Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[jbreher]

Btw imagine bch or bsv having a 51% attack while their communities have preached that hashrate is all that matters.

I don't see what you are getting at. Doing such would seem to validate the hypothesis.

[1714207497]

1714207497

[1714207497]

1714207497

[jbreher]

Decision is fully yours. Own it.

Hows that working out for you bear? 

So far? Suboptimal. Yet in this moment, I am serene.

Owning it?

Yup. Fully. What's it to you? Was that supposed to sting or something?

...bubye

Umm... you leaving?

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Decision is fully yours. Own it.

Hows that working out for you bear?  Owning it?

k thanks and now gtfo with your big blocker bullshit...bubye

https://i.imgur.com/winWljK.jpg

If history is anything to go by then we know that today's prices are irrelevant. Just look at Amazon crashing into the ground and now being the most valuable company in the world.

Not saying BSV will get anywhere, but still. Non-argument.

[bitserve]

Btw imagine bch or bsv having a 51% attack while their communities have preached that hashrate is all that matters.

I don't see what you are getting at. Doing such would seem to validate the hypothesis.

Makes sense.

I got a question for you... if Bitcoin increased its blocksize so that PEAK usage would be under 80% capacity... would you reconsider your current preference of BSV over Bitcoin or would you still be insisting in BSV to be a better choice because of... donno... "way bigger" blocks and no segwit/LN support?

[jbreher]

BTC 8 tps
BCH 80 tps
BSV 800 tps

There are shitcoins with over 10k tps. Should we dump BSV for them?

Not traceable to the satoshi genesis? Such would be unwise. YMMV.

[ðºÞæ]

TBH a bad actor could easily inflate bsv to 6.7 terabyte a year

..... to scale and test Bitcoin beyond gigabyte and eventually to terabyte blocks. Unlimited blocks are coming.

Terabyte vs Floppy disc sized blocks.   I remember the days of the new game spread over 10 1.44mb floppy's, horrible things.

[Last of the V8s]

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/the-sec-has-suspended-trading-in-crypto-securities-for-bitcoin-generation-exchange-201904291750

never heard of this place

[jbreher]

Btw imagine bch or bsv having a 51% attack while their communities have preached that hashrate is all that matters.

I don't see what you are getting at. Doing such would seem to validate the hypothesis.

Makes sense.

I got a question for you... if Bitcoin increased its blocksize so that PEAK usage would be under 80% capacity... would you reconsider your current preference of BSV over Bitcoin or would you still be insisting in BSV to be a better choice because of... donno... "way bigger" blocks and no segwit/LN support?

Hmm. Lot of dependencies. It would certainly make the situation vastly improved in my mind. Peak under 80% capacity would eliminate the persistently-full block state - so that's goodness. But how would this sliding block cap be regulated? Who has their hands on the lever? How realistic will it remain to deal only in coins that have never been through a SegWit address?

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

BTC will not be able to increase the block size because in this case it will have to cancel the Seqwit

Just how fucking retarded are you ?

Given the amount of poorly written copy/paste talking points. Extremely.

[Toxic2040]

Decision is fully yours. Own it.

Hows that working out for you bear?  

So far? Suboptimal. Yet in this moment, I am serene.

Owning it?

Yup. Fully. What's it to you? Was that supposed to sting or something?

...bubye

Umm... you leaving?

Yes.

No.

----

If history is anything to go by then we know that today's prices are irrelevant. Just look at Amazon crashing into the ground and now being the most valuable company in the world.

Not saying BSV will get anywhere, but still. Non-argument.

Whilst I appreciate loyalty, there is no argument. The market decided a long time ago. Some people just have failed to realize it. I was stating what I believe are facts. #dyor



3h


3h

#stronghands

[jbreher]

Btw imagine bch or bsv having a 51% attack while their communities have preached that hashrate is all that matters.

I don't see what you are getting at. Doing such would seem to validate the hypothesis.

You really believe the bch or bsv community wouldn't throw fits during a 51% attack instead of saying well that just means we didn't have enough hash?

A 51% 'attack' is merely evidence that 'the community' did not realize that the actual community was a group other than that which they assumed.

Btw what coin would you follow if they both did forks and revert the 51% attacks ?

I'm not sure I understand your question - care to rephrase?

I in no way can see you standing for a reversal of transactions.

At the risk of repeating myself: chain reorgs do not reverse transactions.

[jbreher]

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/the-sec-has-suspended-trading-in-crypto-securities-for-bitcoin-generation-exchange-201904291750

never heard of this place

Neither.

United States financial regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken action and forced a temporary suspension of trading in the securities of crypto exchange Bitcoin Generation

Almost sounds of if they are suspending trading of the securities that represent ownership in 'Bitcoin Generation' as an entity to itself.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

If history is anything to go by then we know that today's prices are irrelevant. Just look at Amazon crashing into the ground and now being the most valuable company in the world.

Not saying BSV will get anywhere, but still. Non-argument.

Whilst I appreciate loyalty, there is no argument. The market decided a long time ago. Some people just have failed to realize it. I was stating what I believe are facts. #dyor

Facts are only such after the fact, and in this case history has yet to unfold.

The market isn't even at the size of a wet fart today. Things can change very quickly as the world on-boards.

I still don't think BSV will pull ahead, but the race certainly isn't over. I mean Trump is president and people are being publicly apologetic to the sexualization of children. We don't live in a rational world.

[jbreher]

Was that supposed to sting or something?

Yes.

Too bad, so sad. Your intent to kick another when 'down' was ineffectual.

