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

[Paashaas]

Verne Troyer passed away this weekend

R.I.P.

Atleast he's eternalized into the $1M BTC meme.

[STT]

The tilting of that logo means, it is referring to a bcash logo not a bitcoin logo.  Aren't we in a bitcoin thread?

If the point is true it still stands, I dont know if they are trying to misdirect and imply BCH is the last bastion but the idea is a general one anyway.    Ive heard before the idea consensus forms the basis of money and value exchange.  This is one point I heard made by an economist who says Bitcoin or any other crypto will (nearly) completely fail.  He still makes the point that BTC is money because of that idea, a collective valuation and fungibility also I guess

https://youtu.be/I4xpZm7JlqU?t=137

[Syke]

The argument was specifically as it related to the whitepaper, not what was said later on.

...further if the entire premise of Bitcoin is based on not trusting and verifying for yourself, then SPV wallets should not exist and everyone should be independently verifying transactions with their own full blockchain. Yet low and behold, plenty use SPV wallets for convenience.

Whitepaper, section 8, SPV wallets described.

[jbreher]

No. I don't EVER trust 0 confirmations. That's not how its supposed to work in Bitcorn.

Yet it did. Work, that is. Hmm.

Before I metaphorically rip you a new asshole,

Haha. You funny.

please show me the part in the Bitcoin white paper that tells us to trust 0 confirmation transactions.

I could be glib and point out the 'cash' in the title. But I don't have to. Back before the tx volume got big enough to be chronically delayed to the 'next' block, zero conf txs were routine.

There is really no arguing this point. They worked. To the point that freeking _payment_processors_ accepted zero conf txs.

OK, go ahead and 'rip me a new asshole'. Big boy.

[oblox]

The argument was specifically as it related to the whitepaper, not what was said later on.

...further if the entire premise of Bitcoin is based on not trusting and verifying for yourself, then SPV wallets should not exist and everyone should be independently verifying transactions with their own full blockchain. Yet low and behold, plenty use SPV wallets for convenience.

Whitepaper, section 8, SPV wallets described.

Yes, "honest nodes" and requiring trust else it is recommended to have the entire ledger.

[jbreher]

I am imagining this is what jbreher meant by "bcash has 0 confirmation transactions".

Hmm. I don't remember saying anything of the sort. I do remember confirming your suspicion that zero conf were once again usable under BCH. But that's a horse of a different color.

I mean, any crypto "has 0 confirmation transactions". Many cryptos, however, make them less than usable. Bitcoin Segwit, for example, goes above and beyond to eliminate the possibility with RBF.

[Anon136]

I am imagining this is what jbreher meant by "bcash has 0 confirmation transactions".

Hmm. I don't remember saying anything of the sort.

I am imagining it because it seems very likely to be the case, not because you ever said it was the case.

[jbreher]

the backwards bcash 0-conf crowd is basically saying "Trust, and maybe verify. But verification isn't really needed, since we trust Jihan Wu, Roger Ver, and Craig Wright so much".

Ouch. I expect more from you, infofront.

Zeroconf is not built atop 'trust Wu, Ver and Wright'. It is built atop 'we don't have overwhelming tx backlog that makes doublespends hard to detect'.

[jbreher]

No. I don't EVER trust 0 confirmations. That's not how its supposed to work in Bitcorn.

Yet it did. Work, that is. Hmm.

Now you are pumping the trusting of 0 confirmations? 

No. I am just pointing out that, before persistently full blocks was A Thing, zero conf txs worked.

Are you denying proven reality?

[infofront]

I am imagining this is what jbreher meant by "bcash has 0 confirmation transactions".

Hmm. I don't remember saying anything of the sort. I do remember confirming your suspicion that zero conf were once again usable under BCH. But that's a horse of a different color.

I mean, any crypto "has 0 confirmation transactions". Many cryptos, however, make them less than usable. Bitcoin Segwit, for example, goes above and beyond to eliminate the possibility with RBF.

LN makes 0 conf moot for Bitcoin though.

the backwards bcash 0-conf crowd is basically saying "Trust, and maybe verify. But verification isn't really needed, since we trust Jihan Wu, Roger Ver, and Craig Wright so much".

Ouch. I expect more from you, infofront.

