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

[becoin]

Removal of the 21M cap: soon!

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide even the slightest shred of evidence for your absurd assertion?

Bcash blockchain is Bitmain's private blockchain. Only retards would ask of evidence for this fact.

[1713998952]

1713998952

[JayJuanGee]

Would there be Many on the list besides jbreher if i would pay out in bcash....??   

Probably even jbreher would prefer to receive payment in bitcoin, even though he would resist to admit such, publicly.   

[jbreher]

Would there be Many on the list besides jbreher if i would pay out in bcash....??   

Haha. I'd guess you'd get a few takers. A win is a win, right?

However, I've not participated in any of your contests so far.

[jbreher]

Removal of the 21M cap: soon!

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide even the slightest shred of evidence for your absurd assertion?

Bcash blockchain is Bitmain's private blockchain.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide even the slightest shred of evidence for your absurd assertion?

[jbreher]

Would there be Many on the list besides jbreher if i would pay out in bcash....??   

Probably even jbreher would prefer to receive payment in bitcoin, even though he would resist to admit such, publicly.

You are returning to your bad old habits, JJG. Just stop.

[bitserve]

Thing seem to be on track for a static month. Come the middle of May I feel like the big short is coming as all this manipulation of alts will climax. The dump will be brutal and capitulation widespread.

I could care less about what happens to alt manipulation, but I'm agreeing with your assessment with another (for the sake of argument) "static month" for BTC price-action.

I'm fully expecting to lose 'Goosens $12,888 guesstimation-game with my vote cast for April 29th, 2018.

At this rate, I'll be amazed if we try to find stability around $10k by June 31st, 2018.

April 29 looks little bit to FAST but hopefully its time to buckle up and Just crush a few 5-digit Numbers , could be Nice to see ATH @summer times been followed by eternal ATH’s for BTC together with lows on bcash

I actually never have given a thought what my own date would be on those lists.....  

Now that you say... I don't see any reason why you couldn't pick a date on your own game. It is not as if you could manipulate the ATH date in your favor or anything

Or even if you don't "participate" you should also have the fun of trying to guess the date as everyone else.

Just saying.....

[Torque]

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.

Here's a website that tracks 0-conf double-spend attempts on BCH:

https://doublespend.cash/

It is very rare for the transaction broadcast second to be confirmed in a block, even when it offers a higher fee.  

And 0-conf can be improved further, for example with double-spend relaying so that merchants can quickly detect fraud attempts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAt6B7b4GeM

Or by more finely-grained proof-of-work to discourage miners from facilitating fraud:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXFuNkaYcPQ

What part of "Fuck off BCash was shit then and it's still shit now" don't you trolls understand? It doesn't matter what so called 'modifications' or 'improvements' are made to it, it is still a shitcoin.

No one wants it. No wants to hodl it. It has no future. No one here cares.

[JayJuanGee]

Surely, zero confirmation transactions contradict satoshi's vision whether we are talking about the whitepaper itself or other implementation statements from Satoshi...

Surely, then, you can support your outrageous claim with quotes from the whitepaper or other implementation statements from Satoshi, which specifically show zero conf txs to be in contradiction, right?

inb4: 'I'm not going to <blah blah blah>'

Yes... You almost know what I am going to say before I say it... hahahahaha.... 

People label you as disingenuous because you seem to be smart, so frequently, what you are asserting comes off as disingenuous, because you know better (or at least you should know better). 

Accordingly, even you are aware that bitcoin is an evolving concept that is not locked into some past renditions, but is a product of what the community wants, pursuant to consensus, which does not seem to be easily achieved - yet has a process.... So, yes, do you remember mid-=2017?  The little ploy from segwit2x and NY agreement folks seemed to have backfired, but allowed bitcoin to achieve segwit consensus and the lightning network pathway that follows. 

Can you deal with it?  Apparently not.  You want to continue to pump on chain scaling and other baloney bullshit in order to attempt to assert that there is some kind of segwit/lightning network lacking that the inferior bcash proposals, such as zero confirmation transactions can deal with better.... but you and your stupid ass bcasher trolls are wrong about this, so go back to your stupid ass coin and play with your zero confirmations, rather than trying to get that sailed ship into bitcoin.. because it does not make much sense for bitcoin when bitcoin has better solutions - even if they are more sophisticated, including second layer escrowing like services.

