...
No. Dabs was the one that first postulated daily opening and closing channels. I merely am guiding Dabs to the natural conclusion of that postulate.
If Dabs made proposition for one use-case, and you make generalization based on single case, doesn't that sound wrong to you? I was not generalizing to all use cases. I was specifically and pointedly correcting the errors in his specific example. If anyone generalized the discussion, it was you. Not only that channels can send funds to each other for the purpose of closing,
Admittedly, I've not heard that before. So you are saying the transactions will never be settled on-chain? You realize then that such transactions are by definition 'not Bitcoin', right? And yes, LN channels are 'not Bitcoin', right... ... until they close sometime in the future.
...right... All countless transactions that can securely happen on the channel do not pollute the blockchain like your big blocks pollute BCH blockchain.
So transactions are pollution? Interesting viewpoint. So again go educate yourself to find another topic to spread FUD, preferable for you less obviously false.
You have not disagreed with anything I actually asserted. Any disagreement you claim to have with me here is only against some strawman you have misconstructed. I am not spewing FUD, I am correcting inaccuracies. With the current Bitcoin Segwit, if each user is to open and close a single channel daily (Dabs' hypothetical), the network cannot accommodate more than a quarter-million users. Period. 'Cause math. |
|
|
|
Next up, another apparent instance of biased treatment in the diffferential deletion of posts: A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Does that stupid machine Jihad advertises also calculate the mining fees? If yes, it will never switch to BCH mining as it has soooooooooooooo much space and soooooooooooo low fees!
Talk about shooting themselves in the foot!
Think again. BCH is consistently more profitable to mine than is BTC: 
I have a few questions.
1) Does every node with good connectivity have all mempool transactions in its memory?
No. Though nodes that have been continuously up for a long interval of time (days to weeks) will have near-identical mempool contents. 2) How can I query the mempool myself?
Run a node. Keep it up. (Some implementations make such queries easier than others.) I understand there are websites you can query for the mempool - to some extent chain browsers can work.
I'm not much of a sports car kinda guy. (As I've posted before, my daily driver is a beat up 20 year old van). But the wife likes 'em. Drag races her Corvette. She has expressed however a profound distaste for anything that doesn't gulp dinosaur juice and belch hydrocarbons. I wonder if this might turn her opinion?
Lightning atop Bitcoin Segwit? With everyone settling twice a day? Great - you've just set the max number of users at less than quarter-million.
Is that what you wanted? If not, perhaps you need to devote more thought.
I'm not sure where you get your quarter-million number from. Bitcoin before gets us 3 to 4 tx/s 3 tx/s 180 tx/m 10,800 tx/h 259,200 tx/d x1.7x if everyone uses segwit for 100% of their on-chain tx 440,600 segwit tx/d /2 for settling twice a day 220,300 max users supported. Show me a block representing 4 or more tx/s? Segwit might increase block size greater than 1.7x under aberrational circumstances - but these circumstances include very large # inputs & outputs per tx. Still capped at 1.7x tx. Your plan to double block size is a pig in a poke. Even allowing, the number of users supported is under a half million. Sound like a world beater to you? Each of those transactions can be Lightning'd, as opening or closing a channel is just one transaction. So that's 4 million times maybe 1 million, or about a trillion transactions per day.
Yes, but if each user is to open and close a channel daily (your hypothetical, remember), Bitcoin Segwit can only support a quarter-million users. Even if I spot you the unobtainable number of 4 million, the only way you can hit a trillion tx/d is if each of your 4 million users initiates 1 million tx/d. I don't think there is a human alive that could generate that many transactions. Hell a preprogrammed Raspberry Pi cannot generate that many transactions in a day. A decent-spec consumer computer could. If it worked on it 'round the clock. This does not include any other off chain scaling solutions or payment channels that are not Lightning, such as inside the same wallet (coinbase to coinbase.)
