Dont fall for the meme BCC vol 2

it can't. in order for it to work there will have to be centralized hubs and you'll have to keep your coins stored off chain. because hopping on and off the lightning network will cost HUGE transaction fees if the blocksize is kept to 1mb. I'm talking near thousand dollar transaction fees in a few years.

I'm in alts so I hold neither.

You should have sold a few hours ago and bought more btc

Like Jihan did

it's essentially bringing banks onto the blockchain. it's the reason why they want to keep the blocksize 1mb so bad. so they force you off the chain, and into the banking layer.

How it Works

The Lightning Network is dependent upon the underlying technology of the blockchain. By using real Bitcoin/blockchain transactions and using its native smart-contract scripting language, it is possible to create a secure network of participants which are able to transact at high volume and high speed.

Bidirectional Payment Channels. Two participants create a ledger entry on the blockchain which requires both participants to sign off on any spending of funds. Both parties create transactions which refund the ledger entry to their individual allocation, but do not broadcast them to the blockchain. They can update their individual allocations for the ledger entry by creating many transactions spending from the current ledger entry output. Only the most recent version is valid, which is enforced by blockchain-parsable smart-contract scripting. This entry can be closed out at any time by either party without any trust or custodianship by broadcasting the most recent version to the blockchain.

Lightning Network. By creating a network of these two-party ledger entries, it is possible to find a path across the network similar to routing packets on the internet. The nodes along the path are not trusted, as the payment is enforced using a script which enforces the atomicity (either the entire payment succeeds or fails) via decrementing time-locks.

Blockchain as Arbiter. As a result, it is possible to conduct transactions off-blockchain without limitations. Transactions can be made off-chain with confidence of on-blockchain enforceability. This is similar to how one makes many legal contracts with others, but one does not go to court every time a contract is made. By making the transactions and scripts parsable, the smart-contract can be enforced on-blockchain. Only in the event of non-cooperation is the court involved – but with the blockchain, the result is deterministic.

this is BCC shill FUD

op still doesnt get why 8mb is better than 1 mb, or the profit flip that makes bitcoin cash more profitable than the old bitcoin to mine. its ok op one day

it's not going to work like that when it costs 100 dollars to open up a lightning channel. nobody is going to pay that to send money to amazon.

you're going to be forced to store your money on a hub in some 3rd party wallet.. sounds a lot like a bank..

the only people that will be able to transact on chain are whales.

>8mb

What about 8GB? 8TB blocks? thats 1,000,000 the bandwidth!!! BCC IS DEAD

It's all about money. OP invested all of his money in BTC and is afraid that its price will drop because he bought ATH.

BTC is never going to be dethroned, as it will burn the trust of the whole system, at least during a long period of time, that would send most of mining farms to bankrupt, as they won't earn enough money to cover cost

Everyone is here for the money, and as you could see, this is starting to become to big to fail.

Please, your org tried hard, and tricked some faggots, but the show is over, don't make it cringy pls

i see you use jewtrick #1 of always accusing your enemy of what you do yourself.

If thats the price for normie adoption and for me to get my lambo for owning a few btc, i'm in as my dick in a blonde's mouth

1k By tomorrow
You can count on It.

Lightning network has zero working implementations, has a year worth of proper testing ahead of it, and already has serious downsides to its usage.

Only shitcoin pumping retards forget the every feature comes at a cost. Lightning promises fast transactions at the expense of lower security, centralization, and huge opportunities for rent-seekers.

The first Lightning nodes are guaranteed to be big banks, and if you want access to their billion dollar hub you're going to have to submit to AML/KYC so they can track you.

Don't want to get back in bed with the bankers just to send your BCore coins at 5% tx fees, just buy Bitcoin Cash.

let me get this straight: without 'lightning networks' or similar entities dependent on segwit, every transaction bitcoin is involved in has to be processed by EVERYONE who ever wants to run a full-node

now, imagine if BTC ever comes close to replacing fiat.
every single transaction ever made with fiat, like you buying a pack of gums in your nearest grocery store, will have to be processed by EVERY FULL NODE, TILL THE END OF TIMES

lightning networks mean that these (hundreds of thousands or more) transactions can be hubbed up, and only a small fraction of transactions will have to be recorded/processed by everyone

without lightning networks (or similar off-chain technology), the growth of usage is extremely limited, no matter how big the blocksize is going to be

very-very few people will have hardware to store and process every transaction ever made in the world, so that itself (the sparsity of full-nodes) will bring a much higher level of centralization than lightning networks will

bbc shills are shit versions of eth shills

Reminder that I called it First,

Buy the dips, sell the highs.

