Hurr durr we need bigger block sizes

Seriously, this. I don't get how people don't see the potential to maximize their profits

I guess some people just don't like money

The problem is that you and other HODLers fail to understand why Bitcoin has value. It doesn't have value because of HODLers. It has value because of network use. But with HODLers comes more expensive transaction fees, so HODLers are actually crowding out actual users of Bitcoin, which means - in effect, that HODLers are erroding the fundamental value of Bitcoin.

It also holds value due to its (unliked) trading pairs with hundreds of shitcoins and better coins who still have no FIAT pairings. Until this does not change drastically (which it won't, maybe slow over the next months or years however), you always have to have BTC if you want to somewhat maximize your profits in a smart way.

> Suddenly Bitcoin looks alive and well again.
If by alive and well you mean transaction volumes back to levels not seen since early 2016, and in danger of complete destruction from BCH hash power strangulation if "all the commerce in the world" ends up being a bigger market than "people that don't know what store of value actually means and are also dumb enough to fall for a blatant sabotage and hijack from mainstream finance" yeah I guess it's alive and well.

You do realize that the end game for btc are empty blocks?
While eth is going to have 10M+ tx/daily

Then again we've got Luke-jr campaigning for a hard fork to a 300kb block size, so I guess it's got that going for it.

slay your dragon if you want slay

>It has value because of network use
Wrong, Bitcoin has value because it is decentralized and censorship-resistant. It is digital gold. Ease and spees of transaction are of course important too, but they are not what makes Bitcoin different from literally everything that came before. It is a matter of priorities. A bitcoin without low fees (which btw is only something temporary) is still a bitcoin that has intact what makes it necessary. A bitcoin without decentralization and censorship-resistance but with low fees is a bitcoin that has lost its purpose.

How low IQ niggers like you can't understand this simple fact beats me. Most people here were not as retarded years ago, you're all fucking redditors, that's why.

...

Says the reddit spacing ass cancer.
Bitcoin fees are fine, because nobody uses it anymore. Because it's dying shitty useless and about to be properly killed by BCH. And then we can get on with actually fairly valuing assets rather than having to trade them through this dogshit.

That is quite interesting. But is it sustainable in the long run?

BCH retard shill detected

>one space = r*ddit space
lmao this fucking retard
>ecause it's dying shitty useless and about to be properly killed by BCH.
Like every cult you'll end up killing yourself together with all the cucks that keep buying that useless shitcoin
>Bitcoin fees are fine, because nobody uses it anymore
You just repeat propaganda pre-packaged sentences like the sheeple you are. You are literally the SJW of crypto, who think they are revolutionaries n shiet while they are literally the lapdog of millionaires that see them as lower than animals.

Haha have fun spending hours of your time and failing to match Bitcoin gains. Brainlet alert

Well. Possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. You have to be flexible and adapt. Various projects work on finally getting rid of BTC (and ETH) pairs so you can easily convert FIAT to any altcoin you want and back. This is still not a short way to go, but if they succeed expect BTC not to increase anymore. Also then you can hold alts more safely no matter what BTC does. But in this state, as an investor, you HAVE to hold some BTC, no matter how cancerous or what your ideology about it is. Money is not about ideology. It is about doing what increases your money stack.

Look at the transaction volume graphs brainlet. Fees didn't just magically return to levels from two years ago. They went there because that's what transaction volume went to also.
I realise you're too fucking stupid to figure out how mining works or what it means when the btc chain has no more hash power, but that doesn't change material reality. Enjoy going broke, you deserve it.

Kek no, you are deluded. Tell me, why does LTC literally worth 1/12th of BTC when its fucking fork that will get all same features BTC will get in future?

And funny thing is, LTC is even faster yet its known as being long in tooth shitcoin.

Only reason why BTC is still strongest (although falling as we speak) is because its pretty much default pair for all other coins. Once fiat pairing comes to other good coins, BTC will be long forgotten. Fucking crypto myspace...

Huh? Holders have no effect on the transaction fees. The value in USD of a bitcoin has no direct effect on the transaction fees. Those are entirely based on supply and demand.

BTC is almost a guaranteed 10x this year though. Yeah, some alts might 100x, but many will fail and slow bleed to zero.

> have to hold some BTC
I absolutely loathe the shit and even I agree with this. Until it's destroyed it will peg the rest of the market because that's how the trade volume flows, just like the price of paper gold sets the physical because that's the vast majority of the volume.
It's also why people who don't like this should be looking for a BCH price rise though, because when that happens and it actually kills BTC, it won't be an option anymore to tether the rest of the market to this steaming heap of shit.

us krautfags gotta stick to the hold one year rule

>Fees didn't just magically return to levels from two years ago. They went there because that's what transaction volume went to also.
It doesn't matter. The potential maximum transaction output will go up through LN without compromising on decentralization and censorship-resistance. BCH cannot do that. In fact, now already you only need two people (Roger and Jihan) to give up on BCH and it literally stops existing.
>I realise you're too fucking stupid to figure out how mining works or what it means when the btc chain has no more hash power, but that doesn't change material reality
There are a shitload of big companies that are about to start mining bitcoin that will put Jihan and his chink friends out of the race. You are literally buying a shitcoin born out of the fact that Jihan knew he couldn't compete in bitcoin mining anymore.

>Tell me, why does LTC literally worth 1/12th of BTC when its fucking fork that will get all same features BTC will get in future?
What does LTC have to do with anything? Don't change the topic nigger. LTC is an altcoin, they can do whatever the fuck they want because they are not trying to steal the brand name and the history of BTC.
>Only reason why BTC is still strongest (although falling as we speak) is because its pretty much default pair for all other coins.
It's not true at all. BTC is still the strongest because being it is the most decentralized and censorship-resistant coin, while also having the best innovation when it comes to blockchain. I know that your shitcoin shills will tell you otherwise, but that's why you are a a low IQ redditor and I am not, because I know that is bullshit. All coins that claim to be faster than bitcoin do so at the expense of decentralization, security and censorship-resistance. They can afford to do that because they are shitcoins that won't exist in a few years and the market wouldn't care, but Bitcoin does not have that privilege.

>Once fiat pairing comes to other good coins, BTC will be long forgotten
Keep dreaming nigger

Why would fucking BCH replace BTC? What does a mother fucking BCH have on other solid coins? BTC is trash tier yes, but that doesnt make its fork, another trash coin, any better.

>Muh 8mb blocks

>fucking mongloid
>thinks that anyone shitting on cashie cunts must be a bitcorn supporter
>refuses to acknowkedge that gen 1 coins like bitcorn and bcash are BOTH SHITCOINS

>people actually using the product falling to levels not seen for two years doesn't matter!
k
>muh lightning will be decentralized
No. https:// medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800
>more miners are coming!
Right, and you don't know what the fuck miners actually do. We mine the coin that has the highest profitability at any point in time, therefore if it's more profitable to mine BCH rather than BTC, that's what we do. Meaning as I said, if it turns out "all global commerce" carries a float larger than the provably unworkable fantasies of Maxwell, Blockstream and their kike backers in mainstream finance, they're fucked.

