Anyone else sick of retarded BCash (BCH) shills all over Veeky Forums...

They're both shit, cashies and cories please kys.

Non-mining nodes don't do much 2bh. Actually too many non-mining nodes can be harmful

And tell me how your shitcoin is better faggot?

Wrong, how do you independently validate transactions as a merchants without a full node?

BlockStream FUD

All founder devs of Bitcoin Gavin, Satoshi (Craig), etc. are now developing BCH

>as a merchant

Yeah, only merchants need to run nodes. Users don't

you dont understand how bitcoin works then.

miners are the janitors of the network. they get paid as long as they're cleaning the right building. they can go and clean some other building if they want, but we're not paying them for it, and they either starve, or come back home.

Merchant is shorthand for anyone receiving incoming transactions. Nice irrelevant strawman and in fact you're arguing against yourself without realizing it. Indeed, anyone receiving BTC should be running a full node even if it's non-mining.

you don't need a full node, you just need the merkle tree to prove a transaction is in a block without having the whole 150 GB

talking of nodes is missing the point anyway. miners mine because they get paid. nobody is going to start paying bitcoin prices for an altcoin.

Disclaimer: I don't hold any of these but for P2P payment: Ethereum, Stellar, Ripple, Icon, Nano, hell even Dogecoin, and Litecoin blow your legacy shitcoins out of the water.

The only reason you should invest in bitcoin is for speculation or to not get raped in a bear market. The only reason Bitcoin is still a thing is because it's the first mover, that's it. It's an abomination and it will die once crypto gets fiat pairing.

Have fun with your marginal gains you brainlet.

that's how ethereum works, but bitcoin doesn't have that luxury, you still need to download that 150gb at some point, even if you dont keep a local copy.

Yeah that definitely prevents double spending user /s

>Merchant is shorthand for anyone receiving incoming transactions

That's stupid. How does forcing everyone to run nodes strengthen the network? Only hashpower leads to security. It's unnecessary to have a billion nodes and could lead to sybil attacks.

Plus, even if Nodes can notice fraudulent activity by miners, it can't do anything to stop it. Miners decide what goes in each block. 1 miner and 10,000,000 nodes is still completely controlled by the 1 miner

Easy ---

1. Run an SPV client which downloads the full blockchain headers (~50 MB, independent of block size!). With SPV it is impossible to fake confirmed transactions that are merkle leaves of the blockchain.

2. If you really want to accept zero confirmation then running a full node is not enough -- you need to consult a multi-node prober like blockcypher to check that the whole network has the same tx in the mempool.

All the shitcoins dedicated to speed alone through increased centralization and 51% attack risk due to increased block size and lower difficulty will die once LN gains mainstream adoption user because their claim to fame isn't unique anymore

the reason bitcoin is still a thing is because every single early adopter and influencer owns some, late adopters wish for those gains, but the reality is that's all they're thinking about, speculation.

they can't accept the fact that early adopters, whales, smart institutional money will be pushing for lightning, because they already have huge bitcoin positions, and have no reason to pump some shitcoin with theoretical scalability so they can make a short to midterm play.

Funny. Satoshi would have supported bch.

hashpower is security against 51% reorganization or tx dos attacks, that's all.

for protecting against everything else, you need validating nodes.

Individual end-users running their own non-mining full nodes does not cause sybil attacks user

And invalid blocks are rejected user, merchants running their own non-mining full node is how they detect invalid blocks instead of relying on third party authorities to tell them whether their transactions went through validly.

Do you even understand what you're talking about? You need 51% of the network's hashrate to attempt double spending. One single merchant cannot cause double spending, neither does he need a full node. A light node is sufficient. Full nodes are for miners validating the network. Running a full node as a standard user is completely pointless, you have such an insignificant amount of hashing power you contribute nothing to the network. In fact, a non-mining full node is more detrimental to the network than beneficial.