Accordingly, even if zero confirmations may have been more acceptable in bitcoin in the past, when bitcoin was more in its test phases (lets say 2011 to 2013), currently, there is much wider adoption of bitcoin, more avenues for scammers to take advantage of vulnerabilities, such as zero confirmation, so even if you and your trusted buddies want to engage in some zero confirmation transactions on bitcoin because you trust each other, zero confirmations are no longer good to implement into bitcoin on a broader scale in which more innocent folks could end up getting screwed by such nonsense that would exist in a world of manevolent players who would like to separate you from your bitcoins.

The logic of why zero confirmations are impractical and cause too many vulnerabilities should seem so obvious on this, but you still want to argue your bcash shill talking-points to try to selectively chose some aspect of bitcoin's history and passionately argue that such practice should continue in bitcoin, as if bitcoin were locked in some past infancy status, which it is not..

Even though bitcoin is still in early adopter stages (with continuing to be quite less than 1% of world adoption), there is a considerable amount of value and confidence that should not be risked in bitcoin merely due to expediency concerns or some whining concerns of a minority who don't really seem genuine towards the better interest of bitcoin, anyhow.  In other words, stop your stupid ass whining about water under the bridge because that zero confirmation ship has sailed in bitcoin and it is not really necessary, except perhaps in a narrow set of trust circumstances of sending money to your self or between trusted parties.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Here's a website that tracks 0-conf double-spend attempts on BCH:

https://doublespend.cash/

It is very rare for the transaction broadcast second to be confirmed in a block, even when it offers a higher fee.  

And 0-conf can be improved further, for example with double-spend relaying so that merchants can quickly detect fraud attempts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAt6B7b4GeM

Or by more finely-grained proof-of-work to discourage miners from facilitating fraud:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXFuNkaYcPQ

Look who is back to pump stupid off-topic shit.     

Don't you have enough drama between yourself and the real satoshi to keep you busy in other threads/forums?   

[infofront]

God, why did I bring up the bcash 0-conf transactions a few days ago?

[jbreher]

Surely, zero confirmation transactions contradict satoshi's vision whether we are talking about the whitepaper itself or other implementation statements from Satoshi...

Surely, then, you can support your outrageous claim with quotes from the whitepaper or other implementation statements from Satoshi, which specifically show zero conf txs to be in contradiction, right?

inb4: 'I'm not going to <blah blah blah>'

Yes... You almost know what I am going to say before I say it... hahahahaha.... 

Manifestly. For the record:

People label you as disingenuous because you seem to be smart, so frequently, what you are asserting comes off as disingenuous, because you know better (or at least you should know better). 

Accordingly, even you are aware that bitcoin is an evolving concept that is not locked into some past renditions, but is a product of what the community wants, pursuant to consensus, which does not seem to be easily achieved - yet has a process.... So, yes, do you remember mid-=2017?  The little ploy from segwit2x and NY agreement folks seemed to have backfired, but allowed bitcoin to achieve segwit consensus and the lightning network pathway that follows. 

Can you deal with it?  Apparently not.  You want to continue to pump on chain scaling and other baloney bullshit in order to attempt to assert that there is some kind of segwit/lightning network lacking that the inferior bcash proposals, such as zero confirmation transactions can deal with better.... but you and your stupid ass bcasher trolls are wrong about this, so go back to your stupid ass coin and play with your zero confirmations, rather than trying to get that sailed ship into bitcoin.. because it does not make much sense for bitcoin when bitcoin has better solutions - even if they are more sophisticated, including second layer escrowing like services.

Accordingly, even if zero confirmations may have been more acceptable in bitcoin in the past, when bitcoin was more in its test phases (lets say 2011 to 2013), currently, there is much wider adoption of bitcoin, more avenues for scammers to take advantage of vulnerabilities, such as zero confirmation, so even if you and your trusted buddies want to engage in some zero confirmation transactions on bitcoin because you trust each other, zero confirmations are no longer good to implement into bitcoin on a broader scale in which more innocent folks could end up getting screwed by such nonsense that would exist in a world of manevolent players who would like to separate you from your bitcoins.

The logic of why zero confirmations are impractical and cause too many vulnerabilities should seem so obvious on this, but you still want to argue your bcash shill talking-points to try to selectively chose some aspect of bitcoin's history and passionately argue that such practice should continue in bitcoin, as if bitcoin were locked in some past infancy status, which it is not..

