Bitcoin Forum
May 24, 2019, 06:22:10 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 - 38 (27.9%)
2020 - 56 (41.2%)
2021 - 31 (22.8%)
2022 - 6 (4.4%)
2023 - 1 (0.7%)
Never - 4 (2.9%)
Total Voters: 136

Pages: « 1 ... 23350 23351 23352 23353 23354 23355 23356 23357 23358 23359 23360 23361 23362 23363 23364 23365 23366 23367 23368 23369 23370 23371 23372 23373 23374 23375 23376 23377 23378 23379 23380 23381 23382 23383 23384 23385 23386 23387 23388 23389 23390 23391 23392 23393 23394 23395 23396 23397 23398 23399 [23400] 23401 23402 23403 23404 23405 23406 23407 23408 23409 23410 23411 23412 23413 23414 23415 23416 23417 23418 23419 23420 23421 23422 23423 23424 23425 23426 23427 23428 23429 23430 23431 23432 23433 23434 23435 23436 23437 23438 23439 23440 23441 23442 23443 23444 23445 23446 23447 23448 23449 23450 ... 23943 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21176567 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. (24 posts by 13 users deleted.)
VB1001
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 536


"Four Wheel Drive"


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 05:34:43 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

Electrum Faces Another Fake Wallet Attack, Users Reported to Lose Millions of Dollars

Quote
Bitcoin (BTC) wallet service Electrum is facing an ongoing Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack on its servers, the company reported on Twitter on April 7.
According to tech news website The Next Web, the new attack has caused users to lose estimatedly millions of dollars to date, with a single person alone reportedly losing about $140,000.

The ongoing DoS attack was allegedly launched by a malicious botnet of more than 140,000 machines, and aims to steal users’ Bitcoin by referring them to fake versions of Electrum software. Citing an unnamed security researcher, the article says that the recent DoS attack is deployed on a new level and was launched about a week ago.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/electrum-faces-another-fake-wallet-attack-users-reported-to-lose-millions-of-dollars
1558678930
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558678930

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558678930
Reply with quote  #2

1558678930
Report to moderator
1558678930
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558678930

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558678930
Reply with quote  #2

1558678930
Report to moderator
PLAY OVER 3000 GAMES
LIGHTNING FAST WITHDRAWALS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558678930
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558678930

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558678930
Reply with quote  #2

1558678930
Report to moderator
1558678930
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558678930

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558678930
Reply with quote  #2

1558678930
Report to moderator
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1258


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 05:35:46 PM
Merited by vapourminer (1)


WTF are you babbling about? I advocate larger blocks, as I do believe in it as a solution to deal with transaction congestion. Quite a splendid one, in fact.


You actually remind me of r0ach, when you can not defend your position or answer anything, you just go on a tangent and throw out statements which make no sense..

You still haven't mentioned what size blocks you think Bitcoin needs... reminds me of the little do'er carpet commercial, "tell them the price son!, the price!"

"Tell me the blocksize son! the blocksize!"

The _protocol_ needs no maximum on the block size. The miners, being the ones who are affected by the block size, can set it without your soviet. At whatever point makes sense from a market demand and supply perspective.

Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.

You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. For such is exactly equivalent to a centrally-planned production quota. And production quotas -- to the extent that they are enforceable -- are invariably economically inefficient, ensuring crappy outcomes for most participants.

In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible.

At 1MB in size, blocks are so trivially small that miners' only consideration was in maximizing tx fees in the blocks they are building. Leading to blocks not being persistently full until the number of txs desired by the community became in excess of the block size limit. Obviously, such an issue can be solved by increasing the block size limit.

Of course, at some size (specific size thereof unknowable to the central planners), block size will be problematic. But the market will solve this issue. At the point where block propagation increases due to size leads to a higher incidence of orphaning, that is where the equilibrium point for block size will be set. Again, assuming no centrally-planned max, and that sufficient txs are available to build such large blocks.

Quote
What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.

Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.
micgoossens
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 2010


Be safe, Elwar and Nadia !!


