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

[marcus_of_augustus]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Better still once he has done this they can search out the answer and add it to one of the many community FAQ or bitcoin wikis that are out there to help others and put a stop to the constant stream of misunderstanding.

Quietly working away to improve the lot of everybody and find out if there really are problems that need fixing and recording them selflessly for others to improve their knowledge or loudly asking non-questions repeatedly intending to distract and misinform, you choose.

[shmadz]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Yes, will repeat:

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ...

What the Fuck is a "non-mining node" if not a wallet?

If you had significant wealth invested in a system, you would expect your interface to validate transactions, correct?

[bargainbin]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Yes, will repeat:

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ...

What the Fuck is a "non-mining node" if not a wallet?

If you had significant wealth invested in a system, you would expect your interface to validate transactions, correct?

A wallet is exactly what it is! And yet, there are those who *insist* that such nodes are essential to Bitcoin security. Not to *your BTC security* -- obviously, a real wallet helps -- but Bitcoin, the network security.

Re. your second question: I would expect my WALLET to validate my transactions. It's a non-mining node, that's its job.
Or my web wallet (if I chose to trust one) -- it will run a node, because it's its JOB.
I don't need to encourage anyone to run nodes, I don't need to discourage anyone from running *different* nodes -- I don't CARE, it don't effect ME, because it doesn't affect Bitcoin security.

Also, reposting my edit:

Also please explain the meaning of "economic agent." Is that a person? A sum of money? A person with a sum of money?
A person running a wallet (non-mining node)? A legal entity? Can both my business and myself be economic agents?
And "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), explain that shit.

[BitUsher]

We aren't talking about malicious mining nodes (much more dangerous, even all by themselves, somewhat safe tho because incentives), we are talking about malicious NMN. The careful reader will see you have, as yet, not presented the relevant security hole.

I was giving a list of problems malicious NMN can have with regards to attack vectors. If a NMN has a valid blockchain boostrapped they will reject a malicious mining node block. Thus a NMN matters specifically because this attack can occur in a coordinated fashion. They are dependent upon each other.

0 conf is already understood to be insecure, and is about to be officially and fully deprecated.

Yet most tx's are 0 conf... Until people start using payment channels this will continue to be a problem. This is wht segwit needs to be deployed ASAP, to fix most of the problems with malleability so payment channels can mature.

You do understand that a full node verifies signatures? It will not accept false blocks, even from all 8 connected peers. So the worst case scenario is that it has to drop/ban several malicious peers before it finds a good one.

If the full node is bootstrapped from a pool of malicious nodes it can verify a false block. There is a good reason outbound is restricted to one IP address per /16 .

[shmadz]

explain that shit.

No.

I'll repeat. Ask plainly, or fuck off.

[bargainbin]

^^Not sure if joking. Here:

...
What the Fuck is a "non-mining node" if not a wallet?

If you had significant wealth invested in a system, you would expect your interface to validate transactions, correct?

A wallet is exactly what it is! And yet, there are those who *insist* that such nodes are essential to Bitcoin security. Not to *your BTC security* -- obviously, a real wallet helps -- but Bitcoin, the network security.

Re. your second question: I would expect my WALLET to validate my transactions. It's a non-mining node, that's its job.
Or my web wallet (if I chose to trust one) -- it will run a node, because it's its JOB.
I don't need to encourage anyone to run nodes, I don't need to discourage anyone from running *different* nodes -- I don't CARE, it don't effect ME, because it doesn't affect Bitcoin security.

Also, reposting my edit:

Also please explain the meaning of "economic agent." Is that a person? A sum of money? A person with a sum of money?
A person running a wallet (non-mining node)? A legal entity? Can both my business and myself be economic agents?
And "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), explain that shit.

> or fuck off.
If you have no answers, at least stop being a rude faggot.

[bargainbin]

^^Not sure if joking. Here:

...
What the Fuck is a "non-mining node" if not a wallet?

If you had significant wealth invested in a system, you would expect your interface to validate transactions, correct?

A wallet is exactly what it is! And yet, there are those who *insist* that such nodes are essential to Bitcoin security. Not to *your BTC security* -- obviously, a real wallet helps -- but Bitcoin, the network security.

Re. your second question: I would expect my WALLET to validate my transactions. It's a non-mining node, that's its job.
Or my web wallet (if I chose to trust one) -- it will run a node, because it's its JOB.
I don't need to encourage anyone to run nodes, I don't need to discourage anyone from running *different* nodes -- I don't CARE, it don't effect ME, because it doesn't affect Bitcoin security.

