WHY IS BSV DUMPING? AAAA

Banks wants to take over.

No nodes for the little people

Thats freeeeeeedom !

Triple KEK

Why not just ride the other cryptos up and then just buy some bsv in December with the gains you've made from the other cryptos?

Attached: 1553732675273.gif (365x205, 1.75M)

shit's unraveling faster than the inimitable Mr BSv can dump a new load now. And tbf, Craig is/was fairly proficient in bullshitting

But the point is to have bigger blocks right, that will help with scaling? So if miners choose to do what Craig wants, which is to mine big blocks, won't that require those 80 TB per year for each miner?

Does the size really matter if the miners get payed? Do you hear google say, no, please don't search so much. Or do you hear facebook say oh no, please don't share so much? You are literally retarded if you don't think miners are randi for money

Probably because it got delisted off the only exchange that matters kek

STIFF

All the bsv spam and you didn't think they would dump on you?

So what you're saying is... we have this max TPS but we'll never get to that point. We're hoping we're a failure and never achieve the max TPS. If we're successful, then

2 GB * 6 blocks per hour * 24 hours * 30 days = 8.64 TB

becomes true

please brainlet, stop skipping your 2nd grade classes, you really need an education

The absolute state of a brainlet

On centralized systems, it makes sense. Google makes money off of every search you make, you are the product.

On a decentralized system, every bit of data you push, it goes to every system on the network.

The miners are NOT the only part of the system. You're pushing cost to all the node operators. But only BSV / BCH fags are the people are saying "fuck everyone else, miners get paid that's all that matters"

If that's the case, the system is not decentralized, especially when you're producing 2 GB max blocks which is equal to 8.64 TB per month. It's insane.

>please don't use our network or it might crash
>it's still the future of money though

Because the only place that trades it s Yobit now, lmao, you fucking idiots somehow missed the delisting announcements?

Attached: 54b0e3fb4ab10_o,size,933x0,q,70,h,fe0226.jpg (933x699, 72K)

Because it’s fake bitcoin ran by frauds and pedos

>The miners are NOT the only part of the system. You're pushing cost to all the node operators
Read the fucking white paper. Node = miners. Data = money for the miners. I can't put it any simpler

0.0095
0.0095
0.0095
0.0095
THAT MEANS 0% LOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Bruv. Its only 8 tb of data. Calm the fuck down.

buy espers on yobit pls sir

This, 200€ a month, and it not like there are 2gb of visa transactions every ten minutes anyway
>Pic related

Attached: Screenshot_20190425-194030.png (1080x1920, 686K)

Watching all this struggle between corecucks and craiglets, I think the most optimal path for crypto is probably to abandon POW at all, save for stuff like Monero. Why run gigantic, indigestible blocks when proof of stake has been already proven to work. Maybe DAG too.

No shit.

Regardless it is competition for all

Perfecting it all for our grandchildren.

Monero and BAT are going to be the only cryptos that ever see any legitimate use by the general public in the future provided Monero doesn't get legislated out of existence and BAT doesn't find a better use case than tipping brappettes

>Yeah ok, let miners control the entire network and fuck over all the node operators.

LMAO what? A "node operator" whatever that means, is a miner. Miner's are node operators. Nodes that don't mind literally do nothing for the network, they are irrelevant.

>86 TB of storage
Is this supposed to be a lot? it isn't 2004 anymore grandpa

Why the fuck would anyone care if he's actually satoshi or not, the market speaks for itself

>spam network with trash
>see all nodes crash except (((datacenters)))

Attached: altcorns.png (768x768, 311K)

>insist on 1 mb blocksize
>be able to do 3 transactions per second
>mempool is flooded, fees spike to 50 dollars to do any transaction
>waiting 20 hours for your block to confirm
>we have to make sure the people who run a node on their kids Gameboy can keep up
>this is the best way to make a global payment network

The absolute state of corecucks.

