/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>5036588
its a store of value breh.
nobody gives a shit about transactions.

>>5036588
How to cash out ?

in less than 5 days, 20% DA increase?

meanwhile bcash can't even stack up transactions because nobody uses it

>+21%

If more mining doesn't come on line the mempool will explode.

>>5036675
>muh store of value
>nobody gives a shit about transactions.

>>5036734
Why would anyone want to use it, it's a store of value.

>>5036854
lmao

>>5036675
This is sadly true. Don't try to be smarter than the market.

t. got rekt by BCH/BTC long one week ago as unconfirmed transactions mooned to 230k.

>>5036930
yeah, investing in crypto is basically asking "what would the masses of retards do?"

>>5036827
adding "muh" to someone's comments isn't a counter argument

normal people pay with credit cards. there isn't much demand for "coffee on the blockchain."

>>5036854
Top fucking kek.

sshh...dont alert them to whats going to happen

>>5036930
>one week ago
>Don't try to be smarter than the market

the fuck happened here biz? retard strength BTC just Gangnam Styled it to ath but WTF. these normie catchphrases are all over the place

>>5037037
fucking THIS shit!!
since when did this plebbit tier street loo become worse than pajeet discords

>>5037171
>Implying /biz/ has every been a quality board when crypto is doing well

>>5037088
>>5037171
are you having a stroke?

>>5037209
indeed i fucking am!
but yeah, as of late, I get the picture

>>5037037
>muh not an argument

>>5036675
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_of_value

>Money is one of the best stores of value because of its liquidity, that is, it can easily be exchanged for other goods and services.

Lmao enjoy waiting days for your BTC to move nice store of value mate

>>5036675
this. I like how biz tries to overanalyze shit.
In the end were all in it to dump bags on other people.

>>5036854

>>5036588
Lmao if this is Dragonslayer what was 12/10 is that when you sold low?

>>5037256
>still no argument
>instead, outdated meme picture and another muh
ok

>>5036675
>store of value
>no longer has the fundamentals that originally gave it value

People only buy it now because they think it will rise in value. Literal ponzi scheme at this point. 2018 will be the year of Bitcoin Cash.

>>5037305
BCH has so much coming next year.
OPcodes coming back, poker app on the blockchain, new wallet tech, roger pushing business adoption out the ass, CSW and nchain with 20 phds and 200+ patents pending

Get ready to see what Bitcoin is really capable of corecucks. History will not be kind to you.

>>5037305
>2018 will be the year of Bitcoin Cash.

The moment Blockstream's BTC takes a nosedive the Bitcoin brand dies with it

>>5037289
>store of value
>no one can actually move it.
so, like gold but it disappears when you try to transport it anywhere
Satoshi was a genius, come to think of it

>>5037397
>200+ patents pending

I thought crypto was about open development of a decentralized superior currency to escape the government and banks?

>>5037458
Don't worry they are going to give BCH all of the patents for free. BTC is gonna get BTFOd though. This is how you stop kikestream.

>>5037305
yeah except lightning network will be out way before anything else takes off. that window of opportunity has passed, and you can blame only the sheer amount of random shitcoins that nothing has toppled the king yet.

>>5037494
>they are going to give BCH all of the patents for free.

And nobody else? Sure sound great to me for the future of cryptocurrency

>>5037417
If there were no bitcoin alternatives readily available, you'd be right. BCH is and has been pushing the narrative that they are the true Bitcoin. Whether or not one believes it to be true, it has the best chance of saving the Bitcoin name and retaining first mover status.

>>5037535
They might be friendly to other cryptos that arent competing. They won't be sharing with BTC though that's for sure. Honestly once BCH reaches its full potential shitcoins like dash, iota, ltc and monero will be worthless.

>>5037535
with opcodes and smart contracts on bitcoin blockchain they are going to start taking ETHs market share too

get ready to see what a real king looks like

>>5037588
>They might be friendly to other cryptos that arent competing.