>Has anyone taken a look at the fees and transaction times lately?
Turns out it does wonders for congestion when you lose all merchant adoption LMAO.
Prepare for Bitpay switching to BCH soon, you'll love it.

Two reasons primarily.
1) it actually fucking works properly and can scale beyond 7tx/sec, meaning what just happened to BTC where transaction fees spiked and people abandoned it won't happen to BCH, and it will keep growing in price accordance with the actual use of the currency, as opposed to why BTC would grow in price, which is no rational reason whatsoever.
2) The entire market is currently pegged to BTC, the only coins that have shown any divergence from this trend at all are BCH and ETH, if ETH flips BTC, BTC still "works" and can maintain that peg for some time to come. If BCH flips BTC, BTC will actually completely cease to exist and the peg must necessarily be destroyed. Thus it is in the interests of everyone except absolute BTC maximalists that BTC is destroyed.

Its not shitting on cashie cunts, its about presenting BTC as actual working product, which IT IS NOT. The reason why you no longer wait for 6hr per transaction is because shittone of people dont use it as such anymore, especially compared to December. Thats why I hear all this fucking bs about

>Muh store of value

Because you know its absolute fucking POS (as is bch) in everything else bar "HODLING" it in hard wallet and telling everyone you have 0.54 BTC

>>people actually using the product falling to levels not seen for two years doesn't matter!
Price went down and so did transactions, because a lot of the value in crypto is due to speculation so speculators use it less in a bear market. But keep ignoring my arguments my pajeet.
>ttps:// medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800
>jonaldfyookball
lmao a literal fucking Roger shill that understands nothing about cryptography. Every single OG crypto-developer is enthusiastic about LN, it's literally what Bitcoin was supposed to be since the beginning (pic related).
> if it turns out "all global commerce" carries a float larger
Literally nobody is going to adopt your shitcoin, because it being owned by Jihan and Roger makes it absolutely no different than Paypal, with the exception that paypal is faster and easier to integrate. You are fucking deluded morons lmao you are fucking pathetic.
> Maxwell, Blockstream and their kike backers in mainstream finance
Jihan literally mines from Tel Aviv you fucking cuck. And look, right about when they started to attack Bitcoin in a more prevalent manner. Really makes me think. You niggers are a tool of the kikes, exactly like the MAGApedes from /pol/ and the redditors that elected trump:
news.bitcoin.com/bitmain-tech-launches-new-israeli-mining-pool/

forgot pic

>It is digital gold.
Even if cryptos would become stores of valye, which I personally don't foresee - I rather believe that we will have a constant development of cryptos and that an old crypto eventually is surpassed by a new, so there's a factor of uncertainty in crypto that speaks against it ever becoming an established store of value.

But even if that is the case, why would it be Bitcoin and not another crypto? I am almost certain that whatever crypto that becomes the main means of exchange will also be the one becoming the main store of value. Taken that that crypto would have a finite supply it would simply be more practical that the crypto you use to buy your drugs also becomes your main store of value, rather than that you exchange said crypto to Bitcoin - because that would add transaction costs, which currently is quite substantial, far larger than the spread of the physical gold market.

If Bitcoin ever is to become a store of value, I am pretty sure it also has to establish itself as the main alternative of exchange, and that is getting less and less likely as more competitive cryptos are entering the market on almost a frequent basis.

I have never siad that the price in itself affect the transaction fee.

> so speculators use it less in a bear market. But keep ignoring my arguments my pajeet.
Right, everyone uses it less now, speculators included, because even nigger tier shitwits like yourself have figured out it's technically not able to be used as a currency.
> lmao a literal fucking Roger shill that understands nothing about cryptography.
Awesome comeback, much citation. Totally knocked all the mathematical proofs contained in the attached article on their ass, good thing in empirical reality we can validate that actually lightning topology looks nothing like this fearmongering amirite? oh shit, actually that's exactly what it fucking looks like you shitheeled clownshoe pic related.
> because it being owned by Jihan and Roger
It is "owned" by nobody, that is what decentralised mean. Exactly the same set of people who can mine BTC can also mine BCH, and they do, in fact, do exactly that, which is what happened on November 12th 2017 and will happen again when the inevitable price appreciation from actual use and adoption in commerce takes effect while BTC is still spinning provably false fantasy shit and trying to drag down the rest of the market with the historical artefact of its peg to all the other coins.
> and the redditors that elected trump:
Oh hai shareblue, shit explains a lot. neck yourself cuntface.

>What does LTC have to do with anything? Don't change the topic nigger. LTC is an altcoin, they can do whatever the fuck they want because they are not trying to steal the brand name and the history of BTC.

LTC has to do with plenty of it. Basically, its LITERAL COPY of BTC. It WILL receive EVERY update BTC does, probably before. It ACTUALLY works better then BTC, so I wonder how come fucking LTC is regarded (rightfully) as shitcoin that has 1/12 of BTC market cap, and BTC is best thing since sliced bread?

>It's not true at all. BTC is still the strongest because being it is the most decentralized and censorship-resistant coin, while also having the best innovation when it comes to blockchain. I know that your shitcoin shills will tell you otherwise, but that's why you are a a low IQ redditor and I am not, because I know that is bullshit. All coins that claim to be faster than bitcoin do so at the expense of decentralization, security and censorship-resistance. They can afford to do that because they are shitcoins that won't exist in a few years and the market wouldn't care, but Bitcoin does not have that privilege.

>Best innovation when it comes to blockchain
>being this retarded

>Myspace is best because it has best tech in social networks
>Yahoo has by far best trading engine and most innovative email ever
>NOTHING can top it
>Software does not move, first mover has limitless and timeless advantage

BTC is POS that is dragging crypto down. Every single person that I know that fomod into this shit back in Dec pretty much asked me "WTF is this POS?!?".

They had to pay 40$ and wait for day for their transactions to be confirmed by mining chink cartels.

It uses more electricity then 150+ country do in a year, and it does so while having LESS transactions the fucking ETH. You can't even explain why LTC is not holy grail of crypto given that it is pretty much a faster copy of lord shitcoin. Kys.

> every single transaction ever made in the entire world is exactly the same as "more than 14kbps / 7tx a second".
You're a fucking idiot son. Further, on chain scaling doesn't even preclude off chain scaling, both should and will be done, and both will be used where the economics of both types call for it, not where the artificially imposed limits of a fuckwad neckbeard who wants to promote his business plan hold sway and hopes everyone is too fucking stupid to notice the obvious conflict of interest.
Conversations like this demonstrate he's correct to a certain degree at the very least.

And that second layer is NOTHING but a centralized, complex, POS.

>You just open channel
>Then you pay
>Then you close
>It goes to blockchain
>You open
>Close now
>Pay for openeing
>Pay for closing
>Open channel with coffee shop
>Close it

Jesus fucking christ.

