This will be like the time when Pacquiao fought against Bronner and Thurman where even I as a fan think that they are both out of his league that Pacquiao is out of his prime and he will get a big beating from them, the same goes for Errol Spence Jr. I always look at Pacquiao as the underdog in all of his latest matches because of his age but time and time proves me wrong that age isn't really a factor for him at least he still is fast and that powerful punch that can deliver a knockdown. This time Spence is on a much higher level and I can't really put too much confidence that Pacquaio will still do the same on his last two fights. For me I cannot really put a final word that Pacquiao can win in this fight or if he can even keep up with Spence in the ring.
Some might think that Pacquiao is not the same as he used to be. It's true, Pacquiao is indeed a powerful boxer when he was still at his young age but as time goes pacquiao did change. Even though he is not as powerful before but experience would also be an ace in his pocket. Pacquiao can still throw powerful punches even at his age now (not as powerful when he was a bit younger as I said). We always talk about "experience" when an older fighter is facing against a younger fighter but of course we all know Pacquiao has an advantage for that since he is a veteran in the sport and probably the oldest boxer defending and contending a title in their division. But experience cannot always be the determining factor on who will win a boxing match and it can only go so far, we still have other things to consider like stamina, speed, power, and boxing IQ everything basically comes into play and you cannot rule one out of saying just because of this he will win the fight, it doesn't really work that way and a lot of analyst got proven wrong by that way of thinking. Why is everyone asking for Pacquiao's match whenever they beat somebody? Is it because of the paycheck, the fame they will get? I wish Pacquiao will retire and give the stage to younger boxers but it seems that he still wants to fight. Sadly! I hope he will not hang up the gloves beaten and lost. Our body can only take so much. He already gave a stunning boxing record. I think that's more than enough. Pacquiao doesn't want to retire now, he is on a fantastic run. If he manages to defeat Errol Spence he will become the GOAT. We would be looking at a guy that has defeated top champions across 2 generations, no one has done this before. Even if he lost to Mayweather, he defeating Thurman and Spence would put him on the #1 in my book, 2# being Mayweather. Errol knows this, that's why he wants to defeat Pacman and have this win on his resume. As far as the fight goes, it was the fight of the year, fucking ridiculous slugfest, the amount of heavy shots both Spence and Porter took was insane. It will be a rough fight for Pacman, Spence is resilient. |
|
|
|
This GSP vs. Khabib again.
Khabib vs GSP or Khabib vs Ferguson - Khabib can fight anyone and in any division, but it is all about Ali Abdelaziz and Dana  ^ Don't know about that but yeah... The main event is gonna be great. The other match ups kinda suck tho. Time to suck you guys in... Watch the vlog series. UFC 243: Embedded - Episode 1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgrLQQlfbwkAccording to the video, he's got 3 girls (lucky father), but according to wiki 2 sons and a girl  If Khabib doesn't fight GSP next it will be %100 because of Ali Abdelaziz. He wants to avoid Tony Fergusson at all costs, he wants to keep Khabib undefeated and hope that Tony Fergusson ends up becoming tired of the long wait, picks up a fight with someone else and then the case for a tittle shot against Khabib is gone, similar to how the case for Jones vs DC 3 is now gone. Things change fast in this business. Bookies are dreaming with a Fergusson vs Khabib fight and those guys are giving us delay after delay. Let's just hope Dana is right and they are working now on the match, because that is what he said according to latest news. Im almost 100% sure we'll see it in 2020 Q2 or so. |
|
|
|
So it doesn't matter how fast and efficient your brand new machine is, when it's spoofing your transactions and profiling you. Result = people is being forced to use old hardware.
