Hostile Bitcoin (((Upgrade))) Update

It's only a matter of time until the scarce, easily manipulated, internet currency that is primarily used to for child porn transactions brings down the entire banking system. *fingers crossed* Any day now…

cancer thread, fuck off.

I really don't even know what to think anymore. Is this some new type of fucking shilling?

Thread = cancer because it legitimately is a chance to redpill the retards getting into crypto before it's taken over completely?

And then what the fuck is this retard talking about? Either they don't follow crypto and know that Bitcoin is literally an open ledger of transactions or they're a fucking shill trying to sage this and prevent Holla Forums from fucking shit up for their kike overlords. So which fucking one is it?

Let's just pretend that (((Blockstream))) wasn't paid 50 million dollars to create (((Segregated Witness))) for the sole purpose of suppressing Bitcoin. Nah, they fucking did it because they believe in Bitcoin and want to see it prosper. Lol. Fucking kikes.

Is anyone getting large miner fees when sending and receiving bitcoin anymore?

I know its supposed to be "random" but I keep on getting huge fees like 50-75% of the amount of bitcoin I want to use. Is this the way the kikes have gained the money changing market regarding BTC?

Set your own fee manually. Electrum wallet allows this. If you use the random fee thing you get charged more. Higher fees process faster but if you want to save bitsheckels set your fees low manually.

you can even send for free
takes two eternities, but transactions are done by free and age, eventually the age factor outdoes the fee factor of everyone else and you get into the blockchain

Your money will probably be stuck in purgatory for a very long time before you see it again. The fees right now are due to the mempool being clogged with transactions. Once again, (((Segwit))) the (((SCALING SOLUTION))) is already active on Bitcoin's blockchain. So why is it that fees are higher and transactions are taking longer? Because it's a shitty solution, and the fact that it's even labeled as that is laughable to me. If you're trying to move your bitcoin and you're on an exchange, change it to LTC or ETH and then move from there. Save yourself the money and time.

Still very complicated, but I think I'm getting it.

So by forcing the patented segwit into the technomagic behind BTC the Jews now control what should have been uncontrollable, and now they're trying to introduce what will in effect end up being fractional reserve banking by introducing an off-chain loan system? While at the same time they try and suppress a competing system that is less kiked?

SAVED

Precisely.

This 100%.

My recommendation would be to support BCH. It's far better technically, but I don't know if it will succeed. (((They're))) doing everything in their power to destroy it. If it does succeed though, expect Moon.
One of the advantage points that BCH has in this war is that it has 8MB blocks and, when it becomes more profitable to mine (due to lower difficulty adjustments), miners switch to it, causing further flooding of the mempool of (((Bitcoin Core))). Transactions will take fucking ages.
And because Bitcoin Cash has pretty much 8x the tx capacity of Core, even if BCH is only being mined at 1/8th the rate of Core, it can still survive with the same level of tx capacity as Core. However, Core cannot survive (at least without a hard-fork) if the miners keep flicking back and forth between Core and BCH.
I didn't think of this when BCH first forked, but it's a fucking genius play.
Once Blockstream/Core is out of the picture, expect cryptocurrency to fucking thrive.

No fucking shit dumb nigger, why the fuck do you think everyone with a brain left FOUR YEARS AGO in favor of this site?

It's not necessarily fractional reserve-like (unless I've missed something?). The idea is to keep Bitcoin's tx capacity limited so that it cannot compete with conventional Credit Card transactions. It's a blow to its utility basically - keep it functional enough that retards don't complain with fees as high as they are this is getting a lot harder for (((them))), but crippled enough that it cannot replace traditional payment methods.
Blockstream/Core's propaganda point is SegWit, which allows for Lightning Network (currently vaporware) where transactions occur off the main chain. This kind of tech is actually good - but the thing is:
With the second point, basically, to get any of your funds onto the Lightning Network, you're going to have to pay a pretty fucking hefty fee. Likewise for getting them off.
A blocksize increase and a solve to transaction malleability should have occurred in tandem. Bitcoin Cash's solution to the "tx malleability issue" is flextrans - which is better than Core's Segwit. But this hasn't been implemented yet.
But the fact that Bitcoin Cash has 8MB blocks means that, when it does get implemented, it'll be 8x cheaper to transact on/off Lightning Network. And if fees become too high again, Bitcoin Cash will probably just increase the blocksize again (where as Core utterly refuse to do this).
There's a lot of background here, so it's hard to write what's been happening succinctly. But, basically, Bitcoin (and cryptocurrency generally) is a real threat to traditional banking, and actually stands to displace it entirely in future. It's permission-less, anonymous (if you know what you're doing) and cannot be inflated in the same way as USD (Maximum number of Bitcoins that will ever exist will be 21,000,000 6,000,000 x 3.5 and that won't be reached until the year 2140).
As a final note, be careful of the /r/bitcoin reddit. Blockstream have $66M in funding from the banking sector which they use to sustain their shilling (and censorship) efforts - and probably a lot of invested useful-idiot tech-morons that don't understand how it works that'll shill for free.
Though still a lot of shit-throwing, /r/btc is a better, uncensored sub to get information from.

Wasn't this part one of the manufactured boogeymen?

Again, my complaint is the same: Isn't this mostly manufactured?

Most people don't understand banking, or accounting. Banks will not be replaced, nor can they, nor is such relevant. What was, is, and will always be relevant, is (1) the "out of nothing printing" which (2) benefits those who have "1 divided by nothing" numbers first at (3) the expense of all other existing accounts' numbers. That was the original problem. That was the only part bitcoin was ever able to address. Which is also the exact problem where central banks shit all over the place (both domestic, and foreign, and any stock-and-bond exchange).

Falling back to reference for a moment: Bitcoin's conception was numbers (bitcoins), accounts (wallets), and transactions (history chains). Now those numbers and histories were separated, and could be handled. Bitcoin separated the 'number'/coin creation to mining, adding complexity to act as a necessary number/coin limiter. With limited numbers/coin being able to be introduced/mined at each iteration, the difference between the "printed out of nothing" and "existing value backed" numbers/coins was strictly separated (new != existing), done only once (once 'new' trades, it becomes history-handled), and done without excessiveness to the rest of existence. And mining paid for itself, with diminishing returns. Concomitantly, with the work to validate transaction histories separate (as added to all full nodes), fees were introduced to ensure history paid for itself (one way or another, since history != mining in the strict sense).

