Bitcoin Forum
April 22, 2024, 04:05:49 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What happens first:
New ATH - 43 (69.4%)
<$60,000 - 19 (30.6%)
Total Voters: 62

Pages: « 1 ... 20495 20496 20497 20498 20499 20500 20501 20502 20503 20504 20505 20506 20507 20508 20509 20510 20511 20512 20513 20514 20515 20516 20517 20518 20519 20520 20521 20522 20523 20524 20525 20526 20527 20528 20529 20530 20531 20532 20533 20534 20535 20536 20537 20538 20539 20540 20541 20542 20543 20544 [20545] 20546 20547 20548 20549 20550 20551 20552 20553 20554 20555 20556 20557 20558 20559 20560 20561 20562 20563 20564 20565 20566 20567 20568 20569 20570 20571 20572 20573 20574 20575 20576 20577 20578 20579 20580 20581 20582 20583 20584 20585 20586 20587 20588 20589 20590 20591 20592 20593 20594 20595 ... 33292 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 26366030 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (174 posts by 3 users with 9 merit deleted.)
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3234
Merit: 2409



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 05:17:19 PM

That's retarded hundreds of segwit blocks got mined already. Any coin you'll buy from an exchange will probably have a segwit history.

If any pool/organisation was retarded enough to revert all these transactions after the soft fork, it may trigger the next world war. Guns would talk. Don't buy the FUD from retarded bcash shills. It won't be happening.
It is a common myth that Bitcoin is ruled by a majority of miners. This is not true. Bitcoin miners "vote" on the ordering of transactions, but that's all they do. They can't vote to change the network rules.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1713758749
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713758749

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713758749
Reply with quote  #2

1713758749
Report to moderator
infofront (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 2780


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 05:26:33 PM
Merited by BobLawblaw (1)

BUY BUY BUY !!!

https://www.ledauphine.com/france-monde/2018/06/19/soupcons-d-escroquerie-les-freres-bogdanoff-en-garde-a-vue

Suspicions of fraud: the Bogdanoff brothers in police custody

According to BFM TV, the brothers Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff were placed in custody on Tuesday in Paris, in a police station in the 16th arrondissement.

The TV presenters were arrested "on rogatory commission of an investigating judge seized of an open judicial investigation of the head of fraud on vulnerable person and attempt of fraud", according to the investigators.

This is not the first time that the famous twins are in trouble with the law. Last November, Igor Bogdanoff was placed under judicial control. This followed the complaint of his ex-partner, Julie Jardon, who accused him of having entered his home.


Shit. ((They)) are trying to sabotage CRAB-17.

shahzadafzal
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 2890



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 05:30:49 PM

In 1998, Nick Szabo designed a mechanism for a decentralized digital currency he called "bit gold"

In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto designed a decentralized digital currency he called "bitcoin".


https://i.imgur.com/KvZhOGol.jpg

So when Satoshi gives Hal Finney his bitcoin address in an email it's:

1NSwywA5Dvuyw89sfs...

Shortly after in the same email Satoshi says:

Quote
I just thought of something. Eventually there'll be some interest in brute force scanning bitcoin addresses to find one with the first few characters customized to your name, kind of like getting a phone number that spells out something. Just by chance I have my initials.

Reddit source
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 05:34:23 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 750
Merit: 601



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 05:58:26 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
Dabs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912


The Concierge of Crypto


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:12:31 PM

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

Want to trade some Segwit tainted coins for your legacy type coins? Would you accept a payment with segwit tainted coins?

Seems you are willing to pay the transaction fee, I'll make sure my tx is included in the next block or two.

... Don't forget Coin Join, Shuffle, Join Market, and a bunch of alts doing the same thing using masternodes like Dash. Just a matter of time before it gets widespread on top of bitcoin.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:23:35 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?
infofront (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 2780


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:33:33 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:41:42 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 834



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:49:43 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1), BobLawblaw (1)

I fail to see how SegWit is confusing. It solved some problems and the plebs who would get confused by it don't really have to use it (or realize that they are using it).

And regardless, once mainstream adoption is actually possible everything will be so dumbed down that even knowing what SW or LN are will be completely redundant for daily use. Or rather, unless an understanding of the back-end becomes 100% irrelevant Bitcorns won't become mainstream.
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3234
Merit: 2409



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:50:00 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?

All you had to do was typing "why big blocks are bad" on your search bar...

Here is the first result and probably almost everything you need to know:
https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Quote
You're thinking adversarially because you have the historical context of previous attempts that were squashed by governments. For Bitcoin to survive, it must be small, nimble and able to run anywhere. Essentially a coachroach.

Quote
We can't play lose and fast with Bitcoin. There is too much at stake here. Sovereign immutable digital gold is off the charts innovation and is changing the face of finance forever

From a commentor... Tldr; security reasons...
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:55:35 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?

All you had to do was typing "why big blocks are bad" on your search bar...

Here is the first result and probably almost everything you need to know:
https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Quote
You're thinking adversarially because you have the historical context of previous attempts that were squashed by governments. For Bitcoin to survive, it must be small, nimble and able to run anywhere. Essentially a coachroach.

