Bitcoin Forum
November 27, 2022, 06:53:54 PM *
News: Reminder: do not keep your money in online accounts
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Did we reach the bottom already?
Yes - 60 (50%)
No, it's coming later this year - 44 (36.7%)
No, it's coming next year or after - 16 (13.3%)
Total Voters: 120

Pages: « 1 ... 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 20616 20617 20618 20619 20620 20621 20622 20623 20624 20625 20626 20627 20628 20629 20630 20631 20632 20633 20634 [20635] 20636 20637 20638 20639 20640 20641 20642 20643 20644 20645 20646 20647 20648 20649 20650 20651 20652 20653 20654 20655 20656 20657 20658 20659 20660 20661 20662 20663 20664 20665 20666 20667 20668 20669 20670 20671 20672 20673 20674 20675 20676 20677 20678 20679 20680 20681 20682 20683 20684 20685 ... 31616 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25869946 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.)
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:09:10 PM
Merited by Ibian (1)

Give me enough money and I have no care for your bitcoin blockchain
I will own all the nodes
"Referencing Rothschild on the banking system and government"

You can own all of the nodes if you want but that wont help you to attack the network. The moment you begin doing nefarious things users will open channels with someone who is not doing nefarious things and the network will very quickly self heal from your attack.
Whats to attack
I have just turned the blockchain into a central bank, all transactions run through my nodes
cheap or expensive

Rofl what no. Havn't you been paying attention? It's a permissionless system. If you make it expensive people will use someone elses node. You understand that there isn't some limited number of slots to fill up where you get life time ownership of that slot right? You don't seem like you understand at all how the technology works. You remind me of a commenter from zerohedge not bitcointalk.



 I like how your responses are exactly like mainstream media and omit certain truths


I like how your response sounds like it could have been written by a computer algorithm.

thanks for the compliment satoshi would be proud

and yes i am a russian bot  Grin Grin
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1669575234
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1669575234

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1669575234
Reply with quote  #2

1669575234
Report to moderator
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1539


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:10:24 PM

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

Hmm. Where have I heard that before?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:11:42 PM

Might wanna fix your quotes there Yogi.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1539


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:14:47 PM

The hard fork should be left for huge emergencies like finding a bug that makes Bitcoin vulnerable to collapse (as was done in the past). Upgrades should be done via soft fork if possible.

The choice of using the so-called 'soft fork' kluge was what introduced the gaping security hole into The Segwit Omnibus Changeset. If it would have been a hard fork, they would not have overloaded anyonecanspend, but rather just made a simple segregated witness upgrade free of side effects.

IOW, you may wish to rethink your position.
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 749
Merit: 562



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:17:33 PM
Merited by nutildah (2)

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

 51% attacks require nothing more, and they can do anything....ANYTHING.
They can make every bitcoin address contain an mp3. The whole discussion about Segwit is bollox.

Of course if you are running a full node you wouldn’t accept the mp3 invested junk, but then, non segwit people don’t run nodes, they rely on miners.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1539


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:17:40 PM

Might wanna fix your quotes there Yogi.

Sorry. Reworked it. We good now?

Thanks, BTW.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1539


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:20:24 PM

Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).

Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

I feel dumb. I've been a segwit cheerleader without knowing all the facts. I see now that some of it is tribalism, as you mentioned earlier.

Anyway, it's what we've got now, and I still support Bitcoin. I won't be keeping my cold storage coins in a segwit address though.

Fair enough. I'm just glad the scales have fallen from your eyes, allowing you to make an objective evaluation based upon actual fact.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1539


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:21:23 PM

Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).

Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

I feel dumb. I've been a segwit cheerleader without knowing all the facts. I see now that some of it is tribalism, as you mentioned earlier.

Anyway, it's what we've got now, and I still support Bitcoin. I won't be keeping my cold storage coins in a segwit address though.
Group identity is a powerful thing. What's important now is what to do going forward.

I didn't even know why it might be bad, I just had a funny feeling due to the lack of open discussion of its pros and cons. When only one side is being talked about, it's time to be careful.


Welcome to ignore

None so blind as those who refuse to see...
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 749
Merit: 562



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:25:10 PM

Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).

Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

I feel dumb. I've been a segwit cheerleader without knowing all the facts. I see now that some of it is tribalism, as you mentioned earlier.

Anyway, it's what we've got now, and I still support Bitcoin. I won't be keeping my cold storage coins in a segwit address though.
Group identity is a powerful thing. What's important now is what to do going forward.

I didn't even know why it might be bad, I just had a funny feeling due to the lack of open discussion of its pros and cons. When only one side is being talked about, it's time to be careful.


