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

[shahzadafzal]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/

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.

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]

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/

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.

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]

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/

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.

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.

[Ibian]

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/

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.

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.

We did need it. It was that, or segwit. Now again, why is segwit the better option? It is really impolite to waste peoples time like this.

[mindrust]

Well segwit increased the block size by 2x and fixed tx malleability and enabled LN for us. Aren't you grateful?

As long as there is a way to scale without increasing the block size, devs will try it first. Because security reasons.

[Ibian]

Well segwit increased the block size by 2x and fixed tx malleability and enabled LN for us. Aren't you grateful?

As long as there is a way to scale without increasing the block size, devs will try it first. Because security reasons.

You are not answering the question. What security reasons, for starters?

[mindrust]

Well segwit increased the block size by 2x and fixed tx malleability and enabled LN for us. Aren't you grateful?

As long as there is a way to scale without increasing the block size, devs will try it first. Because security reasons.

You are not answering the question. What security reasons, for starters?

Read the reddit post.

[Ibian]

Well segwit increased the block size by 2x and fixed tx malleability and enabled LN for us. Aren't you grateful?

As long as there is a way to scale without increasing the block size, devs will try it first. Because security reasons.

You are not answering the question. What security reasons, for starters?

Read the reddit post.

I have fucking chucked the reddit post into the bin, and set the bin on fire. I am asking you, specifically, as a person.

[mindrust]

Well segwit increased the block size by 2x and fixed tx malleability and enabled LN for us. Aren't you grateful?

As long as there is a way to scale without increasing the block size, devs will try it first. Because security reasons.

You are not answering the question. What security reasons, for starters?

Read the reddit post.

I have fucking chucked the reddit post into the bin, and set the bin on fire. I am asking you, specifically, as a person.

Can't bother with it. I am lying on my bed, listening to Racer-X from my iphone.

[cAPSLOCK]

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?

On the protocol level Bitcoin is already too complex for more than 99% of the world.  Segwit/Non Seguit?  Whatever.

The wallets will handle this.

You don't know how to write an HTTP query most likely, and you most likely don't know PHP, or SQL, and yet here you are reading this webpage.  And even if you do, you get my point.

Users will not care about Segwit.

The only concern is if Segwit somehow BREAKS bitcoin.  So far, so good.

[Ibian]

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?

On the protocol level Bitcoin is already too complex for more than 99% of the world.  Segwit/Non Seguit?  Whatever.

The wallets will handle this.

You don't know how to write an HTTP query most likely, and you most likely don't know PHP, or SQL, and yet here you are reading this webpage.  And even if you do, you get my point.

Users will not care about Segwit.

The only concern is if Segwit somehow BREAKS bitcoin.  So far, so good.

No, not whatever. Would you like to make a segwit wallet or a legacy wallet? That's not a whatever, that's a bahwuh?

[cAPSLOCK]

No, not whatever. Would you like to make a segwit wallet or a legacy wallet? That's not a whatever, that's a bahwuh?

I make segwit wallets.  But I understand how to, and why.

Average user will "buy" bitcoin on the Cash app or Robihood, or keep it on Coinbase, or Blockchain.info.  Or use Samurai or Eclair or Enjin and just use whatever address the wallet gives them.

It *is* "whatever" for the vast majority.

And if lightning takes off (thanks to Segwit) then it will just be the new normal.  In fact it really already is.