It's not a bribe if I do it publicly

>when you buy a financial asset whose biggest holders are publicly announcing their intention to dump it

Attached: jihad.png (802x894, 704K)

btc is now a scam for miners to accumulate more bch

low iq noob detected.

if it weren't for miners, lightning would have been widely adopted by now, they stalled segwit for 2 years.

He is fighting hard. I have respect for that.

He is dip-shit crazy and a fanatic retard for sure on the other hand.

I love this resulting drama. Own bitcoin and a little bit of bcash too. Just because he fights that hard.

roger will never hold more of his net wealth in bcash
he will hold bitcoin until he dies

This kike needs to be stopped.

>cashies still think the flippening will happen
KEK

Attached: 1517449417969.gif (470x200, 3.73M)

Who knows. There's so much shilling in the bitfag arena I can't tell anymore.

I never paid much for bitcoin fees though. Funny enough I always used the viabtc accelerator which was... made possible by cashfags.

Attached: 1526332474703.jpg (1098x1086, 1.27M)

Attached: 1526212716575.png (1684x902, 352K)

mobile.twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/932479180394172416?lang=de

Jihan never sold a single coin

Attached: 1526212577529.png (1511x1481, 301K)

if core had increased the blocksize years ago we would have had a peer to peer global electronic cash that can free people from currency debasement which lightning network can never do as explained here but he intends to.

Bullish on NANO as well.

Attached: NanoChadder.jpg (913x771, 172K)

roger ver taking a huge dump on your face

>send 5 bucks to a man making 6 figures to demonstrate technology
>HURR it's a bribe
>demonstrate there's a market by buying significant stock
>DURR he's bribing in public
jesus christ
bcash is trash, but corecucks are such absolute mongs it makes you want to support it just to spite them

not interested in reading a long rant by a nocoiner (jorge stofli) who thinks all crypto is bad and will fail. If you have an argument, lay it here.

Potential demand for bitcoin is unlimited, we need to process trillions of transactions per second, not 10, 20 or even 100. Increasing blocksize increases centralization without solving scalability. It's kicking the can down the road at a high cost. Bitcoin is useless if it becomes centralized where only miners and datac enters get to store and verify blocks.

Roger doesn't care about Satoshi's vision, he just cares about himself.

Attached: roger bitcoin.jpg (825x510, 54K)

by the way, the blocksize will be increased, but gradually and moderately to preserve decentralization, and it will be bundled with important optimizations that requires a hardfork.

Attached: 8p0dj7umars.jpg (1920x1200, 548K)

oh look, here's the paid bch shill/bagholder ready to spam the thread to death with his shill folder

what specific blocksize do you think is a problem?

keeping in the mind global adoption on lightning will require 133mb which would allow for around 1000 trx/sec on chain

non mining nodes have zero ability to affect what the miners want to do

Have you heard of streaming money? Getting paid by the second? Watching video streams and pay every second instead of paying 30 bucks for a subscription every month?
This would create 1000 Petabyte chains. It's impossible on bch. But it's the future. BCH has no future.

>non mining nodes have zero ability to affect what the miners want to do

not sure if a retarded noob or a retarded shill. mined blocks are worthless if full nodes don't accept them (i.e. if they don't follow the rules). segwit2x was canceled exactly because of that. pic related.
>what specific blocksize do you think is a problem?

bcashers want huge blocks (> 1 gigabyte), so huge that only data centers can handle them and users would have to trust the miners to follow the rules instead of running a full node.

Attached: bitcoin jeff miners.jpg (964x365, 40K)

I don't think big blocks are evil, I don't think Ripple is bad, they just trade decentralization for performance, if you like that, it's ok, just don't try to push that shit on bitcoin, decentralization is its most important property, if it loses it, it becomes worthless.

pic related #2

Attached: bitcoin full nodes.png (900x650, 596K)

>the simple fact is that if they didn't run those nodes, this whole discussion would not exist

in other words, bitcoin would be forked every 2 days like bcash.

worth noting:

1- 20% of nodes were forked off in last bcash hard fork.

2- bcash development is very centralized. even a hardcore supporter and developer complained.

Attached: bcash bitcoin 900990.jpg (878x259, 26K)

more about bcash centralization.

