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

[jbreher]

Any coin you'll buy from an exchange will probably have a segwit history.

Which of course would just result in a niche that needs filling by an entrepreneur to found an exchange that deals strictly in Segwit-free bitcoins. Market pressures always result in market solutions. Kinda econ 101, that.

[Ibian]

Look, everyone, this is not really difficult is it? If bitcoin is just another tool of the 1%, then, fuck it, we will be among the new 1%. But if it is more than that, if it is meant to make the world as a whole a better place, to give the world financial freedom, then basic mechanisms such as creating a fucking wallet can not be an issue of confusion.

Either the differences between segwit and legacy need to be made so clear that anyone who can operate a computer understand it, or we need to go back to a universal standard.

Option 3: We're still in the early adopter phase, bitcoin is too complicated for plebs, and we're still working on the basic underlying infrastructure, as cAPSLOCK mentioned. If Bitcoin development were comparable to the development of the internet, we'd be around 1991.

If.

[cAPSLOCK]

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

Nakamoto Satoshi would also have N. S. as his initials. Family name first, as is the norm in Japan.

If I had ONE guess good old Nick would be pretty high on my list.  Hal would also be up there.

Today on twitter I saw some EOS shill respond to one of Szabo's posts and call him a "fucktard".

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/1008974899690463232

LOL.

Dude evidently has no idea...  he might actually have earned a block from Satoshi himself... lol.

Really kinda fits in with how AMAZINGLY TERRI-HORRI-AWEFUL-BAD EOS is.

[jbreher]

Tldr; security reasons...

So implement Segwit through a mechanism that introduces new attack vectors.

Nope. Still doesn't make sense.

[jbreher]

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.

[Ibian]

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.

It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

[JayJuanGee]

You are likely correct that there is a sliding scale when it comes to fungibility, and I think that most free market types are going to perceive the most value in bitcoin being associated with greater levels of fungibility... so yeah, you are right that lesser fungibility may maintain some value, but the amount of decrease in value may be a lot greater than what you seem to be projecting it to be.  For example if confidence is lost because coins get blacklisted, then surely that seems problematic to me if it is allowed to occur.  So if any 3rd party such as coinbase or fed government tries to label coins, then there would likely be some effort by the bitcoin community to either not use their services or to move coins to other location and clean them of their blacklisting.

I think there is an argument to be made that zero fungibility may cause an increase in value as governments would accept and regulate such a state. I can see a scenario where your address will be issued and monitored. If this becomes a future scenario then TPTB would actually cause an increase in the value as institutional investment would increase exponentially. and Ironically BTC would become the exact opposite of what it was intended yet as a side effect continue to make early adopters rich.

I think that when a few of us speculate that there are going to be fungibility battles in the future, these are the kinds of battles that we contemplate to be within the realm of possibilities.  Part of the problem about speculating about the future is that no one is really going to know how the battles might play out.  I am fairly certain that varying levels of preparation for fungibility battles have been ongoing in bitcoin since it's inceptions, and even during my about 4.5 years in bitcoin, I have seen various kinds of fungibility discussions, even from  core developers.  So the topic is not lost on them and the tools for defending bitcoin from these kinds of challenges is not new, either.  So, it remains somewhat speculative if fungibility challenges become more of an issue or a BIGGER problem that might need more tools - but there may not be a real easy way to put safeguards in place for every possible fungibility attack if certain kinds of fungibility attacks have not started yet and they remain mere speculation rather than actual and current practices.

So some of these FUD spreading nutjobs, like jbreher, who seem to want to continue to present the speculation of the fungibility issues as if it were a current attack on bitcoin, rather than speculation of the future seems premature, misleading and an attempt to spread FUD about speculation rather than actual and current things going on in bitcoin.

[mindrust]

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.

It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2? Roger created  the real bitcoin for the ungrateful fucks like you. Could it be that you don't trust his project?

[Ibian]

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.

