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

[JayJuanGee]

You mean the CEO of Bitcoin Cash -- Rick Falkvinge -- isn't allowed to trade bitcoin?

If he trades based on insider information, as you implied, and this can be proven in court, he will go to jail in most countries in the world.
Well, most likely not jail, but a hefty fine

Maybe start a twitter campaign to jail the CEO of Bitcoin Cash?  


For the record, there is no Bitcoin Cash CEO.  That doesn't even make sense.  How can a blockchain have a CEO? That letter was satire. The people with "inside information" are the miners and the whales battling it out right now.  I have no idea how this mess will play out, which is why I hold both BTC and BCH.

I am leaning towards BCH though.

I guess that you are conceding that some folks are fucking nutjobs, including that Rick whatever his name is who proclaimed to be the CEO of Bcash as a kind of pump "satire", as you call it.

Sure, it is understandable that cryptos are generally unregulated, and largely decentralized, but if the SEC considers some behaviors to be bordering on the promotion of securities, then some players could get themselves into trouble by pumping such, no?  Even if they later proclaim, "satire?" 

[1714181885]

1714181885

[1714181885]

1714181885

[1714181885]

1714181885

[Dabs]

If you paid $6 to move $40 worth of bitcoin, and it confirmed, you would pay $6 to move $400 or $4000 or $40000 or even $4 million worth of bitcoin, and it will also confirm. (Well, maybe if you used more unspent inputs then you'd pay more than $6 but I think that's acceptable for a $4m transaction.)

[Peter R]

Could you explain why you think that users don't need to run network nodes?
I don't agree, but I would like to understand your point of view.

The design of Bitcoin is such that users can just be users.  

For example, if I transfer a coin to you, you can immediately verify my signature.  You do not need to trust me or trust anyone else -- the transaction itself contains cryptographic proof that I transferred ownership of my coin to you.  You can even follow the chain of signatures backwards and confirm that the person who I received the coin from also signed the transfer, and so on and so forth, as far back as you want to go.  You do not need a network node to do this!

The only risk to you is that I may have also signed that same bitcoin over to someone else.  This is the double-spend problem that had not been solved until Satoshi.  Satoshi's revolutionary solution was to use proof-of-work to time stamp transactions into a chain such that -- if his proof-of-work conjecture held --  that the same coin could not be spent twice.

As a user then, the only additional piece of information you need, is whether the transaction I gave to you was accepted into the blockchain.  A network node can provide you this proof (that you can trustlessly verify for yourself!) with a few kilobytes of information.

Here is a talk I gave (only about 10 min long) that explains how SPV works in more detail (sorry about the crappy audio!)  

https://youtu.be/m7cvPvtGIUI?t=459

[tetra]

If you paid $6 to move $40 worth of bitcoin, and it confirmed, you would pay $6 to move $400 or $4000 or $40000 or even $4 million worth of bitcoin, and it will also confirm. (Well, maybe if you used more unspent inputs then you'd pay more than $6 but I think that's acceptable for a $4m transaction.)

Sounds like a pretty standard amount for a transaction

[AlexGR]

The only risk to you is that I may have also signed that same bitcoin over to someone else.

More recently another risk emerged: The ability of the node to feed the user a different chain, and then proclaiming that this chain is Bitcoin - when it's not.

In this scenario, a userbase which relies heavily on a few nodes can be switched to any implementation the few node-owners want. So if a few node-owners collude, they can switch nearly the entire BTC userbase to another coin and then proclaim it BTC.

So nodes are important. Very important.

[Peter R]

The only risk to you is that I may have also signed that same bitcoin over to someone else.

More recently another risk emerged: The ability of the node to feed the user a different chain, and then proclaiming that this chain is Bitcoin - when it's not.

In this scenario, a userbase which relies heavily on a few nodes can be switched to any implementation the few node-owners want. So if a few node-owners collude, they can switch nearly the entire BTC userbase to another coin and then proclaim it BTC.

So nodes are important. Very important.

Sounds like you don't understand how PoW works.

[Dabs]

Sounds like a pretty standard amount for a transaction

I recently (a few months ago) paid $10.84 to move $833,092.49 split among 3 people.

[tetra]

Sounds like a pretty standard amount for a transaction

I recently (a few months ago) paid $10.84 to move $833,092.49 split among 3 people.

Yeah, that sounds so 99%

[AZwarel]

Could you explain why you think that users don't need to run network nodes?
I don't agree, but I would like to understand your point of view.

The design of Bitcoin is such that users can just be users.  

For example, if I transfer a coin to you, you can immediately verify my signature.  You do not need to trust me or trust anyone else -- the transaction itself contains cryptographic proof that I transferred ownership of my coin to you.  You can even follow the chain of signatures backwards and confirm that the person who I received the coin from also signed the transfer, and so on and so forth, as far back as you want to go.  You do not need a network node to do this!

