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

[cAPSLOCK]

No, it is not the tragedy of the commons. That is about eating your seed crop.

Your seed crop (corn, you mean really) is a centralized private resource.  It is guarded by the farmer.  There is no common use outside of his *centralized* family.  The blockchain is more like the office refrigerator.  It is a public shared resource.  Tragedy of the commons is an absolutely applicable concept.

As to doing a bunch of math for you, sorry no.  I don't need to prove it to you.  And at that I assume we are at an impasse.

Time will tell which of us is right.

I'd say we should have a decent idea by 6/28/2028

[bitserve]

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Could you be more verbose about that? What are those dangers?

P.S.: But not as much verbose as a thousands words dissertation. Just a simple explanation of your own thinking about the subject.

it goes against the very idea, that is all

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.

The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate.  When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first.  If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.

A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1         0
4         1
16        4
64        16
80%      20%

So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.

The payment processor has connections with many nodes.  When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends.  If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad.  A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it.  The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.

I don't follow you.... How do Segwit impairs detecting/blocking double spendings?

[Ibian]

No, it is not the tragedy of the commons. That is about eating your seed crop.

Your seed crop (corn, you mean really) is a centralized private resource.  It is guarded by the farmer.  There is no common use outside of his *centralized* family.  The blockchain is more like the office refrigerator.  It is a public shared resource.  Tragedy of the commons is an absolutely applicable concept.

As to doing a bunch of math for you, sorry no.  I don't need to prove it to you.  And at that I assume we are at an impasse.

Time will tell which of us is right.

I'd say we should have a decent idea by 6/28/2028

The typical example is a shared field of grass for multiple households. Anyway this is a waste of time, read up on it. And then spend some time thinking about it, that's actually the most important part.

There is no shame in saying "I don't know", by the way. I keep hoping to be able to type those words with every post here. But nobody will give me a chance.

[infofront]

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miners wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the segwit coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.

[Ibian]

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miner's wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is the reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.

Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).

Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

[gentlemand]

I'll give it a shot.

Thank you.

Mr. Mint and that other one seem like flat out nutters to me though. I'd like to hear the thoughts of others but of course it's seemingly impossible to get impartial thoughts on this.

I find the idea of the super rich raping Segwit and relaxing in Bitcoin Original watching it burn laughable myself. Everyone and everything would be swatted in a tsunami of shit.

It does look like extra risk that certainly most could do without taking, but the incentive not to raze everything to the ground is still as strong as ever. If it's that gaping I'm surprised there's that much faith in the incentives alone though.

[kalehon]

New ethereum logo:

[mindrust]

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miner's wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.

Pretty much this.

I wonder If any of these people will be able to make a public appearance after a coup like this.



See this photo?

Do you think any of these 3 are bold enough to trigger a world war and strong enough to survive through it? Are they brave enough to spend the rest of their lives in an underground bunker with the fears of getting killed at any second?

All I see here is 3 *aggots.

[infofront]

This is not a way to steal coins, this is a way to destroy Bitcoin. After the attack there is no value left, so nothing to steal.

Therefore the attack is only important to someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin, and a 51% attack will destroy Bitcoin with or without Segwit. Therefore Segwit is not an additional risk.

Some counter argument would be that:
- Bitcoin is necessary, inevitable, and has shown immense resilience to all attacks (is indestructible).
- The miners and wealthy elites know what's coming (or what may come), so they're storing their coins in legacy addresses. So, only the plebs like us will be screwed, and no one will give a shit. Look at the 2008 financial crisis. Millions of ordinary people lost their homes. The banks got bailouts and the executives still got their 8-figure bonuses. This seems to happen over and over throughout history.
- Another bitcoin civil war would just be a tiny blip in the history of bitcoin.

[Elwar]

All I know is bcash is down to .11 BCH/BTC. I was only selling my bcash at .2 BCH/BTC but may need to re-think that as I doubt it will ever come back and continue to wither away.

I'm all for people pumping it to get me more BTC but the more time passes, the less likely some alt coin is going to magically become Bitcoin.

With the amount of progress being made with Lightning Network I doubt people would drop it all once mass adoption begins just for slightly bigger blocks.


I was agnostic through the whole thing. My hope was that whatever choice was made, that everyone get behind one and we move forward in a disrupting way. The hard fork did not achieve that.

I believe that bcash has shown that hard forks will be a very difficult thing to do which I feel is a very good thing. The hard fork should be left for huge emergencies like finding a bug that makes Bitcoin vulnerable to collapse (as was done in the past). Upgrades should be done via soft fork if possible. This ensures that the bitcoin I own today are backed by the same algorithm (or very close to it) decades from now.

