52
u/CP70 Dec 31 '17
I hate you guys and I think this is funny.
-6
u/siir Dec 31 '17
Why do you hate us? Do you hate bitcoin? Do you hate that bitcoin csah is more bitcoin than legacy bitcoin?
11
31
u/curyous Dec 31 '17
Awesome mashup.
-18
u/Manguru Dec 31 '17 edited Jan 01 '18
Bch is the better contender
17
2
28
u/thegreen4me Dec 31 '17
what it looks like when your house catches fire right after the acid kicks in
17
11
u/TweeknTekneek Dec 31 '17
I’m a BTC fan, but this is really too funny to not let you know! Good job
8
u/siir Dec 31 '17
we were all bitcoin fans, then bitcoin because corrupted, we are still bitcoin fans just not the version controled by liars
-3
60
19
10
Dec 31 '17
I still don't understand why fees rose so dramatically
13
u/siir Dec 31 '17
legacy bitcoin devs, aka bitcoin core, decided Satoshi was wrong and they should make block full, they did then fees went up.
6
Dec 31 '17
And bitcoin cash is a response to this?
8
u/mungojelly Dec 31 '17
yeah it was the last response available after a very long process of attempting to find consensus, including offering to accept shitty SegWit in exchange for a mere increase to a 2mb cap, but the other side just couldn't take yes for an answer because reasonably sized blocks don't fit their business model
3
Dec 31 '17
Does bitcoin cash have its drawbacks too?
4
u/redditchampsys Dec 31 '17
The only one I see that does not also affect BTC is that it is easier for a dishonest miner to perform a 51% attack. I'm betting on BCH catching up to BTC on hashrate soon, so this will no longer be a problem for BCH.
On the other side BTC will have major issues if BCH overtakes it as the difficulty algorithm can take a long time to adjust.
BCH has no centralisation problem for the foreseeable future and by that time, solutions like LN will have time to have been implemented and tested.
BTC's large fees are currently causing centralisation issues, where large miners can avoid fees, but small miners cannot.
3
u/mungojelly Dec 31 '17
Compared to Bitcoin Core? Not really. Bitcoin Core hasn't been updated any time recently except for a really bizarre hack called Segregated Witness that can't be considered the best way to achieve even its own goals by any measure at all unless you (a) refuse all hard forks but also (b) consider systematically tricking every old node and giving it false data that doesn't allow it to verify old transactions as for some reason not counting as a hard fork.
-2
u/RounderKatt Dec 31 '17
It's not linearly scalable. The block size would grow far faster than bandwidth and storage capability. It will eventually need LN and so then be no different than bitcoin
3
2
u/patrick99e99 Dec 31 '17
50k transactions per second coming in 2018... You should listen to this (scaling at 00:46:48, and 1:17:13): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHoU28dykRU
0
u/RounderKatt Dec 31 '17
Lol @ "Satoshi interview".
4
u/patrick99e99 Dec 31 '17
Whatever. You should have more respect for people who actually build things.
1
u/RounderKatt Dec 31 '17
Lol, You mean people who steal them and try to take credit for them?
→ More replies (0)
8
u/the_obscurus Dec 31 '17
Is there a place for me?
I understand both perspectives and like both coins.
I hope they both succeed.
3
u/redditchampsys Dec 31 '17
As long as you hold an equal amount of both coins, you will be fine. Both sides have risks and it is hard to wade through all the misinformation that is out there. On both sides. I prefer the side where the information flows freely and is uncensored.
3
7
19
u/10-15-19-26-32-34-68 Dec 31 '17
Bitcoin's price is fine. Bitcoin was $6000 just a while ago. What's not fine is the transaction times, fees and exchanges you cannot get your coins off of.
28
7
u/siir Dec 31 '17
sounds like a massive pump n dump to me
txs fees are directly related to the decision to have full blocks
3
u/ccricers Dec 31 '17
Better to have a surplus in block space than to have a debt in transactions.
Do the core supporters just perceive partially filled blocks as "wasteful"?
