Bitcoin Forum
May 20, 2019, 11:59:12 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 - 14 (34.1%)
2020 - 16 (39%)
2021 - 9 (22%)
2022 - 0 (0%)
2023 - 0 (0%)
Never - 2 (4.9%)
Total Voters: 41

Pages: « 1 ... 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 23451 ... 23898 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21168969 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.)
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1248


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:23:43 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?

What would you have me do? For the eleventy-bajillion-and-oneth time, a large number of so-called 'nodes' provide no value to the network as a whole. Of course, I'll probably continue to run a full-validating, non-mining wallet client or three for myself, as I like to be able to create txs that need no intermediaries.

What will you do when groups spam your small blocks, leading to the txs you desire unable to get included in the chain in under weeks, and even then at a cost of $thousands?
1558353552
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558353552

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558353552
Reply with quote  #2

1558353552
Report to moderator
NEW GAME FORMAT
JACKPOT UP TO $8000+
Guess The Symbols Of a Real Ethereum Hash
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558353552
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558353552

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558353552
Reply with quote  #2

1558353552
Report to moderator
1558353552
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558353552

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558353552
Reply with quote  #2

1558353552
Report to moderator
1558353552
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558353552

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558353552
Reply with quote  #2

1558353552
Report to moderator
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1248


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:27:20 PM

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

Yes. As pointed out above, at some block size, the cost adjusted risk of block orphaning becomes equal to the amount of incremental revenue rendered by the tx fee associated with the next tx to be included. But this 'problem' is in itself the regulation inherent in the system that limits realized block size. No more txs than that will be included by the miner, because at that point, their incremental revenue is larger than their incremental cost.

This is the system satoshi initially bequeathed us. Inherently self-regulating.
sirsplashalot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 480
Merit: 120



View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:27:46 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.

Because suppressing views is totally okay if they are your own! That can’t be a dictatorship! Wink
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1248


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:33:39 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.

Was that supposed to sting? I fart in your general direction, you silly english kaniggit!

I also will not need to worry about BCH or SV blocks becoming full because their communities are committed to keep any protocol-imposed limit ahead of any need. Whether that be 1 tx per block, dozens, hundreds, thousands, dozens of thousands, ...
rebal15
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 363
Merit: 3


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:37:34 PM



Before turning it on, put your fingers in the plug to verify that there is electricity.

 Roll Eyes
You can also use your tongue. Lick it to test the electricity. 😛
Disclaimer: I am not responsible if you burst your head LOL




nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1576


Permanent Tourist


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:41:01 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.

Because suppressing views is totally okay if they are your own! That can’t be a dictatorship! Wink

You are also welcome to your own ridiculous opinion that this forum is a dictatorship, even your right to call it a dictatorship. Which means its not, but that's besides whatever transient, flightless point you were desperately trying to make.

What would you have me do? For the eleventy-bajillion-and-oneth time, a large number of so-called 'nodes' provide no value to the network as a whole. Of course, I'll probably continue to run a full-validating, non-mining wallet client or three for myself, as I like to be able to create txs that need no intermediaries.

For the twelth bajillionth time, a large number of nodes help speedier propagation of transaction information through the network. They ensure robust communication of blockchain information --- why can't you get this??

What will you do when groups spam your small blocks, leading to the txs you desire unable to get included in the chain in under weeks, and even then at a cost of $thousands?

Its already happening periodically, for over a year it would seem; starting around November 2017.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/analyst-suspicious-bitcoin-mempool-activity-transaction-fees-spike-to-16

I've personally watched people sending bitcoin to themselves with incredibly high fees during intermittent bursts for seemingly no reason other than to increase the average transaction fee.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1248


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:42:54 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.

What of it? I stand by the statement. Do you find the disambiguation as 'SegWit Coin' perjorative? Are you embarrassed by SegWit? I maintain that the term 'SegWit Coin' is a useful disambiguation which makes it quite clear that one is referring to the BTC fork of Bitcoin. Though, admittedly, some (quite a few, actually) silly insecure ninnies got their panties in a bunch over my use of the term. To appease such snowflakes, I have more recently been using the term 'Bitcoin Core', which still provides the same disambiguation, while reducing the incidence of [~triggering intensifies~].

