Reddit User Account Overview


Redditor Since April 9, 2019 (452 days old)
Karma Posts: 383,059 Comments: 21,073 Combined: 404,132
Active in

I've seen the markets since 2017-2018 ever since the big crashes. Whenever Bitcoin goes up or down in price, it seems extremely convenient that other cryptos go down too, despite there not really being a reason for it to happen. Not only do they also happen to go down in price, but they specifically seem to go down in BTC value. So far, I have had a few theories for this, but I would like a more conclusive answer to the question. A few of my theories are: 1. Bitcoin has higher liquidity, and therefore that makes it harder to move up and down. This economically makes sense, but it doesn't explain the extremely weird correlation other coins have in comparison to Bitcoin. Just because Bitcoin goes up/down, it doesn't mean anything about other cryptocurrencies. 2. The whole BTC trade-pair coupling. To me, this seems somewhat plausible, but it doesn't give a full explanation of the story. Price coupling with BTC implies indirectly that BTC is a digital gold, and gives people the mindset of only using other cryptos to gain more BTC. Therefore, when the price goes down, they are more set on selling their coins to get more BTC at a "low" price. In some ways, this might stifle innovation, and not make people realize that other coins have their merits. 3. Market manipulation. Tether obviously has some shady business going on, and almost everyone can agree that price manipulation is definitely taking place. While wash-trading and pumping are trade practices that Tether is allegedly actively taking part in, it still wouldn't explain the correlation between the coin prices. At least, not directly. 4. Exchange manipulation. The idea behind this one is that exchanges are intentionally trading against their customers and therefore suppressing prices. As long as BTC remains #1, that means that their wealth is preserved. That would mean that exchanges actively dump coins when Bitcoin dumps so that BTC can maintain its dominance and not worry about competition potentially taking over. I don't know exactly why these price correlations happen because it seems like this wasn't an issue before (looking at web archives, or even general price history). Ever since the bull-run of 2017, it seems like every coin is conveniently correlated to the price action of Bitcoin, despite the fact that these coins have had their own growing communities, and some have even more hype/support surrounding them than Bitcoin itself. That would completely toss the "Bitcoin brings value to alts" theory. Can anyone explain why exactly this happens? It's definitely not a coincidence, and has been happening for way too long to just be happening by pure and sheer luck.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 03:42:06

I have seen a few posts here with users wondering what the price of Moon tokens on this sub are worth, and while they're "technically" not worth anything, I thought it would be fun coming up with an estimate as to how much each token is roughly worth. To do this, I measured using a metric called "Metcalfe's Law". Metcalfe's Law states that the value of a network is *n log(n)* of the number of participants within the network. For the calculations and statistics I'm using here, I'm getting my information from []( I figured to start with measuring this metric through the number of active users on this subreddit. For these metrics, I think it is fair to take the statistics of the last week into consideration, so that there are no outliers in this data set. Since these tokens are technically on Ethereum, that means I will be using some Ethereum statistics in this to get as accurate results as possible. Now for determining the active number of users on the network, I took the top post for this entire week (which has 3,200 upvotes + 300 comments), and assumed an engagement rate of 2.5% (This is the average engagement rates of posts on social media). Using this, the number of active users in the sub can be calculated to be \~140,000. Using this figure, and entering it in the equation v = *n log(n)*, we get a network value of \~720,500. With this value in mind, we have to multiply it by some metric, so for this figure, I decided to multiply it by the median transaction value for Ethereum (7 day SMA). Though there are no available current metrics for median transaction value, the last SMA value for median transaction value is $0.013. I chose the median transaction value because unlike Ethereum, Moons aren't used for wealth transfer or large transactions. Otherwise, I would take the average transaction value into consideration. Multiplying this, the total market cap of Moon tokens is $9,365.95. This gives each token a value of \~$0.000605 per token. Looking at these metrics, this means the user who currently earned the most moons this month earned \~$28.52. Just to show you how accurate this metric is, I'm going to compare it using the active addresses of some of the top coins, and the average transaction value (since other currencies ARE used for wealth transfer) and compare it to the real market cap of these coins: |Coin|Market Cap|Metcalfe's Law Market Cap| |:-|:-|:-| |Bitcoin|\~$174,000,000,000|\~$125,850,000,000| |Ethereum|\~$25,955,000,000|\~$1,188,000,000| |Bitcoin Cash|\~$4,425,000,000|\~$3,230,000,000| |Bitcoin SV|\~$3,280,000,000|\~$10,560,000| |Litecoin|\~$2,860,000,000|\~$1,380,000,000| \* I think mainly the only reason there is a discrepancy for Ethereum is partly because it's not a currency intended for wealth transfer, but is more focused on creating dApps, and developing DeFi

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 17, 2020 19:01:43

From the shift in narrative of what Bitcoin really was intended to be, to intentionally keeping the blockchain expensive to suit this narrative, it has made me come up with a few "predictions" about what is going to happen in the future of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Core. Seeing as this narrative needs to be maintained, here's what I personally think will happen in the near future of BTC: 1. The fees will start to get expensive, as expected (this is a given if a bull-run happens, or naturally as more users join the network). As a response to this, not only will r/Bitcoin promote the Lightning Network, Cashapp (owned by Jack Dorsey) will completely cover transfer fees at a loss, so that this looks like a non-issue from the outside. 2. After the Lightning Network gets promoted, there will be a significant number of routing issues as a larger user base tries to use it. All discussion about the high on-chain fees and routing issues will be completely censored from r/Bitcoin so that the public opinion on Bitcoin can be manipulated and maintained. 3. Eventually people will accept the shortcomings of the Lightning Network as a "small price to pay" for the most secure currency, and this narrative will be maintained on r/Bitcoin, with the premise that "having a few routing issues with transactions is a small price to pay for the most secure network, and the future of money". 4. As a workaround for these routing issues, eventually Lightning Hubs will form. Cashapp, []( (which is also already centralizing the network), Blockstream, and Lightning Labs will be the main nodes to go to for liquidity. Obviously, nobody is going to provide great liquidity for free, so this will lead to higher fees because it is a great way to profit. This business model will lead to fees based on percentage (instead of being flat), as the argument behind it will be the greater the funds, the greater the risk. 5. Effectively because of this, Bitcoin will just become PayPal 2.0. It will still be on CNBC, and the price will be high, but that's all people are going to focus on, price. The market will continue to stagnate sideways continuously, and CNBC will treat it like a stock. People can use Bitcoin, but it will require KYC, and instead of being cheap, it will be the new bank where instead of paying bank maintenance fees, people will pay channel maintenance fees for using Lightning Hubs. After all this, I also expect that Bitcoin will be accepted as a payment option just like Visa and Mastercard because KYC is still required so the government, and regulators won't be afraid of it. It will have fees just like any other payment processor, but the demand for it on deep web markets will diminish for obvious reasons. Monero will be in demand for those purposes, and for obvious reasons. I suspect that the price will perpetually (and intentionally) be kept sideways.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 03:14:05

