implementation for making the system work faster without compromising the actual chain itself. Security is more important than anything for a digital currency.

Shut the fuck up you dribbling BCash faggot.

Attached: forsure.gif (440x338, 1.98M)

>Saying a non mining node can change what is put in blocks
where did i say that you retard? i said a validating node decides its own reality what to accept as happend and ignores blocks that are defective not propagates them. miners can fo whatever the fuck they wamt if consensus rejects it all you will see as an end user is there was no new block in hours. bitcoin is a network also not just raw hash.

Yes profit is the moral imperative. Jihan was trying to perpetuate the alt market and is now bankrupt so now we will see some moral miners return

We disagree that the core/blockstreams justification for not removing the cap was the desire to have more non mining nodes not a way of forcing aegwit adoption. Even blockstream isnt foolish enough to pedal the curcular reasoning of leaving a blocksize cap to sell a solution to the problem of leaving the blocksize cap

Without on chain adoption there is no security. The security is not the result of altruism it is the result of it being profitable to secure the ledger
If you take transactions onto second layers that do not pay miners you increase the ratio of demand (thus price) to hashrate to a critical point when the block reward is not enough and it becomes more profitable to attack the network than mine it

Non mining nodes have zero affect on consensus, if a non mining node disagrees with hashpower they fork themselves off. The definition of consensus is the longest proof of work chain.

the real fundamental price for one bitcoin is around $200, and about $40 for one ether
higher valuations are speculative beyond reason
late 2017 happened because an engineered effort to pump btc started in early 2016 (eventually resulting in genuine but entirely speculative interest in early 2017 with the ico boom)
essentially, your mistake is a psychological one: as bitcoin valuation has been out of whack for more than 2 years, your brain assimilated this wrong valuation as the standard market rate
in truth, we can very well go down another 90% from here

and how are you supposed to launder money in that window?
you need several cryptocurrencies, dozens of them to diversify, and all of them better be at least somewhat liquid or it defeats the whole idea.

The majority of the market proved its ignorance by going with the BTC roadmap, which cannot and will not work to deliver on the promise of the original project.
Nothing now will be going anywhere until BTC is dead. The stupids who got the market to where it is need to be eradicated, and the only way they can be is with organic adoption of the projects that actually work, which may take a long time or time or never come at all.
The market right now is like well tuned boxer and everyone is commenting on how he's in the best shape of his life while ignoring the fact he's wearing concrete shoes at the bottom of the east river with a BTC muh store of value logo on them.

Institutional unironically are accumulating.
The redpill is that the late 2017 bullrun was a scheme to burn the pleb so they won't touch it for another 5 years, the only thing institutionals did was shorting the whole market in 2018 so they can fill up their bags in peace.
It's all a game of patience now, the next year's will be really dull but it will all be worth it.

>the real fundamental price for one bitcoin is around $200
Found the brainlet.

BTC is more and more valuable the longer it remains secure. It doesn't matter if it's slow if it works without a third party and it remains secure. Don't fall for the memes.

This kind of stupid is exactly what I mean. These people unironically think BTC requires no third party when the entire purpose of the lightning architecture was to rebank it and require third parties and operation just like the traditional banking correspondence network, which it actually says in the lightning white paper.
These people are too stupid to have any money at all, the universe won't allow the market to progress while they're around weighing it down.

Bet this faggot owns a whole bunch of scam tokens (ICOs)!
literally arguing with the market!

crypto is literally too volatile for general use

>muh fundamentals
fundamentals are worse than ever
>merchants have been dropping BTC
>original vision of p2p decentralized cash is dead
>LN will introduce kyc/aml and bring btc completely under control of the banks (if it ever materializes)
>as a store of value its useless because of high volatility
seriously what is BTC even good for at this point. nobody uses it for anything, everybody is sitting on it waiting to get rich.

CME killed ya bitconz

lmao there are zero fundamentals wtf are you talking about

Sirs do the needful, embrace the Sanjay vision

Because he’s 100% short so makes money when the market falls
Shake my damn arse the absolute STATE of biznessmen