Happy?

Incidentally, none of my BTC has ever touched a SegWit address. So I'm happy, too.

You've been proven to be incorrect in your assertions time and time again,

If you say so.
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1576


Permanent Tourist


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:49:52 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.

What of it? I stand by the statement. Do you find the disambiguation as 'SegWit Coin' perjorative? Are you embarrassed by SegWit? I maintain that the term 'SegWit Coin' is a useful disambiguation which makes it quite clear that one is referring to the BTC fork of Bitcoin. Though, admittedly, some (quite a few, actually) silly insecure ninnies got their panties in a bunch over my use of the term. To appease such snowflakes, I have more recently been using the term 'Bitcoin Core', which still provides the same disambiguation, while reducing the incidence of [~triggering intensifies~].

Happy?

Jesus Ver Christ. You just doubled down on your own nonsense. Obviously I'm not embarrassed about SegWit because I don't feel the need to deride bitcoin by calling it 'segwit coin'. I've used segwit dozens of times and never once had a problem. The fear of segwit is unfounded, as are most fears guided by ignorance. BTW only bcash shills call bitcoin "Bitcoin Core." This has long been established. Hence my exasperation.

I'm sure your busy rebutting my last comment directed at you but I won't be responding to it.
JimboToronto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1241


You're never too old to be young.


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:50:16 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

Cool. I hadn't checked out the altcoin section in a long time. It's hilarious.

It's all Crypto this and Cryptocurrency that without any mention of real Bitcoin.

I think it's great. They keep all their talk about Dogecoin, Rogercoin, Vitalikcoin, Kanyecoin, etc. over there and don't pollute our WO with that crap.

Think of it as the retard class at school. This (WO) is like the accelerated class for the precocious.

Let them keep all their altcoin discussions over there and we won't confuse them by posting Bitcoin stuff there.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin and altcoin is altcoin and never the twain shall meet.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1248


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:51:32 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2019, 07:09:10 PM by jbreher

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

Do you really want to make me repeat myself?: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg50506540#msg50506540

In what way is discussing the limitations inherent in the condition of persistently full blocks relevant to Bitcoin Cash? It ain't. Neither BCH nor SV have any concern about the negative effects of persistently full blocks.

Nay, it is BTC that need to contend with such a condition. These are BTC posts.

edit: patched quoting
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1746


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:54:05 PM

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

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


To the extent that you might be genuine, here, it's a matter of perspective, j-"care"-breher, which seems to differ between you and me on this point.   Cry
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1746


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:57:01 PM

Slow and steady? Unless I have it backwarss, someone just dumped 10 mil tether and I'm expecting it to go into btc.

The short answer is, yes.  Get your "butt" into btc.  You fuck.   Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Go bitcoin go.

Bitcoin is whatever the largest amount of network power says it is. Your side lost, yogi.
I'd say it's more real marketcap, that shows who the majority believe is worth more and the "real" Bitcoin"

Well there are a lot of ways to look at BTC, and perhaps Ibian is getting at the seven network effects (as outlined by Trace Mayer, and generally understood by many bitcoiners who short-handedly mention "network" ideas... although perhaps, Ibian, here seems to be referring to computing power which is also only part of the power of network effects.

Anywhooooo part of my point here is that market cap is only on aspect of the total picture that involves other aspects, even if market cap might appear to be down relative to fake shit that is out there trying to temporarily deceive the masses.
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1127


Anonymous bitcoin mixer


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 06:58:00 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?
Lots of altcoin supporters today, when lightning is in full swing the settlements will still be on the mainnet and standard transactions that need more confidence will be as well. We're talking about your lunch and coffee on lightning not your next miner purchase or a car.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1248


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 07:03:01 PM

What would you have me do? For the eleventy-bajillion-and-oneth time, a large number of so-called 'nodes' provide no value to the network as a whole. Of course, I'll probably continue to run a full-validating, non-mining wallet client or three for myself, as I like to be able to create txs that need no intermediaries.

