Bitcoin Forum
November 11, 2019, 11:23:34 PM *
News: Help collect the most notable posts made over the last 10 years.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: When will we see a new ATH? (Credit to: Biodom)
2019 - 14 (9.7%)
Early 2020 - 32 (22.2%)
Late 2020 - 44 (30.6%)
Early 2021 - 11 (7.6%)
Late 2021 - 21 (14.6%)
2022 - 3 (2.1%)
2023 - 0 (0%)
2024 - 4 (2.8%)
After 2024 - 3 (2.1%)
Never - 12 (8.3%)
Total Voters: 144

Pages: « 1 ... 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 20772 20773 20774 ... 25410 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21427965 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. (128 posts by 22 users deleted.)
babanana
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 120
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 08:38:17 AM

So even if you have some skepticism of segwit, it might be prudent of you to support the actual (rather than hypothetical) direction of bitcoin by storing a portion of your coins on segwit, even if, you decide to follow through and store the vast majority in legacy addresses

All right, I'll bite...

What about storing some value on a segwit address is prudent?

FUCK off. Your BTrash is a trash coin. A shitcoin. don't leave your shitcoin here. Open your own fucking thread moron.

I did not say anything about BCH. The topic is clearly segwit.

What the fuck are you talking about...

I love how all the Bitcoin-Cash hater use insulting language and have a new account with 4 posts. Pathetic.

Why don't you start your own thread and stay there you MORON.
Go away. The stink of BTrash is with you.

I love how all the B-Cash haters only use insults with a new 4 posts old account. It's unbelivable what is going on in this community. Complete Censorship on reddit for years, Troll accounts everwhere....

I can also smell the stink with you. You need glade.
The Bitcoin Forum is turning 10 years old! Join the community in sharing and exploring the notable posts made over the years.
1573514614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573514614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573514614
Reply with quote  #2

1573514614
Report to moderator
micgoossens
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 868
Merit: 2840


O, 5-digits where art thou


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 08:55:30 AM





micgoossens
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 868
Merit: 2840


O, 5-digits where art thou


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 09:20:12 AM

So even if you have some skepticism of segwit, it might be prudent of you to support the actual (rather than hypothetical) direction of bitcoin by storing a portion of your coins on segwit, even if, you decide to follow through and store the vast majority in legacy addresses

All right, I'll bite...

What about storing some value on a segwit address is prudent?

FUCK off. Your BTrash is a trash coin. A shitcoin. don't leave your shitcoin here. Open your own fucking thread moron.

I did not say anything about BCH. The topic is clearly segwit.

What the fuck are you talking about...

I love how all the Bitcoin-Cash hater use insulting language and have a new account with 4 posts. Pathetic.

Why don't you start your own thread and stay there you MORON.
Go away. The stink of BTrash is with you.

I love how all the B-Cash haters only use insults with a new 4 posts old account. It's unbelivable what is going on in this community. Complete Censorship on reddit for years, Troll accounts everwhere....



Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 2468


Be a bank.


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 09:35:49 AM

Bravo.
But please to not go just yet.
There's a lot of stuff here needs your corrections, clarifications and rebuttals.
A lot-a-lot.
doc12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1284
Merit: 1042


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 10:50:37 AM
Merited by mymenace (1)

Wow bcashers spinning up FUD lately, somethings in the making?

Take that for granted: Bcash will NEVER take Bitcoins position, never ever. And if you somehow manage to take it violently, Bitcoin will take your shitty Altcoin to the abyss.  No option for victory here, max. a Pyrrhic victory.
ivomm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 819
Merit: 391


All good things to those who wait


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 11:01:26 AM

https://nulltx.com/bitcoin-price-watch-currency-spikes-by-100/

This is the 10-th time I read about it this week. Facebook buying Coinbase? Why not?  Grin

......
In addition, it appears Facebook has some big ambitions when it comes to the crypto space. Rumors are swelling that the social media platform is looking at purchasing Coinbase, one of the largest and most trusted digital currency exchanges in the United States. The move is slated to bring a major tech giant into the cryptocurrency arena, bringing further legitimacy to the world of digital assets and implementing Facebook’s value and utility.

