What is so bad about 8MB block sizes?

>Engineering is about making things more efficient, not mindlessly cranking up power.

If society was all about efficiency then we wouldn't see 3mb .gifs on the internet or streaming HD video. The internet scaled up to offer a better experience, so will Bitcoin.

Chink internet it's one of the main bottlenecks of the network, 8 MB blocks would make shit even worse
The internet didn't scale up, specially upload wise
Americans have it much worse with Jewish shit like data caps

no they won't you absolute fucktard, they want to strangle the network by reducing the size of blocks to 30kb so they can setup crypto transmitters/middlemen that slug you a fee for each transfer you make.

Strangling the blocksize is the only way to ensure block fees rise too high for daily use, forcing you onto their lightning bullshit

>The internet didn't scale up, specially upload wise

You shitting me, I remember waiting 30 minutes to watch a one minute long 320x240 quicktime clip or a minute for a porn image to load. I'd sit there patiently with my hand on my cock while it slowly loads from top to bottom, "OMG I can see her tits...oh now the pussy!"

All the people crying they can't support more blocks, if you could support 2MB blocks in 2009 when Bitcoin was first invented, you can at the MINIMUM support 4MB with the advancement in broadband.

again you are a fucking retard, chinks are pushing for the 8mb increase so you're wrong. This is about expanding the capacity of the network and the chinks are the ones pushing for that expansion

jesus you cunts are so misinformed. Drop your btc bags and buy bcc before you lose your chance to buy cheap bitcoin.

I'd just like to point out that this small block bullshit will inevitably fail, it will simply result in people using a different blockchain (obviously BCC) but if BCC should fail then decred/monero or something new.

crappy internet connections

the world has a very crappy internet. people with high speed internet obviously won't see what is the problem, the same way rich people don't care about people with no healthcare or food.

synchronization is an issue, so centralization is the answer, but the spirit of bitcoin is gone.

read my posts you sheep

You dumbass, middlemen already exist, its called miners

Reducing blocks is even better, it makes for a faster and way more efficient network you retard

The majority of the network right now cannot handle 8mb blocks unless you are a data center, huge miner or chink you idiot

I haven't been able to find much information about how off-chain transactions would even work. Would anyone be able to handle them like the blockchain nodes, or only companies like Blockstream?

segwit fixes a bug in Bitcoin called tx malleability. fixing that allows for more features like the upcoming lightning network that is intended to handle thousands of smaller transactions instantly. it is a much, much better and elegant solution than just bumping up the block size. 8mb, 16, 32, it doesn't matter. without segwit it can never scale.

lightning network does not require segwit or small blocks, sorry to tell you but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

lightning does not require segwit but its much more compatible with Segwit.

read: blockstream.com/2017/07/31/segwit-myths-debunked.html

anyone can use them. anyone that can make a transaction today could use the lightning network, for example, in the future. look up the lightning network. basically you tie up some funds in incomplete transactions on the chain and you can pay people instantly by sending them the key to complete it. it will allow for thousands of small, instantaneous transactions that are just as secure as on chain transactions. but it requires segwit.

>The majority of the network right now cannot handle 8mb blocks unless you are a data center, huge miner or chink you idiot

So they could support 1MB blocks in 2009, yet almost 10 years later with all the advances in technology they can't support at least a doubling or tripling of block size? Sorry, I don't buy that bullshit.

>It will be easier to scale Bitcoin into bigger blocks later, when there is more adoption.
why?

>Bitcoin wants to maintain decentralization for as long as possible.
>as long as possible
So you're implying it will one day inevitably become centralized anyway? When bitcoin becomes wide spread? Well doesnt that seem like a wasted effort?
Also what is the issue with "centralization"? People talk about it as if it is the creation of a bitcoin central bank, where they control the entire currency.
I don't think bitcoin can ever be fully "centralized" as there is always an opportunity for other people to establish their own mining centres to it will always be open to competition. Especially as computer technology improves and better hardware is created to cope with the larger blocks. It should in theory become less centralized over time as the technology industry makes their own progress.