Attached: dont_litter_mempool_for_big_money2.jpg (1000x693, 95K)

How accurate is pic related? Asking for a friend

Attached: Capture.png (875x362, 71K)

Attached: yczkgeocudf21.jpg (862x699, 73K)

Accurate. Contrarian, aka Greg Maxwell's sockpuppet account is literally paid to create and spread lies about Craig. The entire BCH camp has been worshipping him since the hashwar back in november, without realizing that he's really a Blockstream founder LOL

Attached: contrarian_shill2.png (1425x1771, 289K)

Holy fucking shit. That is some real kikery right there. Will he go to jail?

warosu.org/biz/thread/S13348739

BSV is FUCKED

SHORT IT WHILE YOU EVEN CAN

Attached: 1555420981379.jpg (1080x1346, 1.52M)

are you fucking stupid? its a fork of a fork. Worse it has a weird cult mentality around it. Craig Wright is a fraud and now the coin is basically delisted from everywhere worth trading. I'd dump that shit before it breaks below 0.009 BTC.

I've been lurking your Discord, it's fucking empty. I've been lurking the reddit, it's also empty. I watch these YouTube livestreams and they're cringe worthy.

Who the fuck is thacypha? These people must be getting paid to shill. The whole community seems like it consists of about 10 people and I think most of them are getting paid for how delusional and shilly they sound.

Attached: cuck.png (374x539, 283K)

There are exchanges where you can actually short it lol

86 TB per year, per node + you have to transmit 86 TB * every active node on the network and if one new node comes online, you have to send it 86 TB * the number of years the blockchain is running

This is (or supposed to be) a decentralized system....

That's a lot. But then again you don't give a fuck because all your coins are on binance or some shit and you've never ran a full node in your life and you're never self-sovereign over your own coins.

Then again this is biz, they buy whatever coin makes them money and don't care or simply don't understand the technical details of a decentralized network. BNB isn't even open sourced you can't even see the code. If there's a bug in it somehow it's fucked. Yet people buy the shit out of it. It simply doesn't adhere to the standards of what an actual crypto currency is.

Remember, the cost to store a piece of information on a decentralized system is not zero because that piece of data has to be distributed, verified, stored, and re-broadcasted until the end of time.

The only way this can scale is to not broadcast every transaction, which means you go off chain. You broadcast the initial set of funds between two parties and use 2/2 multisig, let them transact however many times they want while they both sign each transaction, then broadcast the final balance between those 2 parties on chain for final settlement. That way, they can do a million or billion transactions between the 2 parites but at most it'll only put 2 transactions on chain. That's exactly what lightening is doing. It keeps the system decentralized while increasing throughput and increases privacy.

No lol, using sockpuppets is not illegal. He should be banned from Reddit though, but kikelords don't ban each other so fat chance of that happening.

Attached: contrarian_nullc_gregmaxwell2.png (778x770, 46K)

why do you think you running a raspberry pi "node" has anything to do with decentralisation?
decentralisation is all about big industrial sized bussinesses competing for the next block. It's about competition, capitalism and greed, not some basement dwelling neckbeard larping as a wizard

>blz buy the dip sirs. i have a family

Attached: satoj.jpg (2528x1664, 1.68M)

How low will it go I wanna buy ze bottom
Hoping and praying for someone to market sell 100k on my exchange

Attached: 1522389135997.jpg (1000x800, 61K)

it'll get delisted before it get to where you want it to be.

> decentralisation is all about big industrial sized bussinesses competing for the next block. It's about competition, capitalism and greed, not some basement dwelling neckbeard larping as a wizard

You're only looking at things from a miners perspective.

You run a full node to validate blocks and actively participates in the network and make sure the rules are followed. This is why NYA (segwit2x) failed even though the big businesses and 80%+ of the miners supported it. Segwit2x requires a hard fork, which changes the rules of bitcoin (just like BCH was a hard fork) while segwit is a soft fork, meaning it's optional and if you're still running the old bitcoin rules it'll still work. You actively defend the network if you're running a full node and for a decentralized system that is extremely important.

You don't have to use a raspberry pi, you can use whatever you want but raspberry pi is the cheapest way and uses little electricity.

The bitcoin network is fully functioning as a capitalist system. You pay a fee with your transaction so if the miner thinks the fee is good, they'll include it in the next block. You bid for your transaction to be mined and if you spam the bitcoin network with 1 sat fees, your shit won't get mined.

