BCH vs BTC

yeah.
It's sad that bitcoin turning into a (at the moment dysfunctional) neo-feudalist project over the last years doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people, either because they are blind to it or that they don't care and want to get money banking on greater fool theory to have the price rise on a fundamentally useless asset.

My dad just yesterday called me saying how bitcoin would get universally accepted and how google and amazon were planning to accept it. When I tried explaining to him how that wasn't possible he didn't believe me. He couldn't believe that hundreds if not millions of people were buying into something without the slightest idea of how it works when it has no use case or function.

Sidechains will be open source you retarts. Blockstream AND OTHER COMPANIES will be using them. WOAH.

Nobody is developing anything relevant on them whatsoever.

>No use case or function

Because BCH is shit too and there's no future where BCH beats BTC and doesn't then die in the process

guy on the left looks like Tone Vays

>haha there's a new retard check this shit out
>bitcoin is a currency you can use it everywhere and it's gonna get adapted worldwide
>uh oh its a big blocker shit
>ITS A STORE OF WEALTH IT DOESN'T NEED A USE CASE TO BE A STORE OF WEALTH I SWEAR

stop spreading this false citation.

ON CHAIN
/thread

Blockstream still has a lot of BCH, so bigger blocks would actually make it EASIER for them to control it

Is that the voice in your head saying that or have you not realized that the Bitcoin community is composed of more than one person.

Yep, there is a scaling problem. It's going to be solved with additional layers instead of compromising the network's robustness. Bitcoin will be both a store of value and a currency.

soundcloud.com/heryptohow/roger-ver-cody-wilson-chris-odom-brian-deery-and-chris-david

21:30 faggot.

Not true, you know LN won't be decentralized or cheap. Too much discussion has been done on Veeky Forums alone for you to be ignorant at this point.

Everyone making worthwhile side chain tech is working on other projects. Even Joseph Poon, who was a co-author of the LN whitepaper, jumped ship and started to work on ethereum's plasma. Few serious devs apart from those who are already insiders want to touch a project that is in such a stranglehold by a few people (bitcoin core).

BCH will likely get meaningful upgrades way before Bitcoin Core and stay ahead of tx/s demands for the network, especially those that aid on-chain scaling like block compression and eventually sharding. They are not categorically opposed to side chains either if they work in a way that doesn't sacrifice the qualities of bitcoin.

Devs take note that BTC has been intentionally hamstrung, 2mb blocksizes would be fine for most even 10 year old desktops to run a full node, but they blocked it anyway. They have shown that their priorities lie in forcing people to use their solutions. Making side-chain products for a project like that is setting yourself up to get pushed out or disabled in some way down the line if you make something that can credibly compete with their planned rent seeking solutions (LN is not a credible threat to those).

You mean discussion between bcash shills, right?

LN will be both decentralized and cheap compared to the alternatives.

because of 1 key reason
M O N E Y
O
N
E
Y

Sure not having another 200+ post discussion on this garbage for the third day in a row

>LN will be both decentralized
No it won't. It takes like 5 minutes of reading how setting up payment channels works and how bitcoin balance in the smart contract of each channel must be the appropriate size for a payment from someone else to use it as a conduit to realize that it will absolutely in no way end up having anything resembling a decentralized network topology.

People who actually research networks come to a different conclusion. Do you even realize that your shilling is useless? Lightning Network will come despite what you say, and prove you wrong.

>2mb blocksizes would be fine for most even 10 year old desktops to run a full node, but they blocked it anyway.

It's a bad precedent to set. That's going to be very important in years to come. Yeah, 2mb would be ok and it may still happen. But then the pressure will come on far too quickly for another increase and another until the cost of running a full node is no longer feasible.

Also S2x was buggy code that was DOA. Despite companies like Coinbase rushing into a hardfork, they refuse to implement Segwit today. Really makes me think.

BCH will slowly die-off as the big blockers (free-riders) capitulate. Then the next fight begins:

medium.com/@rusty_lightning/the-three-economic-eras-of-bitcoin-d43bf0cf058a

Yeah like this guy
medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800
Appealing to authority argument that doesn't even hold hhahahaha

>Some guy's blog.
He get's BTFO in the comment section, including by money skeleton.

I am a coredawg now

Not to mention setting up a payment channel (to a single other entity in the lightning network, not the entirety) is done via transaction on the main net, and is thus very expensive due to 1mb blocks. People are just going to end up setting up a payment channel to one or two major established hub nodes that have massive sums of BTC in their contract and the hardware to process and sign massive amounts of transactions per second. These major hubs will have channels between them. There will not be many such hubs. It is an implication of the economic pain/incentive structure emerging from how LN works.

