Blockstream believes

When I first found Bitcoin in 2011 I was blown away by sending $10 over to another computer for a 1 penny fee. I'm okay with BTC being 'digital clunky gold' and I'll just use coins like Dogecoin for transactions. Though Dogecoin is getting kind of boxed out by all the relatively new/large exchanges who refuse to add Doge even though its a top 50 coin.

Well, it still is an interesting project to have even when it shouldn't be with the highest marketcap. You never know what could become a useful niche in the growing cryptoasset space.

I love how he says big blocks will fail because "smart people like us and buzzwords". These faggots get the rope for the damage they've done to Bitcoin. The dApps and scaling coming out on SV should have been coming out on Bitcoin over 5 years ago. So now we have so fucking much catching up to do. I'll never forgive these people.

>Bitcoins can already be traded in scale off chain
>were going to use the blockchain by using a 3rd party

Attached: 1515349082976.png (653x566, 23K)

Yeah, basically you use one on chain transaction to move bitcoins into some sort of address controlled by a side chain. Then on the side chain you can exchange the ownership of that bitcoins any amount of times, then a second on chain transaction to bitcoins back to another bitcoin address. You can have any number of side chains with varying degrees of scalability, fees, security, and decentralization as its impossible to have a one size fits all solution. The bitcoin block chain can then focus on decentralization and security, and you don't have to bastardize the original concept like bitcoin cash does. It introduces a bunch of centralized payment processors which users have to trust to protect them from double spends, and infinite size blocks require 100GB lines and hundreds of terabytes of SSD if you want to run a node so a few big mining cartels will control the system. The side chain model has better security, is more decentralized, is much more flexible, and scales better too.

Sounds like a bunch of fake and gay inflation schemes that a banking interest would pull. All of which is easily avoided by scaling the chain as intended, but we all know that would cut a parasite like AXA out of the market.

Attached: Screenshot_20190426-222037_Bing.jpg (519x423, 152K)

>fake and gay inflation schemes

wtf are you talking about?

kys, Greg

Attached: 15562544679485325536366185885968.png (350x400, 196K)

>lightning is compatible with w/e Blockstream wants
>inject LBTC

Lightning is not beholden to the Bitcoin protocol at all. Don't worry though. They won't start injecting the new IOUs until after they've made mining completley unprofitable and bought up the entire infrastructure on fire sale. So you got a halving, maybe two.

Attached: knc-sweden-470.jpg (470x313, 29K)

Lightning or other side chains can't create bitcoin. It can only send bitcoin it has received just like any other user of bitcoin. Think of it like multiple people sent me bitcoin. I can then facilitate trade of those bitcoins between those people any number of times. Afterwards I just send the resulting balances out to each person, so what could have been hundreds of trades results in just two on chain transactions. But no bitcoins can possible be "inflated" through this process.

And what I've described is essentially what crypto exchanges are today. Those people in the example have to trust me just like you have to trust binance or bitfinex. The lightning network's value is that it provides a way for off chain transactions to be trustless, so you can use a lightning transaction processor to do off chain transactions but you don't have to trust it, you just have to trust math and cryptography.

Now, what I mean when I say side chains are another decentralized blockchain with some sort of protocol to received and send bitcoins on the actual bitcoin chain. Something like cosmos for example. So you send bitcoin to the side chain's address and then you are credited with bitcoin credits on that blockchain. You have to trust that block chain, but it may scale better than bitcoin. Then you can perform any number of transactions on that chain and when you redeem you bitcoin credits that chain will send you bitcoins to your address on the actual bitcoin blockchain. Again, there is no way the side chain can manipulate bitcoin, or "inflate" bitcoin in anyway, its just using bitcoin like any user currently does.

Extend that example, a blockchain could interact with multiple blockchains, lets say bitcoin and ethereum, and then you have decentralized exchange where you can trade bitcoin for ethereum like idex or ether delta but cross chain.

>Another long winded pseudointellectual post pushing the narrative that LN is anything other than pure vaporware garbage.
It's all so tiresome.

Attached: clownworldbox.png (478x600, 339K)

I actually don't think lightning network will be that useful, but it can coexist with many different off chain scaling solutions. That's the advantage of scaling off chain is you can implemented and use whatever model you prefer. Trying to scale the blockchain is impossible without security or centralization compromises. Just look at bitcoin cash, which requires use of centralized paypal type payment processors to even scale like they claim.

Way too fucking long didnt read. I'll just go with the first sentence

>Lightning or other side chains can't create bitcoin
No fucking shit. That doesn't mean Lightning can't be flooded with other IOUs besides the btc IOUs already planned. You didn't think they'd let such BASED thing like (((sidechains))) go to wasted did you?

