Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2021, 03:49:43 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 (37.1%)
No - 73 (62.9%)
Total Voters: 116

Pages: « 1 ... 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 20700 20701 20702 20703 20704 20705 20706 20707 20708 20709 20710 20711 20712 20713 20714 20715 20716 20717 20718 20719 20720 20721 20722 20723 20724 20725 20726 20727 20728 20729 20730 ... 29950 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25496173 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.)
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 01:07:50 AM

hacker monks to save bitcoin from itself

Amir Taaki

Now he's back, with radical plans for bitcoin – and the states of Western Europe


seems like nearly everyone forgot what bitcoin was about
1638762583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638762583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638762583
Reply with quote  #2

1638762583
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1638762583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638762583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638762583
Reply with quote  #2

1638762583
Report to moderator
1638762583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638762583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638762583
Reply with quote  #2

1638762583
Report to moderator
vapourminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3444
Merit: 2121


what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 01:29:57 AM
Last edit: July 03, 2018, 01:43:37 AM by vapourminer

It’s still a hard fork which would be opposed by the vast majority of economic weight and users.   Go ahead and make your Bitcoin Plus Plus or whatever you want to call it. No one cares.

That’s why Bitcoin relies on consensus.  USAF taught us that miners don’t mean shit in Bitcoin.

i would rather rely on math that includes the signature information that proves the coins are mine on chain.

consensus can be a fickle beast, and what power wants and what the current consensus wants may differ in the future. there is a lot of money thats sitting in segwit. i do not want to underestimate the greed and power focused on that.

if/when this attack happens core will remain core with its segwit coins intact and the fork will be the fork, whatever name it chooses. my current legacy coins will remain safe on both. i dont care what the odds are of the fork becoming dominant are as its non zero, and i do not want my btc to be at non zero risk.

as always the choice is the users. this information exists, its up to the user to evaluate it for its risk to their wealth.
HairyMaclairy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 2174


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 01:55:17 AM
Last edit: July 03, 2018, 02:05:49 AM by HairyMaclairy

Segwit signatures are still on chain they are just in a different spot.  Segwit moves the signature out of the input script and stores it in another part of the transaction on chain.

Speculating about future hard forks that might compromise Bitcoin security is pointless because any hard fork could compromise security in any number of ways.  And be rejected.  That’s what full nodes are for.  
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 2431


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 02:02:18 AM

OK GIVE ME SOME MERIT  Wink
no one has any
maybe buy copper membership so we don't have to click newbie links

I mean, it's a sexually transmitted disease. Should be fine to eat.

I know a thing or two about eating STD riddled
ah nevermind

I saw a nature show with Koalas mating. The male Koala brutally raped the female. He bit her neck so hard she was bleeding. God save the queen.
jojo69
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 3015


1/21000000 , the only math you need to know


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 02:08:10 AM
Merited by Ibian (1)


I saw a nature show with Koalas mating. The male Koala brutally raped the female. He bit her neck so hard she was bleeding. God save the queen.

pro tip

do NOT google duck sex
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 2431


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 02:23:19 AM


I saw a nature show with Koalas mating. The male Koala brutally raped the female. He bit her neck so hard she was bleeding. God save the queen.

pro tip

do NOT google duck sex

Eww  Embarrassed
Searing
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2842
Merit: 1429


Clueless!


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 02:36:34 AM

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard-fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well. 

This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.

yeah, and IF I was the bitcoin core devs and I decided to do a 'hard fork' for whatever legit reason...I'd also to a hard fork

to block size as long as I was at it. Thus, with that and seg wit and lighting, BCH would not have a leg to stand on...


(Bitcoin Core Devs: Hint, Hint: 'what the heck, folk have broken promises for less...go for it')

(again, snowball's chance in hell, but maybe they will bring an 'igloo cooler'?)

brad


HairyMaclairy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 2174


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 02:39:02 AM
Merited by Rosewater Foundation (1)

Blocksize is a security parameter.

Go look at the sharding clusterfuck at ETH if you want to see where decentralised block size increases leads you.  
bones261
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1823



View Profile
July 03, 2018, 02:54:58 AM

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well. 

This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.

