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

[infofront]

I could be glib and point out the 'cash' in the title. But I don't have to. Back before the tx volume got big enough to be chronically delayed to the 'next' block, zero conf txs were routine.

There is really no arguing this point. They worked. To the point that freeking _payment_processors_ accepted zero conf txs.

Here's a website that tracks 0-conf double-spend attempts on BCH:

https://doublespend.cash/

It is very rare for the transaction broadcast second to be confirmed in a block, even when it offers a higher fee.  

And 0-conf can be improved further, for example with double-spend relaying so that merchants can quickly detect fraud attempts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAt6B7b4GeM

Or by more finely-grained proof-of-work to discourage miners from facilitating fraud:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXFuNkaYcPQ

Admittedly, I haven't followed things too closely in bcash land. However, Satoshi Craig has been the hype man for 0-conf, and I thought that was one of the areas where you disagreed with him.

[JayJuanGee]

So why spend all this time on the topic of supposed value of zero confirmations,

Well, for my part, I am just continuing the conversation that ensued when BobLawblaw issued an edict* that zero conf 'was not the way Bitcoin is supposed to work' (* I guess BLB doesn't understand 'permissionless'). Why are _you_ spending all this time on the topic?

1) Your permissionless assertion seems to be a stupid concept.  You are now arguing that getting a confirmation is a form of seeking permission?  That is a very distorted perspective, seems inclined to mislead about the idea of permissionless.  confirmations ties into security and permission is a much broader concept that has to do with third party intervention.  Largely miners are decentralized, and so they are all over the place, and they confirm transactions based on fees and based on system integrity, not based on whether coins are supposedly blacklisted, so you seem to be taking your concept of permission way too far in your attempt to apply the concept to this zero confirmation scenario.

2) my spending time on this topic.  Your inference may be correct that I am spending too much time on the topic, too... but I am attempting to defend the subject matter of this thread, and to rebutt seemingly disingenuous posts such as yours, rather than attempting to shill some alt, which seems to be part of what distinguishes what you are doing from me.  I would argue that the substance of my off-topicness aims at preserving thread topicness, rather than going into the weeds on atopical alt coin shilling points, which you are doing on an ongoing basis, while trying to argue that there is some topical legitimacy in your persistent pursuits. 

[Last of the V8s]

Tera's car spotted

[bitserve]

Why are some of you still acting like yogi is worth talking to.

Here, watch this vid instead, it's far more useful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE&t

Oh well, I think jbreher is worth talking to sometimes... JUST-DON'T-EVER-MENTION-BCASH-TO-HIM. *THAT*'s not worth it. Never forget that rule and everything will be fine.

[infofront]

With regards to zero confirmation spending. That is stretching credibility a bit. Even the name of it says it all zero confirmations means there is zero confirmation.  I don't remember that ever being a thing. I always thought you need about 6 confirmations to consider it safe?

Dash has a great solution, as usual. With Dash 'instant send' a quorum of masternodes accept the transaction and instantly lock it. No double spend can then happen. Shortly afterwards the confirmation goes through into the blockchain the normal way. Just another example of how Dash already solved all these problems ages ago and the power of the tier of masternodes.

FFS - if you're going to shill an altcoin here, at least pick a respectable one.

Please define "respectable" in terms of alt coins.   

Fair request, but I won't publicly elaborate any further right now. This thread has derailed pretty far into altcoin land already.

[Last of the V8s]

talk to the snek you gonna get bit

[JayJuanGee]

Would there be Many on the list besides jbreher if i would pay out in bcash....??    

Probably even jbreher would prefer to receive payment in bitcoin, even though he would resist to admit such, publicly.

You are returning to your bad old habits, JJG. Just stop.

What the fuck are you talking about?   I am just making an assertion that most folks here would understand and likely agree.. I just happen to get it inb4 others... that's all.

[jbreher]

So why spend all this time on the topic of supposed value of zero confirmations,

Well, for my part, I am just continuing the conversation that ensued when BobLawblaw issued an edict* that zero conf 'was not the way Bitcoin is supposed to work' (* I guess BLB doesn't understand 'permissionless'). Why are _you_ spending all this time on the topic?

1) Your permissionless assertion seems to be a stupid concept.  You are now arguing that getting a confirmation is a form of seeking permission? 

Absolutely nothing of the sort. I was pointing out that Bob's declaration of 'how Bitcoin is supposed to work' is irrelevant in a permissionless technology. The 'way Bitcoin is supposed to work' is any manner that anyone might try and succeed in making it work. Due precisely to its permissionless nature.

[JayJuanGee]

God, why did I bring up the bcash 0-conf transactions a few days ago?

Because you are a drama king.... 

[El duderino_]

Would there be Many on the list besides jbreher if i would pay out in bcash....??   

Haha. I'd guess you'd get a few takers. A win is a win, right?

However, I've not participated in any of your contests so far.

many didn't  participated what i don't understand.... just a freeroll why wouldn't one not participate??

[cAPSLOCK]

Removal of the 21M cap: soon!

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide even the slightest shred of evidence for your absurd assertion?

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to quit calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin Segwit"?

[JayJuanGee]

Failure to provide evidence of your claim is duly noted.

You should already be aware of such a standard that there is no burden to provide evidence when rebutting off topic claims.. those can be summarily dismissed without any kind of evidence whatsoever, because providing evidence would be to sustain and perhaps pursue the off-topicness, which deserves to go to another thread.    

Don't you know nuttin, jbreher? 

[realr0ach]

The 'way Bitcoin is supposed to work' is any manner that anyone might try and succeed in making it work. Due precisely to its permissionless nature.

Almost every post in this thread is a lie nowadays.  The only way bitcoin could be "permissionless" or decentralized is if everyone processed their own transactions like email PoW.  The fact you are not processing your own transaction means...you are asking permission by default.  Technically you're trying to bribe someone to do it, but it's a bribe + asking them permission as well.  

Tokens are non-fungible with transaction validators designed to centralize, which is a permissioned ledger where your payments can be blocked for any arbitrary reason by the gatekeepers and their blacklists.  The only way to fix bitcoin decentralization would be unprofitable PoW, which is an unworkable solution.  Another method would be to somehow make block rewards erratic where bitcoin is essentially a lottery that doesn't return a dependable, fixed amount of income over time that people can build football stadiums full of miners around the reward model. 

That solution would probably be skirted around somehow through collusion like how people collude together to make pools and reduce variance already.

[Last of the V8s]

[Torque]

The 'way Bitcoin is supposed to work' is any manner that anyone might try and succeed in making it work. Due precisely to its permissionless nature.

You're literally describing and making the case for Bitcoin development as it has been going since day 1.

Amazing that anyone here at all might take you for someone clever.

[HairyMaclairy]

Lightning network capacity now $150k with 2,000+ nodes. 



NCSA Mosaic was launched 25 years ago today.  

[Neo_Coin]

[Neo_Coin]

[Anon136]

Holy bananas. Is anyone else looking at this. https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage Bitcoin dominance at 37%. This is not good... Having random scam coins be more valuable than bitcoin does not bode well for the future of the sector. If that trend continues and becomes exacerbated enough I will probably have to start thinking about divesting. A crypto sector where most of its capitalization is represented by scam coins is one that is doomed to crash.

Sorry to rain on the party... It's not calculated or anything. I just happened to notice that little figure just now.

[HairyMaclairy]

Market cap of scam coins is illusory.

I posted earlier about how United Bitcoin had a daily volume of $450k on Quione with an order book depth of $560.  That’s not a typo - the total order book depth was less than $1k.