thats where airgapped wallets will be the future. imagine a phone as a hardware wallet where the only communication is sending a signed transaction via displaying it as a qr code on screen. the retailer views the qr code and obviously if the destination address is spoofed the retailer wont accept it to broadcast common sense, why would a retailer broadcast the customers singed tx if the retailer aint the recipient of funds its like olden days credit card validation. if a card doesnt pass a luhncheck (math test giving a checksum of the long card number) then the retailer wont even bother connecting to the bank to even bother checking the balance or authorising the payment also by only ever displaying signed tx, there is no way to transmit the private key thus safer than current wallets. even if a chip is vulnerable if the only display is a signed tx, its not going to cause harm in short there is a solution to your problem, i see people using home pc as their networking device to grab a UTXO to scan into a airgapped hand device where the hand device is the wallet but this topic wants to talk about speed/size scaling the blocks/validation. which has nothing to do with private key security We already have Trezors and so on, and they have been compromised before. Nothing can beat a proper computer where you have total control of everything, of course you need expert security at Linux level and so on.. I dont see a replacement in terms of a hardware device for this that exists right now and nobody seems to be doing this anytime soon. In any case what we are talking about is running nodes, that is why is related to this topic. Running a node is not having a wallet, it's having both, so you can broadcast them through your node which has verified the blockchain is legit. And so here is the problem: In order to remain safe you have to use old hardware, thus we are limited to that old hardware if you want full security for your node. |
|
|
|
Algunos sitios como changelly y binance sólo la utilizan para unas transacciones sospechosas, mientras que otros la aplican a todos. Quiero seguridad pero no quiero soltar mi información privada! Y si ni siquiera puedo confiar en estas plataformas?? Qué piensan?
Sirve para supuestamente, identificar a posibles delincuentes moviendo dinero ilegal del narcotrafico, terrorismo, y demas actividades de dudosa moralidad. Esto es bueno, lo negativo claro, es que nos toca a el resto dar informacion a exchanges que no hay manera de fiarse de ellos, sobretodo exchanges de altcoins, para nada veo seguro dar mi informacion personal por ahi, por eso siempre he evitado sitios KYC. Lo malo seria que a la hora de pagar impuestos, yo he perdido muchos datos de trading y eso me preocupa por que no se hacer si en un futuro vendo BTCs que vienen de trading en exchanges de esos anonimos, y ademas no conservo la lista de transacciones.. no se que solucion veis a esto. He visto que hay bastante gente en esta situacion y me pregunto que han hecho. |
|
|
|
Bueno, cada persona es un mundo, lo que me sorprende y me pregunto es: Cómo puede hacer cuando el mercado está abajo o tiene una fuerte caída? Porque lleva al frente a una familia completa con niños grandes y que ya están adquiriendo responsabilidades, imagino que debe tener un gran fondo en FIAT para cualquier emergencia. Es una vida distinta, fuera de lo común, el hecho de cambiar de estilo de vida es porque no estaba a gusto con la que llevaba, eso es algo que le aplaudo, casi nadie hace algo así por el temor al fracaso, creo que es un pionero en lo que hace, y lo admiro por llevar al mando y a gusto a su familia.
Pienso que no es nada fácil estar así, el mercado de Bitcoin es muy bueno, benevolente muchas veces, pero con las caídas todo puede complicarse y más cuando se vive de ello, porque al operar también con Altcoins es peor porque están sangrando mucho más..
Creo que es probable que algunos personajes importantes en el mundo crypto deben ayudarle con trabajos o algo aparte que pueda hacer mientras viaje, porque obviamente es una figura a nivel global y es positivo que existan personas así para la tecnología. Y como él dice, puede que muchos se inspiren en su historia y comiencen a copiarle.
