Bitcoin Forum
October 27, 2021, 08:43:50 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: October Closing Price:
<$59,000 - 10 (18.9%)
$59,000-$60,000 - 1 (1.9%)
$60,001-$61,000 - 1 (1.9%)
$61,001-$62,000 - 2 (3.8%)
$62,001-$63,000 - 7 (13.2%)
$63,001-$64,000 - 5 (9.4%)
$64,001-$65,000 - 4 (7.5%)
$65,001-$66,000 - 3 (5.7%)
$66,001-$67,000 - 2 (3.8%)
$67,001-$68,000 - 1 (1.9%)
>$68,000 - 17 (32.1%)
Total Voters: 53

Pages: « 1 ... 14811 14812 14813 14814 14815 14816 14817 14818 14819 14820 14821 14822 14823 14824 14825 14826 14827 14828 14829 14830 14831 14832 14833 14834 14835 14836 14837 14838 14839 14840 14841 14842 14843 14844 14845 14846 14847 14848 14849 14850 14851 14852 14853 14854 14855 14856 14857 14858 14859 14860 [14861] 14862 14863 14864 14865 14866 14867 14868 14869 14870 14871 14872 14873 14874 14875 14876 14877 14878 14879 14880 14881 14882 14883 14884 14885 14886 14887 14888 14889 14890 14891 14892 14893 14894 14895 14896 14897 14898 14899 14900 14901 14902 14903 14904 14905 14906 14907 14908 14909 14910 14911 ... 29748 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25467966 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.)
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
February 21, 2016, 03:24:49 AM

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"

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

but, free feel to continue to wasting your time talking to a penguin.



Deadlines don't mean anything to him (this particular Core dev who is unhappy about the new 'consensus'). The old quote is context. It illustrates the consistency of his belief that a HF won't happen until certain other problems/technical challenges are met.

Also:

Bro Huh

how does that make you feel?
1635367430
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635367430

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1635367430
Reply with quote  #2

1635367430
Report to moderator
1635367430
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635367430

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1635367430
Reply with quote  #2

1635367430
Report to moderator
1635367430
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635367430

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1635367430
Reply with quote  #2

1635367430
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1107



View Profile
February 21, 2016, 03:29:17 AM
Last edit: February 21, 2016, 04:00:38 AM by BlindMayorBitcorn

how does that make you feel?
http://imgur.com/nla6W7A
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
February 21, 2016, 03:49:33 AM

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000


@theshmadz


View Profile
February 21, 2016, 03:52:07 AM



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?

Go easy, Pal. I'm asking questions.  So an exchange can change requirements AFTER an attack has already happened. How much damage can be done before then?  Catastrophic damage.  Like the Mt.Gox hack of 2011 that sent the price from $32 to $2 and stayed there for a year. 

Also, there are MILLIONS of coins on Chinese exchanges that the Chicoms can gain the access to anytime they want.  This may seem like a different issue, but a coordinated crackdown in China wouldn't leave the exchanges alone.  Bitcoin activity in China presents a single point of failure and a security vulnerability. Surely you can see this.  Are you suggesting that it WON'T happen or that it CAN'T happen?

1: how much damage? I would expect no more than 20 or 30 grand, exchanges have limits, especially on untrusted/unverified accounts and especially when you try to withdraw. Gox was only one incompetent exchange, and no one who was doing their own due diligence should have been affected. Everyone now should understand the risks of trusting your money to a thief party. (LOL, auto-correct gets it right this time Wink

2:  from $32 to $2 and stayed there for a year.  HA! Now I know you're not bja ... "as low as possible for as long as possible" is my motto. Another 4 years below 500 would be fantastic.

3: there are MILLIONS of coins on Chinese exchanges  - really? Are you sure? There are only like 15 million coins total right now. Don't be fooled by volume when there is 0 fee trades available.

4: I understand that China currently holds a controlling interest in bitcoin. If they do anything crazy that would compromise bitcoin (like proposing an 8mb increase, and then doubling till 8GB) then we can worry, but as you can see with the current debate, it is not easy to co-opt bitcoin.