Buy Fear, sell greed.

>wanting to bring banking back in the next Gen economy

Kys

>now, imagine if BTC ever comes close to replacing fiat.

The government won't ever allow that to happen unless they themselves are in control of it. Blockchain technology is stupid tech anyway.

BCC will eventually have LN too.
Still not a valid reason for Core to cripple everyone to a 1mb blocksize.

b-but i sold my bcc already

>BCC will eventually have LN too.

So what's the point of BCC? Just to have bigger blocks clogging up the Internet?

>lightning network is for jewish banks!!!
>b-but BCC will eventually have it too anyway

You need to put more effort into shilling.

>IT'S ALL A SCAM THE MINERS WON'T SWITCH OVER THEY HATE MONEY

ok then

i feel sad for the user who went long on bch with 250. he had already 24 btc profit but he didnt close the long. KEK

Why are Corecucks so fucking scared? How is fudding on Veeky Forums of all places gonna change anything?

>BCC will eventually have LN too.

source? any BCC developer claiming that they plan on supporting off-chain transactions eventually?

He was so confident he went to sleep without a stop loss, lol. He's in for a big surprise...

Next month some group will release "Bitcoin Cash Money" with 32mb block size. Jews want to restrict BCC to 8mb block size and pozz BCC! But Bitcoin Cash Money has 4x the bandwidth! Hate banks? Buy BTCCM. The Bitcoin Cash Money Dollars with 128mb block size, that is the true coin that will kill jewish bankers. They hate MB.

lol at all these blockstream bitcorea shills. acting like Bitcoin Cash will never get a second layer. how dumb and delusional could you be?

bitcoin cash can adopt segwit if they want. and they will if it works, but guess what, they'll keep increasing the blocksize as well so you can stay on chain if you want.

so these payment channels will be run by who? what if i want to transact with 50 people? do i need to open a channel for each person? it seems like these hubs will start charging fees on these micro-transactions like a debit card. forgive me im stupid

Bigger blocks allows more tx on the chain for less fees. I don't have anything against LN and I've wanted it for a long time.
Core lied to lots of people saying segwit was the ONLY WAY to get it.
Bigger blocks provide more bandwidth to Bitcoin (the system that's valuable here) which is better than "just clogging up the internet"
bitcoinclassic.com/devel/FlexTrans-vs-SegWit.html

The two people making the transactions, no one else. And when everyone is connected in a network, they have contracts to chain payments. All of it is backed by transactions already on the block chain, and as secure as the block chain is. And BTC's block chain is many times more distributed than BCC, where 95% of the blocks are mined by two anonymous wallets who could easily be performing 51% attacks.

>Bigger blocks allows more tx on the chain for less fees.

It's not sustainable on the long run. When 8MB won't be enough what's next? 16MB? 32GB? 64TB?

yeah so?
Sounds like the "X should be enough storage for anyone" luddite crap.

First on the roadmap is Flexible Transactions by Bitcoin Classic, which fixes tx malleability better than SF SegWit, makes tx smaller, and opens up new tx types.

It will actually be easier to put LN on top of Bitcoin Cash than the SegWit soft fork hack they insisted in rather than hard forking it properly so it actually fixes what it is supposed to.

Bitcoin Core have been finally exposed as complete liars. Not one thing they have promised or agreed to has gone through without full autistic tantrums when they don't get their way.

Now their investors are pissed, and Blockstream is bordering on gross negligence. I can't wait until they have to answer to shareholders and all they have is a troll army and a satellite connection after having burned through millions of dollars.

gotcha. another question, how does an off chain system benefit miners? what if two people just keep a network open forever and never putting the transaction on the chain? im just trying to understand the system better cause in theory it sounds good.

>yeah so?

The point is to do more things with less resources. BTC's solution does that, BCC doesn't.