Now returning to the bank problem, isn't now that problem back? With segwit, and any other that removes history-of-number-owning-account chains and validations, aren't the numbers and the accounts that contain them rendered effectively as 'any'? That is, now anything is anything again, just like it is with normal numbers (i.e. "printed out of nothing") instead of the intended "existing." This violates the separation between mining (creating out of nothing) and every-thing-else-tm.

In banking, numbers can be created out of nothing. And are. By definition: 0 = +1 + -1. Credit and Debit, Stock and Bond, Loan and Schedule. This is essential for banking, and all accounting. It also must ensure that 0 = 0 in full account. That 'full account' is where things run into time delay. Technically, time delay is called reconciliation. That is, you swipe your card, it instantly 'works' – but it actually doesn't. Instead, your card creates instantaneous numbers: a credit-debit, which floats around on the network, waits at a clearing house for final reconciliation back to your from-card-account to the to-point-of-sale-account. Most people don't see this, nor care, but it (network and clearing house) (eg full-node-validators and signers) is the under pinning of the whole system at focus. Essentially, Bitcoin ensures reconciliation first, and then transmit for verification. Bitcoin is its own clearing house – that is, the coin never leaves the house – and ensures immediate (one cycle delay) reconciliation.

With segwit, that becomes arbitrary cycle delay, which is effectively an infinite credit limit credit card. (I use 'segwit' loosely; any history validator removal/delay by definition is this).

This is just my understanding. Which welcomes corrections and amendments. I only write it down here to show the remarkable contrast against all the black-white discord/crazy narrations that have entered into Bitcoin following that Blockstream-et-al injection – which clearly is after trying to create credit networks, without apparently knowing what credit networks are. Credit networks are essentially not-bitcoin-tm, by existential mathematical separation of functions and the requirements on where those functions were to be executed in the sequence of all account-works.

It all just seems like children walked in.

i bailed from btc and went all in in BCC when it was low. Trying to get my mining pool to mine BCC now, bit of a struggle and i'm pissed off that they are not doing it. (genesis mining)
fuck segwit and the jews.

this seems like a good explanation. My understanding is limited, so the model i had was simple. The sanctity of the blockchain was broken.

BUMPING THIS THREAD.

Only a matter of time before the Jews tried to subvert the great movement known as crypto.

I heard about a Bildeberg leak thread in regards to Bitcoin. Does anyone know where it is? I saw images of it posted on halfchan but can't find it.

>(((Segwit))) promotes off-chain transactions

Wasn't this the entire point of using BTC in the first place? How many people support this Segwit shit? I'm not into the BTC craze, but I wager many people are in protest against it solely based off this aforementioned point.

Dude: a lot of faces in the core team, big bitcoin websites, big exchanges who are refusing to allow BCH to take the BTC ticker symbol regardless of fundamentals, pajeet shills, cuck, shills, sheep shills. Fucking so many idiots who are feeding information to the mainstream. The boomers and our parents are interested in BTC. They coopted the name and are now working on exposure to the masses to cripple the fundamentals permanently. Ironically the chinks will probably save us with their cheap hashpower and desire for bigger blocks if possible.

Also, not to shill but I know a lot of you guys fucking HATE google and websites selling our data, there's a crypto currency called Basic Attention Token that uses integration with the Brave browser to allow for voluntary advertisement exposure in exchange for tokens that can be converted to fiat. Idk how kiked Brave is if at all but might be worth looking into. Volume is rising as is price.

I have a screenshot from another thread if you want it.

Ah shit sorry looks like my pic came out really blurry

boards.4chan.org/biz/thread/3288007

don't seem to be doing a great job of censorship

So why don't they just force the increase against the wills of the one Dev?

Is mining still profitable?

You can by cloud mining, fairly profitable for ether and etc not so much btc
hashflare.io

etc and ltc*

eth*

You should read up on Bancor.

Lots of bitcoin oldfags behind Bitcoin Cash.

(((Adam Back))) isn't going to get away with his hostile takeover attempt.

Is Ethereum fucked too?

Is Vitalik Buterin jewish?

archive.fo/VSX3X

BTC hodler since 2010 here

You BCH shills are fucking retarded, and if you're getting your knowledge of cryptocurrency from a random on any chan, you are also an idiot.

Maintaining Bitcoin as a truly decentralized store of value takes precedence over enhancing its utility as a medium of exchange. Only idiots and Bitmain shills think otherwise.

Layer 2 solutions are the future. LN is only the start. BCH is controlled by Chinese miners you dumb faggots.

kikes have taken over the developers in charge of bitcoin's source code. they are intentionally allowing transaction fees and confirmation times to skyrocket, in order to force everyone onto their (((segwit))) layer to decrease fees and confirmation times. they will patent and completely control (((segwit))) and other separate, side chain layers with their jewish centralization. bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized with extremely low transaction fees and confirmation times.

they are doing this by refusing to increase block sizes, which is causing the network to become congested. the fix is extremely simple, just increase the 1MB block size to 4MB, 8MB, whatever. but they won't.

jews pay the salaries of the core developers. they also censor and ban any dissent on their forums. you are a jew.

...

It either collapses or becomes a kosher currency that replaces regular currency. I'd never bet on the Myspace of currency.

Layer II solutions are great. But YOU STILL NEED TO TRANSFER ON AND OFF THEM VIA THE MAIN CHAIN YOU DUMB ASS FUCKING RETARDED JEWISH PIECE OF SHIT.
I hope your mother gets cancer.

Yes and not only that, these off chain layers introduce third parties, which will be overwhelmingly jewish and function just like (((banks))) and require government regulations. Bitcoin is supposed to be peer to peer and not require third party kikery. But that's exactly what these fucks are trying to force.

Just go to IOTA. Blockchain isn't really very easy to scale. CAGs are.

*DAGs

/r/btc censors people too. All subreddits censor people. It's fucking reddit. What's your point?

The Core developers don't get a salary from Core. Some of them get paid for the work they do for other companies. It doesn't matter anyway because Core has the largest development team of any Bitcoin fork and most of them don't work at Blockstream.

And when Core does censor, it is to keep out Jewish shills. Mike Hearn, a (((Google))) employee, was forced out of Core for his attempt to add in kike bullshit. Learn your history before running your mouth. All of the Core devs have better technological and cypherpunk credentials than any of their competitors.

