Bitcoin Forum
February 27, 2024, 02:07:50 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Nov. 18 closing price:
<$35,000 - 4 (9.1%)
$35,000-$35,500 - 1 (2.3%)
$35,500-$36,000 - 4 (9.1%)
$36,000-$36,500 - 4 (9.1%)
$36,500-$37,000 - 4 (9.1%)
$37,000-$37,500 - 3 (6.8%)
$37,500-$38,000 - 4 (9.1%)
$38,000-$38,500 - 5 (11.4%)
$38,500-$39,000 - 2 (4.5%)
$39,000-$39,500 - 1 (2.3%)
$39,500-$40,000 - 0 (0%)
>$40,000 - 12 (27.3%)
Total Voters: 44

Pages: « 1 ... 23380 23381 23382 23383 23384 23385 23386 23387 23388 23389 23390 23391 23392 23393 23394 23395 23396 23397 23398 23399 23400 23401 23402 23403 23404 23405 23406 23407 23408 23409 23410 23411 23412 23413 23414 23415 23416 23417 23418 23419 23420 23421 23422 23423 23424 23425 23426 23427 23428 23429 [23430] 23431 23432 23433 23434 23435 23436 23437 23438 23439 23440 23441 23442 23443 23444 23445 23446 23447 23448 23449 23450 23451 23452 23453 23454 23455 23456 23457 23458 23459 23460 23461 23462 23463 23464 23465 23466 23467 23468 23469 23470 23471 23472 23473 23474 23475 23476 23477 23478 23479 23480 ... 33063 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 26313429 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. (170 posts by 1 users with 9 merit deleted.)
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 311


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:12:06 PM

If the entire US govt wasn't crooked, they would be sending in Seal Team 6 in black helicopters to come in through the windows of this exchange.  Nevermind, the entire seal team was sent on a suicide mission and they all died in a helicopter to cover up the lose ends of the Bin Laden compound attack story.  Maybe they can send one F35 to fly towards it, fail in mid-flight, then heroically crash into the Bitfinex building and blow it up.
1709042870
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709042870

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1709042870
Reply with quote  #2

1709042870
Report to moderator
1709042870
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709042870

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1709042870
Reply with quote  #2

1709042870
Report to moderator
1709042870
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709042870

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1709042870
Reply with quote  #2

1709042870
Report to moderator
"Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what." -- Greg Maxwell
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1709042870
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709042870

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1709042870
Reply with quote  #2

1709042870
Report to moderator
1709042870
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709042870

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1709042870
Reply with quote  #2

1709042870
Report to moderator
1709042870
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709042870

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1709042870
Reply with quote  #2

1709042870
Report to moderator
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3024
Merit: 1640


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:12:42 PM

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.

Ok.

So then if the condition of Bitcoin blocks having a very reasonable 80% peak (maybe hourly averaged) capacity by whatever means, even if that implies only a moderate blocksize increase plus other L2 alleviating solutions... your confidence/preference in Bitcoin would be restored and not keep insisting that BSV is better because: Bigger blocks (even if noone use them), no segwit, no LN, etc?

I am just trying to determine if your main concern is only about congestion or if there additional unsolvable (like considering bigger blocks is ALWAYS better) issues here.

It would alleviate much of my worries about BTC's future. All things being equal (unfortunately they never are), I have lingering concerns about the way The SegWit Omnibus Changeset was constructed and more concerningly how it was activated. But seeing as we're discussing an unplanned hypothetical, I'm not about to invest in a full analysis.

There is also the fact that it is the stated aim of the SV protocol devs that they wish to essentially return the protocol back to that which was bequeathed by satoshi, and then leave it unmolested for all subsequent time (with the caveat that some black swan event may necessitate a change). I see a lot of value in providing a stable platform for other innovation to be built atop, rather than the constant churn and shifting sands endemic to a 'devs gotta dev' mentality at the base layer.

But hey - if BTC adopted an attitude that returned them to the economic model that existed from inception until blockapocolypse (namely, block cap always large enough to accommodate the sustained tx demand), that'd take one of the most on-target arrows out of my 'flaws of BTC' quiver now, wouldn't it?
El duderino_
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2436
Merit: 11496


BTC + Crossfit, living life.