So pretty much they're trying to take control of cryptocurrency like a bunch of faggots, got it. It's also funny you talk as if BCH is the superior alternative to everything when it's only marginally better than BTC and worse than almost all other alts. People are only attached to it because of the Bitcoin brand with it

>>5037526
>lightning network
too little to late. but wait, why not

>>5037526
LN will see similar adoption to segwit, probably less, infact. No one wants to lock up their funds on a tab payable to one entity only. I predict it will have no sizable effect on network congestion. At which point, blockstream will push their new far away solution that no doubt requires LN, and LN will have its history rewritten as an intermediate stepping stone to this even newer, farther away solution. Kinda like segwit.

I'm the meantime, BCH can already handle all the BTC network activity and more, for fraction of a penny transactions, no locking up funds required, and has increasing merchant and user adoption every day.

>>5037526
>lightning network
Anon...
It's not delivered for so long for a reason.

>>5036675
Exactly, the unelasicityc in suppy of btc exploiting the violatility

>>5037644
>So pretty much they're trying to take control of cryptocurrency like a bunch of faggots
Actually CSW aka Satoshi Nakamoto is just taking back his creation that kikestream stole and bastardized for their own patented lightning network profit motives.

>if BCH is the superior alternative to everything when it's only marginally better than BTC and worse than almost all other alts

You only think that alts are better than BTC because of what kikestream did to it. Bitcoin is Goku in episode 3 of DBZ fighting Raditz right now. Stuck with it's shitty 1MB blocks and a power level of 300. Once 1GB blocks and opcodes open up Bitcoin will be SSJ3 power level 3 million.

>>5037037
muh [boilerplate argument on either side of an issue that is merely repeated without adding any new nuance or depth to the discussion]

That is the purpose of muh.

Muh is useful.

BTC was destroyed. Deal with it. Move on to LTC.

>>5037526
except almost back a month ago
>muh store of value....
all of these fags seem to be mixing shit up.
a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.....
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoincom-to-launch-bitcoin-cash-visa-debit-card

>>5037887
LLLLOOOOOLLLLLL

this guy actually thinks LTC isnt just a shittier version of BTC with all of the same kikestream problems

bch and ltc shills again what a joke

>>5037736
>CSW aka Satoshi Nakamoto
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>5037703
>>5037683
conspiracy theorists, holy shit. segwit didnt do much, it wasnt supposed to. theres hardly a reason to adopt it until LN comes out. no one even said segwit would solve all our problems. everyone every step of the way said "itll do a little bit but yeah no, this is for ln"

fools. you are going to lose all your money. at least invest in something like monero, which might survive when lightning hits, just because the only thing bitcoin wont do well at that point is perfectly anonymous transactions (though ln does make it a lot, lot harder to track).

at least go read about it from sources that arent bcash pump n dump fud posts, retards

>>5037951
Charlie Lee clearly stated he will increase block size in litecoin if blocks become full. He just wanted to see bitcoin chocking. It's bitcoin without current problems, bitcoin done right.

>>5038022
No conspiracies, mate. To open a LN channel you need to pay a fee and lock some of your funds. Fee would be like $1000, funds would be like 50%. What for? What this bitcoin can do other coins can't? Why pay this ammount of money? To save bitcoin whales?

utility counts dickheads. 10k pizza started this shitshow. without those early fuckers using as actual digital cash, we would all be fucked.
you know what the fees for a slice would be now?

any one actually, curious.

>>5038120
>why would you open an LN channel
Because you can buy all the coffee you want instantaneously for low fees because it's a side chain.

>BCH
Oh goodie; you have 8MB blocks and 5% of the global hash rate. If BCH got 95% of global hash rate, you'd be swamped in high fees just like BTC. Larger blocks are not a sustainable solution.

>>5038030
LTC is just a testnet for BTC to implement segwit and LN. Charlie Lee is kikestreams bitch. His tech doesn't do anything special and he has no big plans for it. He just got lucky that his brother worked at coinbase.

