Bitcoin is a dying fad and overhyped

Koreans aren't chinks, they're gooks, and I implied nothing about how bad they are, I'm just questioning why you're using a Jew meme for Asian actors.

This would be great if the transfer fee and speed were up to par with Western Union.

The truth is literally no one needs the exhaustive verification circlejerk except criminals who want to circumvent legislation and checks.

>Surely this will be the death of bitcoin
gizmodo.com.au/2011/08/the-bitcoin-is-dying-whatever/

Is there possibility segwit2x supporters are clogging up the network on purpose to make a statement?

Is your second line referring to btc or western union?

Bitcoin is suffering from its lack of speed, that much seems clear. It's a currency exchange service, I don't think it is useful to consider it its own "currency" right now because it will always be anchored to state fiat as long as state fiat is the only currency accepted as taxes. Think of it like plastic, or Visa. You can be sure that when you use Visa, your money is going to be appropriately credited and debited, the business and consumer are sure it will deliver dollars. Bitcoin is the same shit, and its claim is that it is more secure, cheaper to deal with because it cuts out the models of the old middle men (even though the new middle men are the miners), but it is rather slow compared to its potential. Its also maybe not as secure as it claims because of a lack of recourse if problems arise. If you get your shit stolen because of some technical problem with wallet security, or exchanges duck you, or whatever, there isn't any insurance against those losses.

Right now it functions as a speculative asset, but ideally it's function is in exchange. Some coins seem to be attempting to add to the value proposition of blockchain for exchange, that is practically all anyone has been talking about with stuff like BCH, and when BTC will get replaced or changed.

It's cause you're an asshole, and nobody like you. Sorry.

Remember what happened last time there were 100k unconfirmed transactions and everyone was shilling muh flippening? Its wasnt even that long ago..

Dont fall for the chinks trap.

It's not about Bitcoin. The whole crypto meme is shit, ironically Bitcoin is the only useful one of them all. The rest of them haven't contributed a single thing to the world despite incredible promises and hype for the "tech".

I remember the last time they pumped bch, but do you seriously think bitcoin will survive at 300k tx per day? We need a scaling solution NOW, not in a year.

Stupid pea brain fudders. Bitcoin Cash is mooning because it is now the only solution to the congestion problem and Bitcoin isn't going through a 2mb upgrade which mean slow shit coin until it dies. Bitcoin Cash is coming for blood

Anyone wonder why the BCH shills always come out of the woodwork completely in sync with the times BCH pumps?

there are thousand websites/services using BTC
none will switch to BCH because some chinks wanted to

took them YEARS to adopt and implement BTC and you expect some fork to take over within days

gtfo

After the EDA fix, 1 BCH will have to reach 0.54 BTC to be as profitable for miners as Bitcoin.
That's a 166% increase in 28 hours.
Can we make it?
The last block was mined an hour ago you retarded faggot.

I don't think segwit2x supporters would burn through around $17M lost on transaction fees just to prove their point. Something else is going on.

I don't give a fuck about BCH. I do find it amusing how many of you find joy in letting this deformed chink play puppet with your life savings (whether it be in BTC, BCH or any other shitcoin).

>bitcoin mempool size: 118.02mb
>bcash mempool size: 0.062mb

Hmm, something fishy going on here. Can't quite put my finger on it.

How profitable is bitcoin itself if it is a slow turd with increasingly high fees. Bitcoin has turned into a hassle and nobody likes blockstream solution because there isn't one. Bitcoin Cash is the true solution fag

>none will switch
Why not? They were using BCH before (BCH now is BTC from before the fork), and whatever method they use to implement BTC services (conversion via averaging by a few exchanges) can easily be used for BCH. All it would take is some legwork, the headwork has already been done. They won't switch because the chinks wanted to, they'll switch because to do otherwise would be to hold on to a depreciating currency. If this trend continues (it won't, because BCH difficulty retargetting is +400% in 31.44 hours), they'll either drop BTC, or drop BTC in favor of BCH.

BCH IS BTC YOU FUCKING MORON. CHINKS CONTROL BTC.

>Bitcoin Cash is the true solution fag

No the real solution is to drop BTC and BCH entirely for a better crypto. Neither of the two are actually good

I look at it as a test. If bitcoin cant survive shit like this, and everyone abandons ship, it means bitcoin never had true support.
But if it pulls through, and support remains strong. Gonna be around a long time.

In code, Bitcoin Cash is literally just pre-segwit BTC with the block size limit at 8MB instead of 1MB.

>Neither of the two are actually good
In what sense?

Technologically there's a fuckton of alts that run circles around BTC and its forks in features and speed

this is slippery slope
BCH replaces BTC cause it's "better"
then another crypto coin comes that is better than BCH and so on

no normy will keep up with this, it will destroy crypto

Hey ding dong these are not two separate coins they are the same forked coin and Bitcoin Cash is the better solution thast what happens in forks you retard if you think any different and are surprised your the fucking normy and the fucking dumbass who should crawl into a fucking hole and die because your stupid

Agreed. BTC needs to remain king. I got a lot of BCH but I don't want the flippening to occur. We need to dethrone ethereum, but not BTC.

Maybe. But the reasons for BTC being a nuisance every 5 or so months are permanently solved by BCH's 8mb default adjustable blocksize limit, so it'd have to be another type of exploit entirely to make BCH less favorable.
But many of those also have much more frequent vulnerabilities (hence the demand for Quantstamp and other Vitalik-advised audit services), and don't use SHA-256 so they don't have BTC's massive miner base and are thus less stable. No company wants to hold any fraction of their weekly revenue in a volatile currency in a market among coins that +/-20% daily.

