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

[JayJuanGee]

BCH is not a surreptitious attack as is Core. Yet it is attempting to mislead and not make full disclosure.

Stupid ass statements like this shows your true agenda to denigrate and to attack bitcoin through your own misleading.

Excuse me bothersome troll liar, I do not see the word ‘Bitcoin’ nor ‘bitcoin’ in what you quoted.

Clearly I am denigrating scammers who try to scam people out of their Bitcoin. And I named two of those scamming groups above in the sentence of mine you quoted. Neither of them is Bitcoin or bitcoin.

I understand your delusion is so deep that my truthful statement is an anathema or heresy for you. But you will learn the hard way about your ignorance.

If you can’t even comprehend one sentence, how could you even expect to understand any of this. At least if you are going to accuse me of anything, then correctly accuse me of claiming that Core is not Bitcoin.

There you go again.  Attempting to place yourself as the smartest person in the room, but you are not really engaging in any kind of clarification of your ideas, to the extent that you might have some ideas that matter.

Segwit is the consensus[consensual] coin... Keep a decent[donation] percentage of your coins there...Ibian.  

ftfy.

I don't really know what the fuck you are attempting to accomplish with your changes.

Apparently infofront believes that anunymint is contributing to the thread?  Even infofront has decide to follow anunymint's advice.. seems like...

You now attempt to apply political peer pressure to force him to consent to donating his Bitcoin. “One For All, All For One.”

Don’t worry I will leave this thread so it can go back to normal.

Don’t force him to choose. That’s very deviant.

Infofront can do whatever the fuck he wants.  He can also make decisions for himself.  How could I be forcing or pressuring him..?  You make little fucking sense, but apparently you have had some effectiveness in persuading a few peeps in this thread.    He also owns this thread, so there is that too.

By the way, you keep threatening to leave us, but you don't follow through with your threat... Sad for us..  

[1713272483]

1713272483

[1713272483]

1713272483

[1713272483]

1713272483

[mymenace]

Bitcon under attack, decentralized blockchain dangerous

Roger ver and the hard forks was used to discredit bitcoin
Currently debate is raging over distributed lightning network and decentralized lightning network
Again an attack to create hegemony and centralize bitcoin through transactions on the lightning network

Segwit is a failure due to the inability to decentralize lightning networks

Why they are attacking bitcoin
It would do more than just provide a currency system it is a truth system as well

Truth of central bank inflation and tax lies
Truth of illegal money transfer
Truth of corruption

....and the currency wars continue



Furthermore use of media, forums, social networks, by those few attacking bitcoin run narratives with each other on these platforms to look like infighting

Only a few, what you have to deal with to survive the currency war.

Update

Whats interesting to note is the amount of attacks on bitcoin saying it supposedly does not work
1) Bcash shills
2) Segwit shills
3) Lightning shills
4) Republic shills
5) Blocksize shills



Thanks to the continued attacks on bitcoin, the public now know where to look, the truth in the blockchain can be exposed.

[realr0ach]

The reason that the Satoshi protocol is the one true Bitcoin is because it is the Schelling point (aka “emergent consensus” of the wealthy) with the most security.

There's far too many completely contradictory claims about bitcoin going on here.  You have people like Sidhujag claim shitcoins are better than gold because they can be upgraded, thus making them the completely made up and meaningless word "anti-fragile".  My counter claim against him is that, no, that is not a benefit; money does not simply morph into something else at random because then it is non-fungible and there is no Schelling point either.

But it's not possible for shitcoins to be fungible in the first place even if they have built-in tumblers like Monero, simply due to the fact they can and HAVE to be modified constantly.  For example, the Theymos push to try and X-out Satoshi coins in old addresses that will eventually become anyone can spend.  Or the need to use Lamport signatures or whatever in the future.  There are virtually zero Satoshi posts backing up your viewpoint that the protocol as he released is somehow sacred.  In fact, it's the exact opposite.  He talked constantly about people doing things like altering block size and other variables in the future if/when needed.