>>5038227
>Larger blocks are not a sustainable solution
Prove it.

>>5038227
>Larger blocks are not a sustainable solution.
They is. Mining pools do all the job today, and mining pools can afford big storage, fast hardware and good network connection. Blocks can be 8 Gb and network would run.

>>5038289
It didn’t work when bitcoin went 2mb. They got filled and the problem persists.
>oh I know! We’ll make it... 8mb.
They get filled and the problem persists.

>>5038320
>coin mining currently uses as much energy as Denmark.

>>5038248
Charlie Lee is a chink, he plays on his own.

>>5038214
If they had to pay $15 fees in 2010 it would be 16000 btc in fees.

>>5038348
When did bitcoin go to 2mb blocks? This is news to me.

>>5038214
It's about $8.47 for a transaction with 1 input and 1 output. Yeah, you can't buy a slice of pizza without paying a lot in fees. Alternatively, you can send $1000 anywhere in the world for less than 1% in fees.

>>5038227
BCH has tested gigabit blocks
your hash rate is not in perpetuity fucko
also BCH can have LN if it needs it. then what.
back to square one ay?

>>5038320
>mining pools do the job
That's the point; you have to pay to use the mining hardware. Right now, you poor niggers are asking miners to put your transactions on the BTC blockchain for free. Fuck you. Miners say pay the fucking fee, now pay up. You can fork as many shitcoins as you want but the reason why BTC is king is because it uses the electrical consumption of a fucking country to maintain the most secure blockchain in the world, unlike all the shitcoins.

>>5038425
>bch will just use LN
Hurr durr now we're back at what the fuck is the point of just adding "cash" to the end of the brand name; BTC could easily go to 4MB blocks tomorrow and BCH would be horseshit.

>>5038481
DPOS can maintain just this secure blockchain without extra power consumption. And miners get paid by minted coins, real transaction cost is like hundred of dollars. People just used to this ancient tech.

>>5038348
This is what cashies just fail to understand; some transactions are just not worth enough to be on the main chain for free, which is why fees are used to discriminate between valuable transactions and spam. The solution to lowering the fees isn't increasing the block size, it's increasing the hash rate.

>>5038481
>>5038578
You realize that as more people use bitcoin with bigger blocks, the miners still make a lot of money per block even though the fees per transaction in the block are low.

Also, if you support miners then why would you be for LN? It takes all the fees away from the miners. As time goes on and more halvenings happen it is an economical fact that BTC will die unless each tx has $1000 fees.

>>5038578
>proof of shit
Nobody wants that crap you can just fork it to oblivion. Proof of work is the only thing that counts because it requires actual investment, which ties the asset to reality.

>>5038520
>BTC could easily go to 4MB blocks
Problem is they not, because everyone invested in ETH, LTC or some other shit. Just admit it: blockstream want to cripple bitcoin.

>>5038400
It didn’t, I fucked up.
The point is that block size consistently increased until it was capped at 1mb - it increased to accomodate higher tx volume.
If the approach is to simply raise block size for eternity it doesn’t take long to see how that could be unsustainable. For example if we wanted to accomodate tx volume like that of Visa. What do we go to? 6gb blocks? Then 8, 10, forever until it outpaces the available hardware.

>>5038419
good taste anon

>>5038030
so he is forking litecoin to create litecoin cash?

>>5038625
No one can fork it, there is already shittion of big DPOS blockchains. Never hacked or something. Steem survived all kinds of attacks.

>>5037289
>muh memes need to be up to date
Epic fail

>>5038227
>It didn’t work when bitcoin went 2mb. They got filled and the problem persists.

>Things that never happened.
Please point to me these 2mb blocks on the blockchain, please.

>>5038617
>LN takes all fees away from miners
LN channel owners will never do that because the security of the network is maintained by the large global blockchain, just like how it is in every pools' interest never to go over 40% of hash rate.

