Shmadz, BJA: to comment on double spend risks. You both seem to have missed some details. Yeah, but China has ~75% hashpower, not 50%. winning three bets in a row with 75% odds is a 42% chance, a heluva lot higher than 6.25%
If you have 75% of the hashrate, your success rate with double-spends is 100%, since you are guaranteed to be building the longest chain. Sure, 25% of the blocks will not be built by you, but you have the power to discard those from the blockchain. I'd guess a double-spend in this kind of scenario would probably be best achieved by willingly orphaning the blocks containing the tx you want to re-spend. So the situation, if you assume Chinese miners are all in collusion, is actually worse than BJA is saying. OTOH, honest miners aren't the only protection against double spends. simple race attacks can be detected by any sufficiently connected node. That won't help against dishonest miners, but the kind of attack a majority miner could pull off seems pretty problematic in terms of financial gains. The attack would be detected too quickly for the miner to exchange their BTC for other assets and take delivery of said assets, so any profits would be counted in BTC. And what do yout think happens to the BTC price if a majority miner goes rogue? I'm not suggesting miners are or could be or want to collude. It's in their best interest not to do that unless...they are coerced by the government, Communist Party or central bank. My concern is that 75% hashpower in the same POLITICAL jurisdiction (not where most people live) threatens censorship resistance. Nothing anyone has said changes that. I know the U.S. has suppressed voices of dissent, but in modern times we've had nothing like the Tienanmen Square Massacre. There are levels of Statist evil. Still, I don't want to defend myself or my country, both of whom merit legitimate criticism because it changes the subject. The issue, no matter how badly everyone wants to ignore it is the Bitcoin is centralized now, not in a way we predicted or worried about, but centralized all the same. If we can at least agree on that, we can talk about what to do about it, but ignoring it, changing the subject, making personal attacks is not constructive. This is a real problem. Scmadz seems to think I'm an agent or something, but i usually don't respond to reficulous attacks. This one has been repeated many times, so no Dude. It's still me. Keep creating bigger blocks 16MB make things less centralized right? |
|
|
|
|
No many coins for sale left on finex. If China breaks 3000 this could turn in a firework
|
|
|
|
anything below 460 1200 is pure GOLD
There, fixed |
|
|
|
[...] Visa, Paypal and the Banks, charge ridiculously high amount of money for fees, in what actually cost them peanuts due to the efficiency of centralized databases.
For example Paypal charges 0.35 fixed plus 2-3% of the amount. Their cost for making the tx happen is ridiculously low because they have a centralized database, not an inefficient P2P / Decentralized implementation. [...]
This is where confusion comes in. Visa & PP aren't charging you for sending a verifiable, difficult-to-counterfeit digital packet. They're charging you for their services -- mediating disputes, chargebacks when enlightened counterparty fails to send you the stuff you've paid for, etc. Shit BTC simply can not, and thus doesn't, offer. True but what if you're just sending a gift or don't need/want their added services? If i buy a coffee i don't really care to pay 3% for a possibility to chargeback, if i'm buying a house i'll be relying on contracts to make sure i get what i want. if i'm buying something off the ebay maybe i can find a cheaper escrow service than 3% |
|
|
|
|
Boom BTC3K market buy on Finex. Been too long since i've seen those.
|
|
|
|
EVERYONE wants bigger blocks, except for these guys, and it's not because they are all knowing gods and know what's best for us. there are many poeple that understand the nitty gritty details who agree bigger blocks is safe.