The big blockers (lol let's just do 2 GB blocks and assume it never be full) means that there's no reason to pay more than 1 satoshi for your transactions. It'll always be mined in the next block. That's a socialist or a communist system where everyone is equal. But even worse, the cost of storing and retransmitting blocks is then pushed to the full node operators where they HAVE to store it and they HAVE to broadcast it until the end of time.

Thx reddit but you need to go back, most exchange won't delist, cz and kraken are just bcashie fagboys
Nchain/bsv don't care about your raspberrypie, they want the likes of Amazon data centres and Google to compete with for mining, who can handle the massive blocks and data that will lead to technology advancement and more competition I.e growth.
Btc is useless as it Is, can't compete with visa. Normies don't want it. They want safety for money and btc ain't safe when you can fuck up sending something.
Bitcoin needs to be more than a currency and bsv is the answer.

Because it's bad tech headed by one of the most ineffective leaders ever (who is also a fraud).

Finally, a sensible reply. Beyond the fact that multiple block reorgs have occurred and BSV has been deemed unreliable by major entities--- why is no one talking about the insane storage costs??? inb4 nodes should be server farms. Increasing transaction speed through effective centralization does not count as scaling. Also, as you point out, network propagation is a huge issue. Increases in bandwidth have NOT kept up with Moore's law or increases in storage capacity... Ok, let's say you have the wealth and capability to buy 8.64 TB of storage every month, assuming the blocks remain at 2GB (lol, they won't at this rate). This pretty severely shrinks the pool of people capable of running nodes. Cool, let's say you can do this. Now you have to distribute and receive blocks, which means you must have a connection fast enough to do so every 10 minutes, which knocks out a pretty sizable number of the remaining node operators I imagine. Beyond keeping up with the chain, imagine trying to start running a node. You will never be able to download the ledger to have a current copy of it, as new blocks are probably being created faster than you can download them. Basically whoever has already been running a node and has never paused or stopped will be the only ones who can run nodes. No new friends.

so this guy shorted 50k on APR16
then he said 12BTC to add up
that's 100k+ USD

apr 16 BSV price 55 USD
apr 25 BSV price 52 USD

has kraken delisted yet?
this guy might get very rich in a couple of days

sorry bruh, but Ethereum already has huge blocks
blockchain is already more than a currency (as Szabo originally intended)
you are very late to the party, and putting patents on MIT license programs isn't gonna help you, sorry !

Ethereum can't handle hello kitty meme games
Amazon also has patent to sharding
D O N E

>The entire BCH camp has been worshipping him since the hashwar back in november, without realizing that he's really a Blockstream founder LOL
i'm not following the stupid cashies discussion but if that's true then holy fucking shit greg is a bigger troll than craig.

>bsv
>why is it dumping?
fucking kek

Attached: 1555065337235.jpg (596x628, 40K)

You say bitcoin is bad and normies don't want it because they will fuck up a transaction. But you can fuck up a transaction on BSV as well.

If you want big companies to control your money, sure but don't say you own it. They're lending you your own money. If the feds say user can't have this money anymore, they just need to go to amazon / google and your money is gone.

Can you sue amazon? Google? Yes.
Can you sue bitcoin? Try and see what happens. Even with ETH, you can put pressure on Vitalik to do shady shit. After all, he did change the ETH blockchain so his DAO investors got their money back. ETH chain's claim of immutability died that day. That's why ETC (Ethereum classic) exists because the principal of an immutable blockchain is paramount.

I don't think you understand how important it is for something to be decentralized and minimize the cost of participating in the system. The more decentralized it becomes, the safer your money is.

If Nchain/bsv is as you described, I personally wouldn't call it a blockchain or a crypto currency because it's centralized and you significantly increase the risk of a mutable chain. Trade it all you want but for god sake don't put your wealth in it.

Then again, what you described is actually true for a lot of cryptos and ICOs. Companies come out with it, companies have control of the coins, companies that can be sued and have pressure put on them. I don't even think the word crypto and blockchain have any meaning anymore. The principles of blockchain no longer exist. Look at BNB, their "blockchain" is closed source. When there's a bug, everything comes crashing down. Guess what they're doing to do to fix it? They'll change the BNB blockchain and give refunds, just like Vitalik on ETH. And people will still call it a blockchain. What a fucking joke.

