Bitcoins/Litecoins/Virtual Currencies

Tmac said:

So they’ll use the ETH network to transact BTC?

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely.

Flobee said:

If you take a moment to consider the news from the perspective of El Salvador's residents, 70% of which are unbanked and their currency is pegged to a debasing USD, you'll see this as a big news that it really is.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you think that the El Salvadorian government recognizing Bitcoin as legal tender means that the population will suddenly adopt it. The technical fundamentals haven't changed, and those fundamentals essentially say that Bitcoin cannot be used as a peer to peer cash system. Global crypto adoption will be driven by what the first world nations end up doing, and they all seem to be working on Ethereum right now.

James said:

I don't know why you think that the El Salvadorian government recognizing Bitcoin as legal tender means that the population will suddenly adopt it. The technical fundamentals haven't changed, and those fundamentals essentially say that Bitcoin cannot be used as a peer to peer cash system. Global crypto adoption will be driven by what the first world nations end up doing, and they all seem to be working on Ethereum right now.

Click to expand...

Strike is the #1 downloaded app in the country. 20% of their GDP comes from remittances and Strike provides that service for free (via the Lightning network btw). It is going to be widely adopted there. You are almost willfully ignorant regarding what BTC and Lightning are capable of. You don't have to believe me or do research, its happening right now.

As seems to be common in this thread you're confidently incorrect.

President of El Salvador:

Flobee said:

As seems to be common in this thread you're confidently incorrect.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you're an idiot that thinks Bitcoin can handle the kind of traffic that you think it can, but it can't. Bitcoin will never be a peer to peer cash system, Lightning is an inadequate scaling solution. If you think El Salvador's economy is all of the sudden going to turn around because of Bitcoin, you're high and/or dumb. The price of Bitcoin, which is largely driven by decade old memes at this point, went down on this news -- the only people who think this conference did anything good for Bitcoin are people who already hold Bitcoin.

Everyone else thinks its a joke.

James said:

Bitcoin will never be a peer to peer cash system, Lightning is an inadequate scaling solution.

Click to expand...

As usual you're presenting opinion as fact. You've shown you don't understand how Lightning even works, I don't know why you keep pretending that you do. I know, I know, you refuted its viability back in 2017(!) and Vitalik said it can't work so it must not. Meanwhile its literally working right now with no signs of scaling issues for p2p transactions. Lightning transactions require 0 on-chain interactions outside of rebalancing and closing channels. The layer 1 load is incredibly low.

You can call me names all you want James, you're still wrong on this man. The fact that you're falling back on short term price movements and shitting on a giant dork conference doesn't help your argument.

EDIT: To be fair, its too early to claim that it will 100% succeed or fail in regards to scaling. The evidence thus far is not in favor of your argument however

As usual, you're interpreting fact as opinion, like every other Bitcoin maximalist that's totally blind to the research that's been done in the blockchain space for the past 4 years while acting like Lightning is state of the art and the magic bullet solution to Bitcoin scaling woes. 10 million potential new users is such a lie, why not 6 billion potential new users? You know, for it being a global fucking trustless, permissionless currency and all. Do you think government sponsorship is really the metric holding Bitcoin adoption back?

James said:

As usual, you're interpreting fact as opinion, like every other Bitcoin maximalist that's totally blind to the research that's been done in the blockchain space for the past 4 years while acting like Lightning is state of the art and the magic bullet solution to Bitcoin scaling woes.

Click to expand...

No, I'm just saying its sufficient for P2P value transfers. For this use case all the research for off-chain smart contract execution etc that gets your dick hard is irrelevant. All that shit is cool and I'm sure will be incredibly useful but it has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin's current use case or what we're talking about here.

Lightning allows layer 2 value transmissions without anything being written at layer 1. That is sufficient. More clearly stated it allows for USD to be sent from US to a third world country via the Lightning network, then converted to USD or whatever local currency instantly and for free. That destroys the current remittance industry.

Decided to take a minute to go see how brilliant you were back when you first joined this thread since you've touted how OG you are. You were an ETH shill from the jump.

James said:

No doubt, and Ethereum developers are going to end that debate. Casper is their first step, and it's looking really good so far. The Ethereum yellow paper is a pretty good read for the introduction alone, quickly goes over my head tho -- http://gavwood.com/paper.pdf

Click to expand...

Meanwhile 2.0 is still not here and was delayed again. For fun, heres a list of every ETH 2.0 delay

James said:

Lightning is vaporware tho, it's either not going to be developed, or will be entirely different than what they're promising it can do now.

Which is precisely the problem, they've intentionally kept transaction fees high because it's what the miners want, not what's best for the coin.

Nah, you have to work on all three at once, and I really don't see how you can have sufficient security with SegWit, shit is a disaster imo.

Click to expand...

Lightning wasn't vaporware, thats why we're here today.
Blocksize was kept small to maximize decentralization. You supported BCH above BTC, big brain.
SegWit was a net positive for Bitcoin. Wrong again.

You're not as impressive as you act like you are, you were wrong about every prediction you made except for Ethereum number go up. Congratulation on that BTW, genuinely happy for you as I'm sure that was a lot of scratch. Wish I'd been around then myself.

