So, guys, where to sell and where to buy? Asking those who trade. Hodlers seem not to care. They just hold.
No , many of us spend and replace and regularly invest more , we just don't sell for fiat. Bitcoin is so scarce a single person can cause a breakout like this, and when they are ready to buy Bitcoin they sure as hell aren't going to warn any of us so its foolish to try and speculate short term. |
|
|
|
There was a bunch of old documents from what I remember, the wayback simply doesn't crawl many of these pages . I spoke to Giszmo yesterday who said he would reach out to them and he is just being paid part time which is a little odd being he is the lead dev for the wallet with the amount of ICO money just for the wallet they pulled in. (5131 BTC from my memory). Hopefully there is an explanation that comes out of this but its good to be aware and prepared |
|
|
|
Is there anything specific that we might be able to help with? I've used mycelium quite a bit myself. I think this got reported at the bottom of this git issue: https://github.com/mycelium-com/wallet-android/issues/521 I'm not sure there's much more you can really do to get heir attention. thanks for your offer to help but I stopped using that wallet years ago but also help many people and its a bit concerning that a company with so much staff and such a large ICO to pay for their wallet cannot afford to pay their small monthly zendesk bill for support and all their documentation just disappeared. They raised a hell of a lot of money on a sketchy ICO and I am wondering if they simply blew through the money and abandoned the project like many ICO's . Their lead dev Leo Wandersleb (Giszmo) merged a couple changes in September though. I guess I'll ping giszmo on reddit to see if Mycelium is abandoned because 12 days of having their support page down is a little bit of a concern |
|
|
|
|
There is a false narrative that is always presented about lightning that it is intended to be the only solution to scaling which is false.
Bitcoin must scale in many ways -
1) Onchain with efficiency improvements like MAST and Schnorr sig aggregation
2) Lightning and other payment channels
3) Eltoo
4) statechains
5) sidechains like liquid / bakkt
6) and yes a future HF to increase the blocksize beyond the current 4MB of weight
|
|
|
|
|
Very wise decision and exactly what I was thinking would be fair as both belcher and nopara are deserving but not there 100%
|
|
|
|
do you think anyone who populates this thread cares about stuff like that?
what i'm more interested in is what the exchanges make of it. there's got to be a point where trading profit is out gunned by the dangers of hosting coins this weak. they all seemed far too willing to adopt it. maybe they need to land themselves with a huge bill to realize they're playing with fire.
the centralization and laziness of development is gonna bite truly hard at some point.
This is a fair point, the fact they are using Bcash in the first place is good evidence they do not care about security. It is when merchants and exchanges start to drop BCH because its too chaotic and dangerous to use that the price will start to be effected in due time. We already see that Bcash has moved away from cumulative work determining chain consensus due to their use of developer timestamps but they still can be double spent and reorged at the chaintip causing damage. The fact they are ok with these developer checkpoints and changing the difficulty algo reflects how little they care about the whitepaper or satoshi's intentions despite their narrative. |
|
|
|
Relevant due to J Toomin irrationally celebrating being 51% attacked and reorged below - As expected, Due to BCHs lack of hashrate miners are double spending and reorging on BCH blockchain. Here is when it occurred last time- https://twitter.com/TheCryptoconomy/status/1131962447823278080‼️#BCH /#bcash was hit by 51% attack from just 2 miners, http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.com - & no one seems to be talking about it. 🤨 Thread 👇🏻 1/ What I've gathered from loose details:First, there was an unintentional split with the recent #BCH "upgrade." 2/Since the original split in 2017, there has been a significant number of coins accidentally sent to "anyone can spend" addresses (due to tx compatibility of sigs, but no #SegWit on #BCH), or possibly they've been replayed from #Bitcoin onto the #BCH network. 