There's a reason why bitcoin has these strong principles. It is the most decentralized, permission-less, trust-less system of hard money that mankind has ever seen.

>There's a reason why bitcoin has these strong principles. It is the most decentralized, permission-less, trust-less system of hard money that mankind has ever seen.
correct altho a bit shoddy definition

Great insight. Thanks.

glad to see not only retards here

ty kind sir

Why is it not decentralised if big companies are miners? I only used Amazon and Google as examples, thousands or hundreds of thousands of entities could potentially be miners, governments, universities even security services (to catch those cp users).
Consider like netflix hosting their services, they would run a node.
Barclays bank runs a node for banking
Etc.etc.
Sto market is trillions of $, how many nodes could be ran by companies there?
Bitcoin at scale and so much more than a monetary currency to pay groceries and a "store of value".
You and most anti bsv people are locked in to thinking too small. Think bigger.

who cares about games, you little kid
also
>patents
LOL

Just don't even bother with them anymore dude, it'll be the fastest 100x in crypto history just watch

>he thinks this is a hurdle for miners

Yikes

>let miners control the entire network
They already do. Why haven't Corecucks ever read the fucking whitepaper?

because its a useless scam coin

>what is fiber optic and 5G
>implying storage is expensive
>doesnt know about pruning because hes never read the whitepaper

>what are transactions fees

You people are fucking hopeless.

where are you buying? i have no idea where to, i'm in the US by the way. i literally still have BSV on binance. i don't have time to deal with THIS BULLSHIT CZZZ AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Attached: radicalislam2.gif (904x618, 278K)

>satoshi literally describes miners becoming specialized and server farms

Read the whitepaper, read the forum posts or be poor forever.

if you turn on pruning you cant help sync other nodes up

>You actively defend the network if you're running a full node and for a decentralized system that is extremely important.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Home nodes can't do ANYTHING but watch and pray. You are not going to win this argument.

>The more decentralized it becomes, the safer your money is.

LOL

>You are not going to win this argument.
sorry you lost this argument before you had it lol

Anyone can mine, sure. I'm not talking about mining I'm talking about nodes, the one that enforces bitcoin's code.

The more it costs to run a node, the less nodes there will be. More of them will be put on big companies. When big companies collude and decide to change the rules, they would be able to. Imagine if no one ran nodes when NYA (segwit2x) happened. They would've won and BTC would be on segwit2x. But that didn't happen because of node operators. Because the node enforced those current rules of bitcoin. If the rich companies and rich miners decided to go to segwit2x, they would've lost because they did not have the support of the node operators as segwit2x requires a hard fork. They had 80%+ of the hashing power and many big companies behind NYA and they failed. It was proof that bitcoin can't be bought and won't be influenced by big companies. They must convince the community or else it will not work.

I don't know why you think you need companies and shit. The point of bitcoin is to say companies don't get to dictate things. You don't need companies for bitcoin to succeed.

I haven't seen a person argue that companies have to support p2p or p2p dies. That, by definition isn't what p2p is. It's called peer-2-peer for a reason.

I think you're in it for the money and you want BTC or whatever coin to pump. Bitcoin was born out of the banking crisis and it has certain values it adheres to. All that bad stuff that lead up to the banking crisis, bitcoin's values are built around that so people have an option to escape it when another crisis like that happens again.

If you care about any of bitcoin's values and what makes it valuable, read "the bitcoin standard", it's a good book

>he thinks anyone besides miners validate transactions and propagate blocks

READ. THE. FUCKING. WHITEPAPER.

"There is such a thing as a 'fully participating node'

What is a "fully participating node"? Remember, Bitcoin is a competitive system. It is not egalitarian. Someone always makes a profit, whether that be in transaction processing, the block reward, or the transaction in the first place. This means it is not possible to define 'full participation' in the security model, because someone is always doing 'more' than the other in order to win business.

Often the term full node is used as a reference for a node that downloads, verified, stores and distributes the full blockchain. However, this node is not fully participating, since it isn't mining at all, let alone winning. A node is either a wallet, holding and spending bitcoin, or a merchant, earning bitcoin by selling goods or providing services. There aren't any other types of nodes, as every participant in the ecosystem is either looking to make money or to spend it. Miners count as service providers, and developers can sit on either side."

