So BCH is just a scam right?

You're entire post is a load of horse shit. BTC is getting mined by ASIC boost as we speak. You're either a Blockstream shill or a BTC bagholder that bought at ath in December

bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/slush-pool-now-compatible-asicboost-miners/

It's a copy of bitcoin from last year with a smaller, dumber dev community. Even if they ever came up with a good idea for bitcoin they don't have the intellectual capital to make it work.
That is not even getting into the reason for the fork in the first place, which was to make money for one chinese mining company.

>baseless claims made by a complete faggot

the fact that you, and all these other biz shills and retards, and all the faggots on twitter and reddit, have no idea what is coming, is what will make me rich beyond my wildest imagination

Attached: bchad.png (417x516, 138K)

Bitcoin dieing

BCash (Bitcoin Cash) is a fork of Bitcoin specifically designed so that Jihan Wu, the owner of Bitmain (the company that manufactures Antminer ASICs) can continue to exploit a mining accelerator called "ASICBoost".

His whole company's competitive edge was eliminated by Bitcoin so they forked off and made BCash instead and are trying to shill all over and convince people it's the real Bitcoin, when it's not

They're doing this with another justification - that an increase in the block size (literally just increasing a constant) is the method to scale, and Lightning Network is not. BCash cannot utilize Lightning Network since they did not implement Segregated Witness (SegWit), but there will be shills telling you that they can, but they really can't and won't

There are all sorts of other supposed benefits to BCash like 0conf which is really just a choice to lower security in favor of speed, same with the block size increase I mentioned above.

It's just a shitcoin trying to ape the real Bitcoin name. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, nobody with any real technical knowledge prefers BCash.

Also BCash nodes are highly centralized, see pic related. Ignore anyone telling you it doesn't matter, because it does

Everything I said is very important when it comes to the security of the cryptocurrency, but BCash supporters always pretend like these security-sacrificing tradeoffs don't matter. Ignore them.

Attached: FullNodeTopology_BTC_vs_BCH.jpg (2048x2310, 445K)

There is no such thing as an "original chain", Bitcoin is defined in the whitepaper itself to be the longest Proof of Work (PoW) chain. BTC is the longest PoW chain, not BCH.

Read the whitepaper, have you read it? Nothing in here supports BCH over BTC. It supports BTC. Satoshi repeats over and over that the longest PoW chain is DEFINED to be Bitcoin

bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Attached: 1513750013791.png (792x923, 70K)

Even if that were true it doesn't negate the ORIGINAL INTENT of the BCash fork.

Final dump for this incoming. I don't feel bad for the CNBC normies.

If Lightning worked great, it would be better than BCH however these types of mesh networks are extremely fragile and a DDOS on a few major hubs will wreak the network. I think it is a failure and will back Bitcoin cash.

Bch actually has more blocks. You're thinking of hashrate, which eventually bch will capture.

The original intent was to increase blocksize because you corefags reneged on 2 agreements

>Not even in full release yet
>I think it is a failure
Ok

Also OP keep in mind that the vast majority of people on Jow Forums have no formal education in Computer Science, and these are fundamentally pieces of software, not investments or anything related to business. If someone is not willing to discuss technical details with you, their opinion is worthless.

Increase the block size why

Everyone laugh at this man.

>Increase the block size why
Is this nigger serious?

What does the sentence "is this nigger serious" have to do with my question?

Provide a technical explanation for why increasing the block size is a good scaling solution and is worth the security tradeoffs, please. Otherwise you're no more than a shill - someone who makes claims repeatedly without backing them up

More space in the block to accommodate more transactions. Wtf is this your first day?

>newfag confirmed

And why was this needed? Please justify the security tradeoffs and explain why it was worth increasing the block size by 2x over what SegWit supported (2mb)

Was it necessary? BCash's blocks are always empty because nobody uses it because it's a shitcoin.

Take a look at the mempool.

jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1,24h

It's more than accommodated by the current block size. Why make a bad design decision to fix a temporary problem? BCash is permanently scarred

Do you know anything about software engineering, distributed systems, algorithmic complexity theory, and methods of scaling?

Do you see a scaling issue right now? Do you realize how quickly LN is catching on and how much additional scaling this will provide, along with added SegWit adoption?

Attached: BTC_mempool_2018_04_19.png (944x924, 158K)

I'm an embedded computer systems engineer by trade you neet faggot

I'm a low latency distributed systems engineer "by trade" you LARPing faggot

Economics is just as important as CS imo. A blockchain can have some amazing tech but if its consensus algorithm has the incentives fucked up then it won't be successful.

>justify the security tradeoffs
There are none, newfag. It's literally how bitcoin is designed to run and scale. Segwit is a security trade off (removing the fucking signatures from transactions ffs). Bch isnt 2x the size its 8x soon to be 32x.

