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

[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?

[mega_carnation]

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.

I liked the way you enlarged the font for those tards.

[HairyMaclairy]

Seeing as Jbreher won’t accept that Jihan Wu runs Bitcoin ABC, then I am done. 

[mr angry]

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

I'll settle for dollar parity with this thread's page count by then. It should have reached 19000 pages, and hopefully bitcoin might have reached $19000.

[afbitcoins]

I accept this is probably the wrong forum for the debate however I'd quite like to see some reasoned debate from the small blockers. The kind of response above sounds like.

Kindly fuck off because I don't know how to refute your points and I prefer my beliefs not to be challenged.

With exception of d_eddie and possibly a couple of others I rarely hear any good actual debate from small block side. Which is a shame I am receptive to be persuaded by some good solid arguments.

The fact is bitcoin has morphed into something that wasn't intended in the beginning. A settlement layer for transactions does not feature in the whitepaper. INstead a payment system using electronic cash is promoted. The fact that bcash fans have jumped ship to something closer to the origninal vision is only to be expected given those circumstances.

The cool thing is though both options are on the table. The free market will decide.

[goggles]

Is Bithumb always so over priced? I want in on some of those 20k coins.