This is exactly what LN does. What's your agenda?

Enjoy sucking Jihan Wu's tiny Chinese dick you stupid, easily tricked motherfuckers. I don't even think you're shills. You're just retards.

Perhaps you've missed the implications here. Assuming increased adoption/usage and blocksize the same as what we presently have, what do you imagine the fee to transact on/off the Lightning Network will be?

your kikespeak isn't going to work here heeb. there's not going to be any more miner centralization than there already is with a block size increase. mom and pops are already priced out of running btc nodes with the introduction of ASICs. a small blocksize increase will have no effect on centralization. forcing everyone onto your jewish sidechains does increase centralization however. and it will be overwhelmingly run by kikes.

Jewish woman detected.

Considering that LN allows you to collate hundreds if not thousands of transactions into only two that need to actually be recorded on the Blockchain, vastly lower. Do you perhaps not understand how LN works?

Besides, you ignore the fact that most Bitcoin users, BTC and BCH hodlers alike, are already using Jew-controlled intermediaries in the form of exchanges, Coinbase, etc. LN, just like those existing intermediaries, doesn't take away your ability to store or transact with your Bitcoins the "old-fashioned" way, it just makes the intermediaries people *already* (foolishly) use to hold their coins actually secure instead of letting them be capable of confiscating your coins at any time. Storing your coins in a lightning channel is vastly more secure than storing them in an exchange. What's Jewish about making a superior version of something that's already widely used?

As you know, Satan, the problem isn't with the existance of LN itself.
The problem is with the block size limit that forces everybody to use LN.

Thanks for confirming that you don't know what the difference between a full node and a miner is (hint: full nodes are crucial Bitcoin infrastructure and most of them aren't miners) and are absolutely unqualified to be having this discussion. (You also seem to have no idea about the difference between an actual sidechain and a lighting channel.)

This is why you don't take advice about technical subjects from random Holla Forums posters.

You mean the block size limit that maintains a diversity of full nodes and makes sure Bitcoin doesn't turn into Jewthereum?

Such as yourself, user?

I'm not giving anybody technical advice (unlike the "BUY BCH DUMP BTC" shills above). I'm just correcting some of the ridiculous misconceptions and inaccuracies being spread by the people in this thread who clearly know absolutely nothing about Bitcoin (like the user above who didn't even know the difference between a miner and a full node).

Typical Segtard drivel.

You admit that LN is an (alleged) improvement on existing third party intermediary services. Services of the kind Bitcoin was deliberately designed to replace.

When your diversion is pointed out for what it is, you deflect to some alleged need for a block size limit that you completely made up.

All of this "layer 2" bullshit is jewish rent seeking of the most disingenous sort.

Fortunately nobody is falling for your lies any more.

You kike son of a bitch. Stop spamming your propaganda bs here. Regular people can still mine in america right now. Storage space wont price anyone out of noxdes except for third worlders. Storage is dirt cheap and getting cheaer all the time.

Segwit is a necessary malleability fix independently of whether LN is used or not. If you're against it, regardless of your feelings on LN, then the only tard here is you.

Except it didn't. It turns out that storing data in an immutable and decentralized global ledger is expensive.

Like I said, people are already using those third party services to store their Bitcoins. They won't stop. What's a better solution: do nothing, or upgrade those services so they at least gain some of the trustlessness of the main blockchain and become connected to it?

The limit is needed because storage isn't free, you dumb commie.

"Hey, some of the goyim aren't using Bitcoin right so there's no problem with us using the protocol to force everybody to use Bitcoin wrong, is there?"

You rent-seeking kikes are going to get BTFO.

Also, if only Americans are acting as full nodes, then Bitcoin is an American currency that can be shut down at any time by the American government, which is exactly the opposite of what Bitcoin's supposed to be, you fucking retard. Those third worlders running nodes in the wilderness are a good thing. They prevent Bitcoin from being entirely in ZOG-controlled territory.

Core has satellites now too broadcasting transactions from space. Does BCH have that? Didn't think so. It's clear which side is more concerned about decentralization.

(((Blockstream))) rents a bit of one-way satellite bandwidth from (((large corporations))) in a despareate effort to fend off an investor lawsuits and you not only attribute this business arrangement to Core, but you also pretend it's "decentralization."

Nobody's falling for your bullshit any more, Schlomo.

How does LN force you to do anything? If anything, LN will take more and more transactions off of the main chain, resulting in less competition for block space, meaning that LN will even make using Bitcoin the old fashioned way cheaper. If you don't like lightning channels, then don't use them. Let the goyim use them, and enjoy your transactions being cheaper because you're no longer competing with theirs.

How does it feel being a low-IQ knuckledragging retard who has been Dunning-Kruger'd by reading a slightly unpopular imageboard and thinking you know da troof about da joos on subjects you clearly have no substantive education in whatsoever as a result?

The proof that everybody in this thread is retarded is that you all are so concerned about Blockstream despite knowing absolutely nothing about (((Bitmain))).

...

Full nodes don't have to be able to make transactions to be useful. Also, there are affluent whites in Africa too you dumbass.

Why are you so concerned about poor Apefreakwans being able to make transactions?

Shill, please.

Dem litecoin gains doe

After the Alphabay bust who in their right mind would use Bitcoin anyway. The feds tracked everyone using blockchain analysis techniques which are now highly sophisticated. Im predicting there's going to be a huge shift into Monero the next couple years especially now localmonero is online.

Who thinks they are going to make money buying corecoin at $4500 when you can't transact with it. BTC price is being sustained by ignorance and hype.

Let's do some math, user.

Imagine a hypothetical blockchain currency named Tardcoin with a 1 million byte block size limit and a 10 minute block interval.

The average size of a Tardcoin transaction is 250 bytes.

1 billion white people decide to use Tardcoin as their primary currency.

How many Tardcoin transactions can a typical Tardcoin user expect to perform in their 80 year lifespan?

Let's do some math, user.

Imagine a hypothetical blockchain currency named Tardcoin with a 1 million byte block size limit and a 10 minute block interval.

The average size of a Tardcoin transaction is 250 bytes.

1 billion white people decide to use Tardcoin as their primary currency.