For the twelth bajillionth time, a large number of nodes help speedier propagation of transaction information through the network. They ensure robust communication of blockchain information --- why can't you get this??

Because your assertion is absolutely false. Miners are almost universally-connected. The only study that I am aware of that ever looked into the matter showed that something like 98% of all hash power is connected at a distance of 1.2 hops (actual numbers may be misquoted by an insignificant amount - I'm working from memory here). This is the 'the network' to which you refer. The so-called 'full nodes' are but barnacles hanging off Bitcoin's network. I can get my tx to one of these universally-connected miners on the first hop. If you are unable to do so, that's on you.

All that your so-called (improperly, I might add) 'nodes' can add to this is to follow along gossipping to each other long after essentially all the miners have your tx.

What will you do when groups spam your small blocks, leading to the txs you desire unable to get included in the chain in under weeks, and even then at a cost of $thousands?

Its already happening periodically, for over a year it would seem; starting around November 2017.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/analyst-suspicious-bitcoin-mempool-activity-transaction-fees-spike-to-16

I've personally watched people sending bitcoin to themselves with incredibly high fees during intermittent bursts for seemingly no reason other than to increase the average transaction fee.

Absolutely. A latent attack vector that exists as long as there is a centrally-planned production quota upon block space. An attack vector that can be exploited by competing cryptocurrencies or by nation-states with equal effect.
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1127


Anonymous bitcoin mixer


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 07:04:27 PM

^
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.
+3 merit,

Plenty of shitcoins can make large block sizes that means nothing except every little transaction being forever on the chain and the potential for fewer nodes as time goes on.

Now how about we get back to the price of Bitcoin and not discuss that SCAMcoin, which it definitely is as Roger has proved time and time again to try and trick uninformed people into buying it.
fillippone
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 336
Merit: 403


Self Made Sr. Member


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 07:06:30 PM

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
This is why you need to run your own node + electrs.
Only way to be a first class bitcoiners: don’t trust verify.
Monetary sovereignty comes at a little cost
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1248


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 07:07:27 PM

You're the guy who used to refer to bitcoin as "segwit coin" remember?

What of it? I stand by the statement. Do you find the disambiguation as 'SegWit Coin' perjorative? Are you embarrassed by SegWit? I maintain that the term 'SegWit Coin' is a useful disambiguation which makes it quite clear that one is referring to the BTC fork of Bitcoin. Though, admittedly, some (quite a few, actually) silly insecure ninnies got their panties in a bunch over my use of the term. To appease such snowflakes, I have more recently been using the term 'Bitcoin Core', which still provides the same disambiguation, while reducing the incidence of [~triggering intensifies~].

Obviously I'm not embarrassed about SegWit because I don't feel the need to deride bitcoin by calling it 'segwit coin'.

If you're 'just fine with SegWit', then why does my referring to BTC as 'SegWit Coin' make you so upset?

As I clearly stated, I was not doing it to deride, but rather to disambiguate. But I guess you missed that in your rush to outrage.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
April 08, 2019, 07:08:44 PM

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.
Describe the scenario that would allow any of the other current "brands" of bitcoin to take over dominance without destroying global faith in the market.
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1127


Anonymous bitcoin mixer


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 07:11:33 PM

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.
Describe the scenario that would allow any of the other current "brands" of bitcoin to take over dominance without destroying global faith in the market.
Maybe it Roger can buy more Bitcoin named things and confuse enough people entering crypto he'll win!

I mean that's what he's been trying to do all this time.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1248


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 08, 2019, 07:16:49 PM

Describe the scenario that would allow any of the other current "brands" of bitcoin to take over dominance without destroying global faith in the market.

Blocks become persistently full. LN not ready for mass adoption. Bitcoin in its BTC form sheds economic support for use case after use case, until the point where the only use case supported is banks making international SWIFT-like settlements.

In the face of this, it becomes evident to the world at large that satoshi was right and Blockstream was wrong. In case you have forgotten, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset was also a change to to protocol. You don't get to claim that this was not a change.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 23451 ... 23898 »
  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!