Bitcoin Forum
June 18, 2019, 06:32:21 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Closing BTC Price June 17:
$0 - 4 (3%)
<$6,500 - 7 (5.3%)
$6,500-$6,750 - 1 (0.8%)
$6,751-$7,000 - 2 (1.5%)
$7,001-$7,250 - 3 (2.3%)
$7,251-$7,500 - 6 (4.5%)
$7,501-$7,750 - 4 (3%)
$7,751-$8,000 - 12 (9.1%)
$8,001-$8,250 - 13 (9.8%)
$8,251-$8,500 - 7 (5.3%)
$8,501-$8,750 - 6 (4.5%)
$8,751-$9,000 - 11 (8.3%)
$9,001,$9,250 - 13 (9.8%)
$9,251-$9,500 - 17 (12.9%)
>$9,500 - 17 (12.9%)
$20,000 - 9 (6.8%)
Total Voters: 132

Pages: « 1 ... 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 20700 20701 20702 20703 20704 20705 20706 20707 20708 20709 20710 20711 20712 20713 20714 20715 20716 20717 20718 20719 20720 [20721] 20722 20723 20724 20725 20726 20727 20728 20729 20730 20731 20732 20733 20734 20735 20736 20737 20738 20739 20740 20741 20742 20743 20744 20745 20746 20747 20748 20749 20750 20751 20752 20753 20754 20755 20756 20757 20758 20759 20760 20761 20762 20763 20764 20765 20766 20767 20768 20769 20770 20771 ... 24227 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21226299 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. (64 posts by 15 users deleted.)
xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 2172


It's over 9000!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:32:40 PM

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

edit: wow... I've only had one beer and I can't type.
1560839541
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560839541

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560839541
Reply with quote  #2

1560839541
Report to moderator
1560839541
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560839541

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560839541
Reply with quote  #2

1560839541
Report to moderator
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1276


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:34:09 PM

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 2206


Be a bank.


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:37:12 PM
Merited by xhomerx10 (1)

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 2172


It's over 9000!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:38:43 PM

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 Wink
 I'm glad somebody is watching it!
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1276


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:39:07 PM

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1276


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:41:03 PM

- 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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1276


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:42:47 PM

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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 1


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:43:39 PM
Merited by Toxic2040 (1)

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 Cheesy

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1576


Professional shitposter. 59 posts/hr, tested.


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2018, 10:44:43 PM

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

Smiley
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 739
Merit: 550



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:46:01 PM

- 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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 751


HODL.


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:46:05 PM

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 552


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:46:47 PM


- 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!
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 2206


Be a bank.


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:50:22 PM

so if you doublespend a tether does that make it a real dollar?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/8ulr0t/a_doublespend_has_been_successfully_performed_on/e1gispn/?context=3
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 739
Merit: 550



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:50:45 PM


- 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!

In big blocker world you don’t need non mining nodes. Miners enforce and determine consensus. Therefore 51% attack can do anything they like including stealing coins without keys.
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 296


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:53:17 PM

Binance Set to Launch Its First Crypto-Fiat Exchange in Uganda

https://cointelegraph.com/news/exclusive-binance-set-to-launch-its-first-crypto-fiat-exchange-in-uganda

An interesting statement by CZ:

“Uganda [is a] really interesting situation, only 11 percent of the population has bank accounts. It’s both a challenge and an opportunity. So it may be easier to adopt cryptocurrency as a form of currency instead of trying to push for bank adoption. It’s an interesting experiment - Africa’s a big market, that’s why we’re there.”

When the search for greater fools takes you to the darkest jungles of the Congo...
lunyrdoctor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 1


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:55:14 PM


- 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!

In big blocker world you don’t need non mining nodes. Miners enforce and determine consensus. Therefore 51% attack can do anything they like including stealing coins without keys.

And with bitcoin the nodes wouldn't validate these transactions since they don't have signatures, hence this would result to a hard fork of the chain. And the miners could do a hardfork right now if they wanted. And they haven't yet for good reasons.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1791


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:56:23 PM
Merited by mindrust (2)

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s

he is talking about how big block sizes would make bitcoin centralized (because he knows how Computing technologie would develop in the next 10 years ofc.)

Even if so: LN is by design centralized.


So whats that argument even about?

Are you engaged in selective listening, or you just want to purposefully describe something that is not even really addressed in the video?   The vast majority of the video discusses the problematic nature of attempting on-chain scaling.  And, what the fuck you talking about LN centralized?  You just making shit up because you and your bcash pumpers want to assert such fallacies while the factual evidence does not seem to support your contentions, especially since LN, even though it remains in early test phases, seems to have a multitude of contributors and nodes.. .so your "centralization" assertion seems to be the opposite of what is actually happening in regards to ongoing LN developments.


If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. 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.

Get the fuck out of here, Ibian.

In this thread, people have been explaining the fucking weakness of the BIG BLOCKER nutjob theories for nearly three years.  

The essence of the argument remains that BigBlockers have failed to provide evidence or logic that bitcoin would benefit from BIG blocks as much as it would likely cost...   In other words, there is no burden for anyone here to explain why BIG blocks are not a good idea, but instead the burden is on you and your other BIG blocker nutjob supporters to provide evidence and facts to convince others to go along with supporting BIG blocks.  

As you likely realize any change to bitcoin has to be agreed to, tested and implemented through appropriate and accepted consensus mechanisms.  