In 2009 there were only a handful of people actually using the network

Called some BCH haters "star wars fans" on steemit. Brb checking the responses

>off chain transactions

is this the beginning of fractional reserve bitcoin?

chaining transactions do

it's centralized because 1 group of people is doing all the mining. This would make it extremely vulnerable to the 51% double spend attacks. The entire crux of fucking bitcoin is that many people have to mine it so there can't be any attacks.

That's the complaint.

Also, nobody cares about the technology any more. It isn't about that. People like Bitcoin because it's the brand they know and the default currency literally everywhere in crypto. It's not the technology.

in 2009 I was fapping to pornhub daily, I'm pretty fucking sure all that porn was larger than 1MB you fucking cuck

there is also literally no disadvantage to segwit besides the fact that it wasn't in the original Bitcoin white paper.

Are you retarded? Video compression today is amazing, with our Internet we wouldn't even be able to stream raw DVD footage.

Thanks to engineering we came to a point where it's possible to easily stream 4K content without any problem.

T. Electrical Engineer with masters and specialization in Telecommunications.

>why?
Because, hopefully, there will be advances in the industry that will help scale Bitcoin. In fact it may not even ever be scaled into bigger blocks; they might want to cut it down. Regardless, when there is more adoption there should be even more advances in the technology.

Remember crypto is still in a very young phase right now.

>Well doesnt that seem like a wasted effort?
We dont know for sure what will happen. Maybe it will become centralized, maybe not. I mean eventually its going to have to be data centers mining bitcoin because of the massive amount of hashpower involved. That's not necessarily a bad thing because at that point Bitcoin will probably not even be used by regular people.

I mean this whole argument over BTC vs BCC is entirely moot, because Bitcoin's fate is obvious - its going to be digital gold. That's how the market is already starting to treat it. It's going to be used between governments, corporations, banks etc. Regular people are not going to be using bitcoin. That's my instinct anyway.

Eventually as technology improves most likely a more transaction based currency will be used by regular people.

One person was mining in 2009 and I can't recall you bitching about centralization back then. Obviously the network hasn't spread out yet, the difficulty is dropping, after it drops mining starts to become profitable.

I'm pretty certain you're a paid shill for blockstream at this point.

you stupid cuck, in 2009 bitcoin had maybe 100 people on the network. Thats why they could support 1MB transactions. Now its a different story.

>comparing bitcoin in 2009 to 2017

literally kys you stupid cuck, dont you have rogers or jihan's ass to eat?

Chink internet it's one of the main bottlenecks of the network, 8 MB blocks would make shit even worse
The internet didn't scale up, specially upload wise
Americans have it much worse with Jewish shit like data caps
>t. typical jihanmarine

>band-aid solution
>700% increase

i couldn't give two fucks about either of them, at least they're not trying to subvert the network and turn it into a kike controlled banking system you moron.

>invokes ((them))

you lose sir

I don't buy it either, but I haven't personally tested.

8MB every 10 minutes is nothing unless you live in africa.

I'm going to set up a full BCC node for fun at home just because retards keep saying a normal computer can't handle it or it's too expensive.

BCC is a boring piece of worthless shit that's one week old with no merchant adoption in sight, no development, but with same 10 minute blockchain and only like 5 lines of code changed from BTC -- NOTHING NEW OR EXCITING. Also centralised Chinese ASIC miners is truth.. just look at the blocks mined so far it's public knowledge and so far looks pretty centralised and I don't think this will change much in the future.

Stop lying, the time it would take me to upload a 1 gigabyte file in 2009 vs in 2017 off a standard home broadband connection is IMMENSELY faster.

Okay, looks like I didn't consider actually relaying the blocks to other nodes.

However, even looking at this chart , by the time we hit those numbers it doesn't seem unfeasible to run full nodes at those sizes. RAM usage is the most worrisome looking metric, but normies with shit computers aren't the ones running nodes anyway.

