Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2021, 07:38:46 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Will we close Nov. at or above Plan B's posited minimum of $98K?
Yes - 43 (37.1%)
No - 73 (62.9%)
Total Voters: 116

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 ... 29934 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25494128 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. (158 posts by 14 users with 9 merit deleted.)
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 2181



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:52:10 PM
Merited by BobLawblaw (1)

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.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miner's wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.

Pretty much this.

I wonder If any of these people will be able to make a public appearance after a coup like this.



See this photo?

Do you think any of these 3 are bold enough to trigger a world war and strong enough to survive through it? Are they brave enough to spend the rest of their lives in an underground bunker with the fears of getting killed at any second?

All I see here is 3 *aggots.
1638560326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638560326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638560326
Reply with quote  #2

1638560326
Report to moderator
1638560326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638560326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638560326
Reply with quote  #2

1638560326
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1638560326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638560326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638560326
Reply with quote  #2

1638560326
Report to moderator
1638560326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638560326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638560326
Reply with quote  #2

1638560326
Report to moderator
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 2430


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:52:36 PM

This is not a way to steal coins, this is a way to destroy Bitcoin. After the attack there is no value left, so nothing to steal.

Therefore the attack is only important to someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin, and a 51% attack will destroy Bitcoin with or without Segwit. Therefore Segwit is not an additional risk.

Some counter argument would be that:
- Bitcoin is necessary, inevitable, and has shown immense resilience to all attacks (is indestructible).
- The miners and wealthy elites know what's coming (or what may come), so they're storing their coins in legacy addresses. So, only the plebs like us will be screwed, and no one will give a shit. Look at the 2008 financial crisis. Millions of ordinary people lost their homes. The banks got bailouts and the executives still got their 8-figure bonuses. This seems to happen over and over throughout history.
- Another bitcoin civil war would just be a tiny blip in the history of bitcoin.

Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3570
Merit: 2376


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2018, 06:55:32 PM
Merited by mindrust (1)

All I know is bcash is down to .11 BCH/BTC. I was only selling my bcash at .2 BCH/BTC but may need to re-think that as I doubt it will ever come back and continue to wither away.

I'm all for people pumping it to get me more BTC but the more time passes, the less likely some alt coin is going to magically become Bitcoin.

With the amount of progress being made with Lightning Network I doubt people would drop it all once mass adoption begins just for slightly bigger blocks.


I was agnostic through the whole thing. My hope was that whatever choice was made, that everyone get behind one and we move forward in a disrupting way. The hard fork did not achieve that.

I believe that bcash has shown that hard forks will be a very difficult thing to do which I feel is a very good thing. 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. This ensures that the bitcoin I own today are backed by the same algorithm (or very close to it) decades from now.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3122
Merit: 3199


Volcano Corn!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:56:26 PM


No, it is not the tragedy of the commons. That is about eating your seed crop.

Your seed crop (corn, you mean really) is a centralized private resource.  It is guarded by the farmer.  There is no common use outside of his *centralized* family.  The blockchain is more like the office refrigerator.  It is a public shared resource.  Tragedy of the commons is an absolutely applicable concept.

As to doing a bunch of math for you, sorry no.  I don't need to prove it to you.  And at that I assume we are at an impasse.

Time will tell which of us is right.

I'd say we should have a decent idea by 6/28/2028
The typical example is a shared field of grass for multiple households. Anyway this is a waste of time, read up on it. And then spend some time thinking about it, that's actually the most important part.

There is no shame in saying "I don't know", by the way. I keep hoping to be able to type those words with every post here. But nobody will give me a chance.

Ultimately I don't know.  You don't know.

But this is the "computer" processing the transactions for satoshis.place:

Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:57:54 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.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miner's wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is the reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.
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.


This is not a way to steal coins, this is a way to destroy Bitcoin. After the attack there is no value left, so nothing to steal.

Therefore the attack is only important to someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin, and a 51% attack will destroy Bitcoin with or without Segwit. Therefore Segwit is not an additional risk.
No, you are not getting away with calling two different things the same. That's what the bcashers do. What the fuck is wrong with half of you people lately?
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:59:28 PM

The miners and wealthy elites know what's coming (or what may come), so they're storing their coins in legacy addresses. So, only the plebs like us will be screwed, and no one will give a shit.

