Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[shmadz]

Not sure how real money plays into this. Explain please.

Sorry brah, BitUsher said it best...

P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

Btw, "real money" hasn't been real since the '70's

[1714627693]

1714627693

[1714627693]

1714627693

[1714627693]

1714627693

[bargainbin]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

@shmadz: Can you answer my non-mining node questions?

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ,,,

... or just looking for a chance to trot out your gold standard hobby horse?

[shmadz]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

[Cconvert2G36]

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.

Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner. Please don't take my word for it, ask someone you trust like Gavin if its a good idea for one person to spin up 100s of full nodes or not.

I never said it was a "good" or "bad" idea, just largely irrelevant to network security, which works via PoW. Good thing, that.

Users are part of the network. Many of these attacks are coordinated. Thus a compromised or malicious mining node coordinating with a pool of NMN could attack a user, or a malicious pool of NMN could coordinate a 0 conf attack, ect....There are many edge cases and fringe attacks that you aren't considering at all.... in network security you need to prepare for the edge cases (even if they are unlikely ) because an attacker will use an assortment of them or a specific one that is tailored to an attack during a vulnerable moment.

Additionally, you are ignoring the critical role a human plays in using the wallet, whether they know it or not they are playing the role or a "debugger" or "tester" to report problems to a developer. If you spin up 100 nodes that simultaneously gives a false sense of security and less people testing the software.
-snip-

We aren't talking about malicious mining nodes (much more dangerous, even all by themselves, somewhat safe tho because incentives), we are talking about malicious NMN. The careful reader will see you have, as yet, not presented the relevant security hole. 0 conf is already understood to be insecure, and is about to be officially and fully deprecated. You do understand that a full node verifies signatures? It will not accept false blocks, even from all 8 connected peers. So the worst case scenario is that it has to drop/ban several malicious peers before it finds a good one.

If malicious NMN can break the system... it's only a (short) matter of time until it's broken. Therefore... it's a very good thing they can only be an annoyance, and not an actual threat to network security.  

Of course I think it is a huge asset to have the ledger widely replicated, and administered by a diverse and global group of individuals... but I fear the comparative importance of NMN to the security of the network is being somewhat overstated in this debate.

[bargainbin]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Yes, will repeat:

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ...

Also please explain the meaning of "economic agent." Is that a person? A sum of money? A person with a sum of money?
A person running a wallet (non-mining node)? A legal entity? Can both my business and myself be economic agents?
And "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), explain that shit.

[marcus_of_augustus]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Better still once he has done this they can search out the answer and add it to one of the many community FAQ or bitcoin wikis that are out there to help others and put a stop to the constant stream of misunderstanding.

Quietly working away to improve the lot of everybody and find out if there really are problems that need fixing and recording them selflessly for others to improve their knowledge or loudly asking non-questions repeatedly intending to distract and misinform, you choose.

[shmadz]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Yes, will repeat:

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ...

What the Fuck is a "non-mining node" if not a wallet?

If you had significant wealth invested in a system, you would expect your interface to validate transactions, correct?

[bargainbin]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Yes, will repeat:

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ...

What the Fuck is a "non-mining node" if not a wallet?

If you had significant wealth invested in a system, you would expect your interface to validate transactions, correct?

A wallet is exactly what it is! And yet, there are those who *insist* that such nodes are essential to Bitcoin security. Not to *your BTC security* -- obviously, a real wallet helps -- but Bitcoin, the network security.

Re. your second question: I would expect my WALLET to validate my transactions. It's a non-mining node, that's its job.
Or my web wallet (if I chose to trust one) -- it will run a node, because it's its JOB.
I don't need to encourage anyone to run nodes, I don't need to discourage anyone from running *different* nodes -- I don't CARE, it don't effect ME, because it doesn't affect Bitcoin security.

Also, reposting my edit:

Also please explain the meaning of "economic agent." Is that a person? A sum of money? A person with a sum of money?
A person running a wallet (non-mining node)? A legal entity? Can both my business and myself be economic agents?
And "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), explain that shit.

[BitUsher]

We aren't talking about malicious mining nodes (much more dangerous, even all by themselves, somewhat safe tho because incentives), we are talking about malicious NMN. The careful reader will see you have, as yet, not presented the relevant security hole.

I was giving a list of problems malicious NMN can have with regards to attack vectors. If a NMN has a valid blockchain boostrapped they will reject a malicious mining node block. Thus a NMN matters specifically because this attack can occur in a coordinated fashion. They are dependent upon each other.

0 conf is already understood to be insecure, and is about to be officially and fully deprecated.

Yet most tx's are 0 conf... Until people start using payment channels this will continue to be a problem. This is wht segwit needs to be deployed ASAP, to fix most of the problems with malleability so payment channels can mature.