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 05:40:39 PM

via Imgflip Meme Generator

https://twitter.com/j3todaro/status/1115305169712046080?s=21
micgoossens
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 2010


Be safe, Elwar and Nadia !!


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 05:43:39 PM

 People keep asking me why #Bitcoin is up. Over a year of OTC accumulation & big $100m buy order on exchanges. The short term price is driven by fear and greed. The long term story is everybody will need $BTC eventually and there wont be many to go around.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xkBpUL1VDKU

https://twitter.com/simondixontwitt/status/1115142571372752896?s=21

Good a have a small bit of it .... keep accumulating and buying Smiley
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1142


Anonymous bitcoin mixer


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 05:44:14 PM


WTF are you babbling about? I advocate larger blocks, as I do believe in it as a solution to deal with transaction congestion. Quite a splendid one, in fact.


You actually remind me of r0ach, when you can not defend your position or answer anything, you just go on a tangent and throw out statements which make no sense..

You still haven't mentioned what size blocks you think Bitcoin needs... reminds me of the little do'er carpet commercial, "tell them the price son!, the price!"

"Tell me the blocksize son! the blocksize!"

The _protocol_ needs no maximum on the block size. The miners, being the ones who are affected by the block size, can set it without your soviet. At whatever point makes sense from a market demand and supply perspective.

Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.

You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. For such is exactly equivalent to a centrally-planned production quota. And production quotas -- to the extent that they are enforceable -- are invariably economically inefficient, ensuring crappy outcomes for most participants.

In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible.

At 1MB in size, blocks are so trivially small that miners' only consideration was in maximizing tx fees in the blocks they are building. Leading to blocks not being persistently full until the number of txs desired by the community became in excess of the block size limit. Obviously, such an issue can be solved by increasing the block size limit.

Of course, at some size (specific size thereof unknowable to the central planners), block size will be problematic. But the market will solve this issue. At the point where block propagation increases due to size leads to a higher incidence of orphaning, that is where the equilibrium point for block size will be set. Again, assuming no centrally-planned max, and that sufficient txs are available to build such large blocks.

Quote
What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.

Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.
and what would you do when groups spam the blocks to make them large and reduce the number of nodes?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
April 08, 2019, 05:44:27 PM

Would there be a practical problem with making every block however big (or small) is needed to fill all current transfers?
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1258


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 05:45:49 PM


I dunno. Seem's Elwar's endeavor's USP is freedom from outside governmental interference. The ocean-faring aspect seems to me to be only a means to this end. I don't much expect anything coming from an NGO think-tank to operate in an independent manner.

Not to mention the article's stated 'within 1 mi of shore' aspect, which if I am not mistaken is safely within agreed national boundaries.
JimboToronto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1241


You're never too old to be young.


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 05:56:15 PM
Merited by vapourminer (1)

The hell are you taking $30k down to Mexico for? I got robbed by a fucking cop last time I was there.

I wouldn't get caught with a nice stash of cash down there.

You've got to know where to go and how to travel. Don't show your wealth. Keep to well policed areas unless you are accompanied by trusted, well-connected locals, but don't give police any reason to interact with you. Dress down.

Keep to tourist areas whenever possible and project an image of being a typical tourist... i.e. a job slave who is running up debt on a credit card to seek a short-lived break from wage slavery. I use only cash in Canada but I use a credit card when traveling. It makes me look more like a tourist.

Of course away from tourist areas I use only cash. Everybody does. Nobody in my area has a bank account or credit card. There aren't even any banks in the area. That's one reason I love it there... no banks, no phones, no criminals, very few cops. Just sunshine, fresh air, good food, cheap booze and a certain little hot-blooded chilanga.

The reason I'm taking $30kUSD down is to finish paying for my zirconia teeth, pay off a personal loan, and make improvements to my house down there. I'm in the midst of major infrastructure upgrades... new 220v/120a wiring, water heater, upgraded security, etc.

