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

[infofront]

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.

Do some research. I'm not going to sit here and answer your stupid ass questions.
If you're pissed about the current situation, go circle jerk with jbreher on bitcoin.com about how awful segwit is.

[1680331992]

1680331992

[1680331992]

1680331992

[1680331992]

1680331992

[jbreher]

Segwit is not a security threat

Segwit has altered the Bitcoin security model. This is inarguable.

We can argue about whether or not this new security model is or isn't a threat. Such is not my interest at this time.

Roger created  the real bitcoin

Interesting assertion.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Well, yeah.  We are still less than 1% of world wide adoption of bitcoin, and lots of dumbing down and ease of use is likely to evolve into various aspects of bitcoin, whether that is legacy, or segwit or lightning or some new systems or various combinations of such.  We are also in a stage of bitcoin development in which these various technical aspects of bitcoin are batted around by both technical and non-technical people... and so the topic remains fair game as confidence in the underlying increases and increases and takes time to beat around and battle the FUD spreaders, too.

There are always going to be some geeks that are more informed and in touch with the underlying technologies, but like you said, the larger the adoption, the less likely that regular peeps are going to be studying into the technical details as long as there is a certain confidence in the underlying security of the whole system, which may come from a mere development that "everyone else is using it."

[Ibian]

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.

Do some research. I'm not going to sit here and answer your stupid ass questions.
If you're pissed about the current situation, go circle jerk with jbreher on bitcoin.com about how awful segwit is.

You are not going to answer anything because you have no answers.

Any basic home connection can handle 2 mb every ten minutes. The kind of connections that the top miners use wouldn't even fucking notice.

Here is what would happen on the mining front if the blocksize was doubled. Absolutely fucking nothing. The only thing that would happen would be that the hash-per-transaction would halve, but the amount of hardware and electricity to do a 51% attack would remain the same.

NOTHING WOULD CHANGE EXCEPT AN INCREASED TRANSACTION CAPACITY.

Prove me wrong. With numbers and facts. If any of you think you have the brain for it.

[d_eddie]

You are not going to answer anything because you have no answers.

Any basic home connection can handle 2 mb every ten minutes. The kind of connections that the top miners use wouldn't even fucking notice.

Here is what would happen on the mining front if the blocksize was doubled. Absolutely fucking nothing. The only thing that would happen would be that the hash-per-transaction would halve, but the amount of hardware and electricity to do a 51% attack would remain the same.

NOTHING WOULD CHANGE EXCEPT AN INCREASED TRANSACTION CAPACITY.

Prove me wrong. With numbers and facts. If any of you think you have the brain for it.

I guess he might be weary of re-ELI5-ing stuff that has been discussed ad nauseam. Especially to a fellow bitcoiner old enough (bitcoin wise, at least) to know better - and therefore supposedly able to read up stuff quickly without having to use Wikipedia as a glossary twice for every paragraph.

[bones261]

Are we really bringing up fears of the "steal the Segwit coins" attack? To implement the attack, successfully, someone would have to accomplish the following.

A) Modify his pre-segwit node software to accept and mine anyonecanspend transactions. Most of the older software now sees these as non-standard transactions and would not accept nor mine them.
B) Have over 50% of the mining hash so that your chain would be seen as the chain with most work by all the nodes that are running software that is pre-segwit.
C)All of the Segwit nodes are going to immediately orphan the attacker's blocks because they will clearly see that the block contains invalid transactions that do not follow the proper protocol for handling a Segwit transaction. The attacker will need to convince the community to hop on over to the attacker's chain. Good luck with that. Please keep in mind that accepting the attacker's chain over the current Segwit BTC chain will effectively render the vast majority of the exchanges as insolvent. Also, since the attacker's chain will offer no replay protection, it's going to be a PITA for most users, so both chains will have much difficulty surviving together.

[Ibian]

You are not going to answer anything because you have no answers.

Any basic home connection can handle 2 mb every ten minutes. The kind of connections that the top miners use wouldn't even fucking notice.

Here is what would happen on the mining front if the blocksize was doubled. Absolutely fucking nothing. The only thing that would happen would be that the hash-per-transaction would halve, but the amount of hardware and electricity to do a 51% attack would remain the same.

NOTHING WOULD CHANGE EXCEPT AN INCREASED TRANSACTION CAPACITY.

Prove me wrong. With numbers and facts. If any of you think you have the brain for it.

I guess he might be weary of re-ELI5-ing stuff that has been discussed ad nauseam. Especially to a fellow bitcoiner old enough (bitcoin wise, at least) to know better - and therefore supposedly able to read up stuff quickly without having to use Wikipedia as a glossary twice for every paragraph.

What is that?

[mindrust]

Are we really bringing fears of the "steal the Segwit coins" attack.? To implement the attack, successfully, someone would have to accomplish the following.

A) Modify his pre-segwit node software to accept and mine anyonecanspend transactions. Most of the older software now sees these as non-standard transaction and would not accept nor mine them.
B) Have over 50% of the mining hash so that your chain would be seen as the chain with most work by all the nodes that are running software that is pre-segwit.
C)All of the Segwit nodes are going to immediately orphan the attackers blocks because they will clearly see that the block contains invalid transactions that do not follow the proper protocol for handling a Segwit transaction. The attacker will need to convince the community to hop on over to the attacker's chain. Good luck with that. Please keep in mind that accepting the attackers chain over the current BTC will effectively render the vast majority of the exchanges as insolvent. Also, since the attacker's chain will offer no replay protection, it's going to be a PITA for most users.

Nope. My mistake. I was dumb. I didn't realize Ibian was a bcash shill who was here to hijack the thread. Ignored him too. Won't be happening again.