>lightning

Lamo at your life.

BCH follows the original idea described in the bitcoin white paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. BTC does not.

Attached: 1522216154078.jpg (321x446, 50K)

That's true, but it's irrelevant when it comes to discussing algorithms

2x was a mistype, I meant 4x. SegWit fixes transaction malleability so it's a security increase and is necessary to allow LN

You're lmao at my life because I think the second layer solutions Satoshi planned are necessary? Okay.

No it isnt. If the incentives are fucked the system will fail.

SegWit is not a requirement for LN:
youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s

Okay, and the incentive systems of cryptocurrencies are fundamentally mathematical and are better analyzed using game theory than traditional economics. Explain what this has to do with Bitcoin vs BCash as well please

I'm not to good on the technical part op but I was recommended one of these to assist us bitcoin holders to keep from losing our coins. With the lightning network you have to keep your channels open and this here will help while your out while out shopping as an added bonus it will verify every transaction.

Attached: 1524173604675.jpg (736x414, 74K)

Video does not support your claim. It is a requirement for LN to be implemented securely and in a way that can actually scale through third party channel monitoring and sheriffing

Segwit didnt solve malleability, it only made a work around and requires the use of segwit transactions not core.

Second layers are fine. LN exists on both chains. Level 3 LN however is a meme and doesn't even work in simulations and even if it did work, it's basically the antithesis of blockchain because it isnt opt in no matter how autistically you screech, as the fees and lead times prevent end users from actually settling on the blockchain and will require well connected highly liquid hubs (banks) to facilitate transactions.

>BCH is a scam because a bunch of newbies on Jow Forumsbitcoin yell "bcash" and "Roger Drumpf" all the time... r-right guys?
I'm so glad another transfer of wealth is taking place from the retards to the people who have actually been paying attention to the scaling issue.

Attached: bcashonbrigade.jpg (2340x1440, 302K)

It’s funny how you pasta this everywhere but it’s jist blatantly wrong

...oh well I guess you got your (you)

>third party channel monitoring and sheriffing
holy shit the absolute state of trustless peer to peer cash

Attached: jews.jpg (474x526, 58K)

BUT MUH RASPBERRYPI NODE!!!!!

Bitcoin was literally $600 for a bit there. Thanks to the redditors

Segwit has the selfish miner problem as well as "anyone can spend" addresses which make cartel attacks a thing because 51% attacks with such addresses in the game reward more than a double spend.

Then when you get LN in the mix the incentive to mine is completely fucked as you've just added a fee market on top of the chain.

Also you cant cold store anything on LN. LN has so many security flaws its pants on head retarded. Also it doesn't work.

LN also has the unsolvable problem of finding routes in the network (without knowing the entire map of the users and their balances remaining)

>scale through third party channel monitoring and sheriffing
JUST FUCK MY TRUSTLESS NETWORK UP SENPAI

it has more blocks because the miners abused the emergency difficulty adjustment essentially abusing the distribution multiple times
thousands and thousands of coins were printed with very little PoW followed by several hours of 0 blocks found

I can't believe anyone would support a chain that abused its distribution process multiple times

bcore is done.

Attached: asuka12.png (938x1210, 1.14M)

Cashies are so awkward and out of place whenever they step out of Reddit.

Attached: chineseknockoff.png (1531x3098, 648K)

While in the beginning I agree things were fucked, however that isnt the case anymore. Bch consistently does 6 blocks an hour better than btc because of the difficulty algo.

why not 64x 128x?
when bcash pushes their network to the limits of hardware and bandwidth and nodes cost an arm and a leg
GOOD LUCK forking that system, it's over it is centrally controlled

the end game for bcash is against the ethos of bitcoin. There is a small chance they succeed enough to even reach that point, and that's why I think this is all a marketing pump/dump scheme.

>full validating nodes don't matter, handle them all to the miners
Good goy.

Attached: blocks.png (2168x1390, 2.29M)

32mb is to scale with OP-codes, color coins, extension blocks, etc that is going in the next fork. So why not so higher number? Not enough transactional demand, but will eventually.

Thank you for this, you've opened my eyes to this chink scam

blockchain.info/tx/92785a57f6e9e9eb9d37a00e6e8be7f888376f65fa2b8f868db261cbf6cca7b0

Here's $330,000,000 worth of Bitcoin in a segwit address, still waiting you mouthbreaters to steal it.

>he thinks nodes without hashpower do anything at all

They actually weaken the network. All they do is require another hop to a node that actually has hashpower, which increases sybil vulnerability.

>an incentive exists for miners to cartel up
>this is fine

Please learn how Bitcoin works, Craig.