I can only take $10kUSD down on the plane with me but I'll have a traveling companion to carry another $10k. The rest I'll put on my credit card and begrudgingly pay the cash advance and exchange fees. I don't have a bank account in either country. I'll spend the $20k cash almost immediately on the dentist and debt repayment and then live off my card.

I hate banks.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1258


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:04:20 PM

... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.   

'Come back'? I've been here the whole time.


It may share a name but that thing, that is not Bitcoin.

BTC is not Bitcoin? Interesting assertion!

We have already established that I hold BTC as well as my preferred SV and BCH.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1258


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:06:26 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2019, 06:29:19 PM by jbreher

Bitcoin is whatever the largest amount of network power says it is.

At least this position is supportable by reasoning - from one of several possible logical sets of axioms.

Quote
Your side lost, yogi.

'Lost' implies finality. Yet this game is open-ended.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1258


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:11:38 PM

Roger does it through pretending Bcash is Bitcoin, Jihan floated the price with the force use of it for hardware, Craig lies about being Satoshi and having those follow his "vision". It's all bullshit of these scumbags trying to force a profit and have some sort of power and fame.

You know what amuses me no end? People in the Bitcoin Cash space talk about the technical and economic attributes of Bitcoin Cash (and that of Bitcoin Core), while people in the Bitcoin Core space almost invariably speak about Bitcoin Cash in terms of Craig, Roger, and Jihan.
No people in the Bcash space parrot the same points over and over and claim the devs of core are some evil group sabotaging Satoshi's vision.

Sometimes the old dictum is apropos (sometimes): 'Never attribute that to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity'.

Of course, if one _was_ evil, and wanted to bring down a new form of people's currency, one way to do so would be to limit its usability to an ever-shrinking number of use cases.
LFC_Bitcoin
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1686


One of the world's leading Bitcoin-powered casinos


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:12:45 PM

... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.   

'Come back'? I've been here the whole time.


It may share a name but that thing, that is not Bitcoin.

BTC is not Bitcoin? Interesting assertion!

We have already established that I hold BTC as well as my preferred SV and BCH.

Hey jbreher, I guess you’ll never have to worry about BCH or SV blocks being full seeing as though hardly anybody uses them.

kenzawak
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 737



View Profile WWW
April 08, 2019, 06:15:36 PM

I wonder how long it's gonna take for the SEC to take a closer look at those IEOs :

https://twitter.com/crypt0moon/status/1115259397356257282

Quote
Apparently the IEO craze reach the point where VCs/presalers are initiating sales to dump on retail investors, without even the approval of the project (Algorand in this case).

https://twitter.com/lawmaster/status/1115313069318725634

Quote
This is unbelievable. @BgogoExchange is running an IEO without the project's permission. But that's not the best part - Algorand (the project in question) won't launch for the next couple of months and there is no ERC20 token. So Bgogo is literally preselling an IOU. Dump 2.0
sirsplashalot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 481
Merit: 120



View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:15:36 PM

... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.   

'Come back'? I've been here the whole time.


It may share a name but that thing, that is not Bitcoin.

BTC is not Bitcoin? Interesting assertion!

We have already established that I hold BTC as well as my preferred SV and BCH.

Hey jbreher, I guess you’ll never have to worry about BCH or SV blocks being full seeing as though hardly anybody uses them.



Whether or not they are being put to use, BitcoinSV min3d a 128mb blocksize the other day. What will happen to the miners when the lightning network is in full force?
micgoossens
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 2010


Be safe, Elwar and Nadia !!


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:17:59 PM

PPPPPPfffffffffffffffff



Wtf up with this Bcash?  Roll Eyes
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1258


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:18:25 PM

Electrum Faces Another Fake Wallet Attack, Users Reported to Lose Millions of Dollars

https://cointelegraph.com/news/electrum-faces-another-fake-wallet-attack-users-reported-to-lose-millions-of-dollars

From the article:

Quote
Accordingly, Electrum’s website says that the software versions older than 3.3 can no longer connect to public servers and must be upgraded, which is a measure to prevent user exposure to phishing messages.