What bothers me is people claiming that nodes are going to cause centralization rather than the miners, which are centralized almost entirely on China regardless of what block sizes you use. So even if you find some weird solution, how are we going to stop chink miners? Bitcoin is doomed to be centralized to China as long as we have SHA256 PoW.

So my question is, how is any of it relevant when the hashpower itself is inherently centralized?

that is literally nothing, nothing compared to what btc will eventually support. block size will simply not be a bottleneck in the future.

are you even trying?

Post something new, with some actual arguments. The changes to BCC are freely available at bitcoincash.org along with development progress

>SHA256 PoW

WHO IN THE WHAT HOW

Traffic is not cheap everywhere on the planet

>what is compression

read: gizmodo.com/why-americas-internet-is-so-shitty-and-slow-1686173744

Compression has nothing to do with it, I am a graphic designer by trade, I've been uploading huge files .zip files for 15 years now and the speed to get files to my clients are alot better now than in 2009. Photoshop files haven't shrunk since then, but speeds have increased.

If you think it's shitty now, it was MUCH shittier in 2009.

It has everything to do with it. People can stream 4k because of compression. Internet speeds have increased, but not anything to support the level which a cryptocurrency network like bitcoin would require for most people.

Also the .zip compression has also advanced over the years. Don't think that .zip's in 2009 were the same now.

>the node operators that arent chinks dont yet have the infrastructure to support such an increase in blocksize,

Are you fucking retarded? An 8MB block takes like a second to download on a broadband connection. I literally have a 5 year old $200 Kmart netbook running a node, and 8MB blocks are effortless on the old Celeron.

How long does it take you to download 8MB?

uh.. you have to dl and store lot more than one block, it's in the hundreds of gigabytes

It doesn't require meaningfully better infrastructure to mine 8MB blocks on an ordinary broadband connection. If you've got some 56k dialup modem, yeah, it could theoretically disadvantage you by a few seconds to get the larger block. But who the fuck is invested in mining and doesn't have a reliable internet connection? Miners also only need the headers of the new block to start working on the next one, which is much smaller than 8MB.

1. You don't actually have to store the entire blockchain on a fully-validating node. You can prune it.

2. The blockchain is already well over 100GB, so you already need at least a modern hard drive. With 8 MB blocks being CONSTANTLY full, you'd fill a $100 drive in ~10 fucking years. The drive is more likely to die before you're able to fill it! That's not meaningfully increasing the barrier to run a node.

4MB seems like a maximum for 2017 if you look at my chart here

>bitcoincash.wix

BCH has a 2mb soft limit.

and?

Stop telling them dude
Just stop trying
it's a waste of your time, let them wallow in their own shit.

Finally some common sense, as if I am supposed to shed crocodile tears from fuckers making millions a day mining claiming they can't afford fast internet.

That's exactly what it is. Now you're beginning to understand why it's being pushed so hard. Segwit is the first step in pozzing btc.

The entire point of bitcoin is to be something involved in daily transactions newfag. Literally read the original white paper. The digital gold thing is fucking retarded.

That's a shitty attitude. At least some people are attempting to have some sort of discussion without throwing around ad hominem every other sentence.

I'm still on the fence regarding big blocks, SW, and LN. Half the arguments don't make sense to me even after literally reading the code and technical details, and seem like they could apply to both parties.

I still fail to see the argument against big blocks when we have centralized mining, but Lightning Network can be done in a decentralized manner since the whole point of it is to have an open ledger with anti-cheat balances, so I don't see how it's going to fuck up Bitcoin. Yes, there will be less total nodes compared to the full network, but the same will happen with big blocks. Both solutions "centralize" certain aspects of the BTC network in a way.

Plus, it's not like LN will be forced on you. Normal tx will still exist and function normally. I fail to see how both solutions can't coexist or why people can't just choose to opt out (at least with LN).

Other than ulterior motives, what benefit is there to forcefully excluding one of the solutions? They don't seem incompatible with one another.

Hard mode: 'satoshi's vision' isn't an argument.