How many Tardcoin transactions can a typical Tardcoin user expect to perform in their 80 year lifespan?

neither, faggot. even without jewish interference BTC and forks are deprecated tech that can't even be used as currency because of how fucking slow and expensive they are to transact with which lead to the >le digital gold maymay, because its absolute shit at anything but holding
invest in a currency that isn't outdated is my advice. examples are ETH or OMG or PAY, etc etc i dont have any of these tbh and i'd avoid eth because of how absolutely reddit it is and the aidsfaggot littledick what's its figurehead

neither, faggot. even without jewish interference BTC and forks are deprecated tech that can't even be used as currency because of how fucking slow and expensive they are to transact with which lead to the >le digital gold maymay, because its absolute shit at anything but holding
invest in a currency that isn't outdated is my advice. examples are ETH or OMG or PAY, etc etc i dont have any of these tbh and i'd avoid eth because of how absolutely reddit it is and the aidsfaggot littledick what's its figurehead

bls forgib if doublepost; jims a niggerfaggot

Let's do some math, user.

Two posts is one too many.

Faggot :^)

This. I'm not anti-segwit nor am I anti-layer II. But for someone to claim that Bitcoin can still be used affordably (on-chain) when there is a 1MB blocksize limit is a bit absurd. Even transferring on/off LN at the moment would cost ~$3-4 each way.
If Bitcoin adoption shoots up, it'll be even more expensive.
2MB is a mild blocksize increase. If your internet can't handle it, then your internet probably can't handle YouTube either. Storage space is about an extra 100GB/year. This isn't much - a 2TB hard-drive can be bought for less than $150 which would give you, safely, two years (for those wishing to run a full-node).
Initial syncing time might be longer, but you could do what Core did in their latest version where you skip validation up to a certain block (at the time of compile).

A king can call for a tide. But reality cares not for authority. As cryptography does not care for the conceit of a tyrannical kike.

No matter their incredible conceit. They are unable to compromise a blockchain. It is not in their power. Nada.

No amounts of money and power will grant kikes the power to truly leash the cryptocurrency monster. Their arrogance will only amplify my laughter when they lose control of the creation of currency.

Not my fault this site is shit.

Really though, do the fucking math and post your shame here.

A king can call for a tide. But reality cares not for authority. As cryptography does not care for the conceit of a tyrannical kike.

No matter their incredible conceit. They are unable to compromise a blockchain. It is not in their power. Nada.

No amounts of money and power will grant kikes the power to truly leash the cryptocurrency monster. Their arrogance will only amplify my laughter when they lose control of the creation of currency.

Rumour is also going around that satoshi is about to make a move. According to /biz/.

17 transactions lmao.

You can bundle potentially thousands of transactions in a lightning channel, meaning that even if the channel itself costs 6 to 8 dollars (and fees aren't actually even close to that high if you choose to transact when the mempool isn't so full), that's still less than a tenth of a cent per transaction.

Good thing Bitcoin and YouTube have nothing to do with each other.

Checkpointing has been around in Bitcoin Core forever, and "at the time of compile" does not mean anything in this context since most people do not manually compile Bitcoin Core, and compiling it has nothing to do with validating the blockchain at all.

Just another retard throwing around technical terms he doesn't understand

I'm waiting for a large holder to go to town on corecoin. Wonder what they are waiting for. Haven't really spent time thinking it over or going over the game theory aspects of it, no mental energy for that lately.
Interesting times ahead though, wonder how much pain this will bring on crypto as a whole.

So muh China is the new muh Russians, got it.

the thing is that bitcoin is slower and more expensive to use than regular money - in the usa at least. for "new tech" to succeed it has to be fucking useful - no one gives a shit about "the cloud" or betamax or "the death of the desktop pc" etc anymore. blockchain is fucking dumb and inefficient and unaccountable, but that doesn't mean retards can't hype it and drive up the price of bitcoin. a global currency is only useful if you make global purchases maybe? otherwise the fed is actually important - we need interest rate and money supply flexibility in order to control the value of USD relative to other currencies - if the dollar is too valuable then american companies buy all their goods from other countries and we lose our manufacturing jobs. china devalues their currency for this reason - we're forced to buy their shit and their economy benefits. if the USD is too weak, then foreign money buys up all our assets… people don't realize the fed is important and just bitch about expensive loans' interest rates and larp about the literal end of the world where fiat doesn't exist anymore… lmao i don't imagine the usa being destroyed in this lifetime or even the next since our GDP is like 10x the country in 2nd place, which is really when bitcoin would hypothetically become useful - for anyone not interested in "sending money across borders"… like, who even does that? in a world where fiat collapses i'd be hard pressed to believe the internet still functions like normal anyway. i want to be able to call up my personal bank and fix overspends or bad transactions with 24/7 support, and i want my business to be protected - not broadcasted on a globalized blockchain. this whole bitcoin fad is so pointless and shitty for consumers, but faggots want free money so there's no stopping it. might as well jump in and hopefully get out before it becomes irrelevant once again imo.

either moot or hirojewki is behind this in some manner

i guess he needed something after canvas

Yeah. So why not just up the blocksize to make it even cheaper and increase tx throughput?
Are you fucking retarded lad? The point is that those touting "bandwidth" concerns are not valid. If you can watch YouTube, you can run a fucking node, you fucking dipshit.
Again, missing my point. People cite initial sync times as a concern and I'm pointing out that that can be partially mitigated.
Greg Maxwell pls go.

these niggers still don't get how crypto currency works. When people lose faith in it, they will just move to a different coin. its decentralized, you can't centralize it even with kike tricks.

China effectively controls both Bitcoin and BCH. This was demonstrated by both a handful of Chinese pool kikes approving SegWit and pushing BHC, which they control over 95% of the hashrate. The moment ASICs were manufactured it was over for bitcoin as a decentralized platform. The Chinese control all current and future means of Bitcoin/BCH mining. What if all of a sudden they pump up the price to a point where it's no longer economically beneficial for them to sell their ASICs? They could at any point in the future for any reason halt all exports of them and run them all for themselves.

I agree blockchain currency is a fad but it has found real world usage in the darknet markets, money laundering etc which is where it has the edge over fiat currencies. People will put up with high fees and volatility in those instances. However blockchain analysis has made BTC use compromised in that regard: themerkle.com/top-4-companies-providing-bitcoin-blockchain-analysis-services/

The crypto that succeeds long term will be whatever is best for tax dodging and organised crime. Which is why I am all in on Monero

then they raise the price of the ASICs

In reality it's even worse.

Actual average transaction sizes are 350-400 bytes.