Some of you might be coming to this sub, and wondering why so many people support Bitcoin Cash. This is directly answered in the pinned [FAQ](, and also briefly goes over the history of the sub. Now onto why Bitcoin Cash has huge potential when it comes to changing the world: Bitcoin Cash was created with the purpose of bringing economic freedom to everyone all across the globe. With the current banking, financial, and payment systems, there are many issues when it comes to the usability of money. These issues are: \- Sending money across the globe without having to pay high fees (percentage fees), and waiting days or even weeks for your transfer to go through \- Having payment options like Visa and Mastercard that help deal with high-volume business, but having to pay a flat fee ($0.15), and a fee of 2%-3% per purchase \- Having full control over your money, so the government can't devalue your savings by printing more money for their personal interests \- Being able to use your money however you like, without having to get permission from an intermediary, middleman, or financial institution \- Being able to know how much money will be circulating at any given time in the future \- Paying high fees (4%+) for converting currency when travelling Let's take a look at how Bitcoin Cash solves these problems: **Remittance** When it comes to sending money across the globe from one bank account to another, often times the fees will be very high because when your bank is sending money, it has to go through several intermediary banks that each take from the initial amount of money, making the process slow, and expensive. Currently, Western Union is advertising "free" transfers of currency across the globe. Seems like a good deal, right? Well here's the thing: they're tricking you into thinking that transfers are free when they're actually making money off of the exchange rate. We believe that money (digital cash) should be as frictionless as possible, and that a user shouldn't have to deal with transfer fees, and have to get permission to transfer their money from one bank to another. Currently, the fees on Bitcoin Cash are only [$0.0007](, and we plan on keeping them that low. **Payment Systems** When it comes to traditional payment systems, like Visa, Mastercard, and American Express, credit card companies often charge a 2%-3% fee on every transaction that takes place, and a transaction can take anywhere from 24-36 hours to confirm, and go into a merchant's bank account. These payment systems are both slow and expensive. With Bitcoin Cash, your funds are available instantly for you to spend, but if you want to take extra security measures, you can always wait \~10 minutes for a confirmation to go through. **Control Over Your Own Money** With the banking system as we currently know it, one of the biggest problems is the lack of control your have over your own money. Every year, people are forced to pay taxes to politicians only to have their money basically wasted on providing effectively nothing to them. Bitcoin Cash solves this problem by giving you full control over your money. Making a wallet does not require anyone to give ID, personal information, or anything that could potentially lead to the government having any say in what you can do with your hard-earned money. Another issue with traditional currencies is the inflationary nature of them. This is another form of taxation that doesn't *appear* to be as bad as taxing, but it's just a different way of taking money from the hands of citizens. When the government prints more money, your savings get devalued, meaning that the government has effectively stolen money without physically "stealing" it. With Bitcoin Cash, the inflation relies on a purely mathematical system in which the maximum number of Bitcoins will always be 21 million. With mathematical certainty, you can always be sure of the exact supply of Bitcoins based on the block number. I made a [graph]( that helps illustrate this with **>99.99997%** accuracy on how many Bitcoin Cash will be in circulation based on the block height. This works for Bitcoin, and Bitcoin SV too. You can check the accuracy by putting the block height/number in the brackets of the second expression. **Currency Conversion** Have you ever travelled to another country where you had to convert to the local currency in order to be able to use it? If so, you would've realized that conversion rates can often be very high, and it is impractical to do unless you're converting a large sum of money. Our idea is to increase merchant adoption so that Bitcoin Cash can have its own economy, so it doesn't matter where in the world you are, you can always use Bitcoin Cash, and not have to worry about conversion fees. If you want to "convert" to another currency, you can always use [SLP tokens]( that will eventually come in a variety of local fiat currencies in the near future. Tether USDT is already planning to make SLP tokens too. This is also a great alternative if you aren't sure whether you want to put your money into crypto, and want to stick with fiat instead. Think of SLP tokens as "paper" tokens on top of Bitcoin Cash that can be sent and received for fractions of a penny! **How to use Bitcoin Cash for Buying Goods and Services** Right now, there are many ways you can use Bitcoin Cash, including local usage, and online usage. If you want to see which merchants near you accept Bitcoin Cash, you can check using []( and see which local merchants are accepting Bitcoin Cash. If you want to buy things online, you can use [](, and get 30% off on any Amazon purchase, so you contribute to the economy of growing Bitcoin Cash, and get a great deal for any item you want to buy! TL;DR: Bitcoin Cash is sound money which you have full control over your own money, and allows you to send any amount of money, anywhere in the world, instantly, and practically for free. If you have any additional questions, feel free to comment. **Resources:** Bitcoin Inflation Graph: []( Buy things on Amazon using Bitcoin Cash: []( []( chrome extension: []( See which local merchants accept Bitcoin Cash: []( Wallets with Bitcoin Cash: [Electron Cash](, [ Wallet](, [Exodus](, [Badger Wallet](

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on June 5, 2020 19:21:46

I have been looking through Reddit, and I find that a lot of us, even apart from the Bitcoin Cash community want to bring economic freedom, digital cash, and privacy to the world, and that's how currencies like Dash, Decred, Monero, Digibyte, and Nano came into existence. I think one of the interesting things about the whole crypto community is that all of these other cryptocurrencies were created because BTC didn't scale. I read the story behind [Decred]( (and why it was made), and they don't seem to be too far off from our vision. They also acknowledged how the core developers changed the narrative of Bitcoin being "digital gold". I also read a bit about Dash, and it's in the name (digital cash). I think their purpose is clear too. Monero seems to also be another interesting project, though I haven't read up on it, and I feel like Nano also has a lot of potential. ​ I understand that we think that our own coin is better, but that doesn't mean that others are bad, and I think that's why working together can have some real potential for the future of the economy, and cryptocurrency as a whole. Maybe we should shift our focus from just "shilling" our own coin, and focus more on helping other coins (along with ours) reach their potential too. ​ Just a thought.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 00:33:07

When it comes to Bitcoin Cash's difficulty adjustment algorithm, it is having many issues. We've come across situations in which several consecutive blocks are mined in a few minutes, which can be bad for security, and the overall credibility of Bitcoin Cash. I've looked at the block explorer as well, and there are times when the antminer pool gets 5-6 blocks in 10 minutes. Though the average is still at the proper 10 minutes, I can foresee this causing many issues, and making Bitcoin Cash potentially fail. If this DAA isn't fixed, a big mining pool that is opposed to Bitcoin Cash can easily increase (and switch over hashrate from BTC to BCH), causing the difficulty to increase, and then leave the pool almost immediately so the pool of smaller hashrate will take SIGNIFICANTLY longer to solve that block. I have seen this at points where Bitcoin Cash blocks have gotten extremely long (ex. \~2 hours after the reward halving), and that's an issue that needs solving. I saw a video on [youtube]( by u/jtoomim that explained this pretty well. This isn't the first time I've heard of this problem. I saw a thread that discussed how miners can "game" the DAA. Is there going to be a change in this adjustment algorithm anytime soon?

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on June 2, 2020 19:39:03

Considering the rise in the amount of people getting into cryptocurrency (who will inevitably hear about Bitcoin first), the network is bound to see more activity. With more activity on the network, the mempool becomes a lot larger, and transaction fees will skyrocket. Assuming that the transaction fees will be $10 per average transaction, and ALL Lightning Network transactions will be FREE (which they aren't, but I'm making the strongest case for the Lightning Network for argument's sake), it will cost \~$20.00 to open your Lightning Network, and settle all your balance back on chain. Doing some simple math: ​ Average BCH fee = \~$0.002 (and this doesn't even consider the fact that fees actually DECREASE when there are more transactions on the network) Cost to open and close your funds on a Lightning Wallet = \~$20 $20.00 / $0.002 = 10,000 transactions ​ You would have to make 10,000 transactions for it to make more sense economically to use the Lightning Network than to use on-chain BCH transactions. This is also not mentioning the fact that BCH on-chain transactions are FAR more secure than Lightning Network transactions, and the fact that Lightning Network will become more centralized (than it already is), causing fees to increase due to lack of competition in channel liquidity and the development of Lightning Hubs. ​ Even with the reasonable assumption that people are making 5 transactions a day, it would take 5.5 years just for you to **break even** with the economic viability of BCH, and this doesn't include how much congestion will happen on the BTC network, and is making the assumption that network fees will remain low.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on May 22, 2020 16:31:09

​ [Source: https:\/\/\/comparison\/transactions-btc-bch.html]( A lot of people claim that the only reason Bitcoin Cash is cheap is because nobody uses it, and no transactions happen on it. I did my own research, and using []( (a very useful website for cryptocurrency statistics), I compiled the transaction fees when Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash were experiencing similar transaction volumes (amounts), and from the data, it is clear that Bitcoin Cash functions **far better** at transferring money. The craziest part about this is the fact that the Bitcoin Cash transactions would confirm in the next block, giving relatively fast transactions, while Bitcoin itself had confirmation times up to hundreds of minutes, and still is very slow to this day. I just saw a thread earlier today where someone wanted to make a transaction on chain, and they had to pay a 40 cent fee for the Bitcoin to transfer (which took \~3 hours). They only transferred a few dollars, so the transaction was pretty much eaten up by the fees. ​ Someone made a thread related to these high transaction fees in r/Bitcoin back in 2016, and the mods deleted his original post: [\_confirmation\_times/]( ​ Another argument I hear supporting Bitcoin is that it is the most secure network, and while that is true at face value, there's more to it than that. People tend to cite []( as the website to support the idea that Bitcoin is the most secure network. The problem is that the security payoff is objectively worse. Bitcoin Cash might be 35x slower to get the equivalent security of the 6 confirmations on Bitcoin, but this completely ignores the fees needed to make such a transaction. If I want a 1 input, 1 output transaction with the same fees as Bitcoin Cash, I would have to wait for 504 blocks (minimum), and the fees would still be higher than that of Bitcoin Cash. After waiting 3.5 days, I think it's safe to say that the Bitcoin Cash transaction is already significantly more secure than the Bitcoin transaction after having 504 confirmations, when the Bitcoin transaction only has 1. ​ I think it's crazy that despite how much objectively better Bitcoin Cash is when compared to Bitcoin, I've never really seen anyone switch over and start supporting Bitcoin Cash instead of Bitcoin (mostly for price and speculative reasons).

