×

587
588

BitcoinCash does this. (i.redd.it)

submitted by user4morethan2mins

all 146 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Mr-Zwets 33 points34 points  (44 children)

BCH FTW

[–]mrwhitenoise -4 points-3 points  (40 children)

I could see BCH taking the place off every day cash, but BTC creating the backing like gold.

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (34 children)

but BTC creating the backing like gold.

For what reason? What can btc do that BCH can't?

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]TheMoonMoth 0 points1 point  (14 children)

    It's more valuable. I know the r/btc group doesn't like it that way, but it's how it is. Is gold inherently more valuable than silver? No they're both rocks. But humans have decided that gold is more valuable based on scarcity, effort to mine, and systems built around and into it. BTC has gained it's reputation as the most valuable crypto and will likely remain there. Using it to buy BCH for everyday use sounds like a great idea to me.

    [–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

    This is what I don't understand. Store of Value is not a property on itself. Here let me make an example.

    Remember Diablo 2? It had 33 runes. And their droprate reached from very common to fucking insanely scarce. There was also Gold. Gold was used to repair and buy stuff from vendors. Runes were used to craft powerful runewords you could use.

    Gold was discarded as common currency almost immediately because it had no use case and was to common. Runes took their place.

    But what was interesting, is that the runes that were needed to craft good items were more expensive than the much more scarce runes which were not so useful. People started to horde the useful ones and use them as currency.

    And here is the point. BCH is useful BTC is not. We are still very early in the game and people don't know yet which runewords are good and which are not so good. But what you already see is, BCH is good for transaction BTC has nothing but price.

    Same with Gold and Silver. They both have an underlying use case. The decision Gold >> Silver was also not a just because people decided so, Gold has better properties to be used as currency. You could also ask why Gold and not Diamonds?

    Now look at BTC and BCH, they are not silver and gold, they are gold and gold. Their properties regarding store of value are exactly the same the only difference is one can be used as p2p money the other cannot. When this use case of p2p money takes of btc will be left in the ditch.

    Edit:

    And another one so I can reverence this post.

    Think vouchers. Vouchers work as currency. People gift them people use them people even trade them. But as soon as they cannot be redeemed for something (their primary use case) they go to zero. All the people that happily gifted / traded/ used them suddenly also suddenly think they are worthless and wont take them from you anymore.

    Think back when 1btc was worth $12.42 Do you think anyone would have bought the store of value bullshit then? It would have most certainly not worked. It worked in 2017 because it was already worth something and the use case of p2p money was actually developing. And there was a massiv bull run that fueled more hopium.

    [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Is gold inherently more valuable than silver?

    Gold doesn’t have a competitor that is far more performant.

    Otherwise it will be less valuable.

    [–][deleted]  (11 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]metalbrushes 1 point2 points  (10 children)

      Silver has real world use as a consumable material. It is used in all our technology, cars, solar panels, medicine and medical equipment, jewelry etc....

      [–]Late_To_Parties 3 points4 points  (9 children)

      Are you saying gold doesn't?

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]arunr18 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        gold is used in printed circuit boards

        [–]metalbrushes 0 points1 point  (6 children)

        Correct me if I’m wrong but I am pretty sure that of all the things that I listed that silver is used in, gold is only used in one of them... jewelry. What else is gold used for?

        [–]SwiftCoderJoe 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        Gold is often used in electronics because it is an extremely good conductor.

        [–]inf-r 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        gold is less conductive than silver and even copper, it just does not corrode and hence is commonly used for electrical contact plating.

        [–]arunr18 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        gold is used in printed circuit boards

        [–]Late_To_Parties 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Sounds like it'd be worth a search on the internet

        [–]ratacibernetica 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Also, Silver kills werewolves.

        [–]xsanchez21 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        Network effects

        [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

        I'm calling this an urban legend now.

        holding (store of value) creates no network effect I don't fucking care how many people or my friends are holding as soon as there is a better investment people will switch. Holding doesn't even effect the price it is neutral.

        So what your really mean is attention. BTC has the most attention atm. But attention is a finicky thing

        [–]xsanchez21 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I agree, there must be other things that attract value and use cases. I am not a fan of smart contracts (dapps) platforms at the moment, I really don’t see developments worth the attention.

        Dapps could be interesting soon, but do it in a layer 2 or 3, not in the layer 1. I don’t want to end like Ethereum, running in cloud servers like AWS (for layer 1).

