Should i dump my Bitcoin Core for BitCoin Cash?

i'll rape your family and set your home on fire, blockstream shill

Tell me how much control Blockstream has over Bitcoin, go on.... I'm waiting....

Here's a great example of a bcash shill

>bitcoin core
you can't dump an implementation, i believe you are actually talking about the cryptocurrency known as bitcoin?

nice pasta m8

Attached: 1524505700326.png (480x480, 77K)

>another late adopter thinks his shitcoin is going to take over bitcoin
how many times do you guys have to get your hopes up

Yeah, it is pasta, but it ain't wrong.

>Loses argument on first turn
>Last page of script: attempt to demoralize

yeah but btc sucks ass so i really dont get why you'd argue "anyone with technological knowledge prefers it"

anyone with such knowledge prefers other coins that bitcoin

To all newfags:
Bcash is a copy & paste of bitcoin, done by the chinese mining mafia and few con artists, trying to get even more rich by marketing and fraud. They own bitcoin dot com, they (still?) own the bitcoin twitter, and try to convince "they are the true bitcoin" when anybody can fork it (that's why there are so many fake bitcoins out there). Bitcoin cash is basically bitcoin with one integer value increased and more asic friendly, no segwit, anti lightning network, etc. Please ignore and let it die, don't fall for the scam.

Attached: 1486099943584.jpg (527x937, 73K)

Neither. Both shitcoins that hopefully die this year. Bitcoin is only where it is because it was the first, but compared to newer coins it is shit. BCash isn't anything special either.

Image is misleading because ABC nodes are only one implementation of BCH nodes. Also BCH has a smaller percentage of total hash power so of course it's gonna have fewer pools. What percentage do you recon of BTC nodes will fail to be able to run as BCH nodes?

I'm sure ASIC boosts are one reason why Wu likes BCH more. What's the problem with people using technology to secure the network again?

Allowing blocks to grow to meet demand and the free market to allow nodes to compete worked for most of bitcoins life. The decentralisation of nodes has increased since the dawn of bitcoin.

LN requires a malleability fix to fully work. Doesn't need to be segwit.

0conf is only risky with full blocks and RBF which is only present on core.

>I'm sure ASIC boosts are one reason why Wu likes BCH more. What's the problem with people using technology to secure the network again?

Oh don't get us wrong there is nothing wrong with this. There is however something wrong with having a company that manufactures said technology to completely monopolise the hashing power of the network.

How fucking gullible do you bcash faggots have to be?

Thanks for replying first. My thoughts exactly.

This is a fucking awful shill, fuck off and die.

curious, very curious, why bcash didn't fork to change the pow algo, amidst all their talk of centralization and censorship, they conveniently ignore the biggest weak point in bitcoin.

Attached: pajeet.png (192x32, 1K)

haha retarded

Why exactly should 1 company (Blockstream) decide the whole fate of Bitcoin?
Why everybody blindly just follows their vision on how to scale it?
Basically they're just riding on the laziness of BTC holders who can't be bothered to do research anymore.

>assuming BTC holders are anyone else than people that got it for 1$ and normies who heard about it in tv

>waaa I dont like free market competition
Bitmain sells ASICs so you can buy one for yourself. Also you could get off your ass and make your own mining hardware.

Look at the pool distributions, BTC has higher percentage of Wu hash right now than BCH has...

What do you think will happen to BTC node distribution when LN starts incentivising people to not use main chain?

Why exactly should 1 company (Bitmain) decide the whole fate of Bitcoin?
Why everybody blindly just follows their vision on how to scale it?
Basically they're just riding on the laziness of BTC holders who can't be bothered to do research anymore.

Although I too rather support GPU/CPU mining, the argument that ASIC mining is "bad" is not definite.

/thread

BCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHvv

I dumped my forked BCH for more Bean Cash. Best decision of my life

Attached: image.jpg (614x409, 64K)

I've heard there are 6 teams competing for BCH. The community is much more open compared to Blockstream dictatorship.

ASICs aren't bad, but the level of centralization both bitcoin and bcash (to a larger extent) have is a massive problem, one never even touched on by the bcash crowd, because it doesn't align with the vision that the miners who created the coin have for it.

if bitcoin was still 1 cpu = 1 vote, segwit would have been part of bitcoin for months to a year earlier than it was, without a fork, without any drama. mining centralization has become the biggest threat to bitcoin (and bcash) by a long way.

