Bitcoin Forum
May 24, 2019, 12:29:11 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What year will we achieve a new ATH?
2019 - 36 (27.1%)
2020 - 55 (41.4%)
2021 - 31 (23.3%)
2022 - 6 (4.5%)
2023 - 1 (0.8%)
Never - 4 (3%)
Total Voters: 133

Pages: « 1 ... 20599 20600 20601 20602 20603 20604 20605 20606 20607 20608 20609 20610 20611 20612 20613 20614 20615 20616 20617 20618 20619 20620 20621 20622 20623 20624 20625 20626 20627 20628 20629 20630 20631 20632 20633 20634 20635 20636 20637 20638 20639 20640 20641 20642 20643 20644 20645 20646 20647 20648 [20649] 20650 20651 20652 20653 20654 20655 20656 20657 20658 20659 20660 20661 20662 20663 20664 20665 20666 20667 20668 20669 20670 20671 20672 20673 20674 20675 20676 20677 20678 20679 20680 20681 20682 20683 20684 20685 20686 20687 20688 20689 20690 20691 20692 20693 20694 20695 20696 20697 20698 20699 ... 23941 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21176216 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (24 posts by 13 users deleted.)
BobLawblaw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1905


BitcoinTalk's Most Fabulously Gay Black Power-Top


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 03:36:27 PM

BUY BUY BUY !!!

https://www.ledauphine.com/france-monde/2018/06/19/soupcons-d-escroquerie-les-freres-bogdanoff-en-garde-a-vue

Suspicions of fraud: the Bogdanoff brothers in police custody

According to BFM TV, the brothers Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff were placed in custody on Tuesday in Paris, in a police station in the 16th arrondissement.

The TV presenters were arrested "on rogatory commission of an investigating judge seized of an open judicial investigation of the head of fraud on vulnerable person and attempt of fraud", according to the investigators.

This is not the first time that the famous twins are in trouble with the law. Last November, Igor Bogdanoff was placed under judicial control. This followed the complaint of his ex-partner, Julie Jardon, who accused him of having entered his home.
1558657751
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558657751

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558657751
Reply with quote  #2

1558657751
Report to moderator
1558657751
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558657751

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558657751
Reply with quote  #2

1558657751
Report to moderator
1558657751
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558657751

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558657751
Reply with quote  #2

1558657751
Report to moderator
GET 25 FREE SPINS AT REGISTRATION
GET 100% BONUS ON FIRST DEPOSIT
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558657751
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558657751

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558657751
Reply with quote  #2

1558657751
Report to moderator
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 739
Merit: 550



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 03:40:40 PM


In fact, talking about bitcoin fungibility and taint and worrying about segwit is silly.  Bitcoin is already not very fungible. The fact the ledger is public, transparant and you can view the history of each satoshi brings fungibility down quite a bit.  Businesses have blacklisted coins or customers based onthe history of coin transactions.

This. Blacklisting stuff I might buy then find I cant spent unless I trick the next person.

Interchangeability is fungibilty, serial numbers don't stop 10$ notes being interchangeable. But if a set of serial numbers were invalidated somehow then it could be an argument.


https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/787381/the_uk_anti-money_laundering_regime_stautory_offences_and_the_role_of_the_fsa.pdf

Quote
The British Bankers’ Association Money Laundering Advisory Panel (the “BBA Panel”) raised with the Home Office their view that the requirements of the consent regime in this context cannot easily be reconciled with POCA’s wide definition of criminal property and the principle of fungibility. The BBA Panel explained their view that money in a bank account is fungible
and that as a matter of property law a bank account is a single “indistinguishable mixed fund”. Consequently, once a payment has been made into a mixed bank account, that payment cannot be distinguished from the other funds in the account and, accordingly, if the payment was a suspicious transaction the payment funds could have effectively tainted the rest of the account and, possibly, any other account held by the same individual. This would result in all subsequent transactions on the suspect accounts becoming acts of money laundering under POCA.

Looking at how the lawyers treat bank accounts with tainted money, we may have a fight ahead of us,  they may treat any BTC balances tainted with 'bad' bitcoins, as all bad.
xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030
Merit: 2131


Godspeed Elwar and Nadia.