        [–]SlingDNM -2 points-1 points  (8 children)

        First move advantage. That's it but it's enough

        [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (6 children)

        but it's enough

        It has been proven time and time again that this is not the case.

        [–]SlingDNM -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

        Oh really? How often has the USD been replaced as the world currency so far?

        [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        Not the comparison you can make.

        The difference is state power. Police and military. Cryptos are much more comparable to a product from a company. And there are plenty examples for first mover - first loser.

        [–]ricardotown 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        AOL. MySpace. Yahoo. Ford. Blockbuster.

        There's 5 examples of "first-movers" that have fallen dramatically from grace, giving way to much, better, more performance products that took into account what end users actually wanted.

        [–]SlingDNM -1 points0 points  (2 children)

        You are comparing products to a network protocol.

        Tell me what replaced TCP? What replaced UDP? What replaced the rest of the IP stack?

        [–]ricardotown 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        Are those still around because they're first movers, or because they function as intended?

        [–]SlingDNM -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        Because they are good enough. Just like BTC is good enough as a store of value. And transactions are sadly just gonna be handled by the eventually releasing government "backed" stablecoins because the average user doesn't wanna see even 1% daily flactuation of their spending money. Also most people are incredibly stupid and cannot be trusted with their own keys. They will lose them. They will get scammed.
        They will mistakenly send to the wrong address and they cannot chargeback the money. This is good for us because it means the protocol is working as intended, but the average person doesn't care about protocols, they care wether or not they can get their money back after sending it to a Nigerian prince.

        I don't like it either

        [–]EnayVovin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        BCH started in 2009.

        [–]phro 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        If BCH is performing all the every day transactions BTC will be hard pressed to bid for any SHA256 hash rate to preserve that status.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]HVDynamo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          But there’s no point to that. None. If BCH can transact and store, and BTC can only store. What good is BTC?

          [–]b_r_e_a_k_f_a_s_t 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          I just started looking into crypto. This sub seems all about BCH over BTC which I didn’t expect.

          [–]Mr-Zwets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          read the pinned post, this sub has some interesting history

          [–]SlavikZeus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Yeah it's about shitcoin not btc

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]frozengrandmatetris 14 points15 points  (1 child)

            my money's on hayek, who won a nobel prize for describing price signals.

            [–]Thecoinjerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Yeah probably just learned about Hayek. Wealth of nations basically just described the economy in a way people could understand.

            [–]Quagdarr 6 points7 points  (11 children)

            I know what he is saying, it’s what could be the idea of money, but if I recall it’s the Gen X generation which is making the vast majority of global wealth is held by inheritance. People who’s greatest achievement is simply being the winning sperm into the egg. It is what it is but they get money gifted to them, then hire people to convert that into more money.

            Let’s be honest, the executives rarely do that much more than lower level people and get paid obscene money. Often the riches come from luck/timing rather than work. In this is a hyper small fraction of those who have talent, work ethic, start from nothing who make it.

            In the end it all needs to change, as we advance AI and robotics to do the work faster and no -stop, remove Chinese damn near slave labor camps, and overworking/underpaying them and other people around the world. UBI is needed and we need a world where since no work is to be had...or very little is, you will have to embrace extreme poverty and homelessness in our “advanced society” created an angry mob of starving billions of people, or UBI which will be created by the governments to give out and order that only that currency can be used to pay rent, food, power, transportation, communication, etc...

            Again, Elon is right, but based on how things are today, they whole system and concept needs to rapidly change and IMO in the next couple of years will change.

            [–]Tiblanc- 0 points1 point  (10 children)

            That's a bad conclusion because you take the current economy and apply a small change in isolation.

            Take the 50s economy where there was no automation and you had an army of secretaries typing letters. Computers and printers destroyed that job class. You could say these secretaries are all living under a bridge. The reality is they are not, because this free labor can be used in other parts of the economy where it increases quality of life. Another example is power tools in construction. Workers are more productive which translates to cheaper, bigger houses.

            Back then, the ratio of retiree to workers was much lower and life was not as pleasant. They had less cars per family and these cars were smaller. They also didn't have access to various health treatments like physiotherapy and the like.

            Global productivity to workforce is average quality of life. If AI increases this ratio, the economy will find a way to redistribute everything. You think the rich will get richer by producing a ton of cars nobody can afford because they are jobless? That's not how it works. Yes, the gap between rich and poor will widen, but the poor will be richer than today's poor.