Esa familia lleva años viviendo esa forma, recuerdo articulos del 2017. Creo que vendieron antes del peak de $20k, y no vendieron nada, es decir se han comido toda la bajada. Solo espero que no esten vendiendo constantemente para cubrir gastos si no es absurdo. Se necesita una fuente de ingresos para no tocar tus BTC y dejarlos para el muy, muy largo plazo. No vender en la cima es una sensacion nefasta, pero es aun peor empezar a vender despues de la cima. Como es imposible saber donde estan las cimas y los suelos es mejor no vender nunca. |
|
|
|
A mi todo esos articulos me parecen el clickbait de siempre. "El ordenador Cuantico de Google" suena muy generico. Donde estan los datos donde se demuestre que pueda romper ECDSA no ya decir SHA-256? Estamos en lo de siempre. Lo de la transacion enorme si podria tener alguna argumentacion.. la gente suele asustarse cuando se mueven esas cantidades por pensar que es alguien que esta a punto de liquidarlo en un exchange. Al final siempre suele ser que eso era una entidad (como una casa de cambios, etc) y no una sola persona, y nada acaba pasando. Al final son todo elucubraciones, al igual que el hashrate, que realmente es imposible saber si hubo esa caida en picado, o solo fue un error de calculo de los charts que hacen medias basadas en los bloques y cuando hay un hueco entre bloques sea crea eso.. y ya tenemos otro articulo de turno en plan "mineros se van del bitcoin en masa" solo para ver que a vuelto a maximos historicos a las pocas horas. |
|
|
|
The main problem with new computers is they all have backdoors, at the hardware level. With Intel you hve the "Intel Management Engine" (IME), and with AMD you have the "Platform Security Processor". IME is more understood, with PSP we don't even know anything about it. Both have proprietary blobs and cannot be flashed in current computers. So While the 3900x is awesome in it's performance, you have the privacy problem. This forces people to use old computers to run nodes.
There's also the consensus problem of course. It seems to be rather impossible to manage super consensus. This while bad for scaling, is good as the store of value proposal, since you want the thing to be immutable.
True, but are you sure old computer (which is fast enough to run full node) don't have backdoor? 1. At least for Intel processor, IME has been around since 2008 2. Older processor have few known vulnerability (such as https://github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/sinkhole) Unless you're going to use niche processor, chipset or SoC such as RISC-V, i doubt you could avoid backdoor or known vulnerability too many people think bitcoin will in 20-40 years ned to run on $1000 desktop computer or $100,000 servers. just like they thought mining bitcoin would go from CPU to needing a $100,000 server the reality is you can get something that mines btc the physical size of a shoe box that is 1billion times faster than a cpu/gpu, thus no server scenario. as people can still individually buy asics and run them from home same will happen with node hardware. people will start producing hardware specific for being a node. with th benefit of not having to worry about hash competition of trying to outpace other nodes just take how fast mining hardware changed. 2013. GPU $600 1ghash 2019. ASIC $27 1,000,000ghash ($1430/53thash) just imagine how many transactions can be verified using an asic chip designed specifically to validate signatures. and a device had multiple chips to allow multiple transaction validity at once. This. Im talking about privacy problems: Modern hardware is increasingly less privacy friendly and are attacking this vector with each update. You can't trust anything anymore, even at the hardware level. Im not talking about performance. So it doesn't matter how fast and efficient your brand new machine is, when it's spoofing your transactions and profiling you. Result = people is being forced to use old hardware. |
|
|
|
Hearing some analyst say that altcoin will seize to exist in the next five years, I think they are not far from truth because these step you want to take is one of the killer of altcoins, most investors of altcoins that we have now are no longer putting money, and then they are also not creating awareness for new investors to come in, even the new investors that are coming in are being discourage seeing what others are saying about altcoins.
You are here too already planning to dump all altcoins as soon as they pump, and I am sure that if you succeed in doing that, that will be the end of altcoins, and I think part of me will actually do that too for coins that I feel are not to be trusted and maybe I will just stick with coins that are within the top 5 and most especially bitcoin, which is the main coin that most investors are putting their money now.
The main problem is people investing in "crypto" don't understand that cryptocurrencies are adversarial in nature. It took me years to realize this... but basically, for a crypto to have value, it has to be able to survive on it's own, irrespective of what regulations are being put in place. In order for this to be viable, the token must have a decentralized network. Now the obvious question and answer: Does any other coin but Bitcoin have the characteristics to be called decentralized? No. Because of this reason alone, all other these tokens are nothing but fiat derivatives, the underlying fundamentals are flawed, they can never have any relevant, hard-money-like long term value. |
|
|
|
Yeah I would like to see blocks go the 2x route every once in a while.