A 'fully participating node' could more accurately be defined as a miner who both earns and spends bitcoin for all its economic activity. At a protocol level, individual roles aren't specifiable. That's the reason for the Proof of Work game. It creates a definition of participation as solving a problem that meets the specified level of difficulty for the hash rate, meaning that all incentives of any particular node have some way of mapping back down to hash rate, whether that's improving the ability to command and control the hash power directly, or convincing others with hash power to mine in your favour. I like to use the term 'fully sacrificial' node. The only real way to define a node as being 'full' is that it has given everything within its power to protect the network. If you're a wallet that means selling all your Bitcoin for hashpower. This is an extremely irrational act, and really one of martyrdom. Defining it in such a way makes it easier to understand why it's the last thing you'd ever want to do, and why participation is measured by hashrate."

"A security model dependent on 'full-nodes' who don't mine is in contradiction to bitcoin having value. Because for it to have value, it needs a network effect of people who believe it has value, and will do two things: validate transactions they receive and report them to the network if they're invalid, or validate miners blocks and produce a new candidate block if they're invalid. As typically defined, a 'full node' is not a wallet or a miner. It's a node that 'validates transactions' / 'secures the network' yet its costs of operation are not compensated in-protocol. This is a contradiction. To believe that full nodes are required in order to maintain protocol security, we'd also have to believe that miners won't check each others' work and users won't validate their incoming transactions. If we believed those things, then bitcoin would have no value, as its entire value is derived from the belief in its resilience and utility by its users and investors. If bitcoin has no value, nothing will hold it together. Without supply of security (hashrate) and demand for security (transactions), and an ability for the provider of the security to profit, then it will cease to exist."

>multiple block reorgs have occurred and BSV
You mean the Chinese devs that did a stress test that uncovered a bug to fix?

tl:dr

The left can't meme.

I know you've never read this before, but

"8. Simplified Payment Verification
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep
a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying
network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch
linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for
himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it,
and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it"

Bittrex, they have usd pairs as well as usdt
Check cmc for more exchanges
People sending txs care when the network is clogged for weeks by retards buying virtual cats you moron
How new are you

Only miners enforce rules. Read the whitepaper.

does this retard sreiously argue te bitcoin network is made up of 20 nodes total?

This is completely wrong. The real world example is NYA where they had 80%+ of the hashing power and huge exchanges that supported segwit2x. All that money and all that hashing power, yet they still failed. Why?

Because at the time, the full nodes enforced bitcoin's rules at the time. segwit2x (a hard fork) would've not followed bitcoin's rules. If the miners decided to fork any way, the blocks produced would've been rejected by the full nodes and it wouldn't not been propagated by the network. They would've mined segwit2x blocks for nothing, wasting electricity and time.

Real decentralized P2P networks gives power to the individual, it doesn't let big companies and big money force you into rules you don't want to follow.

I encourage you to understand bitcoin's technology more. In fact a lot of people don't seem to understand why things are they way they are.

pruning and spv nodes are not the same wtf

UASF or UAHF are literally just a protest. These nodes DO NOT have an actual say in forks. Just because the miners cucked doesnt make it so.

THEY HAVE THE SAME FUCKING FUNCTIONALLY.

Miners can literally prune as well and continue to validate transactions and propagate blocks. The only difference is the decision to store or not store transactional history.

Let's define miners as people running asics or something extremely powerful and the purpose is to find the next block. Yes, they validate blocks. Yes, a miner is a full node.

A full node, as I've described, are systems that aren't dedicated to mining. They can mine (but with very small hash rate). You download bitcoin's core software and it lets you mine on your computer. Is it efficient? Not anymore. Hence why there's dedicated miners.

However, a full node, still validates and propagates blocks. You don't need full ASICs to validate blocks & propagate data on the network. You can have a ASIC to validate blocks but you don't have to.