Haha, yes, Blockstream decides the whole fate of Bitcoin.... Sounds legit. I guarantee you have not done any research you delusion mislead individual.

yeah, and yet bitmain and other miners have the entire final say on bcash. what do you think would happen if any of these "competing" teams tried to fix centralization by changing the proof of work, or removing asicboost?

bcash is the miners response to a big fat no they got for trying to push their own hardfork through, nothing more.

When exactly did biz switch from LINK to bcash? Is this the new meme?

probably the same group of people just being paid more to create threads about bcash instead of chainlink.

only half joking.

Can you elaborate how blockstreams mining Algo is any different from BCH? First time hearing this.

it isn't, apart from segwit functionally making covert asicboost impossible, which was something a couple of larger chinese miners were using heavily to give themselves an advantage, and theres nothing wrong with that, the centralization of mining is the real issue.

my point is if bcash wanted to unshackle itself from what they believe to be centralization under "blockstream" or "core" or whoever their boogeyman is, and yet they didn't do anything about the massive centralization of mining inside china, it really undermines their entire principle, until you realize that it's all just smoke and mirrors and the entire point of bcash is to perpetuate asicboost, and to try to give more power to miners, who already have an oversized amount of it.

Attached: chrome_2018-04-28_12-28-46.png (708x348, 49K)

I don't think think Roger Ver is trying to scam me... he is already insanely rich.
This debate (small blocks vs big blocks) has been raging for 5 years, and he has contently been on the side of raising the blocksize and keeping user experience good. Only now the debate has been forced to physically manifest into Bcash and BitcoinSegwit
youtube.com/watch?v=AkbSrmsYJ9c

Attached: roger.png (417x516, 94K)

people say he's rich, but there hasn't really been any proof of his owndership of bitcoin in a long while, and there was a period where he had allegedly sold a lot of his bitcoin to buy alts.

it's clear now he owns a huge percentage of bcash, and has tried to buy communities and usernames so he can try to pump it.

whether the end goal for him is financial or ego, it deosn't matter, because it's all political and emotional.

BCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASHBCASH

np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783

Well, mining centralization and development centralization are 2 different things.
I think the biggest problem is that Blockstream is forcing us to use 2nd layers - which means banks.
Whether Bitmain has monopoly over mining is another issue.

Yes. You seem to hate money so go ahead.

Attached: 1657970.1.1405246008.jpg (645x897, 137K)

wtf i hate satoshis vision now

That's the beauty of crypto money - nobody really knows how rich you are.

medium.com/@whalecalls/fud-or-fact-blockstream-inc-is-the-main-force-behind-bitcoin-and-taken-over-160aed93c003

There is not a single reason to limit the blocksize because non mining nodes do nothing

There is no situation where the number of non mining nodes changes the incentives for mining nodes.

youtube.com/watch?v=BX992-HwWtU

Let me answer this after bitcoin miners confirmed my medium fee transaction ...
...
...
.. mmmh well come back to me in a week or two

>BCH devs
>copy and paste bitcoin code
>make two changes
>one change is so fantastically retarded that it results in crawling to one block and hour then shooting up to fifty blocks every ten minutes until it's forked out

Sounds great lads!

>which means banks
no it doesnt, it means slightly less security because you're not finalized, yes, but it's the end result for any blockchain. at some point, with enough adoption, a large portion of transactions will be priced out of the blockchain, and will need consolidating before it's economically viable to include them permanently.

and really, you can't conflate miner centralization with development centralization. development centralization is a mirage. if the community doesn't like a change being pushed, it won't happen. how can you argue development centralization is an issue when bcash itself exists?

mining centralization on the other hand is a much more serious issue, because there is not a zero cost to fixing it, it involves physical posession, physical location, and as shown has the potential to undermine any development centralization or deentralization, because if the centralized miners don't like a decision, they will fork themselves.

absolutely, which is why the appeal to authority bcash fans love to use is entirely nonsensical.

>implying rich people are somehow more moral

Yes do it, I hate these two shitcoins but core must die.

> Mining centralisation only in bcash
Like you could mine for shit without chink ASIC in bitcoin.

absolutely, but that's the problem. the biggest clue is to look at the trends. the overall trend in crypto since the problems with bitcoin's miner centralization started showing, was to move away from proof of work.

new chains were started with no mining at all, existing proof of work chains looked into transition into proof of stake, and today it's significantly harder to find any large crypto that actually uses mining as a core component. the ones that do, are fighting against the same companies that were involved in bcash's inception, that are trying to build asics, and further centralize hashing power.

