Can Cashies explain why sidechains and core devs are bad ?

Can Cashies explain why sidechains and core devs are bad ?

Attached: 1523802846027.jpg (125x125, 2K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/kvOd6lL2fio?t=5121
youtube.com/watch?v=vM_Ski2eK6A&
youtube.com/watch?v=RpWt2RKTTjQ
wallstreettechnologist.com/2018/04/29/move-over-ethereum-new-functionality-for-bitcoin-cash-makes-it-a-smart-contract-contender/
youtube.com/watch?v=gX7-AFc_5-Q
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

They mean Roger can’t amortise his shitcoin expenses so easily

because their are very few sidechains/second layerr solutions and they are all underdeveloped, meanwhile you have a crippled mainchain with outrageous fees. They have 0 regard for the economic incentive of the system and constantly circlejerk over how evil the miners are while the system supposedly just worked for years out of sheer luck.

Nothing wrong with sidechains. There is something terribly wrong with mandatory sidechains though.

As for core-devs.... see attached.

Attached: champagne.jpg (1200x664, 73K)

They crippled BTC.
Lots of threads and posts already explained it, do your own research or stay in your echo chamber that BTC is still BTC.

>popping champagne at $50 fees

>why is this bad?

No, retard. The system worked for years because no one fucking used it.

Because moore's law. Just double the block size every year. Infinite scaling. Want proof, look at eth, it has a dynamic block size that can increase to w/e is needed, which proves big blocks scale infinitely because eth has absolutely zero scaling problems and is instant... oh wait.

Yes but now we can't increase the blocksize due to fears of centralization meanwhile we exclude billions of users frrom ever using the system. It's fine though because we have second layers which require always on nodes that are constantly getting updated with the state of the network with every transaction, which will definitely be easier on our raspberry pis.
youtu.be/kvOd6lL2fio?t=5121
1:24 ish
The blocksize increased over the years and you think this is nothing. You are in no position to call someone else a retard.

because cashies dont have devs

damn, it must suck to believe the lies.

Then you start going into how bullshit the centralization narrative is. You realize that nodes that aren't miners are completely useless in regards to "decentralization" and your entire understanding of the system is completely flawed, leaving you with no argument of substance left whatsoever.
youtube.com/watch?v=vM_Ski2eK6A&
youtube.com/watch?v=RpWt2RKTTjQ

>watch this totally objective video from a guy who openly admits he sold all his BTC for BCH right before a massively coordinated pump and dump campaign then coincidentally makes a shill video for BCH while he dumps his bags on suckers who fall for the scam

Woah his arguments all destroyed with one simple ad hom

That's a valid response to your appeal to authority by linking to the very minute of the interview with the CEO of a bitcoin cash bashed social media startup begins.

You claim concerns over centralization are baseless, provide no supporting evidence of your argument other than a link to a shill openly admitting to being funded by bitcoin cash based companies.

Blockstream uses other peoples' BTC to test LN in beta.

Traditionally, aren't companies supposed to test their products with their own funds?

Oh wait, why is a company even controlling BTC?

>but muh decentralization
>but Bitmain owns BCH
>they mine both chains retards

Attached: images.jpg (318x159, 8K)

>baseless
I thought 2 dollar fees at 50+ if people feel like using it were pretty self explanatory for excluding the majority of the worlds populace.

Fees are bad but bch doesn't fix that. Only reason bch has low fees is because no one uses it. Look at eth, which has a dynamic block size that can scale as large as needs to, was still brought to its knees by a single cat game with high fees. This is why pretty much every single major innovator in the industry is moving on to either secondary layers or completely new tech like DAGs.

BCH is transparent scam no better than bitconnect. If they was a regulated market this coordinated price manipulation would be illegal.

Core devs are bad because pic related.

Attached: 1524859503457.png (1511x1481, 301K)

Artificially restricting on chain scaling and messing with the economics of the provision of pow is bad because pic related.

Attached: 1524865645244.jpg (1098x1086, 1.27M)

And the entire thing is wrapped in one gigantic subversion attempt to thwart the essential promise of peer to peer electronic cash and substitute it with just another shitty banking settlement layer that will serve central banks rather than destroy them, and it's premeditated and intentional because pic related.

Attached: 1524925753334.png (1684x902, 352K)

Dynamic blocksize is not the same as a normal blocksize limit. The dynamic blocksize limit punishes the miner for scaling the block too large thus the miners find a perfect balance. The normal blocksize limit has no such gaming system. The blocksize can be scaled as large as it needs to be to fit user demand and second layers and sidechains can serve niches.
If you fear centralization then refer to
If you fear moores law then you can do research to the requirements of 1tb blocks and their practicality. 50 transactions per day per person.

BCH can handle 32MB blocks, which is good enough for the next ~5 years

Also, BCH still has support for payment channels, just not full LN.

It might be enough to just have a channel open with Coinbase (trading/purchases/deposits/withdrawals/etc)

BCH would handle fine with 1MB blocks, because the transaction rate is so low.