((Plus, I don't really care too much. My coins are old, they'll spend on both chains after the fork, whichever fork wins. Also, as I've said before: if you're worried about this shit you are simply not diversified enough. Many other projects and assets are doing very well for astute investors and speculators.))

It's been a real pleasure, you're much nicer than the old bja. Welcome to the wall observer.
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1257


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 21, 2016, 04:00:51 AM

Coin



Explanation
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
February 21, 2016, 04:09:25 AM






it's going to take a while to sink in fully.

did this really happen???


good night bitcoin!
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1107



View Profile
February 21, 2016, 04:12:34 AM
Last edit: February 21, 2016, 04:25:11 AM by BlindMayorBitcorn

Maaku is the bird with the angry word. He seems to want to wait, until things like confidential transactions and other features that need to be hard forked in are ready. Maybe. Huh







@shmadz I thought yours were a peace-loving people Huh
Ps. Good infoes tho!
Quote from: shmadz
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.
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000


@theshmadz


View Profile
February 21, 2016, 04:17:07 AM


good night bitcoin!

Good night Adam.

(Btw, it's never over)
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1257


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 21, 2016, 05:00:54 AM

Coin



Explanation
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
February 21, 2016, 05:28:22 AM


4: I understand that China currently holds a controlling interest in bitcoin. If they do anything crazy that would compromise bitcoin (like proposing an 8mb increase, and then doubling till 8GB) then we can worry, but as you can see with the current debate, it is not easy to co-opt bitcoin.


If China holds controlling interest, then China holds control. Bitcoin isn't a honey badger anymore. It's a panda bear. 

We can disagree on blocksize or even the vision for Bitcoin's future, but nobody wants hashpower concentrated in one political jurisdiction. Hashpower secures Bitcoin. If the hashpower isn't secure, then neither is Bitcoin.

What's worse is that there is no way to fix this without massively increasing mining outside of China, which isn't economically viable without an electricity cost parity or advantage. 



ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1257


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 21, 2016, 06:00:54 AM

Coin



Explanation
AZwarel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 401
Merit: 280


View Profile
February 21, 2016, 06:04:22 AM

who voted no?  Cheesy

I haven't checked to verify, but I'd guess MP and the rest of La Serenissima will have their say.

Anyone who thinks a hard fork will not be contentious just isn't paying attention.

am i the only one that thinks it won't be contentious?

No. By definition, it can not be. HF can only happen if 90%+ thinks it is the way to go. Which makes it uncontentious by default.
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000


@theshmadz


View Profile
February 21, 2016, 06:06:07 AM


4: I understand that China currently holds a controlling interest in bitcoin. If they do anything crazy that would compromise bitcoin (like proposing an 8mb increase, and then doubling till 8GB) then we can worry, but as you can see with the current debate, it is not easy to co-opt bitcoin.

If China holds controlling interest, then China holds control. Bitcoin isn't a honey badger anymore. It's a panda bear. 
We can disagree on blocksize or even the vision for Bitcoin's future, but nobody wants hashpower concentrated in one political jurisdiction. Hashpower secures Bitcoin. If the hashpower isn't secure, then neither is Bitcoin.
What's worse is that there is no way to fix this without massively increasing mining outside of China, which isn't economically viable without an electricity cost parity or advantage. 

It is funny, how you fear the Chinese. BTW, Chinese are much more strongly defensive of their right to have paper money. They would never roll over and accept gov't controlled money accounts like they're doing in Europe. As if having the majority of hash power in the country that has the majority of the world population is somehow a problem. And yet the U.S.is actually the most repressive country on earth. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/19/apple-fbi-encryption-battle-san-bernardino-shooting-syed-farook-iphone

What exactly is your agenda, new BJA?
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
February 21, 2016, 06:21:03 AM


4: I understand that China currently holds a controlling interest in bitcoin. If they do anything crazy that would compromise bitcoin (like proposing an 8mb increase, and then doubling till 8GB) then we can worry, but as you can see with the current debate, it is not easy to co-opt bitcoin.