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:14:44 PM



whatever exchanges do...... ^1BTC=1BTC

Good Night WO-brothers, finished episode 3 and of to my HODL-station Cheesy
El duderino_
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2436
Merit: 11496


BTC + Crossfit, living life.


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:16:49 PM



^
And cockr0ach please .... leave it for a sec Roll Eyes go jerk off or something.....
El duderino_
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2436
Merit: 11496


BTC + Crossfit, living life.


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:18:11 PM



Saw a small go to sleep pump NICE Cheesy
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4392


Be a bank


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:18:18 PM

If it's really true, they could have milked the market when it was near the peak over a year ago. I have a hard time believing they'll actually gather enough money seeing how more people seem to be opening their what kind of a joke BFX always was.
There's a theory that they can scam Chinese whales one more time, even while Western punters pull out.
And the bigger and the more blatant the scam, the bigger the fundraise...
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 4787


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:24:12 PM

This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.

Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence.

Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change?

If it was urgent it could probably be done in 48 hours.   But it won’t be urgent.  

It ain't just a river in Egypt.

I would mostly agree with the bear here.
The last full block crisis resulted in inaction, to force people onto segwit. I presume the next full block crisis will result in inaction, to force people onto lightning.

Dude wtf you weren't supposed to tell them!!

Some people just can't keep a secret. Smiley

This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.

Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence.

Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change?
That was a short spam attack period, you know damn well that was artificial and everyone knew it.

Yes, I remember people posting the addresses of the spammers at the time. That's the good thing about 1mb blocks, spamming gets expensive.
Big blocks are a disaster if there isn't sufficient utility. Say you had 32 MB blocks and only < 2 MB of actual traffic. Someone could easily spam 28 MB per block for peanuts. Sustained over 1 day: 4032 MB of garbage for almost free. Good idea indeed.

Addressing the issue is like balancing on a tight rope with the winds gusting and you cannot walk to either end all you do is shift your balance (the variable you control). I still have not seen a decent argument against dynamic recursive blocks. I've asked many times in this thread and never been linked to a good argument against them, maybe you have a link?
infofront (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 2743


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:24:59 PM

sell BTC and buy BSV, will equal in price

[img ]https://www.FULLofSHITand DESPERATE/x/WD9D77oj/[/img]
NO

BSV only one altcoin which can go in the direction opposite to the falling crypto market
Go fuck yourself

Even the Roach is occasionally able to deliver more engaging content, alev. Cut it. Thanks.

I normally delete his shill posts, but I think it's more fun for everyone just to point and laugh.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3024
Merit: 1640


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:30:10 PM

This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.

Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence.

Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change?
That was a short spam attack period, you know damn well that was artificial and everyone knew it.

Yes, I remember people posting the addresses of the spammers at the time. That's the good thing about 1mb blocks, spamming gets expensive.
Big blocks are a disaster if there isn't sufficient utility. Say you had 32 MB blocks and only < 2 MB of actual traffic. Someone could easily spam 28 MB per block for peanuts. Sustained over 1 day: 4032 MB of garbage for almost free. Good idea indeed.

You seem to be postulating some novel mechanism by which one can examine each transaction, and classify it as spam vs. notspam. Care to divulge your criteria?

Your dumb arguments about what is "technically" spam and NOT, remains annoying - partly because this is well worn territory in which you have been shown to be attempting to continue to spread misinformation and to detract from the concerted sabotaging (albiet largely unsuccessful except for the purpose of continued FUD spreading) efforts of your Bcash butt buddies.

I forget you are often incapable of seeing the obvious*. Without a way to objectively classify an arbitrary tx as spam vs. notspam, any effort to reduce spam by keeping the block size small will -- by necessity -- reduce utility for notspam txs. Reduced utility in direct proportion to the ratio of notspam txs to spam txs. Your approach is counterproductive.

