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

[coins101]

I like the way Adam Back runs the miners meeting, then avoids his name appearing in the press releases.

Makes me think he has an agenda. You know, that open secret to ensure Blockstream road map gets fully implemented into Core.

[billyjoeallen]

You can only double-spend your own coins (second time I told you this) exchanges typically require ass'y least 3 confirmations,  which means at 50% you'd essentially need to win 4 coin flips in a row  (3 to trick the exchange and the 4th to double-spend the coins) - which means you would only succeed in this attack 6.25 % of the time. Also, if this type of attack became common, exchanges would start to simply wait for 4,5,6 transactions or more...

Yeah, but China has ~75% hashpower, not 50%.  winning three bets in a row with 75% odds is a 42% chance, a heluva lot higher than 6.25% and I'm pretty sure the miners who get nationalized keep a good size pile of coins that could be double spent.  Even if they don't, The Chicoms could nationalize the Chinese exchanges too and then they have coins up the wazzu to dump. 

freshly mined coins can't be spent right away. I get that. What I'm saying is that doesn't matter in a well-executed 51% attack, because you can also verify bogus transactions.  If I was an evil Chinese Official, I could execute this attack with no more expertise than I now currently hold just by pointing guns at the right people. 

[adamstgBit]

we are trending.

[ImI]

billyjoeallen is high on fiat. ( oh wait he shorted not sold )

maybe he is right. friedenbach already stood against the HF-consensus. maxwell is known to be a diva, he could join him and prolong this little nerd-fight.

4MB is an awesome deal,  i can't wait to see how poeple react to some diva refusing this agreement, while proposing a much worst proposal. another proposal will need to be trailered to a specific group to gain any support over this 4MB proposal, at which point it becomes obvious they are not looking for consensus but merely like to make noise.
beside its not like we haven't heard his objections 100X before.
let him repeat himself one more time, with feeling!
i dont mind.

lets see, if they are really nutheads they could even try to break away from core.

[shmadz]

I like the way Adam Back runs the miners meeting, then avoids his name appearing in the press releases.

Makes me think he has an agenda. You know, that open secret to ensure Blockstream road map gets fully implemented into Core.

Adam was into bitcoin before there even was a bitcoin... Maybe he's jealous that he missed out on the early days of something that was built on his invention of hash cash, but he sounds like a pretty reasonable guy...

 https://soundcloud.com/bitcoinuncensored/adam-back-interview-bitcoin-uncensored-at-miami-bitcoin-hackathon-012316

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

billyjoeallen is high on fiat. ( oh wait he shorted not sold )

maybe he is right. friedenbach already stood against the HF-consensus. maxwell is known to be a diva, he could join him and prolong this little nerd-fight.

4MB is an awesome deal,  i can't wait to see how poeple react to some diva refusing this agreement, while proposing a much worst proposal. another proposal will need to be trailered to a specific group to gain any support over this 4MB proposal, at which point it becomes obvious they are not looking for consensus but merely like to make noise.
beside its not like we haven't heard his objections 100X before.
let him repeat himself one more time, with feeling!
i dont mind.

Some diva in particular?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46s2qz/core_please_endorse_news_with_formal_addition_to/d07pqcm?context=3
Who's Maaku7?

[ImI]

billyjoeallen is high on fiat. ( oh wait he shorted not sold )

maybe he is right. friedenbach already stood against the HF-consensus. maxwell is known to be a diva, he could join him and prolong this little nerd-fight.

4MB is an awesome deal,  i can't wait to see how poeple react to some diva refusing this agreement, while proposing a much worst proposal. another proposal will need to be trailered to a specific group to gain any support over this 4MB proposal, at which point it becomes obvious they are not looking for consensus but merely like to make noise.
beside its not like we haven't heard his objections 100X before.
let him repeat himself one more time, with feeling!
i dont mind.

Some diva in particular?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46s2qz/core_please_endorse_news_with_formal_addition_to/d07pqcm?context=3
Who's Maaku7?

friedenbach

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

billyjoeallen is high on fiat. ( oh wait he shorted not sold )

maybe he is right. friedenbach already stood against the HF-consensus. maxwell is known to be a diva, he could join him and prolong this little nerd-fight.

