Lately, when I see green candles I've started drinking Glenmorangie (any other good suggestions?)
Anyway, green candles, keys control and the rest. Good.
I think Absinthe would be more fitting, but might cause you to make some wacky trades =) On the single malts side, I like a nice Lagavulin 16 yr, but too smokey for some I like Absinthe ( green candles, green drink, you clever  ) very much but as you correctly noticed that is one of those drinks that gives me Fear and Loathing in LV kind of experiences. I will try this Lagavulin, I love smokey both in flavour and taste |
|
|
|
|
Lately, when I see green candles I've started drinking Glenmorangie (any other good suggestions?)
Anyway, green candles, keys control and the rest. Good.
Oh, I am planning a trip overseas, in the next months you are likely to see me less and less.
Hold your keys
Don't trust, verify
Pray Bob
Love thy brother
Edit: Carolina
|
|
|
|
LTC and ETH bubbling up relative to BTC
I have been watching these ratios for a while with my ladders, in the past this has often been an indicator for coming strength in BTC.
Since 2016 it's always been like that |
|
|
|
With regard to yesterday's entertainment. Anybody care to speculate who's been paying the troll patrol to gum up our works before moonshots? Now that all the socks are off, maybe we can start being honest with each other.  Amen, brother. ok now go ahead and accuse me of being something or another. I'll second that. So, whoever thinks I'm a troll please bear in mind that it's going to be you against me, my avatar and my past. Dare, if you wish |
|
|
|
Last pages where what I needed to rethink my Bitcoin positioning. It's always good to never forget our mantra Don't trust, verify I have never been a huge fan of those 3 addresses. I have always kept my cold important, hard-earned, hard-paid UTXOs in 1-starting bitcoin addresses. I have never had issues spending more for my txs to be confirmed beacuse I know what it costs to transact on the most secure network around. Oh, for the record, f**k bcash in case you were thinking I was shifting to Vercoin For everything else, there's Mastercard Dogecoin  |
|
|
|
I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.
I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
On the same page here man. What shocked me is that the more the SegWit/LN bounty grows in value the more likely an anyonecanspend attack becomes likely. Yes, sure as hell you (me) are not a bcash proponent. But we have to question everything and never take anything for granted, especially when some of the clues are there. |
|
|
|
Alright look guys. This whole bcash shill thing needs to stop. It has become an automatic reaction for some of you. Kind of like how SJWs call everyone nazis.
There is a simple test for these things. If you can't say something positive about your opponents, then you are the ideologue. Let's have a group exercise this morning. Say something nice about bcashers.
Be(e) the cash you wish to see in the world |
|
|
|
Ok, my version of the story. If Bart does not make a huge leg up soon, well, bart's dead. My regular monthly buy come at the beginning of July: I'm tempted to buy now. Bart can't die. He's been 12 years old for like 30 years now. That, my dear infofront, is the whole truth pure and simple. |
|
|
|
Ok, my version of the story. If Bart does not make a huge leg up soon, well, bart's dead. My regular monthly buy come at the beginning of July: I'm tempted to buy now. |
|
|
|
Oh my Bart, still playing with us. Grow up  |
|
|
|
I am referring to the right here, right now situation. In the past few weeks Bart is up and running. I said I'm here for the long run many times, no need to explain further. Simply warning that there are green candles and green candles. DYOR, always  EDIT: two upperbarts... |
|
|
|
Still some Barting activity. I don't buy it sorry.
Sad to admit a few people are making a shit-ton of money due to this self-evident manipulation.
I hate that I'm agreeing with you  I fear this is a short-term upward-Bart before resuming the inverse-Bart pattern we've been seeing as of late. If it does sideways for the next hours and goes back down (250$ cliff) Bart's confirmed. I would be more than happy to be wrong though! |
|
|
|
Betting regularly with the P2P Betting Bot on the World Cup. So far so good (and a bit of extra GBYTEs). The only thing I would work on for the future is the possibility of placing multiple bets instead of singles. (parlays ) But that's good for now |
|
|
|
|
Still some Barting activity. I don't buy it sorry.
Sad to admit a few people are making a shit-ton of money due to this self-evident manipulation.
|
|
|
|
(snipped for relevance) I don't see exchanges, devs and users complaining how flawed Segwit it, nobody lost money ore saw critical errors. I only see that bullshit in the Bcash camp.
