Any chance?
To me it looks like we are...starting...to establish a credible base here. I still think we need another really violent, disheartening shake before I'm comfortable having any hope. But but... what better way to disheart people if first we go to $5K+ and then violently crash back to $3000 for final convincing double bottom? Yeah, I also feel we need one last huge ugly leg down.... But we could perfectly have it from a higher price for full effect. |
|
|
|
You guys know I donno shit about real TA.... but the weekly chart is looking as it could complete a very interesting (and bullish) symmetry pattern that could get us over $5000 in a couple of weeks. Only thing that's needed is that the price closes next week over dat blue line thingy (around $4000) and boom.
Someone more versed in this witchery that could corroborate my ramblings and (if so) express it in proper words and graphs?
Show us. I am sure we would be more than happy to bash..err..comment on your charts. I couldn't draw if my life depended on it lol  Anyway, what I mean is that the price could complete an V, this week closing around this range, next week closing over slightly over or around $4K and the following one breaking $4.5 up to $5K+. It would be such a beautiful symmetric graph that it would be a pity it doesn't follow that path... Any chance? |
|
|
|
|
@franky1 I don't understand why you insist in the constant bashing and ridiculous ad hominem attacks against gmaxwell.
No, I am not a "groupie fan" as you say. While I do appreciate the work of Core there are some things I don't completely agree. Ie: At the time, I would have preferred that consensus went for Segwit2x, it didn't happen though... And consensus is much more important than some political/technical details.
I am an L2/LN fan though. You seem to be not, it's ok.
You seem to have studied or at least devoted enough time to learning many of the technical details of Bitcoin and to be somewhat knowledgeable in the subject. In contrast, some of your conclusions or narrative seem to be wrong. For example it has been clearly demonstrated that your strong narrative against Minisketch and some of your support points were (either intentionally or not) completely misleading and/or plainly wrong.
If you focused your effort in more objective facts instead of trying to desperately find arguments to support your preconceived and misleading conclusions maybe you would be way more constructive. Just saying.
@gmaxwell Thank you very much for all the clarifications and your contributions to Bitcoin!
|
|
|
|
My limited experience with raising fish in ponds:
1. Dig a deep hole, as deep as possible. We have rock 2 meters down. Line with fish pond liner (like heavy duty black garbage bags)
2. Add some rocks from the garden onto the liner.
3. Fill with water or wait for it to rain.
4. Research fish native to the area
5. Buy some pond plants the fish like to eat, put in pond and wait a couple of months for them to become established. Add lilies for shade.
6. Buy some baby fish and dump them in the pond.
7. Ignore for a year and let them be fish. Don’t feed them.
8. Be continually surprised at how big the bastards are.
Total set up costs: about $2k, mostly labour for hole digging, lining the pond and materials. Total running costs: $0.
If I was to do it again, I would plan for more comprehensive shade to reduce algae growth. Overhanging trees would be good but we have space restrictions with current pond location.
Main thing for me is keeping an eye on water levels. We tend to lose more to evaporation than we get in rain due to dry climate, so we have to supplement some times. Deeper pond with more shade would help here.
^ Q.E.D. this thread clearly delivers! ^ |
|
|
|
|
You guys know I donno shit about real TA.... but the weekly chart is looking as it could complete a very interesting (and bullish) symmetry pattern that could get us over $5000 in a couple of weeks. Only thing that's needed is that the price closes next week over dat blue line thingy (around $4000) and boom.
Someone more versed in this witchery that could corroborate my ramblings and (if so) express it in proper words and graphs?
|
|
|
|
Whew, a Keto Health Coach. Better listen to the guy. Someone has potentially trashed his opsec somewhere around there..... Unless it is intentional, of course. He's a Mensa Member. He doesn't need opsec. Not that one.... |
|
|
|
Whew, a Keto Health Coach. Better listen to the guy. Someone has potentially trashed his opsec somewhere around there..... Unless it is intentional, of course. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, stop complaining about global warning and just buy a fucking pool.
|
|
|
|
Oh well, devs gotta dev.
I thought you were a dev. You're right. I were a dev. Another field, however. I hope I have the wisdom for not poking things that are already perfect for their intended task. If not, then certainly the wisdom to not make gratuitous changes that result in loss of positive attributes. Well, IF Bcash had any possibility of being widely used I would see clear overlapping with your field. Or if they keep bloating the blockchain with test transactions even if no one else is really using it. Honestly I do agree with the "devs gotta dev" joke.... that's why I am glad they can already go and play in L2 as much as they want and leave the Bitcoin "core" alone. P.S.: And also glad the malicious guys have decided to go play at a remote field and stop hindering the gameplay at the premier league. |
|
|
|
|
^ If you get a proper answer (maybe including a detailed how-to and some additional tips and tricks as a bonus) for THAT question it will be clearly demonstrated that this thread actually delivers.
|
|
|
|
L2 solutions are meant to take care of transaction costs, if/when they become unbearable. Which, in a world devoid of mempool spam by Bitmain and their minions, won't happen before massive adoption.
