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

[Ibian]

It can be done pretty much literally by changing one number, it has the least potential complications and has to my understanding already been tested with no meaningful complications.

There is a DoS attack vector at 2 MB that can be malicious exploited, especially by a mining cartel. It seems like you are heavily uninformed.

You may think it scales linearly, and that's not really a good idea on its own.

Signature hashing is quadratic not linear.

I was talking about the blocksize thing. I like the signature thing for many inputs to the same address, that actually makes sense.

I don't believe a word he says without sources or more credible people confirming it.

[1714092930]

1714092930

[1714092930]

1714092930

[1714092930]

1714092930

[1714092930]

1714092930

[1714092930]

1714092930

[Dabs]

1. It hasn't been tested, and you don't want to do it on the production main net. Testnet can't simulate it because we actually need something that has so many transactions.
2. Changing one number can break the whole thing, not to mention the possibility of attacking the nodes running on this one number, plus this is a hard fork.
3. HF are not always bad, but they are almost always not good.

I'm confirming it, but I won't give any sources, they should be easy to find out there. I don't know if you think I am credible enough or not. The message is important, not the messenger.

[cellard]

Do you think this correction is done yet? It's still not as deep as the one from May 25-27. It would have to go below $2k do match that.

It is not just a correction. I take it you have missed the Bitmain announcement/threat? I do not want it to go any lower, at least not yet.

You're right. I was too busy yesterday to even check in. Today I woke up, saw the price and ran out to buy.

So it's hard fork panic part two? Jeezuz Murphy. I'm looking into it.

Sigh.

It's the big blockers again. Check Tone Vays' latest video for a recap. They have used the $3000 recent peak too, to fuel the panic selling further, because $3000 is a psychological barrier and until it's clearly passed, some fear is in the air. The spark that ignited the fire was the post by "admin" in bitmain's blog. Everyone involved is im sure, shorting the market since "admin" posted the blog.

[Ibian]

We needed bigger capacity a year ago. Whatever efficiency benefits other ideas bring, they are further increased by bigger blocks. Do both, and do the part we can do now, now.

If it can be done, why hasn't it? I actually am fine with 2MB+SW but that doesn't mean I have the power to make it happen.

Politics.

[Ibian]

1. It hasn't been tested, and you don't want to do it on the production main net. Testnet can't simulate it because we actually need something that has so many transactions.
2. Changing one number can break the whole thing, not to mention the possibility of attacking the nodes running on this one number, plus this is a hard fork.
3. HF are not always bad, but they are almost always not good.

I'm confirming it, but I won't give any sources, they should be easy to find out there. I don't know if you think I am credible enough or not. The message is important, not the messenger.

The messenger is very important when the messenger is an obvious sophist. Not you, just to clarify.

[Dabs]

The messenger is very important when the messenger is an obvious sophist. Not you, just to clarify.

Thank you for the clarification. I'd say, spend a little time digging up where we found it.

I remember it must have been a discussion here (in other parts of this forum) as well as the dev irc logs or something, and an article or two from some other third parties.

Trust. But verify.

[Lauda]

Let's clear up some misconceptions:
1) Increasing the block size limit does not improve scalability. It does provide more throughput, but Bitcoin scales the same way. The current flawed design makes it actually scaled quadratically (signature hashing). A good example for this would be the Towers of Hanoi with 3 levels (1 MB) and e.g. Towers of Hanoi with 5 levels (as 2 MB). Try it.
2) Increasing the block size limit is not a change of 1 line of code. This has been a false myth being spread by people who don't even understand what they are preaching. You can't just magically put that number into your client. It needs additional code for: 1) Activation method/threshold. 2) Replay/DoS protection. 3) Tests.
3) There is a present DoS attack risk at 2 MB due to point 2. Read: https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522
4) A block size increase is a solution. Whilst I do not aim to dismiss the throughput increase, this is not a solution of any kind. If a mallicious attacker wanted to, they could fill these block up over night. Either that, or you could get enough demand that would fill it up very quickly. You will end up asking for X MB afterwards, which would further centralized Bitcoin whilst not improving scalability.

The messenger is very important when the messenger is an obvious sophist. Not you, just to clarify.

I am not a sophist of any kind. 99% of my posts are true and I welcome anyone with better knowledge. I am also not even paid to combat the false knowledge, shills and whatnot whilst being very sure (and not referring to you) that certain institutions and groups are actively paying people to spread fake information in regards to Bitcoin, especially scaling.

You're right. I was too busy yesterday to even check in. Today I woke up, saw the price and ran out to buy.

So it's hard fork panic part two? Jeezuz Murphy. I'm looking into it.

Sigh.

It seems that Bitmain wants to self-destruct themselves or they are unable to admit being wrong (or may blame BIP148 for the damage created by "Jihan Activated Hard fork"). Actually, if they do what they threaten the network with, there is a chance for 3 chains:
BIP148
Legacy chain
Jihancoin.

Can you guess which one I will be dumping?

[Dabs]

... there is a chance for 3 chains:
BIP148
Legacy chain
Jihancoin.

Can you guess which one I will be dumping?

Wow, so I can almost triple my money? .... kidding.

