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

[jbreher]

amazing tits and ass.

finally

some quality TA in this thread

zing!

[Peter R]

If the hash power majority is dishonest, they can re-org the blockchain at will such that the transactions that created your coins never occurred in the re-orged blockchain.  

By removing 80% of the hashpower (the ones that can afford terabytes of storage)? Genius!
Seriously, this is becoming ridiculous

The cost to run a node is insignificant to the cost to set up a solo-mining operation.  This will remain true even at GB blocks.  Do the math and this becomes obvious.

If you want to further decentralize mining, it would be better to push more people to run ASIC miners than to run nodes.  At least with an ASIC miner they'll have influence by pointing their miner at a pool they support.  

[orpington]

It would be so nice if you Bcash types would just fuck off and take your scammy shit coin along with you. Really.

[mr angry]

Is it time for the Federal Reserve to join the cryptocurrency craze? : http://fortune.com/2017/12/26/bitcoin-fed-coin/

The Chinese were discussing creating a gov coin, and the USA won't want to miss out.

[d_eddie]

You are the one who asserted cartelization. Who exactly does this posited cartel consist of?

And you replied BTC is as cartelized as BCH (which I don't think is a correct statement).
Cartel consisting of plainly visible J.Wu and R.Ver, plus some likely big shots of the PBOC/Chinese Party/Government who (will) use then (especially Wu) as a sock puppet as soon as the need arises.

The mess they made with the EDA? The EDA served its declared purpose perfectly. It ensured the validity of the BCH chain in its infancy.

If it weren't for some of the Core developers, I imagine they would still be there trying to figure out "why the hell doesn't it work, hurr durr?"

What value did the core developers add here?

I understand they helped fix a couple bugs in the code with public suggestions. Why would they? Probably just to ridicule the reckless coding that was going on.

Again, the set of miners for BCH is identical to the set of miners for BTC. Which renders irrelevant the following bit:

The potential set is.

Miners have exactly as much control in Bitcoin Cash as they do in Bitcoin Segwit.

They might have a little more control in Bitcoin than in Bcash, because they don't have Sauron with the master ring above them.

Censorship can happen. Moderate (or unreasonable!) inflation can be programmed as a "fair reward" for miners (most likely friends of the Party), who would become something like a miniature Central Bank, with similar privileges and arbitrary power.

I would suggest you are ignoring fundamental dynamics of nakamoto consensus. The miners are held in check by the threat of the users abandoning the chain they create.

They seem to be abandoning Bcash. As long as there's the original chain to rely on, we're good.

Yeah. We've already discussed these very points, have we not? Why you continue to ignore my replies is beyond my ken.

Not ignoring, but I feel stuck in a loop and it's bad for my health!  

Well, that I can understand. I realize that my viewpoints are not share by the majority here on BCT.org. And I am fine with us having a disagreement on the desired direction forward. What I am not OK with is mischaracterization. One example thereof: "The "more reason" I was (and am) asking of you is an effective, documented rebuttal of my points or some subjective reason that goes beyond "I like big big big! Blocks big, me happy!"" Obviously, my replies to you have been more than "I like big big big"..., and for you to characterize it as such is not only uncharitable, it is either lazy or dishonest. Frankly, while I expect that from some here, I did not expect it from you.

Right. You arguments are generally much better than "big big big!". The problem with you is you mix fact and opinion/construction in a clever way, and separating chaff from grain is hard work. So I was just trying to have some fun explaining why I find there's a point beyond which it's not worthwhile to extend the discussion. Some people are pissed off by lengthy debates that run in circles.

You must admit, however, than the childhood trauma gag ("bitten by a small block") was quite funny  

[d_eddie]

Does the blockchain still have a purpose with LN on ? Educate me !

Yes, it serves two purposes:

1.  If one of your counter parties attempts to settle an old channel state on the blockchain (e.g., a channel state where you held fewer coins), you or your LN-bank acting on your behalf,

Or anyone else, acually.

must push the up-to-date channel state to avoid being defrauded.  This also means your funds in the LN channels are always "live."

The would-be fraudsters would pay with their whole channel stake. If this isn't a good enough deterrent...