The chain committing the "theft" could not be considered a hard or a soft fork since it it would be implemented by a miner running a node with an older version of Bitcoin. The older software will simply be following the same old rules that it understands. In order to be considered a fork, rules need to be changed. In this case, if the chain were to truly split because all the nodes could not reach an agreement, the chain that would be considered "forking off" would be the chain following the Segwit chain. After all, Segwit is considered a "soft fork." Please note that I am not convinced that both these chains could survive for long, simutaneously. Either one or the other is going to be orphaned off.
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
July 03, 2018, 02:58:46 AM

And thus was sanity restored to the WO thread. But for how long?
HairyMaclairy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 2174


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 02:59:14 AM
Merited by Rosewater Foundation (1)

Incorrect.

Segwit was a soft fork.

Segwit transactions are valid under the old rules.

It would take a hard fork to make Segwit transactions invalid.  

That doesn’t stop a miner from blacklisting Segwit addresses.  But they can blacklist anything they like now, that’s got nothing to do with Segwit.  They  can also blacklist legacy addresses or can mine completely empty blocks should they choose.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2828
Merit: 5175


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on Bitcoin


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 03:01:43 AM

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well.  

This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.

The chain committing the "theft" could not be considered a hard or a soft fork since it it would be implemented by a miner running a node with an older version of Bitcoin. The older software will simply be following the same old rules that it understands. In order to be considered a fork, rules need to be changed. In this case, if the chain were to truly split because all the nodes could not reach an agreement, the chain that would be considered "forking off" would be the chain following the Segwit chain. After all, Segwit is considered a "soft fork." Please note that I am not convinced that both these chains could survive for long, simutaneously. Either one or the other is going to be orphaned off.

I thought that we already did some variation of this in August 2017?    There were various decisions to move forward with segwit that involved threats to get left behind and required at least 95% to follow.. then the new rule set was locked in.  If there is a desire to go back to some old rules, then there is a need for more than 51%.. and more likely to be something like 95%, but of course the consensus rules could be changed.  Alternatively, if there is a suspected threat, then could there be rule sets that address the threat?  

I recall some kind of BIP that went into place that pretty much kicked some nodes off the network if they were running certain kinds of attack software.. wasn't it the nodes that signalling support for segwit2x or some other behavior that was no longer be allowed, and had like a 1 year period before it would become strictly implemented?

I think part of my point is that if there certain suspected security problems, such as deviant minority nodes (miners) then there could be ways for the network to discontinue to recognize them by rules that are agreed to by the vast majority. and even if that is not a hardfork, exactly, the effects are nearly the same as a hardfork.
babanana
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 120
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 03:08:45 AM

Incorrect.

Segwit was a soft fork.

Segwit transactions are valid under the old rules.

It would take a hard fork to make Segwit transactions invalid.  

That doesn’t stop a miner from blacklisting Segwit addresses.  But they can blacklist anything they like now, that’s got nothing to do with Segwit.  They  can also blacklist legacy addresses or can mine completely empty blocks should they choose.

Empty blocks, blacklisting addresses. This looks utterly familiar.
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3570
Merit: 2376


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2018, 03:10:50 AM

I can't stand it any more, living in secrecy.

I am Satoshi Nakamoto.

Here is proof. The alert key.

mainnet public key:
04fc9702847840aaf195de8442ebecedf5b095cdbb9bc716bda9110971b28a49e0ead8564ff0db2 2209e0374782c093bb899692d524e9d6a6956e7c5ecbcd68284

mainnet private key:
30820113020101042053cdc1e0cfac07f7e1c312768886f4635f6bceebec0887f63a9d37a26a92e 6b6a081a53081a2020101302c06072a8648ce3d0101022100ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff fffffffffffffffffffffffffefffffc2f300604010004010704410479be667ef9dcbbac55a0629 5ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798483ada7726a3c4655da4fbfc0e1108a8fd17b4 48a68554199c47d08ffb10d4b8022100fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffebaaedce6af48a03 bbfd25e8cd0364141020101a14403420004fc9702847840aaf195de8442ebecedf5b095cdbb9bc7 16bda9110971b28a49e0ead8564ff0db22209e0374782c093bb899692d524e9d6a6956e7c5ecbcd 68284
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 03:16:29 AM