>I rather believe that we will have a constant development of cryptos and that an old crypto eventually is surpassed by a new
99% of the smartest people in crypto work on Bitcoin, not that people that invest in pajeet ICOs would understand that.
In the future all coins will be interconnected and it will be easier to trade between them, so there isn't anything "new" that will replace Bitcoin because it will all still be connected by blockchain, with Bitcoin being the top product.
>so there's a factor of uncertainty in crypto that speaks against it ever becoming an established store of value
What uncertainty? The uncertainty is in people who do not understand crypto. Those who understand it see no uncertainty at all.
>I am almost certain that whatever crypto that becomes the main means of exchange will also be the one becoming the main store of value
I have already explained it. There are a shitload of digital systems to exchange value. The advantage of Bitcoin is that this is done in a decentralized and trustless way. You are confusing causes and effect. Without the latter, the former is useless in giving value to blockchain. In fact, blockchain is a retarded system as a mean of exchange, it wastes lots of resources and goes through useless shit, that is there exactly because without it it wouldn't be decentralized and trustless, which is far more important.
>ecause that would add transaction costs, which currently is quite substantial, far larger than the spread of the physical gold market.
You niggers need to understand that Bitcoin is not a finished product. With the LN we will already be able to reach VISA levels of transaction output, so all these objections are moot.
Bitcoin will be the best of both worlds, it's just going at it without compromising one side of his value proposition. But cashcucks are too dumb to get that.
>If Bitcoin ever is to become a store of value
It already is, it has been since its beginning.

> You can't even explain why LTC is not holy grail of crypto given that it is pretty much a faster copy of lord shitcoin. Kys.
I can though, Charlie Lee agrees philosophically with all of the decisions the core BTC team has made architecturally and has said he will do no different in LTC, meaning if it were ever to actually get any kind of adoption, it would suffer from the exact same problems as BTC, meaning it is pointless.

They work because they are cult members, scrambling to push up corpse they are emotionally invested in.

Look at Richard Heart, biggest BTC shill I've seen lately, literally saying "Yea...its a shitcoin worth nothing".
Thats what happens when someone wakes you up from the dream. Is he smarter then Richard fucking Ver? Sure as hell he is, but Richard told him BTC in this current state is unusable. Not that it excuses POS coin he is backing but still...

>more competitive cryptos are entering the market on almost a frequent basis.
Like what? You niggers always say this but never make examples because you know you would get your bullshit debunked.

>Right, everyone uses it less now, speculators included, because even nigger tier shitwits like yourself have figured out it's technically not able to be used as a currency.
It's perfectly capable, I never stopped using it. You can use it literally today cuck. You niggers were complaining when the mempool was full and you complain now that it's empty. You complain either way like Detroit niggers.
>Totally knocked all the mathematical proofs contained in the attached article on their ass, good thing in empirical reality we can validate that actually lightning topology looks nothing like this fearmongering amirite? oh shit, actually that's exactly what it fucking looks like you shitheeled clownshoe pic related.
There is no mathematical proof nigger, that whole post is just that shill making shit up about the LN and then smelling his own farts. The fact that you cannot make any argument except link his bullshit is further proof you're a moron.
That LN chart is from the few people who are beta-testing it and it's already far more decentralized than Bcash nodes. Heck, it's arguably already as decentralized as bitcoin, especially if you consider how many people use exchanges like Coinbase to transact and store value. The fact that you think that chart is "centralized" with that context and perspective means that you are literally incapable of looking at reality.
>It is "owned" by nobody
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
yes, and I am the king of England.
>when the inevitable price appreciation from actual use and adoption in commerce
keep dreaming about shit that will never happen lmao
>BTC is still spinning provably false fantasy shit
You posted the LN chart yourself lmao, seems like a pretty real "fantasy" to me fuckboy

>unironically being a MAGApede
I bet your name is Shlomo.
Don't you have anything to say about Jihan literally mining from Tel Aviv, and right before he created Bcash? You are fucking tool, you gatekeepers and useful idiots disgust me more than anyone

Why do that when you can register for the Next cryptokitties
thecryptoexperiment.club/2018/02/07/tamagotchi-x-pokemon-x-blockchain-ethergotchi/

So why is fucking LTC worth peanuts compared to BTC you mong? Its because BTC is :

1) First mover
2) Best know
3) Biggest alt pair there is

If only 3rd point was to be ereased, it would drop AT LEAST 30%. Probably would remain top 3 duo to name, but not for long. Plenty smart people worked at Myspace and Yahoo yet fucking basement dwellers project such as Facebook spanked them both.

>Bu bu Nokia has best engineers
>M-muh Fordt T
>Sony for life

>> every single transaction ever made in the entire world is exactly the same as "more than 14kbps / 7tx a second".
Where did I say that? Can't you read nigger? Go back to school.
If you care about transaction speed and you thought that is the most important aspect then there would be no need to be in crypto in the first place. The financial markets can do billions of transactions per second, how fast you move shit was never the purpose of Bitcoin, only a necessary feature for future wide adoption. The main point was censorship-resitstance, decentralization and trustlessness, as I have already said. But keep stramwanning nigger.
>urther, on chain scaling doesn't even preclude off chain scaling
Of course not, because Roger and Jihan don't really care about the propaganda they are making you swallow together with their tiny dick, they care about taking control of the network. They couldn't do it with BTC so they decided that maybe that could brainwash the coming hordes of normies like you to do their bidding. All that bullshit you throw at me is literally designed for the retards like you, they believe none of it.
>and hopes everyone is too fucking stupid to notice the obvious conflict of interest.
Oh, a person that advocates for chinese mining pools supremacy on the network tells me that cypherpunk developers have a conflict of interest. Holy fucking shit the cognitive dissonace. Unironically kill yourself and remove yourself from the gene pool cuck.

> You can use it literally today cuck.
Because it's back to transaction levels of March 2016 you clueless chucklefuck, talk about going around in circles, that's exactly the fucking point. It's dying.
> There is no mathematical proof nigger
It's fucking two pages long of the article you shit tier troglodyte, and big surprise, exactly what the proof says we'll see in exactly what we actually see in reality.
> already far more decentralized than Bcash nodes.
And here you demonstrate you do not understand the difference between a listening non mining node in a peer to peer blockchain network and a necessarily centralised hub in a transaction routing network with topology that guarantees hub and spoke, that indeed actually has a hub and spoke topology, you dense motherfucker.
> yes, and I am the king of England.
Awesome proof their shit for brains, well in line with the rest of your banal mewling. "Is not" is really the best you can come up with, come to think of it you should just post that in future, it's at least not as embarassing as your other lame failed attempts at actually making an argument.
> You posted the LN chart yourself lmao, seems like a pretty real "fantasy" to me fuckboy
That proves it's exactly what BTC fanboys like yourself deny that it is or ever could be. What you fanboys say will happen, won't. Get used to it.

>if I keep repeating r*ddit's propaganda I win
Can I see your credentials in cryptography?

Just because I hate you shareblue fucks doesn't mean I support some other politician, I'm ancap, all politicians are scum and the state must be destroyed.