            [–]dmzkrypto 1 point2 points  (9 children)

            Joblessness will become a huge issue. There will come a point when the majority of people will not have jobs available at all and we should, hopefully before then, have UBI measures in-place to mitigate this threat. We can argue when this demographic shift will occur... but it’s the only possible outcome with the parabolic rise in both population & technology. The rich, cushy jobs have been getting paid for doing “busy-work” or “no-work” for decades and we can’t just keep inventing “busy-work type jobs” that don’t produce any real value just to give people an income. Something else has to be done and could/should smart forms of UBI plans paid for by the wealth generated through taxing AI, robots, & other technologies that replaces human workers.

            [–]Tiblanc- 0 points1 point  (8 children)

            Who will buy the products and services if nobody has a job? Free markets will lower the labor price of everything until offer meets demand. That could happen in many ways. It could require a shift to UBI and state corporations. It could happen through a labor shift that isn't replaceable by AI. It could also happen by a mass genocide where you have a few humans left controlling vast amounts of land.

            In any case, this shift happened with every technological advance and we all got richer because of it.

            [–]Quagdarr 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            This is different this time, it won’t happen this year or next, it’s been slowly building up and this almost feels like the current world has been slowly moving there. We can only speculate of course, but UBI will be needed and their will still be jobs, just far fewer and those with jobs will simply have extra money over those who can’t (my opinion) I think once we hear more info after the next IMF meeting about the great reset and see how it aligns to Agenda 21 sustainable development, we may see a clearer picture. UBI is required as so many jobs are never coming back, as well as small businesses closing...but again I think we need to see 2021 to have a better guess.

            [–]Tiblanc- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            That's the same thinking Luddites had. It destroyed their job class, but the overall wealth created by an increase in labor efficiency trickled down and allowed better living conditions years later. You just need to adapt instead of being stubborn.

            UBI is one potential solution, but it's one done through government intervention and we all know how inefficient and abused these are.

            The natural way this would evolve is by the rich spending money to save time. If your new automation allows you to produce 10 times more products and services, then you have 9 times the previous amount that can be allocated to time saving products and services. This may be better healthcare, more tourism, getting food made by chefs instead of cooking or whatever. Who knows what the future will create to create better living standards. Labor will still be required one way or another.

            [–]dmzkrypto 0 points1 point  (5 children)

            Income from taxing AI & tech that steals jobs. It’s not that there will be “no work for anyone” anymore it’s that there won’t be enough value-creating jobs for every person on earth without forcing people to do busy work—so therefore large numbers of people would starve without a welfare program. Busy work being a job that can be done a better way or more efficiently but instead is being done just so an extra paying “job” can be created. Why pay 1000 customer service techs to do a job that by then an AI can do just as well? It’s better to run the AI and tax it to pay those 1000 people. The difference between the cost of the two is the profit. That profit comes from not needing to pay for things such as overhead, office space, equipment/resources, healthcare, other benefits, etc...

            [–]Tiblanc- 0 points1 point  (4 children)

            That's what I meant by taking the current economy and applying a change in isolation. Jobs disappear because of AI, therefore these people start starving. No.

            What would happen is this AI and machinery needs to be created and maintained. These workers earn more because of the leverage they provide and they start increasing their lifestyles. This creates increased demand in other areas of the economy and the jobless people can relocate. Yes they may suffer a loss of quality of life. However, everyone benefits from the increase in global productivity.

            For example, instead of requiring 10 workers across the entire supply chain to create 1 car per year, you now need 1. The average worker could change car once per 10 years and now they can change every year. How that happens is complex, but the end result is the same. 30 years ago, a computer would cost months of labor. Now we have much better computers in our pocket and they cost days of labor. That's the result of automation.

            Taxing is always bad because you're stealing value without contributing to the economy. This leads to tax evasion and wealth being sent offshore. UBI through inflation could work but it's still acquiring resources without contributing. The better solution is to stop focusing on what your labor can do and start acquiring labor replacement assets like stocks or machinery. This is where defi will shine.

            [–]dmzkrypto 0 points1 point  (3 children)

            You’re missing the entire point. I’m not writing or reading essays today. Of course machinery & tech need to maintained. But if you don’t think the maintenance of 1 AI is cheaper than the overhead of 1000 employees.... I can’t help you.