>Off chain

Its not off chain:

Myth #5: SegWit takes transactions off chain.

SegWit does not take transactions off chain. SegWit increases capacity by making blocks bigger, upgrades a number of bitcoin features, and provides a bug fix – specifically a transaction malleability fix – to improve multi-clause contracts. The transaction malleability fix does benefit payment channel mechanisms such as Lightning, but SegWit as a whole benefits everyone using the Bitcoin blockchain, regardless of whether or not Lightning would also be of interest to them.

Although Lightning uses SegWit, it is a separate technology. Every Lightning transaction is a valid Bitcoin transaction that can be posted to the Bitcoin chain, but Lightning provides a caching mechanism so that most transactions are netted between Lightning users without needing to be written to the chain. In that sense Lightning does delay and replace transactions (via netting) that might otherwise go on chain. This creates more capacity for more usage, opens up new use cases and applications, and enables new economic activity that wasn’t possible before.

But other than Lightning being made better with SegWit, SegWit itself does not take transactions off chain.

blockstream.com/2017/07/31/segwit-myths-debunked.html

I'm so sick and tired of hearing this

>muh whitepaper
>Satoshi's vision

Grow up cuck. Did you really think bitcoin will be involved in daily transactions when it hits critical mass? It's literally an invention. It's going to be worth alot of money, people are not going to see it as a transactional based currency. This is why we have altcoins.

Its too late. It's digital gold.

Do you even know what fractional reverve banking is? LMAO

If there is a conspiracy there would be many more people crying foul in the crypto world. Not this bullshit with r/btc.

You are right OP and if people just took 3 seconds to think before repeating what theyve heard they too would realize. The thing is that core is in a constant propaganda battle and as soon as one thing is starting to get shot down they introduce another, ad infinitum, so it's kinda hard to win.

What is fucked up to me is there has never been a meaningful discussion about finding a way to pay people for running nodes. I mean there is a disparity that miners are expected to reap all the rewards yet people validating transactions are supposed to be good little angels leaving their computers on 24/7 sucking up energy out of the goodness of their hearts, that's bullshit. Not saying they deserve alot of money but at least some token of appreciation for decentralizing the network.

Ironically that's what LN has. If you "catch" a cheater on LN, you get paid. However, given the rules of the network it's highly unlikely that this would occur since you'd never get away with cheating on LN.

The only reason it will be "digital gold" is because retarded cucks like you shill to keep confirmation times and transaction fees high. Then it will be gold becsuse its so fucking shitty and slow.

If you and your army of core dicksuckers spent 1/10th the time making bitcoin scalable and fast as you do sucking dick then bitcoin could have been fast as fuck by now. If bitcoin is fast, it will be used as cash, not just MUH DIGITAL GOLD

Gee it's almost like that's why the new bitcoin is called bitcoin cash, rly makes you think. Old bitcoin will die if it doesn't become scalable. Nobody wants to invest in a currency that's slow as fuck.

Not really a bad attitude, a lot of people are indoctrinated with blockstream's propaganda campaign, which as been fairly successful for a few years due to the fact blockstream control development, /r/bitcoin, and bitcointalk forums. Additionally I'm certain they hire shills to sway public opinion.

Of course the more learned individuals see straight through their lies and have become tired of arguing with those who refuse to educate themselves.

As to why the Bitcoins can't survive side-by-side, they're both using the same hashing script and hardware, meaning the one that becomes profitable to mine steals the hashing power, slowing the other down (such as how BCC is right now with their hour-long block times).

Soon BCC will become more profitable to mine than legacy Bitcoin and their block times will start to slow, compounding the effects of the constrained blocksize it is likely to cause cascade effect ushering in a mass exodus to Bitcoin Cash.

So yeah, buy Bitcoin Cash, if you're smart you already have.

