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

[windjc]

What Bcash ultimately lacks is trust. No one trusts the competency of the developers. No one trusts Roger or the miners that advocated for Bcash. So what if LN takes 10 years? Bcash will not have earned the trust of Bitcoin in 10 years.  Your merchant adoption theory won't happen in any significant way in that period of time. You are typical of the microwave society with little patience.  Where was the internet 9 years in - January 1, 1992?  It was a complete mess.

We will have to see about that.  From my vantage point, I see a narrative being pushed that Roger Ver, Craig Wright and Jihan Wu are in control of Bitcoin Cash.  But I know this is not true.  BCH, like BTC, is governed directly by hash power and indirectly by the market.  

Roger Ver is a big advocate for BCH but he wasn't involved when we were planning for the fork.  Craig Wright is largely irrelevant in my opinion, I don't think he has any real influence.  Jihan Wu has the most influence, but that's because he's the owner of the most-successful Bitcoin company and controls a large amount of hash power.  But Jihan has significant influence over BTC too, which is another reason it will be difficult for BTC to raise the block size limit (Jihan and the miners can prevent it).  

There are lots of great developers working on BCH and in the technical and academic communities this is known.  Furthermore, developers are not tied to a particular blockchain.  As BCH grows, more and more developers will be attracted to work on it.  On the other hand, right now, BTC is losing developers...

So I think the narrative can flip very quickly and suddenly BCH will be recognized just as "Bitcoin" and it will carry all the same trust that Bitcoin had prior to the blockchain split.  But now it will have huge scaling capacity to meet the demands of new users as we grow BCH into a global peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

Jihan can't block a blocksize increase, because it can be done with a soft fork.  But chances are you and BCash will go down just like those competing Linux factions did - as a footnote in history. Maybe all these anonymous "brilliant developers" will come out of the woodwork and change the game. But I doubt it. History repeats itself, all you need is a little arc in your vision to see over all the noise.

[Peter R]

Peter, you must know the history of Linux and how the exact same thing happened with competing factions declaring the core open source developers as wrong and splitting off to create a "better" Linux. All those competing attempts failed. Don't you see what is happening?

I acknowledge that I could be wrong.  That's why I still hold 1 BTC for every 3 BCH I hold

[jojo69]

critical vulnerability in electrum?

[d_eddie]

Why would LN not work out as planned? Just out of curiosity, I'm eager to know where the BCash hope is.

I don't think the LN will work technically for two main reasons: (1) the high fees to open and close channels will make it too expensive to be practical,

There are two CoinJoin-like solutions being developed, at least one of which is at a fairly mature stage of progress, as I understand it.

and (2) there is no known solution to route-finding with a mesh topology so the network will have a hub-and-spoke topology instead.

No exact solutions in the sense of optimal, shortest-metric routing. A decent heuristic is enough to get the system going and avoid a hub-and-spoke topology. How does TOR manage to create circuits?

But let's ignore that for now and assume that LN will work like BS/Core expects.  There is still the _huge_ problem that LN is a new network and needs lots of people to adopt it in order for it to have value.  I think people think that when LN is "released" that suddenly all wallets will be able to make LN payments just like they can make bitcoin payments today.  But that's not what will happen; instead, the first people to open channels will only be able to send payments to a couple of vendors and a handful of connected people.  It will take years and years for the network infrastructure to get the point that Bitcoin was at 3 years ago.

What I'm saying now is pure speculation, but bear with me. All the users that whine about high fees should be able to put some pressure on vendors - and especially exchanges. I agree that segwit adoption is going slowly; but that's because few wallets support it. If half of the users had a segwit-enabled wallet, it would be much harder for exchanges to delay upgrading. The customers would flock to the first exchanges to adopt the new technology.

BTC is sabotaging itself.

It isn't. It's in a pupal stage IMO, preparing for the next metamorphosis.

[Dabs]

...
Instead, just get a better pen and keep updating the same ledger.  

The same ledger ... so lightning and segwit is the better pen, on the same ledger. Because the forks are no longer the same ledger, they are different. After August 1, I don't have the same ledger. I'd need to keep more than one ledger, because they are no longer the same.

So I think the narrative can flip very quickly and suddenly BCH will be recognized just as "Bitcoin"

And that's the goal, the plan. You said it. You will steal the "Bitcoin" name.