While this is true, you still have an insurmountable obstacle in the (1 open + 1 close per day) * number of users <= daily on-chain tx capacity. Again spreading FUD after several people told you LN channels are not supposed to be closed quickly? No. Dabs was the one that first postulated daily opening and closing channels. I merely am guiding Dabs to the natural conclusion of that postulate. Not only that channels can send funds to each other for the purpose of closing,
Admittedly, I've not heard that before. So you are saying the transactions will never be settled on-chain? You realize then that such transactions are by definition 'not Bitcoin', right? Bitcoin mining bears directly upon Bitcoin price. Bitcoin mining is technical. I have provided analysis of the technical aspects of Bitcoin mining. Bearing directly upon Bitcoin price. I corrected a publicly-posted false and defaming statement made by alexeft. With truthful information, citing the source. My post is deleted. alexeft's is still up. @infofront is not applying the stated principles in anything approaching a logical manner, let alone a fair one. alexeft asked several questions regarding Bitcoin's mempool and implementations, posed to anyone who would answer. I provided truthful answers. How is my post deletable, while alexeft's is not? Makes no sense. Differentiated enforcement. OK, BobLawBlaw's post is likely off topic. So my response is likely off-topic as well. Mine has been deleted. Why is BobLawBlaw's still up? Obviously biased treatment. itod barged into a discussion where I pointed out the natural consequence of Dab's hypothetical situation. He tried to defame me, then tried to show how I was 'wrong', using a different hypotheticl of his own concoction - one having nothing to do with the topic being discussed. I pointed out the irrelevance of his point. My post was deleted. itod's was not. Why the differential treatment? |
|
|
|
Why was the following post deleted? A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. The BCH crew were very stupid to attempt to kill BTC
We're not trying to kill Bitcoin Segwit. We are merely building Bitcoin Cash to be all that it can be -- in order to take its rightful place as the dominant Satoshi derivative. I'm sure we've had a fair share of fly by night pump n dumpers. But enough of us are playing a long game. Those of you thinking this is over may want to rethink. So the following was gentlemand's post in entirety - which has not been deleted: That said, something still feels off to me. If this was all that the biggest attack on bitcoin to date could do, then... well we will see what we will see.
The BCH crew were very stupid to attempt to kill BTC while it's been on a pretty much unbroken months-long bull run, even more so with all the institutional talk swirling around. The time to have done it would've been last year or 2015 when a powerful enough pump might have tempted enough traders, holders and miners for long enough. Even then it's such a shite proposition it would've failed but the scare would've been far larger. What makes my post deletable, while gentlemand's is not? I assert that nothing in the moderation guidelines for this thread supports such an action. @infofront - what justifies your apparent unequal treatment? |
|
|
|
More work being deleted. As far as I can tell, my posts do not run afoul of the directives. I reproduce for your your consideration, the post outlining the directives. infofront, if you are reading this, perhaps you can clarify what directives I am violating in each post you delete. Especially as compared to the posts to which I am responding.
Wall Observer A free service brought to you by the bitcoin communityWhenever there is a significant change in market depth, please update this thread with a new depth chart, and a good price chart with some TA is also welcome, feel free to comment on these if you have something to worth contributing, ( if your post is not at all TA it will be deleted ) Posting guild lines: Please lets keep this thread clean. ( I will be removing any off topic posts ) Do not post random comments on this thread, unless it is directly related to the last wall update (ex. The 20K ask was was NOT sold into, it was removed after being tested) When you post a chart please use bitcoincharts.com, mtgoxlive.com, btccharts.com or bitcoinity.com
as requested, i have started a new thread. this thread is now a self-moderated topic. I will try and keep this thread clean, with only facts, current trends, past price movements, depth charts, etc. I promise to not delete post simply because i do not agree with the bearish TA. thank you for your input! We needed more regulation around this bitch.