>Mike Hearn, a (((Google))) employee, was forced out of Core for his attempt to add in kike bullshit.
Please elaborate on this point if you're still around. What kike bs was it?

He had a couple bad ideas about how the project should handle pressure from law enforcement with regards to stolen bitcoins, bitcoins used in crimes, etc.

That was just an excuse, however. The real reason for the drama was that he was a competent and productive developer from the pre-hostile takeover era so they fanned up artificial outrage in the community to get everyone mad at him.

The point of the outrage obviously obviously had nothing to do with his bad ideas, because several Bitcoin startups started offering services of the type he described and the outrage machine never turned on them.

Why can't they just force the size of the block against the will of the one Dev?

they can by forking it to another github but too many people go to that github for the coin. whoever controls the github controls the coin

LOL

TFW I am the one trying to red pill people in that thread.

TOTAL JIBBERISH

Just tell us what's going on and how to invest, haha.

allowing Blockstream fucks to take over BTC and suck blood out of every transaction, potentially alter transactions, track users, and give them a nuclear option of patents to fuck with competitors.

KYS shill.

Retard?

It's like they WANT Holla Forums to become more involved and completely fuck up their plans to destroy bitcoin lol

Who fucking cares. Theres 853 other cryptos out there and more keep coming out. If you dont like bitcoin buy Ether or litecoin or any of the countless other coins, but pls, stop being a nigger.

Cryptocards are starting to materialize. Monaco allows you to instantly use pretty much any crypto as cash in pretty much every country with exchange rates that crush every bank out there and to top it off it has no monthly fees.

shill

shill

shill

shill

shill

shill

shill

shill

shill

shill

shill

gold stars when?

JUST FORK THAT SHIT

(checked)
THE FINAL CURRENCY SOLUTION
IS TO HAVE CRYPTO BARCODES ENGRAVED ON PHYSICAL GOLD

All these unchecked trips ITT.

(checked)

Can someone Give me a run down on the lightning network?

This is what allows atomic swaps? Why are LTC/VTC people so amped about this if it allows takeover?

that chick is gross, she looks like my mom

Bitcoin is technologically obsolete, and will be overtaken inside a year by ETH in market cap. There are so many more competent devs working on ETH based projects as well as the base technology.

why would people (drug users) stop using bitcoin when it still offers them the convenience to buy drugs anonymously in a sense online and without a middle man. I understand that you are saying bitcoin is being controlled and regulated but so are dollars and because dollars are convenient people still use them. likewise with bitcoins.

...

To be honest, BitCoin is just a casino and someday will crash hard. You can play while you're winning, but bear that in mind.

THIS THREAD IS GAY
JUST BUY BITCOIN AND HOLD
EVERYTHING UNDER 5K IS A BARGAIN!

when?
WHEN WILL YOU SEE?
Will it stop being a bubble when it hits 10,000 ?
Will it stop being a bubble at 25K ?
50K?

When will the technology prove its worth to you?
Where do you place the bar?

cool, so show me an example of a working/functioning smart contract

..
just wow, just the lengths people go to in order for them to NOT UNDERSTAND at all.
Being willfully ignorant is no longer an option in 2017.
If you are unsure about bitcoin : DO THE FUCKING HOMEWORK.
We all had to learn, there is a learning curve.
Prove you are not brain-dead, and inform yourself.

Bitcoinfag here. I've been working with bitcoin since 2012 and made over $400k doing it.

I've seen all sorts of news, drama, etc surrounding bitcoin. I understand intimately the protocol and I'll break it down in understandable English for you guys.

It might be, but at this point and with this market cap it's incredibly unlikely. Bitcoin has had many large sell-offs over the years, but now they are quickly caught by (((whales))) and the price normalizes very quickly. It's not like 2013, or other months when the price depressed and stayed down. I observe massive purchases, which no longer run in terms of investor excitement.

You can verify this yourself by observing bitcoin charts over the years. When there are rises and falls, also look into the news at that point in time.

In my opinion, bitcoin is not a 'bubble', rather it is volatile.
For more info on what exactly a 'bubble' is, see: investopedia.com/terms/b/bubble.asp and I believe you'll agree that bitcoin no longer fits this definition.

They are guys who invented segwit. That's where it ends. They will not be able to use this technology to centralize bitcoin. Their ideas were originally vague and just that… an idea. It was the bitcoin community that actually took it on board and developed it.

If I say, you can open a pizza shop, sell pizza to people, and make loads of money… then am I rigging your business model? Not really, I laid out the idea for you and you took it and make it happen.

Segwit is the planned future of bitcoin. This was laid out from the very, very first day, before bitcoin was even created in Satoshi's original whitepaper. The protocol was designed specifically to allow this (via blank opcodes and Satoshi's reasons for them).

To explain, let's compare it to the real world.

Bitcoin's protocol doesn't act like cash moving from hand-to-hand, rather, it acts like a courthouse. Each transaction is a signature on a contract, saying that you have paid something. Since birth, bitcoin has processed every single contract like a courthouse. It's like walking into court, telling the judge you wrote a check, and the court decrees it.

But in real life, do you go to court when people pay you from your contracts? Of course not. You only go to court when they don't pay.

Which is where segwit comes in. It allows bitcoins to move truly freely and [near] invisibly just like checks do IRL. But if a "check" bounces, then it falls back onto the blockchain (aka bitcoin court) in order to force the payment to process.

Segwit therefor allows billions of transactions to happen per day without stressing the protocol, and only the tiny, tiny minority of failed transactions will go to court.

So when you think of bitcoin transactions like contracts and checks, it makes sense that segwit is the next logical step.

I'll be up for maybe the next hour or so. I can take questions, anything to help you guys.

newfag

gtfo kike

You're may have subverted Bitcoin Core, but the real Bitcoin forked away from you and remains untainted.

/thread

China just shoah'd the ICO market goys, $20 billion lost overnight.

Good. All ICOs are scams.

Hello. I'm: . I don't like this planned future. At least, not as written and conceptualized. Code may be different, but if the code is as written here, then segwit is credit (as is all/any delayed full-network history distribution for verification). But bitcoin is based on the inverse (it reconciles first, ensuring complete history, and then passes the new history-edge off for verification).