Signature:
I do not accept segwit outputs as payment, nor send them.


Some of us will be ok.
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4390


Be a bank


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 07:01:08 PM

Well, if we're destined to spend another year together we ought to really try to make something of it this time around. Maybe we should try to solve some longstanding math problems. The Yang–Mills existence and mass gap seems straight-forward enough, and there's a prize. Smiley
Ron says it's impossible https://www.quora.com/profile/Ron-Maimon
https://www.quora.com/What-progress-has-been-made-to-date-on-the-Yang%E2%80%93Mills-existence-and-mass-gap-problem
oh hey btw, shiny https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-underlying-particle-physics-20130917/
next?
acquafredda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1478



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 07:05:26 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.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miner's wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.
Thank you so much infofront
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 07:07:50 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 be more verbose about that? What are those dangers?

P.S.: But not as much verbose as a thousands words dissertation. Just a simple explanation of your own thinking about the subject.



it goes against the very idea, that is all

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.

The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate.  When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first.  If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.

A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1         0
4         1
16        4
64        16
80%      20%

So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.

The payment processor has connections with many nodes.  When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends.  If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad.  A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it.  The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.





I don't follow you.... How do Segwit impairs detecting/blocking double spendings?


allow double spending

The idea was to implement a double spend that would have no way of reaching its intended target

A self imploding virus

Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 07:12:40 PM

Well, if we're destined to spend another year together we ought to really try to make something of it this time around. Maybe we should try to solve some longstanding math problems. The Yang–Mills existence and mass gap seems straight-forward enough, and there's a prize. Smiley
Ron says it's impossible https://www.quora.com/profile/Ron-Maimon
https://www.quora.com/What-progress-has-been-made-to-date-on-the-Yang%E2%80%93Mills-existence-and-mass-gap-problem
oh hey btw, shiny https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-underlying-particle-physics-20130917/
next?

Well nuts.
Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 2696



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 07:21:43 PM
Merited by bones261 (2)

I'll give it a shot.

No need to be concerned, non issue among developers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LN loves Segwit because one of the features is the malleability fix Segwit provides. So Bitcoin can finally scale properly.

What Satoshi thinks about LN;


infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 2430


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 07:22:28 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.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 07:53:44 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.
regent4
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 1


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2018, 08:05:23 PM

https://i.imgur.com/Y7kuS2w.png

same as yesterday.  breakout today / tomorrow?

http://blockchainshowdown.blogspot.com/2018/06/btc-usd-29th-june-2018.html
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 749
Merit: 562



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 08:12:49 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
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 08:13:12 PM

First ever burned merit. Odd

Today at 07:52:35 PM: 1 to fluidjax for (Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored)
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 749
Merit: 562



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 08:21:37 PM

First ever burned merit. Odd

Today at 07:52:35 PM: 1 to fluidjax for (Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored)

Sorry, thanks for the merit but I deleted the post. The thread feels unpleasant when I get trolled but am taking the conversation seriously.
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 08:27:41 PM
Merited by Last of the V8s (1)

First ever burned merit. Odd

Today at 07:52:35 PM: 1 to fluidjax for (Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored)

Sorry, thanks for the merit but I deleted the post. The thread feels unpleasant when I get trolled but am taking the conversation seriously.


That's ok. Everybody's merits are worth more now. Smiley
Toxic2040
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 2377



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 08:34:20 PM


Nope..this is as good as it gets for awhile from what I see. #dyor

Little exit pump before the daily close...maybe. Seems the algo's are getting smarter and moving opposite indicated market direction. Welcome to the Dungeon of Despair everyone..  Roach..turn off the lights when you leave.
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 2430


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 08:37:45 PM


Nope..this is as good as it gets for awhile from what I see. #dyor

Little exit pump before the daily close...maybe. Seems the algo's are getting smarter and moving opposite indicated market direction. Welcome to the Dungeon of Despair everyone..  Roach..turn off the lights when you leave.


That might be the most ominous post I've seen from you.
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 ... 29934 »
  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!