Stop being a kek. Girls want a real man with the real coin.
BCH is the closest to satoshi's original version of bitcoin. How many times did you brainlets say "I wish I woulda bought bitcoin at under $1k" well guess what NEETS the REAL bitcoin is on sale right now for ~$650. Why are you guys buying pajeet ponzi's when you could just load up on BCH now and be a NEET the rest of your life.
Other urls found in this thread:
roger ver seems like a faggot so i don't want his coin succeeding
How much FUN for both ladies?
Faggot
excellent rationale
how many do i need to make it op?
also, just because the original ford falcon was built in 1970 it doesn't mean we have to stay with that tech and not improve it.
these are just kikes with bleached hair. not even real blondes. the whole thing is a scam
>fake blonde
>fake smiles
>no idea what Bcash or BTC actually is
yeah, sounds about as legit as Bcash actually is
fuck off rooger
He is actually a homosexual fwiw.
When you run out of or dont have arguments to defend your product, you advertise with women. Tested and proven method
i have no problem with him being a homosexual, more power to him
i do have a problem with him being a complete and utter faggot though
>the iphone (1st generation) is the original vision steve jobs had for the iphone, so why the hell is everyone interested in the iphone X all of a sudden?? god those people are fucking delusion. iphone 1 is the REAL iphone.
>this iphone samsung made is the REAL iphone
Hey retard, blockchain isn't your yearly rehashed consumer tech bullshit
Go back to Facebook
keep holding btc and go down with it, that's totally fine
I prefer bch simply because it has more chances to succeed long term
sounds good, user
take it easy
Bch has lost more since ath than btc has...
>you must follow satoshi's original whitepaper precisely no matter what or its not real you sinner!!!!!!!!!!!!
you guys remind me of religious nut jobs.
*you guys remind me of people who care about the constitution
Theflappening.watch
this is known as buying low
aka a good business decision
sick
go buy more then, my friend
buy it all
>still posting on a thread about a coin he doesnt support
>constitution gets changed by consensus as laid out by the constitution
>fags like you claim its no longer follows the founders' true vision because its not identical to the original
sure thing cunt.
oh shit, am i in the wrong subreddit?
thanks for the heads up, KIND STRANGER
head whale pool troll
>8849757
Buy 125 BCH to have $1 million EOY.
I DIDN'T CHOOSE TO BE A FAGGOT. I WAS RAPED IN PRISON BY A NIGGER. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
That seems like a pretty fun meetup desu, wish I was a BCH Gator
kek you realise your argument supports Bitcoin Cash over bcore?
Bitcoin Cash upgrades twice a year, next scheduled upgrade is in a month whereas corecoin hasn't upgraded in years - which is why it is a centralized shitcoin.
isn't lightning network an upgrade?
Not buying your bcash bags pajeet
Explain why core is centralized and bcash isn't
Protip: secondary layers are irrelevant to the chain
If you mean the thing that doesn't work, that requires you to be online, that requires you to pay to nodes instead of peer-to-peer, that has huge fucking fees and tiny blocks for no reason
Sure bcore definitely got an 'upgrade'
I'm talking about Bitcoin Cash not bcash, don't even know what that is. Bcore is centralized because it's fucking github is utterly controlled by a fucking corporation that intends to turn it into a banking layer
Bcash only has 10% of hashing power that Bitcoin has...which one is the centralized shitcoin again?
LOL BCASH DELUDED AF.
>Girls want a real man with the real coin. BCH is...
TOP KEK, I stop reading there
You don't know what centralization is
Youre a fucking mongoloid bag holding retard
Kys
>trying this hard to not be triggered by the word bcash
I bet you get upset at gender pronouns too
bcash
>the iphone (1st generation) is the original vision steve jobs had for the iphone, so why the hell is everyone interested in the iphone X all of a sudden?? god those people are fucking delusion. iphone 1 is the REAL iphone.
Ok, so maybe we should let a new group take over Apple. We'll impose a 2mb limit on the phones because they can't possibly scale any higher! Sorry your text messages are no longer instant and can take days, our network is really convoluted too with backed up text messages, so that's the reason for the $50/txt fee. Don't worry though, we have a solution: OFF-Phone-Calls/txts. Just trust us (the ppl that imposed the 2mb iPhone limit) with all your personal data now (how convenient) because your phone isn't a "phone" it's a "Store-of-phone".