[spooderman]

Jimbo, do you buy from BTMs? You're always "rushing out to buy." In which case, holy commission batman?

[Ibian]

If [someone] wanted to, they could fill these block up over night [by spending a lot of money on fees]. Either that, or you could get enough demand that would fill it up very quickly [which is both what we want and why we need it]. You will end up asking for X MB afterwards, which would further centralized Bitcoin whilst not improving [efficiency].

Using terms like "malicious attacker" doesn't convey any useful information, it's an attempt to make people feel a certain way about the topic being discussed. And that is what makes you a sophist. Anyone has the right to send any amount of transactions they want for any reason or no reason, that's one of the main points about bitcoin. No middlemen regulating what is allowed.

We need more throughput. Otherwise this is as big as bitcoin is going to get. Squabbling over how it should be done instead of actually doing it is hurting everyone.

[Lauda]

Using terms like "malicious attacker" doesn't convey any useful information, it's an attempt to make people feel a certain way about the topic being discussed. And that is what makes you a sophist.

With statements like these you just look like an outright idiot that can not admit to being wrong. Does this remind us of some individuals? I'll give you a hint, one starts with a R and with a J. Debunking your correction easily:

If [someone] wanted to, they could fill these block up over night [by spending a lot of money on fees].

What fees? No congestion = very low fees or no fees at all.

Either that, or you could get enough demand that would fill it up very quickly [which is both what we want and why we need it].

Let me get this straight: You want to put further centralization pressure on Bitcoin with 2 MB blocks and you hope that they get filled right away so you can demand even more centralization pressure for more throughput?

You will end up asking for X MB afterwards, which would further centralized Bitcoin whilst not improving [efficiency].

A block size increase is not an improvement.

Anyone has the right to send any amount of transactions they want for any reason or no reason, that's one of the main points about bitcoin. No middlemen regulating what is allowed.

Let's stick our head into the send and ignore malicious individuals who do not do any kind of financial transactions nor valid data storage, but just create transactions for the sake of spamming. Wake up. These kinds of stupid statements make you look like a government shill.

Wow, so I can almost triple my money? .... kidding.

You wouldn't 'triple your money' if people actually listened to engineers and not business men or laymen like Ibian. You'd probably see a tenfold increase.

Jimbo, do you buy from BTMs? You're always "rushing out to buy." In which case, holy commission batman?

IIRC he did state once that he buys from BTMs.

[Ibian]

I have made my point sufficiently. People can make their own judgments going forward.

[Torque]

... there is a chance for 3 chains:
BIP148
Legacy chain
Jihancoin.

Can you guess which one I will be dumping?

Wow, so I can almost triple my money? .... kidding.

Why dump any? Etc is clearly proving that it's lucrative to just hold them all. 

[Colonel Panic]

I have made my point sufficiently. People can make their own judgments going forward.

Indeed they can

[Wekkel]

... there is a chance for 3 chains:
BIP148
Legacy chain
Jihancoin.

Can you guess which one I will be dumping?

Wow, so I can almost triple my money? .... kidding.

Why dump any? Etc is clearly proving that it's lucrative to just hold them all. 

Exactly, and meanwhile automatically receive Byteball on your Bitcoin while enjoying the show. Such drama.

[Meuh6879]

History.

[Chef Ramsay]

We're in the midst of another controlled price demolition thanks to the powers that be in the dev/mining cartels. I'm betting we go south of $1700 and perhaps flash to $1300 until everyone makes happy again and closes this chapter in bitcoin mayhem and everything returns to normal. Ltc/Btc seems to have bottomed and will likely climb as this madness plays out.

[JimboToronto]

Jimbo, do you buy from BTMs? You're always "rushing out to buy." In which case, holy commission batman?

Sometimes from ATMs, these days more often OTC from a small but growing list of contacts I've cultivated over the years.

The most I pay at any ATM is 6% and that is fast, net, cash, secure and anonymous.

Between the cost of transferring fiat to an exchange, and the trading fee, it's not that much more expensive and I don't have to expose my money to the internet.

Most importantly, it's fully anonymous. There are no banks, exchanges, governments or other corporations involved... just me and my paper wallets, some dude with a laptop or phone, cash and the blockchain.

When the time comes to  spend some to buy something like property or fiat currency, the blockchain will serve as a record of when I acquired the coins so capital gains tax can be calculated and paid. Until then it's nobody's business except mine.

Anonymity is the cornerstone of freedom. A few percent for the ATM operator or dude with the laptop/phone is a small price to pay.

[spooderman]

I have made my point sufficiently. People can make their own judgments going forward.

image didn't work. it was about pigeons not being able to lose at chess because they're too stupid.

_______


And thanks Jimbo, interesting info.

[Torque]

Most importantly, it's fully anonymous. There are no banks, exchanges, governments or other corporations involved... just me and my paper wallets, some dude with a laptop or phone, cash and the blockchain.

Not to mention, the real reason that the banking industry is scared of bitcoin is that if it becomes popular as a form of the peoples' "savings", they won't get customers ongoing deposits to continue their massive fractional reserve scam... which they rely heavily on.