What's with that inflection point on the 15th?
You mean where I have a divergence from the implied trend line? Or the "bart" formation itself? If you are referring to the skew, its just trying to take into account the massive buy that happened earlier. I guess I assumed that, other than the historical bitcoin graph itself, the lines drawn on the chart must be intended to mean something, no? Your upper diagonal looks to have an inflection point on the 15th. Is that 'skew'? I guess I don't get it. |
|
|
|
And yet Ethereum supporters are seemingly unfazed that hackers creating limitless tokens could have been doing this for god knows how long. Rendering any meaningful market cap of any ERC-20 market completely null and void. And creating ungodly market manipulation distortions. OTOH, Ethereum inflation schedule always has been totally at the whim of the boy wonder. How is some additional stealth parties joining in that process any real change? |
|
|
|
What's with that inflection point on the 15th? |
|
|
|
How about the PTB are trying to suppress bitcoin and generate despair through aimless volatility?
Aimless? Works for me. For JJG too, I reckon. |
|
|
|
Ethereum. The clown car that keeps on giving. |
|
|
|
there is no objective way of measuring 'the majority of end users'. The price. So... Apple is The Real Bitcoin!? Also fuck off already, nobody wants you here.
waah! waah! |
|
|
|
I would still like to see any of these supposed non-'Bitcoin Maximalists' dispute or debate, either logically, philosophically or otherwise, the statement I made just earlier today. When confronted with the undeniable truth, they just tuck their tail and run away. The "real Bitcoin" is the one that the majority of end users agree on through belief and mutual consensus of Bitcoin's fundamental attributes and philosophical values.
That's it. Period. The majority of end users decides. It literally is a popularity contest.
It has nothing to do with what Ver thinks, what miners think, what brokers/exchanges think, what developers think, what features, which has the biggest block size or fastest transactions, which was "first", which one "closest to Satoshi's original vision", which is objectively "better", or better for humanity, better for the planet/ecosystem, or any of that other garbage.
Meh. It's just that we have been over this so many times already. The problem with your statement is that this gives you no justification for claiming your preferred implementation is The Real Bitcoin. Even if it were true. For there is no objective way of measuring 'the majority of end users'. There are only two non-Sybil-able sets in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Miners, and economic power. These are measurable. The others -- including some count of end-users -- are not. And really? Number of end users? One person who uses/has used Bitcoin, one vote? Regardless of current holding quantity? And circular Bitcoin definition? I expect better of you, Torque. |
|
|
|
Well, except for the fact that the narrative that Bitmain has control over Bitcoin Cash is nothing but bullshit. |
|
|
|
[[edited out]
Didn't you know this is the Wall Observer Maximalist thread. I know exactly what you mean but risk being shouted at to say that here  On the date of the bitcoin cash fork. Bitcoin core forked too didn't they? That was when segwit was activated. The original bitcoin in reality is an etheric and ambigous thing which probably no longer exists. The real shit slinging match is over the brand. nonsense. <revisionist history> |
|
|
|
Looks like Bcash lol crew is in a full on panic. The pump must be costing them a fortune.
It ain't just a river in Egypt. |
|
|
|
Whatever my wallet supports is tha reeeeul bitcoin.
I cannot disagree with that. In a decentralized, permissionless, consensus-based system, that is exactly the right answer. We all decide for ourselves which is 'tha reeeeul bitcoin'. Or to state it another way, any chain's bitcoin-ish-ness is an emergent property of the system. |
|
|
|
This is the test to determine the real Bitcoin, it's really very simple:
I run old original Bitcoin software that was released before the 2017 forks, both hard and soft.
I use that software to make a transaction.
The chain upon which that transaction is accepted is the real Bitcoin.
So... they're both the real Bitcoin!? Explain pls. Tx as you describe as being generated on old SW is valid on BTC chain and valid on BCH chain. Accepted upon both chains. Ergo, according to your criteria, both the BTC chain and the BCH chain are Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Haha. How many details can a so-called 'journalist' get wrong in a single hit piece? |
|
|
|
This is the test to determine the real Bitcoin, it's really very simple:
I run old original Bitcoin software that was released before the 2017 forks, both hard and soft.
I use that software to make a transaction.
The chain upon which that transaction is accepted is the real Bitcoin.
So... they're both the real Bitcoin!? |
|
|
|
Anyway I'm getting really tired of this and really annoyed that there isn't one single person to step forward to say that they understand what I mean.
Sigh. I think I understand what you mean. There. Now you've been cursed. Sorry 'bout that. |
|
|
|
So.... you've not seen the alternate ending? |
|
|
|
If I could vote for 0-conf or RBF as a feature, I'd pick RBF anyway.
You realize, of course, that RBF _requires_ persistently full blocks in order to work reliably, right? |
|
|
|
Zeroconf is not built atop 'trust Wu, Ver and Wright'. It is built atop 'we don't have overwhelming tx backlog that makes doublespends hard to detect'.
without a backlog, it's still batshit crazy to accept 0-conf. people have double spent against both bitpay and coinbase; peter todd did it publicly once. if you close out the invoice before confirmation, there's nothing stopping the consumer from pushing a higher-fee transaction using the same inputs. In the relevant protocol model, it is not 'batshit crazy'. It is another parameter one uses into the calculation between shrink and volume. in the same way that WalMart makes a calculation between how much merchandise walks out the door unpaid vs hiring a dedicated shoplifting observer for each and every customer in the store. the "tx backlog" really seems like a red herring. 0-conf has an inherently weaker trust model. satoshi acknowledged this: As you figured out, the root problem is we shouldn't be counting or spending transactions until they have at least 1 confirmation. 0/unconfirmed transactions are very much second class citizens. At most, they are advice that something has been received, but counting them as balance or spending them is premature.
Yes, it is indeed a weaker trust model. But one completely at the discretion of the affected party. As opposed to SegWit's inherently weaker trust model that can affect everyone. accepting 0-conf transactions doesn't mean trusting "Wu, Ver and Wright".....it means trusting the payor not to steal back his money from you.
Agreed. |
|
|
|
The 'way Bitcoin is supposed to work' is any manner that anyone might try and succeed in making it work. Due precisely to its permissionless nature.
You're literally describing and making the case for Bitcoin development as it has been going since day 1. Exactly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
wow is this even news?