You're right and it makes me sad that people on biz can't see through blockstreams bullshit. I suspect it's because 99 percent of this board only cares about how much it's worth, the one percent are the autistis like you and me who care about how the coin actually works and the philosophy of it. The 99% will go along with whatever and all the retarded reddit shills will go along with whatever bullshit blockstream is shilling even if it means pozzing bitcoin and ruining it

I especially love the anti big block fags, if big blocks are so bad then why does every other alt have big blocks

>The only reason it will be "digital gold" is because retarded cucks like you shill to keep confirmation times and transaction fees high. Then it will be gold becsuse its so fucking shitty and slow.

You people are so fucking stupid and utterly brainwashed, its embarrassing. You talk about propaganda yet you are the ones that are indoctrinated.

You, yes you, literally ignored why I told you that it is considered digital gold. It has nothing to do with confirmation times and tx fees. Do you know why? Because the average crypto user doesnt really care about that. In fact bitcoin is supported by so many merchants in a transactional sense.

Bitcoin is digital gold because it is the original cryptocurrency invention. Have you seen the ICO's coming out for new altcoins? You dont get it, every altcoin that survives the coming hyperinflation is going to be worth lots of money and have its own place within the crypto ecosystem. Bitcoin is digital gold, plain and simple, LTC probably becoming silver.

You are SO FOCUSED on increasing the blocksize its become pathological. Its a FUCKING RELIGION to you and your delusional psychopaths on r/btc.

>If bitcoin is fast, it will be used as cash, not just MUH DIGITAL GOLD

It's not that simple. Bitcoin is the biggest and by far the most used crypto-network. You seem to think scaling it is magic, its not. Core is playing the long game, not brute forcing it through increasing blocks that alienates miners and centralizes everything.

>Plus, it's not like LN will be forced on you.
Without increasing the block size on chain transaction fees will continue to increase pricing out many and forcing them to use LN. Core has made it clear they have no intention of increasing block size. Luke jr has even called for a block size reduction to 300kb. They're clear intention is to turn Bitcoin into a settlement layer.

In 2009 my ISP didn't have data caps

Now I have a 250GB data cap unless I pay an extra $100/mo for their TV package

So yes, broadcasting 8x the bandwidth will cost me $$$

but after segwit everything will be fine
what's the problem bro

bcc is worthless. maybe a good buy at 0.01btc because a bunch of Chinese shills like you still desperately try to pump it, wouldn't mind more free money from the Chinese trying to clone Bitcoin for a quick profit.

miners won't make money because no one uses bcc, and Bitcoin will continue to be developed to support much more capacity.

Here he goes again with the miners and centralization meme again. This is truly the "without central banks there will be hyperinflation" of our time. Hint. Bitcoin is already "" centralized"" by the Chinese. Centralization doesn't refer to who is majority mining, it refers to cuck solutions like segwit which literally move shit off the block chain to somewhere else.

There is literally no reason why bitcoin shouldn't and couldn't be fast enough to be involved in daily fast transactions like visa. Literally none. It will only be gold(a store of value) if the coin remains forever cucked by high fees and high transaction times.

If bitcoin is fast, it will be both a store of value AND a currency. If bitcoin remains pozzed by core, it will only remain a store of value. And if you core cucks want it to just be a store of value, why bother with segwit or LN at all? Then TX times wouldn't matter.

You know what's really sad? The fact that its clear this is a shakedown in the confidence in BTC before it breaks $3k and goes to new highs with Segwit.

If you REALLY cared about the state of the blockchain, you would have made threads on Veeky Forums and /g/, warning people about how evil and bad Segwit/Blockstream is and how we should support a different method of scaling.

BUT NOPE. You only come on here now to spread the worst FUD I've ever fucking seen in BTC's life. And I've seen plenty of fud. You should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. You know what you are doing is wrong.

That's how I know ultimately this is nothing more than a shakedown. If you REALLY cared about the integrity you would have made threads and warned people but dead fucking silence RIGHT UNTIL BCC COMES OUT.

Fucking shills, kill yourselves. How many times have you been ousted in debates in r/bitcoin? How many times? How many times does Roger and Jihan get their butts whooped in live debates?

