Bitcoin Forum
April 04, 2020, 12:54:21 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Where will this rally top out?
Already topped <$7,000 - 17 (25.4%)
$7,000-$7,499 - 5 (7.5%)
$7,500-$7,999 - 7 (10.4%)
$8,000-$8,499 - 3 (4.5%)
$8,500-$8,999 - 5 (7.5%)
$9,000-$9,499 - 1 (1.5%)
$9,500-$9,999 - 0 (0%)
$10K+ - 29 (43.3%)
Total Voters: 67

Pages: « 1 ... 17074 17075 17076 17077 17078 17079 17080 17081 17082 17083 17084 17085 17086 17087 17088 17089 17090 17091 17092 17093 17094 17095 17096 17097 17098 17099 17100 17101 17102 17103 17104 17105 17106 17107 17108 17109 17110 17111 17112 17113 17114 17115 17116 17117 17118 17119 17120 17121 17122 17123 [17124] 17125 17126 17127 17128 17129 17130 17131 17132 17133 17134 17135 17136 17137 17138 17139 17140 17141 17142 17143 17144 17145 17146 17147 17148 17149 17150 17151 17152 17153 17154 17155 17156 17157 17158 17159 17160 17161 17162 17163 17164 17165 17166 17167 17168 17169 17170 17171 17172 17173 17174 ... 26530 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21585182 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. (143 posts by 33 users deleted.)
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1249



View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:19:41 PM

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...
We need more throughput. Period. You got a better solution, code it and release it into the wild.
Best Rates For Exchanging Cryptocurrency Buy Crypto With Credit Card Smooth Exchange Multiple E-Payment Systems Check Now Check Now
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1586004861
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586004861

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586004861
Reply with quote  #2

1586004861
Report to moderator
1586004861
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586004861

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586004861
Reply with quote  #2

1586004861
Report to moderator
2017Bubble
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:34:17 PM

Next hours are CRITICAL!!!!!
Will we form a head n sholder or will we break it up to 3000 or moar?
ETH going DOWN good sign.
So far so good place your bets.
Get rich or die trying.
Kpeaceoutbi
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1133


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:38:35 PM



Roach, you did not reply me to enlighten me in what way I was wrong in this. ANyway, It's unnecesary you do it now, as it looks I was not "totally wrong" but instead totally right on my prospect.

My point was that it's not a "non-contentious" fork.  It's still the same situation on the ground as the last 2 years with nothing really having changed.  It doesn't matter if all the Chinese miners signal they want to hard fork because they all agreed they wanted to do that years ago.  So once again...what exactly has changed?  Pretty much nothing.  It's still Bitcoin core vs Roger Ver and Jihan Wu as usual.  The only thing that's changed at all is Barry Silbert got drunk and took a boat over to the Guangdong province and was like "hey guys, I heard you like pump and dumps??? me too???"

If you mean its basically the same as the HK agreement. Yes, it is. But for the past couple of years both parties have been putting obstacles on the way to that agreement (which basically is a GOOD agreement now, as it was before). And finally it looks like both parties have delayed it enough for their hidden agenda (Wu for profitting in ASICBOOST and maybe Blockstream to develop whatever) and both are gonna honour that OLD deal.

Yes, its an OLD deal... bout time it fucking gets implemented in a NON-CONTENTIOUS way.

And I think that's exactaly what has changed... couple months ago that agreement was complemente contentious... now it looks like it won't.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 2525


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:42:07 PM

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus..

So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent.

Am I reading this wrong?  Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there?
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 2525


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:45:17 PM

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...
We need more throughput. Period. You got a better solution, code it and release it into the wild.

Don't be ridiculous.

There is no emergency here, and even the clearing up of the bitcoin blockchain in the past few days should go to show that the month long spam attack was a scam.   There are folks who were directing their mining power at attacking the bitcoin network, and maybe that has become less effective and expensive?  Anyhow they have temporarily ceased the bullshit attack shenanigans and we are getting decent processing times and fees, again.  At least for the moment.
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1133


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:45:38 PM

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus..

So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent.

Am I reading this wrong?  Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there?

Unless someone says that I am totally wrong again: Yes, that's it. And it's a good thing. No hidden agenda unless... uhhh. it's very hidden.

P.S.: The compromise is not "contingent", it INCLUDES a blocksize increase to 2MB in the near future. I am ok with it, and anyone that wants Segwit to pass should also be ok with it. If Segwit pass, the 2MB HF will also happen. No way around that, no tricks or everyone will lose.
2017Bubble
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:45:45 PM

hello it me again,

China moving UP UP UP UP
Alts DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN

IS this IT?
2017Bubble
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:48:06 PM

2017Bubble
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:49:26 PM

lolololol some dick head put 400 sell wall at bitstamp fucking cunt
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 2525


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:51:16 PM

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus..

