Bitcoin Forum
May 18, 2021, 10:01:02 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Among your family and friends, who owns Bitcoin?
Myself only - 44 (37%)
Myself and my spouse/partner - 13 (10.9%)
My family - 12 (10.1%)
Close friends - 16 (13.4%)
All of the above - 34 (28.6%)
Total Voters: 119

Pages: « 1 ... 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 23564 ... 28793 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25295279 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
*
Online Online

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:25:05 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?

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?
1621375262
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1621375262

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1621375262
Reply with quote  #2

1621375262
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1621375262
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1621375262

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1621375262
Reply with quote  #2

1621375262
Report to moderator
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352
Merit: 1252



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:25:26 PM

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 ?
He's most likely a fucking paid Russian shill, just check his incoherent post. Too many of these shills recently.
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:25:39 PM

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 2076



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:25:50 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?

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:28:23 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?

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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352
Merit: 1252



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:30:34 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?

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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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?
jbreher
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:31:58 PM


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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:32:21 PM

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:35:07 PM


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

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1279


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:37:20 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?

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:38:57 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?

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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 2076



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:40:11 PM

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.   Kiss


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

bubble burst...will try harder next time.   Kiss


Now quit spamming my spam.
vapourminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3234
Merit: 1872


what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:40:18 PM

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1515


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:44:18 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.
alevlaslo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 589


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:48:14 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.

what meaning in seqwit if the block will increased?
alevlaslo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 589


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:51:44 PM

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

they are without proof of work, they are not cryptocurrencies
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1279


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:53:25 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.
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352
Merit: 1252



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 07:54:04 PM

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

they are without proof of work, they are not cryptocurrencies
You are a fucking idiot aren't you?
Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2308



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 08:04:16 PM
Merited by kingcolex (1)

Raja_MBZ
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1391


Any questions related to my signature site? PM me!


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 08:07:35 PM

Too many people around expecting a dump; I think a nice $1k jump can really help at the moment. Roll Eyes
Pages: « 1 ... 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 23564 ... 28793 »
  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!