4MB is an awesome deal,  i can't wait to see how poeple react to some diva refusing this agreement, while proposing a much worst proposal. another proposal will need to be trailered to a specific group to gain any support over this 4MB proposal, at which point it becomes obvious they are not looking for consensus but merely like to make noise.
beside its not like we haven't heard his objections 100X before.
let him repeat himself one more time, with feeling!
i dont mind.

Some diva in particular?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46s2qz/core_please_endorse_news_with_formal_addition_to/d07pqcm?context=3
Who's Maaku7?

friedenbach

It's not progress. Some of the concessions underlying this "consensus" are counterproductive in some cases and in others downright dangerous. The plan under discussion that resulted in this statement is one that many people if they knew the details of would object to. It is not something which can be said to have consensus.

Cheapens UTXO creation, cheapens on-chain data, dis-incentivises cleanup. Perhaps more importantly dis-incentivises user protecting features like multisig or other forms of smart contracts. Prevents making use of the full capacity available.

Other compromises under consideration such as with respect to deployment timelines preclude making other changes that should be in the next hard fork but which require more engineering work or review.

[adamstgBit]

billyjoeallen is high on fiat. ( oh wait he shorted not sold )

maybe he is right. friedenbach already stood against the HF-consensus. maxwell is known to be a diva, he could join him and prolong this little nerd-fight.

4MB is an awesome deal,  i can't wait to see how poeple react to some diva refusing this agreement, while proposing a much worst proposal. another proposal will need to be trailered to a specific group to gain any support over this 4MB proposal, at which point it becomes obvious they are not looking for consensus but merely like to make noise.
beside its not like we haven't heard his objections 100X before.
let him repeat himself one more time, with feeling!
i dont mind.

Some diva in particular?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46s2qz/core_please_endorse_news_with_formal_addition_to/d07pqcm?context=3
Who's Maaku7?

who cares? everyone is too concerned with what everyone else thinks...

[ImI]

billyjoeallen is high on fiat. ( oh wait he shorted not sold )

maybe he is right. friedenbach already stood against the HF-consensus. maxwell is known to be a diva, he could join him and prolong this little nerd-fight.

4MB is an awesome deal,  i can't wait to see how poeple react to some diva refusing this agreement, while proposing a much worst proposal. another proposal will need to be trailered to a specific group to gain any support over this 4MB proposal, at which point it becomes obvious they are not looking for consensus but merely like to make noise.
beside its not like we haven't heard his objections 100X before.
let him repeat himself one more time, with feeling!
i dont mind.

Some diva in particular?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46s2qz/core_please_endorse_news_with_formal_addition_to/d07pqcm?context=3
Who's Maaku7?

friedenbach

It's not progress. Some of the concessions underlying this "consensus" are counterproductive in some cases and in others downright dangerous. The plan under discussion that resulted in this statement is one that many people if they knew the details of would object to. It is not something which can be said to have consensus.

like i said, one can now easily see why we came to this mess in the first place...

[adamstgBit]

if you insist on blindly following an idle, make sure hes brilliant

 evoorhees

I'm watching with great interest this news today of the roundtable consensus: https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.a7nd0m1c5
This is a good opportunity for people to start coming together around this compromise, which probably appears imperfect to everyone, and yet should be at least partially appealing to anyone interested in the community moving past this civil war, and working as a team again.
I understand the consensus announcement is not truly consensus; it is signed by some important parties, but not everyone. I would strongly encourage Core to add the following (however properly worded) to their formal roadmap document, and make a public announcement about the same:
The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016. If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017.
We're close...
And let's please keep the discussion civil, we must at least endeavor to that.
Edit: this is not intended to come across as an "immediate demand," but rather a humble suggestion which I hope Core is already planning to do reasonably soon.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[shmadz]

You can only double-spend your own coins (second time I told you this) exchanges typically require ass'y least 3 confirmations,  which means at 50% you'd essentially need to win 4 coin flips in a row  (3 to trick the exchange and the 4th to double-spend the coins) - which means you would only succeed in this attack 6.25 % of the time. Also, if this type of attack became common, exchanges would start to simply wait for 4,5,6 transactions or more...