3/Because of this, tons of coins (#BCH) would essentially be "up for grabs." However, devs implemented a protocol rule called CLEANSTACK, making P2SH coins unspendable. This was to be removed with May 15 fork, basically handing the coins to miners. https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/2019-05-15-upgrade.md4/During the unintentional fork, someone exploited a bug (details are really hard to find) to add invalid TXs to @Bitcoin_ABC's client mempool. To counter, http://BTC.TOP mined empty blocks (the bad TXs made blocks impossible to produce) coinspice.io/news/unknown-attacker-fails-to-disrupt-bch-upgrade 5/Due to low hash rate of the network, http://BTC.TOP actually controlled over half (~54%) of #BCH hash power. Putting them in a position to essentially dictate which blocks were accepted by the network. (we'll see the problem here in a sec) https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/is-bitcoin-cash-under-a-51-percent-attack-as-one-bch-mining-pool-nears-over-half-control/6/ In the confusion, an unknown miner (possibly the attacker, but unconfirmed) tried to snatch a bunch of P2SH/#Segwit coins. But http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.COM were expecting, and/or preparing to recover SegWit coins themselves... https://honest.cash/kiarahpromise/sigop-counting-45287/According to discussions, http://BTC.top and http://BTC.com were working with another party to recover #SegWit coins to rightful owners (exchanges and/or users). How they sourced the rightful owners I'm not sure, but this appears to be "reddit consensus. 8/ When the unknown miner tried to take the coins themselves, http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.COM saw & immediately decided to re-org & remove these TXs, in favor of their own TXs, spending the same P2SH coins, + many others. https://honest.cash/kiarahpromise/sigop-counting-45289/It apparently took hours to figure out what happened as none of this was public yet. It appears the 2 miners were ready & communicating with each other directly & possibly another party (exchange or devs) for coordinating the re-org. Cant find specifics from involved parties. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WMLRhXoAAzlEd.jpg10/So just 2 miners, in secret & w/ no trouble, took it upon themselves to remove 2 blocks w/ another’s TXs, & replace with their own. Bizarrely, some are celebrating! Some devs are quiet, but jtoomim (#BCH dev) called it “justice,” & “punishment” for “antisocial behavior.” https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WM4hNXkAAfAsu.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WM5NGW0AALecm.jpg11/One dev seems to be actually discussing how dangerous of a precedent this was & has the only write-up that I can find so far on what exactly occurred. #BCH https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WNXlnW0AACJqw.jpg12/This is what everyone warned about of endless HFs. Its an attack vector, kills Lindy effect, & has turned #BCH into a political mess where private comms control what does/doesn't get in a block. I can’t tell if no one cares, or if they just want to ignore it? 13/There are at least a few people (maybe only partially) realizing that this basically kills any perception that #BCH is "decentralized, censorship resistant money." And leaves them to fight over whether the miners are "good guys" or "bad guys" with their actions. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WOrXcWkAE2EA3.jpg14/Very curious to see others who could dig further (& more thoroughly) into this, as details are not easy to find, & there seem to no articles about the 51% as far as I can tell. 😁 /fin |
|
|
|
What a dumpster fire ... and this is further proof that the markets can remain irrational longer than expected as BCH should be dumping now. As expected, Due to BCHs lack of hashrate miners are double spending and reorging on BCH blockchain. Here is when it occurred last time- https://twitter.com/TheCryptoconomy/status/1131962447823278080‼️#BCH /#bcash was hit by 51% attack from just 2 miners, http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.com - & no one seems to be talking about it. 🤨 Thread 👇🏻 1/ What I've gathered from loose details:First, there was an unintentional split with the recent #BCH "upgrade." 2/Since the original split in 2017, there has been a significant number of coins accidentally sent to "anyone can spend" addresses (due to tx compatibility of sigs, but no #SegWit on #BCH), or possibly they've been replayed from #Bitcoin onto the #BCH network. 3/Because of this, tons of coins (#BCH) would essentially be "up for grabs." However, devs implemented a protocol rule called CLEANSTACK, making P2SH coins unspendable. This was to be removed with May 15 fork, basically handing the coins to miners. https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/2019-05-15-upgrade.md4/During the unintentional fork, someone exploited a bug (details are really hard to find) to add invalid TXs to @Bitcoin_ABC's client mempool. To counter, http://BTC.TOP mined empty blocks (the bad TXs made blocks impossible to produce) coinspice.io/news/unknown-attacker-fails-to-disrupt-bch-upgrade 5/Due to low hash rate of the network, http://BTC.TOP actually controlled over half (~54%) of #BCH hash