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 01:56:14

So far, crypto has become the centralized entity it claims to hate. It's clear as day that Bitcoin's price is being severely manipulated so whales can profit off of others' optimism and speculation. It's pretty clear what's happening. You almost never see such a volatile asset - that especially has a market cap over $150 billion - because the liquidity and high volume should be high enough to cover big orders to the point where market manipulation doesn't happen. It seems that BTC's price is being overly-inflated through Tether (USDT), a token back by absolutely nothing. ​ USDT managed to get success through market manipulation. Bitfinex flooded Kraken with a high volume of trades to give the illusion that the market valued USDT as much as USD, despite there being no actual cash reserves to back it up. Since Tether isn't backed by any commodity, asset, or even cash, what stops Bitfinex from printing more tether to give Bitcoin a false rise in value? ​ Bitcoin and the price of other cryptocurrencies rise because of Tether printing more tokens to manipulate the market, increasing the perceived "market value". This increase in the perceived value of Bitcoin causes an increase in hashrate, thus fulfilling the prophecy. What stops Tether from ensuring the failure of any currency they don't support? They can simply mint more Tether, repeatedly dump the currency, and then make it go to 0. It's hard because even if Tether was found guilty of fraud, it would still cause crypto market prices to plummet.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on May 14, 2020 01:31:16

To me, it seems clear as day why BTC still continues to have a significantly higher hashrate than BCH. When it comes to the reward halvings, obviously BCH's hashrate dropped because it was less profitable to mine BCH when compared to BTC. One interesting thing is that the same didn't happen to BTC at the time. I think this can be explained for a few reasons: ​ * The fee-market created by BTC makes it significantly more profitable for miners to continue mining BTC rather than BCH. This means that financially, miners have no incentive to switch to BCH because they won't get the extra revenue they get from high mining fees. As long as Blockstream can keep holding off the actual use of sidechains, BTC will continue to grow. Along with this, they are spreading the narrative that Bitcoin is digital gold, which will make other people see high fees as justified and reasonable. ​ * As long as mining BTC is more profitable than mining BCH, the hashrate of BCH will continue to stagnate or even potentially fall. The fact that there is a dev tax implemented does not help this at all. Why would anyone mine BCH when 12.5% of their revenue is being taken away from them? ​ * Eventually, when Blockstream decides to implement sidechains (and keep in mind that this will be planned very strategically at the most convenient time), miners will be incentivized to switch over. This could be after Blockstream manages to kill off BCH or any other SHA 256 coin. Their propaganda about BCH being a pump and dump coin has already been successful in making sure the community doesn't support BCH as much as they might if they knew the truth. ​ I'm no computer scientist, but this gives me a few ideas. I think we would all be better off if we took out the dev tax, replacing it with PURELY voluntary transaction fees. If we can voluntarily pay slightly more for a transaction, it would make more sense for miners to switch over to our network. Not only this, but I think we should voluntarily use our funds to help with development of BCH.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 14:42:48

For a while, I've seen many BTC maximalists bring up arguments about why the block size for Bitcoin should be limited to 1 MB. I have made this post to address most of these arguments. If you disagree, feel free to make your point in the comments! ​ >Limiting block size is what helps keep nodes cheap, and helps decentralize Bitcoin. Let's do some math here... With the block size of BTC being 1.00 MB, and having \~144 blocks a day, 365 days a year, there are roughly 52,560 blocks in a year. Using this data, 52.5 GB of storage will be used up in an entire year (we'll make the assumption that someone running a node buys 1 hard drive a year to store all this data). Looking at Amazon, the average cost for 64.0 GB of storage capacity for a flash drive is roughly $10.00. This means on average, someone running a node is paying roughly 80 cents per month for storage. Okay, now let's look at the internet aspect of things. The average internet speed globally is around \~75 Mbps (which is more than enough for both BTC and BCH) and will likely run for around \~$40 a month (this is a rough figure, and slightly pessimistic, but let's take it). Therefore, doing some math: ($40.00/month + $0.80/month) x 12 months = \~$490.00/year Okay, so it roughly costs $490.00 a year which is just a little over $1/day for running a node. Let's see how much more expensive BCH is when running the same type of node: For BCH, everything stays the same, except for storage costs. Since the block size is 32 times bigger than BTC, doing the math, BCH will take up roughly 1.7 TB of data. For a 2 TB hard drive, the cost is roughly $60. For an entire year, that will cost about $5 per month for storage. Taking this into consideration, we can calculate how much it will cost to run a BCH node for storage and internet: ($40.00/month + $5.00/month) x 12 months = \~$540.00/year So in conclusion: ||BTC Node|BCH Node| |:-|:-|:-| |Price (yearly)|$490.00|$540.00| |Price (monthly)|\~$40.80|\~$45.00| As we can see, it really isn't that much more expensive, and this isn't even factoring in how much cheaper digital storage will become over time. As digital storage becomes bigger, we can also expand block size, and not have to worry about centralization. ​ >The market has decided that BTC is better, therefore BCH is not Bitcoin. While yes, based on hashing power, this is true, Bitcoin being Bitcoin is not about hashing power. It is about what Bitcoin was intended to do. Bitcoin was created by Satoshi as a form of **peer-to-peer electronic cash system**. Even in the whitepaper of Bitcoin, Bitcoin is not working the way it was intended to. From the whitepaper: ​ >The cost of mediation **increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions.** It says it right here, one of the issues with current forms electronic payments is high transaction fees, and how they make small, everyday purchases expensive, making it bad for regular, everyday purchases. Currently, looking at the fees, BTC costs roughly $0.50 for every transaction (fees vary every single block, but this is the current average), **regardless of the transaction amount**. That means if I'm making a purchase at a coffee shop for $2.00, it is going to cost me $2.50 effectively for the coffee. That means that **I am paying 25% of my transaction value just to transfer my own money**. What incentive would I have to make that purchase, especially when I could just use normal cash, and not pay ridiculously high fees for a normal transaction? Let's compare this to BCH. Right now, the average fee for BCH is about $0.0025 for every transaction. When comparing that even to a $2 purchase, the fee is negligible and makes effectively no difference to the transaction amount. As we can see, BCH is far cheaper for everyday normal transactions, a.k.a. electronic cash. ​ >Bitcoin only has high transaction fees because of the higher transaction volume, and Bitmain has spammed transactions to make BTC look bad. As far as I know, I don't recall Bitmain spamming transactions on the network (I could be wrong on this). If someone has evidence of this, I will gladly retract this. As for transaction volume (number of transactions), we can use comparable numbers from when BCH and BTC were both having extremely high transaction volumes: |Date (DD/MM/YYYY)|No. of transactions (BTC)|No. of transactions (BCH)|Average Transaction Fee (BTC)|Average Transaction Fee (BCH)| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |19/08/2018|167k|129k|$0.65|$0.0033| |15/11/2018|241k|688k|$0.74|$0.0018| |19/11/2018|268k|283k|$0.79|$0.0007| |20/11/2018|288k|329k|$1.11|$0.0006| |01/09/2019|285k|575k|$0.68|$0.0007| *^(Note: The peak fees for both blockchains were $52.00 for BTC and $0.90 (which is still bad) for BCH. The difference is that BCH has taken steps to ensure that kind of transaction fee would never happen again, even faced with the same amount of traffic on the network.)* ​ >The Lightning Network (an off-chain solution) is a better solution to Bitcoin's current problem than increasing the block size (an on-chain solution), and has a much higher transactions per second capability than BCH. Yes, the Lightning Network may have a higher transaction per second capability when compared to BCH, but it comes at a cost: centralization. The aim of Bitcoin was to make a peer-to-peer electronic cash system with a high transaction per second capability, but it also is supposed to have 3 distinct properties to it. Bitcoin should also be: 1. Cheap (fees should be negligible, no matter how low the transaction amount) 2. Decentralized 3. Secure When you take away any one of these characteristics, it becomes A LOT easier to make a currency with a higher transaction input capability, but it ignores the goal of what Bitcoin is supposed to be. For example, if you have a system of cash that is: ​ **Cheap and secure, but not decentralized:** XRP (Ripple) Credit Cards Paypal Lightning Network ​ **Cheap and decentralized, but not secure:** LTC (Litecoin) (DOGE) Dogecoin Plenty of other low-use altcoins ​ **Secure and Decentralized, but not cheap:** BTC (Bitcoin) XMR (Monero) ​ BCH manages to have all 3 characteristics, all while having a transaction capability of more than 200 transactions per second. Not to mention that setting up a node on the Lightning Network is a complicated, tedious, and painful process to go through, just to put your fund somewhere where they aren't safe (you risk losing your funds pretty easily, especially if you're an everyday person who doesn't have much knowledge when it comes to technology). Not only is this the case, but eventually the funds from the Lightning Network will have to be settled on the blockchain, and when adoption increases, the fees will increase as well, meaning that **you will be charged a ridiculously high amount for withdrawing your own money**. To add to this, nodes that are run by people with more resources will eventually become Lightning Hubs, meaning that they are the only few who you can go through to send a transaction to whoever you want. This makes Lightning Hubs the new intermediaries for financial transactions. Does this all sound familiar? It is literally banking right now, but with the name 'Bitcoin' slapped on top of it. ​ Anyway, these are all the arguments I have heard from BTC maximalists. If you have any more arguments, feel free to comment them below, and I'm willing to change my mind if you make a good point.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on April 13, 2020 18:24:41

I'm looking through the block chain timestamps for BTC and here are the big transactions that I came across (which would be comparable to the size of transactions Roger Very might be making with BTC) ~2044.00 BTC transaction: Transaction value:~ $13M Fee: ~$3.00 ~5000.00 BTC transaction: Transaction value: ~$34M Fee: ~$14.00 ~1172 BTC transaction: Transaction value: ~$8M Fee: ~$2.00 ~1700 BTC transaction: Transaction value: $11.4M Fee: ~$5.70 There are quite a few more examples if you look at bigger transactions on the block chain, but none of them seem to have extremely unreasonable fees. I just want a clarification as to how BTC is expensive. The highest fee I've seen for a transaction greater than $10M currently is only $15 which is negligible compared to the value of the transaction. Can someone please explain? I can find plenty more examples where fees are only around 70 cents for a $10M+ transaction when Roger Vee has said that fees are usually in hundreds of dollars for just a transaction...