>Trying to scale the blockchain is impossible without security or centralization compromises.
>Just look at bitcoin cash, which requires use of centralized paypal type payment processors to even scale like they claim.
Serial liars and kike propogandists like you deserve far worse than pic related.

Attached: eat this.png (310x315, 382K)

DOTR can't come fast enough, senpai.

Not a lie, centralized payment processors are relied on by bitcoin cash to prevent double spends.

You can read up here, its a bitcoin.com article shortly after bcash was created:
news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-community-embraces-zero-confirmation-transactions/

Bitcoin cash proposes a system where 0 conf transactions are sent through centralized payment processors like bitpay, coinbase, or other paypal / visa like operators you must trust to use bitcoin cash in a retail environment.

Without centralized paypal type payment processors a bitcoin cash transaction takes at least one hour for 6 conf just like bitcoin. Useless as a currency.

I cant tell if you're a blatant liar or just a brainlet

Please explain how bitcoin cash works for point of sale without a trusted centralized third party then. How are double spends prevented? You have to trust bitpay to tell you its safe.

>bcash
Opinion immediately discarded by anyone with a functioning brain
>Attacking 0 conf-accepting merchants as "centralization"
This shit may fool the masses with < 105 IQ, but your lies will catch up with you, eventually. Until then, there will be plenty of people like me here to tell you that you should immediately faceplant into a slab of concrete, you disgusting creature.

Attached: consider this.jpg (480x547, 31K)

He style suggests blatant liar. Very similar to the Contrarian account. Slimy arguments designed to deceive crypto fanbois and journalist types of modest intelligence.
>The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again.

Attached: derfurher.jpg (600x943, 420K)

>WTF happened to bitcoin
bitcoin hopes and dreams were crushed last bullrun when it was shown that it CANT actually be used as internet money
"digital gold" and everything else soon after is complete cope

Attached: 1555831472854.png (413x367, 333K)

ok then explain how bitcoin cash can work in say a grocery store without using third party centralized entities. You can do this with LN, but not bitcoin cash.

You are getting close to the truth, but to actually reach it, you need to look into why the blocksize was kept small. Unfortunately that I very difficult because of numerous disinformation campaigns which are still going on (see the reddit-spacing faggot still spewing his lies in this thread).
Here's a good rundown: hackernoon.com/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-debate-a-timeline-6108081dbada

Attached: bcashnpcs.jpg (675x1280, 115K)

bitcoin shits all over gold in every regard it's not even funny. even if it never catches on as actually cash for micro-transactions it still has the brightest future of all crypto and brings on a new era of financial freedom and independence just by existing.

I would make the argument, but you'd just say "LOL THE GROCERY STORE IS CENTRALIZED, SO ACCEPTING 0 CONF IS CENTRALIZATION"
Which is an argument just convoluted and confusing enough to fool some lower IQ people, but you and I both know it is nonsense.
Implementing 0 conf payments as a merchant is trivial on BCH/BSV and there is plenty of literature out there on the subject. Go pound sand, kike.

>You can do this with LN, but not bitcoin cash.
cashies have this pajeet version of ln where a double spender forfeits to a miner that can present the double spend. it's basically a smart contract that puts the payment into escrow however and this is the important part, this will never work unless cash fixes transaction malleability which ironically could mean cash having to adopt segwit.

Yeah the grocery store signs up to bitpay and has to trust them when they say a transaction is safe. Might as well just use visa at that point.

people that focus on micropayments as bitcoins goal are retards

No they don't, you liar. Setting up 0 conf yourself is not rocket science. KYS immediately.

Attached: honklerenough.png (1276x630, 467K)

Nobody HAS to use bitpay? Wtf are you even going on about?

Yeah because digital gold is so not retarded.

>kike merchants are stupid and love fiat scam paper
shocking.

>0-conf
>3 seconds later
>order confirmed

news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-community-embraces-zero-confirmation-transactions/

Ver got a vending machine.

>literally what is 0-conf first seen rule

>cash having to adopt segwit.
It might, but SV won't.

well unescrowed 0-conf won't work in retail and you can't make escrowed 0-conf with transaction malleability in place as far as currently known. it would be cool if someone came up with a way don't get me wrong.

No, BCH will never use Segwit. We have better malleability fixes in the works

>unescrowed 0-conf won't work in retail
So funny how when called out and in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary (including the existence of working 0 conf in retail) they just keep repeating the same lies.

Attached: whosbehindthispost.gif (120x160, 826)

any sauce on those? this is something i'm actually interested in.

nobody accepts bitcoin or any knock-off forks in retail

Neutral here. This thread is hilarious. One or two people sense talkers and the rest of them are shitforkers screaming “Lies!” but adding literally nothing to what would be an interesting conversation.