>so these payment channels will be run by who?

anyone who is willing to build them

obviously there'll be some fees or similar payments (like, ads in their software?) involved because it will require processing power, but the power it requires is very-very little, and absolutely nothing compared to what storing everything on-chain requires
the competition is completely open, just like it is with cryptocurrencies in general, i strongly believe there'll be ways to transfer currency off-chain without actually paying a dime for it
(of course, there'll be a bit more risk involved than doing it on-chain)

the most experienced bitcoin-techies are with segwit
like Erik Voorhees, CEO of Satoshi Dice, Shapshift, Prism

twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/891736979741605888

won't this piss off the miners though? what incentive do they have to mine if everything happens off chain? or do they get paid for offchain txs?

not everything, just most transactions, and the majority of the miner's income still come from block-rewards and will come from there for a long ass time

All the channels are still setup on the block chain. Lightning network enables instant payments, and condenses small purchases into larger transactions. When BTC succeeds there will no shortage of transactions for miners to process lol, that is kinda the source of the entire scaling problem.

i see

Jesus Fucking Fuck, i can't even trade this fucking trash.

Price action is Razor Sharp, don't know if it's going up or down.

well, that's 1 entity claiming to have a plan, of the countless entities involved with BCC
i've seen many BCC developers saying that any form of centralization is the devil, and clearly wanting to keep everything on-chain, so i bet they'll have a long fight if they actually try to push that thru

I'll take years of stagnation with onchain scaling rather than years of stagnation designed to force offchain tx.
I'm assuming most of the small blockers won't an hero once BCC takes over so off chain scaling will still be a widely discussed option.

>years of stagnation designed to force offchain tx.

where would the stagnation come from? 2mb blocks are agreed upon, and anyone who wants to build a lightning network, can just do it without having to first make an agreement with every other lightning network developer on anything

>2mb blocks are agreed upon
BCC wouldn't exist if people believed that core would deliver on any promise to increase the blocksize.
Now that they have segwit they have no incentive to deliver (lol flippening amirite)
They will keep most of the miners but cuck them hard because "look at all the people confused by the hardfork!"
I'm willing to bet they'll come out with an announcement offering it as a softfork a year from now.

Bitcoin doesn't need 'trust in the system'.
Bitcoin needs to be useful, which in turn creates trust. 8MB blocks are more useful than 1MB blocks.

If trust is the only thing you have, you have nothing.

not sure if just margin longing BCC, or actually delusional

The position of majority of BCC supporters and developers is that second layer solutions should be in addition to on-chain scaling, on a replacement of on-chain scaling.

>8MB blocks are more useful

No they aren't, they just lead to further centralization. You know, the reason BTC was made was to have a decentralized network.

>The point is to do more things with less resources. BTC's solution does that

If you mean Segwit, that's not true. Segwit has blocks up to 4MB but only gives about 1.7x more transactions. That's because it artificially favors big transactions over smaller ones.
Transactions themselves are the same size.

Technical: bytes used for signatures are as 1/4, while total block limit is still '1MB'. Segwit is a hack.

>on a replacement
not a replacement

>No they aren't, they just lead to further centralization.

They don't. Decentralization concerns miners and 8MB blocks change nothing in this regard. Miners are important because they can censor transactions.

Non-mining nodes aren't doing anything for the network. They are useless for anyone except their owner (presumably for wallet or payments).

Imagine all non-mining relay (ie. not used directly, but only used to relay blocks) nodes disappear. What happens? Nothing.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

DIE ALL BCC SHILLS MOTHERFUCKERS!

Trade it and make ur money back

>Imagine all non-mining relay (ie. not used directly, but only used to relay blocks) nodes disappear. What happens? Nothing.

you can only make a transaction without having to trust any 3rd party if you're running a full-node

less people being able to run full-nodes leads to centralization, and being forced to rely on 3rd parties..

If I'm using my full-node it's by definition not a relay node.
I'm pretty sure my PC can handle 8MB blocks, or even 128MB blocks. 128MB every 10 minutes = 218kB/s download.

How the fuck do you call the bottom unless it plateus to complete pre pump levels

>Decentralization concerns miners and 8MB blocks change nothing in this regard.