>99% of the smartest people in crypto work on Bitcoin, not that people that invest in pajeet ICOs would understand that.
That's like living in the 80's and saying that 99 % of the smartest IT people worked for IBM.
>In the future all coins will be interconnected and it will be easier to trade between them, so there isn't anything "new" that will replace Bitcoin because it will all still be connected by blockchain, with Bitcoin being the top product.
That's like living in the 00's and saying there isn't anything new after Nokia 1100.
>What uncertainty? The uncertainty is in people who do not understand crypto. Those who understand it see no uncertainty at all.
The evident uncertainty that eventually, something smarter comes around and turns whatever crypto you have parked your wealth in to useless, outdated tech worth zero, see Nokia following the realease of the Iphone in 2007.
>I have already explained it. There are a shitload of digital systems to exchange value. The advantage of Bitcoin is that this is done in a decentralized and trustless way. You are confusing causes and effect. Without the latter, the former is useless in giving value to blockchain. In fact, blockchain is a retarded system as a mean of exchange, it wastes lots of resources and goes through useless shit, that is there exactly because without it it wouldn't be decentralized and trustless, which is far more important.
Can you imagine the following event occuring: a new crypto arrives that is decentralized and trustless and very useful as a means of exchange? If you honestly can't foresee this happening, then you're as clueless as a Nokia investor in 2007 saying that Cellphones and Computers never will converge into one.

> So why is fucking LTC worth peanuts compared to BTC you mong? Its because BTC is :
I literally just fucking told you that, LTC offers absolutely nothing new over BTC, it solves no problems that BTC does not solve, and in the event of any kind of adoption, would suffer the exact same problems as BTC. It is a completely pointless coin.
If you want that third point to be erased as quickly as possible, you should be behind BCH, as if that flips BTC, BTC will actually be permanently killed and they will *have* to unpeg the other assets from it.

>Because it's back to transaction levels of March 2016 you clueless chucklefuck, talk about going around in circles, that's exactly the fucking point. It's dying.
Holy shit how the fuck can you be so retarded? How can you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over after I have debunked it and answered it? Get a brain transplant jfc
>It's fucking two pages long of the article you shit tier troglodyte, and big surprise, exactly what the proof says we'll see in exactly what we actually see in reality.
Being two pages long does not prevent it from being absolute bullshit written by a literal shill paid directly by Roger Ver you fucking nigger
>nd here you demonstrate you do not understand the difference between a listening non mining node in a peer to peer blockchain network and a necessarily centralised hub in a transaction routing network with topology that guarantees hub and spoke, that indeed actually has a hub and spoke topology, you dense motherfucker.
I don't think you could have crammed more buzzwords in your reply without saying anything at all even if you tried. You have literally said nothing. BCH has absolutely no centralization. Literally TWO people say "fuck it I give up" and BCH LITERALLY DISAPPEARS YOU FUCKING NIGGGGEEEER
>Awesome proof their shit for brains, well in line with the rest of your banal mewling. "Is not" is really the best you can come up with, come to think of it you should just post that in future, it's at least not as embarassing as your other lame failed attempts at actually making an argument.
You are trying too hard with your word salad pajeet
>That proves it's exactly what BTC fanboys like yourself deny that it is or ever could be. What you fanboys say will happen, won't. Get used to it.
Keep not making any argument nigger, it just shows how dumb you are

> Where did I say that?
By advocating for the core position you braindead assclown. That is literally their actual position, worse in fact, as now they are trying to agitate for reducing it by more than a third.
> BCH people don't believe in blocking off chain scaling, this proves you are dumb
That is literally exactly what I fucking said you dense motherfucker. You just can't accept that you're fucking wrong, so you need to re-state it angrily as if you've contradicted me in some way.
> Advocating for miners to actually play the role the architecture set for them and pointing out an obvious conflict of interest is cognitive dissonance.
You're a fucking idiot, kys.

Yes you can. I dropped BTC like a bad fucking habbit and put my money into projects that actually worth

ETH and XLM.

>I-i-i am not retarded, the world is against me
please don't reproduce (not that you have any hope to anyway)

>That's like living in the 80's and saying that 99 % of the smartest IT people worked for IBM.
What point are you trying to make exactly? IBM did not have the smartest people, ever.
>That's like living in the 00's and saying there isn't anything new after Nokia 1100.
Do you have any argument except these memes? Or did you really not understand the point of what I said?
>The evident uncertainty that eventually, something smarter comes around and turns whatever crypto you have parked your wealth in to useless, outdated tech worth zero, see Nokia following the realease of the Iphone in 2007.
You are only showing your ignorance of the industry with this shit. Make examples of "future coins" that will replace Bitcoin or fuck off, because if you don't have examples you are literally believing in your own bias and wishful thinking.
>Can you imagine the following event occuring: a new crypto arrives that is decentralized and trustless and very useful as a means of exchange? If you honestly can't foresee this happening, then you're as clueless as a Nokia investor in 2007 saying that Cellphones and Computers never will converge into one.
You are making fallacious arguments after fallacious arguments. Even if something new comes out, it won't stop Bitcoin from being a store of value at all, just like silver does not stop gold from being one. The problem here is that you are talking out of your ass, bitcoin isn't even half-complete and you already think something will replace it. You are literally a dunning-kruger fucking moron.

>By advocating for the core position you braindead assclown
there is no core position, there is only Bitcoin and what is supposed to do, and no, my position does not say what you claimed that said.
>hat is literally their actual position,
It isn't, LN will enable VISA levels of transaction output, much more than bigger blocks could ever achieve, and will do so without sacrificing any other feature of bitcoin or giving control of it to millionaires on a power trip like jihan and roger.
>> BCH people don't believe in blocking off chain scaling
Ok so the Lightning Network is good, yes or no?
>You're a fucking idiot, kys.
you first mongoloid

>Yes you can
ok post them then.

> I have debunked it and answered it?
"Is not" is not debunking or answering it, it's proving you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, as if more evidence were required. This is not a hard fucking task, look at the graph pic related, accept you are fucking wrong about this like you are fucking wrong about everything else. You fucking people would do well to at least learn to contradict things which can't be obviously proven true with simple graphs.
> Being two pages long
Right, first it didn't exist, now it's two pages long but it's invalid because you intimate that it's created and supported by someone you disparage, super convincing there asswipe.
> BCH has absolutely no centralization.
Right, thanks, I realise you slipped by saying this, but finally in making a mistake, you say something actually true, bravo for you cuntface.
> Literally TWO people say "fuck it I give up" and BCH LITERALLY DISAPPEARS
False, DAA kicks in and the chain continues on regardless of how many people leave, and why *would* they leave when they've been here since the beginning and signed up for that exact original vision, just like everyone else in their position, and the only exceptions being Core, Blockstream, their hired shills, and useful idiots like yourself.
> You are trying too hard with your word salad pajeet
Just because you can't understand something doesn't make it wrong fuckface.
> Keep not making any argument
"This shit can be proven impossible and to have a single guaranteed result, oh hey look that's the actual result we see in reality, you're fucking wrong asswipe" is not just an argument, it's one you have had no response for more complicated than "IS NOT".

