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

[Ludwig Von]

It 's that time again : holding up the bottom. (Now, I think the previous one, from Infofront, was a bit too heavy, so the upholder would get crushed under it... . What of course, under the right circomstances could be a rather pleasant experience).  

[jbreher]

As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities. 
1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions;
2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and
3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction.

now trying to pervert the concept of fungibility.

Just because a coin is being used in a specific way that does not make such coin more or less fungible than if such coin is used in another way.

Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'. Within the three posts preceding yours, 2/3 of them stated that they were cautious of accepting Segwit transactions until they gained some confidence in it. That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting.

Sure some BIG BLOCKER nutjobs are going to continue to exaggerate negative speculation, like you seem to be doing, and to spread disinformation about supposed catastrophes of lightning network in order to pump their stupid-ass and largely non-substantiated negative talking points.

If you want to argue the facts of the matter, step up. I made some assertions of fact. Pony up some counter-arguments. If what I said is 'disinformation', then it should be a simple matter for you to put forth proof that they are false. And I am in no way exaggerating nor claiming catastrophe. I made no value judgement on the matter, and even pointed out that the current debate is how significant these flaws are. All you are doing is bloviating. Buck up or shut up.

[jbreher]

(quotes snipped and cherry-picked for manipulation) /s

...
I would have liked to include some quote with "nutjob" or "ratt's ass". Maybe next time. You still get the picture  

So you cede that these issues exist. Great.

This branch of the thread started with someone asking me to name some specific attack vectors which led to me being a Segwit skeptic. You don't seem to think they are significant. I think they may very well be fatal at some future date. Now we understand each other.

Peace out.







(I wonder if we can unroll that stack back to the speculation about paid shillery that prompted my claim of Bitcoin* believer / Segwit skeptic? Thread kind of veered off-course from that)

[jbreher]

Might have some relevance.

Were it not for DOGE's legacy as a joke coin, and its infinite emission schedule.

[jbreher]

The one time I went to a steakhouse in Toronto, I took a girl (before we went to the Queen/Billy Squier concert), and the maître D' looked at us and said (after looking down at my running shoes) "This is a dining room you know!" to which I replied "Yes, I know."  In hindsight, I wish he had said, "You really can't afford this, my friend", because I had to spend my souvenir t-shirt money on dinner.  It was a good steak but the bill and tip was nearly two weeks rent money - I ate a lot of peanut butter sandwiches over the next couple of weeks.

Well, you got a nice story out of it anyhow.

I think it would be cool to meet some of the faces behind the names.

If I have cause for a return visit in the near future, I'll ping you via PM.

[Toxic2040]

-edited-

Might have some relevance.

Speaking of relevance little bear..


Is this really about bitcoin and bitcoin cash fighting it out? or is this about a community that stands together against the status quo of fiat and centralized banking? Seems to me there is much effort wasted in this dialogue worrying about "future problems" when we are surrounded on all sides.

[jbreher]

-edited-

Might have some relevance.

Speaking of relevance little bear..


Is this really about bitcoin and bitcoin cash fighting it out? or is this about a community that stands together against the status quo of fiat and centralized banking? Seems to me there is much effort wasted in this dialogue worrying about "future problems" when we are surrounded on all sides.

Agreed.

One might note that I am playing defense here.

[El duderino_]

VEGETA doesn't wanna play @the moment   

[bitserve]

WTF!

(Engage 1 min candles)

[serveria.com]

Meanwhile, Bitmain is launching it's brand new Antminer S11 miner.   Those into mining might be interested as it's a presale period atm with the first 1000 rigs going to be shipped on June 20-28.

[El duderino_]

only fools consider selling now....... #BTFD

maybe 1 of the last oppertunitie's

[fluidjax]

This branch of the thread started with someone asking me to name some specific attack vectors which led to me being a Segwit skeptic. You don't seem to think they are significant. I think they may very well be fatal at some future date. Now we understand each other.
Peace out.

I can't think of 51% where an attacker can to extract a large amount of real value. All they end up doing is destroying/severely damaging Bitcoin.  
Now you could profit by shorting BTC, but there is no difference, whether its Segwit or Non-Segwit the outcome is the same.
Can you give me a scenario where a Segwit 51% attack actually allows the attacker to profit.

A 51% attack will require a >=6 block re-org, and if there is ever an unexpected >=5 block re-org, BTC (& fiat on exchanges) will basically freeze until an agreement on how to handle the attack.