the rules of this thread is an attempt to keep this thread from having +1000 post when price is doing big moves, and instead relay important indicators during critical moments. also when the market is more calm we can expect to see wall posts and TA price charts, back to back without any relevant chatting, making easier to analyze. there are other threads where speculators can discuss their sentiment, just not here... That 1000+ page thread was getting kinda useless.
thats fine too, I'm looking for quality charts or good TA bearish or bullish. asking good questions example.... Interesting pattern I've noticed. It's been sort of bouncing downwards for the last 4 days. Is there a technical term for this sort of thing?  is also welcome here. just don't be posting about your "FEELINGS" and you won't get delete.  |
|
|
|
the group that pumped BCH to epic levels are now buying BTX
I am curious what makes you think that? What with BTX being older than BCH, yet gaining near-zero mindshare until forking season came about. |
|
|
|
Bch is in for a wild price ride these coming months, just remember to buy high and sell low and everything should be fine
You got much excited what are you saying this is very bad advice buy high and sell low this should be buy low and sell high. Thanks for the correction. I was just about to execute player99's strategy. In hindsight, that would have been a bad idea. |
|
|
|
do not forget coin base, they plans give their free bch to user on january....what will happen to bch price then?
Could get ugly. Yesterday, Coinbase revealed that they have over $9B of crypto assets on account. Assuming that is almost all Bitcoin (they also deal in Ethereum and Litecoin, but let's just consider that a non-factor for this mind experiment), that would be about 1.1 Million BTC. Assuming the number of BTC they hold today is roughly the same as it was on Aug 1, that means the Coinbase will release to account holders on the order of a million BCH. I think that event will be the last great buying opportunity for BCH. |
|
|
|
OK, so what is your definition of Bitcoin? Whatever the maintainers of the Core github repository jam down your throat?
Bitcoin is Bitcoin Yes, but a tautology is not a definition. I smiled reading this weird answer. So what's your definition of Bitcoin, jbreher? Please don't tell us your definition of Bitcoin is an Altcoin fork of it... that'd be mental imo "Bcash is bitcoin." https://i.imgflip.com/163xpj.jpgI don't know why you have quotes. Quotes imply that you are quoting someone. Who are you quoting? Certainly not me. Hey mindrust - what definition do you adhere to for 'Bitcoin'? |
|
|
|
OK, so what is your definition of Bitcoin? Whatever the maintainers of the Core github repository jam down your throat?
Bitcoin is Bitcoin Yes, but a tautology is not a definition. I smiled reading this weird answer. So what's your definition of Bitcoin, jbreher? Please don't tell us your definition of Bitcoin is an Altcoin fork of it... that'd be mental imo As I said upthread, the chain with the highest accumulated proof of work in SHA256 tracing history back to Satoshi's genesis block. So what is your definition of 'Bitcoin'? |
|
|
|
Jihan Wu of Bitmain, also supposedly can still get 15% to 20% more in mining BCH than BCT with ASIC boost..asicboost does NOT work with ANY flavor of seg witness...
..thus he has slack to push this BCH protocol as a BTC replacement
Yeah...unh ... I dunno, man. Assertion does not stand the scrutiny of logic. You know miners get to include whatever transactions are in the mempool to make their block out of, right? Like, it's entirely their choice. So if Jihan wanted to keep on using ASICBOOST on BTC*, he'd just have to pick non-segwit transactions. His problem is solved. He doesn't need BCH to do that. And, with the BTC mempool at staggering numbers, he's got plenty to pick from. No, 'ASICBOOST does not work on segwit' is not a probative reason for Jihan's supposed preference of BCH. *Incidentally, I am not stipulating your assertion that ASICBOOST does not work on segwit. I am just using your hypothetical to show that your conclusion deos not follow from your postulates. |
|
|
|
OK, so what is your definition of Bitcoin? Whatever the maintainers of the Core github repository jam down your throat?
Bitcoin is Bitcoin Yes, but a tautology is not a definition. |
|
|
|
No, your claim that I quoted -- which most closely matches your moving goalpost -- is "BCH was created in a plot to 'kill BTC'". Either you are trying to weasel out of your claim, or you do not understand elementary logic.