>Has anyone taken a look at the fees and transaction times lately?

>You niggers need to understand that Bitcoin is not a finished product. With the LN we will already be able to reach VISA levels of transaction output, so all these objections are moot.

But don't you understand just how fallacious your argument is? Just as Bitcoin isn't finished there's other cryptos just waiting to show up

The idea athat technology can be a store of value is very controversial, because there's not a single technology in the whole world that has managed to retain its value over time.

Technology is constantly replaced by better technology, that's why in just 3-4 years the whole world switched from using Nokias with Symbian to Iphone and iOS (or the inferior East Asian copy cats with Google's OS).

Imagine parking your wealth in Nokia in 2007. You can't store wealth in technology, because the value of technology can't be constant, it's gradually reduced in time due to the gradual and sometimes very drastic improval of technology.
>Bitcoin will be the best of both worlds, it's just going at it without compromising one side of his value proposition. But cashcucks are too dumb to get that.
Right, like how Nokia and Symbian was the best in Dec 2006 and then made completely redundant next Jan 2007?
>It already is, it has been since its beginning.
It hasn't really been around for long enough to say that it is a store of value. Do you have an example of a technology that has managed to sustain its value over time? How much does a smart phone cost today as opposed to in 2007 (inflation adjusted prices please). To say that a technology can hold its value over time is very speculative because I for one can't think of a single example of that being the case.

His argument is this that better and smarter have failed vs competition, and so will BTC. Funny thing is, only normies really think BTC is somekind of holy grail of crypto. Look at anywhere in crypto space and everyone knows BTC is on its death bed.

BTC does not have modifiable core, it is outdated right from the start. Mining and wasting more electricity then entire fucking country of Ireland while still being competely niche product (and not even the one on which most transactions are made) is fucking garbage tier. General population will never accept that kind of shit, they don't want to waste so much energy on fucking transaction confirmation that are mined by chink mining cartels.

It is outdated right out of the mother fucking gates. Please detach from this shitcoin and find something better to stand behind because you look like brainlet doing this.

>there is no core position, there is only Bitcoin and what is supposed to do
There is a core position, and it isn't fucking peer to peer electronic cash, which is exactly what Bitcoin was actually supposed to do, and is the title of the fucking whitepaper, shit for brains.
> It isn't, LN will enable VISA levels of transaction output
You don't need LN or any kind of second layer solution merely for VISA levels of transaction output, Satoshi himself proved that back in 2008. Of course, you wouldn't be aware of that, because all you've been fed is propaganda and you're so confused you can't tell shit from clay. But just try and contradict me so I can once again provide proof to you and have you ignore it and say "is not" again, fuckhead.
> Ok so the Lightning Network is good, yes or no?
Lightning network is mathematically provable to be a centralising force. Lightning network is empirically demonstrable to have massively centralised hubs, therefore, lightning network is bad. That doesn't mean that every potential second layer solution must be bad, just that particular one is, and it's trivial to show.

>ook at the graph pic related, accept you are fucking wrong about this like you are fucking wrong about everything else.
Are you a fucking gorilla or something? Are you literally incapable of rational thought? I have already explained why this isn't a problem. Most transactions in crypto are fueled by speculation. There is literally no finished product in crypto. It does not matter how many people use BTC right now, because once the LN is ready the sky will be the limit. There is no crypto right now being used merely as exchange of value. Speculation which is 99% of the crypto market is itself a part of the store of value properties of Bitcoin.
But this is 3D thinking, you are a one-dimensional moron (or rather, shill) so you are incapable of grasping these simple concepts.
>Right, first it didn't exist, now it's two pages long but it's invalid because you intimate that it's created and supported by someone you disparage, super convincing there asswipe.
Dude, you are telling me that planned parenthood came out with the equation for why aborting babies is absolutely moral and beautiful. And then you are telling me "BUT THEY WROTE TWO PAGES ABOUT IT". You even expect me to take that as all a fact and see nothing wrong with it. You are such a fucking asswipe.
>Right, thanks, I realise you slipped by saying this, but finally in making a mistake, you say something actually true, bravo for you cuntface.
Do you feel smart by writing this? BCH is centralized, it has no decentralization. Two people support it, Jihan and Roger without them it doesn't exit. Why the fuck don't you just stick to central banks at this point? Literally more decentralized than your shitcoin.
>False, DAA kicks in and the chain continues on regardless of how many people leave
Good luck holding the coin up without Jihan's hashpower and Roger's nodes and money. Literally all the BCH developers (6 people) are directly paid by them, good luck keeping that shitcoin alive lmao

>Just because you can't understand something doesn't make it wrong fuckface.
I understand it perfectly, it's just a waste of space because you say nothing except showing how much lack of arguments you have.
>"This shit can be proven impossible and to have a single guaranteed result
No it doesn't. You niggers kept claiming the LN didn't even exist until a couple of months ago. You keep getting BTFO by reality and moving the goalposts because your cogntivie dissonance stops you from admitting your conspiracy theories are fucking retarded.

>What point are you trying to make exactly? IBM did not have the smartest people, ever.
I think you just made my point.
>Do you have any argument except these memes? Or did you really not understand the point of what I said?
>You are only showing your ignorance of the industry with this shit. Make examples of "future coins" that will replace Bitcoin or fuck off, because if you don't have examples you are literally believing in your own bias and wishful thinking.
It really is the opposite. I mean you are basically this guy back in 2006 right and you're bragging about this updated Symbian phone being like "hey guys this is the future! Put your wealth in Nokia shares. It will hold its value over time!".

Then I am this guy who's a bit more sceptical being like "but isn't there a small possibilty that in the future something smarter will show up and replace this Symbian phone?"

Then you come and just "well", *snorta* "fuck you you fucking indian nigger! Are you even listening to what I'm saying? Nothing can get better than this Symbian! I mean do you have an example of this future phone of yours, that will outbest this based Symbian! GTFO with your dumb memes!"
>You are making fallacious arguments after fallacious arguments. Even if something new comes out, it won't stop Bitcoin from being a store of value at all, just like silver does not stop gold from being one. The problem here is that you are talking out of your ass, bitcoin isn't even half-complete and you already think something will replace it. You are literally a dunning-kruger fucking moron.
Gold, silver and other metals have been on the market for thousands of years and never changed. There's no updates, there's no change in the precious metals market. It is in a constant state. That's very different from technology, which is in a constant state of change. I feel sorry for you for not understanding this, thinking that Bitcoin is the future. When it comes to technology, change is the norm.

