Question to people who still prefer BTC over BCH

I thought so. I've been using ETH but I wish more exchanges would have BCH pairs.
It makes total sense that people are using it for trading pairs though. After all, offchain transactions is the only use for BTC and that is the official position of blockstream.

What do you mean?
Find me a better coin than BCH and I'll probably buy it

That is the view of anyone who doesn't see the potential in a decentralised global payments network. In 2013 Bitcoin was more of a political stance than an "investment". BCH continues that political stance.

Thats what happens when you are unaware of the mass shilling and censorship sponsored by "Blockstream by Goldman™"

Attached: spurdocrash.png (636x1384, 95K)

>Nothing BCH can do isn't done better by some other 2nd or 3rd gen altcoin.
Why the fuck would you even invest in any altcoins other than speculation, they provide no additional value, not a single one of them has a proper solution for the classic scalability problem

Neither does BCH. Nor BTC really but at least that's not an altcoin.

Bitcoin Cash doesnt have a scalability problem, because it can scale :D

Attached: bchfight.png (892x662, 996K)

I don't buy knock offs

It doesn't have a scalability problem because nobody uses it.

But it doesn't offer scalability to actually become a worldwide cash system. Bigger blocks is not scaling, it's a stopgap.

because bcash is shit, more people prefer it as a trading pair and it's worth more.
bcash gets its worth from a scam artist pumping it

Attached: 1450605016264.jpg (750x730, 142K)

Do you not understand how blockchain works? The chain with the most work done is the real chain (ie Bitcoin).

>picking scamfork over segwitfork

Attached: 1468525555938.png (257x258, 9K)

It has a linear scaling solution to a problem that is exponential.

I dont prefer any shit but it I had fo choose to take out profit than btc is the only way. Main reason is because most of the vendor in my town are btc and xmr, dash. If bch got more fiat gate way, vendor and trading pair theb we can step up the game otherwise I still consider bch just another fork but work better that is all.

Attached: 151ecc866c6fb5d0a5196438b7e1e61e.jpg (736x846, 75K)

More hash power, more trading pairs, more vendor support, realistic scaling solution that doesn't centralize hash power, will still be worth money in 2 years

>It doesn't have a scalability problem because nobody uses it.
>Fastest growing adoption of any crypto currency
>Meanwhilst BTC adoption is receding

>But it doesn't offer scalability to actually become a worldwide cash system. Bigger blocks is not scaling, it's a stopgap.

youtube.com/watch?v=sbD0kiTddEs

Shit argument, BCH isnt gonna look much of a knock off when youre begging suck suck for bosses cock for an extra satoshi in your wage slip come 20 years time

No, BCH gets its worth from being a very useful decentralised global payments network as defined in the white paper at bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Actually, the ability to fork away from a hijacked chain is one of the main components which keeps Bitcoin decentralised. If a 51% attack happens (like it did last year) the 49% can fork away and continue business as normal, and sell all their 51% scam coins.

BCH proved its independence and its will to survive by forking from the hijacked BTC chain.

youtube.com/watch?v=sbD0kiTddEs

>more hash power
for now
>more trading pairs
for now
>more vendor support
BCH fastest growing adoption whisht BTC continues to receed
>realistic solution that doesnt centralise hash power
their solution is to literally perform transactions on a decentralsied exchange and do away with blockchain. thats now what i signed up for. No thanks!
>will still be worth money in 2 years
dont hodl your breath

Who hijacked the main chain? To hijack the main chain someone would need 51% of the hash power, do you think anyone can do this? If so, what is stopping them from doing the same thing to Bitcoin Cash (it would be easier since less hash power).

Anyone can start mining a different chain (fork) but the main chain is defined by being the one with the most work done (as outlined in satoshi's whitepaper).

