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

[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.

[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.

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.

You said that I wasn't bothered and instead that I embraced the miners' power.  But I didn't make such a normative statement; I acknowledged the reality that miners have a vote in proportion to their hash power: since Jihan has more hash power he has more influence.  

And you're mistaken if you believe that miners cannot block changes.  If the majority of the hash power refuses to mine on blocks larger than 1 MB, then no such blocks will be included in the most-work chain.  Which is of course what is happening right now.  

[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.

You said that I wasn't bothered and instead that I embraced the miners' power.  But I didn't make such a normative statement; I acknowledged the reality that miners have a vote in proportion to their hash power: since Jihan has more hash power he has more influence.  

And you're mistaken if you believe that miners cannot block changes.  If the majority of the hash power refuses to mine on blocks larger than 1 MB, then no such blocks will be included in the most-work chain.  Which is of course what is happening right now.  

Miners mine the most profitable chain. Users define the most profitable chain by the market price they agree to on a daily basis. The miners have no power to influence the market, at least not at current traded volumes. I am not sure why we are arguing such basics of blockchain economics. You big blockers like to act like the core development team doesnt understand economics and then you make comments like the one you just made. Makes no sense.

If a 2 MB user generated fork comes down the pipeline, then the miners are happy to mine the old chain that will probably be worth about as much as BCash is. But they won't. They will mine the one thats worth 5x+ more - the one that the core devs are still working on.

[realr0ach]

I acknowledged the reality that miners have a vote in proportion to their hash power:

Miners actually have zero power because PoW does nothing to solve rough consensus attacks, which is one of numerous reasons why bitcoin doesn't work and why bitcoin core and bitcoin cash exist at the same time in the first place.

[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 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.

That reassures me. If the vulnerability had already been exploited by a black hat we would probably have heard news of it by now. Hopefully only the white/gray hat figured out how to use it until now.

[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.

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.

You said that I wasn't bothered and instead that I embraced the miners' power.  But I didn't make such a normative statement; I acknowledged the reality that miners have a vote in proportion to their hash power: since Jihan has more hash power he has more influence.  

And you're mistaken if you believe that miners cannot block changes.  If the majority of the hash power refuses to mine on blocks larger than 1 MB, then no such blocks will be included in the most-work chain.  Which is of course what is happening right now.  

Miners mine the most profitable chain. Users define the most profitable chain by the market price they agree to on a daily basis. The miners have no power to influence the market, at least not at current traded volumes. I am not sure why we are arguing such basics of blockchain economics. You big blockers like to act like the core development team doesnt understand economics and then you make comments like the one you just made. Makes no sense.

If a 2 MB user generated fork comes down the pipeline, then the miners are happy to mine the old chain that will probably be worth about as much as BCash is. But they won't. They will mine the one thats worth 5x+ more - the one that the core devs are still working on.

I think you're saying the same as me without realizing it.  Like I said before, the market is Bitcoin's _indirect_ governance system while hash power is its _direct_ governance system.  Miners _could_ decide to orphan all blocks larger than 300 kB tomorrow, and if they did that the longest PoW chain would include only small blocks from that point forward.  If you deny this, then you do not understand how PoW works.  But miners _don't_ do that because they know the market would disapprove, the value of the coins they mined would drop, and they'd put their miners at risk of being made obsolete with a PoW fork.