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

[mindrust]

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/

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.

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.

[1680337781]

1680337781

[Ibian]

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/

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Ibian]

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.

No, not whatever. Would you like to make a segwit wallet or a legacy wallet? That's not a whatever, that's a bahwuh?

[cAPSLOCK]

No, not whatever. Would you like to make a segwit wallet or a legacy wallet? That's not a whatever, that's a bahwuh?

I make segwit wallets.  But I understand how to, and why.

Average user will "buy" bitcoin on the Cash app or Robihood, or keep it on Coinbase, or Blockchain.info.  Or use Samurai or Eclair or Enjin and just use whatever address the wallet gives them.

It *is* "whatever" for the vast majority.

And if lightning takes off (thanks to Segwit) then it will just be the new normal.  In fact it really already is.

[Ibian]

No, not whatever. Would you like to make a segwit wallet or a legacy wallet? That's not a whatever, that's a bahwuh?

I make segwit wallets.  But I understand how to, and why.

Average user will "buy" bitcoin on the Cash app or Robihood, or keep it on Coinbase, or Blockchain.info.  Or use Samurai or Eclair or Enjin and just use whatever address the wallet gives them.

It *is* "whatever" for the vast majority.

And if lightning takes off (thanks to Segwit) then it will just be the new normal.  In fact it really already is.

So, would you like to make a segwit wallet? Or a legacy wallet? And why?

[jbreher]

Who here is NOT going to sell me their Lambo if I pay in BTC that has either some segwit taint, or that actually comes from a native segwit address? I didn't find anyone who wouldn't accept my coins.

That would be that Bcash idiot Jbreher  

Actually, I don't think he said it.

Correct. I did not say that. Then again, I also did not say the converse.

He implied that someone else would not accept BTC that came from one of his perceived asset classes.

That I did.

I don't think he wouldn't accept my BTC no matter where they came from,

To any extent which I might, it would be at a discounted rate.

but at the same time, he doesn't need our BTC since he seems to have more than we do, and he's got nothing for sale that we could pay in BTC.

Well, if that BTC-denominated digital music distributor is still in business, you can still by a copy of my CD for 1.2 BTC. I'd even accept 1.2 Segwit coins for a copy.

[JayJuanGee]

Ahaha this is a funny meme as technically it is hard to see a bottom for Bitcoin as this point.

Are you merely saying that there are differences of opinion about where the bottom might be?  Surely, there has been multiple attempts to break through support in the $6k territory.  Surely, there are questions about whether such support will hold.. but merely not knowing whether the support will hold or not is not the same as saying that it is difficult to see the bottom.  Of course, if support does not break, then that means we are going up.  A lot of folks prefer to see high volume bounce off of any bottom, and many times, that can make the bottom more clear, but historically, even in bitcoin, there have been times when the bottom is in and then the price just trickles up further and further and further making it then difficult for bears to bring the price back down to test the previous bottom testing points.

Ever since Bitcoin entered the bear market we all have our guesses where the bottom is.

You are talking about the correction from $19,666 to present right?  I don't think that would technically be a "bear market," especially given the context.  But you can call it whatever you like, even though "bear market" seems both premature and misleading.

Of course woth the little price actions here in there it is hard to pin point the exact bottom is. A lot of people even said that 6,500$ is the lowest that Bitcoin can get now that BTC has proven them wrong it is hard to tell where the true bottom is.

Do you know what is a strawman argument? 

You seem to be making one with your reference to "a lot of people" claiming some kind of solid bottom at $6,500 and supposedly being wrong about such claim.  So fucking what?  A lot of people say a lot of things, including dumb things.  So the mere fact that people may have said something does not really get us anywhere regarding the supposed meaning of such claims, as you seem to be suggesting that the hopes of such "lot of people" have been dashed.  Is that the claim?

What we can really do is observe the market and base our plan from it.

That is true. Each of us has to follow, tweak or come up with our own individualized plan.  Such plan will both depend upon what stage of entering bitcoin we are in and also what plan we may have already been following (and whether we might need to tweak such plan).   

What is your plan?   buy, sell, hold or some combination of such?

A 200$ increase in price cannot be classified as a pump compared to the 10% decrease we have in the last few weeks.

Somewhat typical with consolidation periods is that the range of volatility becomes more and more narrow, until the consolidation breaks in one direction or another.  Sometimes there can be a sudden increase in volatility that comes with a break in one direction or another, and other times the break away from the consolidation range can end up being more gradual and trickling towards one direction or another.