Fucking scumbags.

Literally nobody gives a shit about the technology except us autists.

In fact, I think the bigger blocks don't matter in the long run. Chinks rule Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Unlimited, BitcoinXT, whatever the fuck you want to call it - they're all the same SHA256 PoW centralized in China. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I don't care if BTC turns into "Bitcoin Settlement". I don't think both coins can thrive, at least not even remotely close to the same price point.

There are just too many other coins that if we actually gave a shit about strictly using them for nothing but day-to-day payments, they'd "just werk". What makes BCC so special? Why not any of the other 1000 shitclones?

Lukejr is a fucking psycho christfag nutjob and I don't even think Core fags take him seriously.

Here is where you're mistaken, the fork happened, but you're not holding bitcoin anymore (if you flogged it off for next to nothing).

The true continuation of Bitcoin is currently called Bitcoin Cash, once it supersedes legacy Bitcoin it will once again simply be known as Bitcoin.

As for that digital gold mumbo jumbo, it's ahh... a meaningless statement. Value is not derived from advertising lingo, you're not selling vacuum cleaners.

Lastly, merchants and those developing and supporting software actually don't need to make many changes to convert over to Bitcoin Cash.

I'm not replying anymore I have better things to do than to debate the deaf/blind/dumb/shill, take your pick.

>if bitcoin is fast, it will be both a store of value AND a currency. If bitcoin remains pozzed, it will only be a store of value

Holy shit, FINALLY somebody on Veeky Forums fucking gets it!! They want bitcoin to be slow so it can't be used as an actual currency. That way they can make it digital gold, hoarde it all, and then make a new crypto backed by bitcoin. The same scam they ran for a thousand years everywhere else.

Bankers don't want a digital gold that is fast and can be divided into insanely small values. Imagine if gold worked like that in real life, then they wouldn't be able to make currencies backed by it.

Bitcoin is dangerous if it remains both a currency that's fast AND is a store of value. But, if you poz it so it's only a store of value, it opens the door to a lot of kikery.

Open your eyes biz

This post is literally nothing but meaningless platitudes and circlejerking ("DUDE THAT'S NOT BTC YOU'RE HOLDING LMAO!!!") about how Cash will succeed Bitcoin with not a single argument (ease of conversion isn't one without a reason for said conversion).

>I'm not replying anymore I have better things to do than to debate the deaf/blind/dumb/shill

Retarded shills like you that can't grasp how stupid they sound when they shill non-facts on both sides of the debate are why we can't have nice things.

What it boiled down to for me is that if BitcoinABC was actually serious about creating a better cryptocurrency with long-term potential, they would have fixed Tx malleability along with the 8MB block change. They didn't, and I consider this to be user hostile. The only reason WHY they wouldn't fix Tx malleability via the HF is because they want to maintain their competitive advantage (read: centralization) via covert ASICBOOST.

bcc is lke a shitty Chinese generic version of Bitcoin. "real" satoshisvision™ Bitcoin Lmao!

>fix Tx malleability via the HF is because they want to maintain their competitive advantage (read: centralization) via covert ASICBOOST.

Technically speaking, how does TX malleability allow ASICBOOST? The two are completely separate things.

>This is truly the "without central banks there will be hyperinflation" of our time.

So you're for centralization and vulnerability to 51% attacks. Great to know that's compared to the great lies of central banking.

> Hint. Bitcoin is already "" centralized"" by the Chinese.
Bitcoin is not...but Bitcoin Cash is :)

>Centralization doesn't refer to who is majority mining
Then it's pretty clear I'm not speaking with someone who has any clue of what "decentralization" actually means in crypto, nor cares to know.

>There is literally no reason why bitcoin shouldn't and couldn't be fast enough to be involved in daily fast transactions like visa. Literally none.

It will be fast enough with Segwit and the coming LN upgrades, Schnorr, etc

> It will only be gold(a store of value) if the coin remains forever cucked by high fees and high transaction times.