The only risk to you is that I may have also signed that same bitcoin over to someone else.  This is the double-spend problem that had not been solved until Satoshi.  Satoshi's revolutionary solution was to use proof-of-work to time stamp transactions into a chain such that -- if his proof-of-work conjecture held --  that the same coin could not be spent twice.

As a user then, the only additional piece of information you need, is whether the transaction I gave to you was accepted into the blockchain.  A network node can provide you this proof (that you can trustlessly verify for yourself!) with a few kilobytes of information.

Here is a talk I gave (only about 10 min long) that explains how SPV works in more detail (sorry about the crappy audio!)  

https://youtu.be/m7cvPvtGIUI?t=459

That is a contradiction (bolded parts).

I can only prove it with a 100% chance, that the "provided" hash of the transaction from an untrusted node is valid, if i can reproduce that final few kilobyte hashed data myself from scratch.
For that, i MUST HAVE every single previous hashes starting from the first iteration of said transaction (the coinbase tx), and recreate the chain of proof myself.

For that, i need to have my own independent copy of the complete transactional history of the past utxos, not depending on it to be provided by an untrusted node on request - and in a trustless system, i must presume by default every other node is untrusted.

SPV can and does work, but it can not be a 100% proof of a valid state. Of course, for everyday low cost transactions, an SPVs probability for validity is enough, but it is not trustless, as you argue, and the problem will escalate with time:
if the ratio of SPV/full validating nodes drops below a treshold, the chance for a malicious collusion between said full nodes increases exponentially.

[Gab0]

Could you explain why you think that users don't need to run network nodes?
I don't agree, but I would like to understand your point of view.

The design of Bitcoin is such that users can just be users.  

For example, if I transfer a coin to you, you can immediately verify my signature.  You do not need to trust me or trust anyone else -- the transaction itself contains cryptographic proof that I transferred ownership of my coin to you.  You can even follow the chain of signatures backwards and confirm that the person who I received the coin from also signed the transfer, and so on and so forth, as far back as you want to go.  You do not need a network node to do this!

The only risk to you is that I may have also signed that same bitcoin over to someone else.  This is the double-spend problem that had not been solved until Satoshi.  Satoshi's revolutionary solution was to use proof-of-work to time stamp transactions into a chain such that -- if his proof-of-work conjecture held --  that the same coin could not be spent twice.

As a user then, the only additional piece of information you need, is whether the transaction I gave to you was accepted into the blockchain.  A network node can provide you this proof (that you can trustlessly verify for yourself!) with a few kilobytes of information.

Here is a talk I gave (only about 10 min long) that explains how SPV works in more detail (sorry about the crappy audio!)  

https://youtu.be/m7cvPvtGIUI?t=459

Thanks, I appreciate your response, but you talk to me about just one function of the node, which is to keep a record of the transaction history. Is not it also the function of the node to enforce the set of rules that maintain consensus in the network?

[mymenace]

Could you explain why you think that users don't need to run network nodes?
I don't agree, but I would like to understand your point of view.

The design of Bitcoin is such that users can just be users.  

For example, if I transfer a coin to you, you can immediately verify my signature.  You do not need to trust me or trust anyone else -- the transaction itself contains cryptographic proof that I transferred ownership of my coin to you.  You can even follow the chain of signatures backwards and confirm that the person who I received the coin from also signed the transfer, and so on and so forth, as far back as you want to go.  You do not need a network node to do this!

The only risk to you is that I may have also signed that same bitcoin over to someone else.  This is the double-spend problem that had not been solved until Satoshi.  Satoshi's revolutionary solution was to use proof-of-work to time stamp transactions into a chain such that -- if his proof-of-work conjecture held --  that the same coin could not be spent twice.

As a user then, the only additional piece of information you need, is whether the transaction I gave to you was accepted into the blockchain.  A network node can provide you this proof (that you can trustlessly verify for yourself!) with a few kilobytes of information.

Here is a talk I gave (only about 10 min long) that explains how SPV works in more detail (sorry about the crappy audio!)  

https://youtu.be/m7cvPvtGIUI?t=459

Thanks, I appreciate your response, but you talk to me about just one function of the node, which is to keep a record of the transaction history. Is not it also the function of the node to enforce the set of rules that maintain consensus in the network?

This is not a node
https://blockchain.info/

access to all of bitcoins transactions



nodes confirm transactions besides other things, this is the blockchain

nodes are usually pc wallets, miners, pools, exchanges etc




side chains, wallet apps, online wallets are not full nodes and rely on the above infrastructure


hope i got that right


bitcoin is a currency of the bitcoin blockchain, the blockchain is the key

to use bitcoin effectively
1) Imagine if someone took a record of all your transactions from currency to contracts and anything else that can be electronic

2) Now you go and build your automation/software around that decentralized transparent ledger

3) The trust in your accounts/organisatioon/industry/currency is now exponentially better than anybody else

You are only limited by your imagination and do not need to be a node

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

How about nodes? Does BCH actually have any that aren't Bitmain?