>who hijacked the main chain
Blockstream by Goldman™
>np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783

>If so, what is stopping them from doing the same thing to Bitcoin Cash
They did, in August last year. BCH forked away from the hijack
You mean what if it happens again? Gee i guess we'll have to just... fork away again
and guess what we'll keep the name bitcoin and logo exactly the same. Ticker does not matter the slightest difference in real world e-commerce

>decentralized misinformation

Do you even understand how blockchain technology works? Care to address the rest of my post? Do you seriously think that blockstream control 51% of the hash rate of Bitcoin? IF SO SHA-256 ALGO COINS ARE USELESS BECAUSE THEY CAN 51% ATTACK ANY SHA-256 COIN.

what a rebuttal

Uh yeah I do.
Blockstream convinced most of the miners to support them, but newsflash, bitcoin isn't a dictatorship controlled by miners. Bitcoin is a free market where the users can use which ever coin they want
Miners are incentivised to do what the users want. Blockstream shilling and censorship convinced the majority (including me, at the time) to fall for their segwit and LN scam.

Read Satoshi's whitepaper. The chain with the most work done is to be considered the main chain.

Not sure.
But i wonder what peoples reaction would be if BTC had always used larger blocks and someone wanted to fork off and reduce blocks to 1mb, implement segwit then propose off-chain / 2nd layer scaling solutions... They'd probably call that a chink controlled scam.

> their solution is to literally perform transactions on a decentralsied exchange and do away with blockchain. thats now what i signed up for. No thanks!

No its not, LN is a second layer which sits atop blockchain. But even if it was, why are you so attached to an arbitrary data structure? If another structure came along that had the same properties but better scalability why would you keep using blockchain?

So true, and he talks all slow and sad like he is affecting him to talk about these things, as if he is passionate. It's an obvious ploy, I'm pretty sure ver writes his scripts

Which he wrote in reference to single miners trying to manipulate the blockchain
BCH has not been manipulated

Excellent point, sad part is most people don't understand the science and math behind how blockchain even works (in the context of it being a decentralized database with proof of work being used to determine who gets to update the database).

I don't prefer Chink knock-off's over the real thing. I'm not a nigger.

No, but it does not have majority support. The primary chain (Bitcoin) has majority support (consensus) and as such is considered the main chain (thus BCH is a fork or alt coin). If you want to change Satoshi's vision of what Bitcoin is, create something new and call it something else.

But instead, the chink controlled scam is the one where the mining power in China decided to profit with a couple developers and steal the Bitcoin brand. Bcash

Honestly dumbfounded people would suggest to remove blockchain characteristics from blockchain products and expect people to like it better...

If one was pedantic enough, one could use your mindset as a snapshot as to why BCH was actually more akin to "bitcoin" that the current BTC product's roadmap.

This 100%

I'm a god fearing red blooded American and if traitors don't like the coin I love it vid related
youtube.com/watch?v=_Iisu0snIL0&t=51m36s

Well, this is why i framed it in such a way. Is the forked product no matter what it's content destined to be viewed with hostility? I doubt 10% of people in crypto could formulate a strong argument for either.

BCH forked to protect satoshis vision. The white paper does not mention 51% attacks should be called the real coin.

Attached: bitcoinxxcentralisation_png.png (1896x1276, 130K)

iq less than 4

Except the main chain has not been 51% attacked, wtf are you smoking. The main chain simply has majority support, the BCH fork is in clear violation of Satoshi's vision, so don't call it Bitcoin, call it something else.

Again, why would I care if the technology is different if it maintains the same properties? I.e., is a decentralized, trustless ledger which prevents double spending?

The majority of people use it only for trading pairs.
It wont be long before BCH over takes it, and then you're going to have to rename your minority coin, buddy

*sound of eagle screaming*

because its no where near as effective
youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

Attached: virgin.jpg (951x1600, 427K)

If Bitcoin is to be replaced it won't be by a fork of Bitcoin, it will be by some newer alt coin that does everything better.

You're not real fast on the old irony detector there bud are you?

Attached: Datm5meW4AEjzvz.jpg (908x501, 167K)

Please lend me your crystal ball?

lmao, so you're allowed to make future predictions but I'm not?

because blockchain has those properties right now, with scaling solutions that can place the downside burdens on cheap hardware, not protocol or network composition.

>but that potential increase in hardware will change the network composition

Yes, it may. To a lesser extent than LN hubs of open channels. The more i read on both, the more i view it as a lesser of two evils.

pic related is why this won't happen btw, or at least not for a long time. With an actually flexible, adaptive chain not hijacked by someone to promote their business interests, it makes more sense for altcoins to be beta tests of good ideas, if they can survive n years and suffer no major catastrophes, then their ideas can be incorporated into the main chain. They're effectively a staging environment for the primary world chain.