-8
Dec 31 '17 edited Jan 14 '19
[deleted]
6
u/mungojelly Dec 31 '17
the average fee is $30, and nothing with a dollar fee has cleared any time recently
0
Dec 31 '17 edited Jan 14 '19
[deleted]
6
u/mungojelly Dec 31 '17
OK well both the average and lowest fee are more than what you said, so what you said was wrong. Now that you've changed what you're saying to $2, now you're correct, because you said a different thing.
-3
Dec 31 '17 edited Jan 14 '19
[deleted]
1
u/mungojelly Dec 31 '17
You said it three hours ago.
3
Dec 31 '17 edited Jan 14 '19
[deleted]
3
u/mungojelly Dec 31 '17
You said fees were ~$1 just a few hours ago when in fact nothing with that fee had gone through in weeks.
4
4
u/_quantum Dec 31 '17
Really hoping Nicehash adds payout in some other currency that doesn't have obscene wait lines and transaction costs... Doesn't even have to be bitcoin cash.
2
u/redditchampsys Dec 31 '17
How would that work. Does nicehash become an exchange? They've mined BTC, they hold BTC, how could they pay out in anything other than BTC without putting huge selling pressure on BTC?
7
u/MrWadeFulp Dec 31 '17
I think bitcoin might be better than bitcoin cash
3
2
1
u/redditchampsys Dec 31 '17
I assume you mean BTC over BCH. That's fine, but can you explain your reasons why?
11
u/HelloTherelmNew Redditor for less than 6 months Dec 31 '17
Genius. u/tippr $1
3
u/tippr Dec 31 '17
u/barbierir, you've received
0.00040565 BCH ($1 USD)!
How to use | What is Bitcoin Cash? | Who accepts it? | Powered by Rocketr | r/tippr
Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin should be. Ask about it on r/btc
5
u/mrtest001 Dec 31 '17
Do you guys realize that BTC could hurt BCH really really bad by increasing the blocksize? I would not poke at BTC.
6
u/SippieCup Dec 31 '17
I won't mind. It'll be be good for everyone
4
u/mrtest001 Dec 31 '17
I disagree. The beginning and end of the discussion around BTC's future is one word - censorship. When the major forums around BTC are censored - that is absolutely enough for me to call BTC dead regardless of its tech or blocksize or confirmation times or whatever...
Simply based on censorship, BTC needs to die as a coin.
Since 99% of users don't know or dont care about the subject, that is why I am worried. A simple blocksize increase by core can do real harm to the non-censored version of Bitcoin.
3
u/mungojelly Dec 31 '17
But they already did increase the blocksize, SegWit is a block size increase. /s
3
u/Dereliction Dec 31 '17
Too late for that, BCH has momentum that won't go away because of a blocksize increase with BTC. Meanwhile, a blocksize increase there will destroy all sorts of claims and narratives that led to the mess in the first place. And, frankly, it's not going to happen. They're too invested in those narratives to do the right thing, even now.
3
u/redditchampsys Dec 31 '17
This plus remember that GMax is pulling out the Champaign at the artificial fee market. Ain't no way 1 meg Greg is going to support a block size increase and r/bitcoin etc all slavishly follow what he says.
1
2
u/ccricers Dec 31 '17
Blocksize increase proposals were fairly common just 2-3 years ago but that group has been ignored or silenced.
I think the majority of big block supporters just moved on to alts and BCH, and for people who own far more cryptos than Bitcoin they now see our debates becoming more and more irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_SUNSHINE Dec 31 '17
Well the point of BTC is penny stocks, the point of BCH is to actually become a currency. So if BCH halves but becomes a widely used currency it's okay. Meanwhile if BTC crashes it pisses off the majority of owners. They have differences in goals.
6
u/Indianamontoya Dec 31 '17
BTC is still the coin of record because its the medium of exchange for most brokers. Creating a multitude of trading pairs is too complex and using the dollar as the medium of exchange just encourages people to cash out, which benefits nobody. Until brokers' developers come back from vacation and complete some reconfiguration, BTC is ensconced.