[d_eddie]

You are not going to answer anything because you have no answers.

(snip)

Prove me wrong. With numbers and facts. If any of you think you have the brain for it.

I guess he might be weary of re-ELI5-ing stuff that has been discussed ad nauseam. Especially to a fellow bitcoiner old enough (bitcoin wise, at least) to know better - and therefore supposedly able to read up stuff quickly without having to use Wikipedia as a glossary twice for every paragraph.

What is that?

Well, as I said, usually Wikipedia or Google do provide answers to non-rhetorical questions.
ELI5: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ELI5

[Ibian]

You are not going to answer anything because you have no answers.

(snip)

Prove me wrong. With numbers and facts. If any of you think you have the brain for it.

I guess he might be weary of re-ELI5-ing stuff that has been discussed ad nauseam. Especially to a fellow bitcoiner old enough (bitcoin wise, at least) to know better - and therefore supposedly able to read up stuff quickly without having to use Wikipedia as a glossary twice for every paragraph.

What is that?

Well, as I said, usually Wikipedia or Google do provide answers to non-rhetorical questions.
ELI5: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ELI5

If you are blowing me off then just call me a faggot and be done with it. Would be more classy anyway.

[rjclarke2000]

Haven’t been here for a while. I’ve popped back to read this thread and it’s very poor and full of the reasons I am not a regular anymore.

Bring back the old days when useful information was shared here.

I’ll pop back during the next bull run. Maybe you’ve all stopped bitch slapping each other by then.

[d_eddie]

If you are blowing me off then just call me a faggot and be done with it. Would be more classy anyway.

I'm not blowing you off. I'm suggesting some reading might be appropriate, even if thought it shouldn't be.

By the way, nothing in your writing suggests faggotry, so why should calling you a fag be more classy?

[Ibian]

If you are blowing me off then just call me a faggot and be done with it. Would be more classy anyway.

I'm not blowing you off. I'm suggesting some reading might be appropriate, even if thought it shouldn't be.

By the way, nothing in your writing suggests faggotry, so why should calling you a fag be more classy?

No, that's not how it works. If you are not prepared to present your side of the argument - not even defend but merely fucking present - then your argument is fucking invalid. As in it has no legs.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Aren't you undermining your own argument when you are seeming to give the EXACT same value to legacy BTC and segwit tainted coins?  Would you like to specify (or correct yourself) further here, jbear?

[Torque]

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.

Bullshit. That may be what you have repeated many times, but you've also implied and insinuated that this so-called "flaw" makes BCash the better crypto by comparison. That's been your true underlying agenda, troll.

1. Bitcoin buyers/users know exactly what SW is, it's implications, and still buy and use it.

2. We don't need you to come here, condescend and repeat what we already know about SW.

3. BCash, by inference, is not better because it doesn't have SW. It's a centralized, compromised, piece of shit altcoin controlled by a bunch of Narcissistic asshats. And that is all it will ever be.

So you Just. Fucking. Stop.

[JayJuanGee]

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%.

How is bitcoin a tool?  It is not centralized, and once the bitcoin system is in place, then Bitcoin just is... so if you want to modify something that is, then you have to have overwhelming consensus, otherwise bitcoin just is and you can attempt to contribute to it how you like, but you cannot use it to your pleasure, even though you can choose whether or not to use it and if you choose to use it, then you choose how to use it.

You seem to be implying some kind of proof of stake with your suggestion that people who own BTC can direct BTC, but even if there is some ability to contribute and change bitcoin, it remains a matter of convincing others, no?

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.

I think that those outcomes were expected to come about by bitcoin putting centralized fiat systems into check, but the results are not automatic, even though bitcoin could have a tendency to move the world into a better place at least in terms of a financial system that is based on math rather than possible centralized whimsicality.

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.

You make no sense.  people can choose to or not to use bitcoin.  If bitcoin is too hard for them, then they can use something else, such as fiat, or credit cards or bcash... In the long run, bitcoin is going to evolve, and if you think that there needs to be changes, then either you can attempt to change it or you can hire peeps to help you in such endeavors.  I doubt that you are going to convince very many peeps to abandon segwit when it barely is just starting.. and further, you cannot just reverse segwit, unless you achieve some kind of overwhelming level of consensus that is similar to the process that put segwit in place.  Perhaps only you, jbreher, and the other bcash shills really are aiming to attempt to reverse segwit, and I doubt that any of their motives are really based on improving rather than attacking aspects of bitcoin.

Segwit is powerful as fuck, and it seems to be proving itself as a benefit to bitcoin rather than a detractor as you seem to be arguing.. Hard to take you seriously with such bullshit points.  Did someone take over your account or have you always been a BIG BLOCKER without any fucking clue and buying into the more recent segwit=bad arguments?

[Ibian]

Bob what the fuck are you doing meriting someone calling me a bcash shill?

[jojo69]

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.

Bob did the honors

[JayJuanGee]

Tldr; security reasons...

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

Nope. Still doesn't make sense.

Seems to me that there are a weighing of factors.

Do you recall how irritated your fuck-buddy, Jihan, was that segwit would no longer allow him to engage in covert ASIC boost? 

Seems that segwit also accomplished a variety of ways to increase spam attack costs, oh poor BIG BLOCKERs   sorry for your losses, and now you seemingly want to purposefully spread disinformation by suggesting that the costs of segwit outweigh its benefits when you likely know better.   

[Ibian]

Seems that segwit also accomplished a variety of ways to increase spam attack costs,

Explain them. Explain ONE of those ways.

I see a lot of talk, but next to no evidence.