Bitcoin Forum
April 01, 2023, 07:17:28 AM *
News: New CAPTCHA now required before posting
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: When will we see a new ATH?
2023 - 52 (23.7%)
2024 - 87 (39.7%)
2025 - 59 (26.9%)
2026 - 4 (1.8%)
2027 - 2 (0.9%)
After 2027 - 4 (1.8%)
Never - 11 (5%)
Total Voters: 219

Pages: « 1 ... 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 20596 20597 20598 20599 20600 20601 20602 20603 20604 20605 20606 20607 20608 20609 20610 20611 20612 20613 20614 20615 ... 32077 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 26087149 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. (170 posts by 5 users with 9 merit deleted.)
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3304
Merit: 8096


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on Bitcoin


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:16:39 PM

What I am asserting remains what I have been asserting all along. I am asserting that these properties are endemic to Segwit. Period.

O.k.  You are asserting a theory.

No. I am not asserting a theory. I am asserting fact. Not theory. Fact. Segwit's separation of Bitcoin into three distinct classes is a readily-observable fact.

You really have a problem with basic definitions here.

O.k.  I am with you that before segwit, we had one aspect of bitcoin that is considered on chain transactions.  Segwit added functionality to bitcoin and was adopted and implemented through a then agreed to consensus mechanism, but such added functionality did not create a different class of bitcoin, furthermore it remains optional to use segregated witness bitcoin addresses or legacy addresses, and you can send bitcoin's across in any direction.. from segwit to legacy and from legacy to segwit from legacy to legacy and from segwit to segwith... So fucking what?   That is not a different class of bitcoin, it is just additional functionality that has been absorbed into the system and likely to continue to exist.. and  you have to make some kind of proof that there is some actual rather than theoretical fungibility issue.

Regarding lightning network, this is another test system that is being built in order to federate peg bitcoin's into such nominally second layer.  Seems that I am not smart enough to really understand all of the implications of such system that is being built, and surely remains voluntary and in early testing stages.  My understanding is that the December 2017/January 2018 spam attack onto bitcoin from BIG BLOCKER nutjob comrades of yourself created incentives to cause the test version of lightning network to go live much more quickly than had been anticipated, and even initially pissed off a few core developers, but in some sense the toothpaste is out of the tube, and the system is being tested on an ongoing basis with limitations in the quantity of coins that can be added to any one channel, and from my understanding lightning network is not creating any new coins, because the coins that are being used on lightning network are federated to actual bitcoins that are verifiable on the blockchain.  

You can label this as a new class of coins all that you want, but such labelling seems to be misleading at best, and having seen your track record, I would not be surprised if you are not attempting to engage in deceit and/or trickery regarding the topic to suggest that some kind of significance and meaning is present with additional optional functionality being a new "class of coin" when no fucking new coins are created..  

So, in the end, I still don't see what evidence that you have that there is some kind of actual fungibility issue in regards to bitcoins that might be used in the lightning network beyond mere speculation about something that could happen, but there are no actual facts to back up your differences in fungibility assertions related to lightning network and it even seems to be a stretch to be asserting that new functionality rises to the level of some kind of "new coin".  In short, you seem to be engaging in either misleading or deception with your discussion of different classes of coins and arguing about some kind of non-existent fungibility issue, no?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1680333448
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1680333448

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1680333448
Reply with quote  #2

1680333448
Report to moderator
d_eddie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 2260



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:17:15 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

Nakamoto Satoshi would also have N. S. as his initials. Family name first, as is the norm in Japan.
infofront (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 2623


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:20:21 PM

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)

If you can't handle the reality that the Bogdanoffs control the market, I don't know what to tell you.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2982
Merit: 1593


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:20:57 PM

Any coin you'll buy from an exchange will probably have a segwit history.

Which of course would just result in a niche that needs filling by an entrepreneur to found an exchange that deals strictly in Segwit-free bitcoins. Market pressures always result in market solutions. Kinda econ 101, that.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:21:21 PM

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.
If.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3584
Merit: 4839


Whimsical Pants


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:24:04 PM
Merited by mindrust (1)

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

Nakamoto Satoshi would also have N. S. as his initials. Family name first, as is the norm in Japan.

If I had ONE guess good old Nick would be pretty high on my list.  Hal would also be up there.

Today on twitter I saw some EOS shill respond to one of Szabo's posts and call him a "fucktard".

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/1008974899690463232

LOL.

Dude evidently has no idea...  he might actually have earned a block from Satoshi himself... lol.

