Why does Satoshi hate BCH?

Why does Satoshi hate BCH?

Attached: 2018-03-20-194124_622x362_scrot.png (622x362, 57K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Better than Lightning.

>arguing with the man himself

Two scenarios.
1 - He is/was part of Satoshi
2 - He's a salty cuck
But really who cares? Everyone got both BTC and BCH. One can fail and the other will go exponential. Both can coexist too.

He and Finney are Satoshi

Attached: 2292596E-AD00-435C-B521-1054EAC574AD.jpg (1242x1394, 263K)

lightning literally is nu-banks. literally what satoshi wanted to destroy

Yeah, but he (and Finney too) said repeatedly that Bitcoin is not meant to process your coffee purchase

Yea I knew Finney was. I don't really know what role Szabo is trying to play right now. It could be smoke and mirrors with all this coordinated FUD.

What do you mean? Szabo is also Satoshi. He did Bitgold, worked on Digicash, etc. He didn't even cite Bitgold lmao and then he post-dated his blog posts. He also asked for dev power few months before Bitcoin released

Finney argued for the same thing

Attached: 2018-03-20-201823_600x215_scrot.png (600x215, 30K)

Bcash pisses me off because imagine btc price without bcash? Bitcoin would be 30k by now but Rogers coordinated spam "bitcoin cash is bitcoin" tricks new people.

Yeah the way they try to force the name is pathetic

Attached: 2018-03-20-202853_619x117_scrot.png (619x117, 20K)

Stop calling nick satoshi, thanks

People need to know

Attached: 2018-03-20-202929_636x339_scrot.png (636x339, 49K)

If Bitcoin isn't strong enough to overcome little ol' Bitcoin Cash then which one is really the shitcoin?

If someone could give one argument as to how increasing blocksize centralises bitcoin

Why does anyone even want lighting network when it is not a decentralised ledger? If its not on chain scaling its not a blockchain

Bitcoin is like jew book and jew tube its being exposed as the scam it is and will be dropped like a hot potato when it happens

>If someone could give one argument as to how increasing blocksize centralises bitcoin

Cause it increases the ledger size such that people can't host nodes if you encourage small transactions.

>Why does anyone even want lighting network when it is not a decentralised ledger? If its not on chain scaling its not a blockchain
Yeah, that's Satoshi's point. Blockchain is not meant for small coffee transactions. If you want this, you need LN or some other off-chain solution. Or even Bcash. But not the premium gloabal ledger

fucking LINK morons are only pushing Nick being Satoshi because he follows chainlink on twitter now.

Nick is NOT Satoshi. Craig Wright + Hal Finney were.

Why doesn't Bitcoin Core (BTC) change its name to Lightning?

Non mining nodes dont do anything. The only argument people have for not increasing the blocksize is completely false

I dont think you read my second point

Trolls are worried cause Dr Craig Wright is speaking at the Satoshi's Vision Conference in Tokyo this weekend so the are doing as much damage control early as they can. He is releasing some new info too so stay tuned.

why? So that someone can kidnap or assassinate him?

Unmasking Satoshi benefits no one except criminals and government thugs.


Attached: adqakc6dq9901.jpg (1334x293, 84K)

why doesnt bcash go to 0 where it belongs

Trying to decide which group is more pathetic: Cashies of the Bitfinex'ed culties.

Cashies on suicide watch

>Obviously this emans we'll have to cripple layer one and make the entire network fee based while moving all transactions off chain where they can be censored by the very enitity i concieved bitcoin to challenge

kys cuck faggot

Why do brainlets like you still have the courage to post user?

Attached: whitepaper.png (504x378, 35K)

>Non mining nodes dont do anything.
They verify transactions, they protect your privacy by not having to connect to a remote node, they fulfil the purpose of decentralization cause you can join the network without havig to mine.

>I dont think you read my second point
Maybe you didn't understand what I said?

So people know that Satoshi's vision is not Bcash and other copies

>tfw Ripple is Satoshi's vision

user, I-.....

Attached: whitepaper_for_idiots.png (979x650, 161K)

Just because LN exists doesn't mean you can't use the bitcoin blockchain..

What's your point other than the fact that you have 0 reading comprehension?

Let me pay $1000 USD to broadcast on the main chain, or let me pay .0001 USD to do the same thing plus more... really makes me think

deferring to "Satoshi's vision" is just another form of centralization. It's an argument from authority.

Yeah, he wants Bitcoin to be able to settle digital cash transactions... what's your point retard? That doesn't say anything about hosting all the world's transactions or not having off-chain solution

Does this really sound like something Nick would have said? Satoshi was always in favor of big blocks and on-chain scaling...

Attached: h7wwv24aioyy.jpg (1000x600, 121K)

>The same arguments that have been debunked 100 times over


Good question. It's almost as if it has value for a reason. You don't stay in the top 5 marketcaps since inception by accident.

>14 posts by this ID
>being this mad
user, check the highlighted version
And then get off the comptuer you're getting steamed up. You need a few hours, possibly a few weeks, to overcome this brainlet shame you're experiencing on an anonymous vietnamese basket weaving forum.