Zeroconf is not built atop 'trust Wu, Ver and Wright'. It is built atop 'we don't have overwhelming tx backlog that makes doublespends hard to detect'.

You mostly have to trust Wright's research, and the mining operations of Wu and Ver.

[Toxic2040]

Are you denying my reality?

*edited for effect*

Yes.

[DaRude]

Ahh back to bcash i see, is Ver still burning transaction fees from the miners just so he won't have to buy them back when miners dump whatever they mine?

[JayJuanGee]

No. I don't EVER trust 0 confirmations. That's not how its supposed to work in Bitcorn.

Yet it did. Work, that is. Hmm.

Before I metaphorically rip you a new asshole, please show me the part in the Bitcoin white paper that tells us to trust 0 confirmation transactions.

...and the counter would be, show me in the original whitepaper where it says use LN or some other equivalent. Just because it specifically doesn't exist in the original text doesn't mean it can't in the future. 0conf acceptance is a choice and certainly reserved for those you deem "trustworthy" (friends/family) or for immaterial amounts. If you don't care to use them, don't. Having said all this, I think BCH is a joke.

Satoshi strongly implied the need for second layer solutions later on. Meanwhile, the entire fucking premise of bitcoin is based on "Don't trust, verify", but the backwards bcash 0-conf crowd is basically saying "Trust, and maybe verify. But verification isn't really needed, since we trust Jihan Wu, Roger Ver, and Craig Wright so much".

The argument was specifically as it related to the whitepaper, not what was said later on.

...further if the entire premise of Bitcoin is based on not trusting and verifying for yourself, then SPV wallets should not exist and everyone should be independently verifying transactions with their own full blockchain. Yet low and behold, plenty use SPV wallets for convenience.

If you're going to look to the whitepaper as the Word of God, then you can't ignore the New Testament. And I don't give a fuck who's using SPV wallets.

Again, Bob started this whole referencing the whitepaper bullshit. I could give two shits about what was said in a paper 10 years ago, let alone one written thousands of years ago.

Maybe you should concede on this one oblox?

It seems that you got yourself into an ambiguous position in which you are supporting bcash nonsense - with your attempt to engage with a supposedly objective analysis.

The fact of the matter is that bcashers attempt to assert that their onchain scaling is more in line with satoshi's vision.. and further the white paper then becomes relevant to their stupid-ass self-selective originalism arguments - in spite of their wanting to have their cake and to eat it too, with the zero confirmations nonsense....   

Surely, zero confirmation transactions contradict satoshi's vision whether we are talking about the whitepaper itself or other implementation statements from Satoshi... and yeah, who gives a ratt's ass about satoshi, because now bitcoin has become a product of later consensus, anyhow, including the current direction with segregated witness and lightning network. 

I think that bringing up the white paper is a way to use bcashers' contradictory arguments against them, even though who really cares what they are saying anyhow because they are disingenuously pursuing attacks against bitcoin and a likely failing alt that may take more 20 years to play out its ongoing attack drama.

[realr0ach]

Due to it's deflationary and borderless nature, central banks will eventually be forced to hold BTC as a portion of their currency reserves.

Forced?  Yea, no.  Nothing is a real commodity currency unless you can hoard it and force others to pay you ransom for it.  Bitcoin has NO such fucking characteristics.  It doesn't matter if you idiots try and hoard dogecoins or bitcoins, there is nothing you can do to force me or anyone else to buy your pump and dump.  Silver, on the other hand, I can hoard it and force you to pay me ransom due to it's wide variety of uses.

With shitcoins people will simply create their own and bypass you if you try and hoard it to force others to buy your imaginary, artificial scarcity token.  Artificial scarcity has no value.  The business central banks are in is a business called seigniorage fee.  Their goal is to sell you worthless paper or tokens for huge markup (seigniorage fee) to finance their mafia.  Central banks trying to hoard shitcoins and pay teenagers who mined them with videocards huge seigniorage fee is the EXACT OPPOSITE of how a central bank works.  It will never happen.  The CB would either cease to exist or issue their own shitcoin and try to force you to use it with guns first.

