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

[Fatman3001]

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.

[1714904806]

1714904806

[1714904806]

1714904806

[1714904806]

1714904806

[1714904806]

1714904806

[1714904806]

1714904806

[1714904806]

1714904806

[noobtrader]

YAYYYY  450 reached hahaha   

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]

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?

[Morecoin Freeman]

Crazy market +20% in two weeks.

[Fatman3001]

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 majoroty 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?

Chinese miners are among the bitcoin businesses who have the most to fear from a 51% attack. All their income is denominated in BTC.

But if the chinese government turns hostile and starts telling them what to do it could turn ugly quick.

I am very curious if any of them have an official political minder from the party on their payroll. If so, then it could be very difficult to avoid taking part in an attack.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

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?

I'm not suggesting miners are or could be or want to collude. It's in their best interest not to do that unless...they are coerced by the government, Communist Party or central bank.  My concern is that 75% hashpower in the same POLITICAL jurisdiction (not where most people live) threatens censorship resistance.
Nothing anyone has said changes that.

I know the U.S. has suppressed voices of dissent, but in modern times we've had nothing like the Tienanmen Square Massacre. There are levels of Statist evil. Still, I don't want to defend myself or my country, both of whom merit legitimate criticism because it changes the subject.
The issue, no matter how badly everyone wants to ignore it is the Bitcoin is centralized now, not in a way we predicted or worried about, but centralized all the same.  I would have the same objection if mining was concentrated here, but probably not as strongly. Mining cannot be concentrated in ANY one political boundary without compromising censorship resistance.

If we can at least agree on that, we can talk about what to do about it, but ignoring it, changing the subject, making personal attacks is not constructive. This is a real problem.




Scmadz seems to think I'm an agent or something, but i usually don't respond to ridiculous attacks. This one has been repeated many times, so no Dude. It's still me.  

[DaRude]

No many coins for sale left on finex. If China breaks 3000 this could turn in a firework

[DaRude]

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?

I'm not suggesting miners are or could be or want to collude. It's in their best interest not to do that unless...they are coerced by the government, Communist Party or central bank.  My concern is that 75% hashpower in the same POLITICAL jurisdiction (not where most people live) threatens censorship resistance.
Nothing anyone has said changes that.

I know the U.S. has suppressed voices of dissent, but in modern times we've had nothing like the Tienanmen Square Massacre. There are levels of Statist evil. Still, I don't want to defend myself or my country, both of whom merit legitimate criticism because it changes the subject.
The issue, no matter how badly everyone wants to ignore it is the Bitcoin is centralized now, not in a way we predicted or worried about, but centralized all the same.  

If we can at least agree on that, we can talk about what to do about it, but ignoring it, changing the subject, making personal attacks is not constructive. This is a real problem.




Scmadz seems to think I'm an agent or something, but i usually don't respond to reficulous attacks. This one has been repeated many times, so no Dude. It's still me.  

Keep creating bigger blocks 16MB make things less centralized right?

[shmadz]

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?

Ahhh, thank you, so nice to talk to a real account (I hope).

Yes, of course, you're totally bang on with your assessment. If there were a serious attack like this I suspect there might be a fork, maybe... Let's say China double spends, um I guess on bitstamp? So now bitstamp is on the short end and presumably they lost money.

Wouldn't be the first time. Probably not the last. But, you could argue that we should roll back and start you mine the original chain (this is similar to the fork in 2013 except the btcguild won't be able to switch back and regain consensus on the longest chain.)

It would be contentious, but if the offending double spend was egregious enough it could be deemed invalid and all clients that agree that it's invalid would continue creating new blocks from that point on. (Very similar to how a proposed hard fork might turn out, if it does not have sufficient consensus)

Anyhow, any shenanigans or wrong doing on the blockchain would likely such a negative effect on the value of the blockchain tokens as to make such an attack unprofitable and undesirable.

If you want to perform such an attack regardless of cost, and with unlimited budget, I believe it has already been proven that the Byzantine general's problem is unsolvable, (lacking sufficient incentives)

It's likely that the incentive structure is the only thing that truly protects the blockchain.

[billyjoeallen]

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?

I'm not suggesting miners are or could be or want to collude. It's in their best interest not to do that unless...they are coerced by the government, Communist Party or central bank.  My concern is that 75% hashpower in the same POLITICAL jurisdiction (not where most people live) threatens censorship resistance.
Nothing anyone has said changes that.

I know the U.S. has suppressed voices of dissent, but in modern times we've had nothing like the Tienanmen Square Massacre. There are levels of Statist evil. Still, I don't want to defend myself or my country, both of whom merit legitimate criticism because it changes the subject.
The issue, no matter how badly everyone wants to ignore it is the Bitcoin is centralized now, not in a way we predicted or worried about, but centralized all the same.  

If we can at least agree on that, we can talk about what to do about it, but ignoring it, changing the subject, making personal attacks is not constructive. This is a real problem.