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on April 2, 2020 22:55:01

Just a little background here. I'm a high school student, currently studying calculus. I don't quite understand the concepts of limits or integrals thoroughly, but I was fascinated nonetheless by how the reward system of Bitcoin and its halving worked. When I initially wanted to know how many Bitcoins were mined, I would just use a calculator, and add the previous block halvings, and amounts mined. Afterwards, I realized I can make a rough approximation of this with this formula: ​ The problem with this function is that it assumes that the mining and reward system were a smooth curve, which isn't the case. It's a curve that consists of a bunch of straight lines. So I had to find a formula that reflected this. ​ My first start would be knowing that the starting block reward was 50 BTC, and that reward would halve every 210,000 blocks or \~4 years. So I started with this formula: ​ With this formula, I got all of the lines, but they were not in the correct position, so using my knowledge, and logical reasoning, I came up with this formula for determining how many Bitcoins were mined for any given date: [Note: The results won't be 100% accurate because this model is made on the assumption that each block is exactly 10 minutes]( To get your 'x' value all you have to do is: *x = (given date - January 3**^(rd)**, 2009)\*144* Then input this value into the formula given above. ​ [Donations will be much appreciated!]( *For anyone wondering, I'm planning to use this an incorporate it in my mining application (it's still a work in progress). Thanks for taking the time to read this!*

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/Bitcoin on February 20, 2020 23:34:22

I've been having problems with embedding my MatPlotLib Graph in Tkinter, and after doing some searching on Google, and the MatPlotLib website, the best I could get was the standard method: import tkinter from matplotlib.backends.backend_tkagg import ( FigureCanvasTkAgg, NavigationToolbar2Tk) fig = Figure(figsize=(5, 4), dpi=100) canvas = FigureCanvasTkAgg(fig, master=root) canvas.draw() canvas.get_tk_widget().pack(side=tkinter.TOP, fill=tkinter.BOTH, expand=1) toolbar = NavigationToolbar2Tk(canvas, root) toolbar.update() canvas.get_tk_widget().pack(side=tkinter.TOP, fill=tkinter.BOTH, expand=1) Now if I try to replace the packing layout with a .grid (and remove the `.pack()` parameters), I get a bunch of errors, and no matter how many Google searches I have tried, all of the methods of embedding a MatPlotLib graph in Tkinter are only using the pack method. Can someone help me out with this? I want to embed the graph, but using the grid method, as the rest of the layout of my GUI application is `.grid` layout. Another problem I'm having with the navigation toolbar in Tkinter is the fact that the navigation toolbar can apparently be customized (At least according to [SentDex]( \[5:18\]). He doesn't seem to go over how I can do this, which makes it difficult for me, because I'm not very happy with MatPlotLib's buttons (They look very archaic and outdated). Can someone please help me out with this? When I only put the graph in, it seems to work just fine, but I get issues when trying to put in the Navigation Toolbar with the graph as well. Any help on this would be appreciated. Thanks!

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/learnpython on January 1, 2020 02:35:41

I'm having issues running through this function, and I'm getting the error " TypeError: can only concatenate str (not "int") to str " I've not made any of the variables I've defined to be printed or used as a strong, so I'm confused as to why this error is coming up. For anyone wondering, the `.get()` value is to collect the values from entries I have put later on in the program. Can anyone help me with this please? Here is the code that I used: def EntryCollections():             hp = HardwareValue.get()             cp = PriceEntry.get()             wt = Wattage.get()             pp = PowerCost.get()             hsp = HashValue.get()             dn = DifficultyValue.get()             br = BlockReward.get()             HR_Est = 7 * 10 ** 6 * dn + 2 * 10 ** 16             gross_daily = ((hsp / HR_Est) * br * 144)             expenses_daily = ((wt * 24) / 1000)             net_daily = gross_daily - expenses_daily             gross_weekly = gross_daily * 7             expenses_weekly = expenses_daily * 7             net_weekly = (gross_daily - expenses_daily) * 7             gross_monthly = gross_daily * 30             expenses_monthly = expenses_daily * 30             net_monthly = (gross_daily - expenses_daily) * 30             gross_yearly = gross_daily * 365             expenses_yearly = expenses_daily * 365             net_yearly = (gross_daily - expenses_daily) * 365 EntryCollections() ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Terminal: line 38, in EntryCollections HR_Est = 7 * 10 ** 6 * dn + 2 * 10 ** 16 TypeError: can only concatenate str (not "int") to str

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/learnpython on December 22, 2019 12:13:35

If any of you guys remember a long time ago, I made a formula dedicated to Reddit's karma inflation amount, and it wasn't very well received. Though the formula looked logarithmic, it actually isn't. After lots of trial and error, and using different techniques in order to get the formula I was looking for. For anyone wondering, this equation does not take time into consideration because so far we don't have much data on how the amount of time x upvotes is gotten, and how that affects the amount of karma someone gains from a post/comment. ​ **For anyone wondering here's the equation:** ​ ***k = (8.27\*10******^(3\*)******n) / (n+(8.52\*10******^(3)******))*** ​ **Where:** **k = karma** **n = number of upvotes** ​ **Here are a few examples to show how my model compares to the actual numbers:** ​ |No. of Upvotes|Karma gained from submission|Prediction Model| |:-|:-|:-| |1|1|1| |200|160|190| |250|205|236| |1,000|830|868| |1,400|1,100|1,167| |2,100|1,660|1,635| |4,500|3,100|2,858| |5,300|3,310|3,171| |6,500|3,520|3,578| |6,900|3,710|3,700| |12,500|5,330|4,917| |16,800|5,380|5,486| |19,200|5,640|5,727| ​ So far, this model seems to work fairly accurately. This model ***DOES NOT*** ***CONSIDER***: * Amount of time it took for a submission to receive ***n*** number of upvotes * The ratio of upvotes to downvotes on a post * The exact values for ***both*** the amount of upvotes, and the amount of karma gained from each submission (both have been rounded to the nearest 10 or 100, depending on how high those values are) ​ **For anyone wondering, here are my sources/links:** 1. [\_rate\_of\_karma\_inflation\_oc/]( 2. [\_rate\_of\_karma\_inflation\_oc/egute4r/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x]( 3. []( (This was on the 'Show karma breakdown by subreddit option) 4. I took values from posters who have only had 1 post, and compared it to their link karma value.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/TheoryOfReddit on December 11, 2019 15:00:25

Currently as I'm typing this, I'm only 17 years old, but I've been having problems with the fact that I've missed out on life experiences that shape up people. As far as I know, I've been to several schools, and I've always wanted a relationship really badly. After being to so many places, and schools, not a single soul has managed to like me. Before anyone says: >You don't know for certain that nobody has liked you. For all you know, someone could like you/have liked you, but just not told you because they were too shy. Yes, while you're technically correct, that I don't know with 100% certainty, I know that ***there haven't been any signs whatsoever*** that might even suggest that someone has thought of me as more than a friend. **When it comes to dealing with this, I've gotten all the advice such as:** * Be confident/confidence is attractive * Go to the gym regularly/get physical activity * Pursue a hobby/interest of yours and it will eventually come to you * How can you love anyone else if you can't love yourself? * A partner isn't going to change your life, and solve all of your problems * Talk to more girls * Lower your standards * You should be happy without a relationship before even considering one I've applied all this advice, and have tried really hard to be a better person, but nothing seems to get rid of how bad it feels to be so alone all the time. I know that as I talk about this right now, I'm young and have a lot of my life ahead of me, but I feel like experiencing some of these things while you're young is something that develops you and can definitely be life-changing. **So far, I haven't:** * Had anyone admit that they have any sort of feelings for me * Gotten into a relationship, while all of my friends seem to be getting into one without even trying/ deciding to * Had my first date * Gone partying * Been to any school dance * Spent time with friends outside of school (This might just be because of the depression) I get that people are going to tell me that I'm not missing out on much, but I'm not convinced as I've seen how it has changed my friends, and other people around me. I've become really open talking about it to other people, because I've already given up on getting in a relationship anytime soon. It feels like I've mentally missed out on being my age. I hope someone here gets what I mean... Advice on how to deal with the constant pain of being alone would be appreciated. I guess I'll never be okay with the way this is, but I figure that if I'm going to be alone for a long time, I'm going to have to figure out how to deal with it. **TL;DR: I've missed out on being a teenager, and it hurts a lot.** ^(I'm pretty sure this is going to get lost in new, but I'm giving it a shot because I feel like it's my last hope at anything. Much appreciated.)