You're generally pushing a fringe Popescu claim that just doesn't line up with reality.  Bitcoin has always been made up of completely arbitrary, magic numbers with nothing sacred about any of them, and it will never be fungible.  This is why physical metals are the Schelling point and not shitcoins, because physical metals are free of political power vacuums, while shitcoins are nothing more than social constructs subject to change just like the fiat dollar.

[HairyMaclairy]

Why is this false equivalency and Bcash lol shilling getting so desperate.  Is it because bcash lol is 0.11 BTC and falling ?  Surely you can stay above 0.10 for a bit longer ?

[vroom]

If any given scammer shitcoin altcoin such as Core, Bcash, Ethereum, Iota, or EOS falls into the woodchipper, that has no long-term bearing on the gold of crypto. Gold isn’t wood. Gresham’s law assures us that real Bitcoin will be driven out of circulation and be hodled by the wealthy and wise. The bunny rabbits will chase after transaction scalable wood to throw into the woodchipper.

that's your greatest error in your argumentation. there is no core altcoin. bitcoin is bitcoin and everything else are altcoins. there is no segwit coin and no core coin. there is no satoshi coin. all we have is bitcoin and altcoins. consensus defines what bitcoin is. not some random forum shills.

[mymenace]

With current bad Global actors being hunted things are looking good for bitcoion

Once rounded up we hope the bitcoin price will be unleashed

Problem is they all hiding out in New Zealand

[ivomm]

What I don't get is why ethereum had $130-ish billion market cap in January and now Bitcoin has $100 billion cap.  How can one explain the claims that the current price of Bitcoin is too high and not sustainable, given that only 1% of the average Joe that heard about Bitcoin knows about ethereum (at least from my personal observations)? And if Bitcoin didn't go south, ethereum would have easily sustained that market cap. I have only one word: manipulation!

[mymenace]

What I don't get it why ethereum had $130-ish billion market cap in January and now Bitcoin has $100 billion cap.  How can one explain the claims that the current price of Bitcoin is too high and not sustainable, given that only 1% of the average Joe that heard about Bitcoin knows about ethereum (at least from my personal observations)? And if Bitcoin didn't go south, ethereum would have easily sustained that market cap. I have only one word: manipulation!

The time has come,
The manipulation ends


The blockchain holds the truth to billions of dollars of illegal money transfers


This is why they say bitcoin must go


Bitcoin is now the new world reserve currency made to replace the CENTRAL BANKING CRIMINAL CABAL


they want it gone

the fake, media, forums, boards, social media is now exposed


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vw9N96E-aQ

buckle up

[Torque]

You have convinced me.  I need to run the version from November 2010 when Satoshi was still involved. What version was that?  Because that’s obviously the one true Bitcoin.

Sorry guys any transactions after 2010 are invalid. Anyone that says otherwise is just a Core shill.

The only version that is the one true Bitcoin is the pseudo code that Satoshi wrote in the white paper. Back when he was already mining.... in his mind.

Get a version of that running and you'll have the purest form of his vision. /s

P.S. - The only version of Linux that I run on my laptop is version 0.1 released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. It's the purest form of his original vision, the one true Linux. Everything else that came after is corrupt and a piece of shit.<sup>1

1 /s</sup>

[vroom]

You have convinced me.  I need to run the version from November 2010 when Satoshi was still involved. What version was that?  Because that’s obviously the one true Bitcoin.

Sorry guys any transactions after 2010 are invalid. Anyone that says otherwise is just a Core shill.

The only version that is the one true Bitcoin is the pseudo code that Satoshi wrote in the white paper. Back when he was already mining.... in his mind.

Get a version of that running and you'll have the purest form of his vision. /s

P.S. - The only version of Linux that I run on my laptop is version 0.1 released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. It's the purest form of his original vision, the one true Linux. Everything else that came after is corrupt and a piece of shit.

linux is just a MINIX altcoinOS, MINIX is the real thing

[vapourminer]

Ultimately, you can do whatever you want.  I am largely suggesting that if you support a system, then you should use it to make it stronger rather than getting scared away by fear mongers.. and largely a lot of speculative disinformation that is not likely to play out in real life scenarios.  Yes, I recognize that you seemed to have identified a compromise that you believe to be acceptable (and that is surely for yourself to decide what you feel comfortable with), but maybe you should question the extent to which you might be overly cautious and not even attempting to use the segwit aspect of addresses for storage.  

