Bitcoin Forum
June 20, 2019, 01:00:51 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Closing BTC Price June 17:
$0 - 4 (3%)
<$6,500 - 7 (5.3%)
$6,500-$6,750 - 1 (0.8%)
$6,751-$7,000 - 2 (1.5%)
$7,001-$7,250 - 3 (2.3%)
$7,251-$7,500 - 6 (4.5%)
$7,501-$7,750 - 4 (3%)
$7,751-$8,000 - 12 (9.1%)
$8,001-$8,250 - 13 (9.8%)
$8,251-$8,500 - 7 (5.3%)
$8,501-$8,750 - 6 (4.5%)
$8,751-$9,000 - 11 (8.3%)
$9,001,$9,250 - 13 (9.8%)
$9,251-$9,500 - 17 (12.9%)
>$9,500 - 17 (12.9%)
$20,000 - 9 (6.8%)
Total Voters: 132

Pages: « 1 ... 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 20690 20691 20692 20693 20694 20695 20696 20697 20698 20699 ... 24247 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21229791 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. (66 posts by 16 users deleted.)
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1288


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.
1560992451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560992451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560992451
Reply with quote  #2

1560992451
Report to moderator
1560992451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560992451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560992451
Reply with quote  #2

1560992451
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1560992451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560992451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560992451
Reply with quote  #2

1560992451
Report to moderator
1560992451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560992451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560992451
Reply with quote  #2

1560992451
Report to moderator
1560992451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560992451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560992451
Reply with quote  #2

1560992451
Report to moderator
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1288


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: 1960
Merit: 1181



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: 1932
Merit: 1794


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


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
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1417



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: 1960
Merit: 1181



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
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1417



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: 1960
Merit: 1181



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
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1417



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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1717


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: 1960
Merit: 1181



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: 1932
Merit: 1794


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:46:37 PM
Merited by infofront (1), mindrust (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: 2422
Merit: 1288


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.
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1717


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:54:54 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.

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.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1288


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:55:51 PM

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.

Quote
Roger created  the real bitcoin

Interesting assertion.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1794


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 08:57:39 PM

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960
Merit: 1181



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 09:00:12 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.

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 596



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 09:21:48 PM
Merited by infofront (1), Last of the V8s (1)

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1615


My hat is in storage. https://ibb.co/YLkPgXb


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 09:22:15 PM
Last edit: June 19, 2018, 10:36:07 PM by bones261
Merited by bitserve (1)

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.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 20690 20691 20692 20693 20694 20695 20696 20697 20698 20699 ... 24247 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!