> There is literally no finished product in crypto.
Oh yeah then why the fuck are so many other chains pushing orders of magnitude more transactions than BTC? Because you have NFI what the fuck you're talking about? Bingo.
> But this is 3D thinking
HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, the autists here who express their constant disgust for 3d and preference for 2d would do well to use it then as a demonstration of why indeed 3d is all kinds of fucked up pajeet.
> aborting babies is absolutely moral and beautiful.
aborting babies is absolutely moral and beautiful = lightning network will be necessarily centralised. Right, got it, you don't like the conclusion so you feel you can choose to ignore it. You're wrong though, fuck yourself.
> Two people support it
Which one am I? You really think absolutely everyone calling BTC on its bullshit is a Jihan or Roger sock puppet? What a strange and terrifying world you must live in. How about deploying occam's razor and coming to the more obvious conclusion; actually you're fucking wrong and there's not a shred of logic or validity to your position whatsoever, and every point you raise can be logically demolished with easily accessible proof, and your ranting about the evil chinks in the shadows just makes you look even more pathetic than you already do, as if that were even possible.
> Good luck holding the coin up without Jihan's hashpower and Roger's nodes and money.
If the original vision of Bitcoin fails, then that's the way the cookie crumbles, it won't though, because it's been running strong for many years now, and it will continue, despite the failed hijacking attempt currently identified as BTC.

Pointing out that something can't exist except in one form, and then when that thing comes into existence and it has the form in which it was speculated that it must, pointing out that it has that form, is not "moving the goalposts" nor being proven wrong, it is being proven right. You're just too fucking stupid to see that.

>But don't you understand just how fallacious your argument is? Just as Bitcoin isn't finished there's other cryptos just waiting to show up
The other cryptos don't have a value proposition as currencies that is superior to bitcoin. Most of them just claim more transaction output while sacrificing everything else. Again, you keep saying this but you don't make any actual examples because you know you would get absolutely BTFO. Stop wasting my time nigger.
>The idea athat technology can be a store of value is very controversial,
Bitcoin isn't a store of value because "technology", but only because of those features the technology achieves. Again, you are out of your depth here.
>because there's not a single technology in the whole world that has managed to retain its value over time.
Man you are so fucking retarded. All technology retains its value, shit is just built upon it so the value builds up. again, your dunning-kruger analysis is fucking cringe
>It hasn't really been around for long enough to say that it is a store of value
Of course it has. Anybody who buys bitcoin sees inevitably their coins appreciate in value in the long term. The longer-term they hold, the higher the value goes. This is the history of BTC so far, it does not get more store of value than that.
>o you have an example of a technology that has managed to sustain its value over time?
Literally every technology nigger. The wheel still has value to this day, there's a wheel in a lot of shit. You misunderstand everything, you are so fucking retarded. Furthermore, BTC isn't just technology, you can't reduce it to that alone.

Stop throwing the same shit argument in many variants at me and simply tell me what coins you think beat BTC on a FUNDAMENTAL level or shut the fuck up, your arguments are completely shit otherwise.

That post is 8 years old. 8 years ago I had a 120GB hdd and 10/5Mbps net. Now I have a 4TB ssd and 1000/100Mbps.

8 years more and having everything on-chain is going to be possible using a network of gaming pc, not to even mention servers.

aaabra a ahhh

>The crash is over

>His argument is this that better and smarter have failed vs competition, and so will BTC
Ok, what better and smarter? Bcash sure as hell isn't one.
>Funny thing is, only normies really think BTC is somekind of holy grail of crypto
> Look at anywhere in crypto space and everyone knows BTC is on its death bed.
Holy shit your cognitive dissonance is fucking amazing.
>BTC does not have modifiable core
Of cours it does, you fucking nigger.
>Mining and wasting more electricity then entire fucking country
That is part of how it works, and it's still superior to anything else that has been invented by every other shitcoin.
>is fucking garbage tier.
No it isn't, it achieves its purpose in the best way possible.
>General population will never accept that kind of shit, they don't want to waste so much energy on fucking transaction confirmation that are mined by chink mining cartels.
Stick to banks, you are not gonna make it.
>It is outdated right out of the mother fucking gates
it is as innovative in 2009 as it is now
> Please detach from this shitcoin and find something better to stand behind because you look like brainlet doing this.
You keep saying this and making 0 examples of better shit, you are just a retard who feels intelligent, like most redditors who invaded this board

>Go to Mickey D's
>Money in hand
>BurgerTime.wav
>Order Burg, I'm so excited
>Total is $69.69
>"Sorry sir, we opened up 40 new locations this month, so there's a $60 transaction fee on your burger. It's because we don't scale well."
>mfw

I wonder how badly propagandized you would have to be to excuse BTC's dismal performance.
I wonder in which other spheres this happens at all? As if the train stopped coming for days on end and the prices also shot up through the roof would people really be like: "Yeah, well, the new Lightning train is coming out soonTM and it will fix everything it's just that youll have to get on on the old train before you can board the new train and get off at the old train too before you can get off at the station, and you have to pay the old prices before you can pay the new prices and in the end pay the old prices an additional time! Also you'll have to pay for a month at a time or else it won't be economical! Oh, and uh, you have to be online all the time or else you have to pay and trust someone to watch that everything goes ok. But don't worry coming soon! hehehuehue"

>which is exactly what Bitcoin was actually supposed
Bitcoin was always supposed to have a second-layer. Nobody wants to limit transaction output for the sake of limiting it, it's only done out of technical reasons to preserve the complete value proposition of bitcoin, and not only this or that feature.
>You don't need LN or any kind of second layer solution merely for VISA levels of transaction output
You do if you want to scale without compromising trustlessness, censorship-resistance and decentralization
>Satoshi himself proved that back in 2008. Of course, you wouldn't be aware of that, because all you've been fed is propaganda and you're so confused you can't tell shit from clay. But just try and contradict me so I can once again provide proof to you and have you ignore it and say "is not" again, fuckhead.
Nice word salad pajeet. The fact is, it was always know on-chain scaling would not work by itself, as you see here >Lightning network is mathematically provable to be a centralising force.
Quite the opposite, it is already less centralized than bcash
>Lightning network is empirically demonstrable to have massively centralised hubs, therefore, lightning network is bad.
The fact that you keep repeating it does not make it true.
You remind me of the people who kept claiming that the Hydrogen bomb would melt the atmosphere of the planet. You are just afraid of a technology you don't understand. You are basically a brainlet.
>hat doesn't mean that every potential second layer solution must be bad
Of course not. Bcash developers will just copy-paste what Core does and call it something different. After all, the problem with Core is that they don't suck Roger and Jihan's cock like they wanted them too, there is literally no other reason for the existence of bcash.

>I think you just made my point.
I didn't
> really is the opposite. I mean you are basically this guy back in 2006 right and you're bragging about this updated Symbian phone being like "hey guys this is the future! Put your wealth in Nokia shares. It will hold its value over time!".
I am saying that you need to stop pretending to be retarded and you have to give me an empirical evidence that there is any chance of Bitcoin being beaten by "better technology" anytime soon. Surely if that is true you would see glimpses of it in coins that already exist. No? Make examples or fuck off. You are a demoralization shill, straight out of the book.
>Then I am this guy who's a bit more sceptical being like "but isn't there a small possibilty that in the future something smarter will show up and replace this Symbian phone?"
I am dealing with reality here, I don't give a shit about your fantasy-world speculation
>Gold, silver and other metals have been on the market for thousands of years and never changed
Neither has technology, I told you already.
>There's no updates, there's no change in the precious metals market.
are you kidding me? There have been lots. Open some history books nigger.
>That's very different from technology, which is in a constant state of change
I told you already, technology does not change, you do not understand what technology is. Technology is simply added to other technology, it does not replace it. Bitcoin is itself a mix of things that already existed, only repackaged for a different purpose.
>I feel sorry for you for not understanding this, thinking that Bitcoin is the future. When it comes to technology, change is the norm.
I feel sorry for you, not having any good argument and desperately trying to damage control out of that. Now fuck off.