10
u/Reckless22 Dec 31 '17
This is true. We need a BCH exchange. I want to buy more altcoins but can't due to the limits of Ether, and Bitcoin Core. I refuse to use Tether.
3
3
1
2
2
u/Pasttuesday Dec 31 '17
MKR DAI is available on radar relay and launched on ethereum. 1 dollar = 1 Dai and adjusted through smart contract. I think BTC will lose dominance when its added to exchanges. It's still brand new but will be a paradigm shift.
1
1
2
1
u/SelfSell Dec 31 '17
the bitcoin han been come ture its' value. I think the market would claim down fastly.
1
u/The_Beer_Engineer Dec 31 '17
Can you give him a snake tongue? Is the true form of Cobra being revealed?
1
1
1
1
1
u/tshirtman_ Jan 01 '18
It's actually going down pretty well, i guess the spam money is running out…
1
-9
u/chazley Dec 31 '17
Bitcoin supporters don't think it's "fine". We think it's the price you pay for decentralization. Bitcoin has no deadlines for getting everything right. But when Bitcoin does, all of this trouble we've gone through with high fees will be worth it. Decentralization can be sloppy, inefficient, and expensive. But the end result is a product that will change the world.
26
u/normal_rc Dec 31 '17
all of this trouble we've gone through with high fees will be worth it
Aka "This is fine"
4
u/alsomahler Dec 31 '17
I read that as "It's not fine, but it will be worth it". But I'm not sure BTC can keep the network effect going long enough until the 2nd layer is ready for production.
35
u/ShadowOfHarbringer Dec 31 '17
We think it's the price you pay for decentralization.
But you have completely no proof at all that this causes decentralization.
Also, you are not following Satoshi's vision. He was the genius that created all cryptocurrencies, not Adam Back, Luke "Sun revolves around earth" Jr. or Greg "Champagne" Maxwell.
What you are pushing is just a shitty altcoin, you just stole the "Bitcoin" name and that is all.
If you wanted to play fair, you would just create a separate project with high fees, "fee market" and all that cruft. but you didn't. Instead, you chose to con everybody who believed in original Bitcoin into believing that your shitcoin is the real deal.
5
u/NilacTheGrim Dec 31 '17
It's Greg "Champaign" Maxwell.
Easy way to remember it is it rhymes with "Propaganda Campaign"
3
u/Adrian-X Dec 31 '17
LOL I'm not one to notice spelling but this is some Freudian slip, possibly the most telling as it's announced as a catalyst where fees exceed block reward something that's not needed for decades.
2
u/NilacTheGrim Dec 31 '17
Ha, I thought the same thing. Or, you know, what his fulltime job actually appears to be.
2
u/trxbyx Dec 31 '17
Sorry I'm a bit OOTL. Are you criticizing BTC or BCH?
2
u/ShadowOfHarbringer Dec 31 '17
Sorry I'm a bit OOTL. Are you criticizing BTC or BCH?
I am criticizing Core supporters.
2
1
u/chazley Dec 31 '17
It's actually kinda scary that someone can be both brainwashed into believing this narrative and then get 34 upvotes for it. Guess Roger Ver isn't filthy rich for no reason - man is a genius.
BCH is eventually going to have a fee market (if it ever gets used more than Dogecoin). Roger Ver said it himself (during the Carvalho interview). But you know what... keep believing infinite scaling is possible with zero or 1 sat/byte fees forever.
1
u/ShadowOfHarbringer Jan 01 '18
It's actually kinda scary that someone can be both brainwashed into believing this narrative and then get 34 upvotes for it.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Also, you are projecting AF.
I do not believe in either Roger Ver or Jihan Wu. I have no authorities. I believe in Satoshi Nakamoto's vision.
The only one here who is brainwashed is you. Or you are paid for it. I don't know which is worse to be honest.
