This triggers the redditor

Seriously everyone hates on Roger Verge but he seems like a cool guy to me. Perhaps even... /ourguy/.

>bcash shills show up 2 days ago and try to reverse psychology everyone into thinking they're not from reddit
How can they be from reddit when reddit bans them? Honest question.

I would unironically go all in on bcash if I weren't all in on a better coin.

I wonder what it is like to lack any emotional control whatsoever

Bcash is the kikest of all coins. Go kike yourself, kike.

Think again.

i'm not gay but I could probably be negotiated with enough BCH lol

>Think again.
Ok, if BCH supporters aren't allowed on reddit that means you're the reddit fag. Thanks for the tip!

pretty sure you can't discuss bitcoin on /r/btc, so why the fuck would they want to hear your toxic bcash shilling on /r/bitcoin? The repetitive copypastas don't change anything, it's not fucking bitcoin, if it was, it would be called BTC. Just name it something else or stop shilling like fucktards and actually make improvements to the protocol, maybe you'll start seeing adoption. At this point you might as well just start another fork because the reputation of cash is tainted from all the sleazy shilling.

>pretty sure you can't discuss bitcoin on /r/btc
I'm pretty sure you've never been there then. When Doug Polk made his anti-Roger Ver video he was allowed on r/btc and was the top post for a few days running. You should try and get out of your echo chamber bud.

saging all replies
I don't use reddit nigger, and Veeky Forums shits on btc anyway, hardly an echo chamber here. pointless replying to you guys because youre like a cult.

also if he wasn't a raging autist

I love how you insist on calling it Bcash because you can't make arguments against it.

I don't even own BTC or BCH and I think it's laughable how hard BTC maximalists cling to it. BCH is clearly the better of the two products, and clearly is closer to the original whitepaper.

People have so much money tied to BTC they can't admit that the writing is on the wall.

I think the whole BTC/BCH thing is too nuclear to touch, which is the reason I don't hold either - but I hope BCH usurps BTC so you mouthbreaths that scream ROAGER VEER IS A FAGIT I HAET BCASH lose all your money.

go away

bcash is the best crypto to actually do business in long term, but completely useless for someone that doesn't run a business that accepts crypto.

I won't even pretend to understand what's going on in this thread but I know one thing: bitcoin maximalists are fucking retarded.

literally this
they come in waves

>Criticising someone for being a raging autist
>ON Veeky Forums
>///OUT/

>>>/OUT/
i'm drunk not a newfag

BILLIONAIRE
Doesn't give a shit about redditors.

I don't need to provide arguments against it, you're the ones shilling it. I just don't use it. If people have money tied up in BTC so what? Bcash is a currency, so what difference does it make what people have in Bitcoin? They can just trade or buy bcash when they want to use it. This is why your shilling is absolute cancer. It's an attempt to steal the name because YOU bought in late. You want bcash to have the value bitcoin does, but instead of growing it like Bitcoin did, you're just trying to steal it.

not gonna lie he hadsome...no homo

redditor here

can anyone explain this meme to me?

edit: thanks for the gold kind stranger!

>tfw you never be this chad

>how many girls you think he's fucked?
I'd say under a 100 because he's a sweetheart and falls in love easy

his voice and persona is really beta though lol
DONT CALL IT B CASH REEEEEE

Most bch shills have been here since early aug. I don't make threads about it because it's very simple, I fucking hate the liberal infestation of biz and I want you all to fucking leave. I wouldn't give honest advice on this board unless at gunpoint.

Can someone point me to the equivalent of this pathetic bullshit right here:
bcash.lol/

I never see BCH cry as hard as BTC about this shit.