Massive adoption cannot happen -- LN cannot onboard more than the population of one small city per day, due to the anemic BTC block weight. How many millions will it take to reach 'massive adoption'? Multiple thousands. First of all, ~200K/day is still more than ALL current btc users in just 6mo. I was responding directly to the 'massive adoption' challenge. Demonstrably, LN is incapable of onboarding 'massive adoption' due to the fact that the hard cap on blocksize is a hard cap on the number of people that can open a channel per unit time. Second, there are/will be technical solutions as we progress.
We really don't need technical whizbangery when simple block size increase suffices. I know that i am not going to change your mind about this, but, still...sometimes 'whizbangery' is needed. We had an explosion of whizbangery a decade ago. We had not come close to riding that to its natural conclusion before wizards that thought they knew better perverted the system. Oh well, devs gotta dev. I thought you were a dev. |
|
|
|
Thx for the info! Your thread is *very* interesting but really exhausting to properly follow and verify all assertions. Will get back to it at a later time when I can focus  |
|
|
|
L2 solutions are meant to take care of transaction costs, if/when they become unbearable. Which, in a world devoid of mempool spam by Bitmain and their minions, won't happen before massive adoption.
Massive adoption cannot happen -- LN cannot onboard more than the population of one small city per day, due to the anemic BTC block weight. How many millions will it take to reach 'massive adoption'? Multiple thousands. Hub and spoke ("proxy" LN wallet provider). I don't see any problem in a third party acting as an intermediary (and full controller) of my daily pocket change payments. It's my main reserves what I want to have full control over. And whatever exceptional transactions I want to directly do paying a higher fee. |
|
|
|
AFAIK the main problem of malleability was that exchanges could get fooled by a malleated tx such that their software couldn't recognise the malleated (broadcasted by the attacker) tx had indeed suceeded and the original one didn't, so they would end replaying it making a double (or multiple by rinse and repeat) spend themselves. <- REAL spends, don't confuse with the "double spend" attack.
It seems to me THAT problem has a solution now as exchanges can use the "specific format" that makes malleability impossible.
Ok, main problem solved.
Now go to the next one... You are saying that if I am the receiver I don't control the sending tx, which is true. So the "attacker" can choose to send me a tx which is susceptible of malleability, ok. And now what? The "attacker" is going to send me multiple malleated tx's? What can I say... thanks?
I think I am not getting it... can you use another example but instead of guns use a real life example on how that would be detrimental to me as a receiver of a Bitcoin tx?
yea your not getting it...you think the main problem is solved.. EG if i sent you a tx of 1franky(0.1) -> bc1qexchange(0.1) that tx is not a segwit tx. i can still malleate my signature to change the txid even when you want the funds to arrive at a segwit bc1q address so an exchange will still get transactions that can be malleated.. all an exchange has control over is. if an exchange CHOOSES to only use segwit. then the exchange itself cannot malleate.. it doesnt mean an exchange cant be victim to malleation segwits false promise was to solve malleability for the bitcoin network.. it hasnt segwits real purpose was to add a gateway tx format to a different network which the different network would offer different things Of course you can malleate your own legacy transactions, so what? I only care if I have received the BTC in the intended deposit address and how many confirmations it has. You can malleate and rebroadcast your tx as many times as you want (which is pointless because as soon as the first one wins the race all the rest will get rejected), I don't care what the txid is as I am not checking for it. You have failed to provide an example about how that known behaviour would become a PROBLEM/attack vector in real life. Yes, Segwit main purpose was always to facilitate the integration of L2 and to allow more transactions without having to increase the block size just yet. The fact that it does offer a viable solution to the transaction malleability problem was more of a side effect / secondary goal. P.S.: Also, transaction malleability was a problem due to poor coding and lack of redundancy/cross checks on whatever exchange got affected (if any). A simple reconciliation of the balance of input addresses BEFORE doing any retry would have easily detected and stopped the exploit. |
|
|
|
Btw... There's something fishy here. Can anyone explain the dynamics of what it is being shown in the video? I mean... how can something with such small mass as the stick being thrown make the girl go to the ground? Is it all fake? I tried to see if it was just a coincidence that she misstepped at the same time, but I don't see it either. OTOH, the poor way to (NOT) cushion the fall looks VERY real to me. , not a stick. Getting hit in the head with a shovel will do that to you. Oh fuck, you're right. For some reason I was only seeing a yellow (assuming wooden or aluminium) stick, now I can see the rest of it lol Yeah, that explains it all, thanks! That is brutal and coward btw Full video https://vimeo.com/94545685 safe to say they are nocoiners rn. Their fathers invested in Silver and it was all downhill after that. Wow.... the sound when the shovel hits the head  What was it all about? My spoken english is not very good and the video is too long for me to concentrate listening it. Too many people taking at the same time too. |
|
|
|
eg "segwit solves malleability"...
