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

[nutildah]

Accordingly, thank god for the big block chains.

Sorry to break it to you but however unfortunately you're the only one around here who sees Roger Ver or Craig Wright as "god".  

Well, that's even stupider than most of the shit you sling. I have never ascribed god-ness to Ver nor Wright.

Pretty fuckin' cheap-ass way to try to score a popularity point, nutildah.

Oh, lighten up. It was low-hanging fruit, and it sparked a mini-discussion about the origins of Roger Ver's bitcoin divinity.

[jbreher]

it scales in layers with the BTC blockchain being the settlement layer, or we up the block size ala BSV.

Such woud seem the fundamental dichotomy, yes.

What I am saying is when we do it the latter way it is going to be the realm of the super powerful to keep up with it enough to run nodes...

Not today. Certainly, it is well within the purview of insubstantial computers with good internet connections to do so for BSV today. At some time in the future, yes. Hobbyists will end up dropping off.

But that is not A Bad Thing. I mean, it's a tradeoff. Sure, its... nice if everyone is trivially able to validate the chain. But at what price? Demonstrably, so-called second layer solutions were not ready in time to stave off Blockalypse I. Nearly four years later, they still are not ready to stave off a potential Blockalypse II. (Of course, with none of the second layer solutions of which I am aware transacting on chain, they are completely invisible to the so-called 'validators' anyhow, though that's a separate discussion.)

But perhaps more germane... Humanity muddled along for one or two dozen thousand years with no discernible increase in standard of living. It is only in the last few centuries when specialization of labor has allowed us to rise out of the muck of scarcity into a stratified realm of (relative) abundance. Do you insist on developing and building your own automobile?  How about a semiconductor chip? Do you think everyone should design their own computer? Build their own fab to crank out the chips? One only need refer to the seminal essay 'I, Pencil' to see the folly therein. Why would the maintenance of the financial system be the one thing that is the enforced domain of the lowest common denominator?

I say they should not. The system should grow to accommodate demand. Those that are good at validation will remain validators. That are not will fall by the wayside, and find other things to do. Things more matched to their unique set of gifts. There is nothing wrong -- and everything right -- with that.

and we coalesce into a system worse than the current one.

B does not follow A. At least not without an explanation as to how A necessarily leads to B.

[jbreher]

CB (Coinbase for the crypto inept ) will hound you if your in the US for you to pay your taxes on your crypto gains.

See, this is the sort of false hyperbole that passes for 'common knowledge' that I have to deal with. Coinbase will do no such thing.

Coinbase will send you and the IRS a 1099-K accurately reflecting revenue from your trading activity upon their platform.

Then they will not hound you. They have fulfilled their duty by so sending, so they have no reason to take further steps.

Also: the 1099-K has nothing to do with crypto gains. 1099-K is strictly an indication of monetary inflows.

[jbreher]

and a clinical inability to respond to simple questions or respond with a straight forward simple answer.  

What the hell are you on about? Looking back three pages, you have addressed exactly zero questions to me, let alone ones unanswered. Unless you're confusing yourself with some sock.

Let me summarize my interaction with you so far:

You claimed that your shitcoin BSv is as decentralized as bitcoin

Is your omission intentional? Or do you not understand? I said that from a technical viewpoint the BTC protocol and the BSV protocol are exactly as decentralized as each other.

I asked you to back it up, to define decentralization and metrics you used to arrive at such ludicrous conclusion

No. You inaccurately state your entrance into this branch of the thread. Are you lying, or trying to put one over on us? Or can you simply not remember what your position was those scant few days ago?

You went straight to implying that I was redefining 'decentralization', TOTALLY Without any supporting rationale for your implication.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg54783389#msg54783389

Indeed, it was myself who first asked you for a definition of decentralization, so that I may try to discern what it was you had issue with in my statement.

You did not request that I provide a definition of decentralization until further downthread, after actively evading the question yourself.