"its called bitcoin cash and don't you forget the bitcoin part or I'll get emotional and tell you how much richer I am than you"

Haha you altcoin fags are a riot

I've never seen video of him, I should watch the google talk where he flips out. So what's the deal I thought BCH was a bunch of chinese guys? Why do they have him as a front runner? Or is that the joke.

alright, lets hear it

Bcash

youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI&t=69s

>pointless replying to you guys because youre like a cult.
You mean when you get replies you realize how retarded you are. You literally make shit up and then when you get called out on it you have a temper tantrum. YOU ARE REDDIT. (Or Tumblr)

>ITS AN ATTACK! ITS FUD ORGANIZED BY ROGER VER! BITCOIN WAS MADE TO BE A STORE OF VALUE! BCASH HAHA GOTTEM!
what the fuck is wrong with redditors

>read my lips
Dammit........ What a fag.

Why would anyone want the bitcoin name now that its just a joke in the crypto world. Bitcoin is an old slow piece of shit. Cash is barely better because no one uses the pile of shit.

Bcash is a shitcoin that has a deluded cult who defraud newcomers by saying "Bcash is Bitcoin".

It's obvious you're part of that cult, I can see how triggered you are faggit. Bcash bcash bcash bcash.

Very sad an aesthetic face would be wasted on such a faggot. That guy interviewing him was a bro though.

If we're being honest, "bitcoin" ceased to exist when the fork happened. Now there is Bitcoin core (Blocksteam), and Bitcoin cash.

>this site exists
>those maymays

Blumpf btfo

kek

It's called Bitcoin, not Bitcoin Core. 20% of hashing power that forked Bcash isn't majority consensus, so Bcash is a shitcoin. Educate yourself faggot.

reddit.com/r/BitcoinExplained/comments/7wf67x/bitcoin_explained_006_is_it_bitcoin_or_is_it/

reddit.com/r/BitcoinExplained/comments/7ncy9q/bitcoin_explained_003_why_cant_we_just_raise_the/

You're obviously not going to read either one because you and your cult are braindead faggits that like to hear each the echo of sucking each others dicks.

Isn't it true that they changed the fundamentals of the coin so that it no longer resembles the original bitcoin though?

Wouldn't that mean that when the fork happened, neither coin has rightful claim to being actual "bitcoin" one being bitcoin core, and the other being bitcoin cash?

I'm actually new to the scandal, and trying to understand it, but so far I only see BTC people getting emotional about it, and BCH people offer explanation. So at this time I'm inclined to believe that BCH more closely represents what Bitcoin was.

I'll read your links though.

UASF isn't consensus either and everyone knew itd cause a chainsplit. Hence why were here today.

I didn't criticize him for it I just said he would fuck more if he wasn't you newfaggot fuck

Also..do you hate the outdoors you newfaggot fuck? Why? There are wonderful experiences to be had in nature.
see now you realize it's ok brother

I don't hate the "outdoors" I actually love nature. I do hate these cunts that drive around in pickup trucks, they always have to drive 20 mph faster than everyone else. God I hate them so fucking much.

I guess it could also be called Bitcoin Segwit but that has a really bad ring to it.

Adoption keeps rising even in this bear market. Meanwhile Bitcoin Segwits average transactions are at 1/3 what they peaked at during the bull run a few months ago.

>Bcore faggots this mad

Obvious Bcash shill is detected when you refer to Bitcoin as "Bitcoin Core". FYI, Satoshi is the one who reduced the blocksize limit to 1mb.

> Wouldn't that mean that when the fork happened, neither coin has rightful claim to being actual "bitcoin" one being bitcoin core, and the other being bitcoin cash?

The majority consensus is the one that has the rightful claim. Bcash forked away from Bitcoin. Bitcoin remained the same.

Try reading the reddit posts I linked and you'll learn something if you weren't part of the deluded Bcash cult.

Moron, segwit was a soft-fork. It's optional. It is also the better solution to optimize transactions first before increasing blocksizes.