I feel bad for you user.

Attached: brainlet_1.jpg (800x450, 41K)

You use the main chain when you need it. Finney even said it'll just be used between banks. Clearly their vision is beyond your understanding cause you just want to buy your coffee

Attached: 2018-03-20-215309_595x729_scrot.png (595x729, 119K)

Bcash are the ones that claim they fulfill Satoshi's vision, and this clarifies that they're not correct and shouldn't put words into his mouth. Learn to read

They were never debunked

Redpilling with more Satoshi quotes

Attached: Untitled.png (640x400, 35K)

>still retarded
Can't help you

No of course not. Nick is not Satoshi. He never really agreed with Satoshi's vision.

And man I can't wait for the conference.

That's a made up quote brainlet. Nick is Satoshi

Attached: 2018-03-20-220025_608x690_scrot.png (608x690, 112K)

>Learn to read
lol, you first brainlet. It doesn't matter whether you think Satoshi would support BTC or BCH. Either way, the argument is "the only true Bitcoin is the one that Satoshi would support." Which is an argument from authority. The whole purpose of decentralization is to remove authority from the picture. In other words, each cryptocurrency must be judged by its merits -- not by whether some highly-regarded person gives it his blessing.

Stop being retarded. I didn't say Satoshi was right or that we have to do what Satoshi wants. I said that Bcash doesn't fulfill Satoshi's vision and they should stop scamming people believing so. They're the ones making an argument form authority.

This coffee argument is such an abomination. Its the most arrogant sentiment. Your coffee payment is someone else's fucking monthly salary. Bitcoin was meant to handle ALL THE WORLD'S transactions on chain.

Thinking Bitcoin on-chain is only meant for transactions in the thousands-millions of dollars makes you worse than any banker. This way of thinking is a cancer.

Nick is absolutely...100%...not Satoshi.

Attached: Untitled.png (640x400, 40K)

user I hate doing this to you. Please stop so we don't have to feel the second order embarrassment for you.

Attached: highlighted_2.png (693x509, 78K)

>Bitcoin was meant to handle ALL THE WORLD'S transactions on chain.
No it wasn't? Where the fuck do you get this?

>still can't read
You're just hopeless user. Nowhere in there it says it needs to accept all transactions in the world when you get your coffee from Starbucks. Fuck off

>Both Satoshi boys advocating for off chain solutions

Do you want to know the truth though? They didn't want to increase the block size because it's a retarded solution. It only postpones congestion and basically doesn't solve anything. It's something simple for retards like Anderson and Ver to comprehend, but not something that solves the core problem to Satoshi's vision. They rejected it because they wanted to force thinking about more scalable solution and a different mentality. It's not about having all transactions in the world in a public ledger, it's about enabling secure transactions without the need of a financial instiution.

And I don't have to agree with them. I don't have any Bitcoin. I'm all in Monero despite Nick advocating for Zcash (he's friends with Miller). I don't agree with Satoshi's vision, but I respect it and I respect both Nick and Finney.

Attached: 2018-03-20-220949_579x507_scrot.png (579x507, 75K)

People should tune into the conference coming up soon if they want to learn. There are lots of misconceptions about how bitcoin works that are going to be cleared up. It is not what most people think.

It's obvious that 1 MB is far too low of a limit. At the present you could go buy a $4,000 desktop that can run process 1GB blocks without falling behind. At that point you are at visa levels.
Yes, I agree it is "kicking the can down the road" but holy hell can we punt the thing.

This user with 20+ posts in this thread should just neck himself, brainlets like him cant be helped


craig has always hated szabo, thats why he wasnt mentioned. dyor you dumb niggers. szabo is a brainlet poser incapable of creating bitcoin, proof? bitgold

A non mining node has no ability to do work it cannot do any of the things you listed

A few hints...

- Bitcoin is secured by economics more than cryptography. If you fail to understand incentives you fail to understand Bitcoin.

- 2nd layers, sidechains, altcoins etc. These are not necessary and fragment the security model. The network is designed the way it is for a very good reason.

- We are moving faster than Moore's law. Not at. Faster. Having the hardware to do this will be no issue.

More to come.

the desperation of core cucks in this thread is palpable

Attached: jihan.jpg (125x125, 2K)


Daily reminder that corekeks are the male feminists of crypto

Attached: 1515623272106.png (3026x1024, 239K)

BCH versus BTC

Attached: bch.png (1024x1100, 211K)

at least i can buy things with BCH

Attached: bitpaylul.png (537x630, 34K)

if only mining nodes should exist according to cashies we would have like 20 nodes in total by now.
decentralization and censorship resistance is way more important than the cash part.

>Yeah, that's Satoshi's point. Blockchain is not meant for small coffee transactions.

Bitcoin white paper name 'Peer to Peer Digital Cash'
If he doesn't think Bitcoin should be used as cash, he's not Satoshi.

>I have no idea how the protocol works
Good to know?

Only a matter of time before BTC is slowly replaced as a base pair.

Attached: steam_core.png (655x482, 129K)

If you had 1000000000000 non mining nodes and 1 mining node the mining node would have full control over the protocol. Non mining nodes do nothing to secure or decentralise the network

Jesus Christ cashie meme skills are even sub leftwing/sjw tier. Absolutely embarrassing excuse for a coin.