[jbreher]

Let me summarize my interaction with you so far:

• You claimed that your shitcoin BSv is as decentralized as bitcoin
• I asked you to back it up, to define decentralization and metrics you used to arrive at such ludicrous conclusion
• You tried evading tactic by claiming that you already explained decentralization
• I stayed on it, and asked you to repeat it
• You pointed to a post where you're bitching that that nodes are not a measure of decentralization. Conveniently still never defining decentralization.
• You then replied "Bingo" to AlcoHoDL's speculation that by decentralization you might mean potential to be decentralized. As if we were all playing the "Guess wtf jbreher means by decentralization today". You then confirm that by saying that the only difference is the "current popularity of each"
• To point out that such stupid definition wouldn't work outside of 3 coins, i asked if by your definition BCD (Bitcoin Diamond) is as decentralized as BTC
• You replied that because BCD is not SHA256 POW it "has no meaningful ties to the satoshi legacy." As if only god coins can be decentralized?? And obscuring your idea of decentralization even more

Just because my server has potential fundamentals to grow to Google's size, doesn't make my server as decentralized as Google. Sorry.

Today i just read the "Experts Agree: Craig Wright’s Latest Cryptography Claims Are ‘Nonsense’" article https://www.coindesk.com/4-experts-agree-craig-wrights-latest-cryptography-claims-are-nonsense to summarize:

• CSW - I own this address
• - signed message pops up from the address saying CSW is a "liar and a fraud"
• CSW - “no message was signed. You cannot have a digital signature that is anonymous, by definition." Provided some veiled definition of signatures
• Everyone who ever validated a signature - LMAO wtf???
• Johns Hopkins associate professor and cryptographer Matthew Green - Wright’s explanation “makes zero sense to me as a cryptographer,” ... "Because the words he’s using sound like nonsense to me.”
• Symbolic Software applied cryptographer Nadim Kobeissi - “Having followed Craig Wright’s tale, I personally think that there is as much validity to the claim that Craig Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin as there is validity to the claim that the Earth is flat.”

The parallels between your approaches are striking. I also recalled Toxic2040 post about how your pedantic drivel is similar to Faketoshi. You strive for publicity to stay relevant, at a cost of making yourself look like a total idiot to anyone with a single brain cell. But that does radicalize your base, so those few people you do manage to convince will blindly follow you and unquestionably believe everything that you say. Luckily in this scene there are more "neckbeards" (that you're desperately trying to marginalize) who posses critical thinking, that will call you out on all of your BS.

+10 WOsMerit's

best rebuttal and post ive read here in awhile

thanks

Too bad it is all predicated upon a lie. If you believe that 'good rebuttals' contain complete falsehoods presented as truths...

[bitserve]

and a clinical inability to respond to simple questions or respond with a straight forward simple answer.  

What the hell are you on about? Looking back three pages, you have addressed exactly zero questions to me, let alone ones unanswered. Unless you're confusing yourself with some sock.

Let me summarize my interaction with you so far:

You claimed that your shitcoin BSv is as decentralized as bitcoin

Is your omission intentional? Or do you not understand? I said that from a technical viewpoint the BTC protocol and the BSV protocol are exactly as decentralized as each other.

Ok, I'll bite.

The protocol? Not the actual network as in the current BTC and BSV mining state or diversification of nodes?

That's fair.

Or not... Because there are differences in the protocol that BSV introduced that leads to more centralisation. Mainly the (too much) bigger blocks. You (more than significantly) increase the barriers of entry for verification/mining nodes and you indeed introduce a centralisation factor... which degree I am not going to evaluate. But it is there. And it is a difference in the protocol. Can we agree on that?

[Peanutswar]

I hadn't seen that yet. Not the first telltale case of activity reduction, I imagine, but you are something.

This account is one of the oldest member here on our forum, he/she delete most of this post so cause of reducing its activity and the only remaining are the threads created which is the 71. This man already topic in our meta This member has weird stats. and I think before that man gains the legendary rank it takes a long run again to make a lot of post and activity right now its active again.

BobLawblaw

[infofront]

Man, Halloween in Africa looks like a good time.

[Toxic2040]

and a clinical inability to respond to simple questions or respond with a straight forward simple answer.  

What the hell are you on about? Looking back three pages, you have addressed exactly zero questions to me, let alone ones unanswered. Unless you're confusing yourself with some sock.

Let me summarize my interaction with you so far:

You claimed that your shitcoin BSv is as decentralized as bitcoin

Is your omission intentional? Or do you not understand? I said that from a technical viewpoint the BTC protocol and the BSV protocol are exactly as decentralized as each other.