[Neo_Coin]

Bitcoin Destined For $28,000 In 2018 - Moas:
 
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-destined-for-28000-in-2018-moas

[jojo69]

That's what the one slightly over weight middle aged stripper with a c section scar is for.  There is always one...

[Peter R]

So what you are saying is because the miners can re-org the chain back to when my coins were a reward, probably 1000s of blocks ago, this risk means I should now accept all other more immediate and subtle  risks they can throw at me.
Disappearing coins I can detect without a full node, but changes to inflation rules I can’t.
You are asking everyone to accept more risk, but you aren’t being honest about it.

Why don’t you come out and say it straight, big blocks will increase the trust required in miners, and it represents an increased risk to your financial sovereignty, it’s indisputable, the only thing to argue over is the magnitude.

It could be 1000 blocks ago (unlikely) or it could be 10 blocks ago (more likely).  The strongest attack in Bitcoin for a majority-hash-power miner is the double-spend reorg attack; there is no defense against this attack whether you run a "full node" or a SPV node.  So why would a dishonest miner risk producing a block with 100 BTC reward (the thing your full node will reject) when everyone will ring alarm bells and possibly lose faith in validity of the system itself, when the dishonest miner can easily take back their payments instead?

To answer your second question, bigger blocks means more usage and more users, which makes Bitcoin more secure, not less.  

[Peter R]

Does the blockchain still have a purpose with LN on ? Educate me !

Yes, it serves two purposes:

1.  If one of your counter parties attempts to settle an old channel state on the blockchain (e.g., a channel state where you held fewer coins), you or your LN-bank acting on your behalf,

Or anyone else, acually.

must push the up-to-date channel state to avoid being defrauded.  This also means your funds in the LN channels are always "live."

The would-be fraudsters would pay with their whole channel stake. If this isn't a good enough deterrent...

The only parties who will necessarily know all of the intermediate channel states are you and your counter party.  Yes, you can contract a third-party to monitor the blockchain for you (like I said), but you cannot expect good-Samaritan-type nodes to do this autonomously -- they won't even have the required information.  

On your second point, I never said the deterrent against fraud in LN was insufficient.  I'm just pointing out that because the channels are all "live" they constantly need monitoring to guard against fraud.  

[jbreher]

You are the one who asserted cartelization. Who exactly does this posited cartel consist of?

And you replied BTC is as cartelized as BCH (which I don't think is a correct statement).
Cartel consisting of plainly visible J.Wu and R.Ver, plus some likely big shots of the PBOC/Chinese Party/Government who (will) use then (especially Wu) as a sock puppet as soon as the need arises.

This is a consistent Core talking point. Yet nobody ever bothers to explain how such a cartel was created, is structured, and is managed. Well, some make easily debunked assertions. Will you be the first to elucidate? Or will you drop this inane assertion?

You must admit, however, than the childhood trauma gag ("bitten by a small block") was quite funny

Yes, I chortled.

[d_eddie]

You are the one who asserted cartelization. Who exactly does this posited cartel consist of?

And you replied BTC is as cartelized as BCH (which I don't think is a correct statement).
Cartel consisting of plainly visible J.Wu and R.Ver, plus some likely big shots of the PBOC/Chinese Party/Government who (will) use then (especially Wu) as a sock puppet as soon as the need arises.

This is a consistent Core talking point. Yet nobody ever bothers to explain how such a cartel was created, is structured, and is managed. Well, some make easily debunked assertions. Will you be the first to elucidate? Or will you drop this inane assertion?

The simple risk it might be so is too much for me. I like it the way it is now, with LN on top. I had a big block of ice fall on my head when I was a child, you know. To each his own (childhood traumas included).

[HairyMaclairy]

I will simplify my argument down to a single point, mostly because I am on mobile.

Bcash has a single point of failure which is Jihan Wu, writing using the royal “we” below.  This is demonstrated by the manner in which the DAA was hand picked by Jihan.  The other wallet providers are merely Sybils, as evidenced by the fact they had no input into the decision.

The original Bitcoin Cash “EDA” allowed Bitcoin Cash to survive as a minority chain but produces wild fluctuations of hashrate. This is problematic because it prevents consistently fast confirmations for users, and radically shifts the coin issuance schedule.
 