Scmadz seems to think I'm an agent or something, but i usually don't respond to reficulous attacks. This one has been repeated many times, so no Dude. It's still me.  

Keep creating bigger blocks 16MB make things less centralized right?

see, that's exactly what I mean about changing the subject.  It means you don't have an answer.

[shmadz]

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 majoroty 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?

Chinese miners are among the bitcoin businesses who have the most to fear from a 51% attack. All their income is denominated in BTC.

But if the chinese government turns hostile and starts telling them what to do it could turn ugly quick.

I am very curious if any of them have an official political minder from the party on their payroll. If so, then it could be very difficult to avoid taking part in an attack.

Hmmmm, there was a good interview with a guy who had been talking with Chinese miners, and mentioned that the Chinese miners are running into a diminishing returns problem where if they control too much of the market, when they add hash power they are competing against themselves.

David Johnston, it's in the first 15 minutes. https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-crypto-show-with-dapps-david-johnston-and-the-breaking-live-fbi-siege-in-burns-oregon

[shmadz]

Scmadz

Yeah, not even close.

Hey Billy, why don't you tell us about your job and where you live, if it won't take you too much time to search the back history of the account you bought?

[shmadz]

Scmadz

Yeah, not even close.

Hey Billy, why don't you tell us about your job and where you live, if it won't take you too much time to search the back history of the account you bought?

You don't even know if you're a big blocker, or a small blocker, do you?

[Fatman3001]

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 majoroty 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?

Chinese miners are among the bitcoin businesses who have the most to fear from a 51% attack. All their income is denominated in BTC.

But if the chinese government turns hostile and starts telling them what to do it could turn ugly quick.

I am very curious if any of them have an official political minder from the party on their payroll. If so, then it could be very difficult to avoid taking part in an attack.

Hmmmm, there was a good interview with a guy who had been talking with Chinese miners, and mentioned that the Chinese miners are running into a diminishing returns problem where if they control too much of the market, when they add hash power they are competing against themselves.

David Johnston, it's in the first 15 minutes. https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-crypto-show-with-dapps-david-johnston-and-the-breaking-live-fbi-siege-in-burns-oregon

Sure, but they can't form a cartel, 'cause then someone else will just whoop their asses. In this way Bitcoin is pure, although brutal.

[billyjoeallen]

China is leading this rally because they think this roundtable agreement means we have consensus. That is far from certain. I'm thinking the main sticking point with Core will be/is:

1. getting boxed into a time frame, even an extraordinarily accommodating one.
2. no pledge to stick with Core even if they renege.

Bigblockers seem to all be smart enough to know that this is Core's deal to blow. We'll take the deal. But if Core Doesn't take it too even though they basically won,  then we go to war and it will be Core against the world. Everyone will know who the bad guys are. Smallblockers will lose.

I kinda hope they don't take it.  This was a last ditch effort on the part of miners to keep Core in the loop for the sake of market stability.  I care less about market stability than an end to the Divine Right of Kings.  

You got nowhere to go, Smallblockers. Take the deal or we will bury you.

[billyjoeallen]

Scmadz

Yeah, not even close.

Hey Billy, why don't you tell us about your job and where you live, if it won't take you too much time to search the back history of the account you bought?

You don't even know if you're a big blocker, or a small blocker, do you?

I'm a firefighter who lives in the swamp. I put dollar bills in your mom's G string.

How you like them Big Blocks?

[toknormal]

Bitcoin now crossing the boundary into the fabled Gox Resistance Field GORF.

3rd attempt at penetration.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[shmadz]

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 majoroty 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?

Chinese miners are among the bitcoin businesses who have the most to fear from a 51% attack. All their income is denominated in BTC.

But if the chinese government turns hostile and starts telling them what to do it could turn ugly quick.

I am very curious if any of them have an official political minder from the party on their payroll. If so, then it could be very difficult to avoid taking part in an attack.

Hmmmm, there was a good interview with a guy who had been talking with Chinese miners, and mentioned that the Chinese miners are running into a diminishing returns problem where if they control too much of the market, when they add hash power they are competing against themselves.

David Johnston, it's in the first 15 minutes. https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-crypto-show-with-dapps-david-johnston-and-the-breaking-live-fbi-siege-in-burns-oregon

Sure, but they can't form a cartel, 'cause then someone else will just whoop their asses. In this way Bitcoin is pure, although brutal.

yeah, I'm not so sure, they could sorta be a cartel, I guess, but the real problem is that if they are ever perceived as doing something wrong like a51% attack, the very asset they are mining will lose value. It's all about incentives, that's the only thing that works. And if you ask me if I trust USG vs heavily incentivized Chinese? I'd go with the Chinese, every time.

The more interesting part is the ongoing infiltration attack from Billy Joe Bullshit...

Hey Billy,  

i usually don't respond to reficulous attacks

oh yeah? Since when?
You used to be one of the biggest badass swinging dicks in this thread. I guess that hubris is one thing they don't teach at shill school.