Anybody starting to think bcash might actually win...

I just want bitcoin to trade sideways for at least a week.

How the fuck does anything on those markets not accept XMR?

I just paid £8 on a £42 BTC transfer. Yes, it will win. Jan/Feb when Bcash is due its next pump (look at its charts) BTC will have a mass dumping by all the Bcash holders who still own some (Old BTC money) and the flippening will happen. BTC is only good as a store of money and desu BTG seems to have that covered especially in the name. Bcash and maybe Bitcoin Gold are going to kick BTCs ass in the long term. It may survive, in what form who knows.

bcash will win or at the very least achieve parity.

BTC went up from 1.8k to 17k
BCH went up from 500 to 1.5k

> muh flippening
> muh dragonslayer

Dragonslayer 4.0

U are literally retarded if youre not holding both. At the least youre a fucking sheep who is easily manipulated

>Traders trade, hodlers hold.

A good trader also knows when to hold, and a good holder also knows when to trade. We are all ultimately hybrids of what you describe, retard.

Reminder that this is what everyone was saying in 2013. Everyone knowledgeable about tech expected better tech to replace bitcoin and it never did. Bch isn't even better, it's the same, even if it was better transaction speed doesn't drive prices.

can someone explain to me why some people are still defending bitcoin, when bitcoin cash supposedly is much faster and cheaper?

i'm not a shill, actually i don't know shit about bitcoin, i've just been focusing on alts, but i'm really curious.

is it just that people simply believe that bitcoin will remain number one because of first-mover advantage, or do bitcoin fans actually have serious problems with BCH?

xmr is harder for developers to work with. if they are already setup for BTC, it is nothing to switch to BCH

When BCH hits Coinbase, which is expected, it's over. BCH will shoot up to $5-$10K quickly.

I think you are right... maybe there will be a wave of sells but I think there is going to be more than enough people to soak it up now.

BCH is going to moon hard

Well people will be able to withdraw their coins, but I don't think buying and selling is supported. Hopefully that'll change. I think the price needs to stabilize a bit and they'll be more likely to to do it.

Almost every single altcoin ever made is a fork of bitcoin with faster transactions. Why is this fork special? It's not, it only has value because it's being shilled by rich miners and Tai Lopez tier marketing retards like Roger. It's scamcoin #978.

The Bitcoin developers claim the Lightning network can scale way beyond bch to nanotransactions. The main force slowing segwit and Lightning adoption are the same miners whose interests lie in promoting bcash. Without the anti segwit propaganda segwit addresses would be the norm and load on the network reduced severely without needing Lightning.

Bitcoin can only be used for trading and a store of value now, it is worthless for anything else. The only reason it is surviving is that everything else is priced in satoshis (yes even the ETH/USD and other USD pairs). It may survive and reach its IRL gold equivalent price of $500k per BTC but it's not what it was meant to be. It has become corrupted. I am neither for or against Bcash btw, Personally, I prefer to keep my money in Monero. It is closer to what BTC should have been though, an actual usable digital payment method to free people from banks. It is all a load of wank if you ask me.

Bitcoin has become unusable. Its reason to be was "peer-to-peer electronic cash", that's what made it become widespread in the first place. Then a company (Blockstream, funded by AXA) practically took control of Bitcoin development and worked on changing it into a store of value, like gold, that is slow and hard to move, in order to push their solution akin to bank notes where they are the bank. Bitcoin was created to free people from banks and authoritarian governments, Bitcoin Cash is continuing that vision, Bitcoin Core is not bitcoin anymore.

I only wish that BCH was led by a less manic man. I like XMR too but like BlackBytes a bit more.

>Its reason to be was "peer-to-peer electronic cash"
This is the fundamental misconception. It was an experiment in decentralized ledgers using economic incentives. Technically illiterate people like Roger started pushing it as "peer-to-peer electronic cash" to try to drive up demand long before it was ready for that role. Bcash is a clone of bitcoin, with the same use load it would take just as long to process transactions and if the price was as high as bitcoin the transactions would also be expensive. Bcash doesn't even realistically suggest solutions to the scaling problems it just pretends they don't exist.

Oops, BlackByte comment was for . I'm extremely interested in the benefits of legitimate DAG tech and ByteBall's privacy coin, BlackBytes has some novel anonymity methods beyond obfuscation.

This is not a fundamental misconception, is it referred to as "peer-to-peer electronic cash" in the WP if I'm not mistaken, along with on bitcointalk forums from the OP himself.