Quote
We can't play lose and fast with Bitcoin. There is too much at stake here. Sovereign immutable digital gold is off the charts innovation and is changing the face of finance forever

From a commentor... Tldr; security reasons...
2 mb is not "big". Besides that, try actually explaining what you see as a problem. If you can't explain something then you don't understand it.

Edit: From the link: "Good luck stopping massive nodes in China, Korea, Japan, Russia, Switzerland, Iceland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, and even Mars."

This guy is not being genuine. Aside from fucking Ares, Amsterdam is in the Netherlands. He included that bit to make people who simply wanted bigger blocks look ridiculous. Try a better fucking source.
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3234
Merit: 2409



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:59:13 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?

All you had to do was typing "why big blocks are bad" on your search bar...

Here is the first result and probably almost everything you need to know:
https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Quote
You're thinking adversarially because you have the historical context of previous attempts that were squashed by governments. For Bitcoin to survive, it must be small, nimble and able to run anywhere. Essentially a coachroach.

Quote
We can't play lose and fast with Bitcoin. There is too much at stake here. Sovereign immutable digital gold is off the charts innovation and is changing the face of finance forever

From a commentor... Tldr; security reasons...
2 mb is not "big". Besides that, try actually explaining what you see as a problem. If you can't explain something then you don't understand it.

The main problem with 2mb blocks specifically is, it is impossible to reverse it once we do it.

That's why the block size won't be increased till the time comes when we really need it.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 07:03:10 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?

All you had to do was typing "why big blocks are bad" on your search bar...

Here is the first result and probably almost everything you need to know:
https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Quote
You're thinking adversarially because you have the historical context of previous attempts that were squashed by governments. For Bitcoin to survive, it must be small, nimble and able to run anywhere. Essentially a coachroach.

Quote
We can't play lose and fast with Bitcoin. There is too much at stake here. Sovereign immutable digital gold is off the charts innovation and is changing the face of finance forever

From a commentor... Tldr; security reasons...
2 mb is not "big". Besides that, try actually explaining what you see as a problem. If you can't explain something then you don't understand it.

The main problem with 2mb blocks specifically is, it is impossible to reverse it once we do it.

That's why the block size won't be increased till the time comes when we really need it.
We did need it. It was that, or segwit. Now again, why is segwit the better option? It is really impolite to waste peoples time like this.
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3234
Merit: 2409



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 07:06:03 PM

Well segwit increased the block size by 2x and fixed tx malleability and enabled LN for us. Aren't you grateful?

As long as there is a way to scale without increasing the block size, devs will try it first. Because security reasons.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 07:06:53 PM

Well segwit increased the block size by 2x and fixed tx malleability and enabled LN for us. Aren't you grateful?

As long as there is a way to scale without increasing the block size, devs will try it first. Because security reasons.
You are not answering the question. What security reasons, for starters?
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3234
Merit: 2409



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 07:09:06 PM

Well segwit increased the block size by 2x and fixed tx malleability and enabled LN for us. Aren't you grateful?

As long as there is a way to scale without increasing the block size, devs will try it first. Because security reasons.
You are not answering the question. What security reasons, for starters?

Read the reddit post.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 07:21:32 PM

Well segwit increased the block size by 2x and fixed tx malleability and enabled LN for us. Aren't you grateful?

As long as there is a way to scale without increasing the block size, devs will try it first. Because security reasons.
You are not answering the question. What security reasons, for starters?

Read the reddit post.
I have fucking chucked the reddit post into the bin, and set the bin on fire. I am asking you, specifically, as a person.
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3234
Merit: 2409



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 07:26:24 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

Well segwit increased the block size by 2x and fixed tx malleability and enabled LN for us. Aren't you grateful?

As long as there is a way to scale without increasing the block size, devs will try it first. Because security reasons.
You are not answering the question. What security reasons, for starters?

Read the reddit post.
I have fucking chucked the reddit post into the bin, and set the bin on fire. I am asking you, specifically, as a person.

Can't bother with it. I am lying on my bed, listening to Racer-X from my iphone.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 5127


Whimsical Pants


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 07:26:29 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?

On the protocol level Bitcoin is already too complex for more than 99% of the world.  Segwit/Non Seguit?  Whatever.

The wallets will handle this.

You don't know how to write an HTTP query most likely, and you most likely don't know PHP, or SQL, and yet here you are reading this webpage.  And even if you do, you get my point.

Users will not care about Segwit.

The only concern is if Segwit somehow BREAKS bitcoin.  So far, so good.
Pages: « 1 ... 20495 20496 20497 20498 20499 20500 20501 20502 20503 20504 20505 20506 20507 20508 20509 20510 20511 20512 20513 20514 20515 20516 20517 20518 20519 20520 20521 20522 20523 20524 20525 20526 20527 20528 20529 20530 20531 20532 20533 20534 20535 20536 20537 20538 20539 20540 20541 20542 20543 20544 [20545] 20546 20547 20548 20549 20550 20551 20552 20553 20554 20555 20556 20557 20558 20559 20560 20561 20562 20563 20564 20565 20566 20567 20568 20569 20570 20571 20572 20573 20574 20575 20576 20577 20578 20579 20580 20581 20582 20583 20584 20585 20586 20587 20588 20589 20590 20591 20592 20593 20594 20595 ... 33292 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!