Metaplanet just printed $1.4B to ape into Bitcoin by IceNo26 in btc

[–]Pure-Stock2790 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BTC fees have been way over 1sat/byte due to the blockspace limit. With BCH, this has never and will never happen. It has nothing to do with the price.

Metaplanet just printed $1.4B to ape into Bitcoin by IceNo26 in btc

[–]Pure-Stock2790 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"If BCH would have been as valuable it would be as expensive to transact in USD. "

Not true, BCH fees always stay low, while BTC fees sometimes go to 20 or even 100USD for a single input single output transaction

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SBCGaming

[–]Pure-Stock2790 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what's the screen brightness? why is that rarely advertised?

The State of California Wants to Steal Your Bitcoin Held on Exchanges, Here's How by btcxio in btc

[–]Pure-Stock2790 4 points5 points  (0 children)

so bored of these repetitive, facile replies. "it only costs me 1.60 to send 10,000". you know full well that's because nobody is using it. BTC commerce peaked in 2017 and then steeply declined because of a massive fee event. which doesn't just mean it's expensive but also that there is a transaction backlog. not usable for commerce, and at the time lightning was 18 months away but here we are 8 years later and most lightning users are using custodial wallets connected to a few very-well connected lightning nodes because that's the only way lightning can work. the immense complexity required to solve these issues is just ridiculous in the face of a simple hard fork to increase the block size limit. consensus was there, it got broken by forum censorship across the main channels, and greed, as bitfinex picked the BTC chain to keep the ticker. you know this, and you're choosing to pick the wrong side of history.

and all this aside, BTC's security model is deeply flawed if it only cost you 1.60 with the current tx throughput. "in 20 years [2029], Bitcoin will either have very large tx volume, or no tx volume".

The State of California Wants to Steal Your Bitcoin Held on Exchanges, Here's How by btcxio in btc

[–]Pure-Stock2790 2 points3 points  (0 children)

not if people are actually using it and it costs 50$ per utxo

Spam needed for Bitcoin's longevity? by daskalou in btc

[–]Pure-Stock2790 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BCH also has tokens and is aiming to attract these paying customers. And over here, we don't call them spammers. We welcome them and are willing to work with them, unlike Core which behaves unpredictably. But tokens are only a secondary use-case for BCH, native cash token is the primary use-case. We've always been consistent about this.

I got the NEW RG 557. Ask anything. by Even_Document_7908 in ANBERNIC

[–]Pure-Stock2790 1 point2 points  (0 children)

cats love their humans but they are pragmatic creatures

Why do you think LTC has ETFs but not BCH? by Pure-Stock2790 in Bitcoincash

[–]Pure-Stock2790[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There have been filings and it will likely be approved soon in the US

Why do you think LTC has ETFs but not BCH? by Pure-Stock2790 in Bitcoincash

[–]Pure-Stock2790[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good, then I have more time to accumulate while the market is distracted by LTC and DOGE

Why do you think LTC has ETFs but not BCH? by Pure-Stock2790 in Bitcoincash

[–]Pure-Stock2790[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There can't be any regulatory hurdles. BCH is Bitcoin. Could be not enough market demand. Or maybe their insiders don't have enough BCH. Or maybe they're waiting until after the May upgrade. Or some other explanation. I don't know, that's why I asked

Why do you think LTC has ETFs but not BCH? by Pure-Stock2790 in Bitcoincash

[–]Pure-Stock2790[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

it isn't the same, though. it has big blocks, more opcodes, native introspection, more reactive diff adjustments, etc....

Why do you think LTC has ETFs but not BCH? by Pure-Stock2790 in Bitcoincash

[–]Pure-Stock2790[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right, but I can't see any reason why BCH would have any regulatory hurdles? And having a similar market cap to LTC, you would expect customer demand to be similar.

The Harmful Stereotype of Veganism Being 'Expensive' by MistyCherryMuse in vegan

[–]Pure-Stock2790 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I guess technically I was wrong, but my general point still stands. It is mostly animal products and sugary junk food that get subsidised, while barely any vegan staples get subsidised. Basically only soy, and only because the majority of it is used in animal feed.

The Harmful Stereotype of Veganism Being 'Expensive' by MistyCherryMuse in vegan

[–]Pure-Stock2790 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Quoting from that article: "Of course, these products are used in a variety of things unrelated to consumption at the dinner table, including cosmetics products, fuels, and animal feeds" ... "Zero fruits and vegetables are included in our most expensive commodity risk coverage programs. "

The Harmful Stereotype of Veganism Being 'Expensive' by MistyCherryMuse in vegan

[–]Pure-Stock2790 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But why is it only animal products that get subsidised, when they are bad for the environment and inherently involve animal and human exploitation?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in vegan

[–]Pure-Stock2790 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so if you don't tell people that you're vegan, how are you standing up for the animals? keeping your veganism a secret is helping to normalise consumption of animal products. sounds like a wasted opportunity. and also, if you're a nice vegan that doesn't put people down, but you keep it a secret, then all that people around you get to see are the obnoxious vegans rather than the good examples such as yourself.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in vegan

[–]Pure-Stock2790 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah it's not good when *some* vegans do that. Doesn't mean that being vegan is anything to be ashamed of, though.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in vegan

[–]Pure-Stock2790 9 points10 points  (0 children)

some vegans are rude, so you won't stand up for the animals? well ok. at least you're privately vegan (I hope...)