power. Putting them in a position to essentially dictate which blocks were accepted by the network. (we'll see the problem here in a sec) https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/is-bitcoin-cash-under-a-51-percent-attack-as-one-bch-mining-pool-nears-over-half-control/6/ In the confusion, an unknown miner (possibly the attacker, but unconfirmed) tried to snatch a bunch of P2SH/#Segwit coins. But http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.COM were expecting, and/or preparing to recover SegWit coins themselves... https://honest.cash/kiarahpromise/sigop-counting-45287/According to discussions, http://BTC.top and http://BTC.com were working with another party to recover #SegWit coins to rightful owners (exchanges and/or users). How they sourced the rightful owners I'm not sure, but this appears to be "reddit consensus. 8/ When the unknown miner tried to take the coins themselves, http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.COM saw & immediately decided to re-org & remove these TXs, in favor of their own TXs, spending the same P2SH coins, + many others. https://honest.cash/kiarahpromise/sigop-counting-45289/It apparently took hours to figure out what happened as none of this was public yet. It appears the 2 miners were ready & communicating with each other directly & possibly another party (exchange or devs) for coordinating the re-org. Cant find specifics from involved parties. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WMLRhXoAAzlEd.jpg10/So just 2 miners, in secret & w/ no trouble, took it upon themselves to remove 2 blocks w/ another’s TXs, & replace with their own. Bizarrely, some are celebrating! Some devs are quiet, but jtoomim (#BCH dev) called it “justice,” & “punishment” for “antisocial behavior.” https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WM4hNXkAAfAsu.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WM5NGW0AALecm.jpg11/One dev seems to be actually discussing how dangerous of a precedent this was & has the only write-up that I can find so far on what exactly occurred. #BCH https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WNXlnW0AACJqw.jpg12/This is what everyone warned about of endless HFs. Its an attack vector, kills Lindy effect, & has turned #BCH into a political mess where private comms control what does/doesn't get in a block. I can’t tell if no one cares, or if they just want to ignore it? 13/There are at least a few people (maybe only partially) realizing that this basically kills any perception that #BCH is "decentralized, censorship resistant money." And leaves them to fight over whether the miners are "good guys" or "bad guys" with their actions. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WOrXcWkAE2EA3.jpg14/Very curious to see others who could dig further (& more thoroughly) into this, as details are not easy to find, & there seem to no articles about the 51% as far as I can tell. 😁 /fin |
|
|
|
As expected, Due to BCHs lack of hashrate miners are double spending and reorging on BCH blockchain. Here is when it occurred last time- https://twitter.com/TheCryptoconomy/status/1131962447823278080‼️#BCH /#bcash was hit by 51% attack from just 2 miners, http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.com - & no one seems to be talking about it. 🤨 Thread 👇🏻 1/ What I've gathered from loose details:First, there was an unintentional split with the recent #BCH "upgrade." 2/Since the original split in 2017, there has been a significant number of coins accidentally sent to "anyone can spend" addresses (due to tx compatibility of sigs, but no #SegWit on #BCH), or possibly they've been replayed from #Bitcoin onto the #BCH network. 3/Because of this, tons of coins (#BCH) would essentially be "up for grabs." However, devs implemented a protocol rule called CLEANSTACK, making P2SH coins unspendable. This was to be removed with May 15 fork, basically handing the coins to miners. https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/2019-05-15-upgrade.md4/During the unintentional fork, someone exploited a bug (details are really hard to find) to add invalid TXs to @Bitcoin_ABC's client mempool. To counter, http://BTC.TOP mined empty blocks (the bad TXs made blocks impossible to produce) coinspice.io/news/unknown-attacker-fails-to-disrupt-bch-upgrade 5/Due to low hash rate of the network, http://BTC.TOP actually controlled over half (~54%) of #BCH hash power. Putting them in a position to essentially dictate which blocks were accepted by the network. (we'll see the problem here in a sec) https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/is-bitcoin-cash-under-a-51-percent-attack-as-one-bch-mining-pool-nears-over-half-control/6/ In the confusion, an unknown miner (possibly the attacker, but unconfirmed) tried to snatch a bunch of P2SH/#Segwit coins. But http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.COM were expecting, and/or preparing to recover SegWit coins themselves... https://honest.cash/kiarahpromise/sigop-counting-45287/According to discussions, http://BTC.top and http://BTC.com were working with another party to recover #SegWit coins to rightful owners (exchanges and/or users). How they sourced the rightful owners I'm not sure, but this appears to be "reddit consensus. 