            [–]Tiblanc- 0 points1 point  (2 children)

            Yes it is cheaper and will lead to job losses. Some people will be worse off and will need a new career plan. Some will be better off. Overall, society is wealthier. You can't start taxing innovation for the sake of protecting those who might suffer.

            [–]dmzkrypto 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            When you basically implied “taxation is theft”.... that’s the end of reasonable discussion. 🤷‍♂️

            [–]Tiblanc- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Not really. Taxing the productivity increase to redistribute it has a zero effect on the overall society wealth. If you produce the same things with less labor, you're not better off if you allow the affected labor to retain the same quality of life. It's the same as if they stole productivity directly from the benefactors of the productivity increase.

            [–]TibanneChaintip Creator 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            What if everyone here chaintip's his tweet?

            I'll start.

            Just reply with @chaintip somewhere in your reply to get the bot to send you an address.

            [–]steeveperry 6 points7 points  (12 children)

            If it’s a labor allocation system, then why do most laborers have so little of it?

            [–]TechMoneyFitness 2 points3 points  (4 children)

            Think of it like a program. The individual functions provide value, but not greater than the sum of its whole. Eventually the greater overarching structure moves the needle and provides the maximum amount of utility/function/value and that is what makes the measure go up.

            [–]debtitor -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

            Only the current program is missing a few key functions, like one worker one vote. Then all of sudden, after 40 years of work every employee would be a millionaire (from their pension), and savings in a currency that has been appreciating in value for 40 years.

            [–]frez45 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            I'd argue that now individual functions provide most of the value. Great hurdle always was that functions couldn't easily call one another and pass large arguments as they wished due to a technical reason (limited address size on relative calls or something).

            Now the hardware has been upgraded and calling many functions and passing many arguments is not a problem. Our problem now are the old style guides, still encouraging the old habits like widespread use of global variables and reliance on ISRs, while newly possible strategies like passing large structures and registering custom handlers are being discouraged or even prohibited.

            There are emerging efforts to completely bypass old maintainers and create parallel infrastructure. Although it may seem difficult to adapt existing functions, wonderful people here are working on compatibility layers, tutorials and examples, so those who crossed ways with ISR maintainers can still make their code run reliably.

            [–]TechMoneyFitness 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Excellent reply. I always say be the change you want to see. There is a lot to be said against the whole “bootstraps” thing, but based on what you said I would reply find a team and play the game.

            [–]shmackydoo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            Because they sell their labor to the owner for a fraction of what that labor value actually is worth. It's an uneven equation and the laborer only 'voluntarily' signs up for this because not doing so would land him\her in poverty, see "Reserve Army of Labor".

            [–]turbochargedcoffee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I am probably not qualified but I believe a big part of it has to do but the buying power of fiat being undermined via inflation tax.

            Dig into the ‘buying power’ of the dollar. You’ll find that skilled labor used to have plenty of money to provide, because the mir buying power was higher.

            Crypto is deflationary so buying power should only move one way in the long run.

            [–]schedulle-cate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            By this analogy, money allocates the valeu of your labor, nor exactly the time of labor per se.

            [–]AmbitiousPhilosopher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            The current fiat system favours the rich.

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Because government controls fiat and government is a centralized point of manipulation for those who wants an upperhand (basically everyone whether they admit it or not) so it is sooo much easier for those already on top to stay on top because they already have the government as a tool available to them.

            Also, not all labor are equal.

            [–]CynicalRealist1 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            Wow you are a fucking idiot

            [–]Mr-Zwets 9 points10 points  (5 children)

            What's up with all the nano shills here?

            [–]tralxz 10 points11 points  (0 children)

            Bots everywhere.

            [–]AmbitiousPhilosopher 4 points5 points  (2 children)

            Nano doesn't have middle men, no miners, no paying people you don't know, it fits Elon's description perfectly.

            [–]Mr-Zwets 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            and another one!

            [–]AmbitiousPhilosopher -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

            Have fun paying CSW!

            [–]ChaosElephant 6 points7 points  (1 child)

            I doubt Elon knows...

            [–]12340art 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            How dare you

            [–]stewbits22 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Did Elon just say Bitcoin Cash? It sounded like it. Please tweet 'BCH ftw,'' Elon and I will buy a Tesla.

            [–]ganwaniKamal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            nice

            [–]60Al60 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Hmm- I’d be interested to see how this theory fits holders of Bitcoin eg Paoul Pal - what work, services etc does he provide?