I cannot speak definitively. There's mine. I ain't Bitmain. I assume that many others -- who I know to believe in the direction Bitcoin Cash has set for Bitcoin's future -- likewise run nodes.

Not much of an answer, that. Sort of hand-wavey.

I agree. Of course it is hand-wavey. What do you want me to do? I have no definitive list of all nodes. Do you have one for Bitcoin Segwit? Tallying them up -- in a permissionless environment -- would seem to be the responsibility of the person desiring the statistic, no? I guess in this case, that would be you. Right?

Perhaps if you could make a cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash, you might have a point. But so far, all I've seen from you or others is mere hand waving.

Node count and distribution is important. Why are you pretending it's a non-issue?

I am not pretending it is a non-issue. I assume there are currently fully-validating non-mining 'nodes' in sufficient number. I am also assuming as people who operate fully-validating non-mining 'nodes' shift from focused upon Bitcoin Segwit to being focused upon Bitcoin Cash, that they will start operating 'nodes' upon Bitcoin Cash. Does this seem unreasonable to you? If so, why?

Of course, it is true that I have much less regard for the operation of such non-mining, fully-validating 'nodes' than do most. Indeed, I believe they provide essentially zero benefit to the system as a whole (though they do provide some measure of benefit to their individual owners).

Further, I believe that any system that does not provide forcible barriers to entry is decentralized to the extent that it need be. If the decentralization is purported to 'keep another class of parties in check', then spinning up a single said decentralizing element is sufficient to perform the task at hand. The system need not depend upon ridiculous oversubscription to perform the requisite function.

So presumably, that was your best 'cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash'? What else ya got?

(apologies for the somewhat aggressive tone)

It pisses me off how much smarter than me you are. 
grrr

when moon?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

[Lauda]

The paid and bamboozled shills Peter R and jbreher are out in full force, breaking the forum rules as they go (of course). You should wonder which agency is most likely to be funding agents to cause disruption in open source projects (NSA anyone?).
Back to what matters:

Bitstamp | Total bids: 105256978 USD. Total asks: 3992 BTC. Ratio: 26365.44631 USD/BTC. | Data vintage: 0.0739 seconds

[600watt]

Remember readers, if you hold Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash in equal proportions, you can sit back and watch the whales battle it out.  If you don't have inside information, you're at a significant disadvantage when trading.

I take that as a public confession of insider trading.
I hope you are aware of the fact that insider trading is illegal in practically any jurisdiction in the world?
If you are even somewhat representative of the Bitcoin Cash crowd, I shall from here on after call the Bitcoin Cashers crooks.

well said! will do the same. they are crooks.

[Peter R]

The paid and bamboozled shills Peter R and jbreher are out in full force, breaking the forum rules as they go (of course). You should wonder which agency is most likely to be funding agents to cause disruption in open source projects (NSA anyone?).

uh oh, jbreher, he's on to us!  

Let's regroup back at NSA head quarters with Rick Falkvinge, Jihan Wu and Roger Ver.

Oh boy, you're a special kind of stupid, Lauda.

[600watt]

It pisses me off how much smarter than me you are. 
grrr

when moon?

he isn´t. missing to see the context, the bigger picture is not smart.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

It pisses me off how much smarter than me you are.  
grrr

when moon?

he isn´t. missing to see the context, the bigger picture is not smart.

That might apply just as well to me. I dumped, I'm hugely biased. Chinese bootlegging is a terrifying trillion dollar a year industry. I just can't help seeing these things as knock-off Bitcoins. But it is a protocol after all.

Ignore me. I'm torn. I'm babbling. I don't know.

[600watt]

It pisses me off how much smarter than me you are.  
grrr

when moon?

he isn´t. missing to see the context, the bigger picture is not smart.

That might apply just as well to me. I dumped, I'm hugely biased. Chinese bootlegging is a terrifying trillion dollar a year industry. I just can't help seeing these things as knock-off Bitcoins. But it is a protocol after all.

Ignore me. I'm torn. I'm babbling. I don't know.

when it comes to thieves staying unbiased is not the way to go.

[Searing]

Remember readers, if you hold Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash in equal proportions, you can sit back and watch the whales battle it out.  If you don't have inside information, you're at a significant disadvantage when trading.

I take that as a public confession of insider trading.
I hope you are aware of the fact that insider trading is illegal in practically any jurisdiction in the world?
If you are even somewhat representative of the Bitcoin Cash crowd, I shall from here on after call the Bitcoin Cashers crooks.

well said! will do the same. they are crooks.

yep I'm in that boat......sitting on the fence seems to way to go...when the "my fork is right" many different flavors of bitcoin devs fight it out below....

this 'forking' is not gonna stop anytime soon..not with a clusterf*ck launch of Bitcoin Gold that at least on the toilet paper it resembles is at $214.94

hell, I and 3 guys I know could do a better job...(damn...the dark side of all this 'forking around' is a sexy wench..must resist!!!)