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

[jbreher]

Might wanna fix your quotes there Yogi.

Sorry. Reworked it. We good now?

Thanks, BTW.

[1714874796]

1714874796

[1714874796]

1714874796

[jbreher]

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.

Fair enough. I'm just glad the scales have fallen from your eyes, allowing you to make an objective evaluation based upon actual fact.

[jbreher]

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.

Welcome to ignore

None so blind as those who refuse to see...

[fluidjax]

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.

Welcome to ignore

None so blind as those who refuse to see...

It’s not what he says, I listen to you being wrong, but don’t enjoy being trolled.

[jbreher]

Why is bitcoin being attacked?

Willie Sutton knows.

[gembitz]

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.

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

Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

jbearer hour?>_> stap flooding da chat! :-D haha

[cAPSLOCK]

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.

Fair enough. I'm just glad the scales have fallen from your eyes, allowing you to make an objective evaluation based upon actual fact.

If Segwit is the death of corn, then it's already dead.

[jbreher]

For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Answer why doubling the block size is even needed at this point in time. With actual logic and facts to back your argument.

Because using LN requires opening channels on chain. To do this in a decentralized fashion, LN can onboard no more than several hunnert thousand peeps per day.

Several hundred thousand peeps opening/closing LN channels per day seems a bit overkill currently, don't you think?

Currently? Yes.

But I thought LN was supposed to be a scalability solution. And eliminate the benefit of bigger blocks.

[xhomerx10]

I want to know who's observing that walls?!

edit: wow... I've only had one beer and I can't type.

[jbreher]

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 provide me with a link where I can read about that? I remember anonymint's post, but I did not pay enough attention and now I can not find it.

Geeze, guys. We've been discussing these very same aspects of segwit since years. Have you had your fingers in your ears and blinders on up 'til now?

Agreed. It's unbelievable how people are coming NOW with points that were debated for years and were (even if slightly) a concern until a few months ago. And now that those are completely debunked they act as if they just discovered em....

Except they haven't been debunked. Well, other than with a handwavey 'we don't believe this to be a significant exposure'.

[Last of the V8s]

I want to know who's observing that walls?!

edit: wow... I've only had one beer and I can't type.

It's been so dry down by the river here, the Roman mason's carved phallus has been exposed

[xhomerx10]

I want to know who's observing that walls?!

edit: wow... I've only had one beer and I can't type.

It's been so dry here the Roman mason's carved phallus has been exposed

Thanks
 I'm glad somebody is watching it!

[jbreher]

The base layer has to stay VERY comfortably within Moore's law.

If one is to use Moore's law as the metric, computing power has increased by a factor of 64 in the time of Bitcoin's existence.

Lessee.... what's 1MB times 64? Humm....

Nope. Actual use of computers over that time says nope. It's not a fucking universal principle, it was a trend until it wasn't, and now it isn't.

Well, if you were to state that 'Moore's law' is misnamed, and is really something akin to 'Moore's assertion' or 'Moore's rule-of-thumb', I'd agree.

However, the situation cAPSLOCK brings up is valid. Whatever the rate, computing power becomes ever-so-more affordable as time goes on. Typical home computers can now handle 100 tx/s even before fixing the broken Core threading model (500 tx/s has been demonstrated with a mockup). If you can't pony up for a typical home computer, I'm happy to say bye-bye to your node.

[jbreher]

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

 51% attacks require nothing more, and they can do anything....ANYTHING.
They can make every bitcoin address contain an mp3. The whole discussion about Segwit is bollox.

Of course if you are running a full node you wouldn’t accept the mp3 invested junk, but then, non segwit people don’t run nodes, they rely on miners.

Blanket statement is ignorant falsehood.

[jbreher]

If Segwit is the death of corn, then it's already dead.

All outputs free of segwit taint all the way back to segwit activation are completely unaffected by the scenario under discussion.

[lunyrdoctor]

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.

Welcome to ignore

None so blind as those who refuse to see...

Wow my first post after lurking around for months now.. so hello to everyone that's been around for years.. I'm one the new HODLers

As far as I could gather, this post here pretty much discusses this topic. It is also explained why SegWit shouldn't be a problem since the 51% attack would hard fork bitcoin because the nodes wouldn't validate the transaction: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6p3wie/can_anyone_explain_why_this_attack_against_segwit/

[actmyname]

That's ok. Everybody's merits are worth more now.

You'd be surprised the number of merits that have been sent to deleted posts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=1762404 (check the received section)

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)).

But in what scenario would this be viable? Perhaps, if we're at a situation where Bitcoin is seconded by another coin with the same mining algorithm, it would be a way to 'surpass' it (provided the ones doing the takeover had a large enough investment in the second) but this seems like an unlikely event.

When there is enough value in segwit addresses to be worth it. What are you confused about?

1) Steal coins with hash power
2) Everybody finds out and bitcoin is dead
3) Now you have useless coins?

[fluidjax]

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.

Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

 51% attacks require nothing more, and they can do anything....ANYTHING.
They can make every bitcoin address contain an mp3. The whole discussion about Segwit is bollox.

Of course if you are running a full node you wouldn’t accept the mp3 invested junk, but then, non segwit people don’t run nodes, they rely on miners.

Blanket statement is ignorant falsehood.

Not one of you Segwit haters have provided any decent argument or evidence describing any substantive weakness. You all troll and pat yourself on the back for spotting some imaginary flaw.

I am still waiting on you to reveal the problem.

Your 51% attack nonsense doesn’t wash, what else have you got?

[bitserve]

For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Answer why doubling the block size is even needed at this point in time. With actual logic and facts to back your argument.

Because using LN requires opening channels on chain. To do this in a decentralized fashion, LN can onboard no more than several hunnert thousand peeps per day.

Several hundred thousand peeps opening/closing LN channels per day seems a bit overkill currently, don't you think?

Currently? Yes.

But I thought LN was supposed to be a scalability solution. And eliminate the benefit of bigger blocks.

It IS a scalability solution. Bigger blocks will (presumably) be needed some time in the future though, except not as much bigger as if Segwit+L2 were not in place.

You can argue developers will never accept a blocksize increase even when the need comes.... Well, that is speculation and I sincerely hope you are wrong in that one.

[RayX12]

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.

You statement is very confusing since you are taking about two things: a) 51% attack and b) stealing coins.
How can you steal coins without private keys on Bitcoin?  What kind of bull shit is this?
Please enlighten me!