“It wouldn’t surprise me if Facebook tried to acquire Coinbase,” says tech entrepreneur Oliver Isaacs. “Whether [Coinbase CEO] Brian Armstrong and the team would agree is another question.”

At press time, the rumors have not been confirmed as truth, though Armstrong has hinted in the past that his team would like to reach a minimum of one billion customers, and having Facebook’s help could make that a possibility.
......
bitserve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 783


HODL.


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 11:02:36 AM
Last edit: June 29, 2018, 11:21:16 AM by bitserve
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

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.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
People keep saying that and I call bullshit on it. Why would people start making more transactions just because the network has more capacity? It makes no sense at all.

Hash Time Locked Contract (HTLC) payment networks including Lightning Networks and the Layer 2 and 3 technologies have three major problems:

1. They force centralization onto hubs. Those who think this is not true, I can defeat you in a debate even though I will not expend my time on that debate now. Because of this centralization, they destroy the security of both the off-chain transactions, and they weaken the security of the on-chain Nash equilibrium because they create large hubs that hold economic control of the network. Remember as the block reward decreases, Nakamoto proof-of-work looses incentives compatibility to converge on a single longest chain and will fork off into innumerable forks unless there’s a stable oligarchy cooperating. See the Decentralization section of my blog post. This off-chain crap is the antithesis of the utmost priority on the security of the game theory of the chain which is what gives Bitcoin its status as the reserve currency of crypto (and eventually of the world). So there is no way that shit is going to be allowed on Bitcoin. That stuff will end up pushes off on a Core fork or other fork off from Satoshi’s protocol where the $billionaire economic majority will remain steadfast.

2. None of that shit scales because it drives up the need for larger blocks. Yet larger blocks are not a scaling solution (not the in correct mathematical) definition of scalability.

3. The transaction fees will become too high for users to open a payment on channel on-chain (as they will be competing against the hubs who dominate the available MBs per block), thus LN is going to be a fractional reserve system where users open accounts at hubs as they do with exchanges today.

I explained some of this is more detail at the following linked post (including my critique of layer 2 proposals):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4435201.0#msg39666724

I figured out a long time ago that on-chain transaction volume scalability is going to come from an altcoin. And that is what I have been working on. If I successfully mitigate the nothing-at-stake, censorship, liveness, and economic capture vulnerabilities of proof-of-stake, then what I will have is far superior to that off-chain crap. Bitcoin will remain the reserve currency. So I hope you understand I need to STFU and work.

I don’t have enough time to get involved in another long argument. I might not reply even if someone thinks I’m incorrect and even if I possess a correct rebuttal. So take this FWIW to you. I’m don’t claim to be omniscient, yet I’m reasonably well studied/researched on technological, game theory, and political-economics issues of consensus ledgers. I roughly guess that I have more specific knowledge on this than Andreas, but I haven‘t spoken with him nor watched all of his videos.



Well, I will try my luck to see a reply.

About your points:

1- Yes, some L2, like LN might be more or less centralised. Let's assume a hub and spoke topology for LN.... What's the problem? It's just one of the second layers of BTC. That doesn't make Bitcoin more or less centralised. The alternative, in case of mass adoption, would be corporate (coinbase, etc) online user wallets with no blockchain impact. I do prefer LN which, at least, settle channels on Blockchain and reduce the risk of "evil" hubs incurring in fractional reserve banking practices. In that, LN becomes a more DECENTRALISED alternative to online wallets. It does not substitute blockchain tx's but online wallets.

If you want to (really) scale, you either choose between L2 settled to blockchain or "L2" online wallets with no settling at all. My choice is clear in this case.

2- Segwit+L2 is a scaling solution as it makes it possible to handle several times more tx's for the same blocksize. Segwit does so by moving signatures to a secondary place and L2 by offloading main chain. And both do work as capacity multipliers for each linear blocksize increase. That's the very meaning of scalability!