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

Becauase it's not just a game anymore

Did anyone tell bch this? It shouldn't be functioning right now it doesn't have the most work.

OP btfo

Attached: orsonwelleslaughing.jpg (236x291, 16K)

my predictions are based on evidence.
a growing adoption rate of BCH, and a shrinking adoption rate of BTC. What alt coin is gaining fast adoption? If you find one let me know because im open to read into it

years of history
always worked
no central authority
no shilling
nobody exists to be the "face" of btc like roger with bch
trusted
satashi namakoto knew of the problems above and took measures to prevent them

>Im in it for the technology

Attached: 1501961054196.jpg (367x500, 26K)

> no central authority

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

Is english your second language? BTC is the main chain, that doesn't mean a fork like BCH can't function, it just can't be considered the main chain (ie it is NOT Bitcoin).

People have been saying that Bitcoin will die for its entire lifespan. 9 years later, it is still kicking, I doubt it will be destroyed by some minor alt coin.

>years of history
Yeah.
>always worked
Nope.
>no central authority
Nope. One dev team funded by bank institutions (BTC) compared to 7+ teams with no funding (BCH)
>no shilling
Oh wow, hahaha
>nobody exists to be the "face" of btc like roger with bch
Not entirely true, look for Tone Vays for example.
>trusted
True.
>satashi namakoto knew of the problems above and took measures to prevent them
He knew about them, but other than increasing blocksize (BCH) he didn't know/take any measure to prevent/solve the scaling issue.

>years of history
which is shared by BCH which is bitcoin as it was in 2014, but with a higher block limit
>always worked
until blockstream arrived and added "replace by fee" which took away instant transactions, then opposed block increases and tried and succeeded to change the course of BTCs development, and is now no where near as functional as it used to be
>no central authority
except for "theymos" who controls r/bitcoin, bitcoin.org, talk bitcoin and blockstream who hired most of the core developers and began to dictate bitcoins development
>no shilling
except for all of it
np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
>nobody exists to be the "face" of btc like roger with bch
roger is not the face of bch, he is just a loud mouth who happens to support bch and has been painted as such becuase he is a big figure and owns bitcoin.com
>trusted
as is bitcoin cash
>satoshi namakoto (didnt even spell his name right) knew the problems above and took measures to prevent them
yes satoshi knew the issues of central banks and fiat currency, so he created a new instant decentralised sound money payment system, as defined in the bitcoin whitepaper, and as tested on bitcoin BTC 2009-2017 (except instant transactions lost in 2015) and continued on BCH (with instant transactions again) 2017-present

its not going to be destroyed by a minor alt coin, it was destroyed by blockstream, but the original version of bitcoin which as survived for the last 10 years is still alive in bitcoin cash. the undefeated champ

bitcoins value is not in its ability to send the cheapest or fastest transactions

its value is in user adoption and mainstream acceptance of it having value, and BTC has this to a much greater extent than BCH

How could transactions be instant in 2015, that's not how proof of work based blockchain architecture works.

satoshi didnt think recognise a scaling issue because he intended for bitcoin to scale. he added the blocksize limit as a precaution in the early days to protect it from a theoretical attack

Wrong

Unfortunately the downside of on-chain scaling is that it centralizes hash power by increasing network consensus latency, which increases the rate of orphan block production, which disproportionately impacts smaller miners.

Listen to yourself

>Bitcoins (A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System - Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin whitepaper, 2008) value is not in its ability to send the cheapest or fastest transactions
Actually, thats EXACTLY why bitcoin is important. Are you literally a tulip trader? You don't care about functionality, you just want it because "its goin up innit m8 xDXDXD"

>its value is in user adoption and mainstream acceptance of it having value, and BTC has this to a much greater extent than BCH

Why would people adopt it if they cant do anything with it?
Now ask "Why would people adopt BCH?" Oh, because its USEFUL for payments, as well as being sound money

Its called 0conf, look it up.
Now at least I know you're new to bitcoin.

