Bitcoin Forum
July 19, 2019, 10:03:37 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: When will bitcoin reach the top of this bull market (i.e. when will it moon)?
Topped at $13,880 in June - 12 (7.7%)
H2 2019 - 16 (10.3%)
H1 2020 - 29 (18.6%)
H2 2020 - 28 (17.9%)
H1 2021 - 12 (7.7%)
H2 2021 - 31 (19.9%)
H1 2022 - 6 (3.8%)
H2 2022 - 4 (2.6%)
H1 2023 - 0 (0%)
H2 2023 - 3 (1.9%)
2024 or Later - 15 (9.6%)
Total Voters: 156

Pages: « 1 ... 20670 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 ... 24601 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21291786 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. (102 posts by 19 users deleted.)
bitserve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 765


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.
1563573817
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563573817

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563573817
Reply with quote  #2

1563573817
Report to moderator
1563573817
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563573817

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563573817
Reply with quote  #2

1563573817
Report to moderator
1563573817
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563573817

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563573817
Reply with quote  #2

1563573817
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563573817
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563573817

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563573817
Reply with quote  #2

1563573817
Report to moderator
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: 1190
Merit: 2248


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: 740
Merit: 552



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: 714
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
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960
Merit: 1861


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: 910
Merit: 765


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: 1848
Merit: 1501



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.
bitserve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 765


HODL.


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:05:34 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.

And what is most important: Exchanges do run their own nodes and would not accept the tx's stealing segwit from the rogue fork no matter if it temporarily have more hashrate than the original blockchain. Good luck doing anything with your worthless stolen "bitcoins".
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1300


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:18:08 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!

You haven't been listening. A 51% miner gets to declare that what were formerly segwit transactions are now anyonecanspend transactions. After all, that would merely be reversion to the consensus rules that existed before segwit activation (by a so-called 'compatible soft fork'). What happens to an anyonecanspend transaction? It's output is literally assignable to anyone. If you are mining, you are you going to assign that value to other than yourself? If you solve the block, they're yours.

Funny thing however, is that it is arguably not stealing, as it is merely operating under the existing consensus rules. Ones that were universal before some misguided individuals promulgated the idea that they were something other than anyonecanspend.
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:24:11 PM

Yeah...but...
I had dreams, you know. Angry
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960
Merit: 1861


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:24:17 PM

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.

Good point, gentlemand.

Sure, there can be all kinds of hypothesizing that miners will do this or that, but in the end, why the fuck would they want to kill the golden goose, when the end plot is not going to cause the whole bitcoin network to move over to some kind of new fork that they supposedly branch into and to give their supposed new fork value.

There were similar premises previously, around the time of the bcash fork, regarding the supposed power for miners to do whatever the fuck they wanted including removing their hash power from bitcoin because they were ultimately the boss of security, yet we found that when push came to shove, value incentives did not move so easily or shift over to something that was perceived to be a deviation from consensus.. so the fantasy of miners throwing around power and threatening the movement of value (or stealing value) ended up not being as true in practice as it was in theory.
Raja_MBZ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 875


Vegeta! What does the scouter say about BTC value?


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:24:43 PM

miner987
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2018, 11:27:38 PM

Stop it! Im allergic on red candles!!!
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1300


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


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

The risk you are mentioning here is somewhat "real" but it is decreasing as more funds get moved to segwit addresses.

No, it is increasing. The value in the UTXO that traces back to segwit transactions -- even if not currently on a segwit address -- is monotonically increasing. The prize available to the miners for reverting to the older rule set does nothing but increase over time.

I'll agree that it is by no means known that they will do so. But it is also by no means known that they will not. Funny that for all the lip service Core gives to security, and the rather dim view that many if not most Core devs have of miners, that they would introduce such a vulnerability.
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2842
Merit: 1439


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2018, 11:28:44 PM

Price down...forum full of bcash FUD...

I forgot what I was supposed to program my bot to do in this situation. Final indicator will be if I start getting some large buy orders on localbitcoins.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1300


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:30:15 PM

Exchanges do run their own nodes

Yes...

Quote
and would not accept the tx's stealing segwit claiming anyonecanspends from the rogue majority fork

You are speculating.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960
Merit: 1861


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 11:30:33 PM

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.

Yeah right.  You think that they can really generate enough folks to follow their narcisistic leadership path?  

It seems that your last sentence tells most of it... they are not inspiring enough.. maybe they need a new leader?  Gavin Andressen?  
Pages: « 1 ... 20670 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 ... 24601 »
  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!