I asked you to back it up, to define decentralization and metrics you used to arrive at such ludicrous conclusion

No. You inaccurately state your entrance into this branch of the thread. Are you lying, or trying to put one over on us? Or can you simply not remember what your position was those scant few days ago?

You went straight to implying that I was redefining 'decentralization', TOTALLY Without any supporting rationale for your implication.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg54783389#msg54783389

Indeed, it was myself who first asked you for a definition of decentralization, so that I may try to discern what it was you had issue with in my statement.

You did not request that I provide a definition of decentralization until further downthread, after actively evading the question yourself.

Fix you misquote please as I am not sure why my statement is included here. It is out of context.

[Toxic2040]

Man, Halloween in Africa looks like a good time.

besides noticing the poor trigger discipline amongst these gentlemen...its that the hand of saruman?

[Dorodha]

This is trigger man come from Mars it seems that he is at the highest level.

[VB1001]

Bitcoin Optech Newsletter #107

This week’s newsletter links to several discussions about activating taproot and summarizes a proposed update to BIP173 bech32 addresses. Also included are our regular sections summarizing interesting changes to services and client software, releases and release candidates, and notable changes to popular Bitcoin infrastructure software.

https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2020/07/22/


Back after a few hard days.
Greetings to all. #nohomo

StrongHats

[Phil_S]

Seems correlated?

[Phil_S]

Zooming out...

[VB1001]

They don't want the badger to undock.

[Last of the V8s]

They don't want the badger to undock.

Sometimes a badger just can't undock.

[VB1001]

^
This kind of coupling keep you young, hit it hard

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

it scales in layers with the BTC blockchain being the settlement layer, or we up the block size ala BSV.

Such woud seem the fundamental dichotomy, yes.

What I am saying is when we do it the latter way it is going to be the realm of the super powerful to keep up with it enough to run nodes...

Not today. Certainly, it is well within the purview of insubstantial computers with good internet connections to do so for BSV today. At some time in the future, yes. Hobbyists will end up dropping off.

But that is not A Bad Thing. I mean, it's a tradeoff. Sure, its... nice if everyone is trivially able to validate the chain. But at what price? Demonstrably, so-called second layer solutions were not ready in time to stave off Blockalypse I. Nearly four years later, they still are not ready to stave off a potential Blockalypse II. (Of course, with none of the second layer solutions of which I am aware transacting on chain, they are completely invisible to the so-called 'validators' anyhow, though that's a separate discussion.)

But perhaps more germane... Humanity muddled along for one or two dozen thousand years with no discernible increase in standard of living. It is only in the last few centuries when specialization of labor has allowed us to rise out of the muck of scarcity into a stratified realm of (relative) abundance. Do you insist on developing and building your own automobile?  How about a semiconductor chip? Do you think everyone should design their own computer? Build their own fab to crank out the chips? One only need refer to the seminal essay 'I, Pencil' to see the folly therein. Why would the maintenance of the financial system be the one thing that is the enforced domain of the lowest common denominator?

I say they should not. The system should grow to accommodate demand. Those that are good at validation will remain validators. That are not will fall by the wayside, and find other things to do. Things more matched to their unique set of gifts. There is nothing wrong -- and everything right -- with that.

and we coalesce into a system worse than the current one.

B does not follow A. At least not without an explanation as to how A necessarily leads to B.

I think, going by that concept as a guideline, there would not be a need for BTC in the first place.

(Central) banks are highly specialized and extremely good at creating money out of thin air. Then why come up with BTC and then also even include this message in the Genesis block? Looks like someone did indeed want to build his own automobile. Which makes me wonder - by following your line of reasoning - why you became involved with BTC anyway, since the specialists had already covered the financial side of things with their expertise...

Maybe the line for specialization of labour will have to be redrawn? How about those 3-D printers? Do you think, global supply chains will remain exactly as they are/used to be?

[BobLawblaw]

https://twitter.com/whale_alert/status/1286957894982868992

[goldkingcoiner]

Hard to keep your composure when you have princess M'agabe running at you with a defective rocket launcher and a AK-47 ....

https://twitter.com/whale_alert/status/1286957894982868992

Bob-Chan, wtf happened to your account?