Attached: bcash bitcoin.jpg (977x393, 63K)

this letter is hilarious
>youre not helping decentralization by running a non-mining node
>if it werent for you, i could do whatever the fuck i want with the protocol
this subverting kike is just begging for a bullet.

lol yeah. Save it please and share it when necessary. People have short memories.

nah, thanks. i think core are a bunch of retarded technocrats who are detached from real world, just a notch better than the shitshow that is bch.
imo they shouldve increased the blocksize slightly in a hardfork and implement other changes requiring hard fork (better malleability fix than segwit for example). hardforks are a necessary part of any oss development, but core are too pussy to do them for some reason.
i wont spread their propaganda until core grows some balls to do whats necessary.

>imo they shouldve increased the blocksize slightly in a hardfork and implement other changes requiring hard fork (better malleability fix than segwit for example).
they will do that eventually, wasting a hardfork on just a block increase would have been stupid. There are many optimizations and improvements that are being developed that will require a hardfork.

>hardforks are a necessary part of any oss development
that's where you are wrong, bitcoin isn't just a software project, it's money, and it's valuable because devs can't change it whenever they want like an android app. an old bitcoin client can still sync to the network, hardforking reduces bitcoin's value.

btw, segwit was ready long time before the fees became this high. the miners stalled segwit for about 2 years. segwit is not just a bug fix, it's a blocksize increase.

>facts are shilling

Kys, corecuck.

Attached: 1524469674148.png (796x753, 436K)

read the intro of the whitepaper, retarded shill. Satoshi didn't just want low fees, he wanted to create trustless system. The big blocks model relies on trust.

Satoshi's picked the date of gold confiscation on US as his birthday, he also left us this message in the genesis block:
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"

his goal is fucking central banks and fiat, no to create an inefficient version of paypal for retards like you.

small blocks = better for decentralization
lightning = scalability and low fees

bcash = centralizated and doesn't scale. lightning will handle billions or trillions of transactions per second, it will be used for micro streamed payments, while bcash will only be used by retarded shills like you to tip each other in twitter.

i disagree that hardforks would reduce btcs value (well it might do so, but very slightly). i actually prefer the way xmr and some other oss' do it: have regular hardforks, lets say once every two years on the same date. any changes requiring hardforks can be included in the next one, if there are none, you could say its "wasted" hardfork. at the moment nobody fucking knows if core will actually allow a hardfork ever, and if they will when. this doesnt allow any planning, especially for third party coders maintaining their software. if we would have a hardfork every two years on April 1st (or whatever) you could easily implement protections in your wallet implementation, for example.
and i know that miners were blocking segwit, just like core is blocking any hardforks. no one is blameless in this shitshow.

bitcoin wouldn't be worth $8000 if a bunch of basement dwellers are able to change it whenever they wanted and you can forget about institutional adoption, ETFs or becoming a global reserve currency. Developers can fuck up, developers can bought, developers can make wrong economical decisions, ..etc centralized develeopment = centralized coin.

that being said, I like XMR hardfork approach, XMR is not bitcoin, it's not digital gold, it still has lots of room for improvement and shouldn't let immutability get in the way, we need only one digital gold, one decentralized coin, the rest of the coins can do whatever they want.

>and i know that miners were blocking segwit, just like core is blocking any hardforks. no one is blameless in this shitshow.

segwit breaks one type of asicboost that gives Jihan an advantage, that's why he stalled it, even jihan's friend, mcafee said "core is punishing jihan". Segwit is blocksize increases (for segwit transaction).

*segwit is a blocksize increase

>he wanted to create a trustless system. The big blocks model relies on trust

Lightning nodes are subject to censorship and regulation. Big blocks are just the same blockchain... with bigger blocks. Satoshi is on record as theorising bitcoin would become the provenance of "large server farms". Farms which would follow consensus rules. I know which I'd rather trust.

>his goal is fucking central banks and fiat, no to create an inefficient version of paypal for retards like you.

LN is Paypal 2.0, not on-chain scaling.

>small blocks = better for decentralization
>lightning = scalability and low fees

Non-mining nodes do not contribute to the network. Congrats on being the flat earther equivalent of crypto. LN will fill 1MB blocks at such a scale, so the block size has to be raised anyway.

LN is a joke and you ate that shit right up. I understand that you bought in at 19k and you're desperate to recover your investment but I'm afraid you bet on the wrong horse. Doesn't really matter because for every one uneducated brainlet like you there are ten people who will read this post, double check the facts themselves and wake up to the fact that Blockstream has sold the crypto community a dream. And it is them I am truly addressing. You're just a tool I can use to demonstrate a point.