Of course one of the capacity factors is the underlaying block size, which will need to be increased as needed if adoption growths in the future.
Multipliers/scaling factors (L2, Segwit, etc) are needed, but so is blocksize increase if we want to reach capacities several orders of magnitude higher than currently.

I envision a future in which 80% or more of tx's will be on L2 (small stuff mainly... cofee anyone?) and THAT will leave more room for other (bigger) tx's to be directly on blockchain. That is scaling.... and I don't care at all if my small change stuff is more or less decentralised. Not at all as soon as my main reserves are safely stored ON-CHAIN.

3- Again, somewhat correct, BUT you seem to forget that as more tx's get routed through other L2 channels/sidechains there is more capacity available on main chain. I don't see how you see LN to be or allow a fractional reserve system... All LN channels need to be PRE-FUNDED by real BTC on the main chain. I really don't follow your thinking here. The alternative (online wallets on main providers) IS a fractional reserve risk and that is what we want to avoid with L2 solutions like LN.




Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
June 29, 2018, 11:07:53 AM

https://nulltx.com/bitcoin-price-watch-currency-spikes-by-100/

This is the 10-th time I read about it this week. Facebook buying Coinbase? Why not?  Grin

.....

Still fleecing the CNBC pantsuits with that one I see. This is going to be a long year. Roll Eyes
Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1520



View Profile
June 29, 2018, 11:17:31 AM

OT: Meanwhile in the "No one seems to give a shit but really should give a shit" news :

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/deutsche-banks-u-operations-fail-second-leg-fed-203401923--sector.html
babanana
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 120
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 11:24:50 AM


Hash Time Locked Contract (HTLC) payment networks including Lightning Networks and the Layer 2 and 3 technologies have three major problems:

1. They force centralization onto hubs. Those who think this is not true, I can defeat you in a debate even though I will not expend my time on that debate now. Because of this centralization, they destroy the security of both the off-chain transactions, and they weaken the security of the on-chain Nash equilibrium because they create large hubs that hold economic control of the network. Remember as the block reward decreases, Nakamoto proof-of-work looses incentives compatibility to converge on a single longest chain and will fork off into innumerable forks unless there’s a stable oligarchy cooperating. See the Decentralization section of my blog post. This off-chain crap is the antithesis of the utmost priority on the security of the game theory of the chain which is what gives Bitcoin its status as the reserve currency of crypto (and eventually of the world). So there is no way that shit is going to be allowed on Bitcoin. That stuff will end up pushes off on a Core fork or other fork off from Satoshi’s protocol where the $billionaire economic majority will remain steadfast.

2. None of that shit scales because it drives up the need for larger blocks. Yet larger blocks are not a scaling solution (not the in correct mathematical) definition of scalability.

3. The transaction fees will become too high for users to open a payment on channel on-chain (as they will be competing against the hubs who dominate the available MBs per block), thus LN is going to be a fractional reserve system where users open accounts at hubs as they do with exchanges today.

I explained some of this is more detail at the following linked post (including my critique of layer 2 proposals):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4435201.0#msg39666724

I figured out a long time ago that on-chain transaction volume scalability is going to come from an altcoin. And that is what I have been working on. If I successfully mitigate the nothing-at-stake, censorship, liveness, and economic capture vulnerabilities of proof-of-stake, then what I will have is far superior to that off-chain crap. Bitcoin will remain the reserve currency. So I hope you understand I need to STFU and work.

I don’t have enough time to get involved in another long argument. I might not reply even if someone thinks I’m incorrect and even if I possess a correct rebuttal. So take this FWIW to you. I’m don’t claim to be omniscient, yet I’m reasonably well studied/researched on technological, game theory, and political-economics issues of consensus ledgers. I roughly guess that I have more specific knowledge on this than Andreas, but I haven‘t spoken with him nor watched all of his videos.