The blockchain is to be hidden, plain and simple

Too many secrets

https://twitter.com/joonian/status/1013337871791673344

These digital bank robbers stole $1.2 billion from 2013-2018 and laundered a lot of it through bitcoin. How much impact did this have on the bitcoin price?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/the-biggest-digital-heist-in-history-isn-t-over-yet
HairyMaclairy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 2174


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 03:16:43 AM

An address from 2012 ?
jojo69
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 3015


1/21000000 , the only math you need to know


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 03:24:16 AM

well, I'm glad that's settled
Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 2696



View Profile
July 03, 2018, 03:54:11 AM

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well. 

This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.

Anyone can spend Segwit coins argument originated from the BU era. Bcash'ers are former BU supporters.

Just rehashed old FUD. Unfortunately some people falling straight into that trap.
bones261
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1823



View Profile
July 03, 2018, 04:09:28 AM
Last edit: July 03, 2018, 04:47:26 AM by bones261

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well.  

This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.

The chain committing the "theft" could not be considered a hard or a soft fork since it it would be implemented by a miner running a node with an older version of Bitcoin. The older software will simply be following the same old rules that it understands. In order to be considered a fork, rules need to be changed. In this case, if the chain were to truly split because all the nodes could not reach an agreement, the chain that would be considered "forking off" would be the chain following the Segwit chain. After all, Segwit is considered a "soft fork." Please note that I am not convinced that both these chains could survive for long, simutaneously. Either one or the other is going to be orphaned off.

I thought that we already did some variation of this in August 2017?    There were various decisions to move forward with segwit that involved threats to get left behind and required at least 95% to follow.. then the new rule set was locked in.  If there is a desire to go back to some old rules, then there is a need for more than 51%.. and more likely to be something like 95%, but of course the consensus rules could be changed.  Alternatively, if there is a suspected threat, then could there be rule sets that address the threat?  

I recall some kind of BIP that went into place that pretty much kicked some nodes off the network if they were running certain kinds of attack software.. wasn't it the nodes that signalling support for segwit2x or some other behavior that was no longer be allowed, and had like a 1 year period before it would become strictly implemented?

I think part of my point is that if there certain suspected security problems, such as deviant minority nodes (miners) then there could be ways for the network to discontinue to recognize them by rules that are agreed to by the vast majority. and even if that is not a hardfork, exactly, the effects are nearly the same as a hardfork.

In this hypothetical case, the "attack" nodes would be previous versions of core software. If this attack is indeed viable, and Bitcoin Core wanted to protect the Segwit consensus chain, they would need to implement a hard fork. It would be considered a hard fork because the new rules could not be made to be compatible with previous versions of Bitcoin Core. Now we all know that Bitcoin Core's philosophy is to not implement a hard fork unless it is the most dire of emergencies. My guess in such a situation, Bitcoin Core is just going to let the best chain win. Honey badger don't give a shit.  Cheesy
Edit: Actually, Bitcoin had a problem with the chain reaching consensus for months after implementing BIP 16. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Pay_to_script_hash They just waited until all of the miners finally got on the same page, by all of them updating to the correct software.
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 2476


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 04:42:26 AM

I just don't get why peops link pdf files here.
Make sure you know what your doing when opening them, they can contain executables.
Maybe the pdf that was linked contained no exe?
Additionally, I suppose people reading these pages would know what to do when the system asks them if it's OK to execute stuff they just downloaded without knowing.

(No flame intended.)

More the point, their opsec is good enough that it doesn’t matter if the computer they use to browse the web is compromised.

The point I was making is if you did not already know this then you do now. BTW d_eddie, "maybe" your system is now compromised is a bad way to learn opsec. Wink




This deserves a repost.

There is nothing worse than a warm gin and tonic.

Funny you mentioned it, I just had a T&T. Smiley
Pages: « 1 ... 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 20700 20701 20702 20703 20704 20705 20706 20707 20708 20709 20710 20711 20712 20713 20714 20715 20716 20717 20718 20719 20720 20721 20722 20723 20724 20725 20726 20727 20728 20729 20730 ... 29950 »
  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!