How does segwit ensure existing coins don't get used as transient new coins? Ex (1): Front running the credit reconciliation (store walk offs, inet credit purchase of greendot to then purchase westernunion, voidable transaction race conditions, etc). Ex (2): Front running the account schedule (ponzi schemes, serial spend-buy-branches, etc). Are these not more feasible if segwit takes off in 6mo?

It just seems like we're going to be more reliant on world-wide good behavior…

..
just, wow, just the lengths kikes go to in order for them to NOT BE TRUTHFUL at all.

Being a fucking lying kike shill who cant even format their post to look as if it isn't being tweeted by a blue checkmark ZOGbot is no longer an option in 2017.
We know you are a kike trying to subvert Bitcoin: DO THE FUCKING HOMEWORK.
We all had to learn how you big-nosed fucks operate, there is a learning curve.
Prove you aren't a fucking kike, be honest and maybe stop trying to use elementary level psychology to persuade someone from their opinion. It's fucking hilarious how you use an us-vs-them mentality on a fucking ANONYMOUS imageboard. No one here thinks you're fucking educated. It's hilarious how at one point in my life I genuinely believed that Hitler was a bad person. You fucking idiots will see a second Holocaust and it will be no ones fault but your own. I genuinely feel bad for the Jews who are just normal people, as there are some among you. Of course, they're cannon-fodder in the same way that we are. Go fuck yourself.

Segwit remains trustless by updating the segregated transaction every step of the way, while keeping a future-dated refund transaction on-hand until the transaction completes. If there are any bad actors, the the transaction will automatically fall onto the blockchain for enforcement.

Keeping in mind what I said before, that bitcoin is like checks/contracts, and it's enforced by the blockchain protocol like a courthouse…

Segwit works by allowing contracts to have a date written on them. A date that allows all transactions before them to expire. Only the latest version of a contract is valid.

Let me use a real world example to explain:
Goy wants to write a check to jew. First he asks Jew to sign a refund check, and refuses to send the money until he gets signed promise of a refund.
Now goy has:

Then after he gets the refund promise, goy sends the money
Now goy has:

Then Jew signs it, proving that he received the bitcoin and allowing it to be spent
Now goy has:

Only the latest version is valid. As you see, unless all parties have made full agreement (in Version 3), only the refund transaction is valid. If anyone plays badly, then the contract goes to court (aka bitcoin's blockchain) for enforcement.

But what if someone goes offline for a while, and either Jew or Goy trys to spend the bitcoins using an older version? This is prevented by using the peer-to-peer lightning network, where anyone can volunteer (kind of like a notary) for a tiny fee. So on the lightning network, the transactions above are sent between several peers:
Goy contract ←> Notary 1 ←-> Notary 2 ←-> Notary 3 ←-> Jew contract

You can specify how many "notaries" you want, but even just having one is significantly more secure than having none. Since it doesn't take many resources to be a notary, and even you can do it with you home computer soon, there will be many options to you. A whole network of "notaries", called the lightning network. It's completely peer-to-peer with no central authority and each notary sets their own fee, so you have a choice to select the lowest fee.

Eventually some of these "notaries" will gain really good reputation and a lot of trust. You can prefer these for, say, a high-value transaction. They might charge a slightly higher fee (like pennies), but it's all work it.

And keep in mind, that if ANY party, including a "notary", acts badly, then you can fall back onto the blockchain (courthouse) for enforcement at anytime.

Even better, you never have to use segwit for your transactions. There will always be the original blockchain at your disposal. The different between using segwit contracts, lightning network, and the blockchain itself; is the amount of resources it consumes, and thus the fee it demands.

Consider this fee table as a guide:

The point of segwit is not to delay validation on the blockchain, rather, it's to completely remove it. The blockchain is expensive to operate, and functions like a courthouse, it's not suitable, and never was, for ordinary transactions. However in bitcoin's infancy that was the only option because zero-fee transactions were still possible. It was prescribed that once fees hit a equilibrium with full blocks and transaction demand, then this demand for transaction validation (transaction fee money) can be delegated to further extensions to the protocol.

Bitcoin's blockchain was never ideal for a global-scale money system, as it can only handle about 7 transactions per second. This isn't a surprise… it was built like this. It was always mathematically predictable and one of the first questions that critics had of the protocol. To reach the potential of 100k's of transactions per second (like Visa and Mastercard), extensions were needed.

With that in mind, the extensions we have now are perhaps not suitable, and will continue to evolve overtime as demand increases. But we won't hit the next milestone until we reach capacity again, the segwit fees rise, thus forming the market for the next extension. What you're looking at is merely a phase, and imo, a redundant critique of bitcoin, since these arguments were made back in like, 2009.

I hope I explained that well in the first half of my post, but if I didn't feel free to ask more.
It won't happen no. It's possible if there are a lot of bad actors, but that's extremely unlikely because the "notaries" will have a stake in each other, and they have much more to lose than you do. They'll do everything to self-protect and drop to blockchain for enforcement, if necessary. This won't cost you anything because they will pay the necessary fee for enforcement. And when the "notaries" self-protect, they therefor protect you as well. Since their only job is to validate, it's highly unlikely that they'll fail on purpose.

Ultimately the responsibility will lie on the person who made a segwit transaction. One idea I can craft right now is an alert in your bitcoin client. Since bad actors are detected immediately, your client can give you a notification and timer until damage happens, and the option to drop to blockchain for enforcement if necessary.

You're absolutely right. In the bitcoin world this is nothing new. So far, it's been a success. So far…
Some earlier woes were:
And today, it's concern about trusting lightning nodes (what I've been calling "notaries"). It's a totally valid criticism and the only thing we can do is wait and see. With risk comes reward and it's up to you to decide what you think will happen. Overwhelmingly, the public has accepted this risk with optimism, as you saw the price more than double after segwit was accepted in the protocol.

tl;dr about segwit:

It's the evolution of bitcoin from wastefully verifying every single transaction. It is the planned evolution from being a verification system (like a bookkeeping ledger), to an enforcement system (like a courthouse).

...

All arguments regarding 'expense of operations' are invalid. Price would rise and fall, use would adjust, pizzas would go from being deliver-afforded, to no longer be delivered, back to deliver-afforded, etc. The 'worth-it' invoice behind every receipted transaction would change as seen fit – no price intervention required. And since this behavior principal is present (omnipresent, actually) this occurs with and without segwit, further demonstrating the invalidity of citing it for use with segwit pro or con positions.

There are technicals that segwit simultaneously addressed, true.