>increased block size doesn't upscale transaction limitations

it's a band aid on a gaping wound

>classic jew trickery
Like when Blockstream stopped any upgrade to bitcoins transaction output for over 3 years, to then go on to mutate bitcoin into segshit where they will profit off selling sidechains and the LN. Completely shitting on the blockchain technology and whitepaper while still referring to their coin as "bitcoin". To top it all off they call the group of people staying true to the original vision of bitcoin imposters because they are taking bitcoin past visa levels.

>This is the fundamental misconception. It was an experiment in decentralized ledgers using economic incentives. Technically illiterate people like Roger started pushing it as "peer-to-peer electronic cash"

Dude, the title of the Bitcoin whitepaper is "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"

>Bcash is a clone of bitcoin, with the same use load it would take just as long to process transactions
It's not a clone, it has a bigger block size, it can currently process 8 times more transactions per second, and the block size can be increased as needed, the way it was supposed to be done in the first place before Blockstream blocked that.

>and if the price was as high as bitcoin the transactions would also be expensive
Nope, the transactions are expensive because more transactions are being done than the network can handle so they pile up in the mempool with higher and higher fees.

>Bcash doesn't even realistically suggest solutions to the scaling problems it just pretends they don't exist.
Block size increase, simple solution that works in practice.

twitter.com/adam3us/status/923309367260274688

someone i know told me to swap my bch for eth (bcs it is dropping) is this smart?

>storage is growing exponentially
>as is bitcoin transaction

Its literally fine.

ETH is good but it's scaling is theoretical and currently vaporware.

That's what he wanted it to be. Whatever you label it, in reality it's an experiment, the first decentralized ledger that works because of the economic incentives. When it started growing fast 2013 it was obvious then it couldn't compete with visa for transactions so it wasn't ready to really become p2p cash.

>that works in practice.
No, only in theory while ignoring the problems. In practice we don't really know the results of distributing a ledger with these huge blocks. People doing micro and nano transactions are inevitable so the ledger will grow exponentially as more people use it. If it's pushed for as p2p cash in 2 years you might need to own a datacenter just to run a full node. In practice that means the ledger is now centralized and can be shut down. It's possible bcash might "work" meaning it doesn't completely fail but it can't do what crypto is supposed to be able to do. If Lightning works it fulfills the promise of crypto, if it doesn't bcash is still irrelevant.

I thought Bitcoin Cash was the real Bitcoin when it was trading at $200. People seem to think it will one day go to zero, why? It can actually be used as a currency.

You can get to 5x visa levels with 8 year old tech you fucking lying faggot.

The longer it takes Bitcoin to fix its growing fees and unconfirmed transactions, the more market shares it will lose to other tokens. Technological changes are very unforgiving to those slow to adapt and Bitcoin is completely unusable right now as a currency.

>exponentially
Not really. Bitcoin can handle 7 tx per second, and bcash can handle 56. 56 tx per second is still awful for something that aspires to be a global payment system

Please correct me if I'm wrong but explain why. I used to consider the insanely huge and exponentially growing blockchain size as one of the main problems stopping scaling. The Bcash solution is just to say "no it's fine" without backing that claim up with anything. How long until the chain is so large you can only set up a new full node using trucks to ferry the data?

Fucking this
I can not trade if btc moves 1k up or down everyday, it's impossible, if i go to sleep I wake up to a -30%

>That's what he wanted it to be.
And that's what people want it to be, not a fucking unrelated experiment you want to profit off.

>No, only in theory while ignoring the problems.
Bitcoin Cash has 8MB blocks that work in practice. 1GB blocks have been tested. Bitcoin Cash will increase the block size and you will see that it still works.

>In practice we don't really know the results of distributing a ledger with these huge blocks
What fucking different results could there be the mathematical principle is exactly the same.

>If it's pushed for as p2p cash in 2 years you might need to own a datacenter just to run a full node.
Do the maths and you will see that's provably wrong.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but bcash can scale up to 32MB blocks without a hf. By the time transaction demand is reaching the limits of 8MB storage scaling shouldn't be an issue.

>graphene
>hardware optimization
youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M
Doesn't even include graphene in those calculations which makes it 10x easier.

The lightning network will prevail.

Ok here is my problem with Bitcoin Cash when you invest in it. ANd I am someone who prefers the faster cheaper coin as well.

THE FUCKING STRESS AND FOMO IS BEYOND FUCKING NORMAL LEVELS. BCH is trapped in the second layer of HELL and everything that happens makes it more stressful. PLus the fact that every other fucking coin is rocketing up to new ATHs ...