[bitserve]

Btw imagine bch or bsv having a 51% attack while their communities have preached that hashrate is all that matters.

I don't see what you are getting at. Doing such would seem to validate the hypothesis.

Makes sense.

I got a question for you... if Bitcoin increased its blocksize so that PEAK usage would be under 80% capacity... would you reconsider your current preference of BSV over Bitcoin or would you still be insisting in BSV to be a better choice because of... donno... "way bigger" blocks and no segwit/LN support?

Hmm. Lot of dependencies. It would certainly make the situation vastly improved in my mind. Peak under 80% capacity would eliminate the persistently-full block state - so that's goodness. But how would this sliding block cap be regulated? Who has their hands on the lever? How realistic will it remain to deal only in coins that have never been through a SegWit address?

It doesnt matter how... I mean, it does.. but as an hypotesys lets just assume BY ANY MEAN which could just be a moderate block size increase (ie: double) combined with other things like increase of LN usage, etc....

You could keep using your legacy non-segwit coins BUT... I guess you would have some problem forcing other people to send you coins that fulfill your "full legacy trace" requirement. In fact you probably already have that problem, don't you?

[jbreher]

Btw imagine bch or bsv having a 51% attack while their communities have preached that hashrate is all that matters.

I don't see what you are getting at. Doing such would seem to validate the hypothesis.

You really believe the bch or bsv community wouldn't throw fits during a 51% attack instead of saying well that just means we didn't have enough hash?

A 51% 'attack' is merely evidence that 'the community' did not realize that the actual community was a group other than that which they assumed.

Btw what coin would you follow if they both did forks and revert the 51% attacks ?

I'm not sure I understand your question - care to rephrase?

I in no way can see you standing for a reversal of transactions.

At the risk of repeating myself: chain reorgs do not reverse transactions.

I'm saying that if there is a successful 51% attack and the community decides to do a fork at the time before the transactions, where would you stand?

Well, that could depend upon any number of collateral situations. But my initial knee-jerk reaction would be to follow the chain with the preponderance of hash rate. How do you discern a 51% 'attack' as opposed to all situations normal?

[Toxic2040]

If history is anything to go by then we know that today's prices are irrelevant. Just look at Amazon crashing into the ground and now being the most valuable company in the world.

Not saying BSV will get anywhere, but still. Non-argument.

Whilst I appreciate loyalty, there is no argument. The market decided a long time ago. Some people just have failed to realize it. I was stating what I believe are facts. #dyor

Facts are only such after the fact, and in this case history has yet to unfold.

The market isn't even at the size of a wet fart today. Things can change very quickly as the world on-boards.

I still don't think BSV will pull ahead, but the race certainly isn't over. I mean Trump is president and people are being publicly apologetic to the sexualization of children. We don't live in a rational world.

These two points I will publicly agree with you on...but I'm warning you mister..I have my limits.   

Was that supposed to sting or something?

Yes.

Too bad, so sad. Your intent to kick another when 'down' was ineffectual.

bubble burst...will try harder next time.   


Now quit spamming my spam.

[vapourminer]

a race to the bottom?

No. A race to the top.

i think we are referring to the same thing just from opposite directions. iow as it costs more and more to maintain a node, those with proportionally less incentive will drop out.

if this is what you mean, then when does it stop. ultimately there will be only a few nodes that can afford to run bsv, and everyone just trusts those nodes? sounds like central banking to me.

is there any upper limit? i am genuinely curious.

Well, there's currently an upper limit that is not too atrocious. The story for the future is no upper limit.

Implicit in your question would seem to be the philosophy that the system should be limited in order to allow those with no skin in the game to be first-class citizens. Why do you believe this to be appropriate?

You would think that those that abdicated the mining to those willing to take the risk would have learned this lesson already.

3rd class is good enough for me. i just want the capability to, if needed, occasionally fully validate the blockchain on something that most people could reasonably afford, even if its just to transfer value in or out of the system occasionally. such as an aws instance or something that could validate the chain in a reasonable amount of time as opposed to realtime. that someone could run a few times a year as needed just to make sure the current chain is valid and is trustworthy enough to send/receive a tx... at least at that point.

with bsv it seems it would ultimately wind up with only one manufacturer/company running its own "pool" that has a enormous percentage of the hash would have the incentive to run a node.. with means that manufacturer/company/pool effectively controls the chain.

[jbreher]

You could keep using your legacy non-segwit coins BUT... I guess you would have some problem forcing other people to send you coins that fulfill your "full legacy trace" requirement. In fact you probably already have that problem, don't you?

Not at all. To a first order approximation (i.e., the overwhelming majority), I have no reason to move BTC in or out. But for those coins that I do move: If someone wants me to pay to their SegWit address, that's no skin off my nose; For inbound, I provide a legacy address to pay to. Easy peasy.

[alevlaslo]

Bitcoin increases blocksize and shows it was indeed needing to have larger blocks (which then are filled with nonsense and can push nodes off)

Larger blocks are inanimate. Regardless of size, blocks do not have the power to 'push (so-called) nodes off' of anything. Bitcoin does not owe you a position in its network. Either expend the resources required, or drop to the side in your inability to keep up. Decision is fully yours. Own it.

BTC will not be able to increase the block size because in this case it will have to cancel the Seqwit, which will not allow the signed transactions from Satoshi's wallets to work in January 2020

I think you are mistaken. I know of no technical limitation that makes SegWit incompatible with a future block size increase.

what meaning in seqwit if the block will increased?