Can you provide me technical arguments/proof why Segwit is 'flawed' ore show it at the Github?
Yes. Fungibility. What's the issue with fungibility that's so specific to segwit? As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities. 1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions; 2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and 3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction. Reliance on miners not to revert to 'anyonecanspend' - an incentive for which only increases over time. That is, reliance on miners not to try a 51% attack. Does this imply the chain without segwit is invulnerable to 51% attacks? No. But without Segwit, all miners were able to do with a 51% attack is roll back transactions. They were unable to steal funds. If miners choose to revert to considering Segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transactions, then they can claim every one of the outputs of all those anyonecanspend transactions for themselves. As over time, transactions tainted by Segwit is a monotonically increasing count, the incentive to roll back to Satoshi rules is ever-increasing. And the funny thing is that this would arguably not be stealing. After all, Segwit is said to be compatible, right? All the miners would be doing to claim these funds is to revert to the previous rule set. That's compatible. The risk you are mentioning here is somewhat "real" but it is decreasing as more funds get moved to segwit addresses. It was a real concern in the beginning as it would have been a (remote) possibility that miners would do as you say. In fact, even if I believed Segwit was a favourable upgrade I was very cautious to NOT move my funds to Segwit addresses until many months later. Currently, with so much funds already moved into Segwit addresses IF miners decided to stole any Segwit address this is what would happen: - A fork between the consensus chain and the stolen one. - A drop in price to almost zero on the stolen one. - A considerable drop in price on the consensus chain too. ... And basically a major drop in ALL cryptocurrency market as confidence and trust on the main cryptocurrency and its foundations would be severely harmed. Or maybe it would just be that noone would give any value to the forked (stolen funds) chain and the crisis would not be as deep... but, in any case, whomever carried out that sort of attack (necessarily a main player in crypto mining) would end in a useless (no value) chain and be economically harmed in every way on its core business. Also take into account that exchanges can be hit by a 51% attack in the sense of double spending BUT they are not vulnerable to this type of attack. Why? Because their wallet software would NOT acknowledge the "anyonecanspend" spoofed tx's no matter how many hashrate decides to support the rogue chain. (If I am wrong in this point please enlighten me). So, still a 51% "double spending" attack -while hugely improbable in Bitcoin for many reasons- is a (orders of magnitude) bigger "vulnerability" than a segwit "anyonecanspend" attack right now. Thanks both, interesting. Now I remember why I waited before using SegWit like addresses. |
|
|
|
@jbreher Fine. It's not a fight I want to have here. No need for it. Time will tell if SegWit + LN will work well. I tried, I use and trust Bitcoin as it is now but I know that there's still a lot of work to do. About LN cons as we speak: - Routing kind of sucks; - Channels balancing must be improved; - Peers need to be online to receive txs... But, jbreher, Rome was not build in a day. Use SegWit and LN: need coins? |
|
|
|
@jbreher
Ok, you are skeptic, fine. My question to you would be: are you even using SegWit enabled features in Bitcoin?
Of course not. I am a Segwit skeptic. Why would I commit any of my funds to something I think is fundamentally flawed? That would be irrational, right? (1) Have you tried the LN (testnet is fine too) I'm curious to know if you are skeptic on a theoretical level only
No. What does that LN to do with Segwit? I'm not following your train of inquiry here. Here is a question for you. Are you familiar with the term 'fungibility'? Can you understand how creating two classes of BTC destroys this property? (Well, after claiming one question, you asked two.) (2) (1) Fine but to me is like "I don't like carrots!" Have you ever tried them? "no, I think they would kill me". (2) No SegWit, no LN easy. Why would I commit any of my funds... You can use testnet coins........ Fungibility: yes I know what it is and that's a concern for me as well but I know a few ways to protect my privacy. They are costly but I don't care since I value my privacy a lot. |
|
|
|
|
@jbreher
Ok, you are skeptic, fine. My question to you would be: are you even using SegWit enabled features in Bitcoin? Have you tried the LN (testnet is fine too) I'm curious to know if you are skeptic on a theoretical level only
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much! I'll begin studying over the weekend |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