Really kinda fits in with how AMAZINGLY TERRI-HORRI-AWEFUL-BAD EOS is.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2982
Merit: 1593


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:25:26 PM

Tldr; security reasons...

So implement Segwit through a mechanism that introduces new attack vectors.

Nope. Still doesn't make sense.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2982
Merit: 1593


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:27:48 PM

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:31:10 PM

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.
It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3304
Merit: 8096


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on Bitcoin


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:32:26 PM

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.

I think that when a few of us speculate that there are going to be fungibility battles in the future, these are the kinds of battles that we contemplate to be within the realm of possibilities.  Part of the problem about speculating about the future is that no one is really going to know how the battles might play out.  I am fairly certain that varying levels of preparation for fungibility battles have been ongoing in bitcoin since it's inceptions, and even during my about 4.5 years in bitcoin, I have seen various kinds of fungibility discussions, even from  core developers.  So the topic is not lost on them and the tools for defending bitcoin from these kinds of challenges is not new, either.  So, it remains somewhat speculative if fungibility challenges become more of an issue or a BIGGER problem that might need more tools - but there may not be a real easy way to put safeguards in place for every possible fungibility attack if certain kinds of fungibility attacks have not started yet and they remain mere speculation rather than actual and current practices.

So some of these FUD spreading nutjobs, like jbreher, who seem to want to continue to present the speculation of the fungibility issues as if it were a current attack on bitcoin, rather than speculation of the future seems premature, misleading and an attempt to spread FUD about speculation rather than actual and current things going on in bitcoin.
mindrust
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2842
Merit: 2282



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:34:13 PM

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.
It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2? Roger created  the real bitcoin for the ungrateful fucks like you. Could it be that you don't trust his project?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:35:51 PM

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.
It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?
Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.
mindrust
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2842
Merit: 2282



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:36:57 PM

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.
It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?
Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

Read the reddit post. Want me to copy paste it for you?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:37:51 PM

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.
It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?
Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

Read the reddit post. Want me to copy paste it for you?
Alright you are useless. Moving on.
mindrust
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2842
Merit: 2282



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:39:37 PM
Last edit: June 19, 2018, 08:58:01 PM by mindrust

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.
It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?
Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

Read the reddit post. Want me to copy paste it for you?
Alright you are useless. Moving on.

walk on jog on good bye bon voyage fuck off
infofront (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 2623


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:42:05 PM

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.
It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?
Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

Increased centralization
regent4
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 1


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2018, 08:43:28 PM

https://i.imgur.com/gGTGLUf.png

http://blockchainshowdown.blogspot.com/2018/06/btc-usd-2th-june-2018.html
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:45:24 PM

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.
It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?
Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

Increased centralization
Due to? Don't fucking say 2 mb blocks. At least be a little bit creative.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3304
Merit: 8096


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on Bitcoin


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:46:37 PM
Merited by mindrust (1), infofront (1)

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.


Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

Now you are bringing back the BIG BLOCKER arguments to the thread?  Are you just trying to provoke, you goofball?

You realize that segwit was adopted through adequate consensus mechanisms, and if you want to remove segwit then some similar process needs to be followed in order to remove it.  Seems very unlikely to happen, merely because some people have "suspicious feelings" about segwit that are not based in any kind of substantial and meaningful fact(s).

also, get the fuck out of here with the worn out and beaten up claims that BIGGER blocks is less complicated.  Part of the reason that BIGGER blocks was not the solution was because it failed to receiving any kind of meaning traction in the bitcoin community, so if you want some BIGGER blocks, then take ur selfie to bitcoin.com.. (I am reminding myself of that shakespeare saying "take yourself to a nunnery"  hahahahahaha)
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2982
Merit: 1593


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:52:20 PM

So some of these FUD spreading nutjobs, like jbreher, who seem to want to continue to present the speculation of the fungibility issues as if it were a current attack on bitcoin, rather than speculation of the future seems premature, misleading and an attempt to spread FUD about speculation rather than actual and current things going on in bitcoin.

Your continued mischaracterization of my position -- especially in light of my repeated corrections -- is antisocial aggression. (haha! Don't I just sound like an SJW?)

I have continually stated that I am merely pointing out that a reduction in fungibility is endemic to the design of Segwit. I said nothing about a current attack.

Just. Fucking. Stop.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 20596 20597 20598 20599 20600 20601 20602 20603 20604 20605 20606 20607 20608 20609 20610 20611 20612 20613 20614 20615 ... 32077 »
  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!