Do not go into BCH until you actually see it begin to do something... I imagine the stress will reduce when the coin isnt fucked in hell...

>Do the maths
Here is the math: the tx/s will rise until it stops coping whatever that limit is because we want to use bitcoin for everything including every dice throw on shitty gambling sites.

No atomic swaps, no off chain transactions means it all has to go on the blockchain which will grow exponentially until the tx limit is reached so it continues to grow at max capacity. With atomic swaps and off chain transactions nanotransactions can be handled by whatever you want while you still store your funds in bitcoin your trusted store of value.

It's been "coming" for years.

Without onchain scaling second layer will be a failure. The blockchain will be stressed infinitely more than it is currently because next to nobody is actually sending transactions currently.

Just watch this interview.

youtu.be/AkbSrmsYJ9c

I thought Bitcoin Cash was a meme until I heard how stupid this guy interviewing the Bitcoin Cash guy was.

>durr Chinese miners
>durr stole my hash
>durr satoshi is evil

How STUPID is this person?

He's actually one of the smartest people from the core camp

the stress will reduce once the bitcoin correction is completed and p&d groups reached their goals with shitcoins. Might take one or two months

224 tx per sec isn't going to be enough for shit. Visa's volume is over 2k. The point is that this tech doesn't scale well, we'd need 256 MB blocks to even come close to that and that blocksize would make the blockchain fucking HUGE.

...

You have NO fucking idea what you’re talking about and neither does he.

How can you fucking steal hash?

First you complain about chinese miners, miner centralization and punishing miners, then you complain about BCH stealing chinese mining hash?

This guy is literally a retard.

256MB blocks gives about 13TB for one full year, I know people who have hundreds of TB storing movies and porn

It's not a compliment. The core camp is full of fucking retards and either dishonest or misinformed people like

Do you understand that hard drivers get bigger every year you clueless idiot?

>This guy is literally a retard.
And still one of the smartest from the core camp, that's the point

And the devs aren't opposed to bigger block sizes. Bigger blocks alone aren't a solution and hard forks are not something to be taken lightly. This hard fork is a political move by miners opposed to segwit and Lightning when segwit was finally forced on them. Miners will want to maintain the status quo that makes them money. That's not a healthy basis for technological development.

Most altcoins aren't a fork of the bitcoin network, just of the client (wallet) code. They have their own separate networks. Bitcoin Cash is a fork of the network, sharing transaction history until August 1st 2017.

a lot of people on this board are holding a lot of BCH, including me with 90BCH, I went all in

yet you don't see us posting pink wojacks like the linkies

makes you wonder... maybe we know something you dont? maybe we know BCH is the real bitcoin destined for 100k-1mil per coin in the next 5 years

this is why we wont sell one fucking BCH

Saying were going after cash instead of gold was pretty damn clever, too bad the public view of it as just a copycat has doomed it

Then bitcoin core will fail.

The miners will decide its fate.

People should have petabyte drives by 2020 and 13TB a year for Visa level transactions is fucking nothing and we aren't even close to that size!

...

...

>implying people are willing to put as many resources and effort into securing a world-changing peer-to-peer digital cash network as they do into their porn collection

>this kills the decentralization

Decentralization isn’t something good in and of itself.

If you trade increased inefficiency for decentralization you’re making a long term mistake.

>13TB for Visa level transactions
>consumer available petabyte drives by 2020
>centralization

>tfw it costs more to send a transaction than it costs to run a node

>This hard fork is a political move by miners opposed to segwit and Lightning when segwit was finally forced on them.

Everyone who wanted to use bitcoin as a currency, as peer-to-peer electronic cash, you know the thing it was designed for, wanted a block size increase, except Blockstream. Users, businesses, everyone who actually cared to use the network and understood the situation wanted a block size increase, except Blockstream and its sockpuppets. Segwit brings a lot of complexity for little added benefit.

Hi Roger

I always thought they were because they were always very vocally against them recently. Then you had the entire NO2X movement that they were major supporters of.

It’s actually the only thing that can sustain the long term network you retarded.

You don’t have anything without miners.

Take some of your coins and compete with chinese miners if you’re frothing st the mouth because they’re making money and you’re not.

are you fucking retarded
did you even read the title of Nakamoto's paper
did you even read the first line of the abstract

>That's what he wanted it to be.
Ok, glad we could clear up that you are the one with the misconception. The rest of your post is simply conjecture ("it will need a centralized database") or false ("it can't compete with visa").