Also, reposting my edit:

Also please explain the meaning of "economic agent." Is that a person? A sum of money? A person with a sum of money?
A person running a wallet (non-mining node)? A legal entity? Can both my business and myself be economic agents?
And "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), explain that shit.

 okay, I'll try I guess...
 economic agent is not my term so good luck with that.
 economic majority is not my term either so please ask me a specific question or just fuck off

I can't really find a specific question in your gibberish, so I have nothing to say to you

1. I asked you to define "economic agent," it is a term used by BitUsher which I don't understand and he failed to define. You do not know what that is either. Good, we're in the same boat, let's move on.

2.  I asked you to define "economic majority," a term bandied about by those who claim non-mining nodes wallets "represent the economic majority." When I Google "economic majority", the first result is Economic majority - Bitcoin Wiki, which tells me that "If the economic majority doesn't run full nodes Bitcoin is dead." This is somewhat worrying, because I'm not sure what "economic majority" is, and if I'm it
You do not know what that is either. Good, we're in the same boat, let's move on.

>I can't really find a specific question
You have found two, and had no answers.
Do you know *anything* about Bitcoin nodes, or will asking further questions be unproductive?

Edit: You deleted your post? No need to be embarrassed, I don't understand this Gypsy magic either...

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

We aren't talking about malicious mining nodes (much more dangerous, even all by themselves, somewhat safe tho because incentives), we are talking about malicious NMN. The careful reader will see you have, as yet, not presented the relevant security hole.

I was giving a list of problems malicious NMN can have with regards to attack vectors. If a NMN has a valid blockchain boostrapped they will reject a malicious mining node block. Thus a NMN matters specifically because this attack can occur in a coordinated fashion. They are dependent upon each other.

So nodes receiving their first block ever, right at the moment this dastardly attack occurs... might be vulnerable to downloading a fake ledger, with replicated signatures and pow? And... a malicious miner is mining blocks valid to that chain? Kinda off into the weeds, no?

0 conf is already understood to be insecure, and is about to be officially and fully deprecated.

Yet most tx's are 0 conf... Until people start using payment channels this will continue to be a problem. This is wht segwit needs to be deployed ASAP, to fix most of the problems with malleability so payment channels can mature.

Yes, I know you want payment channels to be accepted into the market, I do too actually (once that whole routing issue is solved). Not against a form of segwit going forward either. We disagree on the part where Core devs should become central planners setting tx prices for miners, to pseudo-economically favor second layer solutions that compete with miners for fees.

 

You do understand that a full node verifies signatures? It will not accept false blocks, even from all 8 connected peers. So the worst case scenario is that it has to drop/ban several malicious peers before it finds a good one.

If the full node is bootstrapped from a pool of malicious nodes it can verify a false block. There is a good reason outbound is restricted to one IP address per /16 .

See above, care to hazard a guess on the number of brand new nodes receiving their first block today?

[shmadz]

[
Do you know *anything* about Bitcoin nodes, or will asking further questions be unproductive?

All I know about bitcoin nodes is that any attempt to change the rules of consensus will end badly.

Probably exactly the result you're looking for.

[shmadz]

...
NMN are important for the security of their users, not the network.

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.

Security based on encouraging people to do the right thing. What can possibly go wrong?
(If you riddle out "economic agent" & "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), drop me a line.)

Yeah, the Byzantine problem is provably unsolvable.

The incentive-based solution of bitcoin has only been proven to work for the last 6 years

Take a look at the incentives in the current system of money issuance and tell me there's no problem.

Honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.
What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet).

Not sure how real money plays into this. Explain please.

Honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.

I'm saying that the control of money issuance is the real problem.

[bargainbin]

...
 okay, I'll try I guess...
 economic agent is not my term so good luck with that.
 economic majority is not my term either so please ask me a specific question or just fuck off

I can't really find a specific question in your gibberish, so I have nothing to say to you

1. I asked you to define "economic agent," it is a term used by BitUsher which I don't understand and he failed to define. You do not know what that is either. Good, we're in the same boat, let's move on.

2.  I asked you to define "economic majority," a term bandied about by those who claim non-mining nodes wallets "represent the economic majority." When I Google "economic majority", the first result is Economic majority - Bitcoin Wiki, which tells me that "If the economic majority doesn't run full nodes Bitcoin is dead." This is somewhat worrying, because I'm not sure what "economic majority" is, and if I'm it
You do not know what that is either. Good, we're in the same boat, let's move on.

>I can't really find a specific question
You have found two, and had no answers.
Do you know *anything* about Bitcoin nodes, or will asking further questions be unproductive?

Edit: You deleted your post? No need to be embarrassed, I don't understand this Gypsy magic either...

All I know about bitcoin nodes is that any attempt to change the rules of consensus will end badly.

Probably exactly the result you're looking for.