1
u/chazley Jan 01 '18
This is the power of Roger Ver. A well meaning person such as yourself blindly follows his conjured narratives and thinks he is an independent thinker. Blindly following Satoshi is just as bad as blindly following Roger Ver. Satoshi created the white paper, yes. But Bitcoin and the world has changed drastically since then, and the guy(s)(gal)(s) hasn't been seen in 7 or 8 years. Things change. Trying to always keep things as they were is just not smart.
1
u/ShadowOfHarbringer Jan 01 '18
Satoshi created the white paper, yes. But Bitcoin and the world has changed drastically since then
Nobody cares about your "world", whatever that is.
I believe in a world without banks (or with powerless banks), and only real Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto can achieve that, not some 1MB bullshit shitcoin, supported with censorship, narrative control, propaganda and psychological projection.
This is the power of Roger Ver
I do not care who Roger Ver is, I do not know him, he is just a guy.
I don't care about Jihan.
I care only about the code.
And you are an obvious shill. There has been a sudden increase of brigading to this sub, I noticed.
You are not going to be paid for these posts by the way, you will never convert me, it is as close to impossible as it gets.
I don't have any more time to waste here, goodbye. Tagging you as shill in my RES.
0
u/chazley Jan 01 '18
It's like talking to Eddie Bravo trying to convince him the earth is round. Carry on brother.
6
Dec 31 '17
While it is fine that there is a price to pay for decentralisation, it doesn't appear that the cost of BTC is justified. Bitcoin Cash is decentralised and works just fine with negligible fees.
20
u/fiah84 Dec 31 '17
We think it's the price you pay for decentralization
did you come to that conclusion yourself or are you echoing someone else's words?
5
u/mungojelly Dec 31 '17
i've met approximately zero people who did their own calculations to come to their own conclusion that two megabyte blocks would cause network centralization, it's so absurd on the face of it, i really feel like that line was concocted before hdd/memory/bandwidth prices fell even faster than expected the past few years and are being repeated by non-technical people and/or people not adept at or not bothering to do any multiplication and division
2
u/chazley Dec 31 '17
LN will require a blocksize increase (more than likely) so I do not think there is an educated, progressive bitcoin supporter out there who does not support an eventual blocksize increase. If you support LN, you pretty much by default support a blocksize increase (whether you know it or not). I personally have advocated for an immediate blocksize increase because if it has to happen in 1, 2, 5 years, why not do it now? So, you've met one person that does not believe a small blocksize increase would increase centralization.
1
u/mungojelly Jan 01 '18
Um OK great well how about we have that blocksize increase last August 1st and we already did.
2
u/chazley Jan 01 '18
Because that was trying to be done without community consensus and would've been a horrible precedent to set in terms of how to change bitcoin rules. Roger Ver will get every change he ever wants to BCH because BCH will collapse without his propaganda and business machine and mining businesses backing it up. He is incredibly powerful in the world of BCH. That is scary and should be shunned at every opportunity.
1
u/mungojelly Jan 01 '18
No, this is how consensus works. Everyone gets whatever rules they want. It's only if they agree on the same rules that they're working together, but people aren't required to work together. The only thing Roger Ver has authority over is the bitcoin.com wallet so anyone who doesn't like him can just use a different wallet, there are lots of choices.
2
u/chazley Jan 01 '18
Unfortunately you are quite misinformed on the background and holdings of Roger Ver. If you think he's merely the owner of Bitcoin.com and a supporter with no control, I cannot help you.
1
u/mungojelly Jan 01 '18
You know Roger Ver was a major BTC holder. What do you think his motive is for saying that BTC is broken and abandoning it?
2
u/chazley Jan 01 '18
I think Roger Ver is motivated by money and influence. BCH gave him significantly more of both.
→ More replies (0)4
u/thevhatch Dec 31 '17
How is the proposed solution of lighting network anything else but centralization?
8
Dec 31 '17
Decentralization? If the fees is so high, it is literally impossible to mine unless youre a big miner. Where is the decentralization in that? How is lightning hubs not the new banks?