BIG blocker theorizors like your self have not even gotten past the proposal stage without getting rejected by the vast majority of bitcoin peeps..

In other words, there has been a failure of BIG blockers to come anywhere close to reaching consensus in bitcoin, but you got such in bcash, so go over there and see how that is working out for you.. the main consensus that BIG blockers have achieved in bitcoin is to provide ..a minority of BIG mouthed whiners (that lack substance) about the topic and ongoing suggestions that their solution is simple (without really providing evidence that advantages outweigh disadvantages).
bitserve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 751


HODL.


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 10:59:14 PM

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'.

I don't believe it to be a significant exposure.... But last time we discussed this subject I was a bit more verbose than just handwaving:

(snipped for relevance)

I don't see exchanges, devs and users complaining how flawed Segwit it, nobody lost money ore saw critical errors.  I only see that bullshit in the Bcash camp.

Can you provide me technical arguments/proof why Segwit is 'flawed' ore show it at the Github?

Yes. Fungibility.
What's the issue with fungibility that's so specific to segwit?

As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities.  
1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions;
2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and
3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction.

Quote
Quote
Reliance on miners not to revert to 'anyonecanspend' - an incentive for which only increases over time.
That is, reliance on miners not to try a 51% attack. Does this imply the chain without segwit is invulnerable to 51% attacks?

No. But without Segwit, all miners were able to do with a 51% attack is roll back transactions. They were unable to steal funds. If miners choose to revert to considering Segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transactions, then they can claim every one of the outputs of all those anyonecanspend transactions for themselves. As over time, transactions tainted by Segwit is a monotonically increasing count, the incentive to roll back to Satoshi rules is ever-increasing. And the funny thing is that this would arguably not be stealing. After all, Segwit is said to be compatible, right? All the miners would be doing to claim these funds is to revert to the previous rule set. That's compatible.



The risk you are mentioning here is somewhat "real" but it is decreasing as more funds get moved to segwit addresses. It was a real concern in the beginning as it would have been a (remote) possibility that miners would do as you say. In fact, even if I believed Segwit was a favourable upgrade I was very cautious to NOT move my funds to Segwit addresses until many months later.

Currently, with so much funds already moved into Segwit addresses IF miners decided to stole any Segwit address this is what would happen:

- A fork between the consensus chain and the stolen one.
- A drop in price to almost zero on the stolen one.
- A considerable drop in price on the consensus chain too.

... And basically a major drop in ALL cryptocurrency market as confidence and trust on the main cryptocurrency and its foundations would be severely harmed.

Or maybe it would just be that noone would give any value to the forked (stolen funds) chain and the crisis would not be as deep... but, in any case, whomever carried out that sort of attack (necessarily a main player in crypto mining) would end in a useless (no value) chain and be economically harmed in every way on its core business.

Also take into account that exchanges can be hit by a 51% attack in the sense of double spending BUT they are not vulnerable to this type of attack. Why? Because their wallet software would NOT acknowledge the "anyonecanspend" spoofed tx's no matter how many hashrate decides to support the rogue chain. (If I am wrong in this point please enlighten me).

So, still a 51% "double spending" attack -while hugely improbable in Bitcoin for many reasons- is a (orders of magnitude) bigger "vulnerability" than a segwit "anyonecanspend" attack right now.
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:01:41 PM

- 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


Seems to have started a storm, a lot happening, such an awakening

Give me enough money and I have no care for your bitcoin blockchain
I will own all the nodes
"Referencing Rothschild on the banking system and government"

You can own all of the nodes if you want but that wont help you to attack the network. The moment you begin doing nefarious things users will open channels with someone who is not doing nefarious things and the network will very quickly self heal from your attack.
Whats to attack
I have just turned the blockchain into a central bank, all transactions run through my nodes
cheap or expensive

Rofl what no. Havn't you been paying attention? It's a permissionless system. If you make it expensive people will use someone elses node. You understand that there isn't some limited number of slots to fill up where you get life time ownership of that slot right? You don't seem like you understand at all how the technology works. You remind me of a commenter from zerohedge not bitcointalk.



 I like how your responses are exactly like mainstream media and omit certain truths


I like how your response sounds like it could have been written by a computer algorithm.

thanks for the compliment satoshi would be proud

and yes i am a russian bot  Grin Grin


You don't seem like you understand at all how the technology works
your response sounds like it could have been written by a computer algorithm


Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1496



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:04:59 PM
Last edit: June 28, 2018, 11:35:13 PM by Torque
Merited by mindrust (1)

- 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.

But I guess the alternative world of BCash with 0 conf and riddled with double spends galore should be applauded then because it has big blocks and no SW?  /s   Roll Eyes  

All hail BCash!  /s

Also infofront, pls notice the timing of this sudden SegWit FUD. Look at the price action today. It's not just a coincidence, ok? Anunymint, Ibian, jbreher and others are known stealth (concern) trolls.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 20700 20701 20702 20703 20704 20705 20706 20707 20708 20709 20710 20711 20712 20713 20714 20715 20716 20717 20718 20719 20720 [20721] 20722 20723 20724 20725 20726 20727 20728 20729 20730 20731 20732 20733 20734 20735 20736 20737 20738 20739 20740 20741 20742 20743 20744 20745 20746 20747 20748 20749 20750 20751 20752 20753 20754 20755 20756 20757 20758 20759 20760 20761 20762 20763 20764 20765 20766 20767 20768 20769 20770 20771 ... 24227 »
  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!