It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?

Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

[mindrust]

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.

It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?

Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

Read the reddit post. Want me to copy paste it for you?

[Ibian]

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.

It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?

Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

Read the reddit post. Want me to copy paste it for you?

Alright you are useless. Moving on.

[mindrust]

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.

It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?

Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

Read the reddit post. Want me to copy paste it for you?

Alright you are useless. Moving on.

walk on jog on good bye bon voyage fuck off

[infofront]

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.

It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?

Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

Increased centralization

[regent4]

https://i.imgur.com/gGTGLUf.png

http://blockchainshowdown.blogspot.com/2018/06/btc-usd-2th-june-2018.html

[Ibian]

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.

It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?

Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

Increased centralization

Due to? Don't fucking say 2 mb blocks. At least be a little bit creative.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

Now you are bringing back the BIG BLOCKER arguments to the thread?  Are you just trying to provoke, you goofball?

You realize that segwit was adopted through adequate consensus mechanisms, and if you want to remove segwit then some similar process needs to be followed in order to remove it.  Seems very unlikely to happen, merely because some people have "suspicious feelings" about segwit that are not based in any kind of substantial and meaningful fact(s).

also, get the fuck out of here with the worn out and beaten up claims that BIGGER blocks is less complicated.  Part of the reason that BIGGER blocks was not the solution was because it failed to receiving any kind of meaning traction in the bitcoin community, so if you want some BIGGER blocks, then take ur selfie to bitcoin.com.. (I am reminding myself of that shakespeare saying "take yourself to a nunnery"  hahahahahaha)

[jbreher]

So some of these FUD spreading nutjobs, like jbreher, who seem to want to continue to present the speculation of the fungibility issues as if it were a current attack on bitcoin, rather than speculation of the future seems premature, misleading and an attempt to spread FUD about speculation rather than actual and current things going on in bitcoin.

Your continued mischaracterization of my position -- especially in light of my repeated corrections -- is antisocial aggression. (haha! Don't I just sound like an SJW?)

I have continually stated that I am merely pointing out that a reduction in fungibility is endemic to the design of Segwit. I said nothing about a current attack.

Just. Fucking. Stop.

[infofront]

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

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.

It's not even a matter of if a reversal is technically possible. If it is, and it was done, then the entire consensus mechanism would be invalidated.

Segwit can not be reversed. So that argument is out the fucking window and into the burning bin. TRY AGAIN SEGWITTARDS.

Segwit is not a security threat so it being non-reversible is not a bad thing unlike 2mb blocks.

If you don't like segwit why dont you gtfo to bcash you 2?

Again, explain whatever security issues you think there are. You are turning yourself into a bad joke at this point.

Increased centralization

Due to? Don't fucking say 2 mb blocks. At least be a little bit creative.

Do some research. I'm not going to sit here and answer your stupid ass questions.
If you're pissed about the current situation, go circle jerk with jbreher on bitcoin.com about how awful segwit is.

[jbreher]

Segwit is not a security threat

Segwit has altered the Bitcoin security model. This is inarguable.

We can argue about whether or not this new security model is or isn't a threat. Such is not my interest at this time.

Roger created  the real bitcoin

Interesting assertion.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Well, yeah.  We are still less than 1% of world wide adoption of bitcoin, and lots of dumbing down and ease of use is likely to evolve into various aspects of bitcoin, whether that is legacy, or segwit or lightning or some new systems or various combinations of such.  We are also in a stage of bitcoin development in which these various technical aspects of bitcoin are batted around by both technical and non-technical people... and so the topic remains fair game as confidence in the underlying increases and increases and takes time to beat around and battle the FUD spreaders, too.

There are always going to be some geeks that are more informed and in touch with the underlying technologies, but like you said, the larger the adoption, the less likely that regular peeps are going to be studying into the technical details as long as there is a certain confidence in the underlying security of the whole system, which may come from a mere development that "everyone else is using it."