It is fine because it's bullshit and impossible, it cannot be executed.

Now what can easily be executed is taking control of the few nodes that will eventually host your shitcoin, then you are fucked.

bcash should up the mining reward to 150 bitcoin per block so they get more hashing power and can claim to be real bitcoin

On August 14, 2010, hackers created 184 billion counterfeit bitcoin (BTC), which the hackers sent to two addresses, and are now untraceable. According to the official story, the hack was identified, code was rewritten, and blockchain rebooted within just five hours, stranding the 184 billion bitcoin in cyberspace without the requisite 120 confirmations for inclusion into the blockchain.

You're an idiot. BCH has more blocks but less PoW. I specifically said PoW clearly you're new here.

Requires hashpower to validate transactions, cuckboi. Your full nigger meme node has no effect on the network.

>Now what can easily be executed is taking control of the few nodes
Actually retarded.

They're very important if we want BTC to be global, stop thinking about first world countries

None of that is true enough to be an issue.

It's not an unsolvable problem. Optimal routes are impossible to find, so what? They're impossible to find in real life as well when driving down a street. Does that stop us from driving? You know nothing about CS clearly

>are now untraceable.
on a public blockchain... these cashies are serious brainlets

It is trustless. Do you know what trustless means?

How is a 3rd party monitoring payment channels trustless?

Money Laundering Bitcoin Style: “Segregated Witness”

On August 23, 2017, after two years of debate, Bitcoin officially adopted Segregated Witness, a technology that was arguably designed to boost blockchain capacity.However, much of the developer community felt so strongly that the security compromise outweighed the purported benefits of SegWit that they forked a new currency called Bitcoin Cash on August 1st, 2017. Bitcoin Cash forked ahead of the SegWit adoption in order to preserve the intended purpose of Bitcoin as a decentralized, secure currency.

So why did the developers oppose SegWit?

This excellent Bitcrust post explains that SegWit shifts the incentives to miners away from verifying transaction signatures – which creates the opportunity for aforementioned mystery hackers to spend their 184 billion bitcoin.

If the miners no longer validate transaction signatures, then it doesn’t matter that transaction 74638 failed to achieve the requisite 120 confirmations. Just like our briefcase of dirty money, these counterfeit bitcoin can be spent like any other provided that someone helps them spend it.

Requires full validating nodes to validate your PoW, otherwise it's as going into the middle of a desert and making an huge useless hole and presenting this as PoW, yet you want to give the ability to aknowledge what is or isnt a valid block to the same people doing the holes in the desert. You are completely fucking retarded.

>Actually retarded.
Cope, your boy Roger is on record claiming he would be fine with a dozen nodes globaly.

you can't be this god damn stupid
just look at a basic bitcoin transactions and follow it back to the block it was rewarded in

Because decisionmaking power is still 100% delegated to the network. There's an economic incentive for 3rd party channel sheriffs to catch fraudulent behavior and transmit a proof-of-fraud smart contract transaction to the network so that the person being defrauded in return gets THE ENTIRE LN CHANNEL BALANCE and the sheriff who caught it gets a portion of that, fee level agreed upon either by the LN ecosystem or the user upon entering the channel

This also provides a decentralization pressure since if someone creates an LN node with a 1,000 BTC channel balance and they try to defraud someone by fraudulently transmitting an early channel balance, the node host will literally lose their 1,000 BTC and it will go to the person they tried to defraud. So channels will be split apart and this "big bank node" meme will NOT happen, and if it does happen you will know FOR A FACT that those big nodes will be 100% secure since they do NOT want to risk their entire channel balance

you run your own LN node, or you have the option to allow a 3rd party to watch it for you
there's a scale of completely trust less to somewhat trust less to trusting a service provider

Roger is unironically a brainlet

>Requires full validating nodes to validate your PoW

Which is what mining is. If you're not mining you dont do anything useful for the network and only create more hops weakening network security.

This is incorrect

What is this "network security" you're talking about user?

There is no "Bitcoin network security" except transaction recipient security (since spending is taken care of by consensus), and for maximal security in that regard you have to be able to run your own full node. Big blocks limit the number of people who can do that.

The truth hurts but you cannot run away from it

if miners control all the nodes how can the merchants and users trust them?
it's better for everyone to have a copy of the ledger, especially when big companies tried to collude with the S2X hardfork
SPV node providers could have fucked the ecosystem over a controversial fork
it's more secure and better for everyone to have non mining nodes

If you don't trust miners there's 0 reason for you to use blockchain.

Read what I said again you doofus. And stop overrating the importance of miners. Not even 95% of their hashrate + CEOs of whatever managed to hardfork Bitcoin.