Several proposals to improve the DAA were put forth  We appreciate these proposals and have reviewed them all.  After careful consideration, we have made the decision to implement a proposal from Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Sechet (more details on this proposal below).

Our decision to choose one specific proposal was not easy, because Bitcoin Cash has several independent development teams, and there was a great deal of deliberation between developers from the different groups.
 
We have the utmost respect for the all developers involved in the discussions, but only one algorithm could be chosen, and a timely decision was required.

[snip]

Bitcoin ABC will take steps to contact major exchanges and wallet providers.  All assistance in this effort is welcome.  You can help by contacting exchanges, wallet providers, and other ecosystem participants, and letting them know they should upgrade their software or run an updated version of Bitcoin ABC or other compatible software.

  

Source: https://www.bitcoinabc.org/november

[d_eddie]

The only parties who will necessarily know all of the intermediate channel states are you and your counter party.  Yes, you can contract a third-party to monitor the blockchain for you (like I said), but you cannot expect good-Samaritan-type nodes to do this autonomously -- they won't even have the required information.  

You can contract several such third-parties with a "Reward after the bust, first one to catch the thief gets the money" kind of agreement. The fraction of channel value rewarded to the thief hunter would be such to grant maximum attention while leaving a significant profit to the "victim". Talk about opportunities.

On your second point, I never said the deterrent against fraud in LN was insufficient.  I'm just pointing out that because the channels are all "live" they constantly need monitoring to guard against fraud.  

Fair enough. I don't see this as a negative thing, though. Not implying you do, either.

[RoomBot]

It would be nice to get out of here.

Anything we can do to assist??   

IDK about the rest of you, but on New Years Eve, Imma party like it's 1999! 

 BTC $19,999

[jbreher]

I will simplify my argument down to a single point.  

Bcash has a single point of failure which is Jihan Wu,

Well, if that is what your argument boils down to, you have already lost.

writing using the royal “we” below.  

For which your evidence is....?

[Peter R]

The only parties who will necessarily know all of the intermediate channel states are you and your counter party.  Yes, you can contract a third-party to monitor the blockchain for you (like I said), but you cannot expect good-Samaritan-type nodes to do this autonomously -- they won't even have the required information.  

You can contract several such third-parties with a "Reward after the bust, first one to catch the thief gets the money" kind of agreement. The fraction of channel value rewarded to the thief hunter would be such to grant maximum attention while leaving a significant profit to the "victim". Talk about opportunities.

On your second point, I never said the deterrent against fraud in LN was insufficient.  I'm just pointing out that because the channels are all "live" they constantly need monitoring to guard against fraud.  

Fair enough. I don't see this a negative thing, though. Not implying you do, either.

Agreed on both points.  

[TERA2]

It would be nice to get out of here.

Anything we can do to assist??  

IDK about the rest of you, but on New Years Eve, Imma party like it's 1999!  

 BTC $19,999

If you can dump it down $8K already, that would do it.

Or if Poloniex raises my withdrawal limits. Right now it is going to take me 6 weeks to get out.

You can meet me with a suitcase full of cash, and I'll sell you my Poloniex account.

[jbreher]

Unfortunate that I had to make use of the ignore function for certain individuals shitting up this thread.

This thread is for discussing Bitcoin markets. Not BCash.

KINDLY
FUCK
OFF
ALREADY
BCASH
TARDS.

Sorry 'bout that, Bob. But when others make false assertions about Bitcoin Cash, I will step in to correct them. And follow that conversation wherever it leads. I am not the one that initiated the active branches in which I am participating on the topic of BCH.

[Torque]

Unfortunate that I had to make use of the ignore function for certain individuals shitting up this thread.

This thread is for discussing Bitcoin markets. Not BCash.

KINDLY
FUCK
OFF
ALREADY
BCASH
TARDS.

Sorry 'bout that, Bob. But when others make false assertions about Bitcoin Cash, I will step in to correct them. And follow that conversation wherever it leads. I am not the one that initiated the active branches in which I am participating on the topic of BCH.

You seem confused. This is the Bitcoin^TM WO Thread, not the BCash WO thread. We can assert whatever we damn well please about any altcoins here. But largely we don't discuss altcoins ad nauseam here, because it is the wrong sub forum for that. And we sure as shit don't argue with others about them here. So why do you continue to?