>BTC will die unless each tx has $1000 fees
That's the point; you just don't understand how settlement layers work in modern banking. If there are LN channels that can handle daily transaction volume and then settle accounts on the main chain at the end of the day, BTC itself can be millions generating millions in transaction fees but the average end user fee will be cents per dollar.

>>5038641
What does that matter? The core team has shown themselves incompetent and has lost a great deal of goodwill in their mistreatment of the people building infrastructure for bitcoin.

>>5038520
i get it.
was wrong to say that but i said *can*, But it won't have to because it's not needed.
who care's at this point. we pick a team.
i love it but fuck me has it gone wrong somehow

>>5038648
Please look up Moore's law.
When I was young, the idea of a terabyte harddrive sounded insane. You could x4 block size today, cut through the mempool in less than a day, and you wouldn't need that much more space. the blockchain today is like 150 gigs.

>>5038686
I don't think that ever happened; but that's exactly what would happen. All you "high txn fee" faggots are saying is that there is incredibly high demand to transact transfers on the BTC blockchain, since it's the most secure with the highest hash rate. That's a good thing for BTC, not a bad thing. You can be a moron like Roger Ver and bitch about some subhuman apefricans not being able to buy a goat without paying $8 transaction fees, but frankly nobody in the world gave a shit about apefrica to begin with. This is about getting the fuck out of monopoly money fiat.

>>5038648
>The point is that block size consistently increased until it was capped at 1mb
Also not true. I suggest you do better research into the history of BTC. A 1mb cap was only ever introduced because it was cheap to spam the network in the early days. The 1mb cap has been there for years, even when there was only 30KB of transaction data per block. A year ago we started getting full blocks and core refused to increase the blocksize. This spawned the creation of altcoins that took half of BTCs market share and then eventually lead to BCH fork.

This idea that every desktop in the world should be mining bitcoin is absurd. 99% of users will never care about that, they just want to spend and receive money safely and without hassle. Miners make millions in profit, they can afford large disk space and bandwidth infrastructure. I don't see the problem.
>but muh centralization
You don't think there will be some American startups investing hundreds of millions into server farms when they are guaranteed to make huge predictable profits year after year?

>>5038662
Yep, he will do hardfork on main chain to increase 1 mb limit if (then) litecoin blocks become full.

>>5038781
deleted post because you corrected yourself. Over most of BTC's lifetime, it had empty blocks. Full blocks are entirely new, and with it came increased TX fees.

>>5038758
>Moore's law
>Hurr let's have 8GB blocks just so we can handle people sending a dollar back and forth
Why do you literally refuse to admit that fees stop spam transactions? If you want to send change back and forth for zero fees, use dogecoin.

>>5038214
Why do his teeth look so weird? What's up with that?


I'm getting ~1-3 bucks fee for an 8 dollar slice of pizza.

>>5038690
I'm pretty sure you are a paid core shill at this point. Either that or you are a typical brainlet.

You are promoting a blockchain technology where you are okay with a $1000 fee if you need to perform any transaction on the blockchain, forcing all average users into a layer 2 settlement system if they want to use it at all. Why even have the blockchain anymore? Why not just give all holders of BTC a 1 to 1 transfer of Lightning Network Bucks and be done with it?

>>5038893
>forcing average users into layer 2
>forcing
Fucking communist faggots think they are entitled to being on the BTC blockchain just because they own a satoshi. Pay up nigger, if you can't afford to be on the blockchain you can't afford it. Nobody wants to mine bcash because you communist niggers don't want to reward miners for hashing.

>>5038855
>Let's keep the network clogged to stop spam transactions that would clog the network
This is your logic.

Look at the history of bitcoin, it has had mostly empty blocks until very recently. Full blocks are new.
Let people try and spam the network, it still costs money to do it. Let them use bitcoin however they want, but make it actually usable.

If you pay the fee, you get a spot. More space in the block, more space available for everyone, cheaper fees all around. Doesn't matter if you're spamming or just buying coffee. The network can handle it.

