Andreas Antonopoulos harassing Bitcoin Cash supporters

found this on /r/btc.

Attached: 1501515248652.png (755x643, 92K)

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY
youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

Looks pretty civilized to me
They're both shit, though. It's a monopoly in development vs a monopoly in mining

Andreas Antonopoulos seems like deluded butthurt child.

>march 2017

everyone can make a fork, everyone can refuse to use the monopoly client
not everyone can conjure millions of dollars for a mining equipment

Nano gonna bitch slap both camps soon.

Dude is a faggot sjw. Couldn't care less what this little cuck thinks.

can't even run a node without everyone losing their money

But Nano has exactly the same transaction size as Bitcoin Cash meaning it will draw the same resources from its nodes. If people think Bitcoin Cash won't have enough nodes even though it pays its nodes through mining then what makes you think anyone will think Nano will scale when there is no payment to nodes. How does Nano scale better than Bitcoin Cash for the full historical nodes?

>Harassing

Attached: image.png (1190x906, 178K)

Attached: outsideinsidejob.png (432x454, 268K)

yeah and the entire US army can just suddenly decide, at the same time, to stop obeying orders too
it's all very possible

He’s an SJW too if you check out his twitter so your position is supported by that, big time.

because bitcoin crash needs 10,000 historical nodes whereas nano needs maybe 20 for redundancy.
seeing as the cost to run a historical node will top out at a few thousand dollars a year they could survive on donations or charge a fee for resolving disputes.

What's easier to pay, $10 million in storage costs or $20,000? come on crashie, i know you can do it.

he basically called him a retard then blocked him

nano is just money though

banking is a several trillion dollar industry
anyone who falls for the utility meme deserves to lose out on the gains.
and besides, all the utility tokens are built on ETH which is a currency that needs to scale to succeed.

i'm glad people are braindead though because i make lots of money getting in on shit before them.

you're delusional

well, that was a pathetic response

>harassing
Sounds like a reasonable person taking his time to explain basic facts to a complete brainlet.

see

Can't wait until Roger's paid shills get bitten in the fucking neck for trying to co opt the alt right for shilling a deep state scheme like bcrash.

You dumb fucks are messing with something you severely misunderstand, and are no better than the rest of shariablue shills. Species treachery is a karmicaly punishable offense

You are a strange person

Lol are you fucking kidding me? I’m not really any more a fan of bcash than I am of BTC. I think they’ll both serve a purpose in the future but not everyone you disagree with is a paid shill. You sound like the sjw losers who can’t get over trump losing. Everyone they disagree with online is a Russian bot. Fucking kek. Anyway Andreas is a sjw, it’s all over his twitter.

U Mad?

>F U C K I N G
>L I V I D

cashies are so pathetic. not a single response

deflect deflect deflect, sling SJW around... that'll do it... SJW... deflect... SJW... deflect

>Andreas Antonopoulos harassing Bitcoin Cash supporters
I'll fix the title for you:
>Andreas Antonopoulos replies quite civilly to someone questioning his views.

>because bitcoin crash needs 10,000 historical nodes whereas nano needs maybe 20 for redundancy. What if attackers own those 20? If it uses some sort of POS then what if the developers or early adopters who hold the majority are incompetent? The system would fail with so few historical nodes.

(Updated and Corrected Reply)
>because bitcoin crash needs 10,000 historical nodes whereas nano needs maybe 20 for redundancy.
What if attackers own those 20? If it uses some sort of POS then what if the developers or early adopters who hold the majority are incompetent? The system would fail with so few historical nodes.

Good, if htere's anyone who deserves to be harassed...

btc merchant adoption is shrinking bch adoption is growing.
Btc's replace by fee makes 0 confirmation transactions 100% unsafe.
There is not a single reason to cap blocks at 1mb (non mining nodes do nothing).
Segwit destroys the mining nash equilibrium incentivising the collusion of miners to change the UTXO without owners signatures. m.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY You can only trust jihan and roger to not be doing this right now.
BTC is vulnerable to a chain death spiral BCH is not.
Why introduce segwit before a blocksize increase when lightning network requires 133mb as specified in the lightning network whitepaper?
why introduce segwit at all when it is not necessary for second layer solutions?
lightning network will not be decentralized because to solve decentralise routing in a mesh network is NP hard.
why would anyone want lightning network when it is not a decentralised ledger? the whole point of bitcoin is to scale on chain as that is what makes decentralised uncensorable money which can free all the people in the world from the financial repression of central banks.

>I IDENTIFY AS BITCOIN CASH
>DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY TERMINOLOGY?
>DONT YOU DARE CALL BE BCASH SHITLORD

bcash cucks are fucking embarrassing

still not a single coherent Cashie response to the points Andreas raised... surprising? for a marketing coin like bcash, not really

>bcash cucks are fucking embarrassing
This guy had like ten points and you responded to none. No one cares about your childish antics, we care about your childish intellect.

youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

Bitmain never hid that it is centralising Bitcoin. Jihan openly admitted it. No conspiracy. He said it will be centralised one way or the other, either the big blockers will have the final say on BTC or it will be blockstream and the (((banks))).

If bitmain is a monopoly, tell me what the hell is Lightning Network?

I agree with all of it until he says Segwit is a good piece of code. That was complete opinion. The rest saying Bitmain controls Bitcoin is a conspiracy theory and I would say Andreas initial argument stands against his closing argument. Bitmain and Blockstream are important, but nobody owns a coin.

increasing blocksize does absolutely zero to centralise bitcoin.

The 1 and only motive to keep the blocksize small and increase fees is to force people off chain.
core wants to force people off chain because either they are compromised by blockstream who want to either destroy btc, sell off chain products, accumulate bch or all of the above