In short, it is not a requirement to have an ASIC to be a full node, that validates and propagates blocks. There's no rule that says you need this much hashing power to validate and propgate blocks.

bitcoinist.com/6-reasons-run-bitcoin-full-node/

> full nodes enforce the consensus rules no matter what. However, lightweight nodes do not do this. Lightweight nodes do whatever the majority of mining power says. Therefore, if most of the miners got together to increase their block reward, for example, lightweight nodes would blindly go along with it.

If what you say is true, then why didn't miners just force NYA and go segwit2x? 80% signaled for it.

>They can mine (but with very small hash rate).
And for that reason, you'll never be able to enforce rules. If someone is doing bad shit, you and your lack of any meaningful hashpower means you effectively do nothing. It requires ACTUAL miners who find blocks to enforce rules and btfo cheaters.

>If what you say is true, then why didn't miners just force NYA and go segwit2x? 80% signaled for it.
SeeVoting = HASHPOWER

Corporations don't collude bro, they fight. Look at the mobile industry, Apple and Samsung. Lawsuit after lawsuit. Competition and growth. Always trying to beat the other leads to technology advancement tons of cash pumped into rnd to develop the next gen
It likely wouldn't be feasible for collusion anyway potentially due to all the different industries

You have absolutely no idea how powerful and versatile bitcoin actually is as an economic system if you think the UASF was a good thing and not a complete embarrassment.

markwilcox.com/articles/fundamental-misconceptions/

youtube.com/watch?v=YMvI73jJ6uc

>propagates blocks

LOL

Attached: 1535896167937.png (599x336, 47K)

This can't be scaling because miners have to pay for storage... Oh noes. If there's enough fees to reimburse them for that cost then who gives a fuck? They already pay through the nose for electricity what's another couple hundred a month for storage and bandwidth? If they orphan a block then step up your game and get better connectivity. All you fucking retards acting like you love capitalism but when it comes along in its purest form you all start kvetching about muh decentralisation. Do you know the best way to maximise efficiency And security of the network without subsidising neckbeard hobbyists...? Competition.

UASF is literally just as destructive as giving everyone the right to vote in the US. Voting rights are to be restricted to those with skin in the game. Otherwise it's just a bunch of niggers and women voting for retarded shit they don't understand.

No, that's incorrect. Higher hash rate just means you have a better chance at finding the hash (number of leading zeros) to be the next block.

However, you can't just put whatever you want in that block. For example, you can't put in a transaction in the block that doesn't have the valid signatures. Those are not valid transactions. If you do this and you broadcast it to the bitcoin network, it'll be rejected by full nodes.

Same thing with block size. You can't put a 100 MB block into the bitcoin blockchain. Why? Because it is NOT in the bitcoin's consensus rules and it'll be rejected by full nodes. So this 100 MB block will not propagate in the network. There's nothing stopping you from making 100 MB blocks but you'll be wasting your time because that block will be rejected. Hence, that's why you need a hard fork (aka updating the consensus rules to get bigger blocks so bigger blocks won't be rejected by full nodes).

Like I said in the previous post, you don't seem to understand why NYA failed even with big money and 80%+ of the hash rate. If what you said is correct, the miners would've just did segwit2x on their own and that'd be that. But that did not happen. I'm trying to explain to you what happened.

UASF was BIP 148. It was a soft fork that ran on full nodes (note the difference between a soft fork and a hard fork, that's actually important). The change there was to say we'll accept segwit blocks regardless. You have to remember, the old consensus always stays if the new consensus can't be met. By default, if you ran BIP 148, nothing would've changed as miners couldn't force segwit2x (new consensus can't be met so the default consensus rules are still in place).

Also, running a full node isn't voting. Running a full node means I agree with the current consensus of bitcoin. That's it. You can add more rules to your full node if you want, but all other nodes would reject your new rules. The only way to get your new rules in place is to have a new consensus.

Where are your citations that datacenters competing won't confer adequate security to the network? Peer reviewed research on small worlds graphs and highly interconnected networks says decentralisation for the sake of decentralisation doesn't improve the network in any meaningful way. Why are you just listening to people qho are imagining problems into existence then using kikery and subsidies to solve these imaginary problems. I don't understand why you cucks have such a problem with GLOBAL MONEY being run out of datacenters rather than 1 meg gregs grandmas wifi dialysis machine.