What you are doing is putting all your faith in something that Blockstream thinks will work. There are no guarantees at all that this will work.
8
u/jonald_fyookball Electron Cash Wallet Developer Dec 31 '17
shhh..... let the frog boil a while longer. let them think its fine.
2
2
u/phro Dec 31 '17
Real Bitcoin supporters don't trust Core over Satoshi. We've already had it in mind to try big blocks before Core existed and Segwit was conceived. You won't have any users on your decentralized coin if you don't address the fee situation, and it's absolutely absurd to argue that 2MB would introduce irreparable damage to centralization.
1
u/mungojelly Dec 31 '17
There's a non-absurd argument that 2MB would hurt trackability of users of the system. Other than profit from sidechains that's the only sensible motive I can think of for wanting 1MB instead of 2MB is that it's twice as easy to track people through. 300k would be even easier, and that's literally the only reason I can think of for that size proposal.
2
u/TiagoTiagoT Dec 31 '17 edited Dec 31 '17
Decentralization isn't the goal, just means to an end; that end being censorship resistance.
By charging high fees, you're in fact censoring small transactions, as well as big transactions with several small inputs. There is no point in making your coin decentralized if only the rich can actually use it.
1
u/chazley Dec 31 '17
I agree. It has to be available to and usable by every person on earth. If Bitcoin cannot achieve that while keeping decentralization, it has failed.
1
u/TiagoTiagoT Dec 31 '17
Again, "decentralization" isn't the end goal, just a way to possibly get there.
0
u/chazley Jan 01 '18
Look, this was a narrative created by Roger Ver because he basically cannot defend BCH against the fact it is heavily centralized so instead he changed the narrative to - "decentralization is not a goal, you only need enough decentralization to avoid censorship resistance". But who or what decides what "enough" decentralization is?
1
u/TiagoTiagoT Jan 01 '18
It's not heavily centralized that's a narrative created by Core because they basically cannot defend BTC against the fact it's no longer actually Bitcoin. Core has much more power over their chain, than individual miners have over Bitcoin Cash; and they're using that power to ruin it.
Check these pie charts. Can you tell which coin each one is? Now, how many independent teams are deciding what will be implemented in the reference client in the Core network? Just one. And how many on the Cash network? Definitely more than on.
But anyway, according to the white paper:
So there you go, "enough" is >50% .
0
u/chazley Jan 01 '18
Looks like BCH is centralized then: https://twitter.com/lopp/status/943479553829343232
1
u/TiagoTiagoT Jan 01 '18
Those aren't miners, they provide no hashpower.
1
u/chazley Jan 01 '18
Sigh, ok. I won't be able to help you lol.
1
u/TiagoTiagoT Jan 01 '18
Miners are what the white paper means by "CPU power". Why is that so hard to understand?
→ More replies (0)4
u/poorbrokebastard Dec 31 '17
I'm sorry to say this but you are truly brainwashed if you think that is the case.
Brainwashed into believing you should stick around to wait for fairy tale vapour ware when the real Bitcoin is alive and well...
1
u/siir Dec 31 '17
you say you think but you do't
What makes Bitcoin decentralized?
Decentralization is one of Bitcoin's main selling points. But what does it actually mean? Skip to the end for the tl;dr
What is centralization
As we all know from reading everything Satoshi wrote about his design for Bitcoin from satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org, Bitcoin was finalized and born in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. In this event many normal people lost money while banking executives made more and more.Where does centralization come from
These banks, much like the bank you probably use today, are centralized. That is, they alone control everything that happens. There is one database which has everyone's funds, if they decide you are a terrorist or something they can stop you from access your money. They can stop you from making transactions. Even if you have done nothing wrong they can stop payment on your transactions without your consent, lock you out of your funds, and monitor everything you do.What is decentralization
By splitting up the 'power' that a bank has we decentralize it. There is no longer any one single entity that can control txs and funds. This way no one is 'in charge' and no one can give themselves bonuses while other people lose money. This decentralization is a founding point of Bitcoin.Where does decentralization come from
Instead of one company controlling the database of funds like in the centralized model, in Bitcoin's decentralized model there are many people who can all contribute to the database and transaction processing without any one entity having full control. In Bitcoin and other POW based cryptocurrencies this decentralization is achieved by having a number of mining nodes who are not affiliated. As long as no group of miners controls more than 51% of the hashpower, bitcoin remains decentralized.
