Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2019, 05:15:42 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Closing BTC Price June 28:
$0 - 5 (3%)
<$7,000 - 4 (2.4%)
$7,000-$7,499 - 0 (0%)
$7,500-$7,999 - 0 (0%)
$8,000-$8,499 - 1 (0.6%)
$8,500-$8,999 - 3 (1.8%)
$9,000-$9,499 - 4 (2.4%)
$9,500-$9,999 - 27 (16.3%)
$10,000-$10,499 - 24 (14.5%)
$10,500-10,999 - 12 (7.2%)
$11,000-$11,499 - 14 (8.4%)
$11,500-$12,000 - 15 (9%)
>$12,000 - 44 (26.5%)
>$20,000 - 13 (7.8%)
Total Voters: 166

Pages: « 1 ... 20713 20714 20715 20716 20717 20718 20719 20720 20721 20722 20723 20724 20725 20726 20727 20728 20729 20730 20731 20732 20733 20734 20735 20736 20737 20738 20739 20740 20741 20742 20743 20744 20745 20746 20747 20748 20749 20750 20751 20752 20753 20754 20755 20756 20757 20758 20759 20760 20761 20762 [20763] 20764 20765 20766 20767 20768 20769 20770 20771 20772 20773 20774 20775 20776 20777 20778 20779 20780 20781 20782 20783 20784 20785 20786 20787 20788 20789 20790 20791 20792 20793 20794 20795 20796 20797 20798 20799 20800 20801 20802 20803 20804 20805 20806 20807 20808 20809 20810 20811 20812 20813 ... 24350 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21245935 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.)
infofront
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1738


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.
NEW GAME FORMAT
JACKPOT UP TO $50000+
Guess The Symbols Of a Real Ethereum Hash
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1561569342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561569342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561569342
Reply with quote  #2

1561569342
Report to moderator
1561569342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561569342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561569342
Reply with quote  #2

1561569342
Report to moderator
1561569342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561569342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561569342
Reply with quote  #2

1561569342
Report to moderator
jojo69
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1778


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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1738


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: 2128
Merit: 1127


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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1410


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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1619


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


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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1410


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
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1815


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: 2800
Merit: 1384


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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1410


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


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

An address from 2012 ?
jojo69
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1778


no FOMO


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

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

Activity: 1951
Merit: 1362



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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1619


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


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: 2030
Merit: 1212


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
jbreher
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1293


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 04:55:27 AM

Segwit transactions are valid under the old rules.

Yes, for some value of 'valid'. As but one example...

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

...but it would not take any fork to interpret segwit txs as anyonecanspend.
jojo69
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1778


no FOMO


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 05:01:29 AM
Last edit: July 03, 2018, 05:19:06 AM by jojo69

LTC and ETH bubbling up relative to BTC

I have been watching these ratios for a while with my ladders, in the past this has often been an indicator for coming strength in BTC.

HairyMaclairy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1410


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 05:05:23 AM
Last edit: July 03, 2018, 06:14:51 AM by HairyMaclairy

Segwit transactions are valid under the old rules.

Yes, for some value of 'valid'. As but one example...

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

...but it would not take any fork for legacy software to interpret segwit txs as anyonecanspend which any attempt to spend would immediately be rejected by full nodes as a hard fork.



FTFY

Of course the concern you raise would be valid in the BCH context where there are no full nodes to patrol the actions of the miners.  

As Roger loves to say, full nodes only get in the way. Darn tooting they get in the way of fraudulent miners.
Pages: « 1 ... 20713 20714 20715 20716 20717 20718 20719 20720 20721 20722 20723 20724 20725 20726 20727 20728 20729 20730 20731 20732 20733 20734 20735 20736 20737 20738 20739 20740 20741 20742 20743 20744 20745 20746 20747 20748 20749 20750 20751 20752 20753 20754 20755 20756 20757 20758 20759 20760 20761 20762 [20763] 20764 20765 20766 20767 20768 20769 20770 20771 20772 20773 20774 20775 20776 20777 20778 20779 20780 20781 20782 20783 20784 20785 20786 20787 20788 20789 20790 20791 20792 20793 20794 20795 20796 20797 20798 20799 20800 20801 20802 20803 20804 20805 20806 20807 20808 20809 20810 20811 20812 20813 ... 24350 »
  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!