[Globb0]

You are likely correct that there is a sliding scale when it comes to fungibility, and I think that most free market types are going to perceive the most value in bitcoin being associated with greater levels of fungibility... so yeah, you are right that lesser fungibility may maintain some value, but the amount of decrease in value may be a lot greater than what you seem to be projecting it to be.  For example if confidence is lost because coins get blacklisted, then surely that seems problematic to me if it is allowed to occur.  So if any 3rd party such as coinbase or fed government tries to label coins, then there would likely be some effort by the bitcoin community to either not use their services or to move coins to other location and clean them of their blacklisting.

I think there is an argument to be made that zero fungibility may cause an increase in value as governments would accept and regulate such a state. I can see a scenario where your address will be issued and monitored. If this becomes a future scenario then TPTB would actually cause an increase in the value as institutional investment would increase exponentially. and Ironically BTC would become the exact opposite of what it was intended yet as a side effect continue to make early adopters rich.

there it is...perfect timing

I almost gave you a congrats merit for this.

Also glad there was a screenshot as I didn't know you had laughing man avatar that alone is merit worthly.

I'm with you I didn't have the heart to ruin his moment.

[Ibian]

Look, everyone, this is not really difficult is it? If bitcoin is just another tool of the 1%, then, fuck it, we will be among the new 1%. But if it is more than that, if it is meant to make the world as a whole a better place, to give the world financial freedom, then basic mechanisms such as creating a fucking wallet can not be an issue of confusion.

Either the differences between segwit and legacy need to be made so clear that anyone who can operate a computer understand it, or we need to go back to a universal standard.

[jbreher]

The evidence is already given. Segwit creates a triple-classed asset. And that this is by definition a lack of fungibility.

I will pay you 10% under market for all your segwit tainted coins.

Might need to do it in batches.

No?

Thanks for the (disingenuous) offer, but I don't have any Segwit tainted coins.

Not disingenuous.  I would buy every single last satoshi.  

OK. Sorry for the mischaracterization.

Too bad for me you have none to sell.  But I am glad for you that the coins you have you perceive to be more valuable than ones that have touched segwit addresses.

Thanks.

I see the idea that segwit is harming fungibility as being equivalent to the letter above the left serial number on US treasury notes damaging the fungibility of USD.  

Well, first, the vast majority of USD exists only in digital form. Such USD has no serial numbers or such letters. As for the small faction of USD in physical form, the letter of which you speak is a discernible characteristic. However, such letter has no operational consequence. This is quite unlike the three segwit classes, each of which implement differing security models. While the letter of which you speak is a fungibility hole, it is of a much weaker variety than Segwit's three classes.

As a snarky aside, why the cliche'd request for 'small unmarked bills'? What of bills marked by the exploding dye pack?

Unless some sort of segwit Armageddon comes (as I understand you believe is possible) it will be a laughably insignificant percentage of users who give a frack whether their bitcoin has ever touched an address starting with a 3.

As I sad, it is legitimate to argue over the significance of the effects of these characteristics.

In fact, talking about bitcoin fungibility and taint and worrying about segwit is silly.  

Well, in this conversation I am not so much concerned with taint, as much as the differing security models implemented for each of the three classes created by Segwit.

But I am happy to agree to disagree.

[Globb0]

[jbreher]

Miners don't need anything like $6000/BTC to remain profitable.

I'd put it closer to $2000, even lower if you take the money laundering angle into account.

 Let's try to figure this out.

...

  US $2045.18

...

Thanks for the analysis. While it should be obvious to most, this model employs electricity as the only cost to mining. Of course, we know this is not the case. I wouldn't know what capital acquisition, cooling, rent, plant, maintenance, labor, etc might add to the cost.

[infofront]

Look, everyone, this is not really difficult is it? If bitcoin is just another tool of the 1%, then, fuck it, we will be among the new 1%. But if it is more than that, if it is meant to make the world as a whole a better place, to give the world financial freedom, then basic mechanisms such as creating a fucking wallet can not be an issue of confusion.

Either the differences between segwit and legacy need to be made so clear that anyone who can operate a computer understand it, or we need to go back to a universal standard.

Option 3: We're still in the early adopter phase, bitcoin is too complicated for plebs, and we're still working on the basic underlying infrastructure, as cAPSLOCK mentioned. If Bitcoin development were comparable to the development of the internet, we'd be around 1991.

[Agapios]

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.

I really dont know why do you make up such stuff. Unless you read this nonsense somewhere and decided to post nonsense here. But its still a nonsense.

But if you just made it up....oh well i guess 90% posts on this forum are CRAB (no crap, let me make some nonsense too), poeople making down empleyes (stuff) on purse (purpuse).
Where the world is goin. Long live....who Trump ?  (half of my message is sarcasm and bullshit, like 90% of post here)