Yeah, but China has ~75% hashpower, not 50%.  winning three bets in a row with 75% odds is a 42% chance, a heluva lot higher than 6.25% and I'm pretty sure the miners who get nationalized keep a good size pile of coins that could be double spent.  Even if they don't, The Chicoms could nationalize the Chinese exchanges too and then they have coins up the wazzu to dump. 

freshly mined coins can't be spent right away. I get that. What I'm saying is that doesn't matter in a well-executed 51% attack, because you can also verify bogus transactions.  If I was an evil Chinese Official, I could execute this attack with no more expertise than I now currently hold just by pointing guns at the right people. 

Ok new bja, since you're so nice and polite:

First: you need to win 4 in a row to double spend if the exchange requires 3 confirmations, and even if you succeed once, the exchanges will just start to ask for more confirmations if they are becoming victims of attacks. (I've explained this twice now, it seems you're not even trying)

Second: I never mentioned freshly mined coins, everyone knows you need 120 confirmations to spend newly issued coins.

Third: you cannot "verify bogus transactions" - any honest node on the network will identify and reject a bogus transaction.

Are you a bot? Or just a noob?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

if you insist on blindly following an idle, make sure hes brilliant

@Adam Do you have a response to this:

Cheapens UTXO creation, cheapens on-chain data, dis-incentivises cleanup. Perhaps more importantly dis-incentivises user protecting features like multisig or other forms of smart contracts. Prevents making use of the full capacity available.

Other compromises under consideration such as with respect to deployment timelines preclude making other changes that should be in the next hard fork but which require more engineering work or review.

make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it

its likely they are stupid.

FFS

[coins101]

I like the way Adam Back runs the miners meeting, then avoids his name appearing in the press releases.

Makes me think he has an agenda. You know, that open secret to ensure Blockstream road map gets fully implemented into Core.

Adam was into bitcoin before there even was a bitcoin... Maybe he's jealous that he missed out on the early days of something that was built on his invention of hash cash, but he sounds like a pretty reasonable guy...

 https://soundcloud.com/bitcoinuncensored/adam-back-interview-bitcoin-uncensored-at-miami-bitcoin-hackathon-012316

He should just be open and say, we're not ready with side chains, or whatever they are still working on,  but we should be ready by July 2017 so that's the hard fork date when we'll ship Blockstream road map into core.

I actually like some of the Blockstream proposals, but there is no good enough reason to manipulate the entire network.

[adamstgBit]

make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it

its likely they are stupid.

FFS

[billyjoeallen]

Brian Armstrong: Too little, too late.

https://medium.com/@barmstrong/the-bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-proposal-too-little-too-late-e694f13f40b#.csoenxl65

There has been an agreement. That agreement may lead to a consensus, but that agreement is not in itself consensus.  As smallblockers constantly remind us,  even supermajority support is not sufficient.

I suggest people who want this agreement or larger blocks in general to continue running Classic nodes as a means of holding Core's feet to the fire, or start running one if you haven't.  An unenforceable agreement is meaningless. Those classic nodes are what brought Core to the negotiating table.  They will keep them honest.

[adamstgBit]

if you insist on blindly following an idle, make sure hes brilliant

@Adam Do you have a response to this:

Cheapens UTXO creation, cheapens on-chain data, dis-incentivises cleanup. Perhaps more importantly dis-incentivises user protecting features like multisig or other forms of smart contracts. Prevents making use of the full capacity available.

Other compromises under consideration such as with respect to deployment timelines preclude making other changes that should be in the next hard fork but which require more engineering work or review.

make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it

its likely they are stupid.

FFS

no.

problem?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

if you insist on blindly following an idle, make sure hes brilliant

@Adam Do you have a response to this:

Cheapens UTXO creation, cheapens on-chain data, dis-incentivises cleanup. Perhaps more importantly dis-incentivises user protecting features like multisig or other forms of smart contracts. Prevents making use of the full capacity available.

Other compromises under consideration such as with respect to deployment timelines preclude making other changes that should be in the next hard fork but which require more engineering work or review.

make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it

its likely they are stupid.

FFS

no.

problem?

"Block size should be raised, but only in step with what can reasonably be accomplished with engineering improvements to ensure a decentralized, policy neutral network. All that we ask for is the time for due process, not ultimatums and hostile forks"

[shmadz]

"not sure what you're trying to say quoting this 6month old post."

LOL - oops