Firstly they make the argument that you need nodes to validate transactions and if that's the case then you can't do lightning because lightning transactions are off-chain meaning no one validates them. Secondly they say current bandwidth usage is near 40GB per day, but the majority of that is getting nodes caught up for people who only come online every once in awhile. These nodes that only run once in awhile don't really help the network and if you aren't communicating with them then you cut the bandwidth by a factor of 50 or so. Also Gavin Andresen is coming out with a way to sync to the current block in a few minutes, and if you do it that way the bandwidth used by old nodes catching up new nodes is reduced by a factor of about 50 or so. The rest of this post doesn't really say much unless you are super new to Bitcoin so doesn't really need addressed. The last point is that calling Bitcoin Core a smear name, which is also true of BCash which you repeatedly use. The true name for Bitcoin Core is Bitcoin Segwit as it is the version of Bitcoin that uses the Segwit protocol. These posts are literally basic bitch level issues that aren't really important. Step up your game.

>Segwit transactions are put into an immuitble ledger
>optional

Yo man, stop attacking me for trying to understand the problem. You complain just as much about trivial name bullshit as you claim bitcoin cash people do.

I actually read both of your links. I wont touch on the first one and the things about i that raise my eyebrow, I'll just move to the second one.
In it they talk about the lightning network that:
>allows you to tie your bitcoin on-chain into an off-chain balance that can be transmitted instantly and with a negligible fee.
This seems completely different than what Bitcoin is supposed to be, does it not? Am I missing something here?

They also use poor third world folks for one of their arguments, and boogyman government as a second argument. And they never explain why the average user needs to be a full node in the first place. What good is a node without hash power anyway? Serious questions.

>Obvious Bcash shill is detected when you refer to Bitcoin as "Bitcoin Core"
Do you not see the hypocritical nature of your post here? Do you?
>FYI, Satoshi is the one who reduced the blocksize limit to 1mb.
He did that as a way to stop spam attacks when the average block size was 1KB and he even gave instructions on how to raise it when the block size was reaching the limit. bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1391350.0
>The majority consensus is the one that has the rightful claim.
Segwit got the consensus of full nodes, not of miners. Miners were always the ones to make changes and the ones from which consensus was gathered. Its quite deceitful to claim Bitcoin Segwit achieved consensus when they didn't use the standard protocol to achieve consensus.
>Try reading the reddit posts I linked and you'll learn something if you weren't part of the deluded Bcash cult.
I read your posts and there are many inaccuracies, chief of which is the fact that the only reason bandwidth is so high is because most full nodes aren't online all the time so it takes a lot of bandwidth to catch them up. Gavin Andresen is fixing this through and that will make the bandwidth requirements of running a full node minimal. bitsonline.com/gavin-andresen-new-utxo-proposal/

Also your posts you linked keep saying that those who call Bitcoin Segwit Bitcoin Core are engaging in a smear campaign. So that means so are you when you call Bitcoin Cash BCash. Finally the only other real point in the reddit posts you mentioned were the fact that with large blocks you won't have nodes validating transactions which is laughable considering that none of the transactions on the Lightning Network get validated.

TL;DR all of the points in your posts and reddit articles are misleading or simply incorrect and you should do your research.

>none of the transactions on the Lightning Network get validated.
This is exactly what I was getting at. If a bitcoin fork does this, can it even still be called bitcoin in the first place? What's the fucking point if it has off-chain transactions? I genuinely don't understand.

Who is this?

>What's the fucking point if it has off-chain transactions?
To remove the peer to peer aspect of crypto and enforce KYC regulation on Lightning nodes.