8/ When the unknown miner tried to take the coins themselves, http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.COM saw & immediately decided to re-org & remove these TXs, in favor of their own TXs, spending the same P2SH coins, + many others. https://honest.cash/kiarahpromise/sigop-counting-45289/It apparently took hours to figure out what happened as none of this was public yet. It appears the 2 miners were ready & communicating with each other directly & possibly another party (exchange or devs) for coordinating the re-org. Cant find specifics from involved parties. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WMLRhXoAAzlEd.jpg10/So just 2 miners, in secret & w/ no trouble, took it upon themselves to remove 2 blocks w/ another’s TXs, & replace with their own. Bizarrely, some are celebrating! Some devs are quiet, but jtoomim (#BCH dev) called it “justice,” & “punishment” for “antisocial behavior.” https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WM4hNXkAAfAsu.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WM5NGW0AALecm.jpg11/One dev seems to be actually discussing how dangerous of a precedent this was & has the only write-up that I can find so far on what exactly occurred. #BCH https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WNXlnW0AACJqw.jpg12/This is what everyone warned about of endless HFs. Its an attack vector, kills Lindy effect, & has turned #BCH into a political mess where private comms control what does/doesn't get in a block. I can’t tell if no one cares, or if they just want to ignore it? 13/There are at least a few people (maybe only partially) realizing that this basically kills any perception that #BCH is "decentralized, censorship resistant money." And leaves them to fight over whether the miners are "good guys" or "bad guys" with their actions. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WOrXcWkAE2EA3.jpg14/Very curious to see others who could dig further (& more thoroughly) into this, as details are not easy to find, & there seem to no articles about the 51% as far as I can tell. 😁 /fin |
|
|
|
Repeated dishonesty from Samourai have barred them from ever receiving a payout from the bounty as far as I am concerned: I will not be signing a transaction paying them. Evaluating the privacy of systems is difficult even when the involved parties are honest and easy to work with, it is far too difficult when they are actively misleading. Personally, I would urge my friends to not use that wallet.
As far as other stuff, there has been efforts in progress to do some awarding for a couple months now. It takes time to evaluate things and work with the recipients. If it didn't this bounty would have been gone years ago when "darkwallet" demanded the whole thing then mobbed us with unreasonable demands (including public campaigning which was vigorous to the point of harassment) to pay it all to them when the result didn't provide the advertised privacy and didn't even stay available due to the operating model.
This makes sense and is reasonable. Thank you for updating us that you are still reviewing Wasabi and joinmarket for payouts. In a sense I can of understand why you are hesitant as Wasabi doesn't allow coinjoining smaller amounts and is profit motivated(understandable considering what happened to darkwallet) benefiting the wallet and joinmarket while great has really lacking UX that wasabi excels at. Thus no ideal solution exists as of yet but we are getting better every month. My opinion doesn't matter as its your bounty to give but IMHO partial rewards should be given to wasabi and joinmarket and half withheld for future projects that creates a better mixing wallet. |
|
|
|
|
How plausible is this the reason why BTC is green and most alts red?
Fidelity announced institutional support for BTC buyers in a few weeks and the market is selling their alts to ride that bull market .
Past bull markets were spurred by retail investors using exchanges that supported many altcoins as well, and Fidelity will only support BTC
Institutional investors will only be buying Bitcoin. This bull market will be different than past bull markets
Or possibly a liquidity crunch on alts because Binance was shutdown for a week ?
|
|
|
|
|
Here is one reason people are selling their altcoins for Bitcoin
Fidelity announced institutional support for BTC buyers in a few weeks and the market is selling their alts to ride that bull market .
