Bitcoin Forum
August 02, 2021, 12:46:31 AM *
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 - 56 (34.6%)
$50K - 106 (65.4%)
Total Voters: 162

Pages: « 1 ... 23463 23464 23465 23466 23467 23468 23469 23470 23471 23472 23473 23474 23475 23476 23477 23478 23479 23480 23481 23482 23483 23484 23485 23486 23487 23488 23489 23490 23491 23492 23493 23494 23495 23496 23497 23498 23499 23500 23501 23502 23503 23504 23505 23506 23507 23508 23509 23510 23511 23512 [23513] 23514 23515 23516 23517 23518 23519 23520 23521 23522 23523 23524 23525 23526 23527 23528 23529 23530 23531 23532 23533 23534 23535 23536 23537 23538 23539 23540 23541 23542 23543 23544 23545 23546 23547 23548 23549 23550 23551 23552 23553 23554 23555 23556 23557 23558 23559 23560 23561 23562 23563 ... 29240 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25377044 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.)
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 06:46:53 PM

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.
1627865191
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627865191

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627865191
Reply with quote  #2

1627865191
Report to moderator
1627865191
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627865191

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627865191
Reply with quote  #2

1627865191
Report to moderator
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 06:47:05 PM


Sorry for quoting the Roach, guys, but this may be worth a laugh. I was (passive-aggressively) amused.
I feel left out.
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1258



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 06:49:15 PM

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Mining Dominated by ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’

Around a week ago an unknown miner calling themselves Satoshi Nakamoto began hogging more than 35% of the BCH hashrate. By Monday morning their mining dominance on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain peaked as high as 44%. When a miner acquires 51% of a blockchain’s hashrate, they can launch double-spend attacks – essentially stealing Bitcoin Cash coins.



This unknown miner originally appeared a week ago under the name ‘BoomBoomBoom’, as detailed in this reddit post. There’s no way to prove that ‘BoomBoomBoom’ and ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ are one and the same, however one disappeared when the other appeared, and the likelihood of two unknown miners suddenly hogging the hashrate within days of each other seems unlikely.

Proof
So what's this theory? That Satoshi has somehow secretly bought enough hash power without his coins moving and catching anyone's attention and is planning on double spending bch?

Btw imagine bch or bsv having a 51% attack while their communities have preached that hashrate is all that matters.
Toxic2040
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 2197



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 06:56:22 PM

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

BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:00:02 PM

I admit there is no easy criterion to tell one from the other onchain, after the fact.

QFT.
If someone was moving funds back and forth repeatedly then that would be an obvious criterion for a spam transaction. Surely other metrics could identify other "easy criteria" for spam transactions.

Given a random isolated transaction things look different though.
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4386


Be a bank


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:00:23 PM

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/3D2oetdNuZUqQHPJmcMDDHYoqkyNVsFk9r another chunk out of the finex cold wallet
102k-> 89k
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:02:38 PM
Last edit: April 29, 2019, 07:17:49 PM by jbreher

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.
Cool so how about if someone spammed Bchsv (I think that's the shitcoin flavor you're favoring now)

Hmm. Don't know. I'm not aware of any coin that is routinely referred to as the moniker 'Bchsv'. I suppose you mean Bitcoin-SV? I must admit that my most-used abbreviation of 'SV" is non-standard as well, with the most common ticker being 'BSV'. Oh well, I'll just assume that's what you refer to.

Quote
and pumped out multiple spam attacks to the 128mb blocks for only 1 week. Now that would be an increase of 129gb. Let's say some bad actor like Roger came and kept at it (like he did to btc) and kept I up for let's say 2 months.

If, indeed, the mimers included all those txs. As those with the most non-liquid investment on the line, we trust the miners with enough rope to shoot themselves in the foot. They're not going to make blocks big enough to alienate the economic majority.

OTOH, it does kind of lay bare the lie promulgated by The Wizards Of Core[tm], who pronounced that block size increases were impossible.

Quote
That's an extra 1.032 Terabyte, that's not too much to handle

'zackly

Quote
but i bet you'd have those on the bsv subreddits and forums complaining that they can't keep up, and being mad about spam.

Of course. Bitcoin Core does not have a monopoly on overly-entitled whiners.

Quote
Especially since that community is moreso mad broke kids who missed out on real btc and want a redo.

I think you are grievously mistaken. While anecdotal, the evidence I have seen suggest that there is a higher percentage of well-capitalized Bitcoin OGs in the big block corner than there is in the BTC camp.

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

Oh. Emm. Gee. exclamation_point. I'd have to pay ... umm ... $160 in order to store all that. The horror.

Of course, it would again require the cooperation of at least half the mining hash power. Otherwise, less storage needed.
Raja_MBZ
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1395


Any questions related to my signature site? PM me!


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:05:00 PM

Crossing $5500 once again, this could be a bad fakeout. IMO, if the daily candle closes in red, there's a big chance that we follow this path:



However, if BTC manages to close today's daily candle in green, it'll be interesting and (arguably) wild from bulls.

"Told you so"...


So now it rises? I'm down with that.

We're probably going to see another two days of red-hot pain before the green-grassy bounce back.
Nah it's the weekend, let's reschedule that pain for Monday.

Toxic2040
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 2197



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:07:00 PM

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/3D2oetdNuZUqQHPJmcMDDHYoqkyNVsFk9r another chunk out of the finex cold wallet
102k-> 89k

gotta be at least 150+ mio that has fled so far...thats gotta smart some
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:07:37 PM
Last edit: April 29, 2019, 07:18:57 PM by jbreher

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.

a race to the bottom?

No. A race to the top.

Quote
just how big a datacenter and monthly cost will eventually be needed to run bsv with its "everything including the kitchen sink" philosophy? to the point only billionaires and humongous companies etc can afford it?

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.
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:08:46 PM

BTC 8 tps
BCH 80 tps
BSV 800 tps
There are shitcoins with over 10k tps. Should we dump BSV for them?
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:12:56 PM

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.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:15:37 PM

Decision is fully yours. Own it.

Hows that working out for you bear? 

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

Quote
Owning it?

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

Quote
...bubye

Umm... you leaving?
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:16:45 PM

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1283


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:18:21 PM

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:19:54 PM

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 294


Bitcoin © Maximalist


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:19:54 PM

Quote
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.
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1258



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:20:02 PM

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?

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

I in no way can see you standing for a reversal of transactions.
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1258



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:20:43 PM

Quote
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.
All in due time, not today.
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4386


Be a bank


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:21:12 PM

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

never heard of this place
Pages: « 1 ... 23463 23464 23465 23466 23467 23468 23469 23470 23471 23472 23473 23474 23475 23476 23477 23478 23479 23480 23481 23482 23483 23484 23485 23486 23487 23488 23489 23490 23491 23492 23493 23494 23495 23496 23497 23498 23499 23500 23501 23502 23503 23504 23505 23506 23507 23508 23509 23510 23511 23512 [23513] 23514 23515 23516 23517 23518 23519 23520 23521 23522 23523 23524 23525 23526 23527 23528 23529 23530 23531 23532 23533 23534 23535 23536 23537 23538 23539 23540 23541 23542 23543 23544 23545 23546 23547 23548 23549 23550 23551 23552 23553 23554 23555 23556 23557 23558 23559 23560 23561 23562 23563 ... 29240 »
  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!