Well, it's something. In the future, why not tell me at the outset that you don't know anything? (it's a hypothetical, no need to answer this).
I'm somewhat disappointed that you don't know shit, and that your strong convictions are based on blind, fanatical faith rather than reason and understanding, but hey, every soul is useful, amirite?
God don't make junk and all that.
Peace.

[BitUsher]

We aren't talking about malicious mining nodes (much more dangerous, even all by themselves, somewhat safe tho because incentives), we are talking about malicious NMN. The careful reader will see you have, as yet, not presented the relevant security hole.

I was giving a list of problems malicious NMN can have with regards to attack vectors. If a NMN has a valid blockchain boostrapped they will reject a malicious mining node block. Thus a NMN matters specifically because this attack can occur in a coordinated fashion. They are dependent upon each other.

So nodes receiving their first block ever, right at the moment this dastardly attack occurs... might be vulnerable to downloading a fake ledger, with replicated signatures and pow? And... a malicious miner is mining blocks valid to that chain? Kinda off into the weeds, no?

That is just one attack scenario... another one would be a scenario where a network is segregated off (deep packet filtering/firewalls/compromised routers/ect) so a new node , bootstrapped from malicious nodes had many blocks that could do harm , not just the first.
I could go on with other edge cases.... but yes, these are all rare , and weird cases .... but in security you have to prepare for these edge cases and do your best to mitigate them because

1) An attacker will specifically use edge cases or create them to conduct an attack
2) There are enough of these edge cases in existence that it makes some type of weakness not only possible but likely

Case in point -- Gavin has said in the past and just repeated himself on LTB that SPV mining is a perfectly reasonable solution for miners to use that have propagation or bandwidth problems with larger blocks due to the great firewall of china and lack of bandwidth there. He misled the listeners(probably unintentionally) into thinking this was just a problem for the miners themselves and posed no harm on the network , ignoring the fact that during the edge case of BIP 66 softforking users were instructed to wait for more conf , and some possible double spends could have occurred, and it became small crisis.... not just effecting the miners.

[billyjoeallen]

[
Do you know *anything* about Bitcoin nodes, or will asking further questions be unproductive?

All I know about bitcoin nodes is that any attempt to change the rules of consensus will end badly.

Probably exactly the result you're looking for.

Actually, it's the consensus rules themselves that are in the process of ending badly. This is not foundational to Bitcoin anyway, as it started only after Gavin relinquished his role as lead developer. 

[bargainbin]

[text effects]I'm saying that the control of money issuance is the real problem.[/text effects]

No. Love of money is the real problem, it's a sickness. Like cancer. Like AIDS. And even that's a derivative, so not even that.

[shmadz]

[text effects]I'm saying that the control of money issuance is the real problem.[/text effects]

No. Love of money is the real problem, it's a sickness. Like cancer. Like AIDS. And even that's a derivative, so not even that.

You're cute

[bargainbin]

[text effects]I'm saying that the control of money issuance is the real problem.[/text effects]

No. Love of money is the real problem, it's a sickness. Like cancer. Like AIDS. And even that's a derivative, so not even that.

You're cute

You got the brains, I got the looks, let's make a whole lot of money

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

Did you see my earlier post on the topic that I linked for ease of reference?

No. I pretty much ignore anything you have to say.

It's unfortunate. I'm sure sometimes you say something worth reading, but I've done the calculations; the massive amount of meaningless text that you spew is simply not worth the time to read.

Well, your refusal and possible inability to focus on relevant content seems to be apparent, especially when you came up with your seemingly outlandish theory concerning the first two minutes of that referred-to let's talk bitcoins episode.   

 Then secondly, you don't seem to have very good abilities or judgement (maybe you are just a bit immature) when you attack someone (that is me... hahahaha) who largely agrees with you about the overall point that you had been attempting to foolishly make rather than recognizing some value and attempting to understand relevant and related posts. 

Accordingly, this one incident seems to support that you may be lacking in abilities to pay attention to reality and to sort through relevance rather than just coming up with some fantasy viewpoints based on nearly irrelevant, but at least largely immaterial occurrences.

You are possibly not a lost cause (I'm not sure), because all of us, if we are paying attention and trying to learn, should be capable in getting better in these regards.

[Peter R]

Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner...

The node count is interesting, given the Sybil problem.  



Are small-block proponents spinning up "fake" Core nodes to replenish the nodes Core is losing to Classic (thereby keeping Core node count ~constant)?  Or are the Classic nodes being spun up en masse by large-block proponents to make it appear that Classic has more support than it really does?  Or maybe it's a little bit of both and the numbers are reasonably accurate.

This reveals the beauty of Nakamoto consensus: at the end of the day it will be settled by raw hash power.  There's no way to fake that.