Attached: 1526213251812.jpg (2530x1718, 722K)

who the fuck knows, maybe btc would be worth 20k now if we wouldve avoided the whole december bullshit ($50 fees, transactions being stuck for days, etc).
i would argue that having consistent hardforks would actually improve predictability and stability (something institutions care deeply about). like i said, at the moment, nobody knows when or even if a hardfork will ever happen. and i have no clue why you think having regular hardforks would cause centralization. the process would remain unchanged: a group of developers (core) publicly discuss what would be included into each hardfork. no one central figure with final say.
i know about asicboost, no need for a history lesson here. also, the blocksize increase from segwit is just a ridiculous accounting trick which greatly increases technical debt. it wouldve been a lot easier and beneficial in the long run to have a hardfork with slightly increased blocksize without tricks and also implement the malleability fix (which wouldve negated asicboost) without spaghetti code.

lightning nodes that anyone can easily run will be subject to censorship and regulation, but big central server farms wont? get the fuck out with your brain tumors, retard.
if ln becomes paypal, it doesnt affect btc in any way, the main protocol is still safe and decentralized. otoh, ver already said hes willing to risk bch becoming second paypal (direct quote). again, gtfo.

You fuckers thinking core will increase the blocksize are delusional. Core devs are advocating for smaller blocks. Big blocks goes against blockstreams business model. You see, they want small blocks so your coins get trapped on lightning so if you need to liquidate then you have to use blockstreams centralized Liquid.

>BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH
BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH

KYS

a non mining node cannot change what is being accepted into the block only a mining node can

you have to trust miners with 1mb blocks or 1kb blocks. Non mining nodes have zero ability to change what miners want to do

that's the great irony you hate roger, calvin, nchain and bitmain but you literally have to trust them to not cause a chain death spiral on btc as they are publicly suggesting they will

given that non mining nodes do nothing there is not a single reason to have a blocksize limit.

you fuckers who dont understand that blockstream and core are separate entities need to neck yourselves asap. blockstream devs account to smth like 10% of contributions to core last time i checked and basically every commit is publicly debated.

this.

This guy doesnt get it

You are being cucked by a small chinese man and a mnachild crybaby conman.
This is what both absolute delusion and a paid shill looks like folks.

>mfw Roger thinks his half mil investment will pay off
>mfw his investment doesn't pay off and bcash goes to zero

Notice how Craig Wright is in the middle seat, Roger Ver litterly sucks his dick

Is BCash the biggest Pump and Dump scam ever?

BCH works fine without large scale server farm nodes no matter how huge it gets or how persistent the attacker. If they take out the bigger mining nodes, the smaller mining nodes just take over. Transactions might go up to reflect the market cost of the smaller miners now needing to deal with more traffic, but nothing stops.
By contrast, you take out the hubs in the lightning network and there is now no longer a solution for the vast majority of the users to find routes period. Or you could be more subversive than "taking them out" and simply impose your regulations there. While imposing regulations at a large mining node would do nothing at all to the entire rest of the complete graph that still mines transactions you're trying to control.
In conclusion, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and has been beating the shit out of you for months. Give up already.

Fug
Biz told me LN wasn't ready
Fuck you for lying to me as usual

imagine if segwit wasn't stalled for 2 years by Jihan

imagine if on chain scaling wasn't held up for three+ years by core.

explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/address/bitcoincash:qqmm8lr9jm4klk6jdmxdhv2hlta07chmjss3ydkka0

68 transactions, 0.23429961 BCH received
such bribe, much corruption
totally not just a demonstration that it works

edit: tweet got deleted just now, i must have been almost the last one to see it

Attached: bch miners btc.jpg (750x500, 83K)

it's so sad that this video is the go-to demonstration of LN. if LN truly were ready there would be a ton of these videos but nope, there's just this one.

and it shows a direct channel so no network routing through other channels. and it doesn't show the channel setup (which is a normal BTC transaction). and it doesn't show 100 attempts in a row, all successful (impossible with LN). also LN still doesnt scale at all, nobody know how it will route. unless a backbone of super hubs are used or course but nobody wants that right?

Attached: bitcoin console.jpg (1600x1200, 604K)

>buying services is bad
Why do you hate free market capitalism?

>within a year or two.
bilderberger bootlicking corecuckolds have been saying 1-2 years since 2015

it's not a direct channel and he paid routing fees.