nope it doesnt solve malleabillity.. it "exclusively" offers a non malleable tx format IF people only use this "exclusive" tx format, by which that "exclusive" tx format needs to avoid certain opcodes, or else people could malleate tx's that use the certain format
So it does indeed offer a valid solution to the malleability problem, doesn't it? it has not SOLVED malleation the foolish thing is that its a anti-malleability option not solution.. its something that the payer has to choose to use. if your a impending recipient of funds on the bitcoin network. waiting to be paid.. you obviously are not the one making the transaction. right.. so your not the one in a position to choose your not the one that is able to say that its solved for you. because you dont know what the payer will do when paying you. so you cant say to yourself things are solved and there is no need to worry about malleability.. a malicious person wanting to be malicious will use malleability against you and you cant stop them imagine it this way, there is a gun crisis in a country.. instead of making a no gun law for the whole country. what happens is that authorities offer a voluntary no commitment cardboard box for people to put a gun in should they not want to use a gun do you think gun lovers are going to choose to put down their gun by using the box? are gun haters going to suddenly have a sigh of relief that there are no more guns? AFAIK the main problem of malleability was that exchanges could get fooled by a malleated tx such that their software couldn't recognise the malleated (broadcasted by the attacker) tx had indeed suceeded and the original one didn't, so they would end replaying it making a double (or multiple by rinse and repeat) spend themselves. <- REAL spends, don't confuse with the "double spend" attack. It seems to me THAT problem has a solution now as exchanges can use the "specific format" that makes malleability impossible. Ok, main problem solved. Now go to the next one... You are saying that if I am the receiver I don't control the sending tx, which is true. So the "attacker" can choose to send me a tx which is susceptible of malleability, ok. And now what? The "attacker" is going to send me multiple malleated tx's? What can I say... thanks? I think I am not getting it... can you use another example but instead of guns use a real life example on how that would be detrimental to me as a receiver of a Bitcoin tx? |
|
|
|
Btw... There's something fishy here. Can anyone explain the dynamics of what it is being shown in the video? I mean... how can something with such small mass as the stick being thrown make the girl go to the ground? Is it all fake? I tried to see if it was just a coincidence that she misstepped at the same time, but I don't see it either. OTOH, the poor way to (NOT) cushion the fall looks VERY real to me. , not a stick. Getting hit in the head with a shovel will do that to you. Oh fuck, you're right. For some reason I was only seeing a yellow (assuming wooden or aluminium) stick, now I can see the rest of it lol Yeah, that explains it all, thanks! That is brutal and coward btw |
|
|
|
Btw... There's something fishy here. Can anyone explain the dynamics of what it is being shown in the video? I mean... how can something with such small mass as the stick being thrown make the girl go to the ground? Is it all fake? I tried to see if it was just a coincidence that she misstepped at the same time, but I don't see it either. OTOH, the poor way to (NOT) cushion the fall looks VERY real to me. |
|
|
|
I am preparing a new thread:
"List exchanges hacked 2011/2018"
What section do you advise me?
Economy, it's okay?
Economics : Trading I will contribute. I have numerous instances of loss in that field : and also one or two recoveries. Probably a lot of WO posters have experience. Thanks, I'm finishing. Sounds interesting. Remember to also reserve one or two posts after your OP in case you want to do some sort of compilation afterwards. |
|
|
|
franky vs maxwell is getting q entertaining ...I think I've made more than a fair effort in correcting these misunderstandings. I hope someone else will pick up the torch before the posters[sic] persistence spreads the misunderstanding further and perhaps ultimately demoralizes the developers to the point where we give up on this completely uncompensated voluntary work improving the protocol. ...or worse; resort to retaliatory ad hominem attacks Yeah: ... oh and if you want to believe that gmax is a poor guy, not making money. ultimately demoralizes the developers to the point where we give up on this completely uncompensated voluntary work improving the protocol.
 yep $101mill / 9 founders = more than a chicken nugget... so dont feel pity for him like he is a starving coder on his last penny only coding bitcoin out of love sorry gmax. i know i playd some drum rolls. buy im not gonna play you a violin... seriously YOU playing the poor guy card!? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