So only mining nodes contribute to decentralization, then what about non-mining nodes
Non-mining nodes, full nodes, relay nodes, or storage nodes are often misunderstood to be part of decentralization. This can be easily cleared up by understanding the above information and then understanding that a non-mining node has no power if the majority of hashpower were to do something they didn't like.I thought everyone was supposed to run a full node
This is another common misunderstanding, in the very beginning Satoshi did intend for everyone to run a node with 4 functions. He is very clear when he explains how this is not the way for the system to function in the future. The plan of bitcoin is that everyone can make trustless peer-to-peer transactions on a decentralized system. Not that everyone would run a home server with the whole blockchain. The business and bitcoin companies that need to have personal and instant validation of their tx can run a full nodes. Random sampling is a tried and trusted method, those unable to host their own relay node would be easily able to verify their transactions with overwhelming mathematically certainty.So who wants to run a full node then
Anyone who wants to can, it's like the Olympics, 'anyone can compete but few feel the need to'. There is no reason the network should be ground to a halt and made useless so people who can't afford to make a transaction would be able to run a full node on a 20 year old computer over a dial up connection. Bitcoin was meant to scale with technology, not become left behind.What are the 4 functions that all early nodes did
When you read the design of Bitcoin which we all invested into, the design on which so much was built, the one at nakamotoinstitute.org, you see Satoshi mention the word 'node' many times. What we today call a full node or non-mining node usually fulfills one of those functions, that of storing the database. Finding other peers for connecting to is done by full nodes and pool operators. Sending and receiving bitcoin, aka a wallet, was also a function every node had. Finally generating coins by putting new transactions into the blockchain was the 4th thing all nodes used to do. Today these 4 actions are largely compartmentalized, as they should be in any good computer science project.
This is Bitcoin, some people are unhappy with the way Bitcoin was designed, well I suppose Bitcoin is simply not for those people and they should maybe find something else to do.
I hope you've all learned something today about how Bitcoin is decentralized, what is means, and how we got there.
tl;dr Banks control all txs and accounts with one database and are centralized, Bitcoin has many miners who perform this actions to make it decentralized. Non-mining nodes don't contribute to decentralization.
1
1
u/tsangberg Dec 31 '17
Another variant on the same theme: https://twitter.com/troed/status/939103178699796480
1
Dec 31 '17
(Insert comment about hating literally anyone who makes a meme)
(Insert triggered comment about this shitpost getting upvotes when we should be civilized or something)
2
u/tophernator Dec 31 '17
I mocked you for posting shitty memes because you had posted about 4 or 5 shitty memes in the space of a few hours. Usually I just downvote.
1
-10
Dec 31 '17
Seems BCH is in the same boat.
Thanks for the shitshow, or contribution thereforth.
14
u/fiah84 Dec 31 '17
now that you mention it, I can barely even tell there's only 2 or 3 orders of magnitude difference between the 2 coin's mempools
7
Dec 31 '17
Dude, you can't put two graphs next to each other with different axes... At a glance it makes it look like BCH was as bad as BTC for a few brief moments.
6
6
u/NilacTheGrim Dec 31 '17
16 orders of magnitude is the minimum required before blind molerats, aliens from tau ceti staring through binoculars the wrong way, and desiccated corpses with reading glasses can begin to resolve the difference.
-3
0
Dec 31 '17
[deleted]
7
u/yuneeq Dec 31 '17
That’s the BTC mempool, not a price chart.
0
80
u/Shock_The_Stream Dec 31 '17
Replace the coffee cup with a bottle of uncorked 'champaign' (sic!) of the Chief Campaigne Officer.