Complete 100% control over your mind corecuck

Read this article brainlet, then tell me what you think:

>no it doesnt, it means slightly less security because you're not finalized
I mean with LN you're pretty much forced to join a "hub" that has built links a lot of entities. Is it that much different from a bank?
>but it's the end result for any blockchain
But what if it's not. What if big blocks are feasible when taking into account the pace of technology advancement? (hard drive capacity and network bandwidth). At least for me it makes much more sense than unnecessarily complicating things.

do you guys realize how ridiculous you sound shilling for a more centralized coin and saying things like this?

no, you're not, the whole point of the "network" in lightning network, is that why a node with more connections receives more throughput, obviously, you do not have to join one, only one where a path exists between sender and recipient.

and you dont seem to understand the core principles of blockchains if you think that. the closest you can get is with sharding the blockchain, but that itself has significantly dangers if done incorrectly.

there simply isn't a technically feasible way to have a single blockchain that can serve a massive amount of transactions while being decentralized enough to have enough users running their own nodes who are not financially incentivized to do so.

is that while a node*
significant dangers*

>pretty much forced to join a "hub" that has built links a lot of entities. Is it that much different from a bank?
Holy shit that is delusion.

Halong Mining is an new competitor to Bitmain, they're developing the DragonMint ASIC.

halongmining.com/blog/2018/03/07/dragonmint-btc-miner-uses-version-rolling-asicboost/

Oh yeah, it also uses ASICBoost. This ruins the 'Bcash is all about Jihan Wu and ASICBoost' narrative, but that doesn't seem to stop you from copypasting such bullshit.

Attached: asicbust.png (1069x386, 328K)

Please elaborate. If I want to go to a coffeshop for the first time and pay, I would have to open an online link with them and keep some of my bitcoins in that link.
This is a frustrating process so most people out of convenience would join big hubs that already have created a link with pretty much all stores in the city.
Am I wrong?

overt asicboost was never a problem, only when they felt threatened did bitmain try to patent it, prevent other people from using it, and force a hardfork to keep it alive.

mining decentralization is obviously a good thing, but more asics from china is not decentralization.

talking to bcash idiots is like talking to a brick wall.

it's a network, just like bitcoin is. you don't need to connect to a miner's node to send a transaction do you, no, because it's routed through the network until it hits a miner's node. once you open a lightning channel, you would be able to send money to almost everyone on the network. yes, it would go through large hubs, but so does your pre-signed transaction today on the bitcoin network. nodes could not relay it, and it would simply find another route.

>there simply isn't a technically feasible way to have a single blockchain that can serve a massive amount of transactions while being decentralized enough to have enough users running their own nodes who are not financially incentivized to do so.
Big blocks do not solve this? I understand that if BCH grows too fast and gets VISA level transactions per seconds, then the only option is to use expensive server hardware with todays technological development. But the more realistic scenario is that the scaling grows gradually and eventually normies are able to afford hardware that can run nodes thanks to technological advancement.

>talking to bcash idiots is like talking to a brick wall.
Pretty much.

>bcash idiots

You know Craig Wright (Satoshi Nakamoto) started this entire industry, right? Pretty sure he knows what he’s doing.

Attached: 425BFEA4-D25A-4A78-A059-A61A260EEFE7.jpg (1391x1056, 125K)

you're just vastly overestimating the technology. the blocks would need to be in the gigabytes in order to serve the global market, and even then, at peak times, you would still be waiting for multiple blocks, because those with more money could easily price you out.

all second layers are doing is catching all of those transactions being priced out, and giving them another place to post transactions, temporarily, until they can be finalized on the blockchain. its obviously not preferable to settling them directly on the blockchain, and sure, a larger base block size on bitcoin would help congestion, but only temporarily.

at some point, we need more than capacity, we need scaling, which is what second layers, signature "compression" (schnorr), etc, is all about. technological advancement simply won't be there for on-chain scaling, because the amount of duplication in blockchains is unprecedented, and makes scaling one nothing like scaling say, the internet, or the telephone lines.

HAHAHAHAHAHA HOLY FUCKING SHIT THE DELUSION! YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE (((CRAIG WRIGHT))) IS SATOSHI!!!! TOPKEK LAD!!!

>vast majority of crypto trading world uses BTC pairs
>thinking BCH is going to cause a flippening because it has bigger blocks

MFW

Attached: 1522406829769.gif (332x215, 1.99M)

Fuck you false flag shill and regular shills. There is a special place in crypto-hell reserved for your kind.

Attached: beyondmad.jpg (500x500, 59K)

Nice argument. It’s literally been confirmed by Satoshi’s known associates. But keep denying reality, brainlet boy.

