/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>9178878
I can't wait to use my BCASH at starbucks

>>9178878
Nano will overtake Bitcoin cash in adoption this year. fees under $0.001, and it is easier to support/implement Nano than it is to support/implement bitcoin cash.
Bitcoin cash may in fact be technically better, but it won't matter if it's too complex for a general user. Even cryptocurrencies in general are hard. When it comes to security software, KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) is essential.

>>9178878

dont forget adding privacy features and soon smart contracts that can all be supported due to larger blocks.

>>9178904
theres no pow with nano. its gay like you

>>9178878
Nips are going to adapt it soon as well.
If you are still not in bch then I don't know how you want to make it.

>>9178904
this

>>9178922

>thinking pow is a good thing

suuuuuuuurrreee, just drink the cum right out of jihans cock as you order your next asic miner after they've already been mining internally with them for so long to inflate the difficulty before the miners even hit the market

the only ones that win with pow is bitmain, no matter what coin

>>9179023
proof of work gives the blockchain its immutability. there is NO other method that can create that level of immutability. none. The fact that miners incur cost means they have an economic incentive to continue mining, in which further confirms old blocks making them more immutable, and also keeping the network alive by continuing to produce blocks.

>>9178892
I can't wait to buy my local grocery store's brand of coffee with BCH and watch Starcucks succumb to the SJW faggotry they've brought upon themselves.

>>9178914
>privacy features
You mean beyond Cash Shuffle? I want extension blocks + zkSnarks.

>>9179023
Imagine hating the free market this much.

>>9179044

>proof of work gives blockchain it's immutability

wrong, consensus gives blockchain it's immutability.

>>9179224
That's not free market, it's market failure complete with dead weight loss. They monopolized the market by increasing the barrier of entry beyond acceptable levels and selling the only means of market entry.

Basically, fuck proof of work and fuck bitmain

>>9179353
concensus only works because of proof of work. proof of stake exists to a degree, but it is not immutable.

The only way to change a tx from 1 year ago on the bitcoin network at 51% would be to expend 2 years of energy without being paid, then after mining for those 2 years still mine for 1 additional year to catch up to the extra work the original chain has (49%)

rewriting history for PoW blockchains is next to impossible. the same cannot be said for proof of stake blockchains.

>>9178878
>fees under $0.01, and it is easier to support/implement bitcoin cash than it is to support/implement lightning.
If these are your arguments Nano is better. I still don't advise Nano because these are shit arguments but it's literally better at these aspects.

>>9179044
>The fact that miners incur cost means they have an economic incentive to continue mining, in which further confirms old blocks making them more immutable, and also keeping the network alive by continuing to produce blocks.

Let me further rebut here by simplifying your statement: "proof of work is extra immutable because it costs bitmain money to stop operating so they will keep mining" except that just proves that you know nothing about economics. Even if it costed nothing to enter the market and it made you a hundred bucks, people would have incentive to mine because stopping mining would "cost them" a hundred bucks. All hardware costs do is increase the price of the coin by making miners have to recoup variable operating costs to turn a profit. Fuck you

>>9179465
The same CAN be said for PoS, where you'd need to own 51% of the coins for the 51% attack you describe. You'd still lose 2 years worth of block rewards from it.

>>9178904
>>9179488
Ikr, cashies are deluded AF in thinking BCH will actually be significant. It will ONLY be significant if it flips BTC, and that will only happen if Core is incredibly fucking stupid and lets the hashpower leave via bad technical choices. Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Someone else will fork the Core chain with a minor blocksize increase if things get REALLY bad, and people will move to that before they'll up and switch to BCH. The longer the two chains have been separate, the worse the outcome will be for the cashies.
Plus, to your point NANO blows BCH out of the water fundamentally. Way easier to use, fast enough for merchant acceptance, feeless to enable micropayments, etc. More adaptive protocol-level consensus (you can't take misbehaving miners' CPUs away in PoW, but you can re-target your representative stake voting power in DPoS), plus better scalability (enabled by not having frivolous shit like colored coins).
BCH would have been innovative as fuck in 2016, but alas, it's /CURRENT YEAR/ and that is no longer the case.

>>9179465

if the proof of work malicious attacker has to redo old hashes in order to attack the network, then what does a staker have to do? stake 50 billion wallets? With a properly distributed enough staking system, it could be equally immutable.

miners have over a 100 million invested in hash power, they want to get paid and you want to have your raspberry pi nodes so things will work out.

>>9178878
Yep BCH will win over BTC in the end.

It's sadly going down right now against BTC but it's only a matter of time.

<-- Even BTC fans admit that the best way to go is to not use Lightning Network.

>>9180218
How come nobody considers the fact that you require 51% of the mining power in the first place for such an attack and nobody is going to 51% attack for a candy bar.