>The other cryptos don't have a value proposition as currencies that is superior to bitcoin. Most of them just claim more transaction output while sacrificing everything else. Again, you keep saying this but you don't make any actual examples because you know you would get absolutely BTFO. Stop wasting my time nigger.
Try imagine the follwoing: a smarter crypto comes around, that offers fast, cheap transaction while offering price stability. Is that really that hard to foresee?
>Bitcoin isn't a store of value because "technology", but only because of those features the technology achieves. Again, you are out of your depth here.
More like you are out of your depth. It's pretty obvious that you haven't thought this through at all.
(1) The idea that cryptos can ever be a store of value ignores how short lived technology is.
(2) If a crypto ever becomes a store of value, it will likely be the same crypto that is used for exchange. What is the likelyhood that this will be Bitcoin?
>Man you are so fucking retarded. All technology retains its value, shit is just built upon it so the value builds up. again, your dunning-kruger analysis is fucking cringe
That is a hilarious statement.
>Of course it has. Anybody who buys bitcoin sees inevitably their coins appreciate in value in the long term. The longer-term they hold, the higher the value goes. This is the history of BTC so far, it does not get more store of value than that.
That is the short lived history of Bitcoin thus far. But the price of Bitcoin isn't the same as value. That's what you and many others don't understand. And the question isn't whether Bitcoin has increased its price since it's inception, the question is if can sustain that value over time, given how technology is in a constant state of change, the idea it will is quite amusing.

>Literally every technology nigger. The wheel still has value to this day, there's a wheel in a lot of shit. You misunderstand everything, you are so fucking retarded. Furthermore, BTC isn't just technology, you can't reduce it to that alone.
Are you pretending to be this foolish? Can't you see that the Wheel of today isn't the same as the wheel of say 500bc, or 500ad or 1800, or 1950. It is constantly changing, replacing the old Tech with new. That is the undeniable truth.
>Stop throwing the same shit argument in many variants at me and simply tell me what coins you think beat BTC on a FUNDAMENTAL level or shut the fuck up, your arguments are completely shit otherwise.
It is amusing because you really prove my point by acting like a clown.

>Oh yeah then why the fuck are so many other chains pushing orders of magnitude more transactions than BTC?
They are doing so at the expense of other features that are far more important for Bitcoin, since it has the responsibility of holding the reputation of crypto as a whole on it's shoulders.
Financial markets can make billions of transactions per second. Why aren't you investing in the Dow Jones? You are such a brainlet
>HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, the autists here who express their constant disgust for 3d and preference for 2d would do well to use it then as a demonstration of why indeed 3d is all kinds of fucked up pajeet.
not an argument
>aborting babies is absolutely moral and beautiful = lightning network will be necessarily centralised. Right, got it, you don't like the conclusion so you feel you can choose to ignore it. You're wrong though, fuck yourself.
See? you keep ignoring the argument. The argument was that you are making an appeal to authority using a person that is biased becaue he is literally directly paid by Roger to shill bcash. That is retarded, just like you are.
>Which one am I?
You are a nobody
> really think absolutely everyone calling BTC on its bullshit is a Jihan or Roger sock puppet?
No, there are plenty of newfags like you that got brainwashed by the bullshit.
>ow about deploying occam's razor
Pot calling the kettle black
>nd every point you raise can be logically demolished with easily accessible proof
And yet no proof from you cuckboy
>espite the failed hijacking attempt currently identified as BTC.
Right, mr.Occam Razor again with the worldwide conspiracy against poor billionaires Jihan and Roger, buuuh-uuuh.
There is nothing in crypto that has a better value proposition than BTC, stop trying to weasel out of your retardation

>That post is 8 years old
but muh Whitepaper is a good argument? Nice cognitive dissonance nigger.
The point here is that the second-layer was already part of Bitcoin, it was always on the roadmap.

>Try imagine the follwoing: a smarter crypto comes around, that offers fast, cheap transaction while offering price stability. Is that really that hard to foresee?
Right now no such thing exists, so it's literally useless to argue about it. Even if it existed, it's value proposition would build on the store of value proposition that Bitcoin put forward it wouldn't replace it.
>(1) The idea that cryptos can ever be a store of value ignores how short lived technology is.
Already answered this, you misunderstand what technology is and what it means, you also misunderstand the relationship Bitcoin has with technology.
>(2) If a crypto ever becomes a store of value, it will likely be the same crypto that is used for exchange. What is the likelyhood that this will be Bitcoin?
It doesn't have to be the same crypto that is used for exchange, and Bitcoin is already that store of value coin.
>That is a hilarious statement.
t.man with no argument that got BTFO
>ut the price of Bitcoin isn't the same as value
When it comes to currencies, it is.
>given how technology is in a constant state of change, the idea it will is quite amusing.
I have already told you why this perspective is retarded. Are you fucking illiterate? stop repeating debunked nonsense nigger.

> Bitcoin was always supposed to have a second-layer.
Second layer is not necessarily lightning, Satoshi's original design for second layer was not centralised in the way lightning is, for example, this still evades the central point that BTC is flat out simply no longer peer to peer electronic cash as the original vision intended, end of story. There's no way around it, just deal with it.
> Nobody wants to limit transaction output for the sake of limiting it, it's only done out of technical reasons to preserve the complete value proposition of bitcoin
It's done for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with trustlessness, censorship resistance or decentralisation. Most obviously because it is directly in the interests of Blockstream's business plan that on chain transactions should be as limited as possible, also because it is directly in the interests of Blockstream's backers in the mainstream financial network that they should be able to re-establish workalikes in the Bitcoin space for their present bank presences, which is exactly what LN actually is.
> You do if you want to scale without compromising trustlessness, censorship-resistance and decentralization
Complete bullshit, for which not a shred of proof has ever been provided in any way, and not only this, but it has now been actually empirically proven false by every other fucking chain that is not so restricted not suddenly being subject to the kinds of problems the limit in question supposedly avoided. It is nothing but a lie to convince useful idiots like you to come out and shill for the position and spread your ignorance to others.
> The fact is, it was always know on-chain scaling would not work by itself
Satoshi says you're full of shit http:// www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014815.html
Other layers are only necessary when you start getting into extreme microtransactions, and only when the network is already at the limits of technical possibility.

> Bcash developers will just copy-paste what Core does
They can't copy-paste LN. They don't have segwit. And they can't copy that or they lose their precious ASICBoost.

