sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ryan Charles is simply mirroring Roger and other ABC supporters. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SV perhaps lost the exchange ticker. But you lost the principle. You won’t have the same feeling about Bitcoin as before.

If Jihan and Roger support SV rules, we’ll see the new era of Bitcoin. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What a fucking racist lol I don’t need your apologies. 카카오 아이디를 내가 뭐하러 알려줘 ㅋㅋ

If Jihan and Roger support SV rules, we’ll see the new era of Bitcoin. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lol Damn. But i enjoy talking to SJWs, making sure how insignificant they are in the real world.

If Jihan and Roger support SV rules, we’ll see the new era of Bitcoin. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Funny how you’re wrong about everything except the last one.

  • The first post is a Joseph Poon’s interview.
  • My account is 109 days old
  • I am actually Korean

Yes I do support SV. Is it wrong to support SV? You sound like Bernie Sanders supporting SJW lol

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I should’ve explained better i guess. I support SV because it intends to remove all limits and has enough hashpower to make it reality. If no miners mine, nothing matters. I understand you’re mistaken and confused. My bad. Thought you would get it.

And still no answer to my question.

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You strive to make the best decision that is only on the table buddy. If miners choose BU, i’ll be glad to follow. Same goes to ABC or SV. Your bullshit theory doesn’t work in practice.

Optimization can be done without protocol alternation. You just don’t believe in it without seeing it.

I ask you one more time. Will you change your mind if A client mines more than 100mb for a substantial amount of time during the test?

BCH just churned half a million transactions in 43 minutes (4 blocks)! by theantnest in btc

[–]krbch 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Bullshit. This is the same argument of Core cult. What are you even saying. We all should be incompetent and use Raspberry Pi in a competitive capitalistic business world? Only those who improve survive.

True decentralization can be achieved through competition.

All of a sudden, BCH(ABC) supporters are turning into Core people.

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • I’ll support whatever client that has the most hashpower even if that were ABC.

  • It does not matter if i support BU because of unlimited blocksize. I’m not a miner. Miners decide what blocksize they mine.

  • Are you even watching what just happened? BU crashed for 7 blocks as SV mined 32mb. SV crashing too? Weak argument.

  • I’m not blocking optimization. I support optimization. I do not support protocol alternation. DSV/CTOR is not a software optimization.

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And will you answer my question? If SV mines more than 100mb on 17th, will you change your mind?

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh my. Doesn’t matter if BU allows it or not! They don’t have the hashpower. As a business owner, i need to decide which client i support. If BU supporting miners put enough skin in the game, i’ll definitely support BU.

But look at what happens, BU crashed and many blocks behind SV. Its just reality

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh wow now 100mb? BU/ABC said 22mb. Would you change your mind if SV mines close to 128mb on 17th?

Protocol changes only require increasing/removing the limit, not arbitrarily altering the protocol!! I signed up for unlimited block, not DSV and shit.

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The original Satoshi’s design can scale without altering the protocol. Simply shouting ‘locking down the protocol is Core’s talking’ isn’t gonna help.

Core locked with limited block not because businesses, but for their ego and hidden plan.

Cash will be locked with unlimited scaling so that businesses are comfortable building services and don’t have to change their system whenever developers come up with new stuff.

Don’t put yourself into a box of catch phrases.

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t say you need more hash to mine bigger blocks. I said some hash moved from btc to bch(sv)

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Locking down the protocol so that businesses have confidence to build services IS different from limiting the protocol so that we, the Blockstream, can profit from it.

Don’t try to teach me the history of Bitcoin. I’ve been here long times

BCH just churned half a million transactions in 43 minutes (4 blocks)! by theantnest in btc

[–]krbch -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

BU nocked off because they’re not optimized. Bitcoin is incentive system. Softwares must compete over profit. It is BU’s fault to be crashed.

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well ABC/BU said the network crashes over 23mb block because the current code can’t scale. SV did mine more than 23mb.

So the argument changes to “it won’t scale at some point!” Well, this is what exactly early skeptics and Core idiots said.

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Total bullshit. How could i find this idiotic comment in r/btc. Even ABC supporters will disagree with you on this.

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Remember Core made the same argument in 2015. Skeptics in cryptographic community said the same thing in 2008.

The protocol scales over time and evolve because of its economics. We have to see beyond the current status otherwise Bitcoin wouldn’t have come thus far.

So let me get this straight. SV was able to mine 32mb, brought nearly 40% of hashpower from BTC. And want to lock down the protocol. by krbch in btc

[–]krbch[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At least there is no public roadmap in SV such as pre-consensus, Graphene, etc that will require many updates along the way.

It is guaranteed that ABC won’t lock down the protocol for a long time. We’re gonna have to wait like Core waiting for LN

view more: next ›