I'd like to see BTC refute this please.
obviously bcore has had other upgrades though if bcash if claiming to undo core's recent changes and remain the original bitcoin
Fees aren't $50, they never have been, and transactions don't take days
Theres your refutation? Pretty pathetic you have to exaggerate so hard to even have an argument
Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin
I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about user. Perhaps you can look up the dictionary definition of 'centralized' instead of confusing yourself on this board.
Increasing block size is not a scaling solution, it doesn't work.
You can't explain how btc is centralized and bch isn't
Keep trying... maybe one day you'll get it
>a chink controlled scam fork is the real bitcoin
Sorry not sorry but my bitcoinqt wallet doesn't hold bcash or bch or whatever you want to call it
Amazon cash is the real Amazon
Says the retarded corecuck
25 years ago I was in primary school carrying around 1mb floppy discs and here we are today listening to morons talking about the relevance of an extra megabyte on a block. Kill yourself.
I can see you're an absolute brainlet - this link is for you
Maybe not now, but didn't it when the volume was higher?
Checked. What is a good maximum size then? Surely 2mb isn't the max it can go without narrowing its decentralization?
discord. gg
/tz2DFy
Crpyto pump server with huge reach, join now, next pump soon
To meet the volume of visa would require 3GB blocks RIGHT NOW. This is not practical for amateur node operators and would mean that not only is bcash mining controlled by jihan, but nodes will be too. Enjoy your China statecoin.
Around 3k
Damage control
Btc has more nodes than bch
Btc is decentralized, bch is entirely in the hands of bitmains mining farm
Deal with it
But core's solution of moving part of the transaction off chain isn't a solution. It's a step backwards. How do you solve the scalability issue on chain without increasing the block size? Why can BTC or BCH cucks answer straight questions? You guys always just measure dick size till the thread dies and no one can figure out the truth. If neither are good solutions, then what IS a good solution?
And those nodes can switch whenever they want, to BCH or something else, then what?
Noone gives a flying fuck about amateur nodes that do nothing. Nodes are for miners you stupid fuck.
If we were filling 3GB blocks right now I'd be a very fucking wealthy individual, even the smarter corecucks would be very wealthy.
Jihan is 1 individual miner and is thus irrelevant in a decentralized cryptocurrency. The Chinese government doesn't control any crypto, not even bcoin which by the way is mined by Jihan, IN CHINA.
If you have an actual argument I would be fucking surprised to hear it.
Kill yourself you stupid stupid cunt.
If they haven't switched now they never will
Bitcoin diamond is the real Bitcoin you fucking brainlets
Bcore (btc) is utterly centralized, this shitcoin is completely dominated by Blockstream aka AXA, aka fucking Mastercard.
Bitcoin Cash on the other hand has 6 separate development teams working to make it peer-to-peer cash, as Bitcoin was meant to be.
>off chain isn't a scaling solution for some reason
Sorry user but you're never going to get it. Just relax, let adults worry about the technical problems, and you focus on enjoying the fantastic things we're building for you
Fucking crickets.
Normalcy bias. They've always been mining BTC, that means they will always mine BTC.
Bitcoin core has countless individual dev teams working on it, much much much more than bcash
You have no idea what decentralization means you brain dead fuck wit
Bitcoin is just a name given to an early iteration of BLOCKCHAIN technology. There are plenty of others using blockchain now. Explain how implementing transaction data OFF CHAIN doesn't change fundamentally the point and purpose of blockchain technology. Explain what I'm getting wrong.
False. A simple google search will reveal that you are wrong. KYS plz. There isn't enough room on the moon for brainlets. Don't worry, kek, we will take care of your wife.
My hedge fund group looked into bch but we concluded the people supporting it are too scummy
>nodes are for miners
The state
Of
Cashies
Literally
Not
An
Argument
Says the NEET from his mom's basement.
Bitcoin will increase it's block-size eventually - you just need to wait for the right time otherwise you end up with a shitcoin like Bcash with only 10% hashrate.
Bitcoin's network was spammed by Bcash at a time it was gaining traction, hence it became expensive if you wanted speed. Mind you, the limit was set by Satoshi just for cases like that, cunts spamming the network for dirt-cheap.
Bitcoin is solving scaling through off-chain transactions, and optimizing on-chain transactions (Segwit).
Bcash hasn't solved scaling, all it has done is make it more centralized and allowed itself to handle more spam before the bottleneck is reached. Ask yourself, how much $ does it take to fill up the Bcash mempool? Bcash isn't seeing the effects because barely anyone is using that shitcoin.