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/depression on November 26, 2019 12:44:19

TL;DR:>! I've tried a lot to try and get into a relationship, because it's what I want, but not even one person has had feelings for me (as far as I know).!< Hey, I usually lurk this sub, but I have come to post because something has been bothering me for a while. I'm currently in High school (senior year), and I've never been in any relationship, or even had a single person like me. I find it frustrating since I've been to more than 7 schools, and I've been trying everything I can to better myself as far as I can tell. I can't commit to exercising or doing anything that can help my depression for that long, as I find it hard trying to do tasks that require dedication, and I've lost interest in everything. After looking at a lot of people in my school, it turns out that more than 3/5 people have at the very least been in a relationship. Most of these people are regular people like me. Some have even back-stabbed, and manipulated others to get into one. I understand that I'm not the best looking, nicest, or best person in my school, but I often wonder why I can't get someone to even have feelings for me. There have been plenty of people who have done terrible things and have had no problem in finding someone who likes them, and this makes me think, what's different about me that people just don't have feelings for me in that way?

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/depression on November 21, 2019 12:04:49

Before going on I just want to put it out here that if things ever get terrible, and you want someone to talk to you that won't tell you bullshit like "just shower more" or to "be confident" or "if you can't love yourself, how can you love someone else?", I'm always here. Feel free to PM me. I think love and relationships are 100% an emotional need. People keep talking about how you need to be happy alone before getting into a relationship, but I don't think most people can be happy by themselves. A romantic relationship may not be a need like food or water, but it is a need for an overwhelming majority of people. If people could be happy on their own without a relationship, why would they bother emotionally and mentally committing themselves to one, and possibly risk getting hurt or breaking up when it can be more painful than being alone on the first place? Your feelings are 100% valid because it's in us biologically to want love. There's no denying it. Also when it comes to wanting to be with someone, nobody should be told to lower their standards (within reason) to be able to get someone. Having standards is a necessary foundation for any healthy relationship. Having no standards can and will result in heartbreaking and abusive relationships. I know that it can hurt, and that I have no idea what you all are going through, but no matter your situation, I'm here to talk.

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/ForeverAlone on October 27, 2019 03:03:40

When it comes to Reddit's formula for adding karma when it comes to upvotes, it seems like the inflation in the formula is caused by the number of upvotes being raised to the power of 1/2. If you look in a graphing calculator and type in " y = **√** x ", you will get a graph that looks like this: &#x200B; []( &#x200B; When looking at this graph (assuming that the x axis is the amount of upvotes a post has been given, and the y axis is the amount of karma added), the pattern of it seems very similar to the graph u/etymologynerd made when comparing upvotes to karma inflation: &#x200B; []( &#x200B; What I think is happening here is that Reddit has a linear 1:1 ratio of upvotes, but after a set amount of upvotes, the actual formula gets applied to future upvotes on that post, causing the value of them to be inflated. Furthermore, I think RNG is involved in the formula for determining karma. &#x200B; If you look at posts that get roughly the same amount of upvotes, the amount of karma gained is different per post. A post that has \~12,000 upvotes has caused the user to gain more karma than a post that has had < \~16,000 upvotes. I think part of this might be to make sure it's harder for bots to take advantage of the formula used to give karma. From what I can tell, I think the square root of the amount of upvotes is taken, and then multiplied by a number within a range to generate karma, but each upvote is given a randomly assigned value less than one for determining the amount of karma a user will get from a post. &#x200B; Thoughts?

posted by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/TheoryOfReddit on April 17, 2019 11:54:21

I applaud you on your level of mental gymnastics to try and justify your stance, despite knowing that you're wrong. Don't drink too much Kool Aid on your way out.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 13:25:17

We're not talking about the hardware requirements of Bitcoin and Ethereum. We're talking about fee revenue. That's it.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 13:24:02

We can increase adoption all we want, but we're not going to get traction until we can mass-inform people about the hijacking of Bitcoin. It's going to be very hard to tell people the truth because: &#x200B; 1. r/Bitcoin and r/CryptoCurrency are both subs that are heavily censored, and are filled with BTC maximalists. 2. The idea that "Bitcoin Cash is a scam" has been planted into peoples' heads before they even get to know the history of Bitcoin and what exactly happened. 3. The price action automatically makes people lose faith in Bitcoin Cash because people unfortunately view cryptocurrencies as a way of making money. Most of this can be blamed on market manipulation going on. Though I can't prove it, I believe many exchanges are manipulating and suppressing prices so that Bitcoin Cash doesn't succeed. 4. We've taken the hard way of growing our community by allowing our sub to be censorship resistant, and being public and transparent with our moderation. This makes us vulnerable to social attacks, and therefore harder to grow as a community. I'd argue that the market cap of Bitcoin Cash should be close to that of Ethereum since the communities are close in subscriber counts, and the Ethereum sub faces roughly the same amount of activity that we do.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 04:45:04

I'm just saying to outsiders it definitely does.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 04:04:59

>This is what I'm talking about. The bch narrative is high fees are bad, except for when a project other than Bitcoin is seeing them. We're not against the fee revenue being high... We're against transaction fees for individual transactions being high. What you're saying doesn't make sense. >No, it isn't. It's slower and far more expensive. My last Bitcoin transaction cost me 2 sats and was near instant. Eth cannot compete with that. And it didn't require a 4.5TB+ blockchain to facilitate this. The bitinfocharts stats disagree, and the size of the blockchain is irrelevant to this debate. So it's either not trusting a websites with objective stats, or taking your (biased) word for it. We're talking about transaction fee revenue, and the 4.5 TB size is irrelevant to that. >I don't see LN transaction fees listed here. Yes, because LN isn't what's being measured. We're specifically talking about fee revenue on-chain. One could argue the same for Ethereum since they already have L2 solutions too, so your point has no merit. >You're forgetting the block reward. Mining revenue includes the block reward. That was poor wording on my part, but it was obviously talking about revenue collected from fees, not block rewards. The graph is comparing how much Ethereum is taking in in transaction fees compared to Bitcoin, and it's doing so by a far bigger margin. Hence, "fees" being in the title. Block reward is irrelevant to this because we're specifically talking about fees collected, not the full revenue. Ethereum as demonstrated, already is collecting more than Bitcoin in fees. >Bitcoin daily mining revenue is currently just shy of $10M/day. Already addressed above.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 03:58:52

No. I just checked. It's not recycled.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 03:28:24

In this case, they are two separate coins, so I don't think the analogy still stands.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 02:54:35

I think more important is fixing the image and smearing that has happened to Bitcoin Cash. We need to do it in a way where it reaches a bigger audience, so people know the truth, and know it in such a way that it IS irrefutable.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 02:47:19

The metric isn't talking about the fee to send transactions. It's talking about the total transaction fees being collected. That amount is higher than what BTC is taking in in fees. Ethereum is still cheaper to transact with than BTC. Median fee for ETH: $0.31 Median fee for BTC: $0.86 Average fee for ETH: $0.67 Average fee for BTC: $1.48 You can find the mining revenue by multiplying the average transaction fee by the number of transactions occuring. Let's do the math: Txs per day on ETH = 1.02 million Average ETH transaction fee = $0.67 Multiply them, and the mining revenue from fees is ~$670,000 a day. Txs per day on BTC = 331k Average BTC transaction fee = $1.48 Multiply them and the daily revenue is only ~$490k a day. Divide the ETH revenue by the BTC revenue, and ETH gets 37% more revenue than BTC, making the ETH/BTC revenue ratio 1.37. The graph isn't talking about individual transaction fees. It's talking about the revenue ratio. You can check for yourself:

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 02:17:05

>Maybe 3, but I have accepted the arguments for small blocks after seeing the LN working and after seeing mining centralization in BCH. So why can't andreas. It's been years, and Lightning Labs STILL hasn't said that LN is production ready. So technically, it doesn't work. >People will avoid being miners (solo miners ) if blocks were 32 Meg's This is also absolute nonsense. There is no merit in this argument, because it only makes sense to solo mine if you have a large hashrate, and can accept that risk. If you can accept the huge potential losses of solo mining, you can easily afford a decent internet connection, hard drive and computer many times over. >Mining will be more pool centralized and people will avoid using betterhash. That's inevitable, and will be the case big blocks or not. Mining pools are a way of mitigating risk when it comes to mining. >Mining centralization in BCH was caused by other issues but I don't want more things encouraging it Which other issues? Can you explain? The whole idea that mining will become less decentralized is inevtable regardless of how big blocks are. Miners with the cheapest electricity, bulk discounts on hardware, and least relative overhead costs will ultimately have the greatest profit, and lessen the difference between production value and actual price, throwing less efficient miners out. >Remember what Roger said about mtgox is he a sellout too lol? Remind me how long ago that was? Did Andreas apologize, say that he regretted supporting small blocks, and most importantly, did he stop doing it? Roger Ver already apologized for this, and he already covered it in a video:

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 02:02:16

I don't think he's a sellout. He likely is/was socially pressured into the popular opinion. Doesn't change the fact that him and Erik Voorhees are spineless snakes though.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 20:15:39

