Chinks or Kikes?

literally every member of the core dev team is a socialist reddit nu-male. their partner blockstream has ties to globalist institutions like bilderberg. you aren't fooling anyone schlomo

This.

Also this is why I'm buying more JewCoin. They are going to make the one world currency and it's going to worth a lot.

All you have to do is HODL BTC and you'll be ok. They will let it thrive and be adopted, then crash it, then buy it all up, take control/regulate it and then it becomes the global currency.

Get ready for censorship prone sidechains goyim!

>accusing the opposition of that which you are guilty for
alinskyite tactics at their finest

unfortunately this is probably true, but I'm rooting for roger "demolition man" ver and his crew of sneaky chinks to win out

Which is where the centralization risks SHOULD be, off the fucking chain.

Your choices are a centralized foundational protocol (BCH), or a decentralized foundation with competing layered implementations which may or may not be centralized (BTC).

Chinks winning would make crypto healthier, but my money is on the kikes. David vs Goliath never works out well in the real world.

Jews at least want to keep the shabbos goyim happy

...

lol this new core shill meme is laughable. "buy our cucked jew shit because jews"

dumb faggot they would never make bitcoin a world currency. they will wait for crypto to gain traction, then they will crash it or outlaw it, then they will come out with their own jewcoin even more cucked and kiked than blockstream already is

>governments will come out with their own crypto

russia is already doing this btw

You bet on the winning side.
Abandon BTC before it's too late.

implying i wont be buying the fuck out of BTC if/when this shit gets offloaded

They can manipulate the price all they want but fundamentals don't change.

>the fundamentals

If fundamentals mattered, both BTC and BCH would be dead long ago. On a largely speculative (and in BTC's case purely) "asset", the only thing that matters is perceived future price growth.

The only reason BTC is big is because it's big. VTC is better, Feathercoin is better, NAV coin is better, hell, BTC has been the worst for a long time. No alt coin would get away with being this shit.

And many POS coins are better than all of those and Ethereum already has trading pairs and is better before even going from POW to POS as a currency and it's not even trying to be a currency.

Monero has privacy in addition to being better.

Holy shit any coreling that says "muh tech will be the most important for adoption and that will favor BTC" hasn't taken his head out of BTC's ass to look around outside for years.

You mean fundamentals like ripping the entire chain of cryptographic signatures which give the coin it's entire value out via segregating the witness data rendering it nothing but an expensive IOU ledger?
BTFO BLOCKSHILL IN 2017 BITCOIN UPGRADED

I WANT MY COFFEE TRANSACTION PERMANENTLY STORED ON AN IMMUTABLE LEDGER

ask one what the other would do and then do the opposite

>centralized foundational protocol (BCH)
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
you can still host a node with bigger blocks

Beecash is both chinks and jews.
Like, check the dev team.
Check the OWNERS.
They are literally only chinks, jews, or bastards chinkjews.

Meanwhile, BTC have a blocksize of 1mb and takes forever to have any change made into it.
Sure, BTC can be taken over by the kikes since it's not immune to software change, sadly, but we'll have a long headsup.

The only reason BTC is BTC is because of decentralisation and limited supply.
As long as those two hold, it's a no-brainer since all the others coins are either less decentralised or literally centralised, like beecash for example.
No external factor can kill BTC, only actual change to the fundamentals can. In others words, only killing BTC can kill BTC.

how is bch centralized?????????? bigger blocks doesn't make it centralized, anyone can host a node still, it isn't very big.

>As long as those two hold, it's a no-brainer since all the others coins are either less decentralised or literally centralised, like beecash for example.

How on earth does that make any sense. BTC and BCH are the most centralized currencies on the top 100 chart apart from corporate stuff like stellar, ripple, etc and they share the same miners.

Also, simple quick google searches on blockstream is enough to know that BTC is already infested by old world money interests.

>lacking this level of foresight
>being this much of a complete brainlet

Always do the opposite of ANCAPs

Of course bigger blocks makes it centralised, the bigger the blocks, the less locations can be nodes,
either due to distance or lack of wealth.

Right now, Mamadou zimbabwe in bumfuck africa can be a node on his six years old fourthhand iphone.
Not so much on an 8mb blocksize.

And really, as adoption rises, and more transactions are made, there will ALWAYS be an argument to raise blocksize, ESPECIALLy since, as done right now to push the blocksize narrative in the first place, you can clog the mempool with no/low fee dummy transactions.

Don't look at the news, the FUD, the shills, the fanboys, the experts. Look at the fucking fundamentals.
Have they been changed ?
No, HODL.
Yes, DUMP.
At the moment, the answer is NO.