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 03:42:58 PM
Merited by suchmoon (5), JayJuanGee (1)

Miners don't need anything like $6000/BTC to remain profitable.

I'd put it closer to $2000, even lower if you take the money laundering angle into account.

 Let's try to figure this out.

 I'll assume that most of the network is made up of miners similar to the Antminer S9 running @ ~0.1 J/GH;

 Presently, it requires 45,724 kWh to produce a single Bitcoin.  One of the cheapest places in the world for electricity is Quebec, Canada and the best possible rate - class LG customers (large load and not primarily related to an industrial activity) - shows a base rate of $0.0343 per kWh plus $13.14 per kW (which works out to an additional $0.01825 /kWh based on a steady 24/7 consumption) for a total of

   $0.05255 per kWh before taxes

+ $0.0068315 per kWh tax (13% harmonized tax**)
-----------------
   $0.0593815 per kWh

 
 Multiply that by the 45,724 kWh required per Bitcoin

 CAD $2715.1597 which means the electricity costs alone for one Bitcoin are

  US $2045.18

 It should be noted that you need 1,361 Antminer S9s to do this today but the network difficulty has increased by an average of 7.8% per diff reset period over the previous 12 months so the cost will increase significantly as the network grows.  In fact, in about 10 hours, it's going to cost ~US$2110.00 to mine one Bitcoin in Montreal, Quebec at the best possible rate.


**actual tax rate may be slightly higher as this number is based on HST in Ontario where the provincial tax portion of the HST is slightly lower than the provincial tax portion in Quebec.

jojo69
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1746


no FOMO


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 04:11:35 PM
Last edit: June 19, 2018, 04:26:56 PM by jojo69
Merited by BobLawblaw (1)

made my first 3 ladder transactions in 5 days overnight


Speculatoross
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 225


this is not a bounty avatar


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 04:29:24 PM

Don't sell your Bitcoin
http://robbiecoach.com/dont-sell-your-bitcoins/


Funny thing, this guy's logo looks to be like "Roach" lol
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 04:37:04 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 739
Merit: 550



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 04:59:40 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1375



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 05:17:19 PM

That's retarded hundreds of segwit blocks got mined already. Any coin you'll buy from an exchange will probably have a segwit history.

If any pool/organisation was retarded enough to revert all these transactions after the soft fork, it may trigger the next world war. Guns would talk. Don't buy the FUD from retarded bcash shills. It won't be happening.
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1681


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 05:26:33 PM
Merited by BobLawblaw (1)

BUY BUY BUY !!!

https://www.ledauphine.com/france-monde/2018/06/19/soupcons-d-escroquerie-les-freres-bogdanoff-en-garde-a-vue

Suspicions of fraud: the Bogdanoff brothers in police custody

According to BFM TV, the brothers Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff were placed in custody on Tuesday in Paris, in a police station in the 16th arrondissement.

The TV presenters were arrested "on rogatory commission of an investigating judge seized of an open judicial investigation of the head of fraud on vulnerable person and attempt of fraud", according to the investigators.

This is not the first time that the famous twins are in trouble with the law. Last November, Igor Bogdanoff was placed under judicial control. This followed the complaint of his ex-partner, Julie Jardon, who accused him of having entered his home.


Shit. ((They)) are trying to sabotage CRAB-17.

shahzadafzal
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 146


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2018, 05:30:49 PM

In 1998, Nick Szabo designed a mechanism for a decentralized digital currency he called "bit gold"

In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto designed a decentralized digital currency he called "bitcoin".


https://i.imgur.com/KvZhOGol.jpg

So when Satoshi gives Hal Finney his bitcoin address in an email it's:

1NSwywA5Dvuyw89sfs...

Shortly after in the same email Satoshi says:

Quote
I just thought of something. Eventually there'll be some interest in brute force scanning bitcoin addresses to find one with the first few characters customized to your name, kind of like getting a phone number that spells out something. Just by chance I have my initials.

