You have approximately 12 minutes to tell me why continuously increasing BCH's blocksize to 1GB and beyond is bad for...

Good argument man, top notch stuff. I liked the part where you refuted my central point.

Your "point" is too garbage to refute properly, it shows a total misunderstanding of the entire value proposition of bitcoin.
It would be like asking someone to refute a fart, it's not possible.

What is there to refute if you don't understand how Bitcoin works?

Once again, miners will have to dedice if they want to keep mining a chain with no transaction activity vs a chain with transaction activity, and they will have an incentive to follow transaction activity chains as the block reward halves, because their main source of revenue will be fees, increasingly. This and other roles make it obvious to anyone with a brain that miners don't unilaterally decide, otherwise segwit2x would have happened. The dynamics go beyond hashrate, they have to leverage if their actions will be worth it.

Attached: 2xx.png (516x441, 73K)

>have no hashpower
>see a miner double spend
>screech autistically

Vs

>have hashpower
>see other miner double spend
>reject his block and continue mining your block to get it on the chain

Wat

>Lose argument
>Post meme
>Say you are to intelligent to participate in such a dumb argument anyway

Love this board.

Because fuck you.

? A non-mining node can reject a block. What don't you understand about that?
I must have missed the bit where i lost.

>have no hashpower
Wrong at the first greentext. There will always be miners on the other end finding profit, specially if there is a jucy amount of transactions on hold for you to mine. It's a matter of time stubborn miners stop mining at a loss on the chain that has no one transacting. Miners aren't dumb and know this, which is why a fork without economic node's support will never happen, not to factor in other variables, such as the rest of the community + devs of the main node software that 99% of people freely run being opposed.

Increasing BCash blocksize is like building a 10 lane highway for a city with 20 cars.

Attached: highway.jpg (900x900, 89K)

Yup, more side stepping. You core cucks are literally all the same. Can't have an actual argument with any of you. Always the same answers. Every time. It's like you all read the same hand book.

Go sort yourself out, man. I can't imagine typing parroted noise makes you feel good.

Finally, a real answer.

Your hashless node does nothing to enforce the rules, in the end it's always the miners who decide what fork to run. Say USA gov't commandeers all the non mining nodes and enforce their own rules on the network and you're only allowed to transact through their federally controlled nodes. You think the miners will switch to it? Or do you think a more likely scenario that people will connect directly to miners to get their uncorrupted TXs through will happen? Your scenario breaks down because it assumes a valid attack vector through non mining nodes, which isn't the case.

It's proof of work, not proof of sybil attack.

>A non-mining node can reject a block. What don't you understand about that?
Which accomplishes... wait for it... fucking nothing! Retard

suck my fucking dick

that's why

txhighway.com/

Attached: cage.gif (177x150, 1.74M)

>reject blocks that were already rejected by the miners to begin with because the only reason to run a node without hashpower is for 0-conf, which doesn't exist on btc anyway

Wtf is with this new economic node buzzword?

>Which accomplishes... wait for it... fucking nothing!
Except consensus. You know, the whole foundation of a cryptocurrency?
And there's no need to sign your posts.

very punchable face

This scenario already happened with the segwit2x attack (Coinbase et al, are USG drones). It didn't work, not even with all that hashrate and with these CEO's behind.

Let's use a practical example of why you are wrong about the value independent nodes play in for example, determining which hardfork has value.

Let's say 70% of miners decide to change the rules. - Examples: Add one extra mandatory output to themselves, that doesn't need to have a valid signature. Can be done, if they are the ones who validate the rules... - Decides to stop validating signatures and treat Segwit as anyone-can-spend.

Now, all else being equal, the majority chain would win. But there would be two chains, not compatible. If mining nodes were those that decided whether or not transactions was valid, it's a given which side would win - right?

But ok. The economic part of the ecosystem is not interested in that. They'll not perform those changes, and will still only accept coins mined by the 30% minority chain.