>Blockstream? They pay money for development of Bitcoin because they need Bitcoin to work well for the solutions on top of bitcoin that it provides or plan to provide. That's the only role. How naïve can you be, vegarde? What purpose would liquid, a permissioned sidechain serve if Bitcoin transactions were fast, cheap, and reliable? The cheap transaction fees and fast payments of liquid are literally its advertising points. Blockstream literally makes money over Bitcoin NOT working well. Adam Back was in favour of increasing blocksize, and then he suddenly changed his stance when it suited his financial interests. Does that not at least look suspicious? Also, core and r/Bitcoin has been adamant on censoring disagreement within the community, and is even removing posts that even SUGGEST another BIP for increasing blocksize, marking the discussion as "altcoin discussion", when all it is are ideas for making Bitcoin scale on-chain. Someone just recently made a BIP titled "BIP BBB" and suggested it, linking a GitHub, and the post almost immediately got deleted. It's more than obvious that r/Bitcoin is moderating their forum to maintain the status quo and narrative. >There has been numerous metrics provided showing this. But to you, th "Blockstream bad" conspiracy is just more convenient than the world actually learning the limitations, use cases and advantages of a distributed blockchain. Which metrics? Not seen a single one. >Everyone supporting bigger blocks nowadays are people that financially would benefit from it, either directly or because it is a way for them to regain influence they have lost in bitcoin. So financial benefit is only in big-blockers interests, and not Blockstream, despite big blockers not really benefitting financially from this, and Blockstream definitely benefitting from small blocks? What? If anything, companies interested in making money would support small blocks because they would get more Bitcoins in mining fees by artificially restricting transaction throughput. >Why don't you try to use actual arguments, for once, instead of "Blockstream bad" arguments? We've explained why Blockstream is bad. They're funded by obviously conflicting interests, and I don't think their employees should be involved in development, regardless of their qualifications or how good they are as developers because of these conflicting interests coming in the way.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 20:09:31

That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that it's awfully convenient that he changed his mind, said that "things have changed", and did so without offering any explanation as to what exactly changed. His only arguments against raising the blocksize limit are "Nodes will only be left to expensive data centers" (despite that being disproven multiple times), and then a slippery slope of "What if we end up going to petabyte blocks? Think of the poor and muh cheap nodes". As far as technology is concerned, it has been improving at a relatively rapid pace, so any concerns or criticisms of big blocks would only be less valid as time goes on. Andreas was in favour of a blocksize increase, and I'm sure he would've thought about the burden of running a node well before making his mind up on this back in 2015. I'm not accusing Andreas of anything, but this is extremely suspicious. So far, it comes to a few theories: 1. Andreas Antonopoulos is a sellout to Blockstream. 2. He was threatened for favouring a blocksize increase. 3. He was socially coerced into being pro-small blocks. 4. He changed his mind on the issue because big blocks are bad for Bitcoin. Personally, I don't believe 1, but 2 is possible, and in my opinion 4 likely happened as a result of 3.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 19:53:34

You seem to only go onto r/btc when r/Bitcoin exists, since you view BTC as Bitcoin. It would make more sense going to a like-minded community than constantly shitting on Bitcoin Cash here, while not bringing any real valid criticisms to the table...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 19:37:32

Yeah. I normally would debate actual criticisms of Bitcoin Cash (of which, there are a few), but most of them time OP says that he/she lost money using a wallet (which doesn't have anything to with BCH itself, but the actual developers of the wallet), and that their experience on bitpay was horrible. Last time I checked, the wallet worked well, and OP complained that it was too bloated and not open sourced. The thing is, all of these are criticisms of wallets, and not BCH itself. Electron Cash and Crescent Can work perfectly fine, but OP seems to love talking about supposed experiences where transactions failed to broadcast.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 19:35:38

OP doesn't usually bring good points and is just here to shit on BCH and shill the LN.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 19:17:11

>In our fourth episode, we go down the rabbit hole with Roger Ver, the co-creator of Bitcoin Cash. How many people still believe this myth? Roger Ver didn't create Bitcoin Cash. Why so so many people believe this?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 17:20:24

He's getting downvoted because he's a troll who is notorious for commenting like a 12 year old to make the community look bad.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 17:16:37

I think Gavin might be starting to realize what actually happened, despite not believing it before. Admittedly, the idea of Blockstream hijacking Bitcoin to make a quick penny seems like a crazy conspiracy theory from the outside, but when someone actually does the research and sees for themselves, it's 100% plausible.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 16:04:07

>Its drawbacks being unfair initial distribution, insta mined/printed out of thin air and compares to Bitcoin very poorly in every single other metric. Which other metrics? It's more secure, and even exchanges realize this. Nano is immutable instantly, and you don't even have to wait for confirmations on even one exchange. > Justified very easily by the free market principle of supply and demand. This occurred 2.5 years ago now and once in 11.5 years. I'd like to see you justify bringing up this event every single conversation when it is obviously no longer relevant. It isn't the norm and you know that. It's bound to happen again, as nothing has been done to improve on-chain scaling. Of course, unless BTC dumps and people start realizing it doesn't really have any value. On-chain user experience is absolute garbage, and Core is NEVER going to increase the blocksize. Regardless of how "good" Lightning Network may be, there's no proof that it can infinitely scale, or even scale to global adoption levels, and every study done "proving" that it can scale has made unrealistic assumptions such as everyone having the same number of channels with the same amount of funds, and channels constantly remaining opened. The truth is that it likely can't scale, and the whole model falls apart when you realize that the network is in a continuous state of change, channels will have different capacities, and fundamentally this causes issues with routing that CAN'T be solved no matter how much one tries to improve the protocol. It takes basic knowledge of computer science, and common sense to realize that routing issues are the problem to Bitcoin's scaling via LN, and they can't be solved through programming, unless middlemen (aka Lightning Hubs) are implemented. u/jstolfi a professor of Computer Science I believe made a bet for this, that if people can solve the whole routing issue, he would give a large sum of money. So far, nobody has been able to prove that the Lightning Network can function, and everyone who has "proven" it has done so with the unrealistic assumptions of everyone having the same number of channels, the same funding in each channel, and each channel being in an "open" state, meaning that the network isn't changing. This obviously makes routing extremely easy because you're taking a hypothetical situation that will never exist. >I've never performed a nano transaction but seen one. The UX is pretty much indistinguishable from a Bitcoin LN transaction - were basically limited by internet latency between peers. Nano doesn't utilize PoW though as I said above, it compares poorly to Bitcoin. No it isn't. I personally haven't used LN, but I've seen people having routing issues with it. As transaction values get higher, the probability of a transaction successfully routing tends towards 0%. Nano has never had issues with actually making a transaction, and I've never seen broadcasting issues with Bitcoin Cash. >None of those altcoins have that actually. You can't have a hardfork every 6 months and still call your chain decentralized. You're claiming to be able to achieve 100% user consensus, every 6 months on a particular date. Ridiculous. We know the creators of all of those projects. You can't copy/paste this particular Bitcoin attribute. Yes they do. Bitcoin Cash is decentralized, and hard-forking has nothing to do with centralization. People who have supported Bitcoin Cash already know about the hard-forking every 6 months, almost nobody has had issues with it, and anyone that did has already forked off. So far, BCHN has just removed the poison pill, and is in the talks about potentially negotiating with Bitcoin ABC to change schedule plans, but this isn't something set in stone. > Zoom out. > >They have only outperformed Bitcoin in the very short term and only when Bitcoin is doing well itself. Some of those projects likely won't even exist in another 8 years. Also, they all crashed harder than Bitcoin during the bear market. You can't conveniently ignore that fact. No. If you look at Chainlink, it has outperformed BTC well beyond what anyone can consider "market noise" or correlation to Bitcoin. The previous ATH was $1.33, and now Chainlink is up more than 250% from then. Tezos has recovered more than BTC and is already showing signs of an upwards trend, while BTC has been going sideways. []( is showing a strong upwards trend compared to Bitcoin, and has recovered from its ATH already, and is up by 20% from then. Until now, most markets have been correlating with BTC, but now people are slowly realizing the actual value that other coins are bringing. I could point out a million more examples, but I've already made my point. >🤷‍♂️ > >I mean, you can say it. It doesn't really mean anything. I mean I didn't just say it. You can see the charts for yourself. Certain cryptos are gaining more traction while Bitcoin has been going sideways. It has been more than 5 years of Lightning Labs saying "just another 18 months" until LN is production ready, so how much longer will it take you to realize that a) The technology doesn't fundamentally work, or b) This is very clearly a stalling tactic, and more plausibly, both.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 16:00:56

Looks like you're mocking the person in this tweet... SAD!

