Bitcoin Forum
September 28, 2020, 10:16:29 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Will bitcoin ever go below $10K again in your lifetime?
Yes - 9 (42.9%)
No - 12 (57.1%)
Total Voters: 21

Pages: « 1 ... 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 20731 20732 20733 ... 27307 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 22633982 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. (148 posts by 37 users deleted.)
HairyMaclairy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1962


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 12:20:46 AM

If you mean Potts Point and Toorak then yes.  There’s still an ass load of koalas round my part of town.
1601288189
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1601288189

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1601288189
Reply with quote  #2

1601288189
Report to moderator
1601288189
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1601288189

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1601288189
Reply with quote  #2

1601288189
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1601288189
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1601288189

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1601288189
Reply with quote  #2

1601288189
Report to moderator
1601288189
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1601288189

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1601288189
Reply with quote  #2

1601288189
Report to moderator
1601288189
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1601288189

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1601288189
Reply with quote  #2

1601288189
Report to moderator
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2394
Merit: 3275


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 12:42:27 AM

Whats wrong with conspiracy?  Some things should absolutely be questioned until the truth is in a majority consensus.

I suppose.

Never say never, but does anyone really believe that segwit is going to get reversed due to lack of support?

I doubt it.

In the meantime, a variety of FUDsters will continue to denigrate segwit, and seem to cause even smart peeps to fail/refuse to use segwit features (and addresses) which will continue to carry out the intended behaviors preferred by the FUDsters - largely what seems to be a delay the inevitable, which is greater and greater segwit adoption.

Perhaps instead of having high levels (such as greater than 2/3) of segwit adoption in 2 years, it will take more than 4 or 5 years?  If they are successful in the FUD spreading, then I suppose it could take a while to get to majority and even convincingly majority status with segwit adoption, perhaps?

I've been thinking about that anunymint guys idea. Have we seen it play out before, on the etherium blockchain?

He reckons that miners at some point will mine segwit coins to themselves as a 'donation' because (AnyoneCanSpend) in the (original bitcoin) protocol allows it to happen. This will trigger a fork in which the core supported chain would roll back to reverse that theft by miners.


No, it won't roll back. Any block which includes any "steal" of Segwit "anyonecanspend" addresses would simply be rejected/orphaned by the nodes and miners supporting the consensus rules, that is what would automatically make the attackers be left in a new fork (no matter if they are 1% of hashrate or 99% at the moment of the attack).

Then, depending on how much hashrate they represent, would try to claim it is the legitimate chain and try to convince exchanges and other major players (currently running nodes with the consensus rules and with lots of money and credibility on stake) to switch to their chain by changing the software they are currently running to rollback and accept those invalid blocks or directly switch to the rogue chain.

P.S.: It should be noted that at the very moment those exchanges switch to the attackers fork they would be automatically bankrupt. So try to guess what is the probability of that to happen....

It sounds pretty drastic, and likely to happen.  new chain is going to be legacy only... fuck segwit!!!!!!!!!

Everyone abandon all segwit addresses, and revert to the safety of legacy.   Go legacy go.....  That way the trolls get their way while we extensively and completely prepare for an event that is about .00001% to happen.
HairyMaclairy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1962


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 12:50:06 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.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2394
Merit: 3275


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 12:56:48 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.

Also referred to as a snowball's chance in hell, no?



In theory, might sound plausible, but in practice, not so much.
vapourminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 1617

what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 01:00:21 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. 

the fork that results is basically nothing more than using only legacy address format coins (because they  have the on chain signatures that can prove ownership) on the current chain. you cant steal coins that follow the same rules that the fork have.
HairyMaclairy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1962


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 01:04:44 AM
Merited by Anon136 (1)

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.
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
vapourminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 1617

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: 1218
Merit: 1962


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: 2156
Merit: 2119


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: 1890
Merit: 2538


no FOMO


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: 2156
Merit: 2119


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 1329

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: 1218
Merit: 1962


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: 1218
Merit: 1962


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: 2394
Merit: 3275


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


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: 3206
Merit: 1736


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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 20731 20732 20733 ... 27307 »
  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!