From what I saw it seems like bigger block is at least canted by all users. It's the miners who don't want it? A split at fork (having two blockchains) would be detrimental to the price. Miners know that and will try to avoid a full out war unless they're 99% confident that majority will follow. But portion of miners profit comes from the fees and with the halfing coming up that portion will get even more significant. So naturally they're bias for bigger blocks, as that means more profit from fees. Coinbase and the like already have their business plan set up and want to show returns yesterday. So they want everything and right MEOW!! Majority of users are also too short sighted. They want to be able to send $0.05 of internet magic money to each other and feel that BTC in the current implementation must be able to support it. Since it's coming to it's capacity the "logical" thing is to upgrade to new bigger capacity version like they do with their phones and computers. Core devs are the geek engineers and are the ones that need to be 99.9% sure that updates don't introduce more attack vectors, make BTC more centralized etc... Mining pools are driven by market profits so it's not something that can easily be tested in the lab. tl;dr Engineers-we need more time to make sure it won't blow up. Managers-we have delivery deadlines, this beta release should be good enough and we'll just patch it later. Early users/consumers-WTF my iPhone 19c is out of memory, oh apple just released 20s with double the space time to buy more. |
|
|
|
|
Is it starting? We still got 5 months to go
|
|
|
|
Hidde ask wall on Finex at $400. Let's see how big it is  |
|
|
|
Monkey reports in: Monkey thinks the next week could be uppish, but is generally skeptical out until mid-March, then bullish on the multi-month scale.
This time, I think I agree, but whatevs.
year of the monkey hasn't officially started yet has it?  What am i looking at here? |
|
|
|
I opened a big leveraged short at 394. I don't see how things are going to go up until the block size debate is resolved. Or at the very least there is no longer a looming threat of a hard fork.
This isn't JUST a hard for but a reshuffling of the powers that be in core who are being paid by a private company to fund bitcoin (imo this entire debacle can be traced back to the foundation going belly up on funding development).
Until the two camps are united, core compromises on 2mb blocks or everyone in the community (exchanges etc) change their mind I see the drift downward as inevitable.
I do live in eternal fear of core announcing 2mb blocks and losing it all. But I'm betting that if they haven't done it yet they aren't going to until hard fork is inevitable.
 jkI actually laughed |
|
|
|
Were all 6 of the last blocks found by F2Pool  |
|
|
|
He wouldn't send first claiming that he didn't trust me  , but for some unknown reason wanted me to trust him  PASS That's because you fuckheads buy your hero accounts then say youre a trusted member lol Yes you got me Step1 Buy a hero account with no neg trust for 0.6 BTCStep2 Steal $12 worth of starbucks Step3 Profit Yeah maths are hard you registered 2 months ago and calling people fuckheads on BTC forum? right sorry carry on |
|
|
|
BFX looks confused  |
|
|
|
let me say it again
less than 380, NEVER AGAIN.
Still stand by that call? I think there is a one hundred and eleventeen percent chance that you are wrong. I will bet my last satoshi on it. There you go... not making sense, again.... Huh? He was right, though? went to 379 briefly about 10 mins later.... Now Stamp is under as well. My last satoshi is safe. Thought everyone is following btc-e now  |
|
|
|
Who has been holding from $502, $475, $465, and $428?
You have. How are those losses treating you? Pffft been holding since 1200 beat that Hahahahaha.. I'm really curious about your personal situation, because many times when people attempt to describe the existence of $1,200 hodlers, I frequently argue that such a creature does not exist except in a hypothetical form. My argument, in part is that no one would really buy bitcoins at $1,200 and then sit on them for more than 2 years and still be holding BTC averaging $1,200. Take my case, for example, the very first coin that I bought was $1,200 (that is 1.24BTC at $1,500). That was the most expensive BTC that I have bought, to date. Surely, hypothetically, my 1.24 BTC has never been sold, but I continued to buy and sell btc and today, my average cost per BTC is considerably lower than $1,200 and my BTC holdings is considerably higher than 1.24. Anyhow, I would appreciate if you would elaborate a little bit about your $1,200 BTC holding(s), if you don't mind. Well yeah i'm being a bit dramatic. I didn't say my average is 1200, just like you bought a coin for $1200 and its been sitting in cold storage since then |
|
|
|
He wouldn't send first claiming that he didn't trust me , but for some unknown reason wanted me to trust him PASS |
|
|
|
Who has been holding from $502, $475, $465, and $428?
You have. How are those losses treating you? Pffft been holding since 1200 beat that |
|
|
|
Ha expected me to trust him but he didn't trust me so wanted me to send money first hmm and only newbies vouching if you're dumb enough to send first without escrow don't complain about loosing money |
|
|
|
PMed he never replied  but keeps bumping this thread |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