Largely you may be correct that there is not much of a difference... there also may be a certain non-necessity to move coins from legacy addresses to segwit addresses if they are already sitting in those addresses.

yup more or less this. at this point i see no need to move my legacy hodl coins just for the sake of a new format. when i do move them for trade/buy/whatever i move them in chunks to segwit as segwit does have an advantage in fees.

Yes.  I am not really talking about fees and transaction times for long term storage.  I do think that there are modern solutions to privacy that are being worked on with segwit.  I am not sure if there would be as much development on legacy systems... but I am not really sure.  So for example, I think that it can be helpful to divide your coins into different wallets, instead of keeping them in one wallet, and sometimes wallets will engage in some kind of unclear method of combining addresses within the wallet that you may have been trying to keep private, but then when you send, the wallet combines the addresses, so the output shows both addresses connected to you.  In that regard, there may be newer wallets (such a segwit wallets) that are trying to deal with this issue and give more power to users to control.

this is a good point. legacy sucks for privacy and segwit/lightning may help in that. at this point segwit doesnt (that i know of) but as it evolves then there will be a real reason to use segwit aside from lower fees.

BTW trezor allows multiple wallets and each wallet is completely independent with its own addresses and coins that never mix. you can make each wallet legacy or segwit. i believe some software wallets can or are starting to allow much finer control of how coins are combined when spending, but i havent done any real research into it. i use trezor, paper and core for wallets.

so how is that playing into anyones hand?

I should not have to explain this concept.  If segwit fear spreaders are trying to cause folks not to use segwit or to adopt it, then they achieve part of their objective when users act on such fears and fail/refuse to use segwit.  It is largely a systemic issue rather than an individual issue.  

ah i understand now.

i figure since im using core whether im using segwit or not, im supporting core as much as the next guy, im just not using all its features at all times. 98% of my current transactions are segwit with only the occasional transfer of legacy to legacy addys that i do to claim fork coins. for example the bulk of my coins have maybe four xfers.. pool -> core wallet -> paper -> trezor -> trezor again (to claim forked coins). i have a trezor t now so ill probably move them once more and claim whatever crap has forked since my last move. but ill keep the legacy coins legacy. yes, im stubborn i know. i dont like change when it comes to the storage of my money. segwit is too much change at the moment. safe storage is better than convenient storage. and legacy is the safest format at the moment. legacy has been battle tested. seqwit has not, as there is an attack vector segwit coins have that legacy doesnt have. so for the 1st time there is an attack that targets coins stored in a specific format (segwit) while leaving coins in another format (legacy) alone, and is easier to do. that is not what i want in my long term storage coins.

core offers both format. i chose legacy for storage and move the amount i foresee using for the next few months or whatever to segwit.

works for me.

i guess it boils down to why i would go out of my way to use segwit addys for long term hodl?

We remain early adopters and kinds of guinea pigs.  We are going out of your way to use bitcoin, and to learn about bitcoin.  The more we learn, the better we understand it.... Of course, there is a balance and only so many hours in the day to learn about new systems.  When I first got into bitcoin, I attempted to learn about just a couple of aspects, and through the years, I have added more and more kinds of activities and for me, my participation in the bitcoin ecosystem has continued to be an ongoing learning process.. but I admit that I can only do so much at any one time.  I am currently considering adding another wallet for myself, and so I understand that it can take a while to learn and to add more bitcoin tools to my bitcoin toolbox.

total agreement. i spent coins early on whenever i had the chance just to support the ecosystem and support vendors who accepted btc. at todays prices i dont even want to think about the value of the coins i more or less blew just to support the ecosystem, but i dont regret it a bit. after all its we who are proving the value of btc. we need to prove it "just works." to me that btc was well spent.

we agree on many things. especially the freedom to choose how we store and use  btc. its up to the individuals comfort level and how much he trusts their knowledge of the subject.  

[mindrust]

Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion is not the true vision of infofront.

infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be.

