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

[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.  

[HairyMaclairy]

Peter - you really are talking your book on a 3:1 ratio, assuming you hold any bitcoin at all.

This is a Bitcoin thread.  Surely you can fuck off and do something else.  Roger Ver is spruiking Naga.  Perhaps you could go off to Reddit and help bring “the first blockchain based universe” to those who don’t know any better.

Or maybe just go for a nice walk outside.

[Peter R]

Peter - you really are talking your book on a 3:1 ratio, assuming you hold any bitcoin at all.

I've never understood this argument about "talking your book."

Bob: "X is a great investment!"

Alice: "Do you own any?"

Bob: "No, of course not.  So you can trust me because I'm not talking my book."

Alice: "Well, if you really thought it was such a great investment, then why don't you buy some?"

 

[RoomBot]

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.

Google Security Guy claims it on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/taviso/status/949804775473737728

[HairyMaclairy]

“Talking your book” means you are a spruiker or common shill.  They can be recognized by coming to threads like this and going on endlessly about altcoins.  I am sure r/BTC is a much better home for you.

[savetherainforest]

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!

I see u'r still spreading fake news R0ach! I advise you to sell all your gold for crypto. If not, I will take my boys and come into your home and take it all just for fun, and them come here on the forum to make fun of you.

What you have is just worthless rocks. And compared to cryptos they will remain worthless. Keep in mind that there is much more gold & silver that can be dug out of the depths of the Earth, + other planets, but there will not be more bitcoin or other limited supply cryptos.

[realr0ach]

“Talking your book” means you are a spruiker or common shill.  They can be recognized by coming to threads like this and going on endlessly about altcoins.  

The borg queen has noticed the propagation of alt coins in the alpha quadrant which will soon reach and influence the delta quadrant. The borg queen has decided to create her own hive borg coin. This coin would be scrypt based and would then be used by all borg assimilated planets in the sector and all throughout the delta quadrant. Borg coin has 500,000,000 coins to be minted. 500 million being based on the mass ton of the borg trans warp ship with a maximum rated speed of 29.968 warp factor with advanced trans warp drive. The fastest trans warp drive ship ever to exist.

[Peter R]

“Talking your book” means you are a spruiker or common shill.  

No, a shill is someone who is paid to entice people to take a position that may be contrary to what the shill believe, so that the shill's master benefits.

Adam Back at Blockstream employs a large team of PR people to "correct misinformation" about large blocks. These people are shills because they are paid to promote a position that they may not believe in, a position that is hurtful for BTC (high fees / unreliable confirms), but one that benefits the employer Blockstream (by creating demand for their layer-2 solutions).