>Also, simple quick google searches on blockstream is enough to know that BTC is already infested by old world money interests.

That's why you should hold both JewCoin and ChinkCoin.

Governments go to literal international wars over currency, see Libya for most recent example. They will not willingly give it to the plebs. Go with the current.

Also, privacy coins should be invested in as well PIVX and XMR to have your fingers in the pie of that market.

Then there is stuff like REQ to use blockchain as tokens for biz purposes.

foresight what? in 5 years at 8mb/block, 10mins/block, 52560blocks/year
that's 420gb/year, that's like 60$ of hard drive space. say they make the blocksize 100mb, that's still only like 5tb/year which is nothing with moore's law.

>Right now, Mamadou zimbabwe in bumfuck africa can be a node on his six years old fourthhand iphone.
you don't need every african to host a node to make something decentralized, just for anyone to be able to. so as long as it's less than like 1k$ in hard drive space there is no problem at all. side chains however, would be a problem. and it needs to actually work as a currency, btc isn't a currency anymore, so the fundementals are changed even if the tech hasn't.

Monopolies always try to form, so some level of centralisation is always happening.
This is not what i'm talking about, i'm talking about fundamental-enforced, unavoidable centralisation.
Look for example at the current mining monopoly of BTC by the chinks, which is creating current uncertainty about the future of the coin.
What is going to come online in short order ?
Massive russian and japanese mining farm.
The "flippening" narrative to beecash is pushed because they are DESPAIRING that there monopoly is about to be broken, and want the market to switch to a FUNDAMENTALLY centralised coin, that they OWN AND CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH.

So, if the market cap don't flip by the time at least the japanese mining complex comes online, BTC will have survived the biggest threat to its survival so far.
And i hope you understand that BTC have been attacked a LOT so far, and always survived. This time may be different, i do not deny it, but each survival of BTC makes it stronger.
I am confident that if BTC survive until the end of the year, only actually changing the code can kill it.
It'll have survived all external threats.

Bch isn't "centralized". It's a term thrown around by Blockstream shills in a stupid slippery-slope argument.

"Well yeah I guess anyone can run 8mb blocks on an old laptop with a hard drive that costs about five transactions on the BTC network today. But if we had 1 GB blocks today!!! That'd be bad. So we can't have 2MB blocks ever."

All of the core developers were supportive of larger blocks until they got put on the blockstream payroll. 2MB or 8MB or even a bit bigger isn't going to impact anyone's ability to afford a node. The arguments being put forward are entirely contrived so as to push profitable side chains for Blockstream.

>a FUNDAMENTALLY centralised coin
they never said anything about switching to bancor

>Of course bigger blocks makes it centralised, the bigger the blocks, the less locations can be nodes,
In practical terms it doesn't matter.
All somewhat regular type POW coins invariably consolidate mining power down to few actors because the incentives are aligned for all small actors to join mining pools controlled by whoever runs them. In addition to this there are mining farms. With ASIC friendly coins it's even worse.

"muh big block makes it impossible for small miners" is intellectually dishonest and frankly I don't think you believe this narrative yourself. You seem smarter than that and you've already shown that you are entirely aware that BTC (and now BCH and BTC) is already effectively centralized without 8mb blocks.

You're talking to shills. It's easy to spot core shills (versus actual dissenters from Bitcoin Cash)

1. Never will use the term Bitcoin Cash in a post.

2. Makes repeated reference to chinks and xenophobia, conspiracy with Ver and Jihan.

3. Throws out arguments from the core playbook. Doesn't respond substantively to your points.

and what happens when 8mb is full? You think if BCH takes over it's going to grow linearly? You'll have 8MB blocks full within a year, then 64MB 6 months later, then 512mb, 4gb, 32gb, etc etc.

If raising the blocksize is the only solution BCH users have to scale, the end result is where we started, centralized mega institutions who verify the transactions.

Centralised in a way that is not enforceable, that is my point.
Anyone budding entrepreneur or bored MILLIONNAIRE, not talking about big bucks here but mere MILLIONS, can break any node or mining monopoly.

In practical terms, cartels, monopolies, lawmaking, use of force, all these will always happen to try and crystallise power.
The only thing that matters is, what is the cost of breaking thise crystallised power ?
With BTC, peanuts.