Cherry on top because I saw this today. You've got pages of glorifying Vitalik as a genius and the saving grace of crypto.



Cool guy.

You can do whatever you want, but you might want to reassess some of your conclusions. You've clearly hitched your wagon to these ideas and you've been wrong for years. Just please stop pretending to be some sort of uber mensch that understands more than the rest of us. Hope your right about your Truebit coin. Would hate to see you lead a bunch of forum bro's off a cliff because you can string together technical terms they don't understand.

Flobee said:

Decided to take a minute to go see how brilliant you were back when you first joined this thread since you've touted how OG you are. You were an ETH shill from the jump.

Click to expand...

Yes, because I understand that a distributed state machine is infinitely more powerful than a distributed ledger.

Flobee said:

Meanwhile 2.0 is still not here and was delayed again. For fun, heres a list of every ETH 2.0 delay

Click to expand...

You might want to listen to that whole interview, he talks about how 2.0 isn't even the branding anymore. PoS coming early next year is significantly earlier than we even thought back from those quotes -- Casper is a hybrid PoS/PoW system that was abandoned due to research into rollups and zero knowledge proofs, both of which have revolutionized how we think about scaling blockchains.

Flobee said:

Lightning wasn't vaporware, thats why we're here today.
Blocksize was kept small to maximize decentralization. You supported BCH above BTC, big brain.
SegWit was a net positive for Bitcoin. Wrong again.

Click to expand...

Lightning is vaporware, it will never gain substantial adoption, and SegWit is still fucking stupid and nearly irrelevant.

Small blocksize means Bitcoin failed as a peer to peer payment system, so yes, I did support BCH over BTC because that was the original intent for the coin. Bitcoin could easily increase the blocksize without sacrificing decentralization, Ethereum does it all the time, so yes the fact that they are unwilling to budge on that severely limits Bitcoin's ability to scale.

You might want to listen to that whole interview, he talks about how 2.0 isn't even the branding anymore. PoS coming early next year is significantly earlier than we even thought back from those quotes -- Casper is a hybrid PoS/PoW system that was abandoned due to research into rollups and zero knowledge proofs, both of which have revolutionized how we think about scaling blockchains.

Click to expand...

Who fucking cares about branding? PoS has failed repeatedly. I have no doubt they'll figure it out eventually, I just think its a bad idea even if it works perfectly.

Lightning is vaporware, it will never gain substantial adoption, and SegWit is still fucking stupid and nearly irrelevant.

Click to expand...

James with his crystal ball again. Strike adoption speaks for itself, no need to even argue this.

Small blocksize means Bitcoin failed as a peer to peer payment system, so yes, I did support BCH over BTC because that was the original intent for the coin. Bitcoin could easily increase the blocksize without sacrificing decentralization, Ethereum does it all the time, so yes the fact that they are unwilling to budge on that severely limits Bitcoin's ability to scale.

Click to expand...

Small blocksize guarantees that the full blockchain size remains small and anyone can run a full node. Bigger blocksize disrupts long term decentralization by requiring increasingly powerful hardware to run a full node over time. You know, the same reason that Ethereum isn't decentralized (Ethereum continues to increase blocksize for those of you not aware). You don't even frame Bitcoin scaling properly, you just say it failed to scale.

I don't think you're being intellectually honest with these arguments. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit but I expect you to understand this basic shit if you're going to speak so confidently on the subject. You come off like a blowhard, you seemed cooler in 2018 tbh.

Will end the derail here. I'm sure we'll get into another spat later, look forward to more shit slinging

Flobee said:

Who fucking cares about branding? PoS has failed repeatedly. I have no doubt they'll figure it out eventually, I just think its a bad idea even if it works perfectly.

Click to expand...

PoS hasn't failed fucking once, in fact the Beacon chain is doing just fine, what the fuck are you talking about?

Flobee said:

Small blocksize guarantees that the full blockchain size remains small and anyone can run a full node. Bigger blocksize disrupts long term decentralization by requiring increasingly powerful hardware to run a full node over time. You know, the same reason that Ethereum isn't decentralized (Ethereum continues to increase blocksize for those of you not aware). You don't even frame Bitcoin scaling properly, you just say it failed to scale.

Click to expand...

Do you understand that the blocksize limits how many transactions the network can process at one time, thus by limiting the blocksize it substantially limits the ways in which you can scale transactions on the chain? Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be so fucking glib about how decentralized Bitcoin is because it can't process shit for transactions. Of course, the great irony here is that Bitcoin's hashrate is more centralized than ever.

Flobee said:

I don't think you're being intellectually honest with these arguments. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit but I expect you to understand this basic shit if you're going to speak so confidently on the subject. You come off like a blowhard, you seemed cooler in 2018 tbh.

Click to expand...

I think you eat paint chips.

Daezuel said:

Click to expand...

I was literally picturing this exact scene in my head reading this thread.

Sooo, what happens now that Trump has come out against BTC? Can't imagine it's good news for BTC. Maybe neutral news at best? Any predictions?

Biden is supposedly going to address cryptos role in terrorist/extortion hack attacks too...