>unless a backbone of super hubs
even if that happens, it's not an issue, decentralization at the first layer is what matters

BCH is more decentralised at the first layer, it's not subject to the endless stonewalling of a group of economically ignorant halfwits who think they're geniuses. Both chains are mined by the exact same people, and the exact resources needed to support a throughput of x on chain y are needed to support a throughput of a on chain b. The only difference is that one chain isn't artificially constrained, but the resources you used to validate at one speed on one chain can be used to validate at the exact same speed on the other chain.
Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about and the more shit you spew the worse you make your position look.

I'm not retarded.

Attached: 1526852557282.jpg (710x350, 57K)

And as people in here have now been telling you for months, and it appears you've finally accepted, lightning *WAS DESIGNED* to be centralised. Even if you think decentralisation at the first layer mitigates that, although you're wrong, you don't seem to follow your observation through to the natural conclusion; the core dev team purposely sabotaged BTC in order to force all traffic through a network that they *FUCKING DESIGNED* to be centralised.
If that isn't everything you need to know about the situation, there's really no helping you and you should just put yourself out of your own misery.

dont spread lies, i checked his twitter when the video was new and he said he opened the channel with the shop himself some time before the video

>even if that happens, it's not an issue
just like it's not an issue of the backbone of the internet goes down right?

Attached: bitcoin segwit.jpg (800x423, 35K)

Core cant die off fast enough, all it does is stagnate the whole market and its reputation is harmful and its followers are the worst.

your desperation is really showing.

LN gets centralized: if you don't like a hub, close your channel and choose another one. bitcoin is still trustless.

Layer 1 gets centralized because of big blocks: no way to verify miners follow the rules, bitcoin is no longer trustless, miners get to fork whenever they want. as shown here: literally segwit2x was called off because miners told Jeff (the retarded segwit2x dev) that they won't mine more than 12 hours at a loss.

for noobs: did you know that miners in the past ignored the reward halving and it was full nodes run by users that rejected their blocks and made them respect the rule again?

>and it appears you've finally accepted
only in your delusional brain. these $4000 bags must be really heavy.

another desperate shill. This is the original video and it's available on his twitter account, he says no such thing.

listen, guy. It is designed that way because for any system to work and be useful, it has to have a high degree of centralization ok?

Don't even bother trying something decentralized. I promise it wont work. Just relax.

yes i love "shilling" facts about how bad LN is

twitter.com/danielalexiuc/status/993667149238435840
i cant find it now because he either deleted it or its inside a reply thread. either way i know for a fact he doesn't demonstrate it working several times in a row in the video. you know just as well as me that it's down to luck whether or not a payment actually goes through in lightning network

even IF it would work every single time, which it doesn't, it's not a good idea with a system where someone else can spend the money in your channel to someone. so one day you go to the store and try to shop but looks like you dont have money in your channel. sure you have not lost the total amount of money but the channel is spent and you need to either open a new one with the store now or refill the channel. on-chain. very bad system.

Attached: lightning network3.jpg (1920x800, 163K)

>just like it's not an issue of the backbone of the internet goes down right?

anyone can start a lightning hub, not anyone can start an ISP even if has billions lol.

bitcoin is not p2p by the way, it's peer-to-miner, and that's ok, you know why? because it's a trustless system, you can verify that the miners didn't break the rules, and if the miner doesn't mine your tx, another one will. Same for lightning. Whether it becomes centralized or not, it's still trustless.

Big blocks would break the trustless system. Even big blockers don't deny that we must trust the miners.

*hub goes down*
all of a sudden 10% of the network is unreachable
"just wait until someone opens a new channel on-chain lol"
"you'll be able to transact within a few hours again lol"

Attached: bitcorn.png (802x510, 486K)

literally he says in a reply to the tweet within hours from posting the video it's not a direct channel

your desperation is showing, and even if it was a direct channel, wouldn't change anything.

>even IF it would work every single time, which it doesn't, it's not a good idea with a system where someone else can spend the money in your channel to someone. so one day you go to the store and try to shop but looks like you dont have money in your channel. sure you have not lost the total amount of money but the channel is spent and you need to either open a new one with the store now or refill the channel. on-chain. very bad system.

no one is forcing you to be a routing node, retarded shill. very very desperate.