Eth doesn't "punish" the miners, the miners vote on how big to make the block because higher block size requires more resources which increase the cost mining. You are right that the entire point is to find a perfect balance. So there is obviously a formula where the parabolic increase of research using to process larger blocks starts to outpace the linear increase in transaction capacity of the blocks. Which is why just infinity scaling the block size doesn't work.

People figured this out years ago. Which is why eth also have a hundred other features to increase performance that BCH doesn't have. And why there is hundreds of companies all researching next gen scaling solutions involving secondary layers or new designs beyond block chain.

Scaling bitcoin by increasing the block size is like a 2 year's perception of how block chain works. Should bitcoin raise its block size in the short term to marginally reduce fees? Maybe (remember that increasing capacity doesn't necessarily mean fees will be noticeably reduced). But in the medium to long term its meaningless.

>BCH would handle fine with 1MB blocks, because the transaction rate is so low.
BTC handled it just fine too... until it didn't. It's as if there is a widespread denial of needing to prepare for heavier traffic?

Right. My point is you claim 32MB is good "for the next 5 years," which is laughable considering that would be a theoretical maximum of the low hundreds of tps. Much less in practice due to dos attacks, etc., which the real bitcoin experienced all the time during its period of insane fees.

Eth itself can right now, do thousands of TPS in a clean test network. So its an absolute, complete joke, to say a 32MB is anywhere near what it would take for BCH to be a usable "currency."

next fork is Nov. 15th and doubling to 64mb

Satoshi himself said blocksize increase is how bitcoin is supposed to scale. BTC inflitrated by big banks muh btc is store of value

Eth miners are constantly pushing to increase the blocksize your position is misleading. It's a limit that is gradually getting increased as long as they keep making money doing so. Just because they haven't completely removed the limit altogether doesn't mean blocksize scaling isn't viable. They did it just what 4 months ago?
Eth and bch are two completely seperate systems but I can understand your point saying that eth is farther ahead than btc and bch since core devs haven't focused on anything besides their science projects.
Of course people are going to research sidechain and second layer solutions and nobody is stopping them just stop creating an artificial limit based on bullshit.
>but in the medium to long term it's meaningless
50 transactions a day per person is far from meaningless and far from trivial. It's like your trying to argue onchain scaling can't go far enough to service basic needs.

But that's kinda of a hard point to make. Eth is better than BCH, much better, so why buy a fake bitcoin with a history of being shilled through fraud and deceptive marketing, when you can buy eth, or litecoin, or monero, or eth classic (whose advocates don't engage in fraud and price manipulation like bch), or any of the other 100s of coins that are better than BCH and still aren't bitcoin?

because eth isn't a currency and has endless inflation, litecoin has the same flaws as btc with a faster blocktime, monero follows the same problem and actually does penalize for increasing the blocksize and etc for similar reasons to eth. I really don't like how monero has constantly high fees as a result of an incredibly retarded blocksize system.
>why buy fake bitcoin
did you read the entire discussion here it's fairly obvious why I prefer it.

>Maybe (remember that increasing capacity doesn't necessarily mean fees will be noticeably reduced)

What is supply and demand?

Ethereum can handle around 15 transactions per second and has trouble scaling

Attached: DcgDr6EUQAAUfoC.jpg (1024x651, 231K)

Its entirely obvious you prefer it because you bought it before the pump and dump shill campaign started again and now you want to dump your bags somewhere above 0.2 bitcoin.

What is network congestion and bad actors? And processing more transactions requires more resources, increasing the cost of mining. Increasing the block size 4x doesn't increase capacity 4x for free, not even close.

Eth's minimum sized block size under zero load is large enough for 15 tps. But the block size is dynamic and as load increases miners can increase the block size based on their capacity. If demand increases too fast the miners don't have the physical resources to process the transactions and cannot increase capacity any further. At this point fees increase which is what happened during cryptokitties. Theoretically at this point miners would increase capacity to future increase the block size. That may or may not be happening because after that time the market dived and overall load went way down.

Your right that in the real work eth absolutely does have scaling. Which is direct proof that the whole "hurr more megabytes" solution of BCH is retarded.

Glad to see you ran out of arguments. Should take some of the discussion here to try and better yourself mate.

I mean in the real world eth does have scaling problems. (dispute having the potential for big blocks which bch shills claim solves everything)

you'd have to learn the difference between a string of digital signatures and a string of digital hashes first

wallstreettechnologist.com/2018/04/29/move-over-ethereum-new-functionality-for-bitcoin-cash-makes-it-a-smart-contract-contender/

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-05-07 at 7.58.15 PM.png (1364x644, 70K)

You have much to learn.

youtube.com/watch?v=gX7-AFc_5-Q

I realize it can't be easy accepting the truth. I was the same way for a while with BTC and BCH before making the mistake and selling my BCH, BTC is a shitshow, so is ETH.

So.. his argument is that eth doesn't scale because everything is done on chain (i don't necessarily disagree with this). But how is that an argument for bitcoin cash lmao you couldn't contradict yourself more. And love how eth "won't secede" despite it being objectively the most successful cryptocurrency besides bitcoin.