You do understand that a full node verifies signatures? It will not accept false blocks, even from all 8 connected peers. So the worst case scenario is that it has to drop/ban several malicious peers before it finds a good one.

If the full node is bootstrapped from a pool of malicious nodes it can verify a false block. There is a good reason outbound is restricted to one IP address per /16 .

[shmadz]

explain that shit.

No.

I'll repeat. Ask plainly, or fuck off.

[bargainbin]

^^Not sure if joking. Here:

...
What the Fuck is a "non-mining node" if not a wallet?

If you had significant wealth invested in a system, you would expect your interface to validate transactions, correct?

A wallet is exactly what it is! And yet, there are those who *insist* that such nodes are essential to Bitcoin security. Not to *your BTC security* -- obviously, a real wallet helps -- but Bitcoin, the network security.

Re. your second question: I would expect my WALLET to validate my transactions. It's a non-mining node, that's its job.
Or my web wallet (if I chose to trust one) -- it will run a node, because it's its JOB.
I don't need to encourage anyone to run nodes, I don't need to discourage anyone from running *different* nodes -- I don't CARE, it don't effect ME, because it doesn't affect Bitcoin security.

Also, reposting my edit:

Also please explain the meaning of "economic agent." Is that a person? A sum of money? A person with a sum of money?
A person running a wallet (non-mining node)? A legal entity? Can both my business and myself be economic agents?
And "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), explain that shit.

> or fuck off.
If you have no answers, at least stop being a rude faggot.

[bargainbin]

^^Not sure if joking. Here:

...
What the Fuck is a "non-mining node" if not a wallet?

If you had significant wealth invested in a system, you would expect your interface to validate transactions, correct?

A wallet is exactly what it is! And yet, there are those who *insist* that such nodes are essential to Bitcoin security. Not to *your BTC security* -- obviously, a real wallet helps -- but Bitcoin, the network security.

Re. your second question: I would expect my WALLET to validate my transactions. It's a non-mining node, that's its job.
Or my web wallet (if I chose to trust one) -- it will run a node, because it's its JOB.
I don't need to encourage anyone to run nodes, I don't need to discourage anyone from running *different* nodes -- I don't CARE, it don't effect ME, because it doesn't affect Bitcoin security.

Also, reposting my edit:

Also please explain the meaning of "economic agent." Is that a person? A sum of money? A person with a sum of money?
A person running a wallet (non-mining node)? A legal entity? Can both my business and myself be economic agents?
And "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), explain that shit.

 okay, I'll try I guess...
 economic agent is not my term so good luck with that.
 economic majority is not my term either so please ask me a specific question or just fuck off

I can't really find a specific question in your gibberish, so I have nothing to say to you

1. I asked you to define "economic agent," it is a term used by BitUsher which I don't understand and he failed to define. You do not know what that is either. Good, we're in the same boat, let's move on.

2.  I asked you to define "economic majority," a term bandied about by those who claim non-mining nodes wallets "represent the economic majority." When I Google "economic majority", the first result is Economic majority - Bitcoin Wiki, which tells me that "If the economic majority doesn't run full nodes Bitcoin is dead." This is somewhat worrying, because I'm not sure what "economic majority" is, and if I'm it
You do not know what that is either. Good, we're in the same boat, let's move on.

>I can't really find a specific question
You have found two, and had no answers.
Do you know *anything* about Bitcoin nodes, or will asking further questions be unproductive?

Edit: You deleted your post? No need to be embarrassed, I don't understand this Gypsy magic either...

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

We aren't talking about malicious mining nodes (much more dangerous, even all by themselves, somewhat safe tho because incentives), we are talking about malicious NMN. The careful reader will see you have, as yet, not presented the relevant security hole.

I was giving a list of problems malicious NMN can have with regards to attack vectors. If a NMN has a valid blockchain boostrapped they will reject a malicious mining node block. Thus a NMN matters specifically because this attack can occur in a coordinated fashion. They are dependent upon each other.

So nodes receiving their first block ever, right at the moment this dastardly attack occurs... might be vulnerable to downloading a fake ledger, with replicated signatures and pow? And... a malicious miner is mining blocks valid to that chain? Kinda off into the weeds, no?

0 conf is already understood to be insecure, and is about to be officially and fully deprecated.

Yet most tx's are 0 conf... Until people start using payment channels this will continue to be a problem. This is wht segwit needs to be deployed ASAP, to fix most of the problems with malleability so payment channels can mature.

Yes, I know you want payment channels to be accepted into the market, I do too actually (once that whole routing issue is solved). Not against a form of segwit going forward either. We disagree on the part where Core devs should become central planners setting tx prices for miners, to pseudo-economically favor second layer solutions that compete with miners for fees.

 

You do understand that a full node verifies signatures? It will not accept false blocks, even from all 8 connected peers. So the worst case scenario is that it has to drop/ban several malicious peers before it finds a good one.