If China holds controlling interest, then China holds control. Bitcoin isn't a honey badger anymore. It's a panda bear. 
We can disagree on blocksize or even the vision for Bitcoin's future, but nobody wants hashpower concentrated in one political jurisdiction. Hashpower secures Bitcoin. If the hashpower isn't secure, then neither is Bitcoin.
What's worse is that there is no way to fix this without massively increasing mining outside of China, which isn't economically viable without an electricity cost parity or advantage. 

It is funny, how you fear the Chinese. BTW, Chinese are much more strongly defensive of their right to have paper money. They would never roll over and accept gov't controlled money accounts like they're doing in Europe. As if having the majority of hash power in the country that has the majority of the world population is somehow a problem. And yet the U.S.is actually the most repressive country on earth. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/19/apple-fbi-encryption-battle-san-bernardino-shooting-syed-farook-iphone

What exactly is your agenda, new BJA?

The Chinese government is somewhat hostile towards Bitcoin and freedom in general.
In China, it is illegal to:

buy bitcoin or sell bitcoin with a bank account
trade goods and services for bitcoin

They have strong capital controls which we know Bitcoin can be used to evade.
They have a history of cracking down on freedom movements (Tiananmen Square massacre)
They have a history of nationalizing industries
They are in the midst of an economic downturn that could easily turn into a recession
They have economic and monetary policies that will be difficult to enforce if bitcoin achieves a substantially higher market cap.

Long story short, there's no way Bitcoin can grow without achieving more Government and PBoC hostility.

There's no way bitcoin can grow without more network congestion. 

Taken together, it means Bitcoin is a suborbital vehicle and the moon is not reachable.
Chef Ramsay
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001



View Profile
February 21, 2016, 06:50:05 AM

Sad
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye, hmm?

Heh, Blinderer,   Cool LOL
You know you quoted a bitch, now you can be happy about that.
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1257


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 21, 2016, 07:01:43 AM

Coin



Explanation
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000


@theshmadz


View Profile
February 21, 2016, 07:11:42 AM


4: I understand that China currently holds a controlling interest in bitcoin. If they do anything crazy that would compromise bitcoin (like proposing an 8mb increase, and then doubling till 8GB) then we can worry, but as you can see with the current debate, it is not easy to co-opt bitcoin.

If China holds controlling interest, then China holds control. Bitcoin isn't a honey badger anymore. It's a panda bear.  
We can disagree on blocksize or even the vision for Bitcoin's future, but nobody wants hashpower concentrated in one political jurisdiction. Hashpower secures Bitcoin. If the hashpower isn't secure, then neither is Bitcoin.
What's worse is that there is no way to fix this without massively increasing mining outside of China, which isn't economically viable without an electricity cost parity or advantage.  

It is funny, how you fear the Chinese. BTW, Chinese are much more strongly defensive of their right to have paper money. They would never roll over and accept gov't controlled money accounts like they're doing in Europe. As if having the majority of hash power in the country that has the majority of the world population is somehow a problem. And yet the U.S.is actually the most repressive country on earth. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/19/apple-fbi-encryption-battle-san-bernardino-shooting-syed-farook-iphone

What exactly is your agenda, new BJA?

The Chinese government is somewhat hostile towards Bitcoin and freedom in general.
In China, it is illegal to:

buy bitcoin or sell bitcoin with a bank account
trade goods and services for bitcoin

They have strong capital controls which we know Bitcoin can be used to evade.
They have a history of cracking down on freedom movements (Tiananmen Square massacre)
They have a history of nationalizing industries
They are in the midst of an economic downturn that could easily turn into a recession
They have economic and monetary policies that will be difficult to enforce if bitcoin achieves a substantially higher market cap.

Long story short, there's no way Bitcoin can grow without achieving more Government and PBoC hostility.

There's no way bitcoin can grow without more network congestion.  

Taken together, it means Bitcoin is a suborbital vehicle and the moon is not reachable.


LOL, ok, now I see what's going on. Ok Mr Billie Joe agent. I've flat out accused you of buying your account 5 times tonight, and you have not denied it once, not even acknowledged that I said anything.