I've seen you post a photo with some apparent BCH supporters together, such photo having been posted by (likely) one of them, with an attached message that says in part something akin to 'death to segwit' or some such. Posted on facebook, IIRC. Is this supposed to be your evidence that "BCH was created in a plot to 'kill BTC'"? If so, then again, you FAIL.
The Facebook link showing part of the gang next to the announcement of the plot is crucial indeed, yet of course it is by far not the only evidence. Your personal inability to connect the dots does not stop the world from looking right through the scam plot. Your spokesperson, Fake Satoshi Fraud aka Craig Wright even openly retweets posts as the below: https://twitter.com/Egon_01/status/929230161375088640https://i.imgur.com/kme8Tjx.pngFirst off, there is nothing in that picture, nor post, nor your recent CSW quote that asserts that "BCH was created in a plot to 'kill BTC'". Second, Craig Wright is not any sort of BCH spokesperson. Third, CSW had nothing to do with the creation of Bitcoin Cash. Neither did Calvin Ayres, nor even Roger Ver. Again - you FAIL. Still awaiting that evidence... |
|
|
|
Lightning atop Bitcoin Segwit? With everyone settling twice a day? Great - you've just set the max number of users at less than quarter-million.
Is that what you wanted? If not, perhaps you need to devote more thought.
I'm not sure where you get your quarter-million number from. Bitcoin before gets us 3 to 4 tx/s 3 tx/s 180 tx/m 10,800 tx/h 259,200 tx/d x1.7x if everyone uses segwit for 100% of their on-chain tx 440,600 segwit tx/d /2 for settling twice a day 220,300 max users supported. Show me a block representing 4 or more tx/s? Segwit might increase block size greater than 1.7x under aberrational circumstances - but these circumstances include very large # inputs & outputs per tx. Still capped at 1.7x tx. Your plan to double block size is a pig in a poke. Even allowing, the number of users supported is under a half million. Sound like a world beater to you? or about half a million transactions a day, with Segwit that doubles, and if sometime in the future the blocksize is increased (the proper consensus agreed way), that doubles again. So we have 4 million transactions a day.
See above analysis. Each of those transactions can be Lightning'd, as opening or closing a channel is just one transaction. So that's 4 million times maybe 1 million, or about a trillion transactions per day.
Yes, but if each user is to open and close a channel daily (your hypothetical, remember), Bitcoin Segwit can only support a quarter-million users. Even if I spot you the unobtainable number of 4 million, the only way you can hit a trillion tx/d is if each of your 4 million users initiates 1 million tx/d. I don't think there is a human alive that could generate that many transactions. Hell a preprogrammed Raspberry Pi cannot generate that many transactions in a day. A decent-spec consumer computer could. If it worked on it 'round the clock. This does not include any other off chain scaling solutions or payment channels that are not Lightning, such as inside the same wallet (coinbase to coinbase.)
While this is true, you still have an insurmountable obstacle in the (1 open + 1 close per day) * number of users <= daily on-chain tx capacity. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Cash _is_ Bitcoin. It's history extends unbroken back the the genesis block. It is the longest chain built using SHA256 atop the Satoshi genesis block.
Oh but it's not, in every conceivable, measurable and plain obvious way, it really is not. And you probably earned your red tag. OK, so what is your definition of Bitcoin? Whatever the maintainers of the Core github repository jam down your throat? |
|
|
|
However, BCH is still up 3x in the last three weeks. As Dorian would say: 'Free lunch - not bad'. Bitcoin Segwit was $6000 three weeks ago.
So don't cry for me, Argentina.