Corruption to 51% is possible, but not in part. That is, 51% isn't required for corruption, nodes aren't needed to be tracked, constant peers and address/wallet anchors are not required. Essentially, the system memory can operate state-contained (ledger) while the system operation can operate stateless. In contrast, segwit permits locale isolation while masquerading as non-locale – requiring state tracking of operation… against computers world wide, with locale giants. I don't see how you can equivalence the optimism of full system perspective to that of segwit locale histories.

Casual transactions require casual worth and casual time-discrimination - none of which bitcoin was adopted to do. Again, credit-bitcoin seems manufactured, at nearly all angles.

Regardless, we'll see how the tools utility unfolds. Some significant subsets of the public 'one' has indeed accepted, but to call that optimism or risk or call it period is personification and presumption beyond account logic.

Thank you for your time.

That is exactly the question i had. If one coin becomes too centralized, wouldn't people just mass migrate and solve the problem? It's just a matter of minutes at most.

Of course that's possible, but it will cause fracture due to all of the dilution with ICOs and different crypto currencies. Which is exactly why it was done. Also, if everyone tried to migrate with 1MB blocks at the same time, the backlog would probably be so bad that you wouldn't get your transaction through for like a month lmao.

...

Why? I don't understand what you're saying.

The problem is that bitcoin as a ledger can only handle about 7 transactions per second. Meanwhile we're trying to scale that to 100.000s of transactions per second to compete with the likes of Visa. This low ledger limit was built-in, on purpose, to cause transaction fees to rise (which they now have) to a point where it's feasible to expand the protocol.

Let's say each block demands 0.5 btc worth of transaction fees. This will continue to climb as demand climbs. Some of this money can be split onto lightning nodes who can process transactions much faster with the same level of security.

Once lightning takes off, you might see 0.25 btc in block fees and 0.25 in lightning fees. The former paid to miners, the latter paid to lightning nodes. As demand continues to scale, so will the fees. Once we reach a point where we're having thousands of transactions per second, you might see fees scale to (for example) 25 btc for a block and 2.500btc for lightning nodes. Lightning nodes will always be cheaper and more plentiful; and the blockchain ledger will then be used (almost exclusively) for protocol enforcement only.

Without segwit and lightning nodes, we would be throttled (read: choked) to a mere 7 transactions per second. There would be no worldwide adoption because it would be impossible. Petty transactions and "micro-transactions" like iTunes and stuff would be out of the question because the fee would surpass the cost.

Now I could sympathize with you, if we were actually reforming bitcoin's protocol — only we aren't. This was planned from the very beginning. In the same way that the mining reward is halved, was planned from the beginning.

Eventually the mining reward will reduce to 0btc and miners will be paid exclusively from blockchain fees. These fees will no longer be from raw, regular transactions; rather, they'll be from segwit contracts that need enforcement from lightning nodes.

I think it's real important to understand this, that nothing is being reformed. You can read about this from Satoshi in his past posts on bitcointalk.

Setwit and lightning isn't creating a system of credit, it's a system of transaction. A bitcoin received on segwit/lightning is the exact same as a bitcoin received via blockchain ledger. At any point, if you wanted to, you could escalate your bitcoin onto the blockchain permanently… but what would be the point? That sort of thing is only necessary now if a segwit/lightning transaction fails or someone is a bad actor in the process.

My advice to you is to read in detail how exactly the segwit/lightning network will work. If you can handle the technical jargon, all you need to know is right here:
lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

I think that will help resolve your concerns quite a bit. From there you can make an accurate forecast of how you'll handle your bitcoins.

I don't get it, guys. You are pretty technical, so I gotta hear it from you. Why would Bitcoin EVER reach Visa peak-standards, even after "upgrading/forking"?

Sure. The demand for transactions are getting bigger and bigger, but human greed is undermining what made BitCoin safe.

Say, in the future you'd had to wait for approximately one month for a transaction. It would still be safe, and in every aspect bitcoin would still be the . Just like buying a selling gold in real life. Is it simply because the miners want to make a bigger profit? Will that happen every time a Coin reaches a certain point?

Now, the lemmings don't know jack shit about any gold standard, which perhaps still would be the old BitCoin. The move (((they))) have done here is like removing the gold standard on the dollar, already. But only in PR. For me, atleast, not in reality.

As far as I see it, all it is, is an attempt to hide it from the public. It is an obvious attempt to make the new bitcoin a possible dump and pump scheme AND make the public turn away from fiat alternatives when it happens. (O vey! look, this is what we already said would happen, why, lousy and greedy , how dare they!)

That said, when you curb the tree new branches will appear to take the spots, in time..

Perhaps curbing bitcoin so early will hit back at (((them))), and the tree of cryptos will become even bushier and hard to control, as bitcoin already, perhaps, is massively overpriced. The demand for safe alternatives is still present, and the coding will, perhaps safe to say, make older versions look obsolete - which is BitCoins problem.. Were there no alternative, BitCoin wouldn't have any problem. It's just heavily invested.

Now. The question lies in the coding. Which coins are technically better in the long run? It is safe to say we have learned much about where the bottleneck lies since BitCoin. Are those made up two or three years after the release of BitCoin safer? Those made up this year? Basically they just need to be decentralized, have a proof of works and made scalable so demand, distribution and ownership can be made safe, and passable as an investment, which makes them - woah goys, don't look - different from any centralized currency.

Why not place a bet in all of them? Or is it just me who isn't getting all the hype about how Sanic just gotta go fast, or is it some technical stick rubbing I can't see since I'm not a programmer? Making fiat obsolete is, like, decades into the future if you ask me since only like 1% of the western population knows anything about cryptos and half of those just jumped on the stick when the hype was going on, too. And when the new BitCoin Ultra crashed (which is inevitably will) Lemmings will be forced to believe this just is another from of stock trade.

It's perhaps not even in our lifetime cryptos will outsmart fiats. Our nations infrastructure depends on fiat. As I see it only the conservative minded people will ever benefit from this, and I consider myself to be exactly that as I can see how my investments can, and most probably will, make my future economically safe, thanks to the going demand for technological advancement and how rigged the current monopoly is.

Will any coin at some point be suspectible for forking/subversion if the demand rises, or will it be preventable in the coding?

I think segwit is a stupid idea. Granted, it was a few fixes, a series of cumulative road map alterations, containment, etc – not just segwit. But all that being said, I still think it is a stupid idea. And the origin of that stupid comes from the shifting demographic percentages involved. Which is time independent. It will always, has always, and is now, happening again.