As for being able to process this not a problem.
the ryzen 3900x is cheap and fast with a lot of processing.
I have a new pcie ssd it is smoking fast.
and 10gb ethernet is right around the corner.
So I can see us going up to 32mb size blocks.
The main problem with new computers is they all have backdoors, at the hardware level. With Intel you hve the "Intel Management Engine" (IME), and with AMD you have the "Platform Security Processor". IME is more understood, with PSP we don't even know anything about it. Both have proprietary blobs and cannot be flashed in current computers. So While the 3900x is awesome in it's performance, you have the privacy problem. This forces people to use old computers to run nodes. There's also the consensus problem of course. It seems to be rather impossible to manage super consensus. This while bad for scaling, is good as the store of value proposal, since you want the thing to be immutable. |
|
|
|
Who is your bet for this year's boxing fight of the year, my bet is the biggest upset of the year Joshua Ruiz 1 but we'll be waiting for what's going to happen in their second match, it might bring a much bigger surprise for us, but so far for me Joshua Ruiz 1.
The fight of the year was clearly Tyson vs Wilder, by a long shot actually. The way Tyson came back from the dead, pretty literally, and ended up dominating that 12th round was out of a Rocky movie, it was insanity to watch it live. The Joshua vs Ruiz incident was bizarre. I mean yes, it's an huge upset, but it wasn't a good fight in my book, I think Joshua was so off that night. I still believe he is going to dominate Ruiz on part 2. Perhaps im delusional and Ruiz is that good, or Joshua is a bit of a dosser, we'll find out. If Ruiz gets the job done again easily, then he is clearly a contender for the winner of Fury v. Wilder 2, I mean he has to. There's still time for Kovalev vs Canelo to happen, but I doubt it can be a better fight than that. |
|
|
|
I agree with that. CMC only count what is listed on it. There are a lot of others trades which isn't listed nor tracked. So, volumes and dominance are not accurate.
Also, trading contest on exchanges cuase abnormal volumes for some time for its tokens.
Beside all the OTC action that happens outside of the reach of CMC, you have to add in the endless sea of dead shitcoins which have basically dust marketcaps, and due the fact that there are literally thousands, it ends up packing a chunk of dead, actually non-existent capital listed on those dead shitcoins, thus lowering Bitcoin dominance % by a long shot. The sum of all those things prove how the % is highly flawed and does not translate into reality. We are most likely back to near pre-shitcoin era, and all the main altcoins are going to continue to keep tanking against BTC since they have no fundamentals.  I've been warning people about this but a lot of them would rather sink with their bags than admit defeat and go back to BTC. What can you do? Their loss. |
|
|
|
|
Bakkt was an event. Have you heard "sell the news"? Well, Bakkt was the news to sell, seems pretty obvious. Now, to know if Bakkt is a big mover, it will take some time, those things take time. The hashrate FUD via hashrate charts crashing, may have triggered weak hands coupled with the people that expected Bakkt to break the triangle to the upside. Add in anything else you want in the formula (september, and other things) and you will end up with a snowball effect going down. What can you do?
