latest from masterluc

https://vk.com/bitcoin_vanga?w=wall-130254204_10221

basically this is an update of what posted here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.msg29805149#msg29805149

Latest from masterluc's account @ vk.com (google translated)



direct url: https://vk.com/wall-130254204_9481

Zooming the graph:

https://vk.com/wall-130254204_8317
https://ru.tradingview.com/chart/BTCUSD/hg0S8xjw-historical-3-looks-to-be-completed/

According to google translate he thinks we are witnessing something similar to the correction of April 2013. Short term a rebound to 13-15k.
Once current correction will end next wave will bring us to 100k. Unfortunately google translate and my comprehension is not helping with determining the timing of this movement.

FWIW he did it again few hours ago: "We went to test 10k. The three posts below are detailed." 
(original not translated: "Поехали на 10ку тестировать. Тремя постами ниже подробно.")

(source: https://vk.com/wall-130254204_4865 google transale could have messed up the tenses thou)

Indeed.

This in fact what also Afrikoin called a few posts up in this page:

that's same thing masterluc was/is(?) saying in his russian thread (https://vk.com/bitcoin_vanga):



Yesterday he called for a retest of 10K like happened at 1K during the beginning of 2017:

squatter, discussing the merit of SegWit was not the point of my post. I was just trying to respond to the usual maxwell's deceiving.

Maxwell's way of deceiving things is pretty unique I have to say.

Key parts of SegWit are:

- surprise, surprise witness segregation: i.e. moving scripts and signatures to a separate data structure from the one used to store data used to determine transaction effects.

- implement the above in a way that is soft-fork deployable, quoting the relevant part BIP 141: "The witness is committed in a tree that is nested into the block's existing merkle root via the coinbase transaction for the purpose of making this BIP soft fork compatible."

- changing bitcoin's economic incentive structure that will determine txns inclusion in a block via the introduction of a 75% discount applied to the witness part of a transactions, i.e. base size * 3 + total size  <= 4MB

All of the above will not be integrated in any of Bitcoin Cash implementations in the near, mid, long term or possibly never, for two order of reasons:

- bitcoin cash don't need witness segregation to increase the block size cause the block size limit has been removed all together on August 1st.

- the use a single composite constraint (weight) and the arbitrary discount of the witness data increase the complexity of bitcoin's economic incentives (two economics good rather than one) in a way that is not being studied and analyze enough.
 
The rest of the specification (BIP142/173, BIP143, BIP144, BIP145) are just an adaptation of various part of the code base to accomodate the new nested tree where witness is stored (e.g. BIP 145 adaptation of getblocktemplate), or "independent" piece code that have a reason to be used that goes beyond SegWit (the new signature scheme defined in BIP 143 or the the new base32 encoding of bitcoin address). 

In fact base32 encoding has been used already in project like TOR and I2P.

Lastly, Maxwell's allusions to the mis appropriation and rebranding of core ideas are at best delusional.

These are the two commits that implements the new signature scheme described in BIP 143 in Bitcoin ABC:
 
db236b5a6e2f6cf67d194f86f178584fa99b3ca7
1f50d97ef1885bdb09ea5ae403385fac23bf7276

as you can see both mention BIP 143 as the original specification. BIP 143 is mentioned in the original bitcoin cash specification, and of course 'sigsafes' label has never being used, I wonder where Maxwell found it. Same applies to Bitcoin Cash BIP 173 implementation.

you should also ask to bitcoin cash devs rather than forming an opinion based only on gregory maxwell's opinion.

the main thing of segwit is that witness data is stored on a separate data structure from the one used to store base data (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki for more datails). Just for the sake of clarity this is the relevant part taken from of BIP 141:


The above is the essential part of SegWit and this is the reason why is called segregated (separate) witness.

Cash implementations will not adopt this hack to increase the block size simply because they don't need it, the block size limit has been removed already on August 1st.

BIP 143 is just an new digest algorithm for signature verification and it could be applied to any kind of transactions be them witness or regular.

WRT of maxwell's allusion to mis-attribution/appropriation of Core code in the case of BIP 143, it is pure fantasy. These are the two commits that implements the new signature scheme described in BIP 143:
 
db236b5a6e2f6cf67d194f86f178584fa99b3ca7
1f50d97ef1885bdb09ea5ae403385fac23bf7276

as you can see both mention BIP 143 as the original specification. BIP 143 is even specified in the original bitcoin cash specification.

as for the 'sigsafe' maxwell mentioned in the post you mentioned I really don't know where he finds it cause it never existed in the first place.

one last thing related to BIP 173. this is just a new way to encode a bitcoin pub key that use a base32 encoding rather than a base58, also known as "Bench32". This scheme has been already used to produce the id of tor and i2p hidden services. wuille and maxwell along with other core devs add nice features on top of it, but again this has nothing to do with SegWit, and of course the code that is going to implement BIP 173 for cash clients will attribute the paternity of the idea to BIP 173 authors.

WRT the fact the bitcoin cash client are going to call it "cashaddress" this is just plain false, such string will be probably use as a prefix for the address format and won't be a way to "rename" the idea. Bitcoin core will use 'bc' instead as prefix but is not they are going to change the name of the "Bench32" into "bc".

;-)

If I may why ETC long term?

Unfortunately LTC has on actual economic value rather than a speculative one. Its main differentiation points, namely being ASIC resistant and having a higher txn throughput are both pretty moot. The former is not valid anymore (ASIC HW for scrypt have been developed and deployed for years), the latter is moot because ltc blocks are pretty empty. 



As you can see there's no actual demand for ltc transactions, hence no economic value rather then the speculative one.

That said testing it on the LTC mainnet is for sure a step forward in respect to testing on bitcoin various test nets.

dunno if millions of txn per second is a correct figure.

about mining pools backing BU, the list is sure longer: gbminers, btc.top, viabtc, bitcoin.com, canoepool, bitclub and of course AntPool.

you should use https://21.co/pieceofchalk/app/disposable-email/

My point is that everyone is entitled of having an opinion and you should not say to others what to think or believe (if you prefer), especially in this case where the person you are bashing at is providing a useful service to the community.

shannen87 you should be great for services Afrikoin's been providing to the community.

He speaks his mind, what he said his backed by data and logic. If you don't agree with him there's no need to be annoyed.

Do you change your mind about how deep we could go after reaching the top?

wasn't it more like $1500 in May?

also chessnut seems to agree about the fact we are not going up: