Bitcoin Forum
December 01, 2021, 03:13:04 AM *
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 (37.4%)
No - 72 (62.6%)
Total Voters: 115

Pages: « 1 ... 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 20686 20687 20688 20689 ... 29922 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25492357 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.)
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 311


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:53:17 PM

Binance Set to Launch Its First Crypto-Fiat Exchange in Uganda

https://cointelegraph.com/news/exclusive-binance-set-to-launch-its-first-crypto-fiat-exchange-in-uganda

An interesting statement by CZ:

“Uganda [is a] really interesting situation, only 11 percent of the population has bank accounts. It’s both a challenge and an opportunity. So it may be easier to adopt cryptocurrency as a form of currency instead of trying to push for bank adoption. It’s an interesting experiment - Africa’s a big market, that’s why we’re there.”

When the search for greater fools takes you to the darkest jungles of the Congo...
1638328384
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638328384

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638328384
Reply with quote  #2

1638328384
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
lunyrdoctor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 1


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:55:14 PM


- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.


You statement is very confusing since you are taking about two things: a) 51% attack and b) stealing coins.
How can you steal coins without private keys on Bitcoin?  What kind of bull shit is this?
Please enlighten me!

In big blocker world you don’t need non mining nodes. Miners enforce and determine consensus. Therefore 51% attack can do anything they like including stealing coins without keys.

And with bitcoin the nodes wouldn't validate these transactions since they don't have signatures, hence this would result to a hard fork of the chain. And the miners could do a hardfork right now if they wanted. And they haven't yet for good reasons.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2814
Merit: 5142


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on Bitcoin


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:56:23 PM
Merited by mindrust (2)

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s

he is talking about how big block sizes would make bitcoin centralized (because he knows how Computing technologie would develop in the next 10 years ofc.)

Even if so: LN is by design centralized.


So whats that argument even about?

Are you engaged in selective listening, or you just want to purposefully describe something that is not even really addressed in the video?   The vast majority of the video discusses the problematic nature of attempting on-chain scaling.  And, what the fuck you talking about LN centralized?  You just making shit up because you and your bcash pumpers want to assert such fallacies while the factual evidence does not seem to support your contentions, especially since LN, even though it remains in early test phases, seems to have a multitude of contributors and nodes.. .so your "centralization" assertion seems to be the opposite of what is actually happening in regards to ongoing LN developments.


If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. 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.

Get the fuck out of here, Ibian.

In this thread, people have been explaining the fucking weakness of the BIG BLOCKER nutjob theories for nearly three years.  

The essence of the argument remains that BigBlockers have failed to provide evidence or logic that bitcoin would benefit from BIG blocks as much as it would likely cost...   In other words, there is no burden for anyone here to explain why BIG blocks are not a good idea, but instead the burden is on you and your other BIG blocker nutjob supporters to provide evidence and facts to convince others to go along with supporting BIG blocks.  

As you likely realize any change to bitcoin has to be agreed to, tested and implemented through appropriate and accepted consensus mechanisms.  

BIG blocker theorizors like your self have not even gotten past the proposal stage without getting rejected by the vast majority of bitcoin peeps..

In other words, there has been a failure of BIG blockers to come anywhere close to reaching consensus in bitcoin, but you got such in bcash, so go over there and see how that is working out for you.. the main consensus that BIG blockers have achieved in bitcoin is to provide ..a minority of BIG mouthed whiners (that lack substance) about the topic and ongoing suggestions that their solution is simple (without really providing evidence that advantages outweigh disadvantages).
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1324


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:59:14 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'.

I don't believe it to be a significant exposure.... But last time we discussed this subject I was a bit more verbose than just handwaving:

(snipped for relevance)

I don't see exchanges, devs and users complaining how flawed Segwit it, nobody lost money ore saw critical errors.  I only see that bullshit in the Bcash camp.

Can you provide me technical arguments/proof why Segwit is 'flawed' ore show it at the Github?

Yes. Fungibility.
What's the issue with fungibility that's so specific to segwit?

As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities.  
1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions;
2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and
3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction.

Quote
Quote
Reliance on miners not to revert to 'anyonecanspend' - an incentive for which only increases over time.
That is, reliance on miners not to try a 51% attack. Does this imply the chain without segwit is invulnerable to 51% attacks?

No. But without Segwit, all miners were able to do with a 51% attack is roll back transactions. They were unable to steal funds. If miners choose to revert to considering Segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transactions, then they can claim every one of the outputs of all those anyonecanspend transactions for themselves. As over time, transactions tainted by Segwit is a monotonically increasing count, the incentive to roll back to Satoshi rules is ever-increasing. And the funny thing is that this would arguably not be stealing. After all, Segwit is said to be compatible, right? All the miners would be doing to claim these funds is to revert to the previous rule set. That's compatible.



The risk you are mentioning here is somewhat "real" but it is decreasing as more funds get moved to segwit addresses. It was a real concern in the beginning as it would have been a (remote) possibility that miners would do as you say. In fact, even if I believed Segwit was a favourable upgrade I was very cautious to NOT move my funds to Segwit addresses until many months later.

Currently, with so much funds already moved into Segwit addresses IF miners decided to stole any Segwit address this is what would happen:

- A fork between the consensus chain and the stolen one.
- A drop in price to almost zero on the stolen one.
- A considerable drop in price on the consensus chain too.

... And basically a major drop in ALL cryptocurrency market as confidence and trust on the main cryptocurrency and its foundations would be severely harmed.

Or maybe it would just be that noone would give any value to the forked (stolen funds) chain and the crisis would not be as deep... but, in any case, whomever carried out that sort of attack (necessarily a main player in crypto mining) would end in a useless (no value) chain and be economically harmed in every way on its core business.

Also take into account that exchanges can be hit by a 51% attack in the sense of double spending BUT they are not vulnerable to this type of attack. Why? Because their wallet software would NOT acknowledge the "anyonecanspend" spoofed tx's no matter how many hashrate decides to support the rogue chain. (If I am wrong in this point please enlighten me).

So, still a 51% "double spending" attack -while hugely improbable in Bitcoin for many reasons- is a (orders of magnitude) bigger "vulnerability" than a segwit "anyonecanspend" attack right now.
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:01:41 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?

jbearer hour?>_> stap flooding da chat! :-D haha


Seems to have started a storm, a lot happening, such an awakening

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


You don't seem like you understand at all how the technology works
your response sounds like it could have been written by a computer algorithm


Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 2837



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:04:59 PM
Last edit: June 28, 2018, 11:35:13 PM by Torque
Merited by mindrust (1)

- 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 miners wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

But I guess the alternative world of BCash with 0 conf and riddled with double spends galore should be applauded then because it has big blocks and no SW?  /s   Roll Eyes  

All hail BCash!  /s

Also infofront, pls notice the timing of this sudden SegWit FUD. Look at the price action today. It's not just a coincidence, ok? Anunymint, Ibian, jbreher and others are known stealth (concern) trolls.
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1324


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:05:34 PM


- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.


You statement is very confusing since you are taking about two things: a) 51% attack and b) stealing coins.
How can you steal coins without private keys on Bitcoin?  What kind of bull shit is this?
Please enlighten me!

In big blocker world you don’t need non mining nodes. Miners enforce and determine consensus. Therefore 51% attack can do anything they like including stealing coins without keys.

And with bitcoin the nodes wouldn't validate these transactions since they don't have signatures, hence this would result to a hard fork of the chain. And the miners could do a hardfork right now if they wanted. And they haven't yet for good reasons.

And what is most important: Exchanges do run their own nodes and would not accept the tx's stealing segwit from the rogue fork no matter if it temporarily have more hashrate than the original blockchain. Good luck doing anything with your worthless stolen "bitcoins".
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:18:08 PM


- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.


You statement is very confusing since you are taking about two things: a) 51% attack and b) stealing coins.
How can you steal coins without private keys on Bitcoin?  What kind of bull shit is this?
Please enlighten me!

You haven't been listening. A 51% miner gets to declare that what were formerly segwit transactions are now anyonecanspend transactions. After all, that would merely be reversion to the consensus rules that existed before segwit activation (by a so-called 'compatible soft fork'). What happens to an anyonecanspend transaction? It's output is literally assignable to anyone. If you are mining, you are you going to assign that value to other than yourself? If you solve the block, they're yours.

Funny thing however, is that it is arguably not stealing, as it is merely operating under the existing consensus rules. Ones that were universal before some misguided individuals promulgated the idea that they were something other than anyonecanspend.
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:24:11 PM

Yeah...but...
I had dreams, you know. Angry
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2814
Merit: 5142


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on Bitcoin


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:24:17 PM

I'll give it a shot.

Thank you.

Mr. Mint and that other one seem like flat out nutters to me though. I'd like to hear the thoughts of others but of course it's seemingly impossible to get impartial thoughts on this.

I find the idea of the super rich raping Segwit and relaxing in Bitcoin Original watching it burn laughable myself. Everyone and everything would be swatted in a tsunami of shit.

It does look like extra risk that certainly most could do without taking, but the incentive not to raze everything to the ground is still as strong as ever. If it's that gaping I'm surprised there's that much faith in the incentives alone though.

Good point, gentlemand.

Sure, there can be all kinds of hypothesizing that miners will do this or that, but in the end, why the fuck would they want to kill the golden goose, when the end plot is not going to cause the whole bitcoin network to move over to some kind of new fork that they supposedly branch into and to give their supposed new fork value.

There were similar premises previously, around the time of the bcash fork, regarding the supposed power for miners to do whatever the fuck they wanted including removing their hash power from bitcoin because they were ultimately the boss of security, yet we found that when push came to shove, value incentives did not move so easily or shift over to something that was perceived to be a deviation from consensus.. so the fantasy of miners throwing around power and threatening the movement of value (or stealing value) ended up not being as true in practice as it was in theory.
Raja_MBZ
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1420



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:24:43 PM

miner987
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 314
Merit: 11


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:27:38 PM

Stop it! Im allergic on red candles!!!
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


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

The risk you are mentioning here is somewhat "real" but it is decreasing as more funds get moved to segwit addresses.

No, it is increasing. The value in the UTXO that traces back to segwit transactions -- even if not currently on a segwit address -- is monotonically increasing. The prize available to the miners for reverting to the older rule set does nothing but increase over time.

I'll agree that it is by no means known that they will do so. But it is also by no means known that they will not. Funny that for all the lip service Core gives to security, and the rather dim view that many if not most Core devs have of miners, that they would introduce such a vulnerability.
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3570
Merit: 2376


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2018, 11:28:44 PM

Price down...forum full of bcash FUD...

I forgot what I was supposed to program my bot to do in this situation. Final indicator will be if I start getting some large buy orders on localbitcoins.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:30:15 PM

Exchanges do run their own nodes

Yes...

Quote
and would not accept the tx's stealing segwit claiming anyonecanspends from the rogue majority fork

You are speculating.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2814
Merit: 5142


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on Bitcoin


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:30:33 PM

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.

Yeah right.  You think that they can really generate enough folks to follow their narcisistic leadership path?  

It seems that your last sentence tells most of it... they are not inspiring enough.. maybe they need a new leader?  Gavin Andressen?  
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1324


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:31:26 PM


- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.


You statement is very confusing since you are taking about two things: a) 51% attack and b) stealing coins.
How can you steal coins without private keys on Bitcoin?  What kind of bull shit is this?
Please enlighten me!

You haven't been listening. A 51% miner gets to declare that what were formerly segwit transactions are now anyonecanspend transactions. After all, that would merely be reversion to the consensus rules that existed before segwit activation (by a so-called 'compatible soft fork'). What happens to an anyonecanspend transaction? It's output is literally assignable to anyone. If you are mining, you are you going to assign that value to other than yourself? If you solve the block, they're yours.

Funny thing however, is that it is arguably not stealing, as it is merely operating under the existing consensus rules. Ones that were universal before some misguided individuals promulgated the idea that they were something other than anyonecanspend.

A 51% miner could just increase the block reward to whatever arbitrary amount they feel like... or just start his own fork from scratch. Double spends, on the other hand, are more tricky to detect and would probably just pass. So the most profitable strategy for a 51% attacker would be to use double spends and not try to steal segwit addresses.

That is if we don't take into account that ANY 51% attack (even double spends) would severely impact the price of Bitcoin..... and I doubt a major player in mining (51% hello?) would have any motivation to even think about it.
jojo69
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 2992


1/21000000 , the only math you need to know


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:33:50 PM

Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 2837



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:34:37 PM

I'll agree that it is by no means known that they will do so. But it is also by no means known that they will not. Funny that for all the lip service Core gives to security, and the rather dim view that many if not most Core devs have of miners, that they would introduce such a vulnerability.

You mean a vulnerability like the 0 conf in BCash that allows double spends galore?



becoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 1123



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:34:53 PM

A 51% miner gets to declare that what were formerly segwit transactions are now anyonecanspend transactions.

Declare? What a funny bs... You can declare whatever you want. Nobody cares what you declare being a 51% or 99% miner. What matters is the tx signature!
Pages: « 1 ... 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 20686 20687 20688 20689 ... 29922 »
  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!