So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent.

Am I reading this wrong?  Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there?

Unless someone says that I am totally wrong again: Yes, that's it. And it's a good thing. No hidden agenda unless... uhhh. it's very hidden.


So in essence, segwit is a soft fork that would go into effect at an earlier stage and then it seems that if segwit goes into effect, it will likely receive more and more hashing power.

I anticipate that there is going to be considerable lack of an ability to achieve consensus regarding a hardfork, unless it is truly of a real high consensus level - and there is a pretty large contingency of folks that really see no value to increase the blocksize limit, which will likely become even more apparent once seg wit actually goes live... why fuck up a good thing with bloated and totally unnecessary 2mg blocks?
fotosonics
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:51:40 PM

Longtime lurker here, but back since the new revival.

Been reading about Chinese manipulation and then about Jihan Wu. And then I found this.



I'm not sure what is really going on but it feels like I walked into a party, then some drunk guy started a fight which we hope to ignore until it goes away.

Can anyone shed light on what is going on or should we just move along?
HI-TEC99
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1131



View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:53:52 PM

lolololol some dick head put 400 sell wall at bitstamp fucking cunt

He keeps pulling it, then putting it back up. It looks fake to me, and I suspect someone will buy it if he leaves it up long enough. If he really wanted to ell he wouldn't keep pulling it. He wants to create panic, but it's not working.

edit

It's been pulled again.

Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1249



View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:55:04 PM

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...
We need more throughput. Period. You got a better solution, code it and release it into the wild.

Don't be ridiculous.

There is no emergency here, and even the clearing up of the bitcoin blockchain in the past few days should go to show that the month long spam attack was a scam.   There are folks who were directing their mining power at attacking the bitcoin network, and maybe that has become less effective and expensive?  Anyhow they have temporarily ceased the bullshit attack shenanigans and we are getting decent processing times and fees, again.  At least for the moment.
Are you disagreeing that we need more throughput? Yes or no, wordy one.
2017Bubble
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 08:57:49 PM


Keep pushing!




bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1133


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 09:07:29 PM

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus..

So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent.

Am I reading this wrong?  Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there?

Unless someone says that I am totally wrong again: Yes, that's it. And it's a good thing. No hidden agenda unless... uhhh. it's very hidden.


So in essence, segwit is a soft fork that would go into effect at an earlier stage and then it seems that if segwit goes into effect, it will likely receive more and more hashing power.

I anticipate that there is going to be considerable lack of an ability to achieve consensus regarding a hardfork, unless it is truly of a real high consensus level - and there is a pretty large contingency of folks that really see no value to increase the blocksize limit, which will likely become even more apparent once seg wit actually goes live... why fuck up a good thing with bloated and totally unnecessary 2mg blocks?


If all goes well, Segwit2x will pass with a near 100% hash rate. That same hashrate will enforce, some time later (3? 6 months?)) a 2MB blocksize increase.

I am basically against HF's but... if they are able to unite a near 100% hashrate I am ok to a HF for blocksize increase. A FIXED 2MB blocksize increase, not an abomination like BU/EC.

As much as I am PRO Segwit and LN, let me tell you it's effect won't be inmediately noticed. There's no LN in place yet. Many wallets don't support Segwit. So the effects won't be as much as theoretical, PLUS if we are really going to grow (don't we all want that?) Segwit+LN won't be enough to support that growth. A reasonable 2MB increase would be also welcome IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED with an almost 100% hashrate.

Let's recap here.... HF are undesirable for the risk of a split... with an almost unanimous hashrate there's no such risk, so it's ok to me.
lost_in_base
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 09:19:01 PM

lolololol some dick head put 400 sell wall at bitstamp fucking cunt
I just dont care
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 2525


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 09:26:29 PM

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...
We need more throughput. Period. You got a better solution, code it and release it into the wild.

Don't be ridiculous.

There is no emergency here, and even the clearing up of the bitcoin blockchain in the past few days should go to show that the month long spam attack was a scam.   There are folks who were directing their mining power at attacking the bitcoin network, and maybe that has become less effective and expensive?  Anyhow they have temporarily ceased the bullshit attack shenanigans and we are getting decent processing times and fees, again.  At least for the moment.
Are you disagreeing that we need more throughput? Yes or no, wordy one.


I suppose you could sum it up to that.  We don't need more throughput, and maybe implementing seg wit will help with the spam attacks, too.

bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1133


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 09:29:50 PM

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...
We need more throughput. Period. You got a better solution, code it and release it into the wild.

Don't be ridiculous.

