Bitcoin Forum
July 27, 2021, 04:46:37 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Which price is bitcoin going to reach first? (credits to Jay)
$25K - 55 (35.5%)
$50K - 100 (64.5%)
Total Voters: 155

Pages: « 1 ... 22584 22585 22586 22587 22588 22589 22590 22591 22592 22593 22594 22595 22596 22597 22598 22599 22600 22601 22602 22603 22604 22605 22606 22607 22608 22609 22610 22611 22612 22613 22614 22615 22616 22617 22618 22619 22620 22621 22622 22623 22624 22625 22626 22627 22628 22629 22630 22631 22632 22633 [22634] 22635 22636 22637 22638 22639 22640 22641 22642 22643 22644 22645 22646 22647 22648 22649 22650 22651 22652 22653 22654 22655 22656 22657 22658 22659 22660 22661 22662 22663 22664 22665 22666 22667 22668 22669 22670 22671 22672 22673 22674 22675 22676 22677 22678 22679 22680 22681 22682 22683 22684 ... 29214 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25371702 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. (157 posts by 13 users deleted.)
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 4345


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on bitcoin


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 12:28:20 AM
Last edit: February 12, 2019, 12:45:24 AM by JayJuanGee

You still have to download and verify the blockchain first before you prune it.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Well, I don't know the current situation, but some years ago, gmax stated that core no longer verifies back to the genesis block, relying instead upon a centralized checkpoint as 'good enough'. Still downloaded, just not verified. Weird.

I'm sure that there is more to the gmax description of the bitcoin blocks verification situation than your summary is suggesting, jbreher.



You still have to download and verify the blockchain first before you prune it.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Well, I don't know the current situation, but some years ago, gmax stated that core no longer verifies back to the genesis block, relying instead upon a centralized checkpoint as 'good enough'. Still downloaded, just not verified. Weird.

FUD unless properly sourced.


What the guy above me (Hairy) said.

     Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
1627404397
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627404397

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627404397
Reply with quote  #2

1627404397
Report to moderator
1627404397
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627404397

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627404397
Reply with quote  #2

1627404397
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1627404397
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627404397

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627404397
Reply with quote  #2

1627404397
Report to moderator
1627404397
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627404397

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627404397
Reply with quote  #2

1627404397
Report to moderator
ivomm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1422
Merit: 1303


All good things to those who wait


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 12:31:39 AM

Game over man..support level broken..back to the bear channel we go.


Or not. I wouldn't call it even a half or 1/4 bart haircut yet  Grin Grin Grin The 3600$ support of Bitfinex is a pain in the ass for the n00bs on bearstamp  Wink The 3700$ resistance is weakened now.
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1258



View Profile
February 12, 2019, 12:32:15 AM

https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1095108667764953088
The chance of a soft-fork to a lower bitcoin blocksize has effectively a zero chance of reaching consensus. However, the chance that the FUD about it blowing up and generating a bunch of negative press is near a 100%. Can we please just stop this and focus on what is important!

rather good thread emerging
100% correct let's STFU about it and ignore such foolish things.
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1258



View Profile
February 12, 2019, 12:33:14 AM

Game over man..support level broken..back to the bear channel we go.


Or not. I wouldn't call it even a half or 1/4 bart haircut yet  Grin Grin Grin The 3600$ support of Bitfinex is a pain in the ass for the n00bs on bearstamp  Wink The 3700$ resistance is weakened now.
Yeah this isn't that huge spike down, we're okay.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 4345


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on bitcoin


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 12:38:31 AM


 Hey, he's a milliner's apprentice so you should cut him some slack.  Tongue

He sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!


Woops,  I was intending to be nice to V8...

Dig Bicks
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 348
Merit: 21


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 12:41:44 AM

Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4386


Be a bank


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 12:44:06 AM
Merited by smartcomet (1)

https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-part-2-over-the-wall-and-into-the-fire-5e8efc5c1509
should maybe try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZncAvDqB2Q https://librepatron.com/
doubting http://pizarroisp.net/ would take her but idk
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 4345


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on bitcoin


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 12:44:06 AM

https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1095108667764953088
The chance of a soft-fork to a lower bitcoin blocksize has effectively a zero chance of reaching consensus. However, the chance that the FUD about it blowing up and generating a bunch of negative press is near a 100%. Can we please just stop this and focus on what is important!

rather good thread emerging

Is there evidence that such attempts to build consensus around the topic of reducing the blocksize is contentious?  At this point there is a proposal and maybe some lobbying around the idea.   If it is not likely to happen, then who cares, it is just a discussion point, currently, right?
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1283


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 12:57:43 AM

https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1095108667764953088
The chance of a soft-fork to a lower bitcoin blocksize has effectively a zero chance of reaching consensus. However, the chance that the FUD about it blowing up and generating a bunch of negative press is near a 100%. Can we please just stop this and focus on what is important!

rather good thread emerging

Is there evidence that such attempts to build consensus around the topic of reducing the blocksize is contentious?  At this point there is a proposal and maybe some lobbying around the idea.   If it is not likely to happen, then who cares, it is just a discussion point, currently, right?

Can we just consider it some kind on demented trolling and just move on?