Hashrate percentage from fork.lol (3h average):
BTC: 37.28% (3.80 EH/s)
BCH: 62.72% (6.39 EH/s)

The last BTC block was mined 1 hour and 13 minutes ago, of fucking course BTC transactions are going to be slow. The mempool will keep getting stupidly big while BCH is more profitable to mine.

>digital gold

The EDA fix is in 45 hours, actually.

so Uh how is Bitcoin better then Bitcoin Cash???? exactly faggots

BCH pays $404,751 in block rewards to every $117,088 in block rewards
~27 hours.
933 blocks at ~34.5 blocks per hour
What's the math behind the 45 hour estimate?

Are you a child? Stop arguing your point without any facts, you look dumb. BCH has, as I said in the post you literally quoted
>8mb default adjustable blocksize limit
so fees are less and network wide attacks (the shit currently clogging up 100k transactions) aren't an issue.
The EDA feature could be handy as well, for situations like this (influx of a fuckton of new miners).

...

>currency of the future

It activates at 1510600000 UNIX time. 2017/11/13, 19:06:40 UTC.

Oh okay, I didn't understand what you meant by EDA for a second.
But what's the point of an EDA only a day after a natural DA? Would it just ramp the difficulty even higher? or would it undo some of the increase of the +400%?

Don't quote me on this (thinking about it, quoting a random user would be weird) but if there's a fix to always give 10 minutes between each block then I'm pretty sure that BTC and BCH would have to be 1:1 to be equally profitable.

Sounds right to me, as long as you mean 10 minutes for both coins, and 1:1 in terms of price.
Man what's really scaring me is the price action of BTG, which goes live on mainnet in fucking 20 hours.
I'm actually terrified.

God, it gets even funnier the more I hear it!

Reminder that Visa can process up to 56k transactions per second.

Crypto-fags btfo

So BCH @ 2.016 GB blocksize is on par with Visa in terms of tx/second (assuming 10 minutes per block), noted. Anyone know how much memory the Visa network uses?

"Can process" means total throughput rate, which is only achieved on Black Friday and Christmas, the average is significantly lower.
1GB blocks will dwarf VISA, and they are already working as intended on the testnet.
With Gavin Andresen's Graphine innovation, network will not be a bottleneck for these either, even on shitty connection.

Ok it seems like I clearly need to read about Graphene and Lightning, these things keep coming up. Thanks user.

My btc transaction from bitmex to binanxe is still unconfirmed after 2 days, am i ever going to get it?

You also just need to consider improvements in tech generally too. What was once a lot to download and store 10 years ago is almost nothing now.

For archival purposes, Visa is averaging slightly below 2000 tx/second, on par with a 56.448 MB blocksize. USA-scale bitcoin (Without graphene, whatever that is) would need 60-100 MB blocksize limit.

>lets centralize bitcoin with big blocks so niggers can buy their starbucks with it
>inb4 quoting mongs like gavincoin or joonald on how big blocks don't centralize the network

Sure, that'd change the cost of running nodes, but I was only speaking on maximum transactions per block, not cost per block. HDDs (or Ultrium drives, which are $5.3/tb to HDDs' $47/tb) getting cheaper would benefit both Visa and the Bitcoin network, so tech getting cheaper isn't a point to bring up when comparing the two.

Other Coins have Blocks sizes

A higher blocksize limit != bigger blocks, and running a full node will eventually become impossible for average computers no matter what. BCH has an average blocksize below 100KB, despite having a default blocksize maximum of 8MB. A limit above 1MB only prevents transactions from rolling over to he next block whenever the data from total transactions exceeds 1MB.

And I'm curious, what's to stop BCH advocates from doing a ddos attack on Visa's network to choke their transactions? It's of course gonna take 2000 times more transactions compraed to those needed to ddos BTC, but is it possible? Or does VISA handle overflow differently?

Are you fucking braindead?

>A higher blocksize limit != bigger blocks

> and running a full node will eventually become impossible for average computers no matter what.

It will not, because at that point bitcoin would be dead. Luckily, the biggest whales will kill any efforts of raising blocksize anytime soon. And no, the biggest whales aren't from blockstream or roger ver's camp you fucking redditors.

Visa is a CENTRALIZED payment procesor, why the fuck are you comparing it to bitcoin you mong.

>Visa is a CENTRALIZED payment procesor, why the fuck are you comparing it to bitcoin you mong
Yeah but... what does that have to do with it handling ddos attacks? It probably can blacklist certain vendors by nature of it being centralized, but what if the pings come from varying addresses? I'm comparing bitcoin to Visa because that's the whole theme of this conversation.

>Luckily, the biggest whales will kill any efforts of raising blocksize anytime soon
But the blocksize has already been raised to a scalable maximum through BCH, and it definitely doesn't seem like whales hate BCH, considering the price action as well as the coordinated attack on BTC. But all that aside, you see that centralization isn't brought on by higher blocksize, and centralization doesn't "allow niggers to buy starbucks", whatever that means. This post has no reasoning behind it. If it does, please share.

nocode notech faggot detected.

everyone please go do your own research and take none of the shilling on this board seriously.

BCH has an unauditable supply lmfao, enjoy your scam.