If the full node is bootstrapped from a pool of malicious nodes it can verify a false block. There is a good reason outbound is restricted to one IP address per /16 .

See above, care to hazard a guess on the number of brand new nodes receiving their first block today?

[shmadz]

[
Do you know *anything* about Bitcoin nodes, or will asking further questions be unproductive?

All I know about bitcoin nodes is that any attempt to change the rules of consensus will end badly.

Probably exactly the result you're looking for.

[shmadz]

...
NMN are important for the security of their users, not the network.

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.

Security based on encouraging people to do the right thing. What can possibly go wrong?
(If you riddle out "economic agent" & "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), drop me a line.)

Yeah, the Byzantine problem is provably unsolvable.

The incentive-based solution of bitcoin has only been proven to work for the last 6 years

Take a look at the incentives in the current system of money issuance and tell me there's no problem.

Honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.
What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet).

Not sure how real money plays into this. Explain please.

Honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.

I'm saying that the control of money issuance is the real problem.

[bargainbin]

...
 okay, I'll try I guess...
 economic agent is not my term so good luck with that.
 economic majority is not my term either so please ask me a specific question or just fuck off

I can't really find a specific question in your gibberish, so I have nothing to say to you

1. I asked you to define "economic agent," it is a term used by BitUsher which I don't understand and he failed to define. You do not know what that is either. Good, we're in the same boat, let's move on.

2.  I asked you to define "economic majority," a term bandied about by those who claim non-mining nodes wallets "represent the economic majority." When I Google "economic majority", the first result is Economic majority - Bitcoin Wiki, which tells me that "If the economic majority doesn't run full nodes Bitcoin is dead." This is somewhat worrying, because I'm not sure what "economic majority" is, and if I'm it
You do not know what that is either. Good, we're in the same boat, let's move on.

>I can't really find a specific question
You have found two, and had no answers.
Do you know *anything* about Bitcoin nodes, or will asking further questions be unproductive?

Edit: You deleted your post? No need to be embarrassed, I don't understand this Gypsy magic either...

All I know about bitcoin nodes is that any attempt to change the rules of consensus will end badly.

Probably exactly the result you're looking for.

Well, it's something. In the future, why not tell me at the outset that you don't know anything? (it's a hypothetical, no need to answer this).
I'm somewhat disappointed that you don't know shit, and that your strong convictions are based on blind, fanatical faith rather than reason and understanding, but hey, every soul is useful, amirite?
God don't make junk and all that.
Peace.

[BitUsher]

We aren't talking about malicious mining nodes (much more dangerous, even all by themselves, somewhat safe tho because incentives), we are talking about malicious NMN. The careful reader will see you have, as yet, not presented the relevant security hole.

I was giving a list of problems malicious NMN can have with regards to attack vectors. If a NMN has a valid blockchain boostrapped they will reject a malicious mining node block. Thus a NMN matters specifically because this attack can occur in a coordinated fashion. They are dependent upon each other.

So nodes receiving their first block ever, right at the moment this dastardly attack occurs... might be vulnerable to downloading a fake ledger, with replicated signatures and pow? And... a malicious miner is mining blocks valid to that chain? Kinda off into the weeds, no?

That is just one attack scenario... another one would be a scenario where a network is segregated off (deep packet filtering/firewalls/compromised routers/ect) so a new node , bootstrapped from malicious nodes had many blocks that could do harm , not just the first.
I could go on with other edge cases.... but yes, these are all rare , and weird cases .... but in security you have to prepare for these edge cases and do your best to mitigate them because

1) An attacker will specifically use edge cases or create them to conduct an attack
2) There are enough of these edge cases in existence that it makes some type of weakness not only possible but likely

Case in point -- Gavin has said in the past and just repeated himself on LTB that SPV mining is a perfectly reasonable solution for miners to use that have propagation or bandwidth problems with larger blocks due to the great firewall of china and lack of bandwidth there. He misled the listeners(probably unintentionally) into thinking this was just a problem for the miners themselves and posed no harm on the network , ignoring the fact that during the edge case of BIP 66 softforking users were instructed to wait for more conf , and some possible double spends could have occurred, and it became small crisis.... not just effecting the miners.

[billyjoeallen]

[
Do you know *anything* about Bitcoin nodes, or will asking further questions be unproductive?

All I know about bitcoin nodes is that any attempt to change the rules of consensus will end badly.

Probably exactly the result you're looking for.

Actually, it's the consensus rules themselves that are in the process of ending badly. This is not foundational to Bitcoin anyway, as it started only after Gavin relinquished his role as lead developer. 

[bargainbin]

[text effects]I'm saying that the control of money issuance is the real problem.[/text effects]

No. Love of money is the real problem, it's a sickness. Like cancer. Like AIDS. And even that's a derivative, so not even that.