In other news, my double digits ... are still double digits... so far from you guys with quad digits... so far...

[Torque]

But Jihan has significant influence over BTC too, which is another reason it will be difficult for BTC to raise the block size limit (Jihan and the miners can prevent it).  

Holy hell, wtf am I actually reading here? You big blocker retards are now actually saying that Jihan Wu would move to *block* a block size increase for Bitcoin? After all the lobbying and shilling in favor of it the last few years?

Oh this is choice. If he were to do that, then his ulterior motive to create, prop up and support BCash would be crystal clear.

[JayJuanGee]

He is trying to rename Bitcoin. Just keep ignoring him.

Could it be he's trying to get even for the cute Bcash nickname? 

No way, Jose....   I mean eddie.

You are giving jbreher.. way too much benefit of the doubt and trying to attribute some kind of justification for his passive-aggressive trolling attack on bitcoin propaganda.  He is way more intentional than you seem to think.

No kind justification, Juan. I was teasing.

Names are important in an immature market filled with newbies. By calling Bitcoin as he does, he implies there are two bitcoins. One is cash (good), the other is ... some technical thing whatever about losing wits or something (bad).

In this forum, most readers know what's what and the risk of confusion is minimal, shills and trolls aside.. However, I think it's better to stick to safe, clear names that don't contain "bitcoin" - such as Bcash - for forkcoins, reserving the name Bitcoin for the real thing.

This has the added benefit of causing a few moments of comedy now and then, especially during interviews.

Seems that we are largely on the same page, eddie...   Certainly, I think that we should be sticking to our guns regarding various naming, it is not too likely that folks in this thread are going to get misled by some of the BIGBlocker bullshit talking points, and yeah, sometimes it does not hurt to throw in a bit of sarcasm and humor and taking the other side, just to keep matters relatively light hearted.  ..

MY BAAAAaaaaaad,  if I misunderstood your previous bleep.   

[Peter R]

But Jihan has significant influence over BTC too, which is another reason it will be difficult for BTC to raise the block size limit (Jihan and the miners can prevent it).  

Holy hell, wtf am I actually reading here? You big blocker retards are now actually saying that Jihan Wu would move to *block* a block size increase for Bitcoin? After all the lobbying and shilling in favor of it the last few years?

Oh this is choice. If he were to do that, then his ulterior motive to create, prop up and support BCash would be crystal clear.

Yes.  And it could be sold with him saying that "BTC is digital gold designed to be held and not spent.  Decentralization is critical.  We must retain the 1 MB block size limit to keep the blockchain small and make it easy to verify on low-cost machines.  If you want low fees and payments, use BCH or wait for LN to mature."

And I don't think supporting BCH is an "ulterior motive" -- it is a primary and transparent motive.

[jojo69]

Yes.  And it could be sold with him saying that "BTC is digital gold designed to be held and not spent.  Decentralization is critical.  We must retain the 1 MB block size limit to keep the blockchain small and make it easy to verify on low-cost machines.  If you want low fees and payments, use BCH or wait for LN to mature."

lol, we deserved that

[Gab0]

Holy hell, wtf am I actually reading here? You big blocker retards are now actually saying that Jihan Wu would move to *block* a block size increase for Bitcoin? After all the lobbying and shilling in favor of it the last few years?

Oh this is choice. If he were to do that, then his ulterior motive to create, prop up and support BCash would be crystal clear.

Yes.  And it could be sold with him saying that "BTC is digital gold designed to be held and not spent.  Decentralization is critical.  We must retain the 1 MB block size limit to keep the blockchain small and make it easy to verify on low-cost machines.  If you want low fees and payments, use BCH or wait for LN to mature."

LOL!

[Deeyoh]

"If you want low fees and payments, use BCH or wait for LN to mature."

Why, I already use LTC or ETH for low fee's and small payments.  BCH is looking to solve some problem that doesn't exist or there are already 1000 alt coins that do the same thing or better.   LTC just transfers so much faster. I sent some BCH and it took just as long as a BTC send. So in reality, it doesn't solve anything.

 

[windjc]

The fact that Peter talks about Jihan having so much power and that instead of bothering him he embraces it, is scary. Peter's top priority is not security.

[bones261]

critical vulnerability in electrum?