The minority chain is doomed to win in this case, unless they actually manage to fool the non-mining nodes to run that hard-fork too...and why would they?

The majority chain would of course have majority hash power, but their market would be reduced to an internal market equal to the miners.

So, only the 30% remaining honest miners coins could actually be spent, and eventually DAA would come in...and adjust difficulty so that blocks were still 6 per hour.

As a result, this would reduce the 70% majority (which were obviously dishonest - say USG, China, whatever else global attacker- so hardly any external actors would give value to the coin) to more or less a miners toy they can transact with each others.

This is a game theoretical example on why you DO NOT put full validating blocks in the hands of jews.

fucking kek, that website backfired

number of transactions (cars) doesn't affect security

Your entire premise depends on all economic activity being routed through 1 entity that agrees with the minority chain. Reality is there are many routes to get your TX to miners, and if people aren't getting their TXs through one route, they'll go to another.

You're assuming that these non mining nodes have complete control over everyone's transactions and it's not the case.

why? what was the original intention?

bitcorn futures

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-04-23 at 10.00.10 AM.png (1062x848, 1.15M)

No, you are either transacting on the compromised chain by the US government, or you are transacting throught the non compromised, legacy chain.

Any business that aligns with the attacker becomes instantly an attacker and thus will have to face consequences by users boycotting it.

Once again, segwit2x failed, study why. Study why all the forks failed, and why they had to resort to an altcoin while using social media pump it.

Another dynamic to control miners is the fact that Bitcoin holders will dump the compromised chain's tokens. 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.

User activated forks are the exact bullshit that allowed the hostile takeover with Segwit. User activated forks shouldn't be a thing. People who contribute nothing to the network are enfranchised with this retarded shit.

>User activated forks
Users ARE bitcoin.

I think it's more "users hold power" more than "my non mining node has power". Economic activity definitely matters, but there is not necessarily a 1:1 relation between economic activity on a chain and how many non mining nodes it has. Someone can spin up a million non mining nodes but as long as economic activity doesn't happen on their version of the chain, it doesn't matter.

Ideally, competing miners keep eachother honest and work to provide the best experience for their users in order to keep the economic activity. Given the amount of social media manipulation regarding blocksize increases, it is no wonder they didn't go through with S2X. It was more about public relations than any kind of power a non mining node has. In the end it was the miners who decided not to run it, and everyone was eagerly awaiting what action they would take, if you remember.

We won back in August.

We dont have to explain shit to you now, alight or be left behind. Spoils of war nigga.

Her face is getting so messed up. She kinda looks like Goofy.

I originally thought that website was made by bcash autist showing hwoever many lane highway for bcash. Now I think it may be ironic shipost by bitcoiner showing that barely anyone uses Bitcoin cash

This sounds preffty ffuffing fffood ifff yiy ask meffff

last time I checked the url it said Jow Forums and not fucking google u fucking cunt.
gtfo my board

block propagation delay = more orphaned blocks
huge blocksizes = less nodes

>Virgin Trashies

Attached: 1524103327797.jpg (2048x833, 90K)

What you mean is "wasteful" but what I hear is "comfy".

It's like putting too much air into a balloon

there are three independent groups that make up bitcoin ecosystem: miners, developers and users (economic nodes).
just like with political power in upper house, lower house and executive branch, none of these "hold power" as youve put it. all of them have some power and all of them keep check on each other. neither of them can do something that others oppose to.
also, i agree that its incorrect to count just the nodes as users. that were the economic nodes term comes in handy: its trivial to spin up hundreds of nodes that only observe the blockchain, but its not as easy to have a node that passes transactions worth millions. we shouldnt completely ignore other nodes, but economic nodes should be given priority and more weight.

You should be buying PFR instead of whatever crap youre holding. Their mainnet comes out on April 30th. Do you realize that Localbitcoins now has KYC? Do you understand that once PFR is out, people will all jump ship to avoid having to upload documents? People kept doubting the project but these guys deliver. Do you want to be poor forever..