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

[JayJuanGee]

Paid 6$ transaction fee and after 3 days .. 0 confirmations . Bullish.

This is not a good time for making such measurements, since there is an  ongoing spam attack going on - and sure some folks believe that bitcoin should be resilient enough to withstand spam attacks and still transmit.  I suppose some of these kinds of matters might be addressed by off chain transactions, too.

Overall bitcoin is bullish, but not for the contraindicator reasons that you trollishly point out.   

[pfrtlpfmpf]

I believe in short posts:
Short.

Bitcoincash ?   Nahh  

[Gab0]

Bitcoin gains it's value by proven exclusion of any third party intervention in a value exchange network between peers.
This is achieved in "The original vision" by that both the sender and receiver peer can independently get a proof by running a full node that there is no double spending on a transaction between them. No need for a trusted third party can be only achieved by this independent verification process, which needs the physically possible minimum technical requirements for running a full node for the most participants. A large block size excludes most peers doing this, essentially destroying the very core of bitcoin's value.

There was nothing about how the cost of transactions (fees) would be "fair" in the white paper; the costs of doing transactions in a voluntary, opt-in value exchange network is entirely upon the peers do decide between themselves.

You are basically saying that the free market is not working to establish the subjective valuation of the actors to reach a price of transacting. You think you can "spend their money better than they do".
That is the problem, not the vaporware you shill.

With simplified payment verification technology (Section 8 of white paper), users can be their own banks, verify their own transactions, and send payments to anyone, trustlessly and without a middleman.  Users do not need to run network nodes.

Here are slides from a talk I gave this summer explaining how this brilliant technique created by Satoshi works:

https://www.slideshare.net/peter_r/scaling-bitcoin-to-a-billion-users?qid=3e0b7061-f29b-4a6c-bc5b-ee6b59fffe49&v=&b=&from_search=1

Satoshi's design is massively scalable.

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.

[JayJuanGee]

good opportunity to buy more. i dont know where the bottom will be so i'm buying 0.05 at every $300 drop

JJ will be proud of you...

That is exactly what you supposed to be doing....    

And were the hell have you been during this shit storm? You alone could have worn all the BCH shillers down with you never ending walls of text.

hahahahahaha

Thanks for the praise (I think?).

I was not completely detached, but I was out having fun (that did not involve typing).


All of my outstanding BCH sell orders filled between .08 and .31 BTC.  I only have access to a tiny bit more BCH on WEX (and then the token BCH that WEX has not issued and the coinbase BCH that has not issued).. so yeah, nearly out of BCH.

Regarding BTC, I was able to set some of my BTC sell orders after my many buy orders triggered all the way down from $6700 to $5400-ish.  I did fall behind a little bit on setting my orders (because of my fun having), and I was not able to catch up on my thread reading until today.

Go figure.  I do admit that I did have to wade through quite a lot of troll posts, and surely PeterR has been allowed quite a bit of nonsensical latitude, as you likely already recognized.  

[AZwarel]

Bitcoin gains it's value by proven exclusion of any third party intervention in a value exchange network between peers.
This is achieved in "The original vision" by that both the sender and receiver peer can independently get a proof by running a full node that there is no double spending on a transaction between them. No need for a trusted third party can be only achieved by this independent verification process, which needs the physically possible minimum technical requirements for running a full node for the most participants. A large block size excludes most peers doing this, essentially destroying the very core of bitcoin's value.

There was nothing about how the cost of transactions (fees) would be "fair" in the white paper; the costs of doing transactions in a voluntary, opt-in value exchange network is entirely upon the peers do decide between themselves.

You are basically saying that the free market is not working to establish the subjective valuation of the actors to reach a price of transacting. You think you can "spend their money better than they do".
That is the problem, not the vaporware you shill.

With simplified payment verification technology (Section 8 of white paper), users can be their own banks, verify their own transactions, and send payments to anyone, trustlessly and without a middleman.  Users do not need to run network nodes.

Here are slides from a talk I gave this summer explaining how this brilliant technique created by Satoshi works:

https://www.slideshare.net/peter_r/scaling-bitcoin-to-a-billion-users?qid=3e0b7061-f29b-4a6c-bc5b-ee6b59fffe49&v=&b=&from_search=1

Satoshi's design is massively scalable.

If users do not run nodes, who does? I mean.. non users run the nodes?? Is this an Orwelian newspeak?
I think we have a different definition of what a node is and does in a network, but that happens.

And no, i will never trust anything that begins with "simplified" in that sense. That is a code word for "do not worry, we have your back, somewhere, you do not need to know, relax".
I must be able to see EVERYTHING since the Genesis block. That is the ONLY 100% guarantee not to be screwed over by "simplified technology". You can not simplify an information state below itself (you can not express '1' with anything shorter than itself).

edit: btw, you have not addressed my argument about free market of fees, or that what if users want to run nodes - not because they have to/need to, but because that is bitcoin's value proposition but prohibited by gigabyte blocks. You have just recited slogans "be your own bank! - even though you can not run a server farm yourself, but, meh it sounded good!"

[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?" 

[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.