Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 01:36:34 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What happens first:
$65,000 - 59 (86.8%)
$48,000 - 9 (13.2%)
Total Voters: 68

Pages: « 1 ... 22145 22146 22147 22148 22149 22150 22151 22152 22153 22154 22155 22156 22157 22158 22159 22160 22161 22162 22163 22164 22165 22166 22167 22168 22169 22170 22171 22172 22173 22174 22175 22176 22177 22178 22179 22180 22181 22182 22183 22184 22185 22186 22187 22188 22189 22190 22191 22192 22193 22194 [22195] 22196 22197 22198 22199 22200 22201 22202 22203 22204 22205 22206 22207 22208 22209 22210 22211 22212 22213 22214 22215 22216 22217 22218 22219 22220 22221 22222 22223 22224 22225 22226 22227 22228 22229 22230 22231 22232 22233 22234 22235 22236 22237 22238 22239 22240 22241 22242 22243 22244 22245 ... 33205 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 26336772 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. (170 posts by 1 users with 9 merit deleted.)
bitcoincidence
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240
Merit: 1045


goodbye sweetest cat of em all


View Profile
January 07, 2019, 11:56:13 PM

There once lived a bitcoin in Brasse
then Ver pulled Bcash out of it's ass
now Bcash is two
and no one knows who's who
but bitcoin will always have class

There once lived a bitcoin in Brasse
then Ver pulled BCash from his ass


... flows a bit better IMO.

There once lived a bitcoin in Brasse
whom BCash was pulled from his ass
now Bcash is two
and no one knows who's who
but bitcoin will always have class

maybe even better?
But no Ver anymore...but there are aeons of time and poems left to defame Ver  Grin


There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin Core, but full nodes are more resource-heavy, and they must do a lengthy initial syncing process. As a result, lightweight clients with somewhat less security are commonly used.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711676194
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711676194

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711676194
Reply with quote  #2

1711676194
Report to moderator
El duderino_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464
Merit: 11778


BTC + Crossfit, living life.


View Profile
January 07, 2019, 11:56:45 PM

via Imgflip Meme Generator
El duderino_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464
Merit: 11778


BTC + Crossfit, living life.


View Profile
January 07, 2019, 11:58:53 PM

via Imgflip Meme Generator
bitcoincidence
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240
Merit: 1045


goodbye sweetest cat of em all


View Profile
January 07, 2019, 11:59:11 PM


I sometimes trade BTC for other coins because they know how to party.
But i always return in Bitcoin's bed (sometimes broke and with a headache).
El duderino_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464
Merit: 11778


BTC + Crossfit, living life.


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 12:04:58 AM
Merited by infofront (1)

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Don’t be fools and BUY @2019
Don’t ADD anymore years as many n00bs do

Into HODLsleep as well

Goodnight WO’s

#HODL
kurious
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 1643



View Profile
January 08, 2019, 12:28:42 AM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)


Well NiceHash attacks could well (should, even?) increase. It might not be too pretty, either - especially as it's POW coins that will take the brunt of it.  

OK, I was wondering how shitcoins might be pruned as, in a Darwinian way, it seems sort of inevitable when there are obviously way too many with no real use case, or any likely long-term value.  But the minimal money to wreck some fairly big name coins, rattles me a tad. It will not exactly be good news if it is widely perceived that POW itself is not safe.

I know BTC is a way bigger deal to attack and almost impossible, but...

EDIT: typos
bitcoincidence
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240
Merit: 1045


goodbye sweetest cat of em all


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 12:31:12 AM


Well NiceHash attacks could well (should, even?) increase. It might not be too pretty, either - especially as it's POW coins that will take the brunt of it.  

OK, I was wondering how shitcoins might be pruned as, in a Darwinian way it seems sort of inevitable when there are obviously way too many with no real use case, or any likely long-term value.  But the minimal money to wreck some fairly big name coins, rattles me a tad. It will not exactly be good news if it is widely perceived that POW itself is not safe.

I know BTC is a way bigger deal to attack and almost impossible, but...

EDIT: typos
Andreas Antonopoulos - 51% Bitcoin Attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 3008


Welt Am Draht


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 12:33:08 AM

Well NiceHash attacks could well (should, even?) increase. It might not be too pretty, either - especially as it's POW coins that will take the brunt of it. 