*Well, not really. I know full and well your inability to draw rational conclusions from spoonfed data. As well as your propensity to try to finish conversations for others. I still await the honorable and esteemed Lauda's reveal of the criteria to objectively classify an arbitrary tx as spam or as notspam.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3024
Merit: 1640


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:34:02 PM
Merited by xhomerx10 (1)

I've seen some very nice hats that are not worn and are not in the signing campaign ..., jbreher!

Do you need new glasses?

My glasses are adequate, thanks.

I'm talking about the hat crushed on your bear's head.

You have it here if you want to use it.

Maybe later you changed it, because of the avatar that you are wearing now.

Yes. The avatar I am wearing now is proudly wearing the hat that xhomerx10 made me.
infofront (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 2743


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:41:25 PM

This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.

Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence.

Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change?

If it was urgent it could probably be done in 48 hours.   But it won’t be urgent.  

It ain't just a river in Egypt.

I would mostly agree with the bear here.
The last full block crisis resulted in inaction, to force people onto segwit.

Yes, but was the attrition worth it? Especially given the fact that it was all so unnecessary.

Quote
I presume the next full block crisis will result in inaction, to force people onto lightning.

Yes, but will the attrition be worth it? Sanity says no.

No one can say for sure what the attrition level would've been with a larger BTC blocksize. The Cambrian explosion in alts would've happened regardless of blocksize. It began well before BTC blocks were filling up regularly. Big speculative money would've found its way to the altcoin market no matter what.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3024
Merit: 1640


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:43:43 PM

And “resurfaces” is the wrong term as it implies that the need has previously surfaced, which it has not.  The need may never surface.

You've already banished it from your revisionist history?

There were some high fees in 2017. There was no need for a block size increase as demonstrated by the failure of BCH.

If it was “necessary”, BCH would have won.  

The result was a BTC dominance drop from an overwhelming ~85% to abut half. Are you prepared for a drop to about a quarter next time the stream is blocked? You're whistling past your own graveyard.

Do you actually believe that the value of Bitcoin is diminished every time some scammer comes up with ‘X on a blockchain’ and manipulates the price on some exchange with zero liquidity to create a meaningless market cap?

You are smarter than that.

Aww... ::blush::.

No. I believe that the value of Bitcoin is diminished every time its limitations surface in an orgy of nonfunctionality, driving actual use to other competing blockchains that can handle to load.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3024
Merit: 1640


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:47:35 PM

Addressing the issue is like balancing on a tight rope with the winds gusting and you cannot walk to either end all you do is shift your balance (the variable you control). I still have not seen a decent argument against dynamic recursive blocks. I've asked many times in this thread and never been linked to a good argument against them, maybe you have a link?

The wizards high in the Blockstream tower have decreed the larger blocks are impossible. And that is all you rabble need to know.
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 4787


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:50:38 PM

I guess everyone remembers that an obvious scam like ETH went to 1400 beer tokens per in the last bull market, and they're hoping their obvious scams will do likewise in the next.

The most distressing part was choosing not to participate in the initial crowd sale of 2000 ETH per BTC because it was such an obvious scam.  

1 BTC then would be 58 BTC today.

I hear you, I remember posting "WTF Pre-mine and a Dev tax!, FuckYou", or some such thing.

Well I guess the joke was on us, there were alot more punters than we would have ever guessed.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3024
Merit: 1640


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:51:17 PM

No one can say for sure what the attrition level would've been with a larger BTC blocksize. The Cambrian explosion in alts would've happened regardless of blocksize. It began well before BTC blocks were filling up regularly. Big speculative money would've found its way to the altcoin market no matter what.

That may be true. However the time correlation between stream blockage and dominance loss is striking. As in: compelling evidence suggesting causality.
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 4787


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:56:53 PM


I forget you are often incapable of seeing the obvious*. Without a way to objectively classify an arbitrary tx as spam vs. notspam, any effort to reduce spam by keeping the block size small will -- by necessity -- reduce utility for notspam txs. Reduced utility in direct proportion to the ratio of notspam txs to spam txs. Your approach is counterproductive.

*Well, not really. I know full and well your inability to draw rational conclusions from spoonfed data. As well as your propensity to try to finish conversations for others. I still await the honorable and esteemed Lauda's reveal of the criteria to objectively classify an arbitrary tx as spam or as notspam.

whitelists, no wait blacklists, no wait....exponential tx fees...shit idunno, decentralization is hard, I give up.