            [–][deleted]  (2 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]OrientWind 7 points8 points  (1 child)

              If Musk calls the money the way he said, BCH would be his ideal money.

              [–]bitsanctuary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              What will happen after all the BCH coins are mined?

              [–]Lazyleader 0 points1 point  (10 children)

              I both like BCH and Nano. Any reason to prefer one over the other?

              [–]deojfj 31 points32 points  (5 children)

              1. Nano doesn't have private transactions: Endlessly shuffling transactions like some prupose is not a privacy method. Has anyone even audited this supposed method of privacy like Cash Fusion has been? Private transactions with negligible fees is a far better deal. Shuffling might be free, but it increases the amount of time required to make a transaction, and also requires high liquidity.
              2. It doesn't have tokens: Allowing tokens attracts more users, and more users means (potentially) less volatility, more liquidity, and an increase in price. Why are tokens useful? Stablecoins, loyalty points, DeFi, dividends, games... Just look at Ethereum, tokens are the reason it is valued so much; and smartcontracts (another thing Nano lacks).
              3. It doesn't have independent developer teams: Anyone is free to produce another implementation, but so far, there has been little interest in building competing software. If other devs are not interested, might be because the underlying tech itself is not that interesting. The weakest point in a cryptocurrency is the developers, and in BCH there are 6 independent full-node implementations, which gives it far more security than Nano, which has 1.
              4. It doesn't have multiple node implementations: Having multiple node implementations (even if done by the same team) increases reliability in case a bug appears in one implementation but not in another.
              5. It has very few open-source non-custodial wallets.
              6. It has very low merchant acceptance: No BitPay support, few brick and mortar stores that support it...
              7. Its security model hasn't been battle-tested because very few people use it.
              8. It doesn't have Trezor support.

              [–]observe_all_angles 17 points18 points  (0 children)

              Its security model hasn't been battle-tested because very few people use it.

              This should be at the top of the list and there should be a lot more explanation regarding how consensus works on BCH vs NANO.

              NANO is a delegated proof of stake currency. BCH is a proof of work currency.

              Many people (including me) don't think proof of stake can can work due to technical security concerns or economic incentive concerns. I encourage you to read both those people who think proof of stake is bunk and those who don't. DYOR and decide.

              [–]xsanchez21 5 points6 points  (3 children)

              1. ⁠It doesn't have tokens: Allowing tokens attracts more users, and more users means (potentially) less volatility, more liquidity, and an increase in price. Why are tokens useful? Stablecoins, loyalty points, DeFi, dividends, games... Just look at Ethereum, tokens are the reason it is valued so much; and smartcontracts (another thing Nano lacks).

              Please let’s stay with the relevant coin. We can do everything with it.

              Don’t try to create a useless shitcoin casino like ETH and erc-20 tokens that only purpose is to clog the network and steal money from low skilled investors chasing pumps.

              [–]deojfj 0 points1 point  (2 children)

              Usefulness and value are subjective. In order to have a large network effect, the coin must cover the popular use cases.

              Right now tokens are popular. If SLP tokens are more useful to people than Ethereum tokens, some will start using BCH.

              Of course, secondary use cases must be subordinate to the p2p cash use case. I don't see how adding tokens harms the primary use case.

              [–]xsanchez21 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              There are gamblers that think a token may have more value than the main one. See $ETH and $LINK people for example.

              [–]deojfj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              So? How does this prevent p2p cash?

              [–]zepolen 8 points9 points  (0 children)

              For P2P cash:

              BCH has better marketing/position thanks to Roger Ver who basically got the ball rolling on BTC to make it what it is today. I'd see it replacing BTC first.

              Nano has better tech, feeless and instant, much less adoption/marketing, but a beast lead dev, Colin Lemahieu, he's on the level of Satoshi. I'd see it replacing BCH later.

              I root for both projects.

              BCH supports more features (tokens etc) whereas Nano is concentrating solely on the p2p cash use case.

              [–]DoktorElmo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

              If I were you, I'd ask the same question on the nano subreddit too.

              [–]dontlikecomputers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              BCH has much better network effect. BCH has tokens.

              Nano is faster, cheaper, has no explicit fees, and no inflation, no other uses than MoE, it is a simple project.

              [–]user4morethan2mins[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1349977642708168704

              [–]rankinrez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              How incredibly Marxist.

              Money stores wealth. I agree with Marx that labour is a massive, perhaps the biggest contributor to value. But there are other things that are value cos they are scare etc. It’s more nuanced than Musk and Marx say.