Even though bitcoin is still in early adopter stages (with continuing to be quite less than 1% of world adoption), there is a considerable amount of value and confidence that should not be risked in bitcoin merely due to expediency concerns or some whining concerns of a minority who don't really seem genuine towards the better interest of bitcoin, anyhow.  In other words, stop your stupid ass whining about water under the bridge because that zero confirmation ship has sailed in bitcoin and it is not really necessary, except perhaps in a narrow set of trust circumstances of sending money to your self or between trusted parties.

Failure to provide evidence of your claim is duly noted.

[Ibian]

Why are some of you still acting like yogi is worth talking to.

Here, watch this vid instead, it's far more useful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE&t

[bitserve]

God, why did I bring up the bcash 0-conf transactions a few days ago?

Yeah, you are the one to blame. Repent, you sinner!

[infofront]

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.

Here's a website that tracks 0-conf double-spend attempts on BCH:

https://doublespend.cash/

It is very rare for the transaction broadcast second to be confirmed in a block, even when it offers a higher fee.  

And 0-conf can be improved further, for example with double-spend relaying so that merchants can quickly detect fraud attempts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAt6B7b4GeM

Or by more finely-grained proof-of-work to discourage miners from facilitating fraud:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXFuNkaYcPQ

Admittedly, I haven't followed things too closely in bcash land. However, Satoshi Craig has been the hype man for 0-conf, and I thought that was one of the areas where you disagreed with him.

[JayJuanGee]

So why spend all this time on the topic of supposed value of zero confirmations,

Well, for my part, I am just continuing the conversation that ensued when BobLawblaw issued an edict* that zero conf 'was not the way Bitcoin is supposed to work' (* I guess BLB doesn't understand 'permissionless'). Why are _you_ spending all this time on the topic?

1) Your permissionless assertion seems to be a stupid concept.  You are now arguing that getting a confirmation is a form of seeking permission?  That is a very distorted perspective, seems inclined to mislead about the idea of permissionless.  confirmations ties into security and permission is a much broader concept that has to do with third party intervention.  Largely miners are decentralized, and so they are all over the place, and they confirm transactions based on fees and based on system integrity, not based on whether coins are supposedly blacklisted, so you seem to be taking your concept of permission way too far in your attempt to apply the concept to this zero confirmation scenario.

2) my spending time on this topic.  Your inference may be correct that I am spending too much time on the topic, too... but I am attempting to defend the subject matter of this thread, and to rebutt seemingly disingenuous posts such as yours, rather than attempting to shill some alt, which seems to be part of what distinguishes what you are doing from me.  I would argue that the substance of my off-topicness aims at preserving thread topicness, rather than going into the weeds on atopical alt coin shilling points, which you are doing on an ongoing basis, while trying to argue that there is some topical legitimacy in your persistent pursuits. 

[Last of the V8s]

Tera's car spotted

[bitserve]

Why are some of you still acting like yogi is worth talking to.

Here, watch this vid instead, it's far more useful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE&t

Oh well, I think jbreher is worth talking to sometimes... JUST-DON'T-EVER-MENTION-BCASH-TO-HIM. *THAT*'s not worth it. Never forget that rule and everything will be fine.

[infofront]

With regards to zero confirmation spending. That is stretching credibility a bit. Even the name of it says it all zero confirmations means there is zero confirmation.  I don't remember that ever being a thing. I always thought you need about 6 confirmations to consider it safe?

Dash has a great solution, as usual. With Dash 'instant send' a quorum of masternodes accept the transaction and instantly lock it. No double spend can then happen. Shortly afterwards the confirmation goes through into the blockchain the normal way. Just another example of how Dash already solved all these problems ages ago and the power of the tier of masternodes.

FFS - if you're going to shill an altcoin here, at least pick a respectable one.

Please define "respectable" in terms of alt coins.   

Fair request, but I won't publicly elaborate any further right now. This thread has derailed pretty far into altcoin land already.

[Last of the V8s]

talk to the snek you gonna get bit

[JayJuanGee]

Would there be Many on the list besides jbreher if i would pay out in bcash....??    

Probably even jbreher would prefer to receive payment in bitcoin, even though he would resist to admit such, publicly.

You are returning to your bad old habits, JJG. Just stop.

What the fuck are you talking about?   I am just making an assertion that most folks here would understand and likely agree.. I just happen to get it inb4 others... that's all.