OK, I was wondering how shitcoins might be pruned, as is in a Darwinian way it seems sort of inevitable when there are obviously way too many with no real use case, or any likely long-term value.  But the minimal money to wreck some fairly big name coins, rattles me a tad. It will not exactly be good news if it is widely received that POW itself is not safe.

I know BTC is a way bigger deal to attack and almost impossible, but...

I wonder if there's anything in Nicehash's terms about using their equipment for nefarious ends.

If you go after BTC you're going to get a ton of idle mining thrown at you rather like the end of Ready Player One plus killing a shitcoin means nothing. Attacking the foundation of it all would be very suicidal/ballsy.
jojo69
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3122
Merit: 4271


diamond-handed zealot


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 12:37:39 AM


I would never use a wallet that has the potential to jump an air gap.

fucking BINGO
kurious
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 1643



View Profile
January 08, 2019, 12:43:13 AM

Well NiceHash attacks could well (should, even?) increase. It might not be too pretty, either - especially as it's POW coins that will take the brunt of it.  

OK, I was wondering how shitcoins might be pruned, as is in a Darwinian way it seems sort of inevitable when there are obviously way too many with no real use case, or any likely long-term value.  But the minimal money to wreck some fairly big name coins, rattles me a tad. It will not exactly be good news if it is widely received that POW itself is not safe.

I know BTC is a way bigger deal to attack and almost impossible, but...

I wonder if there's anything in Nicehash's terms about using their equipment for nefarious ends.

If you go after BTC you're going to get a ton of idle mining thrown at you rather like the end of Ready Player One plus killing a shitcoin means nothing. Attacking the foundation of it all would be very suicidal/ballsy.

In all honesty, I hope I am over-reacting.  NiceHash can't rent you enough for 51% on most coins (and certainly not BTC) and an hour wouldn't work, i would need to be sutained.  So it could just be the smaller shitcoins unable to respond (and lacking nodes) that are vulnerable...  Bigger coins can presumably rent or mobilse fan-hash to defend themselves, or adapt POW algos, too.

But big coins need to not fail - you can imagine the media scrum and the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the wires of the scammed.
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 3008


Welt Am Draht


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 12:47:17 AM

But big coins need to not fail - you can imagine the media scrum and the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the wires of the scammed.

If it's possible and there's money to be made, or grudges or perversions to be serviced, then someone somewhere will do it.
kurious
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 1643



View Profile
January 08, 2019, 12:50:26 AM

But big coins need to not fail - you can imagine the media scrum and the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the wires of the scammed.

If it's possible and there's money to be made, or grudges or perversions to be serviced, then someone somewhere will do it.

Yep, almost certainly.  The 'short and attack' might work profitably on rumour alone.
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4392


Be a bank


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 12:52:36 AM

Terminate them all with extreme prejudice.
Please and thank you.
jojo69
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3122
Merit: 4271


diamond-handed zealot


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 01:08:05 AM
Merited by lightfoot (1), infofront (1), El duderino_ (1)

fucking hell

it's like a merit bukkake in here
kurious
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 1643



View Profile
January 08, 2019, 01:09:50 AM

Terminate them all with extreme prejudice.
Please and thank you.

I think a cull is needed to pull resources towards the best projects, but that a gradual extermination of minor coins and a slower death for middling ones would be better than a general sudden carnage.

Too many pissy, crap coins is obviously an issue, but a feeding frenzy of bad, large rogue actors getting richer and bigger in a slaughter-fest might not be pretty.  

Or maybe I just need my medicine.  Nurse...?
kurious
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 1643



View Profile
January 08, 2019, 01:29:19 AM


Well NiceHash attacks could well (should, even?) increase. It might not be too pretty, either - especially as it's POW coins that will take the brunt of it.  

OK, I was wondering how shitcoins might be pruned as, in a Darwinian way, it seems sort of inevitable when there are obviously way too many with no real use case, or any likely long-term value.  But the minimal money to wreck some fairly big name coins, rattles me a tad. It will not exactly be good news if it is widely perceived that POW itself is not safe.

I know BTC is a way bigger deal to attack and almost impossible, but...