WARNING

Quoting A TROLL below!


Giving ignorers a chance
to skip it.





Sorry for quoting the TROLL, guys, but this may be worth a laugh. I was (passive-aggressively) amused.

You are forgiven, that is fucking hilarious.

BUT, I'm offended, I should be in the Virtuous Angel category.





I'm going to call my Lawyers!
Toxic2040
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 4025



View Profile
April 30, 2019, 12:06:25 AM

Addressing the issue is like balancing on a tight rope with the winds gusting and you cannot walk to either end all you do is shift your balance (the variable you control). I still have not seen a decent argument against dynamic recursive blocks. I've asked many times in this thread and never been linked to a good argument against them, maybe you have a link?

The wizards high in the Blockstream tower have decreed the larger blocks are impossible. And that is all you rabble need to know.


Well..you heard it here first. Guess bitcoin was a mistake after all. We all should probably just sell our coins and forget the whole experiment.

Other than that I kinda like the sound of being officially recognized as a 'rabble'. Things are looking up.

----


I forget you are often incapable of seeing the obvious*. Without a way to objectively classify an arbitrary tx as spam vs. notspam, any effort to reduce spam by keeping the block size small will -- by necessity -- reduce utility for notspam txs. Reduced utility in direct proportion to the ratio of notspam txs to spam txs. Your approach is counterproductive.

*Well, not really. I know full and well your inability to draw rational conclusions from spoonfed data. As well as your propensity to try to finish conversations for others. I still await the honorable and esteemed Lauda's reveal of the criteria to objectively classify an arbitrary tx as spam or as notspam.

whitelists, no wait blacklists, no wait....exponential tx fees...idunno?

Damn decentralization is hard, I give up.

+1 WOsMerit



sirazimuth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3290
Merit: 3380


born once atheist


View Profile
April 30, 2019, 12:11:07 AM

My apologies for totally off topic but some Brene Brown character said "like" fifty phucking times
in the 1st 11 minutes of her 1 hour  Netflix talk, ffs.
That's when I killed it and switched to Youtube to watch a lovely silent restoration video.

go bitcoin....
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 4787


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
April 30, 2019, 12:18:29 AM



Hats gallery finished !!!

Link imgur, click on the image to see it bigger > https://i.imgur.com/C9GMQVu.jpg

Thanks for your time and dedication, xhomerx10  Wink

I really want to drop some Mescaline and just stare at them. Smiley



Craig Wright Dubs Binance a ‘Money-Laundering Bucketshop’

Too bad.
Even bucketshops are delisting CSW's coin.


LOL, good one...I think he may be Butthurt.

Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4392


Be a bank


View Profile
April 30, 2019, 12:21:47 AM

Addressing the issue is like balancing on a tight rope with the winds gusting and you cannot walk to either end all you do is shift your balance (the variable you control). I still have not seen a decent argument against dynamic recursive blocks. I've asked many times in this thread and never been linked to a good argument against them, maybe you have a link?
It's much more a political argument than a technical one.
Any such block change would need a hard fork, and that's not happening (unless there's an emergency).
Can't leave the OG's behind. Most wouldn't even go for it if it could be magically soft-forked in.
Even the newer people don't want the shitfest.
Pages: « 1 ... 23380 23381 23382 23383 23384 23385 23386 23387 23388 23389 23390 23391 23392 23393 23394 23395 23396 23397 23398 23399 23400 23401 23402 23403 23404 23405 23406 23407 23408 23409 23410 23411 23412 23413 23414 23415 23416 23417 23418 23419 23420 23421 23422 23423 23424 23425 23426 23427 23428 23429 [23430] 23431 23432 23433 23434 23435 23436 23437 23438 23439 23440 23441 23442 23443 23444 23445 23446 23447 23448 23449 23450 23451 23452 23453 23454 23455 23456 23457 23458 23459 23460 23461 23462 23463 23464 23465 23466 23467 23468 23469 23470 23471 23472 23473 23474 23475 23476 23477 23478 23479 23480 ... 33063 »
  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!