If you're genuinely interested in quicker tx times, look into DAG tech like ByteBall (I'd recommend RaiBlocks but I'm less familiar with it).

>buying thousands of dollars of hardware to run something out of the kindness of my heart for a network at max capacity already.

If they can get away with no hard forks they kind of need to do that. The reason I keep mentioning older altcoins is because the experience with the results of hard forks is bad. The developers have a long wishlist of features for a hard fork, all of that was ignored by bch because it was made for political reasons subverting the actual development.

Why is everything so black and white? Miners aren't the authority on development, developers are. I actually like PoW but miners shouldn't be subverting the future of bitcoin for quick bucks.

Graphene doesnt even work, the developers missed the "edge case" where we have two transactions a to b and b to c. These can't be compressed in the same block. This is a huge attack vector. Holy shit, you people have no clue.

When I jump over a puddle I can label it as flying over an ocean in a fancy whitepaper, that doesn't make it an accurate description.

Hardware has improved substantially since BTC was conceived in 2009. Smart phones that fit in your pocket are likely more powerful than most desktops of the day, so the block increase is really simply keeping up with hardware advancements.

The question of what to do after continually making bigger blocks is a different one that should only come into play if BTC scaling issues outpaces hardware improvements to the point of the network becoming too centralized (cuz blocks too big). We aren't there yet though, but this is what BTC is currently addressing rather than expanding the blocks.

That’s what you don’t understand. Miners are the ULTIMATE authority because without them you’re no different than a shitcoin.

Miners provide the only function that both secures the network snd also has a financial risk involved in securing it.

Developers might improve code, but they have NO financial risk involved and thus can act to subvert the actual blockchain without risk.

>implying miners don't have to run nodes
>implying merchants who want 0-conf don't have to run nodes

The incentives are there and if need be nodes can receive fees.

This, idk why people are wanting Visa level transactions when adoption isn't at all there yet. In the mean time Segwitcoin can't even handle a fraction of that yet they shit on bcash despite it already being ahead on scaling.

>mentioning bitcoins ridiculous fees is subversion
I got my eye on you OP

Meanwhile Bitcoin Cash will fly over the ocean as outlined in the whitepaper while your Blockstream coin will remain an experiment in a puddle avoided by everyone.

What I don't understand is, even if BTC disagrees with blocks as a long term solution, there is nothing but benefits to implementing this until their other, off-chain, solutions are finalized. IMHO they absolutely should've expanded blocks as a short term solution. It would've been easy (still would be) and wouldn't effect the network or miners in any negative way.

If BCH does perform a successful flippening maneuver and legacy BTC remains below BCH in market cap, at what point will BCH simply be referred to and known as BTC, unanimously?

>>Its reason to be was "peer-to-peer electronic cash"
>This is the fundamental misconception
The fucking whitepaper is called "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" you utter fucking mongo. Kill yourself right fucking now.

>take some of your coins and compete with chinese miners

this. oh but if you want a sha256 asic mining farm you better buy some Bitcoin Cash because its the only accepted payment :)

>mfw all these idiots talking about hard drives scaling not realizing that the real bottleneck is machines verifying fuckhuge blocks and network bandwidth to transfer the actual data

Sure, hard drive sizes have scaled really well since 2009 or whatnot, but the actual network speed and CPU have not. You are going to need an industrial-tier datacenter just to have good enough bandwidth to keep running a node at those fucking huge block sizes.

Fuck off bch shills, you don't know shit about technology and it shows.

t. someone who works in the industry and knows what he's talking about

>Miners provide the only function that both secures the network snd also has a financial risk involved in securing it.
Miners can vote with their mining power, that's their role. They don't have the expertise to make judgment on development.

The promise of crypto is to have millions of times more than visa. Visa is only for buying things, bitcoin was already doing all kinds of other things, the cliche example is satoshidice. I'm going to pay for my electricity and water per second with a Lightning transaction for every tick, pay my uber per second and tip homeless cashies I see out the window 1 satoshi.

Make your own hardware you fucking retard.

You idiots complain about China monopolizing mining hardware but sit on your bitcoins and do nothing productive with them while the Chinese outcompete and outsmart you.

Start your own fab.

Because they know increasing the block size will most likely work well enough to render Blockstream's business model useless, Blockstream is funded by AXA, they want banks to remain relevant in tomorrow's world, that's why they try everything in their power to stop a worldwide peer-to-peer electronic cash solution from working, but the desire for freedom is stronger than them.