>>5038758
It’s not so much about the chain size it’s the hashing power. Also we have a problem if the difficulty accelerates faster than technological advancements.
And moore’s law isn’t infinitely applicable to the future. Advancement is slowing down. We cannot assume that tech will continue to advance at the same rate it did historically.

>>5038981
Difficulty is based on how much hashing network is available on the network, recalculated roughly every two weeks to go higher or lower. It's impossible for what you described to happen. Please understand how difficulty is calculated before you try to argue.

inb4 dogecoin becomes store of value
DGB become Doge silver

>>5038893
>$1000 fee strawman
It costs $8.47 USD to make a 1 input 1 output transaction right now and have it confirm in 6 blocks. Let's round that to $10, that means it costs ~0.05% in fees to transfer 1 BTC from Person A to Person B. If you want $1000 txns fees, that means BTC will be worth $1.7 million apiece. By that point it's not meant to be used for buying coffee and there will be a layer 2 whether you like it or not, even if that's just using LTC instead of BTC.

>>5038970
>full blocks are new
Yeah, people were able to shoot BTC around for free when it was an emerging technology. Now people actually want to use this shit, and naturally it became more expensive to do so.

>more space in the block
>cheaper fees
Yeah, by punishing miners by retroactively changing the fucking agreement that we all trusted when we bought this damn shit in the first place. That is why you don't get the brand name, because you're not the same coin. You're bcash. Honor your contracts you dirty chink.

>>5039090
Whis is so stupid i think you either trolling or a shill. Fee has nothing to do with coin price. Some people just can't afford to transfer their money and not transfer/abandoning bitcoin.

>>5039150
>That is why you don't get the brand name
Roger Ver has a brand and a fucking bitcoin dot com website. Core team has a github page instead. If only Roger was not so retarded he already can has bitcoin associated with his own software.

>>5039150
Miners don't seem to have a problem mining BCH while it's more profitable to do so. I thought anti-cashers hated miners anyways? Suddenly you think BCH is punishing them?

BCH far and away has a better claim to the Bitcoin name than BTC does, as described in the white paper, which could be described as the "agreement you all trusted when you bought this damn shit in the first place". You're really grasping at straws now, aren't you?

Bitcoin became what is it today because of cheap and timely transactions, and you think that those aspects should magically disappear because it has become more valuable.

>>5038968
>Fucking communist faggots think they are entitled to being on the BTC blockchain just because they own a satoshi. Pay up nigger, if you can't afford to be on the blockchain you can't afford it. Nobody wants to mine bcash because you communist niggers don't want to reward miners for hashing.

Meanwhile somehow the owners of 80% or so of the total hash power ideologically back bitcoin cash instead of bitcoin core. The only big pool not doing so is slushpool. Really makes you think.

>>5039201
>fee has nothing to do with coin price
Holy shit you deserve to lose all your money.

>>5039298
>if only Roger was not so retarded
Congrats on this, seriously.

>>5039306
>when its more profitable
Exactly; except it's almost never more profitable to mine BCH, especially now that the DAA adjusts. You'd need Roger or Jihan to actually put all their money where their mouth is and dump their entire BTC holding for BCH. When that happens, I think we'll all know, until then they're just two-timing you.

>BCH is more like BTC white paper
The whitepaper said 1MB blocks.

>>5039321
>the total hash power backs BCH
>the total hash power is 95% on BTC
Pick one.

>>5039347
I don't own any bitcoin since all this fee drama emerged, sorry. I can't even pay for domains on namecheap with bitcoin as I was used to do for 4 years. And fee has nothing to do with price, and depends only on how many users want to transfer their money with bitcoin at the moment. You can see huge drop in backlog: this is actual user abandon bitcoin. Now bitcoin used by speculators only, who don't care about tech and would short the shit in two first days of next bear market to the 0.