Tell that to the faces of the poor souls who believed you ... who told them that a 'flippening was about to happen' and bought [BCH] at $2500. Their poor trading decisions are not my responsibility. More germane, I have posted repeatedly that -- on the climb to dominance -- the price will experience waves of FOMO overbuying followed by partial retracement induced by free coinz profit taking. Which is exactly the condition about which you are whining. If indeed they had been taking advice from me, they have been specifically warned not to get ahead of themselves with irrational exuberance. Why are you so salty? Buy at the top? |
|
|
|
Do you still not understand the majority of people have already realized the low motives of the gang behind Bit/Altcoin Cash?
You are quite persistent at repeatedly spewing empty allegations. Yet for all your continued bluster, you have yet to offer any actual evidence. Empty allegations? Care to elaborate / point me to examples of empty allegations? Backscrolling to the first post of yours that I encounter: If anything, most 'Bit/Altcoin Cash' supporters hate Bitcoin despite stealing the name and code, and not the other way around. You must understand that BCH was created in a plot to 'kill BTC'.
Several here. I've bolded and underlined a few. Yet I've not seen you provide any evidence for any of these claims. Wrong. 1: Have you been to places such as r/btc, the majority of Bitcointalk threads on Bit/Altcoin Cash, as well as any other channel that participates in worshipping BCH? No? Have you read this thread? No? Only if you didn't or you're a liar can you claim that this is not the case. Yes, I have occasionally been to r/btc. And I have participated in the entirety of this thread (as an aside, you seem to be a relative newcomer to the thread - have you read its entire history yourself?). If you have already provided evidence, then surely it would be trivial for you to reference a post where you have done so. So provide the evidence, or admit to lying. 2: 'Bitcoin Cash'. You do not see the 'Bitcoin' part? No? How so? Name shamelessly stolen, code shamelessly stolen and slightly modified.
The concept of 'steal' has no standing in regards to names within the public domain, nor in open source development. You FAIL. 3: You do not know the people who're behind the scamcoin you promote and you do not know their agenda (which was made public by themselves)? Links and evidence have been posted countlessly on this thread, there is no way for you to ignore this.
No, your claim that I quoted -- which most closely matches your moving goalpost -- is "BCH was created in a plot to 'kill BTC'". Either you are trying to weasel out of your claim, or you do not understand elementary logic. I've seen you post a photo with some apparent BCH supporters together, such photo having been posted by (likely) one of them, with an attached message that says in part something akin to 'death to segwit' or some such. Posted on facebook, IIRC. Is this supposed to be your evidence that "BCH was created in a plot to 'kill BTC'"? If so, then again, you FAIL. Bitcoin Cash _is_ Bitcoin. It's history extends unbroken back the the genesis block. It is the longest chain built using SHA256 atop the Satoshi genesis block. |
|
|
|
BTC breaking new ATH of $8000
Indeed - makes me happy. and BCH dropping under $1000 and going down fast you should feel sorry for them bit its hard to when they don't listen
Well, I was happier with $2500 and climbing. However, BCH is still up 3x in the last three weeks. As Dorian would say: 'Free lunch - not bad'. Bitcoin Segwit was $6000 three weeks ago. A three-bagger from there would be $18,000. While I'm sure we'll get there eventually, 'not tonight dear'. So don't cry for me, Argentina. |
|
|
|
Do you still not understand the majority of people have already realized the low motives of the gang behind Bit/Altcoin Cash?
You are quite persistent at repeatedly spewing empty allegations. Yet for all your continued bluster, you have yet to offer any actual evidence. Empty allegations? Care to elaborate / point me to examples of empty allegations? Backscrolling to the first post of yours that I encounter: If anything, most 'Bit/Altcoin Cash' supporters hate Bitcoin despite stealing the name and code, and not the other way around. You must understand that BCH was created in a plot to 'kill BTC'.
Several here. I've bolded and underlined a few. Yet I've not seen you provide any evidence for any of these claims. |
|
|
|
...Lightning ... So settle twice a day.
Lightning atop Bitcoin Segwit? With everyone settling twice a day? Great - you've just set the max number of users at less than quarter-million. Is that what you wanted? If not, perhaps you need to devote more thought. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