>people who actually research networks
You want to appeal to authority instead of argue because you're ignorant yourself?
OK, then think about this. Raiden, which is similar to LN in the way it works but will be better, is not considered good enough for ethereum devs. It is considered a shitty bandaid while waiting for Plasma. Request Network and Omisego are just straight up going to launch on Plasma, ignoring Raiden alltogether.

Vitalik barely wants to acknowledge that LN even exists.

>It's a bad precedent to set.
>Also S2x was buggy code that was DOA.
2mb blocks have been discussed for years before s2x. Core devs were not so hostile to the idea before recently.

"It's a bad precedence to set" is a terrible argument against doing something that solves the congestion problem temporarily and has no drawbacks whatsoever. It's paper thin fake ideology to disguise greed based incentives.

Nothing personell kid.

I don't get these images

you should tripfag seriously. posting the same brainded bullshit again and again.

NOBODY FUCKING USES BITCOIN AS A CURRENCY ATM, except you and roger maybe, FUCKING DEAL WITH IT.

my god i'm trying to believe that roger has actually paid shills on social media.

kek. It's always the same /r/btc cashie posting that CoinGeek image as a reply, then you reply with the actual soundcloud link and he goes quiet. What a fucking loser.

>A wall of text filled with old shitty claims that have been tediously countered a multitude of times, with an insincere picture depicting an implausible scenario.

Short BTC and Long BCH, man. Good luck.

and the condescending tone, like this faggot have it all figured out.

Vitaliks Argument is based on a flawed premise that is addressed in the blog.

>This doesn’t seem as ironclad as it sounds. It seems entirely possible that there would exist paths from you to _any_ possible recipient going through _any_ of your channels. Any sufficiently well-connected graph has this property.

>Any sufficiently well-connected graph has this property.

The problem is that the way LN works, people are disincentivized to open channels to many people due to two reasons.

1: You pay a transaction fee on main net when you open a channel, as you are locking your BTC into a BTC smart contract for LN. You lock BTC independently for each channel.

2: Channels to small BTC balance LN contracts are pointless to (pay to) connect to because the part of the transaction that goes through them can't be smaller than their balance.

Don't say someone was "BTFO" if you don't even understand the argument that supposedly BTFO someone.

It will be this easy.

In any case, we don't need normies for BTC to hit $1million funbucks. If you knew anything about game theory you would already know this fact.

He said in that video that he already set up the channel between him and the recipient beforehand. That means he waiting for the channel to have been set up, paid for with a BTC main net transaction fee, then he recorded doing this payment between himself and 1 other person after that.

So before all of this, in order to be able to do this to just 1 recipient, he paid a TX fee on BTC main net and waited... how long is it now, 2 days? Maybe he got slushpool to rush the confirmation.

why do we need bcash when we have litecoin....

If that is an excerpt from that one video. Maybe its from another. But the mechanics are still the same. This is only done after the cumbersome things are in place and this is TX between only 2 people.

I applaud you guys I don't get how you can have the same argument with the same kike shills every fucking day. Might as well just create a concise copy pasta to scare them away with.

Correction * can't be larger than their balance.

Bitcoin core is like the first computer or model T. Does the public still use them? No. Give it time and most cryptocurrencies available now in their current form will become obsolete to the mechanisms of human innovation. Soon we will enter the 3rd gen of cryptos. Cryptos that are actually backed by something, such as energy itself. Who knows what exactly can happen. But in today's engineering and economic infrastructure, btc's code is just not efficient enough, most importantly due to the current global population levels. Satoshi's vision was to make bitcoin for the masses, not just for speculative investors and crypto activists. The blockchain concept will survive though, in various forms. Bitcoin cash might also become obsolete too. Most of biz's crypto debates are useless in the big picture and are just people shitposting.

...

>Channels to small BTC balance LN contracts are pointless to (pay to) connect to because the part of the transaction that goes through them can't be smaller than their balance.
can ln route through multiple small wallets in combination in order to achieve a larger sum? or is it too strenuous on the network?

>paid for with a BTC main net transaction fee

There are already methods in the work to get around that. In any case, competing liquidity providers on the lightning network (an open source protocol with several competing integrations) for niggers that can't afford on-chain transactions is a free market solution, meanwhile if you make the blocksize as big as niggers want to, you wend up fucking the core of the network, effectively ruining BTC's network sovereignty.

quote the most retarded dev of core to discredit core, yeah you sure made your point.

Yes, but that requires people with smaller sums to set up channels between each other in the first place, which is economically disincentivized because it requires a main net transaction. So in theory it can be done, but in reality it won't happen.
>There are already methods in the work to get around that. In any case, competing liquidity providers on the lightning network (an open source protocol with several competing integrations) for niggers that can't afford on-chain transactions is a free market solution
I'd rather not be forced into this "free market solution".

Other blockchains will have better side chains and eventually sharding combined with other techniques will enable massive on-chain scaling. I agree that simply raising the block size more and more is not a long term solution. You are absolutely correct about that.