Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees - page 52. (Read 704506 times)

For all trolls and 1Meg core maximalists out there

https://busy.org/@truthforce/shills-and-the-shilly-things-they-do-to-make-money

bitcoin is also big, thousands of asics he does not need, it is a waste of natural resources

 even money is not needed, it divides people into different categories

As a Bitcoin fork in BCH there is child porn.
And with bigger blocks the possibility of something "bad" inside increase much.
Why not lower block time.... 2,5 min is safe many coins can be viewed

the engine on water invented long ago, but the fuel companys always destroy such inventions, so as not to lose power https://youtu.be/Jivb7lupDNU

therefore, a million old modems 56 for them is better than one novelty, the future for a gross increase of block size I think

Things and apps are getting build on stable and scalable protocols.

https://mobile.twitter.com/peddlrph/status/1078950808933158912

https://mobile.twitter.com/PixelWallet/status/1078928647392657409?s=19

...

The interests of the people before the interests of the miners probably

neat story.  what about when you realize BCH hates the miners and has changes in store to make them irrelevant?

the market share was captured by ETH long-term taking away the domination of bitcoin until now, but in connection with the refusal of PoW, this share will go to BCH



To describe how the block size limit affects the speed and cost of transactions on the blockchain, let us use the following example:

It’s Saturday night and you’re about to visit the hottest club in town. Before this club became a big deal, it was a small local joint with a cool crowd, good music, and reasonably priced drinks in a small venue.

All of a sudden, people started talking about this venue and telling their friends, and now everyone wants to get in. The problem is, the club is in a building that can only hold 2,500 people. In this analogy, think of the club as a “block”, with limited storage capacity or size, and think of each patron as a bitcoin transaction.

When the club (block) is full at 2,500 people (transactions), the bouncer is instructed to form a line and start charging an increasingly high cover charge (transaction fees) for entry. More and more people keep coming to the hottest club in town, and as of today, the situation has become so bad that the line of people waiting outside is approximately 270,000 people long and the average cover charge is as high as $140. You’ve been waiting patiently for hours to get in, but people willing to pay more than you keep jumping to the front of the line and are keeping the club full. Even worse, each person (transaction) is only allowed to bid on their cover charge once. When you first got in line, you thought that paying $20 would be enough to get you in quickly, but now several thousand more people have joined the line and said they would pay more than you. There is nothing you can do but wait until everyone paying more than you gets in and the bouncer gets around to letting you in.

Despite this situation and much complaint from the community, the club management has stubbornly refused to move or build a larger building, and insist that a full club and ten times as many patrons waiting in line outside is not only good for business but that it would be impossible to expand their building to accommodate more patrons even if they wanted to.

In Bitcoin Core, the mempool is the lineup of people waiting to get into the club and the transaction fees are the cover charge the bouncer requires to let you into the 2,500 person capacity club.

At an average cost of as high as $140 per transaction and a line up of over 270,000 unconfirmed transactions, Bitcoin Core, a system that was created to explicitly be a “peer-to-peer-electronic cash system” has now become unusable for merchants and has priced out the majority of users in developed countries, let alone the entirety of users in smaller, developing countries.
https://www.bitcoin.com/info/what-is-bitcoin-cash

This war should end soon, with both of them rekt, this is my wish.  

Failure ETH from PoW makes unnecessary XRP, XLM, EOS and similar. In the near future, the growth of ETH is likely to increase due to sales of these, and according to technical analysis, they are on the peaks to the ether now asking for a correction. But DASH and BCH will follow for ether in growth because they are oversold, at the bottom to ETH now and are unlikely to go below

This is a good 2016 Craig Wright reread.

https://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692

There are really a lot of developers on BCH from various team. if Bitman will fire his developer (and this is only a rumor) it will be a damage, of course, but nothing of terrible.

I agree, but the real bitcoin, aka bitcoin (BTC), is doing just fine. It doesn't matter who says what about anything, the market has already spoken.

People who support SV are just fractioning away competition from bitcoin's only "true competitor" (not that it was much of one to begin with), BCH. It's great news for bitcoin to have to BCH factions warring amongst themselves and bitcoin at the same time.

for reference the segwit removal of 50% of the signatures is not in the above text. 

for reference the sub chain lightning network is not part of bitcoin. 

for reference the adding rolling checkpoints to avoid competing via proof of work is not in the text


So I guess all the trolls and legends cum troll here either have an agenda or are not able to read for comprehension.


WARNING if you are looking for bitcoin the project still exists despite the best efforts of this world power types.  It is found in BSV whcih stands for Bitcoin Satoshi Vision.

Do not accept any substitute for the real bitcoin or you risk being exposed to the worlds most undesirable type of liar, ie. those who would steal bitcoin from the world and lock it up on a shelf never to be seen.

These types prefer to stand on your neck and tell jokes in public like some hero.  I think some of these hateful types here would not save you if you were drowning.  Just my opinion. 

Abstract.   A  purely   peer-to-peer   version   of   electronic   cash   would   allow   onlinepayments   to   be   sent   directly   from   one   party   to   another   without   going   through   afinancial institution.   Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the mainbenefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.The   network   timestamps   transactions   by   hashing   them   into   an   ongoing   chain   ofhash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoingthe proof-of-work.   The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence ofevents witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power.   Aslong as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating toattack the network,  they'll  generate the  longest  chain  and  outpace attackers.   Thenetwork itself requires minimal structure.   Messages are broadcast on a best effortbasis,   and   nodes   can   leave   and   rejoin   the   network   at   will,   accepting   the   longestproof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.1.IntroductionCommerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving astrusted third  parties  to process electronic payments.   While the  system works  well enough formost   transactions,   it   still   suffers   from   the   inherent   weaknesses   of   the   trust   based   model.Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannotavoid   mediating   disputes.     The   cost   of   mediation   increases   transaction   costs,   limiting   theminimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,and   there   is   a   broader   cost   in   the   loss   of   ability   to   make   non-reversible   payments   for   non-reversible services.  With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads.  Merchants mustbe wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable.  These costs and payment uncertaintiescan be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make paymentsover a communications channel without a trusted party.What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trustedthird  party.    Transactions  that  are  computationally  impractical  to   reverse   would  protect  sellersfrom fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.   Inthis paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributedtimestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions.  Thesystem   is   secure   as   long   as   honest   nodes   collectively   control   more   CPU   power   than   anycooperating group of attacker nodes.1

hard forks are how software upgrades.  

Judging by the number of trolls (including nude emperor worshiping legends lol) and hateful posts from hereo to zeros'  I think the people already know what is real bitcoin and are just doing social media to manipulate the mind of the readers in hopes of stealing their money via scam chains.  This is called being a promoter under the law btw.  

Since ABC is now a private chain are you guys aware that the devs may be personally liable???  

LOL  And are you aware that lightning network and the other boondoggles make miners liable personally?  Of course you are because you guys are obviously qualified to tell people what is bitcoin right???  

     Oh,  but please direct me to websites and tell me what is bitcoin lol.  Here is something you all obviously missed.
  https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

A fork will always be a fork and will remain a fork and can never be anything (original) than a fork , there is no way to have 2 captain in one ship, just only one, btc is one and only and stand as No.1 in all aspect, btc leads other alts follows, it is that simple  
Hope my little definition gives a clear explanation on which is real

Craig Wright is gonna get butt raped in prison.

Open coinmarketcap.com. The coin which is at the number one is the real Bitcoin. It'll stay there, and it's the original chain.

No.