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 13:57:17

I honestly think he should've just said "Fuck you, I'm forking, and I don't give a shit about consensus, and whether the HF is contentious or not", and then proceed to fork Bitcoin XT with BIP 101.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 13:51:51

They're not necessarily centralized, but they can only function properly IF centralized. Otherwise LN will always have routing issues. Liquid on the other hand is 100% centralized and where Bitcoin plans to put their smart contracts and other stuff.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 13:38:09

I mean Nano is first for user experience and payments, but it has its own drawbacks. Those issues definitely aren't on BCH is all I know, and BTC is nowhere near any other cryptocurrency when it comes to user experience. I'd like to see you justify $55 fees (average), and 11,453 minute confirmation times. Security? No. Nano is already immutable in less than a second, and Bitcoin Cash doesn't actually have security issues despite the myths. Realistically, you can't reverse a BCH transaction after 6 confirmations. Decentralization? No. Bitcoin Cash, Monero, Nano, Dash, and many other coins have that and also illustrate how bad Bitcoin is in terms of user experience. Price performance? No. Many other coins have far outperformed BTC including but not limited to Chainlink, Tezos,, and now Cardano is starting to get their own rally. Slowly but steadily, coins seem to start being less correlated with the price of BTC as more people are starting to actually realize their value. Cardano and Chainlink are examples of this. After crashing, Cardano is finally getting its rally.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 13:33:11

XRP is the coin that Ripple Labs made. Ripple labs is a company that is looking to compete with Swift for banking services because they can move money far cheaper, faster, and easier. People mistakenly believe that banks will use the XRP token/coin to actually transact (and therefore will but XRP tokens), but this is a misunderstanding. The tokens are pretty much worthless, and banks aren't planning on buying them anytime soon. Ripple Labs is just making money everytime you buy tokens, and banks are using their actual services instead of the coins. Essentially, XRP is a coin on a glorified SQL database which records transaction details. Weirdly enough, Roger Ver is an investor (for reasons I don't really know).

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 12:55:07

Wouldn't it make more sense for darknets to use Monero? Privacy is far better overall.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 12:47:01

Who is the actual celebrity?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/WalmartCelebrities on July 3, 2020 03:58:13

I personally don't know that for sure, but I think so. Research has already been done on it, and it's likely that it will come in November.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 03:55:15

>I was 15 he was 32 Damn that's terrible. Nobody should ever have to go through that experience.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/AskRedditAfterDark on July 3, 2020 03:50:06

>when I was 13, my GF was 17 Dude, that's rape...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/AskRedditAfterDark on July 3, 2020 03:48:07

>Miners mine for profit so their behaviour is rational , not bad. Just because it's rational doesn't mean it's not bad. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's bad for the overall user experience, but there's not much of a concern since Bitcoin Cash is continuously upgrading software.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 02:55:48

Yes and despite the price action, the community is actively working towards making it more useful as a currency because being able to give others economic freedom is more important than "number go up". Not only this, but the community itself is growing at the same rate as the Ethereum community.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 02:51:57

Bitcoin: A bank to lightning peer to lightning hub to lightning peer to bank, institutional digital gold system.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 02:27:22

Let's not forget: Bans and ridicules those who disagree with their narrative of being pro-centralization, and claiming to be decentralized while also being fine with financial institutions (aka middlemen) like Liquid and Tether. Just to show you the irony, BTC maximalists are now celebrating the fact that "your bank now speaks Bitcoin": Keep in mind that buying Lightning Bitcoins through debit will eventually be the only viable way of using them as on-chain fees continue to rise. This comes at the price of KYC.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/nanocurrency on July 3, 2020 02:21:33

Why do you keep posting on this sub despite the fact that almost nobody here agrees with your opinions? You're not changing anyone's mind, and you're mostly reinforcing the beliefs we had from the start. I think it'd be better to go to your censored echo chamber r/Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 01:34:20

Satoshi also implemented similar checkpoints. You don't have a point here. Satoshi clearly meant for the blocksize to increase, and he said that increases in blocksize limits can be phased in as demand increases. He also talked about how BTC can already scale to Visa and Mastercard levels for a fraction of the cost back then. The only way that can be done is with a blocksize increase because any other method that could've worked for scaling back then would've been already implemented.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 01:15:03

It's all good. Also if that ever becomes the case, BCH is going to have fractional satoshis to keep fees low forever.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 01:02:32

No, it wouldn't. You're pulling numbers out of your ass. Even at the transaction volume Bitcoin is facing, Bitcoin Cash wouldn't need high fees because block size isn't scarce. You can do the math here: 1 Satoshi = 10^-8 BCH if 1 BCH = 1 BTC, then 1 BCH = $9,200 Therefore 1 Satoshi/byte multiplied by 450 bytes = ~$0.04 This would make the average fee 4 cents. For a normal 1 input, 1 output transaction, that fee would be just under 2 cents. Keep in mind that Bitcoin Cash is implementing fractional satoshis before this actually becomes an issue.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 00:36:32

Do you think Bitcoin intentionally dips in price to make alts go further down in percentage due to less liquidity?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 00:28:37

A confirmation on average is 10 minutes, so Nano is already faster than that. The $0.48 is still expensive, but it doesn't look expensive because the transaction value is high. If I want to transfer $1 million, it will look cheap even if I have to spend $200 in fees. The problem is people are looking at it in terms of percentage which is the equivalent of pointing out that the number of racists are decreasing while global warming is increasing, and concluding that global warming is making people less racist.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 20:15:34

>It literally went from 11k to nearly 20k in less than a month. Take into account that 11k at that time was already the ATH. It was clearly a bubble at that point That doesn't prove anything. Like I said, it's unfalsifiable. Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. The previous bullruns weren't necessarily because of the halving. They simply correlated with it. >Fees and confirmation times probably played just a minuscule part in this IMO No, they definitely had a large part to do with it. Steam and many other dropped adoption of Bitcoin for this very reason. At the peak, the average transaction fee was $55, and the average confirmation time was 11,453 minutes. A currency that expensive to transact with and extremely slow is enough to drive users away from Bitcoin to altcoins, or just drive them away from crypto in general. Also as long as tether exists, I won't take any Bitcoin price pumps seriously, or a result of the halving.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on July 2, 2020 20:09:57

>Bitcoin cash is the equivalent of going to a blockbuster in 1995 Bitcoin isn't intellectual property, therefore your comparison is invalid, and I explained why before, but you don't have any argument other than calling it a rip-off and a copycat... >Explaining this to you makes me feel superior. Which makes me feel like an asshole. So I’m gonna bail cuz I don’t like feeling either of those things. No. You're just bailing because you don't have a legitimate argument. I've already gone over why you're wrong and refuted your arguments. >Even having the name CASH in a crypto is oxymoronic but that’s just an opinion. ✌️ Yes it is an opinion, but a wrong one. "Digital cash" is in the title of the whitepaper, so I don't see it being a contradiction for a crypto to state its use-case in the name. It's logically consistent. A contradiction would be saying that Bitcoin was created as a digital gold, and not meant to scale.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 20:03:13

What happens is actually a bit more nuanced than that. I don't think it's Bitcoin that follows Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash. From what I've seen, it's the other way around. When Bitcoin goes up, the top ten go up by a higher percentage, and the same is true for when Bitcoin goes down. This can be for a few reasons: 1. The price coupling between altcoins and BTC. People mistakenly see BTC as a safe haven asset, therefore they're more likely to trade and sell altcoins to "stack more sats". This price coupling hurts cryptocurrency as a whole because the ideological justification for it is that Bitcoin is a "digital gold", and that people should just take more of it because it will be the only one that will go up. People don't think about innovation, but only hold Bitcoin because it has the BTC ticker to it. 2. Bitcoin on average has higher liquidity, so it's harder to break through buy and sell walls. It's a lot easier on altcoins to make the price to go down. The same is true for making altcoins go up. 3. I'm almost certain that the price is being manipulated to make BTC stay on top. According to the "how many confs" website, Ethereum is 3x slower for the same level of security, and for other Bitcoin forks, security is directly proportional to the hashrate proportion differences. Logically Ethereum should have 1/3rd the market cap of Bitcoin. The fact that this isn't the case makes me have a suspicion as to the legitimacy of the price of Bitcoin. 4. Exchanges intentionally trade against customers. Most of the exchanges have their holdings in BTC, and therefore want to ensure that no other cryptocurrencies can outpace it. The price discrepancy between Ethereum and Bitcoin is unjustified and doesn't make sense from a mathematical perspective. I suspect that Ethereum will be on pace to overtake Bitcoin, and then exchanges will conveniently "crash" or go "offline", causing Ethereum prices to crash again, maintaining Bitcoin dominance. It's all a scheme, but lies, deceit, and manipulation can only take you so far. With DEXs, centralized exchanges can't do that anymore, and the only ones with the ability to manipulate markets would be whales.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 19:52:39

Hmm it's almost like that's what we did with increasing the blocksize!