Said another way, when your accounts get flooded by shitskins, you have to go make new accounts, and leave. The law will not permit burning of ships (though fanciness can be done with all sorts of things – if you have enough accounts). Nevertheless, if shitskins flood your home, your business premises, your institutions, the very numbers your ledgers use themselves, then what? You still have to outwork everyone still remaining, do your work, sacrifice all the stolen work to stay in yourself in case you're wrong on timing, and then do yet more work to build out a new denomination system-of-a-nation. And to top it off, you are still prevented from burning squirrels – because squirrel rights matter, enemies within and without, etc. So this leaves a rolling window throughout history: of corner-off and/or build-out, merge and fight on, and iterate again, with the leading edge being salvation being forged, and the trailing edge being salvation stolen running out (back into sand, with shitskin hyperexpansion on the your cannibalized remains in the interim before).

So as far as I can tell, this is all 'normal'. It is not preventable by code. Segwit is removing memory by delegation and delay, when all that bitcoin made its success on was the absolute preservation of memory at all times. In other words, segwit is an exception for literal lower energy (ie shitskin, for vanishing profits and redemption, for exponential spamming, and for the locked in boom-bust make believe kike cycle thieving). Granted, this is my opinion; I'm sure the other user will disagree.

I give it credit for lasting as long as it did. And its far from done yet. This is just one tick of the again-mechanic, and one tick only. More ticks will follow (by gear/event, not by time; it is an account-work, not clock-work).

>nobody can actually come after me for ripping them off because they don't know who I am and because it's not an actual fucking court

So, the Bilderburg group basically want us to believe they made up BitCoin and that's cryptos in their essence are all part of a scheme to control us. Perhaps, they've sucessfully replaced Satoshi, who knows. I know some of the coins, if not the most of them, basically are schemes with no real proof of work, but, again I think the group tries to flex their muscles a bit too much here. The original Bitcoin can in no way have been in the NWO interrests, whereas the new fork with no doubt is in the pockets of (((certain people))), and others, like Zcash, I believe, is in the hands of companies centralized in Israel. Ripple, too, is basically funded on trust, too.

I think I get your point. The majority of the group has succumbed to the promise of short-term profits.

Will the 'final solution' coin not just have the best combination of scalability (mining), distribution (decentralized governance) and proof of works (blockchain)? All fitting in such a way it's both fast and safe from outside interference? A few coins come to mind, but I guess all still can get 'shitskinned' and protocols "will have to go through certain nodes.."

I still can't imagine how a more polished product can get "forked" and then told to open itself to centralized governance unless everybody should be fully aware it's because the banksters have brought themselves in. There is no gain from the core community whatsoever from losing the fundamental part that brings value to the coin - the proof of works.

Soon everyone should be clear about what's working out and what's not. The old bitcoin. The old etherium and so on, soon, an old coin that worked particularly well or are they just doing what they've always done without knowing better, trying to blind us in fake values?

Lol. That's can't work here. That's for sure, unless they REALLY want to rush the collapse of the infrastructure they're so dependent on by buying ANYTHING named "coin". That's what the Bilderberg group says they want, anyway, though I strongly believe they just want to hold the slaves down just for a little longer, no matter what they say.

It's like they're betting everything they got on the PR move in the hope of everyone will forget the basics.

Bitcoin doesnt function as anything.
Bitcoin is just bitcoin.
If you are too poor for the tx fees, try ethereum/bitcoincash.
Stop changing a winning model.

is the real eth chain.
They cried for their momma when the DAO rewarded a 'smart contractor' several millions.
The classic ethereum had this loss (the mtgox of eth).
CODE IS LAW : Bitcoin , Litecoin, ETC
CODE IS HOW WE WANT IT: BitcoinCash /Ethereum/ XRP: Ripple

What about Litecoin? Whats your take on it?

litecoin will soon be 100$
ethereum soon 450$
ethClassic 25.00 $
btc 5,000 $
btcash 800$

Can you sell bitcoins from both forks?

how do you know that?

Litecoin just hit 98 on gdax the other day, btc is 4500 and eth almost hit 400. Its not exactly a groundbreaking prediction. Its a very safe one in fact

source: I am a holder and trader since 2013

By the way, either this guy is a shill who purposely mixed up his views on BCH and BTC or just didnt realize where he put each.

With no emission it's guaranteed to hyperdeflate. It is much worse for economy than hyperinflation. Hence (((cryptocoins))) will never be a real currency - attempting this will destroy your whole economy in a matter of months.

stoped reading there.

Imagine if the goyim could simply spend less than they earn and just watch their cash savings grow in purchasing power.

They wouldn't need to bother with (((investment vehicles))) at all - just lower their time preference and hold on to their own money.

How awful. It'd be another shoah.

Is Monero gpu or cpu mineable, or do I need to mine something like Ethereum and sell it for Monero?

Minable by both, if you have high end CPUs or GPUs. (ryzen or xeons, amd and nvidia high end series)

you dun goofed

Which is most cost effective though? You can, in theory, mine Bitcoins with CPU, but it is no longer worth it as you spend more money on electricity than you make from mining with such a generalized processor.

If you aren't invested in Dogecoin you are a fucking moron.

They did meme magick before it was cool.

rease blocksize at all
It takes a different approach than just increasing the block size, hence being called segwit.
No more than bitcoin without segwit.
lol no. ETH is more popular and is the chain supported by the devs.
This currency is extremely retarded. It is a centralized blackchain. A block chain is a shitty database, BUT it is decentralized. If it's centralized, you might as well use a proper database like Mysql or something.

Deflation being bad is a Jewish meme.

Although contextually clueless, dis nigga gets it.

...

I was in a half thread last night where BTC shills popped up in a thread about the USD crashing. It was obvious shortly into it that it was a BTC shill thread. They didn't like when people started talking about pyramids…

Just buy the fucking new technology DIP.

Or be like this moron and just literally fuck your own face by not buying bitcoin.

the dollar has been in a meta-stable state of "CRASH" for the last 40 or so years.
Look at how much gold/silver/bitcoin a single dollar can buy you.
Would you rather have 10,000$ to be invested by your grandfather in 1950 or 10,000$ now?
beta cuck

Where were you when Bitcoins dropped 99% in value during September 2017?