The new W/O thread will be ripped off from any troll protocols (like anonymint, roach, jbeher and other retards) and only infofront's true protocol to be left.

Raise hands now.

P.S: I won't be reverting your past crap. Your past messages (troll or not) will be safe.  I'll copy everything from this topic one by one but (tr00) moderation will be taking place by the page 20781.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Why would anybodies coins be lost by HODLING in Core addresses? Anybody else please deny or confirm this?

[vroom]

Why would anybodies coins be lost by HODLING in Core addresses? Anybody else please deny or confirm this?

this is a conspiracy theory and can not be denied or confirmed that easy. also there is no core address, they are trying to rebrand bitcoin. infofront wrote a good summary:

I'll give it a shot.

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

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

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

[bones261]

Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion is not the true vision of infofront.

infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be.

The new W/O thread will be ripped off from any troll protocols (like anonymint, roach, jbeher and other retards) and only infofront's true protocol to be left.

Raise hands now.

P.S: I won't be reverting your past crap. Your past messages (troll or not) will be safe.  I'll copy everything from this topic one by one but (tr00) moderation will be taking place by the page 20781.

Infofront isn't the true originator of this thread. adamstgBit is. However, adamstgBit became inactive. Bitcointalk locked this thread because it was becoming too much of a chore moderating it. They appointed infofront as the new OP,  to give this thread a little moderation.

[mymenace]

Why would anybodies coins be lost by HODLING in Core addresses? Anybody else please deny or confirm this?

this is a conspiracy and can not be denied or confirmed that easy. infofront wrote a good summary:

I'll give it a shot.

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

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

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

I'll give it a shot.

- Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions.

Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen.

Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.


If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't),

  - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit.
 In this case, miners will take all the segwit coins.

 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, who cares the original bitcoin will fork back making it redundant, keep your crap altcoins no-one will buy them after



 - Even though the majority of ALTCOIN users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers the truth to their crimes.


ALTCOIN buyers will flood to the new SECURE and SAFE segwit fork or whatever code they want to centralize


 - Mining is decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards always increase. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees when they blow profits. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these profits. Segwit does cut into these fees.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Fucking dumb ass question but how do you know if your bitcoin’s are being held in a SegWit or Non SegWit address?

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Fucking dumb ass question but how do you know if your bitcoin’s are being held in a SegWit or Non SegWit address?

Segwit addresses begin with a 3

So it’s a lot safer if my bitcoin’s are all held in addresses beginning with a 1

[bones261]

Fucking dumb ass question but how do you know if your bitcoin’s are being held in a SegWit or Non SegWit address?

If the address begins with 1, they are definitely not Segwit coins.
If the address begins with 3, they are held in a P2sH address. They could be segwit or could just be a multisign address. If the private keys are under your control, you should know. Likely they are a segwit address since you would definitely know if you set up a multisig address since it involves a very complicated process to set up. If the private keys are under someone else's control, like an exchange or online wallet, you will need to research or ask.
If the address begins with bc1, it is definitely a segwit address.

So it’s a lot safer if my bitcoin’s are all held in addresses beginning with a 1

Only if you believe that a fork that will treat and spend segwit coins as anyonecanspend transactions will eventually become the chain with the most work. (And also the chain with the most economical support.) Your segwit coins will be basically unspendable on this chain. As soon as you attempt to spend them, you can only use the segwit redeem script which the miners will appropriate for themselves as an anyonecanspend.
Your segwit coins are safe and sound on any fork that enforces segwit rules.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Fucking dumb ass question but how do you know if your bitcoin’s are being held in a SegWit or Non SegWit address?

If the address begins with 1, they are definitely not Segwit coins.
If the address begins with 3, they are held in a P2sH address. They could be segwit or could just be a multisign address. If the private keys are under your control, you should know. Likely they are a segwit address since you would definitely know if you set up a multisig address since it involves a very complicated process to set up. If the private keys are under someone else's control, like an exchange or online wallet, you will need to research or ask.
If the address begins with bc1, it is definitely a segwit address.

Pretty sure all of my bitcoin’s are in addresses begginning with a 1
I will need to check this tonight

But yes I am the sole owner of every single private key.