Naw dawg , bitcoins value comes from it's robust, secure, proven network.

your late adopter is showing. the chinks had to literally undo protections satoshi built into bitcoin to let their alt survive.

coincidentally they also opened up an attack vector that made bch very very profitable for them, but i'm sure that wasn't intentional.

No, Satoshi designed for Lightning Network style second-layer solutions ahead of time user.

lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-April/002417.html

>do these idiots not realize that the point is so any merchant can run their own full node and validate any incoming transaction to limit the effectiveness of double spending and network partition attacks?

Lol he was talking about basic bitch payment channels (which both BCH and BTC have, by the way), not lightning network.

>april 2013
that's not satoshi, since he disappeared in 2010

Do YOU even understand what you're talking about? How exact does an end-user validate that their incoming transactions are valid and confirmed without running their own full-node? Through trusting third-party authorities - their peers. Which can be malicious

Craig wright supports bitcoin cash you muppet

Nodes don't protect you from anything, dipshit. If miners want to fuck you they can fuck you. It's not like you can fight back against them with your non-mining node. Having a full node just makes you more aware of your coins being double spent.

Of course, miners have no economic incentive to destroy the blockchain

Oh boy another thread where core cucks pretend they know what they're talking about, but just continue to show us they're clueless brainwashed idiots. Listen, BCH is Bitcoin, not BTC. All the fundamentals are lined up in its favor. Educate yourself without getting all your information from the Theymos controlled echo chambers and maybe you'll manage to get off the sinking ship in time.

given that the most important part of any decentralized network is it's lowest layer, yes, you need to be able to trust it.

you can't flip a bch and turn the base layer into a hugely demanding network and then expect to add decentralization on top, thats not how decentralization works.

read my post. i outlined everything miners can do. you seem to be confused.

>I don't understand block headers and merkle trees. I have no idea about SPV which existed from the very start.

Craig Weight is a fake you fucking cuck

>Having a full node just makes you more aware of your coins being double spent.
No shit retard that's the point?

This. Decentralization on the bottom layer is of utmost importance. On second layers it is less relevant because it gains the decentralized properties of the base layer through delayed Lightning Network state settlement

lightning network is even better than what he envisioned, Roger.

What do you think a blockchain is? The network validates the transactions, it's not done by a single user.

Please outline in the white paper what exactly Non-mining nodes are supposed to do. Please, you're beyond fucking stupid.

Plus, only MINERS have an incentive to be trustworthy. They're the ones investing into the blockchain. Why would a non-mining node have any fucking reason to relay trustful transactions? They spent like, what, $20 on a node? I'd rather connect to an honest miner.

Kys

please, you're just embarrassing yourself. it's always the same tired arguments from you late adopters, it's either about trying to catch up to us early adopters in gains, or having some kind of vendetta against those that are already rich, and wanting to take those bitcoin holders down.

there's no technical reason for bch's existence, no matter how hard you look, or how much backstopping you do. bch was a miner invention from the start.

>Merkle Trees give mempool info
kys

>X is Y

>Let's increase the block size and prevent the majority of users from running a full node, which is the entire point of cryptocurrency - one of the primary security methods afforded to the network

Oh no, it's retarded. Unless you're a mining node, you do LITERALLY nothing.

>Of course, miners have no economic incentive to destroy the blockchain
Which is why miners can't fuck anyone but themselves if they don't behave.

Lol what makes you believe so? Of course the cunt kept it ambiguous. Hes a target otherwise. Hes in perfect place where people know he is but no official proof.

No shit, bigger blocks = more centralization. No one is arguing against that. But with BTC you have transactions offloaded to off chain, centralized servers like coinbase, etc. If LN actually works and allows for off chain transactions to be secure then that's obviously the best solution but a lot of people doubt it will work. That's we have BCH to sell to them if they don't know about other altcoins that are much faster.

the non mining nodes prevent the now centralized mining operations from being able to do whatever they want, and getting away with it.

they can't simply start mining an altcoin, and trying to force feed it to users as bitcoin, because nobody else checks them on their bullshit.

they start changing the protocol, and exchanges reject their coins, wallets reject their coins, payment processors reject their coins, etc.

you should really think for yourself instead of eating up the shit being force fed to you.

the days of 1 cpu = 1 vote are long over. bch had a chance fo fix that, they didn't, instead they took out the straw man, and their crops got eaten.