>>5039347
>>5039090
The minimum fee for a transaction on the blockchain is 1sat per byte. That is about 7-8 cents on BTC right now. No reason to ever have to pay more than that. You don't even understand that basics and YOU will be the one to lose all of your money dumbfuck.

>>5039443
>The whitepaper said 1MB blocks.
This is 100% false, you can check the whitepaper yourself it mentions no block size limit

>>5036588
OP is jealous because BTC actually has more than 100kb transactions in its blockchain

>>5039443
>especially now that the DAA adjusts

Actually, you saw more miners switching to BCH before the new DAA was introduced. Current DAA just guarantees BCH has consistent block times regardless of varying hash power.

Also, you failed to state why you thought it punishes miners in any way.

>The whitepaper said 1MB blocks.
Wrong. Here, look for yourself https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

>Pick one
Done.

BTC no longer has what made it valuable, and BCH has it in spades. It's only a matter of time.

>>5039692
You know that 99.4% of all bitcoin transactions are just moving between exchanges and hardware wallets? Only 0.6% are actually used for commerce. Congrats on this, seriously.

>>5039750
This is why BTC's days are numbered. People only use it as a vehicle to make more money, there is no effort to increase adoption, no effort to bring more merchants in. We're still in the early days of blockchain tech overall, and BCH is primed and ready to replace cash in the coming years. A position BTC held until its current developers crippled it, either out of ignorance, or self interest.

>>5036588
who cares, pink wojak? BTC will soon blast all the way to 20k. screencap this. your altshits will BLEED RED hahahah

>>5039824
I don't see any BCH futures.

>>5040195
That all you got? Guess you're done here.

>>5040284
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
It's not talking about BCH; doesn't Wikipedia know about Satoshi's vision?!

>>5040195
ever?
like it will never happen. ever?

>>5036588
Completely irreverent with atomic swaps...

How does it feel to know that the issue BCH was "made" for was solved way before it was forked?
also I said "made" in quotes because the dude made it to scam people and make money. He is a literal felon and his interviews are just him throwing little kiddie fits and giving people the finger.
Dead bloated deer are better businessmen.

>>5039824
>>5039824
Fucks sake it’s the same tech except block size and no segwit.

>>5040609
>It's the same tech except one doesn't lose what makes it valuable, cheap timely transactions.

By god, he's right. It's almost as if BCH has a better claim to the name.

no one but a retard spouts off about Satoshi's Vision because that would be gay as AIDS.
If you think btc is fine as it is with that mempool the DA in >6 days and the fees, then have at it..
something broke back in Aug but i'm really hammered so whatever.
not comfy sleeping on either just now desu

>>5037305
> Bitcoin Cash.
Busted a gut. fucking lmao.

litecoin, ETH or even FUN probably.

>>5039824

And why exactly does marginally better BCH take the throne? It's still only coasting on brand like BTC (also PoW coins are never gonna make it long-term and good luck ever switching BTC or BCH from that to something else)

>>5040772
you realize BCH is going to start taking ETHs lunch with OPcodes right?

Why doesn't (((Blockstream))) just fork Bitcoin if they want to change it so much?

>>5040890
because they are stealing the Bitcoin name but paying shills and censoring reddit to make everyone think BCH is stealing the Bitcoin name

>>5040783
It's going to take the throne, not because plebs like us on 4chan believe it will or won't, but because it is going to replace all merchant adoption of BTC. It's trivial to change a BTC merchant system to accept BCH instead. It's not trivial to bring in whole new infrastructure to facilitate another alt coin. It is, in a way, coasting on the Bitcoin brand, but it objectively has a better claim to it than BTC does. BCH gets to retain first mover status.

I disagree with you about PoW coins, and I think we're still a bit far away on the timeline for it to be an issue in the minds of the public, such that it shouldn't be an issue in increasing adoption.

>>5036588
everyone with a sizable number of BTC already knows about the clogged mempool, that's why BTC surged when Lightning Network was successfully tested on the mainnet

>>5040948
People "know" about LN, but don't understand what it is. Just like people "knew" about segwit.