Sideways, Sideways......
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4386


Be a bank


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 12:58:48 AM

You still have to download and verify the blockchain first before you prune it.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Well, I don't know the current situation, but some years ago, gmax stated that core no longer verifies back to the genesis block, relying instead upon a centralized checkpoint as 'good enough'. Still downloaded, just not verified. Weird.
I'm sure that there is more to the gmax description of the bitcoin blocks verification situation than your summary is suggesting, jbreher.
You still have to download and verify the blockchain first before you prune it.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Well, I don't know the current situation, but some years ago, gmax stated that core no longer verifies back to the genesis block, relying instead upon a centralized checkpoint as 'good enough'. Still downloaded, just not verified. Weird.
FUD unless properly sourced.
What the guy above me (Hairy) said.
     Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
I third the request for sauce

thought they'd done away with checkpoints.
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4386


Be a bank


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 01:14:17 AM

jojo did you mean this (from ages ago lol) ? about Shamir https://btcarmory.com/fragmented-backup-vuln/
found in this great https://medium.com/@lopp/satoshi-roundtable-v-recap-151dab7548bb
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 4345


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on bitcoin


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 01:22:19 AM

https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1095108667764953088
The chance of a soft-fork to a lower bitcoin blocksize has effectively a zero chance of reaching consensus. However, the chance that the FUD about it blowing up and generating a bunch of negative press is near a 100%. Can we please just stop this and focus on what is important!

rather good thread emerging

Is there evidence that such attempts to build consensus around the topic of reducing the blocksize is contentious?  At this point there is a proposal and maybe some lobbying around the idea.   If it is not likely to happen, then who cares, it is just a discussion point, currently, right?

Can we just consider it some kind on demented trolling and just move on?

Sideways, Sideways......

Do you really think about the topic as a kind of trolling?  It is not even hostile to the idea of bitcoin. 

I am having some troubles understand why members here, including a lot of Bitcoin maximalists, are getting worked-up over such a proposal that is genuinely NOT a bad idea. 

I still think that the idea of smaller blocks has a pretty low chance of gaining any kind of meaningful traction towards consensus, but there are good ideas and values contained in the concept of striving and looking into ways to make BTC's block propagation more efficient and more capable by the poor and more capable by folks with shitty internet or shitty data connections but are still able to download block information with few resources.  Makes it more future resilient too.

On the other hand, I can see how some BIG blockers might be hostile to the idea because it takes their stupid ass idea of BIG blocks in the other direction.. to show that the opposite of what they were whining about was actually the more empowering (fuck the man) direction that likely makes bitcoin even more powerful through its ingenious ways to become even more efficient (or at least to strive in that direction).
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4386


Be a bank


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 01:45:48 AM

ok in this thread https://twitter.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1094731496638873600

we learn that lukejr is proposing it as a trial https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1094760242611671040

https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1095015165953740814
To summarise:
 - New rules apply only to blocks between 2019 Aug 1 and 2019 Dec 31.
 - Weight is calculated with non-segwit signatures counting at 1 WU/byte (ie, the same as the "witness discount").
 - Blocks must have a weight less than 600kWU (equivalent to ~300kB).

and lots of other reassuring stuff and reasons and opinions back and forth
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4386


Be a bank


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 02:05:45 AM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

bakkt got pushed again till later in the year?
So it's a bit of a moonshot bet and it's been organized in a manner that is very different than the way ICE typically does businesses. Bakkt has its own offices, its own management team and et cetera. And then we've entered into agreements with it to provide services, as I've described over that Bakkt -- over that ICE overlay.

So we'll see how it goes. They're well along in building out an infrastructure that I think you'll see launch later this year. And I'll let Bakkt talk more about how it wants to go about an what the business and use cases are its revenue model, et cetera, as it unfolds.
everyone mentioned the 'moonshot' bit yesterday, but not the 'later this year'? idk
rebal15
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 527
Merit: 6


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 02:45:32 AM

Game over man..support level broken..back to the bear channel we go.

Way to much profit to be made everywhere and anywhere else besides bitcoin atm. Sorry folks..you have to keep suffering. Apparently there are still weak hands that need to be shaken out.

1h



D


This week BTC could test 4k$.
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
February 12, 2019, 03:11:35 AM

Amaury Sechet announced he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto with a hash on a twitter post but then deleted it.
https://www.ccn.com/amaury-sechet-bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto-faketoshi
A bitcoin crash developer? Seriously why would he create a cryptocurrency on overturning what bitcoin fundamentals were built on? Roll Eyes
Too much coke.
madnessteat
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1234



View Profile
February 12, 2019, 03:23:11 AM

Can I. Smiley

Awesome!  Wink
HairyMaclairy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 2174


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 03:32:57 AM
Merited by Biodom (1)

The moment Vinny Lingham backs it, you know it is a scam

infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 2315


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 04:00:13 AM

The moment Vinny Lingham backs it, you know it is a scam



It seems there are some big blockers supporting smaller blocks in the hopes of destroying bitcoin.
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 2315


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
February 12, 2019, 04:10:39 AM

... and LukeJr is calling for 300kb blocks ...

He is right. We've Lightning now and 300kb blocks is something more than logical!

Funny definition of 'logical'. With 300kB blocks, it would take on the order of a half of a millennium in order to onboard the world to LN.

How long do you expect each channel to lock funds via HTLC?


So, more importantly, how was PR?
Pages: « 1 ... 22584 22585 22586 22587 22588 22589 22590 22591 22592 22593 22594 22595 22596 22597 22598 22599 22600 22601 22602 22603 22604 22605 22606 22607 22608 22609 22610 22611 22612 22613 22614 22615 22616 22617 22618 22619 22620 22621 22622 22623 22624 22625 22626 22627 22628 22629 22630 22631 22632 22633 [22634] 22635 22636 22637 22638 22639 22640 22641 22642 22643 22644 22645 22646 22647 22648 22649 22650 22651 22652 22653 22654 22655 22656 22657 22658 22659 22660 22661 22662 22663 22664 22665 22666 22667 22668 22669 22670 22671 22672 22673 22674 22675 22676 22677 22678 22679 22680 22681 22682 22683 22684 ... 29214 »
  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!