It's a little strange, seeing as how you (ahem, the original you) and I have had some rather rude disagreements in the past yet now you are exceptionally polite. Tonight however you have not said a single nasty thing to me, not once. Is that odd? Yeah, I'd say so.

Anyways I'll continue to play along,

In the state of New York, it is illegal to:

buy bitcoin or sell bitcoin with a bank account without a bit-license
trade goods and services for bitcoin without a bit-license

They have strong capital controls which we know Bitcoin can be used to evade. unless you try to be honest and play by the rules and co-operate with the authorities like Charlie Shrem
They have a history of cracking down on freedom movements (Occupy wall street)
They have a history of nationalizing industries like banks? LOL http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/

They are in the midst of an economic downturn that could easily turn into a recession OH REALLY? http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

They have economic and monetary policies that will be difficult to enforce if bitcoin achieves a substantially higher market cap. LOL,


Long story short, there's no way Bitcoin can grow without achieving more Government and PBoC hostility.
There's no way bitcoin can grow without more network congestion.  
Taken together, it means Bitcoin is a suborbital vehicle and the moon is not reachable.

-----heh, you said moon.
Dude you are so fucking transparent and measurably incompetent, if you don't get fired for this it's just another example of the incompetence in the establishment.

Though I must say, you've been rather pleasant throughout this encounter and I wish you a good night.  Kiss
Fatman3001
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1013


Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC


View Profile
February 21, 2016, 07:22:42 AM

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

its likely they are stupid.

FFS

We'll see. I have a feeling you'll be screaming from the rooftops in a few months.
noobtrader
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 21, 2016, 07:24:26 AM

YAYYYY  450 reached hahaha   Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

The price is likely to rise again on Monday as China gets back from holiday, combined with the fact that gold seemed to have bottomed and started to increase, and the Yuan is supposed to be devalued by like 30-40%, so I went all in at $375 and already up $10 a coin.  No matter how much bullshit BJA says, there are too many positive external factors on price right now to be that dangerous to hold.  The Yuan devaluation thing alone is yuge and might turn out to just be shoveling free money at you by holding BTC.

A halving + huge yuan devaluation at the same time?  Are you shitting me?  It's like god himself is trying to increase the BTC price.  Even if the blockchain stopped and never worked again it would probably go up.

agreed, it seem that 450 is the target near term.
rebuilder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1616
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 21, 2016, 07:42:53 AM

Shmadz, BJA: to comment on double spend risks. You both seem to have missed some details.

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%

If you have 75% of the hashrate, your success rate with double-spends is 100%, since you are guaranteed to be building the longest chain. Sure, 25% of the blocks will not be built by you, but you have the power to discard those from the blockchain. I'd guess a double-spend in this kind of scenario would probably be best achieved by willingly orphaning the blocks containing the tx  you want to re-spend. So the situation, if you assume Chinese miners are all in collusion, is actually worse than BJA is saying.

OTOH, honest miners aren't the only protection against double spends. simple race attacks can be detected by any sufficiently connected node. That won't help against dishonest miners, but the kind of attack a majority miner could pull off seems pretty problematic in terms of financial gains. The attack would be detected too quickly for the miner to exchange their BTC for other assets and take delivery of said assets, so any profits would be counted in BTC. And what do yout think happens to the BTC price if a majority miner goes rogue?
Pages: « 1 ... 14811 14812 14813 14814 14815 14816 14817 14818 14819 14820 14821 14822 14823 14824 14825 14826 14827 14828 14829 14830 14831 14832 14833 14834 14835 14836 14837 14838 14839 14840 14841 14842 14843 14844 14845 14846 14847 14848 14849 14850 14851 14852 14853 14854 14855 14856 14857 14858 14859 14860 [14861] 14862 14863 14864 14865 14866 14867 14868 14869 14870 14871 14872 14873 14874 14875 14876 14877 14878 14879 14880 14881 14882 14883 14884 14885 14886 14887 14888 14889 14890 14891 14892 14893 14894 14895 14896 14897 14898 14899 14900 14901 14902 14903 14904 14905 14906 14907 14908 14909 14910 14911 ... 29748 »
  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!