Attached: 2x.png (1600x228, 64K)

And with that comment the lone user proves he literally knows nothing about cryptocurrencies and hasn't even read the whitepaper

You're not supposed to have to trust anyone user. That's the point. By removing the ability to run full nodes yourself (through big blocks for instance) you're delegating trust to miners, when trust should never be delegated to anything except
>PoW
>Consensus
>The assumption that the longest chain is the real Bitcoin

And that's it. You're NOT supposed to trust miners, you're supposed to only trust what you can verify yourself, so any suggestions that we should make changes which require more trust to be placed in miners or SPV hosts as another user said, by definition reduces security

>proof-of-fraud
I need sauce on this.

It's not.
Hops in a network open up sybil attacks. If you are running a node and you have no hashpower you aren't helping in anyway. The ONLY people who validate transactions are miners.

the whole point of this is so you don't have to trust anyone
you need to have the ability to watch miners and know when to fork away to your own network

if you trust miners then bcash might be for you

>trust
>trust
>trust
>trust
>trust

You are completely fucking retarded. Bitcoin works because nobody trusts the next guy.

I'm going to exit this argument because I'm really sick of "arguments" where it's really an education session for one side but they won't admit it

Have you studied the LN at all? This is literally how it works. Do some research

bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46183/does-anyone-get-custodial-control-of-your-funds-when-using-lightning-network/46208#46208

>Hops in a network open up sybil attacks. If you are running a node and you have no hashpower you aren't helping in anyway. The ONLY people who validate transactions are miners.
You are helping yourself, and you're the only one who you're supposed to help. Not "the network" whatever that means. If we make changes that prevent users from helping themselves and increasing their own security, you're delegating trust to others.

Yes, you do, in fact, trust miners to act in their own economic self-interest. am I sharing this board with redditors or shills? Saying non-mining nodes do anything is like saying you "contribute" to a soccer game by watching it on your television

>Miners decide

No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in BTC, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.

There are two specific methods to control miners on this matter, which will make the scamcoin Gavin is trying to replace everyone's BTC with only replace some people's BTC. The first and most obvious is that irrespective of what miners mine, each single full node will reject illegal blocks. This is a fact. If all the miners out there suddenly quit Bitcon and go mine Keiser's Aurora scamcoin instead, from the perspective of the BTC network hash rate simply dropped and that's all. There's absolutely no difference between Keiser's scamcoin and Gavin's scamcoin as far as the network is concerned. As far as anyone will be able to perceive, miners simply left.

The second and perhaps not as obvious has nevertheless been discussed at length on multiple occasions:

Whoever has enough money to matter is likely to pick one chain for whatever reason, since fork means BTC can be spent independently on either chain he will sell his BTC on one and perhaps buy on the other. As a result prices will rapidly diverge, panicking the mass of users, and the fork is economically resolved.

The situation here is aggravated by the fact that the fork proposed is not simply nondeterministic behaviour, and so the holdings on the two chains aren't notionally equivalent. Instead, all the holdings on the BTC chain are accepted as valid on both BTC and Gavincoin, but holdings on Gavincoin are rejected by BTC. Consequently, everyone involved with the fork is writing options to everyone in BTC, free of charge. That they have no ready way to finance these should be obvious, and consequently the grim prospects of the Gavin side of the fork should be just as obvious. At least, to people who understand economy to any degree.

Attached: satoshi on bcash.png (632x410, 43K)

You're a fucking retard. Does the second amendment "contribute" anything to the government? Is it helping out the government? No, it's for protecting YOURSELF FROM the government

i.e. small blocks and running your own non-mining full node protects yourself from malicious miners, double spends, and a whole host of other things.

The way you abuse language sickens me

All non-mining nodes do is copy the chain from a miner or another node (which copies, again, from a miner)

This does nothing. You are not solving blocks so you are not adding anything to the network. Point to the place in the white paper where it states otherwise you tremendous faggot

Nice screenshot but it's contrary to the spirit of BTC. Even if Nick Szabo WAS Satoshi, him saying that doesn't mean too much. Hypothetically he could have gone demented. The goal is to not trust anyone but to trust mathematics

/rant

I dont see proof of fraud anywhere.

If you actually believe this then literally everyone should be running a roll node which is pointless. The only people who might need a full node are merchants mostly for 0-conf which doesn't even exist on core. Also big blocks aren't even cost prohibitive, especially for miners. Would make up maybe 1% of their overhead.

What the fuck are you talking about? Proof-of-fraud is specific to LN and has to do with malicious channels trying to fraudulently finalize the channel balance on the base level chain with earlier signed agreements which are out of sync with later ones which the defrauded user (or sheriff who caught it) broadcasts to the network as a "proof of fraud" which then gives the defrauded user the entire channel balance.