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 19:29:14

It's not named like a rip-off in any way. It's clear that it's different with the name "Bitcoin CASH", and this community has pushed for a green logo to make the branding distinct. As for it having the Bitcoin name, that's not stealing or misleading because it dates back to the genesis block, and the Bitcoin Cash community was part of the Bitcoin community. It was a SPLIT within the Bitcoin community. The only reason it's seen as a copycat is because the mainstream core proponents paint it as a coin that is trying to fake being Bitcoin when that isn't the case.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 19:27:00

The value of the transactions in the blocks are irrelevant, and Bitcoin Cash has propagated and mined blocks that were 16+ MB while fees were consistently under a penny.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 19:09:55

Likely not. There are inherent limitations and drawbacks to the technology like waiting 10 minutes for a transaction, mining uses up a lot of resources, Core doesn't plan on increasing blocksize (and only stays at 4.5 tps) anytime soon, and other cryptos are catching up. I think it's very plausible that something like Ethereum or Nano will overtake Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on July 2, 2020 12:07:12

I personally don't buy into the S2F model because it's unfalsifiable. You can notice patterns in the past, but they don't necessarily indicate what is going to happen in the future. The crashes that have happened with Bitcoin weren't the market reaching equilibrium. They mostly happened because of external factors outside of supply issuance. The second crash that happened had to do with the Bitfinex hack if I recall correctly. I also think there was another crash with the collapse of Mt. Gox. The latest crash from $20k was likely because of high fees, and long confirmation times. At that point, people just want to sell to get out.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/CryptoCurrency on July 2, 2020 11:59:10

I don't know if this is true, but apparently BTCPay is very much opposed to Bitcoin Cash? A lot of people tried to add Bitcoin Cash support to it, but it was faced by hostility from other people. I've heard that in GitHub it forks that call it "BCash" or "BTrash".

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 11:41:00

If I'm being honest, Bitcoin Cash will probably not be the first to overtake Bitcoin. Ethereum is already miles ahead in network effect and market cap. We need a price recovery, and rebuilding of reputation.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 04:01:24

But the thing is CoinEx accepts 1 confirmation without issues...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 03:56:35

Sure he could've been fooled, but when asked about Craig being Satoshi, Roger simply said "I don't know if he's Satoshi, but he definitely knows what he's talking about when it comes to big blocks." essentially. This leads me to believe that he might be known Craig was a fraud, but it was in his interests to be more diplomatic.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 03:30:08

>PoS is fundamentally less secure than PoW, because it does not cost anything to keep attacking it. >Once you have a stack of coins/power/votes, you can attack as many times as you can, without an added extra cost. The added cost is that you would devalue your own coins. Economically it would make no sense to just burn your own money, and you would need 51% of the coins to do such an attack. That kind of distribution is unrealistic because staking pools are going to be introduced. >PoW on the other hand, requires Jiggawatts of power and tons of expensive specialized hardware to maintain every hour of attack. >Also PoS does not allow hard forking of any kind. And don't even start with slicing. Slicing is just a stupid idea. >PoS was always a retarded concept, I have no idea why people keep pushing for it. One could argue that PoS is much better because it is green, and doesn't "waste" energy to work. PoW using a lot of resources to maintain its system is not necessarily a good thing. One could even argue that PoS is better than PoW because it enables fairer distribution of funds for securing the network. With PoW, people have unfair advantages with a lot of capital that makes it easier for them to expand in yield than their "poorer" counterparts. They can get mass discounts on hardware, get shipments before public arrival for specialized hardware and they're guaranteed to expand while in PoS, everyone gets the same yield on their funds. In my opinion, both have their merits.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 03:25:05

Depends which crypto you're talking about...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 03:12:49

My bad. I wan't 100% sure.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 01:45:12

Just curious is coin dance pro-BCH or pro-BSV? I have a hard time telling...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 01:28:31

Exactly. I would suggest publicly telling the truth about Bitcoin Cash in such a way that it is irrefutable similar to singularity87, but to a larger audience. It should be with full citations and everything. Until we fix Bitcoin Cash's image, it will be hard gaining traction.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 00:49:20

And other cryptos can do it faster and practically for free

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 23:47:28

Nah... I like it here...

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 23:41:01

It kinda sucks that u/singularity87 is not an active user anymore. The last time he made a comment was months ago. He/she seemed like someone who was genuinely passionate about the technology of crypto, and always wanted to spread the truth.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 19:57:58

Are you making multiple accounts? I've seen repeated posts of this idea that Bitcoin intentionally pumps to suppress the rise of alts. Can anyone else actually confirm if this is true, or is it the same person behind this account that keeps on making these types of posts?

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 19:55:40

I think the real issue to our success is the image that has been given to Bitcoin Cash by most of the core supporters, and the fact that the price performance has been so poor. If people knew about censorship on r/Bitcoin and how Bitcoin Cash supporters support free speech, and if the price also managed to recover by A LOT, then it would have a good chance at succeeding, and could very easily overtake Bitcoin by a landslide.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 19:44:19

No, but it can be done easily. It would be nice if we had some sort of program that mints SLP tokens at a 1:1 ratio trustlessly, and then locks up the equivalent amount of Ethereum on the Ethereum chain.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 19:39:51

>First I lost 10$ with the Yenom wallet, horrible, I never lost a dime on any bitcoin wallet. >Then I used bitpay wallet, terrible, I sent the money, and I didn't get any notification or nothing, I needed to refresh several times, also It doesn't specify what amount was confirmed or not, but when I tried to send the money It doesn't alloy me to send the whole amount. The $10 with Yenom is not an issue with Bitcoin Cash. That's an issue with the wallet itself. You can see for yourself that the wallet doesn't have a very good rating on Google play. >Then I used bitpay wallet, terrible, I sent the money, and I didn't get any notification or nothing, I needed to refresh several times, also It doesn't specify what amount was confirmed or not, but when I tried to send the money It doesn't alloy me to send the whole amount. All of these complaints are not on Bitcoin Cash's end, but the wallet's end. As far as broadcasting a transaction goes, it's the same for both BCH and BTC, so in technical terms there's no difference here. >After I tried, super bloated wallet, it looks like a kind of online bazaar of hundreds of services I don't need. also is not opensource, who knows what they are doing with my data... It's not bloated lol. I've used it and have had no issues running it. It works, and it works well. Are you using a raspberry pi as a phone? As for it not being open source, I can understand that being somewhat bad, but I don't see how it's an extremely big deal. A lot of the code used on the wallet is likely licensed/intellectual property. >The one who I liked the most was electron cash on the PC, which basically is a fork of electrum. so at least someone is forking something that works. >Look, bitcoin wallets lately are, minimalists, no ads, no bullshit, they notify, and just works, you can send all the money no matter is it confirmed or not, but they specify if it is confirmed. And there are wallets that do that too like Crescent and Electron Cash. It's not exclusive to BTC. There are other wallets that also support multiple currencies including Bitcoin Cash. There isn't any shortage of wallets. You can spend unconfirmed coins on BCH as well. I've done it multiple times, sending transactions back and forth from one wallet to another, and I haven't had any issues whatsoever. Out if all the times that I have broadcasted a transaction, the longest it's even taken is half a second. I'm convinced that you're lying about the broadcasting issues with Bitcoin Cash because I have repeatedly made multiple transactions and have never had a broadcasting issue even once. The most it's ever taken for a transaction to broadcast for me is 0.5 seconds. The other thing is that you intentionally chose wallets that don't have a good rating. Yenom has a rating of 3.7 stars. Clearly a red flag.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 18:50:52

He's a known troll who comments to make the Bitcoin Cash community look bad. I wouldn't bother. There's literally nobody else on this sub that is this obtuse.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 18:26:39

I don't see PoS as a bad thing. It's just a different approach to the same problem. It definitely kills the "store of value" narrative for Bitcoin though.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 18:00:58

I don't think Bitcoin Cash will be killed by Ethereum. It will definitely get more dominance, but not kill it. There are various trade-offs and people also choose coins for personal preferences. As far as I know, Vitalik also holds Bitcoin Cash, so he wouldn't want it to die. I don't think he's done any dev work for it, but he's been very open-minded towards BCH, despite all the hostility it gets.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 17:59:16

>Can Ethereum really scale up to massive worldwide adoption? Maybe. Will it have the level of security a POW Bitcoin chain has? I don't think so. According to many, Ethereum can already scale to 2-3k transactions per second. When it comes to Loopring and other second layers, transactions are basically free. As for PoS, I don't see how it would be less secure than PoW. The fundamental system itself isn't less secure afaik. I know that Vitalik already said a while back that sharding is bringing sub-cent fees to Ethereum. The way I see it, Ethereum will effectively kill Bitcoin because of PoS. PoS kills the core narrative of SoV, because it further incentivizes people to invest into Ethereum. >It is a neat experiment, but, I do not see it giving BTC it's original use case (peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people) back. I still don't think BCH has any real competition yet. BCH is still the only current chance at a real Bitcoin arising to free the people of the world. There's already plenty of competition including Monero, Litecoin, Nano, and Ethereum itself. With Ethereum 2.0, Ethereum can still be used as peer-to-peer cash, though it may not advertise itself that way. All that being said, I think it's possible for Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum to compliment eachother because Ethereum's short block times come with high orphan rates. I hope the Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum community can join together because we both have similar goals. Vitalik has shown some support towards Bitcoin Cash, so I don't see it as unlikely.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 17:51:04

It can flip BTC, but it won't be the first. That's why I'm asking which will be the first to flip BTC.

Commented by /u/1MightBeAPenguin in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 17:39:38

Ehh whatever... The conclusion wasn't convincing to me, but I appreciate that Barely Sociable shed light on the active censorship on r/Bitcoin

Commented by