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

[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.

[1653374728]

1653374728

[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. 

[kingcolex]

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

[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

[El duderino_]

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.

Makes 2 of us same reasons   love the game as well

[Toxic2040]

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.

+1 WOsMerit

Same here...always side with the degenerate gamblers obviously.

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

+1 WOsMerit

It is terribly easy to bias numbers and charts. I think it was trying to illustrate community size. But it also brings up a great point for everyone here.

Do you USE bitcoin? or do you prefer to HODL bitcoin? I think many of us have got into the habit of just hodling..and there is something to be said about Metcalfe's law. I would encourage all of us to increase our USE of bitcoins...even if its just sending from one wallet to another.

-----------
Bitcoin
Not sure I can remember seeing a flat spot on the cloud quite like this before. Next week is going to be interesting imho. Nice hourly candle btw....wtg team green.

[Speculatoross]

Meanwhile

[infofront]

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.

If the miners are as trustworthy as you big blockers think, then it shouldn't even be an issue.

Might have some relevance.

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

I'm not a mathematician, but doesn't that make bcash  at least 3X more of a joke coin?

[bitserve]

Meanwhile

Stop what? Geez, the guy is completely paranoid. Noone cares about what he does or says anymore.

P.S.: Well maybe for fun and giggles every once in a while but not that anyone intends to stop him at anything... on the contrary.

[infofront]

Great post from Parabolic Trav

The only other time we had a large CME weekend panic gap, it was prior to the Feb 5 bottom. This week's decline implied maximum panic and set the conditions for the turn. Something to take note of if it happens again.

[FractalUniverse]

infofront: normally gaps are supposed to be filled. so 7.6-7.7k at least. not too bad.
even though there are no gaps on bitcoin 24/7 market, CME whales will like to keep their gap filling tradition  

[European Central Bank]

Great post from Parabolic Trav

isn't this guy the planet's most deluded bull who vanished when his ridiculous predictions turned out to be, uh, ridiculous?

[jojo69]

Great post from Parabolic Trav

isn't this guy the planet's most deluded bull who vanished when his ridiculous predictions turned out to be, uh, ridiculous?

I'm sorry

the quest for the title "planet's most deluded bull" is hotly contested, trav isn't even close

[infofront]

He's known for being an uber-bull, but he hasn't been discredited yet.



TLDR: logarithmic trend isn't broken unless we fall below ~$3,200.

Edit: ECB, you're thinking of an old timer. There was a Parabolic Chad or something like that. Parabolic Trav was inspired by him, and took up the mantle when "Chad" disappeared.