You only verify transactions by mining a block. Non-mining nodes by definition don't verify shit. At best, its just a listener.

When every else uses their CPUs to ignore your garbage blocks that is more powerful than any amount of mining.


You can't even use bitcoin to go to a bitcoin conference ffs. How do you explain dat????

Attached: nolonger.png (344x512, 191K)

I guess this is your first day reading about blockchain? Start here en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node#Why_should_you_run_a_full_node

Attached: 1514209797342.png (703x911, 19K)

Therefore, it is critical for Bitcoin's survival that the great majority of the Bitcoin economy be backed by full nodes, not lightweight nodes. This is especially important for Bitcoin businesses, which have more economic weight. To contribute to Bitcoin's economic strength, you must actually use a full node for your real transactions (or use a lightweight node connected to a full node that you personally control). Just running a full node on a server somewhere does not contribute to Bitcoin's economic strength.

Deluded Cashies BTFO

Non mining nodes have no hashpower ignoring the chain you dont like doesnt mean your chain will have hashpower.

You have my attention... could you speak more about incentives please? I've been thinking about this idea a lot

As explained previously, full nodes enforce the consensus rules no matter what. However, lightweight nodes do not do this. Lightweight nodes do whatever the majority of mining power says. Therefore, if most of the miners got together to increase their block reward, for example, lightweight nodes would blindly go along with it. If this ever happened, the network would split such that lightweight nodes and full nodes would end up on separate networks, using separate currencies. People using lightweight nodes would be unable to transact with people using full nodes

You just linked an argument against yourself
>As explained previously, full nodes enforce the consensus rules no matter what. However, lightweight nodes do not do this. Lightweight nodes do whatever the majority of mining power says.

There is no action you can take with a non mining node that will impact what miners want to mine

> muh, link which claims non-mining node enforces consensus rules

If this isn't your first day reading about blockchain and you believe that shit, you're retarded.


Translation: I watched that one video made by that retarded guy and now I know everything.

>bitcoin businesses
They all switched to BCH though. How do you run a business when transactions might cost $10 the next day, and your only option is to use beta software which can lose your money and needs 100% availability.
Businesses do benefit from running full nodes (only cause of 0-conf, no consensus rules fake news), which is why BCH will have more full nodes by 2020 (if the BTC chain is even alive by then with its poor DAA).


fucking kek.

Your scamcoin will fail in the same way of Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin XT and all the other crap.

Also 54% of reachable Bitcoin ABC (bcash) nodes are running on Hangzhou Alibaba virtual servers in China. Compare that to 2% of reachable Bitcoin nodes running on Hangzhou Alibaba servers.

btc merchant adoption is shrinking bch adoption is growing.
Btc's replace by fee makes 0 confirmation transactions 100% unsafe and means settlement cannot be said to happen within 10 minutes.
There is not a single reason to cap blocks at 1mb today (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 make decentralised 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.

Maybe this will help you but I doubt it en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_is_not_ruled_by_miners

Attached: 2018-03-20-232053_619x689_scrot.png (619x689, 111K)

>reddit spacing
>pajeet-tier nonsensical arguments about web host choices
Apart from ABC, we also have XT, Unlimited, Counterparty cash and nChain working on the protocol. This is decentralization.
Keep bragging that your commie dictators at core with their single implementation have put thousands of fake nodes on aws as if it matters at all.

Attached: 1517734127239.jpg (400x517, 25K)

If you honestly think non mining node signaling would make miners act against their economic interest you're delusional. The irony of linking that tweet when core is completely in control of btc and are a group of programmers making economic decisions. Case in point core thinking a currency that is slow, expensive and insecure will beat one that is fast, cheap to send and more secure.

>Apart from ABC, we also have XT, Unlimited, Counterparty cash and nChain working on the protocol. This is decentralization.

All those projects failed spectacularly over serious bugs due incompetent developers. What makes you think this time will be different?
Segwit2x failed by a rookie programming error also

The only new thing that Bcash did was the EDA and that shit failed too. How long after the Bcash hardfork it has to fork again due the broken EDA? Like 2 months? Btrash is a fucking joke

>BCH has the keys, regardless
>Satoshi Vision conference - team BCH will move coins from Satoshi's wallet and show the world
>It will be claimed Satoshi supports BCH
>Miners switch
>Further news is released that BCH will have every capability of any alt coin, smart contacts, privacy, 32mb, colored coins, even gay ass LN

Theyre not projects theyre developers.
Segwit2x didnt fork because miners withdrew support
What specifically is wrong with eda?

>Why does Satoshi hate BCH?

This is a really good question. You have Nick Szabo, one of the smartest people you could ever listen to, who was clearly heavily involved in the concept of Bitcoin versus "Dr" Fake PhD Craig Wright who is clearly dumb as fuck.

If you listen to either of these people for 5 minutes you can tell that one is genius tier and the other is a complete moron.

Obvious the sock puppet is Roger Ver with his propaganda machine and complete lack of scruples.