Reddit source
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 05:34:23 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 739
Merit: 550



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 05:58:26 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
Dabs
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324
Merit: 1140



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:12:31 PM

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

Want to trade some Segwit tainted coins for your legacy type coins? Would you accept a payment with segwit tainted coins?

Seems you are willing to pay the transaction fee, I'll make sure my tx is included in the next block or two.

... Don't forget Coin Join, Shuffle, Join Market, and a bunch of alts doing the same thing using masternodes like Dash. Just a matter of time before it gets widespread on top of bitcoin.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:23:35 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1681


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:33:33 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:41:42 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 764



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:49:43 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1), BobLawblaw (1)

I fail to see how SegWit is confusing. It solved some problems and the plebs who would get confused by it don't really have to use it (or realize that they are using it).

And regardless, once mainstream adoption is actually possible everything will be so dumbed down that even knowing what SW or LN are will be completely redundant for daily use. Or rather, unless an understanding of the back-end becomes 100% irrelevant Bitcorns won't become mainstream.
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1375



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:50:00 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?

All you had to do was typing "why big blocks are bad" on your search bar...

Here is the first result and probably almost everything you need to know:
https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Quote
You're thinking adversarially because you have the historical context of previous attempts that were squashed by governments. For Bitcoin to survive, it must be small, nimble and able to run anywhere. Essentially a coachroach.

Quote
We can't play lose and fast with Bitcoin. There is too much at stake here. Sovereign immutable digital gold is off the charts innovation and is changing the face of finance forever

From a commentor... Tldr; security reasons...
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:55:35 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?

All you had to do was typing "why big blocks are bad" on your search bar...

Here is the first result and probably almost everything you need to know:
https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Quote
You're thinking adversarially because you have the historical context of previous attempts that were squashed by governments. For Bitcoin to survive, it must be small, nimble and able to run anywhere. Essentially a coachroach.

Quote
We can't play lose and fast with Bitcoin. There is too much at stake here. Sovereign immutable digital gold is off the charts innovation and is changing the face of finance forever

From a commentor... Tldr; security reasons...
2 mb is not "big". Besides that, try actually explaining what you see as a problem. If you can't explain something then you don't understand it.

Edit: From the link: "Good luck stopping massive nodes in China, Korea, Japan, Russia, Switzerland, Iceland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, and even Mars."

This guy is not being genuine. Aside from fucking Ares, Amsterdam is in the Netherlands. He included that bit to make people who simply wanted bigger blocks look ridiculous. Try a better fucking source.
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1375



View Profile
June 19, 2018, 06:59:13 PM

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?
It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.


Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.
And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?

All you had to do was typing "why big blocks are bad" on your search bar...

Here is the first result and probably almost everything you need to know:
https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Quote
You're thinking adversarially because you have the historical context of previous attempts that were squashed by governments. For Bitcoin to survive, it must be small, nimble and able to run anywhere. Essentially a coachroach.

Quote
We can't play lose and fast with Bitcoin. There is too much at stake here. Sovereign immutable digital gold is off the charts innovation and is changing the face of finance forever

From a commentor... Tldr; security reasons...
2 mb is not "big". Besides that, try actually explaining what you see as a problem. If you can't explain something then you don't understand it.

The main problem with 2mb blocks specifically is, it is impossible to reverse it once we do it.

That's why the block size won't be increased till the time comes when we really need it.
Pages: « 1 ... 20599 20600 20601 20602 20603 20604 20605 20606 20607 20608 20609 20610 20611 20612 20613 20614 20615 20616 20617 20618 20619 20620 20621 20622 20623 20624 20625 20626 20627 20628 20629 20630 20631 20632 20633 20634 20635 20636 20637 20638 20639 20640 20641 20642 20643 20644 20645 20646 20647 20648 [20649] 20650 20651 20652 20653 20654 20655 20656 20657 20658 20659 20660 20661 20662 20663 20664 20665 20666 20667 20668 20669 20670 20671 20672 20673 20674 20675 20676 20677 20678 20679 20680 20681 20682 20683 20684 20685 20686 20687 20688 20689 20690 20691 20692 20693 20694 20695 20696 20697 20698 20699 ... 23941 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!