P.S. I’m late to enter this discussion because I was stranded overnight on a two-lane asphalt in the thick of the jungle somewhere in Agusan del Sur with a busted radiator (at 4pm on way back). In the Philippines ever since Duterte was infuriated that some older man with poor eyesight plowed into some teenagers who were probably walking (perhaps even loitering) in the middle of the unlit highway at night (because the government can’t afford streetlights), individuals who are blinded in one eye as I am are unable to receive a driver’s license without a night time driving restriction (or at least not without significant hassles of bribing an optometrist the outcome being up to the whim of the LTO doctor). Seems like rampant discrimination to me. I was told by LTO doctor in Davao to hire a full-time driver. Pfft! Yeah like I need to catch Tuberculosis again (from a driver who has enough money in his pocket to spend at bars with ladies of the night) like I need another hole in my head. So to side-step the restriction, I had to meander some 6 hours drive over to a very isolated provincial Land Transportation Office (LTO) where grease money still works in spite of Duterte’s anti corruption campaign. My year 2003 model SUV is on its last legs. Time to make some money and get a new vehicle and moreover to GTFO out of this backwater place.



Wow bcashers spinning up FUD lately, somethings in the making?

You can’t possibly be referring to my post, wherein I just wrote that block size increases are not a scaling solution. And I wrote that Satoshi’s protocol will win. I hope you understand that BCH is a fork and is not Satoshi’s protocol. Yet I repeat myself as I already wrote this a couple of days earlier in this thread.

Do you Core supporters have only a one track mind?



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.

I have been following his arguments for years.  He tends to predict doom a lot.  

Can you argue with sunspot activity charts and the fact that recently scientists have been able to develop a model of sunspot activity that back tests correctly. It predicts we are entering another Mini-Ice Age. The last one frozen the Thames.

1. You have no clear grasp of what lightning network is and how it works and you dont understand the code behind it.
2. no sense to go further.

get a life.
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 741
Merit: 552



View Profile
June 29, 2018, 11:32:14 AM

Put on your tin foil hat:

src: https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers

Anonymint gives a brief discusion of ASICBOOST, quantum resistant addressing & Satoshi secretly wanting a 1MB block size, which leads to...


Quote
Are why I have concluded that “Satoshi Nakamoto” was a pseudonym obscuring a secret task force of the “Satan’s global elite” and Bitcoin was mostly likely designed by the global elite in order to surreptitiously foist a world central bank by way of creative destruction of their own nation-state central banks. Note the natural law’s (i.e. collective human nature and physics of the universe) “Satan” wants to own your soul with the coming 666 system and thus Satan’s global elite always must give you your free will and allow you to choose to enslave yourself. Thus Satoshi never outright lied, but rather employed double-speak and deceptive truths. He was perfectly accurate with exquisite, meticulous attention to detail.

I'm not going to dismiss it without some further reading and investigation, but it seems like a leap to me.
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 308


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 11:38:46 AM

Price down...

Did you shitcoiners really believe you would be allowed to do more pump and dumps on my watch?

babanana
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 120
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 11:44:46 AM

1. You have no clear grasp of what lightning network is and how it works and you dont understand the code behind it.

Lol. Obtain a non-anonymous user account then let’s battle someday. I will fry you to a crisp son.

I'm not going to dismiss it without some further reading and investigation, but it seems like a leap to me.

Dig deep, otherwise you’ll end up like Carlton Banks in his recent debate with me.

Let us the young ones handle this. Big old trees are hard to uproot they do get uprooted.
Step aside and watch the sunset. You'll find beauty in it and everything will not matter.
vroom
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 309


a Cray can run an endless loop in under 4 hours


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 12:09:24 PM
Last edit: June 29, 2018, 12:20:27 PM by vroom
Merited by JayJuanGee (1), mindrust (1)

Really I don’t have time for this right now. But I will be back at the right time. I would rather let Core dig a deeper hole for themselves first. Why interrupt the enemy when they are in the process of destroying themselves.