EDIT: typos
Yeah, a 51% attack is already feared so much in the community, if random coins keep falling and makes big news plenty of fools will think the entire POW system is easily attacked including Bitcoin.

I'd certainly prefer it if it was tokens, POS coins etc. under threat.  But hopefully it will end up with stronger POW ('that which does not kill me...' so to speak) and NOT certain token systems basking smugly in the sunshine as V8 noted.
dogebearman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 711
Merit: 204



View Profile
January 08, 2019, 02:20:56 AM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Don’t be fools and BUY @2019
Don’t ADD anymore years as many n00bs do

Into HODLsleep as well

Goodnight WO’s

#HODL

Don't buy Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbZ8zDpX2Mg
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 02:34:03 AM
Last edit: January 08, 2019, 02:52:18 AM by jbreher


I don't know what you're on my case for. Are you implying that if the ETC officials ran more nodes, that this attack would not have happened? If so, you are 100% incorrect. Such fully-validating non-mining clients are powerless to stop rollback attacks made by overwhelming hashpower.

Besides, I run a fully-validating non-mining client. Several in fact. However, I am not under the widespread delusion that this provides the system as a whole any benefit.

Fully-validating non-mining clients got segwit shoved through, albeit indirectly.

I will grant that one way at looking at that situation was that miners looked at statements by all those sybillable non-mining fully-validating clients, and interpreted them as a valid measure of economic support. But we'll likely never know. Regardless, the battle was never fought. Which, while being the ultimate form of victory, leaves the 'what if' question as an unsettled matter.

Are you implying that if the ETC officials ran more 'nodes', that the above described attack could not have happened?
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 02:37:05 AM

Bitcoin can be the dominant crypto in the entire world and handle the world at large without a first layer privacy solution.

<edit> barring some breakthough in life extension technology, </edit> You'll be dead before BTC -- augmented with LN -- can onboard the world at large. At least in a trustless, permissionless manner, which is kind of central to the Bitcoin vision. FACT.

Quote
How does that bit of news FEEL to you?

Makes me FEEL that you suffer from deluded ingroup confirmation bias.

But I know nothing I say will affect your iron will. Carry on.

But you FEEL that some BCash variant can do what BitcoinTM, in your opinion, cannot? And you call me deluded jbreher?

Fuck off dude. Carry on with your delusion. BCash and all it's forks are already zombie shit. Nobody cares.

Deflection away from actually addressing my counterpoint is duly noted.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 02:42:07 AM


https://twitter.com/girevik_/status/1082381014033485824
n.o.d.e.s
@jbreher and all bcash lollers
also @VB1001

I don't know what you're on my case for. Are you implying that if the ETC officials ran more nodes, that this attack would not have happened? If so, you are 100% incorrect. Such fully-validating non-mining clients are powerless to stop rollback attacks made by overwhelming hashpower.

Besides, I run a fully-validating non-mining client. Several in fact. However, I am not under the widespread delusion that this provides the system as a whole any benefit.
no disingenous dumbass. not stopping the attack. raising the alarms in good time. knowing what's happening to your money.

So... non-mining fully-validating clients provide no protective role. Got it.

And I guess 'in good time' is only in retrospect.

I never indicated that those who care to monitor things for themselves should be prevented from running their own monitoring client. I reiterate: I run a fully-validating non-mining client. Several in fact.

you disingenuous dumbass  Roll Eyes
Pages: « 1 ... 22145 22146 22147 22148 22149 22150 22151 22152 22153 22154 22155 22156 22157 22158 22159 22160 22161 22162 22163 22164 22165 22166 22167 22168 22169 22170 22171 22172 22173 22174 22175 22176 22177 22178 22179 22180 22181 22182 22183 22184 22185 22186 22187 22188 22189 22190 22191 22192 22193 22194 [22195] 22196 22197 22198 22199 22200 22201 22202 22203 22204 22205 22206 22207 22208 22209 22210 22211 22212 22213 22214 22215 22216 22217 22218 22219 22220 22221 22222 22223 22224 22225 22226 22227 22228 22229 22230 22231 22232 22233 22234 22235 22236 22237 22238 22239 22240 22241 22242 22243 22244 22245 ... 33205 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!