And just like Segwit, people think LN will fix everything, and when it doesn't, because users don't want to lock up their funds so they can have microtransactions with only 1 other entity per channel, there will be a new far away solution to the problem. Expensive fees are here to stay.

BCH
being pickedup globally, daily now, like btc a few years back
debit cards coming, bitpay coming.
1000's of ATM's this month alone
darknet market adoption is underway
under the radar ish except all the crypto gurus that hate it

BTC
normies getting in now thinking they won the lottery
normie vendors like steam dropped BTC
on facebook and being shilled by instagram whores
LN will fix it all though

It's strange though, even Core shills have to admit it's strange. A modest blocksize increase would immediate-IMMEDIATELY- fix the clogged mempool, and have zero effect on "miner centralization". BCH price would plummet, everyone would fomo back into BTC.

The reason this won't happen is because then people wouldn't be forced into accepting LN. Core is using the pressure created from a clogged network to shoehorn their own "solution". They know the second they increase blocksize, that people will wonder why this didn't happen years ago. That all their credibility goes out the window.

>>5041040
Litecoin will fix it all. Already in ATM, has cards, shilled on TV.
Can be settlements chain for bitcoin, can be not. Can handle more than bitcoin just right now. Fast, cozy, made by google engeneer, chink friendly, has a non anonymous face.

>>5041126
>hurr they won't adopt the "solution" we offer
>it must be a giant (((conspiracy)))
Well if that's the case you'd have to be an idiot not to expect (((them))) to come out on top again

>>5041180
yeah, but can it scale?
LTC is the answer?
also this because i like it:
>has a non anonymous face.

>>5041351
Yes, both ways like BCH or like BTC.
Charlie Lee don't mind big blocks on litecoin. And litecoin can use all LN benefits.

>>5041460
neat.
look, i'm too mashed and knackered
you win but I'm not sitting in LTC for the night.
this shit is just fucking weird now.

can every one reach a fucking consensus already

>>5041584
>can every one reach a fucking consensus already

No, this is good so we can weed out bad shit before we actually get something that can take us to decentralized universal currency town

>>5041622
you do it then,
tell those fuckers poor fuckers that mortgaged their homes to get rich.
its 1am now and I prob have to wake up in 6hrs to make eggy weggs for my son

>>5041584
You dont need to. But litecoin has like 150k transactions last days, it was around 20k month ago. Litecoin has like 8 billion volume during mooning and entire litecoin marketcap was around 8 billions just week ago. This is not usual pump.

>>5041040
i hope you're right, but right now i'd rather sit in BTC. if things shift i'll hop on BCH. backing BCh now is risky though, new money is going straight into BTC as of now.

>>5041126
agree

>>5041180
LTC is too concentrated amongst the top whales. Plus it will face the scaling issues BTC has now. BTC is the leader, everything that follows will have these same issues to tackle. for what it's worth i like LTC

>>5041767
yup, ltc has had a nice run just now and no one here disagrees, I ask myself how much of it was due to coinbase + the rumours of high btc-fee fears?
then Ripple was big back for a month back in April with all that (((bank news))) and tx times/fee solutions

>>5041906
>LTC is too concentrated amongst the top whales.
LTC was oversold and dumped hard, so all the whales bouth it. Unlike bitcoin, where some Mark karpeles own 250000, and the guy he bouth MTG exchange from has around 200000, and the guy who made satoshi dice, and bulgarian police, and Satoshi himself with 1000000.
>Plus it will face the scaling issues BTC has now.
No.
https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/63cgfc/my_letter_to_chinese_miners_and_pool_operators_on/
>For concerns about on-chain scaling, I understand your concerns. I promise you if and when the need arises for Litecoin to scale on-chain, the Litecoin developers and I will execute a hard fork to increase max block size for Litecoin.

>then Ripple was big back for a month back

fuck i'm a spazz. you know what I meant.
and i'm out

>>5036588
>these threads again

>>5037986