When I come to press trade tomorrow, I’ll remember this ineptitude by bcashies and btrashies

Attached: FD7C5F7C-851F-4E4C-B596-0336A0F7C0A0.jpg (1024x768, 167K)

oof

Here's one
gist.github.com/markblundeberg/a3aba3c9d610e59c3c49199f697bc38b#differences-from-segwit

DYOR for other solutions under developement

>Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

COPE

this builds on bip62 with effectively cripples the scripting capability of bitcoin and not actually form all possible forms of malleability... you ever wonder why it was withddrawn?

>not actually form
*not actually protect from
shit

>No, BCH will never use Segwit.
btw they could use segwit with a hardfork but do it right, in a way that should satisfy the cashie crowd. if they segregated the signatures from the transaction (and hash) but they included this witness inside the block, and obviously thus the whole block always includes all signatures, they could have the benefits of segwit without the problems of segwit.

i wonder why nobody is experimenting with this shit?

the more i think about it this clusterfuck could have been avoided if segwit was introduced as a hardfork along with clear algorythmic mechanism for max block size increase and not a fucking softfork. and of course the ultimate crowd is just as much to blame for both the dogmatic antagonism and demonization of segwit and also for carrying through a minority fork despite satoshis warning about how stupid that is. if only i could line up all the people involved in that clusterfuck (of both sides) and tell them either you start cooperating or everybody gets shot and we try again with the next crew.

now that the split happened not just in the blockchains but the minds too it looks hopeless to ever reach reconciliation and a new consensus. in short we are fucked. doesn't matter if you are a core cuck or a cashie cuck you are fucked by human nature right in the ass.

b&r
the final blow will likely come with the next halvening, as bagholders convinced themselves a pump was inevitable
the fools even believe they're privy to arcane knowledge in that, despite the log chart being a widely popular meme even before blockstream took over
it's the blind leading the blind: smart people exit btc, silently, over years. mongs mistake the resulting lack of opposition to their verbal diarrhea for tacit approval. idiocy feeds more idiocy in an endless vicious circle
the evolution of bitcointalk is not the inevitable result of an expanding community. a casual look at other thriving communities makes this unnatural decline all too obvious. public hubs for computer science didn't become universally shit in the 60 years from the mainframe to IT degrees outsourced to India (dreary as quora and stackexchange can be these days), but look anywhere you want with bitcoin, and you'll see people who sound at best like they passed their GED
but then again, this is another tether situation: after all of this, anyone with bitcoin holdings representing a significant part of their networth is too emotionally involved to let facts or data affect their belief. it's a religion, not an investment. so as the halving fails to rally to the previous ath, new rationalizations will be made - encouraged by the slightly less dumb, who will repeat them long enough to dump their stash
then the death spiral begins

>WTF happened to bitcoin?
it got a new ticker

Attached: art12.jpg (2000x1600, 972K)

Miners prevent double spends you absolute degenerate. If two payments arrive in the mempool simultaneously the first seen is processed and the second is rejected.

I don't know a whole lot about Bcash but I'm curious to hear an argument from you guys about why this guy is wrong about centralization compromises on their 0conf strategy. He's bringing up an interesting point.

I think you're missing the point. It's not that the merchant itself is centralized, it's that points of sale have to use a centralized payment processor like bitpay or paypal to look up if a transaction is good. At which point maybe it really just makes sense to use visa or any card processor.

youtube.com/watch?v=cA4lfFb8tIo

Bitcoin is garbage. Its only real use is as a store of value, which it sucks at. For a currency to work properly it has to be exchanged easily. Aside from all the shit crypto requires you to do, BTC is slow as fuck. To use it as a currency would be retarded. And do to the fact that the price fluctuates so much, people never want to hold it unless they are investing. ETH has practical applications and has been adopted by tech giants. The value of ETH come from the value of the data it processes, and the functions it performs(with some speculative value added on). BTC pretty much only has speculative value, mostly due to the fact that it cant be forged. The only reason it isnt at zero already is because it has first mover advantage.

i have sad news for you btc is the bitcoin tickerr if bch overtakes it gets the ticker btc and core gets the ticker bcr

i personally only want to add that using payment processors is not adoption. there is no difference between converting to fiat at an exchange to pay your credit card and using a payment processor to convert your crypto on the spot for a steep fee and immediately market sell the sum on an exchange behind the curtains.

BTC is pretty good for all the reasons you listed aside from speed. Maybe you are retarded and only like things that don't function? Bitcoin being easy to use and price never fluctuating is the reason it is the future.

>To use it as a currency would be retarded.
to use gold as everyday currency would be retarded too something can be reserve currency without being useful to buy coffee with

Segwit + Lightning + Bank Hubs = spending BTC generated from the inflation bug in a fractional reserve model offchain.

Attached: lightningwhitepaper1.png (1000x594, 115K)