Btw, imo, the idea of blockchain storing coffee-like transactions permanently is stupid. Eventually it will take months or years to download the full chain.
kek this is the most misinformed garbage I've ever laid eyes on. Blockstream will never increase the blocksize because they can't profit from their sidechain bullshit or from operating payment nodes if fees are low, people will just use on chain transactions
Bitcoin (Cash) is quite literally the real Bitcoin.
Enjoy your dead centralized chink scam coin that has less transactions than dogecoin
Your bags will never get lighter
Wait, you're saying that just because a few more people write code for Bcash, it makes it decentralized?
AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH brainlet kys.
The real Bitcoin is the one with the longer chain - which is the chain with the majority hash power.
Bcash has 10% hash power of Bitcoin.
Bcash is a failed fork (free money) that is being used to buy more Bitcoins.
mining nodes are all that matter, your little node on your home PC does absolutely nothing regarding the greater network. Why is this hard for people to understand?
>itt: MasterCard shilling at its peak
But doesn't off chain transaction data open a vulnerability by placing trust in a centralized point of whoever handles that data off chain?
How big IS the BTC chain at the moment? and how fast is it growing? Same questions for BCH for that matter? Even accounting for difference in hash power?
It sounds like BCH is centralized because it doesn't have the interest of miners. Hypothetically, if the hash power were reversed, would there still be an issue with scalability due to the increasing block size? How much space would a miner need to add each year to keep up for both of the chains?
This is correct. Miners always get the transactions. No transaction has ever been confirmed by a little node like a raspberry pi. There hasn't been a single piece of data on the core network that hasn't been verified by a non-miner. At best they can verify after the fact. They're always beat by the miners.
Core cucks have no clue what centrality even means. Centrality in network theory has to do with the number of edges to vertices. Core has clearly become far more centralized because of the way it's being distributed as a mesh. BCH (Real bitcoin) remains not centralized, and becomes less centralized over time.
Roll
Read the Gospel that is the white paper you stupid kek:
> The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
> If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
If you or block stream think you know better about BITCOIN than the person who created it, then you cucks should FORK-OFF and form your own shitcoin called lightning-kek.
Literal buzzword salad.
Typical cashie.
Pity you can't increase the blocksize in your brain.
Those are all facts, core cuck. No piece of data on the core network has ever been verified by a non-miner, ever! Only after the fact. Small nodes don't matter, and core is still more centralized if you look at the network. You are an actual brainlet.
0.005 LINK in 1 year
Lmao nodes are the whole point you stupid fuck. Do you even know what a distributed ledger means
Going by your logic, BCH is far more centralized.
In 100 years when there are no hardware limitations, when there is so much bandwith and memory available that it is no longer a bottleneck, when 100s of transactions a day for every human on earth are no problem; which bitcoin implementation will be better? Purely main chain (large blocks) or main(small blocks)+sidechains?
The large blocks will do everything sidechains can do with the added benefit of main chain security. It will be cheaper, truly peer2peer rather than routing through central hubs, and thus more decentralized and ultimately what matters most - censorship resistant. Without hardware limitations larger blocks are an objectively better way to scale with adoption than side chains.
So in this way lightning itself is a temporary solution. As hardware advancements accelerate at a much faster rate than population growth (and thus total # tx needed by the people of the world) in the not distant future lightning will not be needed at all. If we are okay with implementing a temporarily necessary scaling solution (lightning) why couldn't we have implemented another temporary solution last year. Why was increasing block size a small amount so contentious? Moving to 4mb blocks would not have restricted who could run a node. Raspberry PIs and home computers would still be easily able to run those nodes. This would have prevented the mempool clogging and actually given us enough time to move forward with the next temporary fix (lightning) without devolving into a shitshow and failing spectacularly.
This really makes me question why sticking to 1 mb blocks was so important to core. Noone can explain why either. They just shout decentralization and nodes without actually explaining how small home nodes actually correlate to a decentralized network.
In fact BTC and BCH are virtually identical in their decentralization levels. Decentralization refers to consensus. In a centralized coin effectively one party controls the consensus. And in case you didn't know; only mining nodes participate in consensus at all. It is only these mining nodes that build blocks and enter them into the ledger, therefore it is only mining nodes controlling the flow and legitimacy of transactions. Mining nodes police each other and vote via their hash power which blocks are going to be added to the chain, non-mining nodes do nothing but offer copies of the blockchain for download (You can easily DL from mining nodes though and usually do - the longest distance between any 2 nodes in Bitcoin is a couple hops only). Now that BTC/BCH are worth a lot of money the mining nodes have advanced to be able to take full advantage of valuable emission rewards and transaction fees. Rather than 100s of thousands of home PCs mining on their GPUs majority hash power is now concentrated into professional farms of ASIC processors. The tradeoff here is a loss of decentralization for a massive increase in security.