There is no emergency here, and even the clearing up of the bitcoin blockchain in the past few days should go to show that the month long spam attack was a scam.   There are folks who were directing their mining power at attacking the bitcoin network, and maybe that has become less effective and expensive?  Anyhow they have temporarily ceased the bullshit attack shenanigans and we are getting decent processing times and fees, again.  At least for the moment.
Are you disagreeing that we need more throughput? Yes or no, wordy one.


I suppose you could sum it up to that.  We don't need more throughput, and maybe implementing seg wit will help with the spam attacks, too.



Don't be ridiculous: We need more throughput. And If I were to spam the network I would use non Segwit tx's even if Segwit is implemented. Or maybe I would use Segwit TX's as the signatures doesn't count for the TX fee.

Why is it so hard for people on the same boat (long on BTC) to row in the same fucking direction?
Qartada
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500


BlockWake.com Bitcoin Doubler


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2017, 09:36:40 PM

Most cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin are down.  ETH is down, Ripple doesn't count, Litecoin is down, ETC is down, DASH is down...

Looks like some money is slowly starting to flow back out of altcoins and into BTC.  The SegWit hype will amplify this over the next month or so.

Time to short some altcoins if you ask me.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 2525


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 09:37:10 PM

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus..

So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent.

Am I reading this wrong?  Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there?

Unless someone says that I am totally wrong again: Yes, that's it. And it's a good thing. No hidden agenda unless... uhhh. it's very hidden.


So in essence, segwit is a soft fork that would go into effect at an earlier stage and then it seems that if segwit goes into effect, it will likely receive more and more hashing power.

I anticipate that there is going to be considerable lack of an ability to achieve consensus regarding a hardfork, unless it is truly of a real high consensus level - and there is a pretty large contingency of folks that really see no value to increase the blocksize limit, which will likely become even more apparent once seg wit actually goes live... why fuck up a good thing with bloated and totally unnecessary 2mg blocks?


If all goes well, Segwit2x will pass with a near 100% hash rate. That same hashrate will enforce, some time later (3? 6 months?)) a 2MB blocksize increase.

Yeah, but you already conceded that the two are not automatic, and implementing seg wit does not mandate implementing either 2mb upgrade or a hardfork without further contingencies.

In that regard, we could achieve nearly 100% hashrate and/or consensus for segwit (in the first stage), and then only achieve a much smaller hashrate/consensus for 2mb and/or hardfork.



I am basically against HF's but... if they are able to unite a near 100% hashrate I am ok to a HF for blocksize increase. A FIXED 2MB blocksize increase, not an abomination like BU/EC.

Well, yeah.  If the hardfork and/or 2mb is nearly 100% or even more than 95%, then it is not contentious; but you are assuming too much if you believe that there is going to be an automatic agreement about either 2mb or hardfork merely because segwit goes through under this arrangement, no?




As much as I am PRO Segwit and LN, let me tell you it's effect won't be inmediately noticed. There's no LN in place yet. Many wallets don't support Segwit. So the effects won't be as much as theoretical, PLUS if we are really going to grow (don't we all want that?) Segwit+LN won't be enough to support that growth.

I pretty much agree with you that it is going to take a while to build upon segwit and to advantage from such - even though there may be some developers who are more ready than others.

On the other hand, you seem to be assuming that there is some kind of clogging of the network that goes beyond spamming. Is it possible that seg wit might address some of the spamming?  However, I understand that down the road, spamming might resume because there may be some folks who remain intent on creating the impression that 2mb is actually needed - even with the implementation of segwit.




A reasonable 2MB increase would be also welcome IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED with an almost 100% hashrate.


Again, you are assuming 100%.. that would be non-contentious, and even 95%+ would likely be close to non contentious, if able to achieve such support levels.


Let's recap here.... HF are undesirable for the risk of a split... with an almost unanimous hashrate there's no such risk, so it's ok to me.

Agreed about that part.
Pages: « 1 ... 17074 17075 17076 17077 17078 17079 17080 17081 17082 17083 17084 17085 17086 17087 17088 17089 17090 17091 17092 17093 17094 17095 17096 17097 17098 17099 17100 17101 17102 17103 17104 17105 17106 17107 17108 17109 17110 17111 17112 17113 17114 17115 17116 17117 17118 17119 17120 17121 17122 17123 [17124] 17125 17126 17127 17128 17129 17130 17131 17132 17133 17134 17135 17136 17137 17138 17139 17140 17141 17142 17143 17144 17145 17146 17147 17148 17149 17150 17151 17152 17153 17154 17155 17156 17157 17158 17159 17160 17161 17162 17163 17164 17165 17166 17167 17168 17169 17170 17171 17172 17173 17174 ... 26530 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!