> "It may contain payments by multiple parties."
>~Satoshi
na he's pretty clearly not talking about basic bitch payment channels.
what he's talking about is not possible on bch.

Craig wright isn't Satoshi
Not surprising bcashies believe this shit though

That's the purpose of the PoW. Miners invest in mining rigs in a sort of arms race to secure hash power, making the network more secure in the process.

A non-mining node user has no reason to invest into his node. Why? It doesn't MINE anything. It doesn't compete with anything. Simple fucking shit in the whitepaper

>Nobody uses BCH so the fact that it's centralized doesn't matter as much
KYS retard. It's easier to not have scaling problems when you don't have scale

>A non-mining node user has no reason to invest into his node
You're a fucking idiot. The benefit of the non-mining node a user is running is TO THE USER first and foremost, not to the network. P2P block propagation is just an added benefit

Friendly reminder that no one fuds shitcoins that are destined to do nothing. No one cares about them and they fade into nothing. BCH on the other hand gets more fud than anything else, even link. Either some people are very scared of it, or they want to keep accumulating.

>"Hurr we don't care about raspberry pi full nodes" do these idiots not realize that the point is so any merchant can run their own full node and validate any incoming transaction to limit the effectiveness of double spending and network partition attacks?
Sure they can validate on-chain transactions but what does this matter if there is no room in the blocks for these transacctions and when fees makes it too expensive to make these transactions? What does it matter if a merchant can run their own node if most transactions are made off-chain anyway? How it is useful for them to store something that is just a settlement layer.
Even if the blocks were 150mb small business owners could store the new transactions. It would require 8tb/year. That's around $150. Having visa support is much more expensive than that so it is very affordable.

What economic incentive does a user have to use a non mining full node? Economic incentives are all that matter here, not some hand wavy "BECAUSE THE USER WANTS TO" bullshit

>TO THE USER first and foremost,

Meh, it's unnecessary. Only merchants need it for 0 Conf.

nah, most of it comes from those that missed out, and either have something against the now rich bitcoin early adopters, or are trying to make a quick buck expecting bch to somehow overtake bitcoin based on name appropriation alone.

bitbean got a lot of shit too.

>bcash is dead
For the 100000000th time yet its still here kek must frustrate the hell out of you op

the mempool of a single non-mining node proves nothing either

The flippening is going to happen and there's nothing, corecucks can do about it. The money is flowing from BTC to BCH and it's not coming back. After you take the redpill there's no going back. This trend will accelerate once BCH/BTC is over 0.2.

Which is hilarious, because BTC no longer supports 0-conf, instead it uses the worse replace-by-fee (RBF) causing a race to the bottom with ever increasingly sat/b fees. But even that doesn't matter because merchants are ditching BTC support and BTC's transaction per day are at a 2 year low.

That describes people who invest in every alt, desu. BCH is here to stay, and BTC shills are going to be posting btrash threads until the very end. Honestly, the more fud I see, the brighter I see BCH's future.

What the fuck are you even talking about? There's no money flowing from BTC to BCH

coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/

but that's not happening. the volume for bch is hugely korean speculators. no institutions have any interest in bcash, no whales other than those looking for power, like ver, and those simply looking to take a political position against bitcoin, like coinbase, or the chinks.

all that bch is doing is accelerating brain drain towards ethereum.