>Can't you see that the Wheel of today isn't the same as the wheel of say 500bc, or 500ad or 1800, or 1950.
It is the same wheel, but technology is added on top of old technology. Things don't "change", they are added.
>It is constantly changing, replacing the old Tech with new. That is the undeniable truth.
Not at all. Everything is built on previous technology, there is no replacement because knowledge does not disappear, knowledge increases. When you learn how to drive a car you don't forget how to ride a bike. When you learrn how to make transistors smaller you don't forget how to make them bigger. You misunderstand what technology is, you are way out of your depth nigger.
>It is amusing because you really prove my point by acting like a clown.
ok so you admit there is no coin right now with a better value proposition and technology than Bitcoin, admission accepted.

>The fact that you keep repeating it does not make it true.
The fact that I provided a mathematical proof of it, and then demonstrated that it is empirically true, however, does. You on the other hand repeating "does not" does absolutely nothing except demonstrate you have no fucking idea what you're talking about even further.
> no other reason for the existence of bcash.
Except for that whole fucking peer to peer electronic cash thing which changed the world all those years ago, and is now being sabotaged by useless wastes of oxygen like yourself in the interests of deepthroating Blockstream and their coterie of cunts.

>Wrong, Bitcoin has value because it is decentralized and censorship-resistant.
So are plenty of other coins that do it better.
> It is digital gold.
You're digital dumb
>Ease and spees of transaction are of course important too, but they are not what makes Bitcoin different from literally everything that came before. It is a matter of priorities.
A matter of prioritizing blockstream's future profits from side chain services, yes.
>low IQ niggers
look in the mirror

>Second layer is not necessarily lightning, Satoshi's original design for second layer was not centralised in the way lightning is
There is no original design by Satoshi for the second layer. Payment channels when they become a protocol they become the LN. It's that simple.
>as the original vision intended
Hal Finney disagrees with you, and so does every cryptography expert in existence basically.
>ost obviously because it is directly in the interests of Blockstream's business plan that on chain transactions should be as limited as possible
Most retarded conspiracy theory ever. Blockstream does not control Core, there is just some overlapping because Blockstream was created by a couple of people who worked on Bitcoin before Blockstream was created (and who didn't stop working on Bitcoin because guess what, it's the same people as the beginning, there was no takeover or anything like that).
>f Blockstream's backers in the mainstream financial network that they should be able to re-establish workalikes in the Bitcoin space for their present bank presences, which is exactly what LN actually is.
Again, Hal Finney disagrees with you.
>Complete bullshit, for which not a shred of proof has ever been provided in any way
Oh it has, it's called science and mathematics
>it has now been actually empirically proven false by every other fucking chain that is not so restricted not suddenly being subject to the kinds of problems the limit in question supposedly avoided
Kryptokitties would like a word with you
>is nothing but a lie to convince useful idiots like you to come out and shill for the position and spread your ignorance to others.
how does that jewish cock taste, user?
>Satoshi says you're full of shit
Satoshi in 2010 disagrees with your satoshi in 2008 though

> They are doing so at the expense of other features that are far more important for Bitcoin
No they're not, provide one single shred of evidence that BTC is more decentralised than BCH. inb4 muh nodes, non mining nodes do fuck all, they listen to traffic, they do not validate transactions, take away mining nodes and the system is useless and grinds to a halt.
> The argument was
No it fucking wasn't, it was a mathematical proof that lightning must take this form, backed up by an empirical demonstration that lightning actually does take that form. Your "BUT I DON'T LIKE THE GUY WHO SAID IT" is of zero value in countering either of those, just give up fuckstick.
> No, there are plenty of newfags like you
Been here since the beginning, and only a complete newfag could be as thoroughly propagandised as you, you sound exactly like I'd expect someone to sound if their only source of information was /r/bitcoin, and you weren't around long enough to see the beginning of censoring every point of view that contradicted core.
> no proof
Every single thing I have stated has been backed up by proof, by contrast everything you have stated can be boiled down to "is not". I think you may not even understand what proof actually is.
> There is nothing in crypto that has a better value proposition than BTC
There is little in crypto that has a weaker value proposition than BTC. The BTC value proposition literally boils down to this "Everything else is pegged to this dogshit, so you better hold it while that's true or it will drain away your gains whenever anyone sells it down to its actual price". There is unironically nothing else.

>The fact that I provided a mathematical proof of it
Again, that is not a mathematical proof. For example I can say 2+2 = you're retarded. Look! Mathematical proof! That's how retarded you sound.
>and then demonstrated that it is empirically true
again, repeating it over and over won't make it true.
>ou on the other hand repeating "does not" does absolutely nothing except demonstrate you have no fucking idea what you're talking about even further.
I have proven that your appeal to authority is a fallacy. That donald guy is a literal shill paid by Roger and has no technical credentials. Nick Szabo, Zooko, and every other expert and impartial cryptographer agrees with Core on the issue of scaling.
>Except for that whole fucking peer to peer electronic cash thing
Paypal is also peer to peer electronic cash, wtf I love paypal now. You keep repeating talking points like the good pajeet you are although they have been debunked.
>s now being sabotaged by useless wastes of oxygen
yeah, bcash cucks like you
>n the interests of deepthroating Blockstream and their coterie of cunts.
Conspiracy theories are not arguments cuck

>So are plenty of other coins that do it better.
like what?
>You're digital dumb
If you say so nigger, as if your dumb opinion matters
>A matter of prioritizing blockstream's future profits from side chain services, yes.
proofs? The ones developing side chain are Rootstock, financed by Jihan directly and that clashed with Core developers.
>look in the mirror
I see a tall, handsome white man

So what you believe the official narrative for 9/11 too? No wonder he called you a waste of oxygen. Pack your bags folks and forget everything youve ever learned on /pol/. It was just "conspiracy theory" and therefore can't be true according to this genius.

>No they're not, provide one single shred of evidence that BTC is more decentralised than BCH.
I has been attacked by a lot of corporate interests willing to fork and held its own through sheer consensus. That alone is proof. Not even organized chinese mining cartels could bring it down and change its rules to fit the wishes of a powerful few. It's beautiful.
>No it fucking wasn't, it was a mathematical proof that lightning must take this form, backed up by an empirical demonstration that lightning actually does take that form
Again, you keep repeating a refuted argument. Are you actually retarded?
>Your "BUT I DON'T LIKE THE GUY WHO SAID IT" is of zero value in countering either of those, just give up fuckstick.
I am sorry but appeals to a biased authority are fallacious and not an argument whether you like it or not. As I said impartial people who are experts of the field all agree with Core about how to scale.
>Been here since the beginning,
t.newfag
>Every single thing I have stated has been backed up by proof
literally the opposite
>by contrast everything you have stated can be boiled down to "is not".
literally the opposite
>There is little in crypto that has a weaker value proposition than BTC.
Wrong.
>"Everything else is pegged to this dogshit, so you better hold it while that's true or it will drain away your gains whenever anyone sells it down to its actual price"
That is not why BTC is valuable, that is why YOU claim that BTC is valuable because you misunderstand why BTC is valuable.
>There is unironically nothing else.
spoken like a true shill brainlet

Stop kvetching shlomo, nobody gives a shit about your hurt kike feelings