Bitcoin Forum
May 21, 2019, 09:51:21 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What year will we achieve a new ATH?
2019 - 26 (27.7%)
2020 - 40 (42.6%)
2021 - 23 (24.5%)
2022 - 3 (3.2%)
2023 - 0 (0%)
Never - 2 (2.1%)
Total Voters: 94

Pages: « 1 ... 22308 22309 22310 22311 22312 22313 22314 22315 22316 22317 22318 22319 22320 22321 22322 22323 22324 22325 22326 22327 22328 22329 22330 22331 22332 22333 22334 22335 22336 22337 22338 22339 22340 22341 22342 22343 22344 22345 22346 22347 22348 22349 22350 22351 22352 22353 22354 22355 22356 22357 [22358] 22359 22360 22361 22362 22363 22364 22365 22366 22367 22368 22369 22370 22371 22372 22373 22374 22375 22376 22377 22378 22379 22380 22381 22382 22383 22384 22385 22386 22387 22388 22389 22390 22391 22392 22393 22394 22395 22396 22397 22398 22399 22400 22401 22402 22403 22404 22405 22406 22407 22408 ... 23906 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21170495 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. (23 posts by 12 users deleted.)
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1128


Anonymous bitcoin mixer


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 01:12:43 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.
1558432281
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558432281

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558432281
Reply with quote  #2

1558432281
Report to moderator
1558432281
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558432281

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558432281
Reply with quote  #2

1558432281
Report to moderator
1558432281
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558432281

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558432281
Reply with quote  #2

1558432281
Report to moderator
Get signals when whales enter & exit a market 74% average win rate
full binance integration
TRY NOW!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558432281
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558432281

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558432281
Reply with quote  #2

1558432281
Report to moderator
1558432281
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558432281

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558432281
Reply with quote  #2

1558432281
Report to moderator
kurious
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1207



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: 614
Merit: 162



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: 2380
Merit: 1248


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: 2380
Merit: 1248


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: 2380
Merit: 1248


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
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1248


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 02:45:31 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.


Or you know, useful and beneficial things like stopping the miners arbitrarily increasing the monetary supply. 

Utterly powerless to do so. All they have the ability to do is fork themselves off the chain the miners are creating.

If instead you are speaking of the users abandoning the chain, that is another matter altogether, wholly unrelated to anything a fully-validating non mining client can do.
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1674


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 03:14:08 AM


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?

No. I was addressing:
Quote
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.

Which makes me wonder why you bother running the clients.
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1182


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 03:30:30 AM

https://twitter.com/eth_classic

https://twitter.com/etherchain_org/status/1082329360948969472

ETC is likely to have undergone a 51% attack.

I'm accepting donations to Barry Silbert via my usual address.

Well, that escalated quickly Smiley



Wow, just wow. In a prior crypto life (like just a few years ago), it was reasoned that the coin holders would consider a successful 51% attack as a full-out compromise of the chain, and dump everything, never to return.

Now they just keep holding the coin, and the devs keep shilling. They even mentioned successful double spends!

What a fucked up crypto world we live in now. I guess you can't fix stupid. Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes

Case in point VERGE.
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1674


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 03:41:13 AM
Last edit: January 08, 2019, 06:00:13 AM by infofront

As an aside, I wonder if the 51% attack will negatively affect confidence (and price) in other IOHK projects, like Cardano.
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1182


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 04:11:07 AM


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

fucking BINGO

I guess you really do read every post in here. Smiley

I read 'em all

I try but its not possible for me.
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1182


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 04:19:41 AM

As an aside, I wonder if the 51% attack will negatively affect confidence (and price) in other IOHK project, like Cardano.

Doubt it those shitcoins that get double spent are only held by speculators that care nothing about the underlying tech.
Just greed, really Verge is the perfect example.
Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876
Merit: 1327



View Profile
January 08, 2019, 04:57:25 AM
Merited by mindrust (2), nutildah (2), micgoossens (1)


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.


Bigblocker Jbreher loves those 2000T blocks. He wants those heavy data centers. Even if we lose Nakatomo Consensus, he doesn't care. Just tunnelvision 'centralise' everything.

Jbreher is not a profiled educated person because he copy/paste to many lines, with a lot of nonsence, he's a wannabe.

You can discus with Jbreher about all kind of subjects but when i comes to crypto do not trust him.



luckygenough56
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1009



View Profile
January 08, 2019, 05:47:25 AM

no one gives a crap about etc
bitserve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 728


HODL.


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 06:34:39 AM

JFC, whats up with the tens of merits being thrown here and there? Have everybody got a merit supply injection from Theymos or what?




I recieved a chunk from bigblocker Jbreher, here have 10 back  Undecided

Wow! Thank you very much, sir! Will spend them wisely! Smiley
jojo69
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1744


no FOMO


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 06:39:28 AM
Merited by BobLawblaw (1), bitserve (1)


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

fucking BINGO

I guess you really do read every post in here. Smiley

I read 'em all

I try but its not possible for me.

WO is the only "social media" I engage...so there's that...
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1580


Permanent Tourist


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 06:53:46 AM

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.


Bigblocker Jbreher loves those 2000T blocks. He wants those heavy data centers. Even if we lose Nakatomo Consensus, he doesn't care. Just tunnelvision 'centralise' everything.

Jbreher is not a profiled educated person because he copy/paste to many lines, with a lot of nonsence, he's a wannabe.

You can discus with Jbreher about all kind of subjects but when i comes to crypto do not trust him.

jbreher thinks CSW is a rational business man, and possibly Satoshi Nakamoto... need I say anything else? Not really. He's actually a pretty good reverse barometer when it comes to crypto -- when he says something, you can do the opposite and profit.
JimboToronto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1241


You're never too old to be young.


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 06:55:10 AM

WO is the only "social media" I engage..

Does that mean we can "unfriend" certain posters?
HairyMaclairy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1356


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 06:57:11 AM

I'm not going to bother replying in detail to Jbear's misconceptions because its not worth my time.  It won't change his mind and no one here believes him anyway.
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1580


Permanent Tourist


View Profile
January 08, 2019, 07:02:38 AM
Merited by LFC_Bitcoin (1)

yeah, i lost my only chance to buy cheap bch at $92

Yup! BCH price was going up very fast, i missed the chance to buy at below $100

Of course, next week you may be looking back thinking 'I should have bought when it was below $300'. Don't be that guy.

jbreher wrote this when BCH was ~$195. One week later it was down to $165. Its currently at $159. Then in other threads he claims that his trades are somehow magically still profitable  Roll Eyes

jbreher, want me to dig up the quotes where you said CSW's (empty) threat letter to Ver was rational, or how you said there's a chance he's Satoshi? Specifically you said you don't know he's _not_ Satoshi. Well, I know. Pretty much everybody does who is not completely delusional about BSV.
Pages: « 1 ... 22308 22309 22310 22311 22312 22313 22314 22315 22316 22317 22318 22319 22320 22321 22322 22323 22324 22325 22326 22327 22328 22329 22330 22331 22332 22333 22334 22335 22336 22337 22338 22339 22340 22341 22342 22343 22344 22345 22346 22347 22348 22349 22350 22351 22352 22353 22354 22355 22356 22357 [22358] 22359 22360 22361 22362 22363 22364 22365 22366 22367 22368 22369 22370 22371 22372 22373 22374 22375 22376 22377 22378 22379 22380 22381 22382 22383 22384 22385 22386 22387 22388 22389 22390 22391 22392 22393 22394 22395 22396 22397 22398 22399 22400 22401 22402 22403 22404 22405 22406 22407 22408 ... 23906 »
  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!