1- you would have channels with multiple hubs and regular people.
2- you are retarded if you think there will be only 10 hubs. many exchanges, early adopters, whales, banks, ...etc are waiting to jump on this.
3- this is not the 90s. it's possible to run services with almost a 100% uptime now. DDoS protection is cheap too.

yes he claims that it wasn't a direct channel there but im sure ive read otherwise, at the same time he explained he had purchased several times before the video

if everybody arent forced to be a routing node what's even the point? that will REALLY turn the network into centralized backbone hubs.

ah you were thinking several years into the future, when someone have magically found a solution to the non-working routing system. if there are more than 10 hubs in LN right now the thing would surely fall apart completely. gotta get that centralized backbone up and running!

Attached: nike.jpg (605x742, 67K)

and when a service goes down for hours it's usually because of complex software unique to them. the software for lightning will eventually be tested by millions and become as reliable as bitcoin core.

It's not a PnD unfortunately. Bitmain and Roger Ver are in deep with the neoliberal world order:

>coinbase full of former Clinton advisers

>Bitmain working with Goldman Sachs

>Roger Ver is a regular on Alex Jones, a well known zionist disinfo agent

They're seriously trying to flip it and the deep state has a very long track record of using people busted for terrorist activities (Ver) as a way of redemption (gold or lead type scenario)

reminder: after bcash's last hardfork, about 20% of nodes were forked off because of bad implementation. this is the experience we would get if miners had control over bitcoin.

Can you imagine being as deluded as this guy?

>will eventually be tested by millions
it's never going to happen buddy

>and become as reliable as bitcoin core
lol that's impossible, you probably don't know this but bitcoin doesn't actually have address in the network. nobody actually sends anything to anyone, you just broadcast a state update. it's impossible for lightning to beat that.

no, there were 20% of idle computers running old software. everybody using BCH should know there are planned updates every 6 months

the only thing that would happen to these people if they tried to send BCH on the old fork is that the payments wont get confirmed and if they do for some reason - once they switch back to the active fork the money will still be there

Attached: Who watches the Watchtowers.jpg (1280x4752, 935K)

>if everybody arent forced to be a routing node what's even the point? that will REALLY turn the network into centralized backbone hubs.

explained earlier: LN gets centralized: if you don't like a hub, close your channel and choose another one. bitcoin is still trustless.

Layer 1 gets centralized because of big blocks: no way to verify miners follow the rules, bitcoin is no longer trustless, miners get to fork whenever they want. as shown here:

btw, each hashpower of most proof-of-work is belong to a maximum of 2-3 pools, these are the danger.

it's funny that a bcash shill is advocating for a real centralization and a switch to a trust based model while simultaneously attacking a potential harmless trustless model.

>small blocks = better for decentralization

just gonna leave this pic related here...

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

Can you imagine living in such a bubble that you believe Roger Ver and his pose of cunts fighting for freedom?

I bet you can't cause you're just a paid cockroach coincidence theorist

>everybody using BCH should know there are planned updates every 6 months

to quote thomas zander from this post: "yesterday we learned that 2 weeks from now we will have a hard fork, and the code is written and "chosen".

all he had to do is notify the world he wanted to do a hard fork and miners agree. I'm pretty sure this is not something he came up with yesterday.

The problem is he didn't give anyone any time"
Even if everyone gets notified, a 6 month update is a disaster, it's worse than android apps (updates are usually not obligatory). I don't want my money/gold to get updated every 6 months, especially when the development and decision making is completely centralized. what a shitcoin.

*posse

I don't care what they fight for, if I can sell it for significantly more than I bought it, I see absolutely no issue. Roger Ver is doing all the shilling FOR ME.

listen, retarded bcash shills, we wouldn't have a problem with your shitcoin if you didn't try to scam people by claiming it's bitcoin.

>centralized development
>very centralized mining
>protocol is very mutable (updates every 6 months)
>"pre-mine" by bitmain by gaming the difficulty algorithm and fixing it later when he accumulated enough
>trust based model (don't run a full node, trust the miners to follow the rules)

it's literally the opposite of bitcoin, I tolerate Ripple more than this piece of shit.

> LN gets centralized: if you don't like a hub, close your channel and choose another one.
Not when they have majority of supply locked up, not when you have no means to even reach another node without their routing information. LN was designed to be centralised and forced in via the artificial scaling limits on chain, BTC is not trustless at all anymore.
In the meantime, there *IS NO CENTRALISING LAYER ONE* it's a near complete graph, while miners remain, blocks are constructed and transactions flow, period. And you can verify that the rules are being followed always simply by examining any given block and checking it against the rules, a violation of the rules doesn't cease to exist once it's been made, so it doesn't need to be validated in real time.
And miners know this, which is why they'll never do it anyway, because even if they could get away with it until the next fastest node on the network caught up, as soon as that happened it would be out of the bag and the network would suffer as a result
> for noobs: did you know that miners in the past ignored the reward halving and it was full nodes run by users that rejected their blocks and made them respect the rule again?
That's a flat out lie you stupid cunt.

we had to kill the decentralisation of the network in order to save the decentralisation of the network, yeah, I get it. just stupid cunts like doesn't.