Please, download a bitcoin cash wallet and send a transaction to it (not from a centralised exchange). You'll be amazed how fast it is. LITERALLY instant.

youtube.com/watch?v=rZjasKZC7p0

Attached: bchgang.png (920x751, 26K)

On chain scaling works. We can provide a decentralised instant global sound money payments network.
It's a working system that is NOT centralised, and thats all you need to worry about.
Time will show us to be correct
youtube.com/watch?v=sbD0kiTddEs

Actually the value of Bitcoin is what people put into it. You can think of the market cap as being like a sort of 'pot' that everyone chips into, which then allows people to exchange value in a decentralized manner. The blockchain is a decentralized database which records all the transactions and proof of work is used to determine who gets to make adjustments to the ledger (which is why 0-conf doesn't work and why you need to wait for multiple blocks).

See I mentioned why 0-conf doesn't work here. 0-conf transactions defeats the entire purpose of using a blockchain.

How do you solve the consensus latency problem?

Its just as instant as BTC... both have 0 conf transactions, and in both cases, 0 conf transactions are not secure because they could potentially be double spent.

Wrong, 0conf is incredibly effective for small payments, as it would require much more time and resources to commit a double spend attack than it is actually worth. Why wait 40 minutes for 3 block confirmations when you're buying morning coffee?
The average person isn't going to attempt a double spend attack, and the 1 in a million wierdo who does will likely fail. Damages therefore negligable

HOWEVER when you're spending a lot of money on a larger transaction, then sure! It's probably best to wait for confirmation. If you're buying a new car or a house, theres no harm in waiting around 20 or so minutes until the dealer is satisfied.

Technological advancement. Running a mining node will not be viable if you live in the jungle, or run windows 98. If you have fast 1st world internet connection and have invested a reasonable amount of money into mining equipment you will have no problem.

Wrong, BTC is much more potent to double spend attacks because of replace by fee, which literally allows you to cancel your transaction after you've sent it. BCH 0conf transactions are very secure for small payments. Not perfect, but its FAR beyond a reasonable doubt of security

0Conf is the Achilles heel of Bitcoin (BCH) and anyone who doesn't agree has a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works, and why it is so lucrative.

>BTC is much more potent to double spend attacks because of replace by fee, which literally allows you to cancel your transaction after you've sent it.
You can disable replace by fee for your transactions.

Calling something secure if it is not helps nobody. Nothing is stopping a miner from accepting a transaction spending the same output. They can easily be encouraged with higher fees, and you can't prove they knew about another transaction.

If I double spend all my transactions, and 10% get double spent, I will save 10% if I continue long enough. Good incentive to try. I might even only do it when there's a surge in activity so it is less suspicious. Even with 8MB there have been days where it wasn't guaranteed to be included in the next block, and that will always be the case if we grow max blocksize according to real world use. If we don't, miners could intentionally create full blocks to lock out the (smaller) competition by increasing validation and storage costs.

>political stance

You missed his point - Bitcoin ANYTHING is a waste of time, even just as a global payment system. I'd rather send DAI via Ethereum if I need a dedicated currency token - or DGX, or Ether itself. Today, even before the Casper update, Ethereum is already better in EVERY way than the BTC's. And that's just one example of something out now, ADA for example or XLM are infinitely better than BTC. Or the new Jow Forums favorite Holochain - go read their whitepaper and try not to fomo too hard.

The BTC tech is just too old. Satoshi was a genius - but we've already moved on. Smart contracts, Dapps, proper scaling, privacy - that's what we're wanting (and have available now or shortly). I agree that Bitcoin Cash is the real BTC - but it just doesn't matter anymore. Blockstream won the battle - but lost the war since everyone just innovated away from them.

Trading newbie here. I've been trading pairs without even realizing it since 2014. It's done incredibly so far.

EOS, Holochain

How does it feel contributing to the rise of a tyrant?

That’s a technical description of how blockchain works, not a prescription for which fork represents “the real bitcoin” you hopelessly stupid faggot

Jesus Christ, this board is full of actual morons

Whats stopping Bitcoin Cash turning the ship around and making a come back and taking the top spot?
If it does, it will stay there

I'm backing BCH and I want this to happen.

Will absolutely never happen. It's a scam.