No, you dont understand, YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE SENTIMENT OF THE MARKET.

You're not the average joe. The average joe is going to see Bitcoin, and it already does, as digital gold. It's a store of value first, transactional currency second. You can kick and scream all you want, it doesn't matter. This is how the market sees it. Bitcoin is the first mover, it is the original invention, hell it is a timestamp in the history of great inventions that will ripple across time.

This is what is one of the major problems with supporters of bigger blocks, they dont see the forest for the trees. It's not cucked that way. This is bigger than just Bitcoin now - there is an entire crypto-ecosystem out there.

Do you really think Bitcoin can compete with the likes of newer altcoins built on newer tech? No, it can't, not in that sense. It's riding on older tech. Bitcoin's main advantages are 3 things:

1) It's the original invention

2) Security

3) Reputation

Those 3 things make it into digital gold. Even when we increase the transaction times, that's where bitcoin is headed.

Kek he's probably a Poojeet running an even older laptop than you on free Facebook internet.

These two posts are EXACTLY it. I highly, highly encourage Veeky Forums or people who want to learn to watch the secret of Oz by bill still.

youtu.be/Sboh-_w43W8

Watching this video will clue you into all perspectives of the bitcoin debate and why they want bitcoin to not be fast and usable as a currency. If bitcoin is fast, you can't rent seek by doling it out. If bitcoin is a shitty settlement layer it lets people lorde it's power out by lending it.

Fast bitcoin is literally freedom from financial institutions because it acts as a currency AND a store of wealth, slow bitcoin is gold, too slow to be used as an actual currency, useless for the common man. and we know the hands of whom gold always ends up in, don't we Veeky Forums

>Bitcoin is dangerous if it remains both a currency that's fast AND is a store of value.

I hope this is a troll post kek.

That can literally be said for any altcoin.

niggers dropping redpills in this thread like niggers drop parental responsibilities
user, bitcoin being just gold isn't a good thing, it needs to be commonly usable like cash too.

Op, verify your own transactios and you will learn

Dangerous to the banks, silly. Not dangerous to us

except Bitcoin with segwit will be 1000 times more usable as a currency than bcc.

>Bitcoin is not...but Bitcoin Cash is :)

[citation needed].

Out of the first 12 blocks, 75% of them were literally mined by a single miner.

Since then, we've had a bunch of blocks from no-names which is a good sign, but given that we know the hashpower on the network, it's more likely to just be that miner or other chinese still mining in secret than a true decentralized process.

Regardless, it's ALL Chinese. There is not a single SHA256 coin that isn't dominated by some fucking gooks paying nothing for electricity/hardware. To think anything else is pure delusion. It doesn't matter how you decide to implement your code, if it's a SHA256 PoW coin, the chinks run it. That's the reality.

I agree with your other points re: digital gold though. Bitcoin is here to stay just because it was first and holds a reputation as digital gold, so I don't care if it's used for purely settlement reasons.

>user, bitcoin being just gold isn't a good thing, it needs to be commonly usable like cash too.
No it doesn't. There will be altcoins for that. Bitcoin is not the end all be all. There is an entire crypto ecosystem being built. There are going to be coins and tokens for many, many things.

This is already under way. The Ether network is building a huge, amazing ecosystem for a whole host of things to come. It's pretty awesome.

Money lending is going to happen regardless if Bitcoin is slow and treated like gold.

51 percent attacks is a meme. Bitcoin is inherently democratic, if 51 percent of miners choose something else, then THAT is the new bitcoin. The core devs are afraid of this, which is why they push for solutions that take the power out of people's hands. And you have the gall to cry centralization, KEK.

I agree with the fundamental sentiment that bitcoin should be used as a currency, but why is Bitcoin Cash the answer? Why not some more modern, better altcoin with faster confirmation time, less centralization, and larger networks? Why not something with privacy or fungibility already built-in?

U guys! I now understand that Sotoshi's true vision was a Blockchain we had to trust others to verify our transactions on. I've been so blind x.x