Past bull markets were spurred by retail investors using exchanges that supported many altcoins as well, and Fidelity will only support BTC
Institutional investors will only be buying Bitcoin. This bull market will be different than past bull markets
|
|
|
|
|
Here is one reason people are selling their altcoins for Bitcoin
Fidelity announced institutional support for BTC buyers in a few weeks and the market is selling their alts to ride that bull market .
Past bull markets were spurred by retail investors using exchanges that supported many altcoins as well, and Fidelity will only support BTC
Institutional investors will only be buying Bitcoin. This bull market will be different than past bull markets
|
|
|
|
|
The paper specifically discusses miners creating set minimum fee per tx and why that cannot work , a point you keep ignoring
|
|
|
|
|
You are sure making a lot of assumptions that Bitcoin is going to keep appreciation more than the coinbase reward dropping off.
You also are refusing to read the research paper that proves your assumptions wrong.
Go ahead and read it and tell me what exact sentence is incorrect and where their math is wrong specifically.
|
|
|
|
1. yes another miner will come along and include those low fee tx. but that other miner would need to have adequate hashpower to win the race too
The incentives are such that they will gain adequate hashpower because other miners are leaving money on the table thus giving an incentive for competition to take a portion of the marketshare.
2. again theres no need for a fee market this decade
What is the math on this? Bitcoin drops to 6.25 BTC inflation next year. This is a huge security drop off.
3. making a block capacity scarce does not = causing a fee premium. pools as you already said could choose to include low fee's because they see othr pools include high fee's.. pools can pick anything they like.
they do NOT need to fill a block. they could happily make a block with just 10tx of $1 each until peopl cotton on to pay $1. again you dont need to fill a block to make a pool only accept $1 fee's..
The research paper I linked to goes into this specific assumption and directly addresses it and mathematically proves this to be untrue. Go ahead and read it, as your quickness of your response means you likely did not. Seems like you care more about propping up your altcoin than learning what the truth is if you are not willing to read the paper that directly addresses your incorrect assumptions
4. WHEN pools start caring more about fee's, THEY will adapt. but that is not any time soon
Pools don't care about fees? You are absurd. |
|
|
|
If blocks are mostly empty and miners are not confirming 10 Sat / Byte and under fees because they choose to not accept low fee txs than another miner will come along and include those low fee txs as there is an incentive to do so. If a fee market doesn't exist than there is no one paying a premium for priority block inclusion and much less is collected in fees. A fee market is precisely what allows lower fees to be included at a later time and higher security for those who want priority. This isn't hypothetical, already Bcash sometimes has less security with Coinbase reward and their fees than Bitcoin fees alone at times. This is why Bcash has had to move away from the whitepaper and is principally using developer checkpoints and only using PoW at the chaintip due to being so insecure. As we have seen with BSV this doesn't stop reorgs or double spends occuring which will start to happen with Bcash too once their hashrate % drops from very low 3-4% to dangerously low 0.5-1% https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00951358/documentmake the
block size irrelevant or not binding would lead to a too low level of security for Bitcoin...So is the limited size of blocks that allows the miner to sell a
scarce resource.
Delaying the fee market simply is a kick the can problem ,which would also delay the efforts to work on more efficient and more private 2nd layer solutions. We need to start the slow and gradual transition to fees paying for security vs Inflation. We always knew this transition had to occur. It has been proven that Bitcoin did not need more blockspace because the market of users and businesses still aren't using all the space from the last upgrade segwit(max 50% are segwit) and soon we will see another upgrade of 17-40% more txs per block onchain with signature aggregation. Any programmer knows to scale efficiently it is better optimize the code first before throwing more resources at the problem and this is what Bitcoin is doing. Upgrades like segwit, taproot, schnorr sig aggregation are exactly what helps bitcoin be more securely scalable in the future when we choose to upgrade Bitcoin from 4 MB of weight to a higher number. |
|
|
|
Where did you link to GRAFTROOT?
I don't know why you keep bringing up I mentioned something and *you* mentioned it. Thusly, *you* brought it up. look at my original post , it only discusses taproot. You brought up graftroot. your quote you took even shows me talking about taproot. you are backpedaling because you are embarrassed you didn't know the difference between the 2 . You also are spreading multiple lies like saying sidechains do not exist. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