Thank God that I have not had any BTC stored in Electrum Wallet for months. I read the git on the issue. Amazing, they knew about it since November and poo poo'ed it back then.  
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/3374

I updated anyway and created a new wallet to use. Just in case that I ever want to use it in the future. I retained the old wallet just in case I need to verify anything with the old keys for an airdrop or something.

[jojo69]

https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/3374

holy shit

"pony south strike horror"

I think that should be the name of this bug...lol

[Torque]

"If you want low fees and payments, use BCH or wait for LN to mature."

Why, I already use LTC or ETH for low fee's and small payments.  BCH is looking to solve some problem that doesn't exist or there are already 1000 alt coins that do the same thing or better.   LTC just transfers so much faster. I sent some BCH and it took just as long as a BTC send. So in reality, it doesn't solve anything.

This +1000.

Also, you know what I use that has lower fees for payments, and is as centralized as BCH?

A: Fiat (via PayPal or Check card). And I can actually buy stuff with it.

Checkmate, Peter?

[Peter R]

The fact that Peter talks about Jihan having so much power and that instead of bothering him he embraces it, is scary. Peter's top priority is not security.

It was a descriptive statement, not a normative one.  A person's influence over BCH or BTC is proportional to his hash power.  Jihan controls more hash power than anyone else I'm aware of, and thus he can have a significant influence.  Pretending that large miners do not have power is foolish.  

That said, if you examine pie charts for hash power distribution now versus 2012 - 2013, you'll see that Bitcoin mining has become more decentralized, not less.  Remember, in January 2009, there was only a single miner.  

IMO, the best way to further decentralize bitcoin is to facilitate its continued growth.

[realr0ach]

The truth of the matter is that bitcoin is good.

Since when is non-fungible currency a good thing?  Anything non-fungible is a permissioned ledger by default, especially when mining is designed to centralize and transactions are not blinded.  Then you're just someone's bitch that has to beg the govt if you're allowed to use your own money or not.  Generally everyone who isn't a good slave will be branded a "terrorist" and the answer will be no.  So no, bitcoin is not "good", it's inherently bad if anything.  Silver and gold are money.  Bitcoin will be a govt tracking and slavery system.

I see JayJuanGee is pedaling fake news.  Oy vey! Remember the 7 trillion!

[windjc]

The fact that Peter talks about Jihan having so much power and that instead of bothering him he embraces it, is scary. Peter's top priority is not security.

It was a descriptive statement, not a normative one.  A person's influence over BCH or BTC is proportional to his hash power.  Jihan controls more hash power than anyone else I'm aware of, and thus he can have a significant influence.  Pretending that large miners do not have power is foolish.  

That said, if you examine pie charts for hash power distribution now versus 2012 - 2013, you'll see that Bitcoin mining has become more decentralized, not less.  Remember, in January 2009, there was only a single miner.  

IMO, the best way to further decentralize bitcoin is to facilitate its continued growth.

Miners simply mine and not much else. They derive their value from the blockchain, and do not really give much to the blockchain. Again, Jihan can't block anything on BTC. A hardfork but not a soft one. Or a user generated fork either. So Jihan doesn't really have much power at all. I am not sure why you think its a normative statement to say he does.

[keyboard warrior]

critical vulnerability in electrum?

Thank God that I have not had any BTC stored in Electrum Wallet for months. I read the git on the issue. Amazing, they knew about it since November and poo poo'ed it back then.  
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/3374

I updated anyway and created a new wallet to use. Just in case that I ever want to use it in the future. I retained the old wallet just in case I need to verify anything with the old keys for an airdrop or something.

Has the vulnerability been exploited yet? There must be a reason they are rushing out a fix now after poo poo'ing it since November.

[bones261]

critical vulnerability in electrum?

Thank God that I have not had any BTC stored in Electrum Wallet for months. I read the git on the issue. Amazing, they knew about it since November and poo poo'ed it back then.  
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/3374

I updated anyway and created a new wallet to use. Just in case that I ever want to use it in the future. I retained the old wallet just in case I need to verify anything with the old keys for an airdrop or something.

Has the vulnerability been exploited yet? There must be a reason they poo poo'ed it since November and are rushing out a fix now.

The reason is because someone gave them a demo on just how serious this was. Thank God the demo was by a white/gray hat rather than a black hat.