I thought you really have some arguments but sentences like this marks you as a bcash shill.
If you are really that smart and see problems where dozens of developers don't, join them and help to make bitcoin better. Instead you are fighting a personal war with your "enemy". I can't take you serious anymore.

edit: this looks like a pre mempool spam campaign. bring people back to legacy addresses, spam mempool, profit from higher fees?
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 308


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 12:25:00 PM

Put on your tin foil hat:

Quote
Are why I have concluded that “Satoshi Nakamoto” was a pseudonym obscuring a secret task force of the “Satan’s global elite” and Bitcoin was mostly likely designed by the global elite in order to surreptitiously foist a world central bank by way of creative destruction of their own nation-state central banks. Note the natural law’s (i.e. collective human nature and physics of the universe) “Satan” wants to own your soul with the coming 666 system and thus Satan’s global elite always must give you your free will and allow you to choose to enslave yourself. Thus Satoshi never outright lied, but rather employed double-speak and deceptive truths. He was perfectly accurate with exquisite, meticulous attention to detail.

The word "global elite" is a word used by only two people:

1)  People who are scared to name the Jew

2)  People like Sean Hannity and Alex Jones who attempt to distract people's attention away from the evil Jewish cult and claim all the bad things going on are orchestrated by some white fraternity guys instead of Jews

The doctrine of the evil Talmudic Jew claims they're "the chosen ones" and they're supposed to rule over the planet with everyone else being their slaves, and that's exactly what they attempt to accomplish on a daily basis - making you their slave.  The system, or so called "elites", is nothing more than Jewish money changers and their shabbos goyim servants.  That's it.  Nothing more.

All the skull and bones and other morons are just useful idiots of the Jews - blackmailed and expendable puppets they use as actors to stand in front of the public and take heat while they set policy for their puppets to enact behind the scenes.  At the beginning, these people believe they're entering into some type of high level club, but this is false; the only goal is to make them compromised and subject to accept any orders given to them.  The top shabbos goyim servant who takes orders directly from the Jewish money changers will always be blackmailed by the most severe of crimes involving things like the Jeffrey Epstein Lolita Express.  Shabbos goyim under him that he issues orders to will be involved in lesser crimes like financial bribes.  

It's people like Marco Rubio who are the stereotypical, compromised, shabbos goyim slaves.  They're not in any way "elite" or part of some club, they're nothing but expendable slaves.  None of the high level Jews like Soros, Kissinger, or all the top evil cult Rabbis are being blackmailed.  All the top white so called 'leaders' are being blackmailed, and the top white religious figures like the pope who always have some form of sex crime card that can be played against them.  It's all Jewish control through blackmail and usury scams.
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 741
Merit: 552



View Profile
June 29, 2018, 12:28:34 PM

I'm not going to dismiss it without some further reading and investigation, but it seems like a leap to me.

Dig deep, otherwise you’ll end up like Carlton Banks in his recent debate with me.


All your evidence is circumstantial.

So without digging down into the individual points, which I have little doubt are factually correct;

With such a vast range of facts to draw-from after the fact, you will no doubt find many that are supportive.
You have cherry picked a number of factual situations and used inference to connect it to your initial supposition.
It's the same thing all the conspiracy theorists do.

Not being able to disprove something doesn't give it any more weight.
Being cool and something many of us want to believe, doesn't give it any more weight.
A combination of cherry picked events/facts with plausable explanations which support your initial suppostion doesn't give it any more weight.
The sum of the parts is zero.


Truthfully, I'm open to your idea, but you need something more, what have you got that really supports what you believe?
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1604



View Profile
June 29, 2018, 12:30:59 PM

Really I don’t have time for this right now. But I will be back at the right time. I would rather let Core dig a deeper hole for themselves first. Why interrupt the enemy when they are in the process of destroying themselves.

I thought you really have some arguments but sentences like this marks you as a bcash shill.
If you are really that smart and see problems where dozens of developers don't, join them and help to make bitcoin better. Instead you are fighting a personal war with your "enemy". I can't take you serious anymore.

edit: this looks like a pre mempool spam campaign. bring people back to legacy addresses, spam mempool, profit from higher fees?