Mining farms and asics are actually an economy of scale problem. When a giant asic has the same hash per joule ratio as tiny IoT enabled devices, there is really no reason to worry about miner centralization.

cost of hard drive space doesn't scale linearly either, 10tb would have cost thousands of dollars a few years ago and I have that in my computer right now. and if unrelated institutions can verify the transactions it's STILL better than sidechains, which would be rented from an actually centralized institution, controlled by blockstream/AXA.

you're assuming that anyone will care about a 51% attack on btc when it's so shit at transactions it'll take months if the userbase grows at the rate you use for bch's block size growth

If Bitcoin cash has persistently full 8MB blocks it'll be worth over fifty thousand a coin because of the demand. You can't cost-effectively spam blocks that have a lot of capacity. At 1 GB you have basically peak visa-level transactions. At that size one Bitcoin Cash would be worth millions of dollars, per metclaffe's law. But with new graphene compression you could compress that to 100 MB.

Yeah, lot of assumptions thrown around right ?
Which is why looking at the FUNDAMENTALS, you know, not OPINIONS but FACTS, is so important.

Is hard drive capacity going to increase 64x over the next 5 years?

Hard drive capacity is also the least important issue. Block propagation is the most important problem with large blocks. If you don't have the bandwidth and latency to successfully propagate a block in a time effective manner, you have effectively been shut out of the competition.

VISA level is fucking PEANUTS. Do you understand what it would take to power nanotransactions for IoT device communication? It is non-scalable. There is a reason why no serious engineers are working on BCH.

you're the one assuming that with even 512mb blocks someone can centralize bch. "fundementally" I know that btc can never handle anything at 1mb.

There are no actual dissenters.

Only brainlets want bitcoin to continue in its high fee slow speed congested format and haven't converted EVERYTHING to C4$H yet

both of them are chinks
>miners

>Is hard drive capacity going to increase 64x over the next 5 years?
perhaps, but the block size won't unless major adoption happens

>Hard drive capacity is also the least important issue. Block propagation is the most important problem with large blocks. If you don't have the bandwidth and latency to successfully propagate a block in a time effective manner, you have effectively been shut out of the competition.
bandwidth and internet also scales logarithmically, I have 500mb download speed which I never would have had 10 years ago.

NO BIGGER BLOCKS ALLOWED! HIGH TX FEES FOR EVERYONE! DIGITAL GOLD LUUUUUUL

You're telling me cash has the potential to scale 64 times in the next five years? Holy fuck that'd be awesome, I'd totally be able to buy a hdd. And I can run a pruned node if needed, luke-jr said that's fine because I'm verifying my own transactions.

If block propoganda is the issue then miners will naturally limit the size of their own blocks to prevent the risk of orphanage if the limit we're set sky high. You'd see a natural equilibrium where miners would mine blocks they're able to reliably propogate, which would increase as technology or the mempool fills very high. Of course, you only need to propogate the block headers in an ultratimely manner and that's just 10% of a block.

Oh wait, so IS Bitcoin designed for microtransactions or is it just a settlement network? "Oh baww, 100 MB only allows us to match the largest global payment network! Guess we can't have 8MB blocks!"

it was prophesied 20 years ago

THE WEST IS THE BEST

I hope it scales 64x and fast. Then once governments pass legislation regulating the sparse megacorps who run the nodes on the network, KYC/AML and all, we'll have a nice contrast between the two protocols (BCH/BTC).

Bitcoin (BTC) will perform NANOtransactions, because it will allow competing 2nd layer implementations that literally anyone can build (not just fucking blockstream) thanks to segwit. All of this while maintaining the crucial components of decentralization and censorship resistance on the main chain.

>Then once governments pass legislation regulating the sparse megacorps who run the nodes on the network
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
nigga just go buy a hard drive

>he actually believes this

Bitcoin has been completely co-opted by kikes

Bitcoin Cash is bitcoin.

You just really put shit in perspective for me. Im all in bch now.

>Right now, Mamadou zimbabwe in bumfuck africa can be a node on his six years old fourthhand iphone.
Thinking he has any interest running a fucking node when there is no incentive for him AND when he can't afford a single transaction fee

daily reminder to corecucks that jewstream kikes controls bitcoin and bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin

But the obvious plan is to cripple the blocksize so it's prohibitively expensive to write directly to a block. You'll HAVE to use sidechains.

And 8MB isn't "centralized". That's nonsense. Core supported these larger blocksizes until blockstream took over.

It'd make sense to scale blocksize to whatever's reasonable and also develop sidechains. If you made 8MB blocks and had sidechains that would make perfect sense. There's no technical limit preventing these proposed blocksizes and it'd relieve immediate fee congestion. That was the point of Segwit2x. But that's ded now, thanks to core realizing it'd jeopardize their profitability

You people are morons

I think this post has is backwards.

ancoms are about consensus
ancaps don't care about a few miners having the most hash

LN/blockstream are mega kiked out. I’d rather deal with the chinks