Plan your entry levels, and be ready for very low prices. Identify those as opportunities and not as a curse. That is how it goes in Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
El hash rate ya casi se ha recuperado, y está en valores normales: Aún no he visto un motive concreto, solamente especulación de que podría deberse a una bajada en la rentabilidad de los mineros, o a problemas eléctricos en pools potentes de minería (específicamente en Kazajistán). Los factores detrás del desplome de BTC parecen apuntar a los puntos 2 y 3 iniciados por @seoincorporation, aunque la influencia de la caída de hash rate no acabo de comprenderla del todo. Como ya comente en el otro hilo, pareceria que esas metricas son bastante inexactas y crean esos movimientos super agudos que no reflejan la realidad para nada (me refiero al hashrate, los charts hacen grandes medias entre bloques y a veces hay huecos grandes, por eso esos movimientos bruscos) No se si la caida de precio habra tenido que ver con eso. De todas formas se venia formando un triangulo descendiente desde hace meses y era jugarsela a cara o cruz, resulta que a sido cruz. Respecto a los orderbooks, shorts y longs.. para mi no son de mucha indicacion para predecir.. eso lo pueden cambiar con un simple click. Mi charting se basa en medias moviles y canales, sin mas.. y segun lo que veo, podriamos ir a 5k perfectamente, aunque esto es lo de siempre, hay quienes dicen que el bottom ya esta aqui y que esta es nuevamente una oportunidad de inversion perfecta como lo fue 3k en Dec 2018 . |
|
|
|
|
There's going to be HUGE moves for UF 244. Big price pots, Vegas will go crazy. I reckon this BMF belt can do better numbers than Khabib's last fight. Not the one vs Conor of course, that will remain unbeaten until there's a rematch or until Ferguson fights Khabib, but people are sleeping on this one. They even hired The f*cking Rock to give the belt to the winner. I think he will not also announce it and they will have Bruce but it's possible The Rock is also training to announce the fighters, that would be epic.
I give Nate Diaz a win at this point. I was going to go for a Masvidal SD in a close 5 round fight, but Nate is just TOO BIG. I saw him on the faceoff, the guy is a big 6 foot guy, and we know he is thought as nails and he isn't going to back up for a second. I can see him stopping Masvidal or going for a UD. Of course, you are always scared to bet against Masvidal after that flying knee, but that's part of the thrill.
|
|
|
|
Looks like hashrate is back up. there is no evidence the hashrate ever fell it cannot go "back up" if it did not even fall What is the process like in order to manipulate every single hashrate chart out there without actually doing anything hashrate wise? seems a bit extreme to me. it's not the graphs that were manipulated, it's the interpretation of them
The hashrate graph are averaged predictionsThey are not "the" hashrate, there is no graph of "the" hashrate. To plot these hashrate graphs we see for Bitcoin, you look backwards in time, at x number of blocks and the time at which those x blocks were announced to the Bitcoin network. The obvious point is, that if you choose a small number for x as your window in which to calculate the average, you get a very "accurate" (but very erratic) graph line. And so people who publish hashrate graphs usually use 3 windows; say, average over 1 day, over 3 days, and over 7 days, and put all three average lines on the same graph in different colors (I hope this sounds familiar....) The manipulation worked like this: a long gap between 2 blocks happened on September 23rd, 1 hour and 16 minutes I believe (much longer than the 10 minute average gap). If you calculate the average hashrate over the 6 hours that contained that 1 hour-long block interval, you'll get that very erratic measurement that implies a big drop in hashrate. But if you calculated it over 12 or 24 hours, still including that very long block interval, it's barely a blip on the charts, because the long block doesn't distort the average as much when you use more data points to calculate the average. Conversely, if you calculate the average using just 2 hours, you could say the hashrate had dropped 90% or more, and technically it's not wrong!! But if you choose a short window, your average is increasingly meaningless. Averages are all about giving disparate data points a context, there's almost no context if you're using only 2 data points!! I mean, fuck it, if you use only 1 data point to calculate the average change, the size of the series change is 0!!! If the window you're using moves zero data points ahead, then you can calculate infinity % change in hashrate, regardless of how much it went up or down!! It's not mathematically incorrect, but it is dumb as fuck. I know those charts do not read realtime hashrate changes and do averages. However, what are the chances that, with absolutely no negative change in hashrate, we deviated as much as 1+ hour-long block interval away from the average of 10 minutes? Wouldn't it be more likely that there was indeed a temporarily decrease in hashrate which then caused this big gap? Probabilities aside. |
|
|
|
A nice trick to speed up your synchronization time is to get the best possible peers. This website uses an index with an algorithm (open source) and they generate this rank: https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/leaderboard/You can add nodes either on the debug console with addnode <ip> add or in the peers.dat file, by simplying copy pasting the list of nodes there. This really makes a change so try it out. |
|
|
|
|
Por cierto, añado al ultimo post: Bitcoin ha recuperado todo el hashrate perdido y incluso a vuelto a nuevos maximos historicos... pareceria ser que la forma en que esas paginas calculan el hashrate es haciendo unas medias donde si hay un gran periodo de tiempo entre blockes comparado a la media de 10 minutos, aparecen esos cortes inmensos en las graficas, cosa que no significa que el hashrate haya caido o no al menos en esas cantidades masivas. Esto genera panico en los que no son conscientes de que esas graficas no miden en tiempo real y son estas medias gigantes que comento. Es obvio que muchos usan estas caidas en esas graficas para generar FUD y manipular el mercado. Solo hay que ver la gran cantidad de articulos que se han escrito al respecto estos dias.