Are you fucking stupid? Blockstream forced RBF onto Bitcoin along with their tiny block limit and now 0-conf is no longer possible. Any oldfags remember when it was possible to buy a coffee with a bitcoin? Because I do. Fuck all of you

>1 post by this ID
Mhm

Ethereum? You mean the chain you can't even sync properly in a meaningful timespan? They had to introduce new syncing modes so people can even use their currency. We'll see how they can scale in the future, but right now, it doesn't look too nice.

I admit it's an easy error to make if what you took away from the BCH/BTC debate is that BCH is a viable alternative to BTC, or even the original chain.

Consider this: Even with the lightning network, 300MB blocks (without other optimizations that are currently worked on for BTC) will not suffice for worldwide adoption, despite LN enabling people to offload nearly all transactions. You can look up the calculations in the official lightning network paper, they are very straight-forward and understandable even if you don't know any details about LN.

If you accept this, then how will any altcoin that does not implement similar smart contracts as lightning scale at all? Terabyte blocks by the minute in 2022? Doesn't sound very decentralized if there's not a leap in technological advancement in the next 3 years.

Ooo I member

> Wrong, BTC is much more potent to double spend attacks because of replace by fee, which literally allows you to cancel your transaction after you've sent it. BCH 0conf transactions are very secure for small payments. Not perfect, but its FAR beyond a reasonable doubt of security

RBF is opt-in, and if a transaction opts in to RBF the recipient node can see that and refuse service until a confirmation occurs. (or refuse service all together. Most transactions have no reason to opt into RBF.)

> Technological advancement. Running a mining node will not be viable if you live in the jungle, or run windows 98. If you have fast 1st world internet connection and have invested a reasonable amount of money into mining equipment you will have no problem.

The speed of your Internet connection isn't the major bottleneck here, as blocks still need to propagate through everyone else's connections, and bitcoin network topology is random. This advantages miners with high hash power as they are instantly given access to a block they've mined, which they can then mine off of, and the more hash power they have, the more likely it is that they will win in a blockchain split dispute. i.e. they're more likely to produce a block which goes on to be part of the longest valid chain.

>No. A transaction must be marked replaceable (sequence number below MAX-1) in order for the opt-in RBF implementation to treat it as replaceable.
bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/

You might consider learning more about the technology you have been using such a long time if you want to berate others. Tip: Do not go to idiotic subreddits for technically accurate discussions.

Both RBF and 1MB block limits were put in the original Bitcoin client by Satoshi. RBF was temporarily removed due to the vulnerabilities surrounding 0conf transactions. It was later reintroduced as an opt-in feature which does not reduce the security of 0conf transactions.

Either way, 0conf transactions are fairly insecure as a miner could publish a block with a double spend. Though they make sense for things like buying a coffee, in which case both BTC and BCH are equally suitable.

Satoshi plainly stated that the block limit was a temporary measure, it was never intended to be this way for this long. Blockstream’s entire business model hinges on interference with the development of Bitcoin’s original design

Did you follow the monero PoW fork? They even had lots of support for the change, and it still resulted in the creation of lots of alts and fights about the name for the old chain.

An arbitrary blocksize increase against the wishes of the majority would have been close to suicide. It's unfortunate, but we will hardly get agreement on a random number. That's why it wasn't done.

Just imagine someone continuing to run "Bitcoin1MB" after the hardfork and then implementing weird soft fork changes with their 51% majority on the 'original' chain. It's a scenario investors and users alike could very well do without.

Segwit was a soft fork to increase the blocksize to (about) 2MB without that danger, as the new blocks still appear to follow the old consensus rules (while actually following stricter rules). The trick won't work again because parts need to remain in the 1MB part, so this wasn't an arbitrary size increase, either. It could be done, so they did it.

If you really think Blockstream is anti Bitcoin, I can't help you. But Blockstream isn't Bitcoin, and they can only argue for changes to the protocol, not enact them themselves. If they really are anti Bitcoin, they are doing a bad job at it, with all their free open source software and new research papers on novel smart contract ideas for Bitcoin. Something that will remain even if they are bought off by someone who actually is anti bitcoin.

youtube.com/watch?v=JdJexAYjrDw