Exactly. He is trying to spread FUD and make people use legacy addresses so his team of thieves will be spending less resources to fill the blocks.

Mass spam attack incoming.
vapourminer
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2488
Merit: 1241


what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 12:54:56 PM


So you can expect that (Satoshi not Core) Bitcoin will be only for $billionaires by then with $50,000 transaction fees. But that is what is necessary for our BTC to go to $1 million.

Again I don't understand what the fuck you are talking about.. because now you seem to be suggesting that you will have to be a billionaire to be able to use bitcoin by 2032?  sounds like nonsense to me.  Have you heard of segregated witness that facilitates the development of second layer solutions, such as lightning network?   The combination of on-chain and off-chain solutions, and various developments in that direction will likely negate your suggestions that bitcoin is evolving into elitism.

short version, from my limited understanding: if you have coins that you have had pre aug 2017 (the core/bcash split) and have only been moved to legacy core addys since (and are not contaminated with segwit lineage), those are so called satoshi coins and will survive a segwit doom scenario.

last of the v8s posted a link upthread to the satoshi coin site run (afaik) by trilema.

i have made sure the bulk of my coins from have stayed in non segwit addys, most from paper wallets from 2013.. after the split (bcash and core are considers splits from the satoshi coin chain) i xfred to non segwit core addys and sold that bcash crap).

i do have some segwit coins, those are the "spending" coins i use for buying stuff like pm and newegg etc. satoshi coins are for long term hodl.






realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 308


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 01:02:39 PM
Last edit: June 29, 2018, 01:44:03 PM by realr0ach
Merited by anunymint (1)

People who praise Lightning Network as being a good thing have got to be the dumbest people walking the planet.  Forgot the millions of other issues with LN, the simple fact that each channel you open's balance does NOT provide liquidity to other channels you have open forces it into a system of liquidity providers - TBTF banks on the blockchain.  Meaning if you have say, $1000 to your name, and you have 10 channels open with the grocery store and whoever else all with $100 in each one, those channels cannot be combined to make a $500 payment somewhere else.

The only possible evolution of such a system is the common end user having only A SINGLE channel open with a bank, and then that bank routes their payments to other channels while charging them usury fees EXACTLY like the banking system that already exists.  Once this LN system is in place with everything routed through the bank hubs, there is no reason for the base bitcoin network to exist because LN takes precedent.  You can close down bitcoin and they can replace bitcoin tokens with any other kind of token or go completely fractional reserve. Lightning network is the biggest scam conjob on the face of the earth.  

Some people are going to claim LN can somehow be made to function by having things all automatically route around at random without going through any centralized gateways, but this is complete bullshit.  The characteristics of channels themselves and the overhead to create one is designed in a manner that severely promotes vendor lock-in to one external party you generally never change or seldom change.  There is no logical reason to have any type of constantly morphing topography or constantly changing routes through that topography.  It would be a very stale and centralized system like a normal highway.  People would open a single channel to Bank of America then never screw with it again because it's the most efficient route.  

So without further delay, this is the only possible way LN can function:

babanana
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 120
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 29, 2018, 01:08:12 PM

Really I don’t have time for this right now. But I will be back at the right time. I would rather let Core dig a deeper hole for themselves first. Why interrupt the enemy when they are in the process of destroying themselves.

I thought you really have some arguments but sentences like this marks you as a bcash shill.
If you are really that smart and see problems where dozens of developers don't, join them and help to make bitcoin better. Instead you are fighting a personal war with your "enemy". I can't take you serious anymore.

edit: this looks like a pre mempool spam campaign. bring people back to legacy addresses, spam mempool, profit from higher fees?

Exactly. He is trying to spread FUD and make people use legacy addresses so his team of thieves will be spending less resources to fill the blocks.

Mass spam attack incoming.

I see him as a wannabe. But lets give the benefit of doubt.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 20772 20773 20774 ... 25410 »
  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!