The import part to remember though is that decentralization is not important for decentralization's sake. Cryptocurrency's value lies in its censorship resistance. To maintain this resistance mining needs to be just decentralized enough (no party with more than 51% hash power). More decentralization is better in the sense that it lowers the probability of an alliance of hash power forming that could breach the 51% and mount an attack, however, more decentralization doesn't necessarily bring added value. Once you your network attains a threshhold amount of decentralization which achieves censorship resistance your network will see a massive increase in its intrinsic value however further decentralization beyond that point does nothing except increase the probability that that censorship resistance remains intact. While this is important it means that decentralization has a logarathmic rewards curve where the rate of addded benefit diminishes the more decentralized the network gets beyond the initial threshhold. This means the 1mb block is not all that important because even with 2, 4, 8 mb blocks we are still more than decentralized enough for censorship resistance. Even with huge blocks the layout of the hash power doesn't really change much in Bitcoin. It will always lie with the professional mining operations like Bitmain and the big pools like Antpool. The block size at this point won't really affect the distribution of hash power. BTC and BCH are both ASIC dominated coins and every group that mines BTC mines BCH and vice versa. This means both of these coins have virtually the same level of decentralization. The argument that BCH is more centralized (rather the argument should at least be will be more centralized in the future if it implements larger blocks) then doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if bigger blocks take more expensive hardware to mine because all of the small miners have already been priced out - not by memory or bandwith requirements but
but by economics. Professional organizations are incentivized by the value of the underlying assett to create specialized proprietary mining hardware already, not because they have to due big block requirements, but because it is profitable to do so.
Ultimately bigger blocks allow the coin to truly scale while retaining the original qualities that make it uniquely valuable. This spurs adoption which increases the price encouraging more groups to enter into mining as big business ventures. This is where further decentralization will come from and they will be able to afford the mining rigs necessary. Instead of the hashing part of the operation swallowing 99.9% of the cost now some of that will have to go to the nodes (memory, bandwith, CPU, rather than just ASICs looking for the right nonce). EITHER WAY, BIG BLOCK OR SMALL, the small node/miner has already been completely priced out of the BTC consensus (this is an expected consequence of proof of work combined with a very valuable bitcoin). People complain JIHAN owns BCH. Guess what he owns BTC also. Just as much of the relative hashpower actually. BTC and BCH hashpower are completely interchangeable (despite where they might be aimed at this exact second). Expanding costs for Bitcoin operations actually provide further security and censorship resistance for the network from an economic standpoint. The more a group invests in their operation the more vested they become in the network as a whole. Since the network derives its value from censorship resistance the miners are incentivized to protect it. This will ensure miners maintain a minimum degree of decentralization (as they do right now - the biggest pools limit thier own sizes and Jihan could have even more hash power than he does) and even if a group was presented the opportunity to exploit or change the network for their own benefit they would not do it because to hurt the network hurts themselves. Proof of stake is literally founded on this principle.
Its not Ver's coin you moron, he just promotes it because he likes on chain scaling, same reason he promoted BTC so heavily originally.
TLDR; BTC and BCH currently have the exact same degree of decentralization and this will not change whether blocks are large or small. This is because professional groups are already economically incentivized to dominate consensus (and win block rewards / tx fees). Big blocks just move some of these costs to bandwith/memory/processing rather than pure hashing. This benefits the users and increases the value of the network as a whole due to scaling it.
This is a horrible argument because the country is clearly not following the founders' vision. Just look at all the niggers and women voting.
/roll
I had to pay $60 to make one BTC transaction in December.
>But its not that high now
It'll be that high again if people come back, eventually they'll get sick of it and look for a replacement.
>This really makes me question why sticking to 1 mb blocks was so important to core. Noone can explain why either.
I'm fairly sure the faggots got bribed or threatened, probably both, its the only reasonable explanation.
the point is they gave a way to change the constitution by consensus no matter what they wanted, and that's what happened.
the btc network decides what happens by consensus, not by what 1 person wants.
you fucking dipshits have no idea how this shit works do you...
BIP's exist right now to increase the block size.
it takes a fucking hard fork to do it you absolute dumbfucks.
by my fucking guest to get chink miners on the network to agree on literally anything.
roll