|
|
|
|
Looks like hashrate is back up. there is no evidence the hashrate ever fell it cannot go "back up" if it did not even fall What is the process like in order to manipulate every single hashrate chart out there without actually doing anything hashrate wise? seems a bit extreme to me. The people who panic sold will be feeling really, really angry/stupid once this is over. They only have themselves to blame
Funny that after all these years people are still falling for Emin Gun Sirer's market manipulation-- even though his twitter is stuff full of obviously paid altcoin promotion. Sometimes it makes me feel like people are just dying to do something stupid and only looking for an excuse... Because mining is a noisy poisson processes it provides a never ending stream of excuses for those who hope to dare to be stupid. What is the relationship between EGS and hashrate manipulation? any past precedents? I reckon reading about how this guy became yet another Gavincoin pumper. |
|
|
|
the spirit of what he's saying is important though. for example, there is an assumption often repeated that unspent P2PKH outputs are quantum resistant because they don't expose the public key. but as pieter wuille points out, this is based on little more than the hope that a hypothetical quantum computer is too slow to steal from unconfirmed transactions. One often repeated argument in favor is quantum resistance. I believe this is besides the point. We have no idea what the characteristics of a hypothetical machine relying on yet to be invented technology will be. Given the degree of key reuse on the network (so there are addresses with known public keys), the existence of a system that can break ECDSA is likely a death blow to Bitcoin. A real solution to that is to prepare and have real quantum-resistant cryptography in place before it's too late. Relying on a weird hope that those hypothetical machines are somehow too slow to steal from unconfirmed transactions before they're mined is a red herring. The main problem here is getting everyone on board for a preventive hardfork. What Peter Wiulle says is common sense, however it has been tested throughout history how common sense doesn't apply when big groups of people are trying to come up with an agreement. Consider that we cannot even reach a consensus on if climate change is going to ruin our entire species or not. A big variety of arguments on a wide scale exists from "the poles are melting soon" to "it's just a hoax". Similarly, I see a similar fate with this: "quantum computers are coming, let's fork now", "quantum computers are useless and cannot get anything of relevancy done, forking Bitcoin is too much of a risk". My take is that there will be no moves being made only AFTER an actual quantum computer does something that leaves all of us scared shitless, such as moving satoshis coins into your nearest exchanger. Even then, there will be people discussing which is best to move at. I guess the forks will be made and it will be decided through hashrate, hodlers support dumping on each other, services listing one or another fork... until only one survives. This ruling out that one of the forks chooses an alternative to ECDSA/sha-256 that has a bug/exploit and it ends up badly. I would be too unlikely that at least one doesn't survive. |
|
|
|
<...>
Incidentally, those that actually studied the fundamentals and knew what were doing since the early ages, were the ones that got the highest rewards in return. So on the big picture, knowledge pays. Someone that has heard Bitcoin on CNBC and saw how some idiot bought a lambo with it, may want to take a gamble, but chances are they will panic sell at a loss. Off these people, a small % actually do research, and become long term holders, because that is what you become once you understand the fundamentals. Bitcoin is essentially a set of rules, open and transparent, while being the opposite of a democracy, while remaining decentralized-inmutable at its core. THAT is what gives it value, everything else added on top is just an extra, that may or not last. Some people never grasp this even after years of being around here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