Kek has willed it

when was the last time you started a full node?
i'd invite you to try it out.

actually august 2017 was lower still, and imagine that, it hit an all time high after that.
tell me why I should put much weight on that?

the miners killed 0conf when they started picking and choosing transactions based on fee instead of time. RBF formalizes something that the miners had already been doing.

there's no way to make 0conf transactions secure. a 0conf tx is orders of magnitude less secure than a second layer transaction, and yet bch fanboys seem to have such a huge problem with the latter, and mourn the former.

maybe bch is here to stay, i don't know, which is why i still haven't sold any of my airdrop. i do know though that the perception of bch is entirely different to the perception of bitcoin, and you will find very very few people that prefer bch over bitcoin, and don't also prefer ethereum over both.

corecucks, please disprove this

>ln is not peer-to-peer
do you guys even understand the words you throw around?

corecucks don't have arguments. They're wrapped in double think and expose simple misunderstandings about how bitcoin operates

>when was the last time you started a full node?
>i'd invite you to try it out.
It is times like these where sadly remember that my Molyneux-folder got destroyed 'cause that's not an argument

so never then because you'd understand the argument if you have.
go ahead and try it out big fella.

>BCH HAS CASH IN ITS NAME SO IT'S CASH AND BITCOIN ISN'T
Go invest in IQ and KYS

this coming from the late adopter who thinks users have no need to run a non-mining node. you realize you guys are a laughing stock to all the early adopters and whales out there, right?

if you're going to pick an alt, at least pick one with legs.

no you dumb fuck, BTC cant act as cash because the fees are too high. Jesus christ, you are thick as shit

>a 0conf tx is orders of magnitude less secure than a second layer transaction
This is entirely false. An on-chain transaction is by default more secure than an off-chain transaction. 0-conf transactions are meant to be small value transactions. It'd cost you far more money to attempt to double spend a small value 0-conf transaction. Also, miners don't release Bitcoin Core updates, Blockstream does. They killed 0-conf.

Satoshi was the earliest of early adopters and he thought users didn't need to run a full-node. I'm not saying it's wrong or right to run a full node just because he said it, but your statement is wrong

That's not because of BTC itself, that's because it's so heavily used. BCH only has lower fees because they traded decentralization for lower fees you fucking retard. Let's see who has lower fees when BTC's Lightning Network usage picks up and BCH is unable to ever implement it because they have NO dev team and because they didn't implement segwit, in order to help Jihan Wu continue making profit off his ASICBoost-utilizing hardware

You're so fucking stupid and you are incapable of looking at the situation from every angle

The battle is over and Segwit and the boys lost they just dont know it yet.

>what is a SPV wallet

Prediction: LN will not be released for general use in 2018 or 2019.
You can remind me if you think im wrong and if you believe in core's vaporware.

Do you even fucking know what 0-conf is? 0-conf is not on-chain, and off-chain is not necessarily less secure than on-chain with the right signing mechanisms and on-chain settlement techniques - coincidentally exactly what LN uses. Even LN is more secure than 0-conf.

For all the retards arguing about "Satoshi this Satoshi that ...", literally just go read his second email:

satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

This sounds like some Trumpian rant, I see no technical discussion there. Why am I even talking to you low-IQ morons. Let's see if BCash exists in 5 years retard.

I don't understand the "argument" that you appeal to accomplishment.
Now we say that I have actually run several full nodes. Make your case then you imbecil.

But first: tell me if you have ever build a crypto currency from the bottom because else your opinion on them are worthless. Have you ever been a merchant? Have you ever met Jihan? How do you know if he's really Chinese? Check mate faggot

>peer to peer
BCash is peer to (((corporation running nodes))) to peer, so not peer to peer, and certainly not cash.

That was back when he was still in defensive-justification-of-BTC-scaling-ability mode, this was not actually his long-term plan, as evidenced by his ahead of time planning for Lightning-Network-like second layer solutions to exist by adding the necessary script opcode

Im into BCH for the pumpz
Wish me luck.Gonna all in today. Shit's extr low, Im feelin lucky

>existing software
>vaporware

You can't see why some bank or large retail store would like the ability to validate transactions? Really?

Kys cashie

Exactly, but to further the point, it's not about them - they could run expensive nodes with good hardware and bandwidth. It's about poor people being able to validate their own transactions.