Welcome to ignore

None so blind as those who refuse to see...

It’s not what he says, I listen to you being wrong, but don’t enjoy being trolled.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1539


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:25:40 PM

Why is bitcoin being attacked?

Willie Sutton knows.
gembitz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 636


*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:29:02 PM
Merited by Last of the V8s (1)

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

jbearer hour?>_> stap flooding da chat! :-D haha
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3472
Merit: 4777


Whimsical Pants


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:31:00 PM

Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).

Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

I feel dumb. I've been a segwit cheerleader without knowing all the facts. I see now that some of it is tribalism, as you mentioned earlier.

Anyway, it's what we've got now, and I still support Bitcoin. I won't be keeping my cold storage coins in a segwit address though.

Fair enough. I'm just glad the scales have fallen from your eyes, allowing you to make an objective evaluation based upon actual fact.

If Segwit is the death of corn, then it's already dead.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1539


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:31:43 PM

For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Answer why doubling the block size is even needed at this point in time. With actual logic and facts to back your argument.

Because using LN requires opening channels on chain. To do this in a decentralized fashion, LN can onboard no more than several hunnert thousand peeps per day.

Several hundred thousand peeps opening/closing LN channels per day seems a bit overkill currently, don't you think?

Currently? Yes.

But I thought LN was supposed to be a scalability solution. And eliminate the benefit of bigger blocks.
xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3304
Merit: 5722



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:32:40 PM

I want to know who's observing that walls?!

edit: wow... I've only had one beer and I can't type.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1539


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:34:09 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Could you provide me with a link where I can read about that? I remember anonymint's post, but I did not pay enough attention and now I can not find it.

Geeze, guys. We've been discussing these very same aspects of segwit since years. Have you had your fingers in your ears and blinders on up 'til now?

Agreed. It's unbelievable how people are coming NOW with points that were debated for years and were (even if slightly) a concern until a few months ago. And now that those are completely debunked they act as if they just discovered em....

Except they haven't been debunked. Well, other than with a handwavey 'we don't believe this to be a significant exposure'.
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4392


Be a bank


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:37:12 PM
Merited by xhomerx10 (1)

I want to know who's observing that walls?!

edit: wow... I've only had one beer and I can't type.


It's been so dry down by the river here, the Roman mason's carved phallus has been exposed

xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3304
Merit: 5722



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:38:43 PM

I want to know who's observing that walls?!

edit: wow... I've only had one beer and I can't type.


It's been so dry here the Roman mason's carved phallus has been exposed



Thanks Wink
 I'm glad somebody is watching it!
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1539


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:39:07 PM

The base layer has to stay VERY comfortably within Moore's law.

If one is to use Moore's law as the metric, computing power has increased by a factor of 64 in the time of Bitcoin's existence.

Lessee.... what's 1MB times 64? Humm....
Nope. Actual use of computers over that time says nope. It's not a fucking universal principle, it was a trend until it wasn't, and now it isn't.

Well, if you were to state that 'Moore's law' is misnamed, and is really something akin to 'Moore's assertion' or 'Moore's rule-of-thumb', I'd agree.

However, the situation cAPSLOCK brings up is valid. Whatever the rate, computing power becomes ever-so-more affordable as time goes on. Typical home computers can now handle 100 tx/s even before fixing the broken Core threading model (500 tx/s has been demonstrated with a mockup). If you can't pony up for a typical home computer, I'm happy to say bye-bye to your node.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1539


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:41:03 PM

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

 51% attacks require nothing more, and they can do anything....ANYTHING.
They can make every bitcoin address contain an mp3. The whole discussion about Segwit is bollox.

Of course if you are running a full node you wouldn’t accept the mp3 invested junk, but then, non segwit people don’t run nodes, they rely on miners.


Blanket statement is ignorant falsehood.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1539


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:42:47 PM

If Segwit is the death of corn, then it's already dead.

All outputs free of segwit taint all the way back to segwit activation are completely unaffected by the scenario under discussion.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 20616 20617 20618 20619 20620 20621 20622 20623 20624 20625 20626 20627 20628 20629 20630 20631 20632 20633 20634 [20635] 20636 20637 20638 20639 20640 20641 20642 20643 20644 20645 20646 20647 20648 20649 20650 20651 20652 20653 20654 20655 20656 20657 20658 20659 20660 20661 20662 20663 20664 20665 20666 20667 20668 20669 20670 20671 20672 20673 20674 20675 20676 20677 20678 20679 20680 20681 20682 20683 20684 20685 ... 31616 »
  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!