Seems counterproductive. Whddayabet that this is implemented by the server rebuffing connection requests from early versions? Makes it all the more likely that the client will connect to a fake (nefarious) server.
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1598


Permanent Tourist


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:19:54 PM

... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.  

'Come back'? I've been here the whole time.

My bullshit detector is going off the charts. You're the guy who used to refer to bitcoin as "segwit coin" remember? I do.

Depending upon the sequencing of things, Bitcoin Cash may be no more altcoin than is SegWit coin (which is somewhat playfully starting to be referred to as Bitcoin-Jr)

My only intent is to counter misinformation. Those that are open to thought will save themselves.

Which is why I am intent on countering yours. Breher, you're welcome to have your own viewpoint, just don't act like its the only one that's valid. That shit is stupid, and infuriating. And I don't blame V8s for leaving you his rating. You've been proven to be incorrect in your assertions time and time again, which is by all accounts the same as providing misinformation.
LFC_Bitcoin
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1686


One of the world's leading Bitcoin-powered casinos


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:20:48 PM

PPPPPPfffffffffffffffff



Wtf up with this Bcash?  Roll Eyes

I know!

You’d think there wasn’t a nice place here already to chat about shitcoin’s -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0
micgoossens
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 2010


Be safe, Elwar and Nadia !!


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:22:31 PM
Merited by kingcolex (3)

^
indeed especially when it are the long always the same talks  Cheesy Roll Eyes

they never change, big blocks are not the solution, Bcash is just another ALT

get over it BUY-BTC and  HODL.
Toxic2040
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 916



View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:23:26 PM


WTF are you babbling about? I advocate larger blocks, as I do believe in it as a solution to deal with transaction congestion. Quite a splendid one, in fact.


You actually remind me of r0ach, when you can not defend your position or answer anything, you just go on a tangent and throw out statements which make no sense..

You still haven't mentioned what size blocks you think Bitcoin needs... reminds me of the little do'er carpet commercial, "tell them the price son!, the price!"

"Tell me the blocksize son! the blocksize!"

The _protocol_ needs no maximum on the block size. The miners, being the ones who are affected by the block size, can set it without your soviet. At whatever point makes sense from a market demand and supply perspective.

Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.

You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. For such is exactly equivalent to a centrally-planned production quota. And production quotas -- to the extent that they are enforceable -- are invariably economically inefficient, ensuring crappy outcomes for most participants.

In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible.

At 1MB in size, blocks are so trivially small that miners' only consideration was in maximizing tx fees in the blocks they are building. Leading to blocks not being persistently full until the number of txs desired by the community became in excess of the block size limit. Obviously, such an issue can be solved by increasing the block size limit.

Of course, at some size (specific size thereof unknowable to the central planners), block size will be problematic. But the market will solve this issue. At the point where block propagation increases due to size leads to a higher incidence of orphaning, that is where the equilibrium point for block size will be set. Again, assuming no centrally-planned max, and that sufficient txs are available to build such large blocks.

Quote
What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.

Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.

Most of your argument seems to be solutions in search of a problem. Why is that? You know your beating a dead horse just for the screen time right? Your feeble attempts at sorcery have no power here bear. Away with you.

---------

little hot-blooded chilanga.


I hate banks.

sangre caliente

+1 WOsMerit
Pages: « 1 ... 23350 23351 23352 23353 23354 23355 23356 23357 23358 23359 23360 23361 23362 23363 23364 23365 23366 23367 23368 23369 23370 23371 23372 23373 23374 23375 23376 23377 23378 23379 23380 23381 23382 23383 23384 23385 23386 23387 23388 23389 23390 23391 23392 23393 23394 23395 23396 23397 23398 23399 [23400] 23401 23402 23403 23404 23405 23406 23407 23408 23409 23410 23411 23412 23413 23414 23415 23416 23417 23418 23419 23420 23421 23422 23423 23424 23425 23426 23427 23428 23429 23430 23431 23432 23433 23434 23435 23436 23437 23438 23439 23440 23441 23442 23443 23444 23445 23446 23447 23448 23449 23450 ... 23943 »
  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!