> a routing node
Look at this stupid cunt, he says it out loud himself, a routing fucking node, like he knows exactly what it is and means. He's just being stupid on purpose so he doesn't have to admit he's wrong.

> claiming it's bitcoin.
We wouldn't have a problem with your shit tier bildeberg axa financed centralised fork either, if you didn't try to scam people by calling it Bitcoin, which has from inception been diametrically opposed to the goals you forced on it through Segwit/LN you goofy cunt, neck yourself.

>That's a flat out lie you stupid cunt.
you expose yourself as a noob for not knowing that. The miners did try to mine 50 btc rewards after the last halving, full nodes rejected their blocks, only then they obeyed the rules.

>BTC is not trustless at all anymore.
you are a technology illiterate who doesn't know what trustless mean, or pretending to.

> And you can verify that the rules are being followed always simply by examining any given block and checking it against the ruled
not when the blocks are huge, retard, you would need near data center infrastructure to run a full node.
go review the narrative with your handlers. Roger, Craig and all big blockers says miners are incentivized to be gud bois and you should trust them like a good little cuck. they actually say full nodes harm the network. these are the people you are shilling for.

>they have majority of supply locked up
you only have control over your funds, if the other party misbehaves you can close your channel and release your funds.

>which is why they'll never do it anyway,
already proven wrong by the 2016 incident and by segwit2x, they explicitly say they would have forked if it weren't for the full nodes. we would get updates every 3 months like your shitcoin.
even if they didn't have a shitty history, bitcoin is meant to be trustless, if you don't want that go use Ripple, retard.
the irony is that censorship is a bigger threat at layer 1. there is already software that blacklists tainted UTXOs. jihan owns several pools that have more than 50% of the hashing power.

literally everyone of your arguments is false for layer 2 and actually can be used against layer 1.
as I said, you are a technology illiterate

>segwit
>forced

literally everyone, even Jihan, agreed to segwit. you embarrassed yourself enough for today, go take a break and review the narrative with your handlers.

You just doubly proved yourself a stupid turbo nigger, last halving was from 25 to 12.5, not 50. It hasn't been 50 for years. And it's still a fucking lie you worthless sack of shit. Miners mined the present blocks because all fucking node software for years has had the halving schedule active right now baked into it, and anyone intelligent enough to know how to change that schedule would know every other fucking node would ignore their invalid blocks. Christ you are such a witless cunt I am utterly stunned by it.
And you're wrong about everything else as well, you can examine a terabyte block one transaction at a time on a fucking rpi you clueless cunt. Just not in real time. But it doesn't need to be in real time to expose a violation of the consensus rules, and once said violation is apparent the damage is done you clueless fuck. And likely not by some sad fuck like you with his rpi in mummies basement but by one of the other thousands of major economic nodes incentivised to police it, in real time even.
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and are literally just vomiting nonsensical core talking points. Unironically kill yourself you worthless fuck.

>nobody fucking knows if core will actually allow a hardfork ever

lies... core has said multiple times that they will reassess when quantifiable data has been received pertaining to technological advancements in storage space, bandwidth, and processing power.

look at this nigger, the SUM you fucking retard, not a single reward.

>fucking node software for years has had the halving schedule
you don't even know that the miners for a long time didn't even verify blocks

>But it doesn't need to be in real time
yeah people should weeks for their machine to verify a single transaction and spend thousands of dollars on bandwidth, storage and electricity. but muh fees muh poor people.

>and once said violation is apparent the damage is done
Sounds good to me if I was the chinese gov. Fuck up the chain, upgrade the protocol, do whatever you want, people would be helpless and find out way later when it's impossible to reverse the damage without bankrupting everyone.
> by one of the other thousands of major economic nodes
go use Ripple, retard, more reputable than chinese miners and shady exchanges, they have MIT, Microsoft, ..etc
your IQ is too low for me to continue this discussion, you are also very ignorant, consider killing yourself.