[El duderino_]

WHAT an evening going to tranquilize myself on the finest booze eat a little bit of good foods #top resto @antwerp

only difficulty to where to watch first on my smarthphone BTC prices or football    going to be football btc just going to do what it has to do   little up little down just taking its time before the big boost up  

[mindrust]

Meanwhile, Bitmain is launching it's brand new Antminer S11 miner.   Those into mining might be interested as it's a presale period atm with the first 1000 rigs going to be shipped on June 20-28.

If it says Bitmain on it, skip.

Always buy from its competitors as long as there isn't much more than %5 difference price/efficiency-wise. You don't wanna feed the company which is working to destroy the chain you want to mine.

GMO, Halong or Canaan will come up with an answer to S11 hopefully.

Price is 6.5k again btw. I hope you are loading up from here. 

[jbreher]

Can you give me a scenario where a Segwit 51% attack actually allows the attacker to profit.

Yes. I already did upthread. Segwit was activated by redefining what was initially an anyonecanspend transaction into a Segwit transaction. A 51% attacker can revert to the old rules. This would make Segwit outputs anyonecanspend outputs. To the extent that a 51(plus)% miner can roll back the chain, the Segwit transactions formerly included in the now-orphaned blocks are now free transactions. Those free transactions that were Segwit are now (again, assuming a reversion to the previous consensus rules) anyonecanspend transactions. The value in the outputs of these anyonecanspend transactions are free to be gobbled up by the 51% miner by including them in a block, and claiming them to themselves.

This ability for a 51% miner to siphon up value is unique to Segwit. It is a novel attack enabled only by the security-impairing so-called 'soft fork' activation method that was employed by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

But this is all elementary. We've been over this dozens of times, since the so-called 'soft fork' activation methodology was first proposed. If this is new news, then you have not been participating in the widely-held discussions.

(Indeed, if this be new news, you may have isolated yourself within a core-dominated echo chamber)

[fluidjax]

Can you give me a scenario where a Segwit 51% attack actually allows the attacker to profit.

Yes. I already did upthread. Segwit was activated by redefining what was initially an anyonecanspend transaction into a Segwit transaction. A 51% attacker can revert to the old rules. This would make Segwit outputs anyonecanspend outputs. To the extent that a 51(plus)% miner can roll back the chain, the Segwit transactions formerly included in the now-orphaned blocks are now free transactions. Those free transactions that were Segwit are now (again, assuming a reversion to the previous consensus rules) anyonecanspend transactions. The value in the outputs of these anyonecanspend transactions are free to be gobbled up by the 51% miner by including them in a block, and claiming them to themselves.

This ability for a 51% miner to siphon up value is unique to Segwit. It is a novel attack enabled only by the security-impairing so-called 'soft fork' activation method that was employed by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

But this is all elementary. We've been over this dozens of times, since the so-called 'soft fork' activation methodology was first proposed. If this is new news, then you have not been participating in the widely-held discussions.

(Indeed, if this be new news, you may have isolated yourself within a core-dominated echo chamber)

A 51% attack allows the miners to change ANY consensus rule.  They could simply increase the block reward if they wanted to get BTC rich.
51% is God Mode ON, worrying about a novel and clever Segwit attack is meaningless in this scenario.

[cAPSLOCK]

Did we just snag some bears in couple of traps? It seems so to me!

Crab-17 proceeds.

It seems nearly impossible at this point, but I seriously want to see Doug Polk win his bet.  Not just because I don't want to see it drop more, but also because I am a shadetree poker player, and also because Vays has been so smug recently.  It would be fun to see it bounce off 6200 and never go back.

[realr0ach]

I need everyone to take out longs to be ready for the scammers who run Bitfinex when they inevitably try and rig the price up by fraud again.  The second they try to raise it, just dump the leverage right on their face.

[V1lpu]

I need everyone to take out longs to be ready for the scammers who run Bitfinex when they inevitably try and rig the price up by fraud again.  The second they try to raise it, just dump the leverage right on their face.

To The Moon! Yay! 

[STT]

Were it not for DOGE's legacy as a joke coin, and its infinite emission schedule.

They state transactions not revenue so BCH is 859 dollars each and a doge is one fifth of a cent each.     So triple the transactions would not seem much when its likely far less revenue in value terms, less significance.   If thats what they meant by the graph

Code:

Volume (24h)
$334,153,000 USD
50,989 BTC

vs

Code:

Volume (24h)
$8,586,680 USD
1,310 BTC

39x the revenue in BCH favour.   This is why people dont trust graphs and statistics I guess.    Maybe their point was people, not value so doge is more widely used but I cant tell that


6639 to beat for btc and 6200 base is my rough view