[cAPSLOCK]

No, it is not the tragedy of the commons. That is about eating your seed crop.

Your seed crop (corn, you mean really) is a centralized private resource.  It is guarded by the farmer.  There is no common use outside of his *centralized* family.  The blockchain is more like the office refrigerator.  It is a public shared resource.  Tragedy of the commons is an absolutely applicable concept.

As to doing a bunch of math for you, sorry no.  I don't need to prove it to you.  And at that I assume we are at an impasse.

Time will tell which of us is right.

I'd say we should have a decent idea by 6/28/2028

The typical example is a shared field of grass for multiple households. Anyway this is a waste of time, read up on it. And then spend some time thinking about it, that's actually the most important part.

There is no shame in saying "I don't know", by the way. I keep hoping to be able to type those words with every post here. But nobody will give me a chance.

Ultimately I don't know.  You don't know.

But this is the "computer" processing the transactions for satoshis.place:

[Ibian]

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miner's wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is the reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.

Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).

Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

This is not a way to steal coins, this is a way to destroy Bitcoin. After the attack there is no value left, so nothing to steal.

Therefore the attack is only important to someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin, and a 51% attack will destroy Bitcoin with or without Segwit. Therefore Segwit is not an additional risk.

No, you are not getting away with calling two different things the same. That's what the bcashers do. What the fuck is wrong with half of you people lately?

[Rosewater Foundation]

The miners and wealthy elites know what's coming (or what may come), so they're storing their coins in legacy addresses. So, only the plebs like us will be screwed, and no one will give a shit.

Signature:
I do not accept segwit outputs as payment, nor send them.

Some of us will be ok.

[Last of the V8s]

Well, if we're destined to spend another year together we ought to really try to make something of it this time around. Maybe we should try to solve some longstanding math problems. The Yang–Mills existence and mass gap seems straight-forward enough, and there's a prize.

Ron says it's impossible https://www.quora.com/profile/Ron-Maimon
https://www.quora.com/What-progress-has-been-made-to-date-on-the-Yang%E2%80%93Mills-existence-and-mass-gap-problem
oh hey btw, shiny https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-underlying-particle-physics-20130917/
next?

[acquafredda]

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miner's wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.

Thank you so much infofront

[mymenace]

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Could you be more verbose about that? What are those dangers?

P.S.: But not as much verbose as a thousands words dissertation. Just a simple explanation of your own thinking about the subject.

it goes against the very idea, that is all

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.

The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate.  When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first.  If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.

A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1         0
4         1
16        4
64        16
80%      20%

So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.

The payment processor has connections with many nodes.  When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends.  If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad.  A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it.  The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.

I don't follow you.... How do Segwit impairs detecting/blocking double spendings?

allow double spending

The idea was to implement a double spend that would have no way of reaching its intended target

A self imploding virus

[Rosewater Foundation]

Well, if we're destined to spend another year together we ought to really try to make something of it this time around. Maybe we should try to solve some longstanding math problems. The Yang–Mills existence and mass gap seems straight-forward enough, and there's a prize.

Ron says it's impossible https://www.quora.com/profile/Ron-Maimon
https://www.quora.com/What-progress-has-been-made-to-date-on-the-Yang%E2%80%93Mills-existence-and-mass-gap-problem
oh hey btw, shiny https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-underlying-particle-physics-20130917/
next?

Well nuts.

[Paashaas]

I'll give it a shot.

No need to be concerned, non issue among developers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LN loves Segwit because one of the features is the malleability fix Segwit provides. So Bitcoin can finally scale properly.

What Satoshi thinks about LN;

[infofront]

Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).

Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

I feel dumb. I've been a segwit cheerleader without knowing all the facts. I see now that some of it is tribalism, as you mentioned earlier.

Anyway, it's what we've got now, and I still support Bitcoin. I won't be keeping my cold storage coins in a segwit address though.

[Ibian]

Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).

Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

I feel dumb. I've been a segwit cheerleader without knowing all the facts. I see now that some of it is tribalism, as you mentioned earlier.

Anyway, it's what we've got now, and I still support Bitcoin. I won't be keeping my cold storage coins in a segwit address though.

Group identity is a powerful thing. What's important now is what to do going forward.

I didn't even know why it might be bad, I just had a funny feeling due to the lack of open discussion of its pros and cons. When only one side is being talked about, it's time to be careful.