              [–]sincfam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              BCH can be influenced by a few nodes. This is antithetical to the distributed power model of BTC. Then we are back into the old centralized power structure. and the same old games.

              [–]SHA256ED -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              So by these metrics you should be off BCH and on EOS or Ripple which can do magnitudes higher TPS?

              [–]mantiss87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              Cash also does that.

              [–]StevenSanchez94 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

              Low latency will win. The confirmed transaction latency time for BCH: block times are on average 10 minutes each. You need at least a few confirmations to be more confident there has been no double spend, aka no chargeback possible. A better crypto with lower latency will be better for payments according to this tweet. I agree.

              [–]1MightBeAPenguin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              0-conf is more than enough for most transactions

              [–]PWBoftheshire -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              Tezos does this..

              [–]ImprovementFeeling45Redditor for less than 30 days -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              I have enough experience in crypto investment and I want to say only platforms like PolkaCover can service in the future! So if you want to get your "piece of a pie", you have to hurry and buy CVR now. Don't say I haven’t warned you!

              [–]Lekje -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              Is that why he promoted Doge?

              [–]LucSr -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              By axiom of purchasing power that one shall pay the same amount of money to boil water hundred years before and after, money is isomorphic to energy via the concept of proof of energy work. Sound money is a system of energy accounting and accounting itself never makes people real rich.

              ​

              I will never be surprised some day Elon conduct a business using Tesla battery as money because there is no cheating way to recharge a battery except honest energy work.

              [–]bvttfvcker -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              Dogecoin, mine friends

              [–]julbjulb -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              Musk coin.

              [–]SlavikZeus -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              Bitcoin cash is carbage why would anyone run a node?

              [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              MUST SEE ASAP https://youtu.be/cBQ_YneKFQ4

              [–]dribble_dribble -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              testing.

              [–]GWYNETHSGOOP -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

              The message I’m getting from this is to short Tesla.

              [–]Adrian-X -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

              Literally, if you know that and wanted digital money it's Bitcoin he's describing, Bitcoin BSV.

              [–][deleted]  (6 children)

              [removed]

                [–]DuncanThePunk 6 points7 points  (5 children)

                Roger doesn't decide the blocksize. It's already 32MB.

                [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                [removed]

                  [–]DuncanThePunk 3 points4 points  (3 children)

                  There is no single gatekeeper with BCH. The community is decentralised. Any change requires convincing several full node software developers. Bitcoin Unlimited is one such developer that has already proposed and started testing no-limit block sizes. I believe this means the block size is determined by miner consensus.

                  [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                  [removed]

                    [–]DuncanThePunk 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                    It is possible there will be future disagreement for sure. In fact, last November, BCH split over IFP. While ideally there would be no split, the market decided which fork was the more valuable and it was business as usual.
                    If the community rejected bigger blocks (with the BSV split), what makes you so sure it was the wrong decision? After all, the blocks are not near full at 32MB. The block size limit is designed to avoid DOS attacks.

                    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–]RowanSkie 3 points4 points  (2 children)

                      Uh... that's how it's always been.

                      Besides, there's a new club in town called Club1BCH that celebrates getting 1 BCH over to noise.cash and read.cash.

                      [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

                      Haha sorry i thpught this was bch because it's green :/ didn't see btc so ibdeleted my comment :)

                      [–]RowanSkie 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                      Uh... r/BTC is the uncensored r/Bitcoin, and BCH is 2009-2013 BTC.

                      And yeah, it's all upon the "verify, don't trust" thing.

                      I've had to throw BCH just to make me look like an idiot so I don't get called a troll.

                      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      What about taxes?

                      [–]Dizz18 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      Nano

                      [–]mktox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      Ughhhh....

                      [–]MichaHonies123Redditor for less than 2 weeks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      As long as Bitcoin is tied to a 40k+ price tag is anyone really going to use it as a currency? It's just like the pizza day thing, that person who spent 10k BTC on pizzas is always talked about as having a ton of fiat if they didn't spend it. This type of talk turns majority of the ppl off from using BTC or any other crypto that has a high value to fiat from using it as a currency. Seriously, think about it. Would you really want to spend 1 BTC on a car now when that same 1 BTC will be worth 1 house later? I am sure majority of the ppl out there would regret it. Now it's being called a "store of value," but is that how it was originally intended? It's called a currency not a store of value.