It changes everything because it requires more resources such as computing power and storage to validate transactions. It's a shitty, bloated system and I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would endorse it.

combination of macd and stoch rsi

FUCK YOU FAGGOTS I JUST LOST 120USD WORTH OF BTC TRADING BCC

FUCK YOU Veeky Forums YOU BUNCH OF FAGGOTS

>or even 128Mb blocks
yeah, when you want to setup a full-node 5 years down the road, 5*365*24*60*218 Kb download

Ok sir. Thanks for the tip!

>he bought at ATH
Your own fault.

its funny how nobody can prove how bcc is shit when theres a handful of ways i can prove btc is bad slow transactions high fees 3tps the list goes on bcc solves all these issue fast transactions cheap fees 10 tps and 50+% profitability mining

bitcoin when through a protocal change if the protocal isnt good it will die but its better then bitcoin and will replace it they are 2 of the same coin bcc upgraded those are facts you cant erase blockstream FUCK YOIU

I fell for the meme I lost $2,000 myself.

Be Fearful when others are greddy
Be Greedy when Others are fearful

BTC dumps, then BCH pumps
maeks u thkn

those who appose btc will be sorry tommorow this is just the beginning little did they know bcc is being adjusted to be even more profitable to mine bitcoin then it alraeady is lmaooooo rolling at these fags dont know shit

>It changes everything because it requires more resources such as computing power and storage to validate transactions

Ok.

>It's a shitty, bloated system and I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would endorse it.

Because while 'more resources' is true it's easy even for my smartphone to handle, not to even mention my PC.

That's the nice thing about all that ram and cpu power - it allows us to do things that were previously impossible.

While playing a modern 3d game you're using astronomically more resources than it takes to process a 8MB block.

Same in English?

bcc is the true king feel bad for stupid investors with no research or facts to back up thier shit

the only way to make BCC more profitable to mine than BTC is increasing its inflation (or transaction fees) :^)

google Blockstream liquid. of course they will be charging fees lol. that's why there's so much propaganda to keep the blocksize 1mb.

imagine if they succeeded and got to steal the transaction fees from the miners. that's a billions of dollars per year if bitcoin becomes mainstream.

why the fuck would you want to pay these cucks bitcoin tax?

>Because while 'more resources' is true it's easy even for my smartphone to handle, not to even mention my PC.

Ok buddy. Why don't you mine Bitcoin Cash on your smartphone and tell us how it works. Holy shit are you demented?

okay bcc is going through a difficulty adjust ment tomorrowq and it will be about 14% more profitable to mine bcc then it already is its going to jump the fuck up thats the whole reason it jumped today and because its already 50% more profitable to mine bcc and no it doesnt require more resources it just mean blocks have higher limit thats all stupid so it can scale better

bcc already has cheaper fees and is more profitable dont be stupid
I wont fall for your SJW tactics blockstream fuck outta here

That's 32 TB. Your point?
5 years ago I was happy to have 25/5Mbps wired internet. Now I have 900/100Mbps fiber, while my smartphone has 50Mbps/30Mbps LTE. On my fiber connection downloading these blocks would take 4 days.

In 5 years, I fully expect to be able to buy 10/1 Gbps.

i feel for you guys :^)

>Why don't you mine Bitcoin Cash on your smartphone

Where did I write anything about mining on a smartphone? Mining complexity has nothing to do with block size, all it does is hash a very small header repeatedly.

Clogging up the network, the entire bandwidth of Bitcoin use even with 8mb blocks would be less than Netflix serving up movies to a few thousand customers if even that.

Is there any point holding?

>Try again (it's 546 TB)
nope

5 (years) * 365 * 24 * 6 (blocks per hour) * 128MB = 33638400 MB = 32 850 GB = 32TB

Not really because you can just buy when it hits the floor again... Or buy another P&D shitcoin...

dang, you're sneaky. i was spamming the delete button immediately after posting

Anyway there's something called UTXO commitments, I expect it to get into BCH in a year.
Every block has a hash of unspent outputs, so you only need to download them + like 30 days of blocks.

Creating a false utxo commitment would require rewriting 30 days worth of blocks, which would destroy any coin anyway

>I expect it to get into BCH in a year.
a-ok