The only exception to this rule is if bitcoin was entirely a govt orchestrated operation in the first place to scam people into a cashless society slave system where all transactions are traced and monitored and they already acquired most of the supply long before now.  There is a lot of evidence of that with things like "how to make a mint" and the fact In-Q-Tel was buying up all the coins at something like the $1-2 range after an orchestrated market crash they probably helped initiate.  So whether you like it or not, you are heavily funding the CIA/Jew World Order and it's black budget by using these worthless artificial scarcity tokens.

[JayJuanGee]

Verne Troyer passed away this weekend

R.I.P.

Atleast he's eternalized into the $1M BTC meme.

I had to look up your references, because the meme seems to be Mike Myers as Dr. Evil, but Verne Troyer played the mini-me version of Dr. Evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Evil

[JayJuanGee]

No. I don't EVER trust 0 confirmations. That's not how its supposed to work in Bitcorn.

Yet it did. Work, that is. Hmm.

Now you are pumping the trusting of 0 confirmations? 

No. I am just pointing out that, before persistently full blocks was A Thing, zero conf txs worked.

Are you denying proven reality?

Even if what you say is true, it does not matter that much. 

If there is a feature in bitcoin that is needed, such as zero confirmation between trusted parties (rather than wide-spread implementation), then likely the market is going to find a way to allow such feature into bitcoin.... On the other hand bitcoin seems to be moving away from such zero confirmation nonsense because the costs seem to outweigh any possible marginal benefits that may be gotten in such limited circumstances.


So why spend all this time on the topic of supposed value of zero confirmations, except for wanting to bump bcash as to having some supposed superior features, when surely those kinds of claims do not seem to be true - especially for what bcash actually is, which is merely some propaganda tool, bitcoin attack tool, and largely centralized pump and dump scheme. 

You can believe all that you want about bcash retaining the original bitcoin vision and some pie in the sky existence of zero confirmations in 2011 when bitcoin was worth less than $5, but you are merely engaging in the same misinformation that attempts to deny the validity and benefits of bitcoin's actual direction and the benefits of confirmations to ensure security and to lessen double spend breaches.

[exstasie]

Due to it's deflationary and borderless nature, central banks will eventually be forced to hold BTC as a portion of their currency reserves.

Forced?  Yea, no.  Nothing is a real commodity currency unless you can hoard it and force others to pay you ransom for it.  Bitcoin has NO such fucking characteristics.  It doesn't matter if you idiots try and hoard dogecoins or bitcoins, there is nothing you can do to force me or anyone else to buy your pump and dump.

I don't think the comment was intended literally. Central banks and governments might be forced by market demand (not literal force) if there is significant global wealth transfer into BTC. This is the same reason central banks hoard gold as a monetary hedge (in spite of its lack of utility).

[mike4001]

Holy shit ... BCH is pumping hard.

Who is buying this?

[bitserve]

Holy shit ... BCH is pumping hard.

Who is buying this?

Donno. But I am selling some more

[STT]

I buy with zero confirmation on bitcoin all the time.  Its a gold price fix for deposit, I guess if it were fraud or incorrectly displayed they could just reverse it anyway.   My purchase is not for instant delivery so its not really a problem, surely this is the case in lots of transactions.    The problem of buying a cup of coffee even doesnt seem that great as they can just ban you from your local and the shop has only lost a disposable cup really.

With say buying shopping, my local supermarket has a system to checkout your items as you take them off the shelf and put them into the trolley.   By the time you come near to the exit of the shop, the items would have already gone past more then 1 confirmation I guess so that system could work with bitcoin also (its been done via some FIAT mobile phone app currently).

Nothing is a real commodity currency unless you can hoard it and force others to pay you ransom for it.

Alot of commoditys expire after some time, even copper can degrade.   I dont really agree with the idea of ransom, its utility people are paying for.   In any case most commoditys are obtainable via alternative means, cornering the market seems quite unlikely in most situations.   Platinum I read is unlikely to ever become a monetised commodity because the reserves are too centred to Russia apparently.    I'm bullish on gold but theres a ton of the stuff out there, banks are buying this up actively but it still wont ever actually be rare howver demand could outstrip supply over a decade.      Thats comparable to growth in bitcoin, supply is lower then likely population growth of users.
  A feasible scenario leading to likely price rises, with gold the higher prices enable greater production ditto oil and many other commodity types but bitcoin supply growth never occurs hence the price dynamic we've all become accustomed to.