But for now we would be completely fine with 8mb and upcoming 32mb blocks. I think it's not irrational to presume that 1 gigabyte or even 1 terabayte blocks are not feasible in the near future without centralization.

You've not given an argument but you do seem upset

He claimed to be satoshi and fucked up the proof. Only cocksuckers with tertiary syphilis that forced satoshi to go into hiding said that he was.

Real story behind segwit.

Attached: segwit.png (1511x1481, 301K)

Wrong. K-rad eleet script kiddies who think they understand, but don't actually understand blockchains are just stupid.

Attached: 1524850401303.jpg (1098x1086, 1.27M)

Bcash is a stupid name fuckwits use to refer to Bitcoin (BCH). Bcore (BTC) is a poisonous attempt to hijack Bitcoin and turn it into a shit tier settlement layer for international banks with a centralised and controlled second layer that said banks can parasite off the economic activity within.

Attached: therealthing.png (1168x326, 42K)

I guarantee you have not done any research, brainless cunt.

Attached: 1524895425825.png (2160x3840, 2.03M)

> it's significantly harder to find any large crypto that actually uses mining as a core component.
Of the top 10, 5 are mined, 3 aren't even live, and 2 aren't even blockchains.
You are an idiot. Proof of stake does not work, and may well never work, Vitalik has been failing at it for a long time now and he's a smart guy, and yes I'm aware of Hoskinson's paper, and I'm still not convinced. Let's actually see POS securing large market caps before it can be called anything but a pipedream.
Mining dominates blockchains in production high market caps right now, that's it, end of fucking story, deal with it.

> more centralised
neck yourself cunt brain.

Attached: lightning-network-nodes-feb2.jpg (811x741, 126K)

This is right outta r/bitcoin, i'm not even joking:

>My theory: This is a new FUD campaign (just hear me out)... The current FUD campaign (claiming "BCH is the real Bitcoin") is coming to an end. Even if the calls for a class action lawsuit against bitcoin.com's fraudulent nature don't pan out, the community has been vocal enough to put a huge damper on their efforts. But let's remember one very important thing about the ones we know as "The Others(ub)": Call them what you may, but they can take a beating 'til they're black & blue, and yet they have always lived to fight another day (albeit with a re-imagined "face", and a completely different fighting style).
>My hypothesis: This new campaign is an attempt to make the r/bitcoin community look petty, mean, and immature (and in effect, causing newbies to venture over to the Others(ub) to see what they're all about (a.k.a.- bad publicity is better than no publicity).
>This attempt is sneaky, and I've got to hand it to them: Smart! Not only will they have their own legions of shills to upvote these posts to the Front Page of r/bitcoin; there will also be a vast number of "true" r/bitcoin subscribers helping them along just to spite the Others(ub) (and ironically, their/our own face). Think about it: if you were a n00b, ignorant to the reasons behind the BTC vs BCH debacle, and you went over to the BTC side only to see the Front Page filled with these kinds of posts, you'd probably go over to the Others(ub) based solely on the childish & borderline-bullying nature of this shit!

There simply isn't a technically feasible way to get users to do what they shouldn't have to do, well, great fuckwit, that's awesome, who cares? Can you run NNTP servers or large scale SMTP servers? Why aren't you running your own SMTP server? You know the majority of email is plaintext, where's your cypherpunk cred you weak brained vomitous mass.
The network is robust in it's unstructured simplicity
Not a fucking accident.

Attached: 1518543527331.jpg (1406x1000, 383K)

this will be ignored by corecucks

BCH will cause a flippening when it kills BTC

Dump Bitcoin Core and buy some Bitcoin

>government regulated hubs
This is the same as arguing that cryptocurrencies won't succeed because they will be government regulated. It doesn't matter if lightning channels are government regulated or not because people can open them with or without government approval. That is true decentralization.

All that matters is that LN transactions are about 600,000% faster than Bcash TXs (not an over exaggeration) and just get cheaper and cheaper the more people get on board.

>Successful testing of GB blocks.
No one has successfully tested GB blocks, and they have no chance of succeeding in a way that won't completely centralize the coin.

The Reddit brainlet completely misses the point of using 1 MB blocks and probably doesn't even know what nodes are and what purpose they have.

32 MB blocks coming soon.

Attached: timdfpland.jpg (437x421, 58K)

(checked and kek'd)
And from the shadows, a hero bearing crypto redpills emerges.

Attached: ancapball.jpg (128x88, 13K)