>They also use poor third world folks for one of their arguments, and boogyman government as a second argument. And they never explain why the average user needs to be a full node in the first place. What good is a node without hash power anyway? Serious questions.
I'll answer your questions since he won't. There's a couple of things. Firstly if Gavin Andresen implements this fix (bitsonline.com/gavin-andresen-new-utxo-proposal/) the bandwidth requirements of running a full node drop exponentially, that's right exponentially. Most bandwidth comes from getting old nodes that are usually offline caught up and resynced. So bandwidth isn't an issue. Secondly you still can have poor people run nodes with current technology to a level that surpasses VISA who averages 2,000 tx/s. Check this video (youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M). The gist of the video is that currently a 4 core processor can do 100 tx/s and after they work out the kinks on parrallel transaction processing (they have this ready on testnet just not mainnet) you can do 400 tx/s. They also believe they can update the Satoshi client and make it about 5 times more efficient meaning a 4 core machine can do around 2000 tx/s. This updating of the Satoshi client will take longer (probably years) and the upgrades will be in increments, not all at once. I just built a gaming computer with 6 cores meaning I could do 3,000 tx/s in a couple of years which is 50% more than VISA does on average. Including Windows 10 my gaming computer was just under $1500 so scaling to VISA level doesn't price out low-income hobbyists, that is a complete lie. You could buy a cheap graphics card, monitor, keyboard, mouse, motherboard, and power supply and get the price of running a node that handles 3,000 tx/s to $1000 or less. Finally you are correct that average users don't need full nodes, SPV is completely secure with large block sizes.

Just to add I think you need 16GB of RAM to be a full node in the scenario I described. I wanted to be clear that the hardware you need isn't all that high-tech or expensive.

So.... The OPPOSITE of what crypto currency is supposed to be then? So we're basically saying this thing not only isn't bitcoin anymore, but it's antithetical to bitcoin / blockchain technology??

I'm sorry I'm really new to this stuff, but I AM reading shit, and I'm having a hard time understanding how this coin ended up maintaining the "Bitcoin" name in the first place...

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what would be the benefit to me personally if I decided I wanted to run a Node but not a mining node (since this is basically outside of any reasonable hobbyists reach at this point)?

Or do full nodes always act as miners, and I would just need to join a pool or something to reap some fraction of tx fees?

Blind faith in Core, also UASF isn't consensus so Segwit activation was a violation of protocol anyway.

I've learned more about bitcoin in the past 6 months than I have in the past 4 years. The only good that came from Blockstream completely fucking bitcoin up is it made people realize they need to be more vigilante.

The only thing a non mining full node can do is verify consensus rules are being followed. They have absolutely no ability to enforce them, that requires hashpower.

An analogy for full nodes is like watching football on tv. You can see the game being played, but you have no impact on the game itself.

dont put that fucking moron in with us

>UASF
>user-activated soft fork
This was the Segwit fork, which presumably hasn't been adopted by a majority of miners?

>The only good that came from Blockstream completely fucking bitcoin up is it made people realize they need to be more vigilante.
I was honestly sticking to ETH when I first got in because I just felt like the bitcoin shit was a meme at this point with so many forks... But then I started hearing these arguments about BTC vs BCH and I saw this guy's videos:
youtube.com/channel/UCMpAklXQxme_wZi3sdHdHVQ
And really started to get interested, so I think you're totally right. I'm thinking about getting a node going, but I don't want to do it if I'm going to be operating at a loss.
And it sounds like there's only ideological benefit, which is nice, but I'm not running a charity here.

mixergy.com/interviews/bitcoin-with-roger-ver/

In the early days of Bitcoin when most people didn’t understand it or believe in its future, today’s guest decided that he was going to accept it as a real way for people to pay.

As a result he got into Bitcoin before most people even knew about it. He has built up a reputation and businesses in the Bitcoin world.

Roger Ver is the founder of Bitcoin.com, where you can go to learn about Bitcoin and get a free wallet.

Full Nodes are slightly more secure than SPV. SPV nodes can be overpowered if an attacker controls all nodes that your node is connected to and also performs a 51% attack. This attack doesn't work on full nodes. That being said performing a 51% attack takes billions of dollars and even if your node connects to one honest node the attack fails. So running a node is slightly more secure. Also if you ever want to offer financial services (like that of a bank) to people who don't even want to use SPV you can learn the ins and outs of running a full node and then try and think of entrepreneurial ways to apply your skills. But if you don't plan on becoming a crypto entrepreneur there aren't many benefits as the security benefits are slim

>Wants newcomers
Fuck off you fucking norman