Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 11080.

fillippone

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 17063

Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23

Quote from: El duderino_ on April 08, 2019, 05:32:23 PM

via Imgflip Meme Generator

For reference, Bitcoin Cash vs Bitcoin. 🔥

via Imgflip Meme Generator

https://twitter.com/jacobcanfield/status/1114928230635659264?s=21

Transaction spike is probably due only to Veriblock spamming bitcoin blocks with their OP_Return transactions.
This is even suggested on the commment to the original tweet you posted.
I said something about that in my monthly analysis, but basically they are doing transactions on BTC blockchain, effectively using space on BTC blocks, and using their own protocol (Proof-of-Proof) trying to secure other weak blockchains (say a random shitcoin with low hashing power) using Bitcoin's Proof-of-Work blockchain and its massive security to protect them against 51% attacks. As they put transactions from other blockchains on the Bitcoin network, that takes space in a Bitcoin block, some estimates say up to 25%, crowding out legit BTC transactions and pushing fees higher.

This is only a quick and dirty explaination, more at www.veriblock.com.

Edit: now I really regret getting so excited about this spike a couple of days ago...

sirsplashalot

full member

Activity: 520

Merit: 123

Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 08, 2019, 05:41:53 PM

Quote from: jbreher on April 08, 2019, 12:35:46 PM

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.

Who gives any shits about what miners want? It’s irrelevant. Same as what users want. That’s irrelevant too.

Either they mine or they don’t. So the incentives for mining are already built into bitcoin. Same with users. Either they use bitcoin or they don’t.

Again, in bitcoin incentives are already well established from the beginning. That’s what makes bitcoin so powerful as contrasted with the various shitcoin bitcoin wannabes.

You do realize miners vote?

cryptjh

full member

Activity: 532

Merit: 187

Say hello to bitcoin wallet number 35 million!
The last 2 days 120.000 new bitcoins wallets, have been added to the bitcoin blockchain!

https://www.blockchain.com/ja/charts/my-wallet-n-users?timespan=all

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3962

Merit: 11519

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: jbreher on April 08, 2019, 12:35:46 PM

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.

Who gives any shits about what miners want? It’s irrelevant. Same as what users want. That’s irrelevant too.

Either they mine or they don’t. So the incentives for mining are already built into bitcoin. Same with users. Either they use bitcoin or they don’t.

Again, in bitcoin incentives are already well established from the beginning. That’s what makes bitcoin so powerful as contrasted with the various shitcoin bitcoin wannabes.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2758

Merit: 13660

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

^
Indeed Cheesy

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2758

Merit: 13660

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

For reference, Bitcoin Cash vs Bitcoin. 🔥

via Imgflip Meme Generator

https://twitter.com/jacobcanfield/status/1114928230635659264?s=21

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2758

Merit: 13660

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Wrapped up mainland trip. Latest news Bitmain is out of cash and is desperately trying to raise capital to fund TSMC wafers. Yield is not good -below 80%. Existing investors asking for significant valuation discount or force them to sell BCH portfolio. Regardless they are screwed “And Bcash as well ??” Cheesy

https://twitter.com/btcking555/status/1115376669861105664?s=21

Toxic2040

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 4197

problem: bear talks to much
solution: feed bear more bitcoins until properly immobilized.
problem: solved.

------
imho i would have to say yep, thats a bounce not a skip
you can put the squiggle lines where you please but im with the purple and gold camp prevailing at the end of the day #dyor
D 50 day MA

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2758

Merit: 13660

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

come on BTC every minute = Critical !!!!!!!!!

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: jbreher on April 08, 2019, 04:44:42 PM

Quote from: bones261 on April 08, 2019, 03:54:49 PM

@jbreher So what is likely to happen if BCH-ABC or SV wants to implement another improvement of the protocol that a significant portion disagree with? Are groups of miners going to square off on two or more camps

To the extent that each side is entrenched in their way forward, this would seem likely. Just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp.

Quote

and cause more forks,

Perhaps. If one side defaults on the approach satoshi suggested -- colloquially known as a hash battle -- than a fork would seem inevitable. Again, just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp.

Quote

each fork being less secure since each have less hash rate?

If neither side capitulates, yes. Again, just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp. Of course, with a fairly pervasive narrative within Core of 'miners are evil', BTC may find other ways to lose hash security.

But a schism for BTC is less likely because they usually implement some kind of voting mechanism to ensure that most are on the same page before implementing. Also, what is great about segwit is if you are a user or a miner and don't care for segwit, you can ignore/avoid segwit tx and still be part of the network. Unfortunately, if you are a miner who ignores/avoids canonical ordering, it's not possible for you to remain on the same network as BCH ABC.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: bones261 on April 08, 2019, 03:54:49 PM

@jbreher So what is likely to happen if BCH-ABC or SV wants to implement another improvement of the protocol that a significant portion disagree with? Are groups of miners going to square off on two or more camps

To the extent that each side is entrenched in their way forward, this would seem likely. Just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp.

Quote

and cause more forks,

Perhaps. If one side defaults on the approach satoshi suggested -- colloquially known as a hash battle -- than a fork would seem inevitable. Again, just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp.

Quote

each fork being less secure since each have less hash rate?

If neither side capitulates, yes. Again, just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp. Of course, with a fairly pervasive narrative within Core of 'miners are evil', BTC may find other ways to lose hash security.

JimboToronto

legendary

Activity: 4284

Merit: 5215

You're never too old to think young.

Quote from: jojo69 on April 08, 2019, 04:15:29 PM

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on April 08, 2019, 11:30:25 AM

What happened to Rosewater Foundation?

We wish we knew. Speculation that he may have been caught in Quadringa CX...

I think he's too smart to keep coins on an exchange.

jojo69

legendary

Activity: 3388

Merit: 4775

diamond-handed zealot

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on April 08, 2019, 11:30:25 AM

What happened to Rosewater Foundation?

We wish we knew. Speculation that he may have been caught in Quadringa CX...

Toxic2040

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 4197

1h

W 50day MA

its beautiful

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2758

Merit: 13660

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

sirsplashalot

full member

Activity: 520

Merit: 123

Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 08, 2019, 02:37:51 PM

Quote from: sirsplashalot on April 08, 2019, 12:33:01 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Ibian on April 08, 2019, 12:06:04 PM

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"

But what constitutes bitcoin, the project was released with one document, that has been completely disregarded and you call that Bitcoin based on a trading markets completely irrelevant to the project itself?

Oh my, are you serious!!!!!

You don't know what bitcoin is, sirsplashalot?

You might be beyond repair.... You are trying to participate in a bitcoin thread, but you do not know what bitcoin is, yet?

Perhaps this thread needs at least a basic entry level questionnaire in order that peeps understand at least the existentialist part of bitcoin, which seems to be clearly resolved already... and gone over and over and over...

Go study a bit, sirsplashalot,** and then come back here with better and more thought out question(s).

** Hint: you are not going to become more informed about "what is bitcoin" by participating in r/btc, getting your information from bitcoin.com or other bcash pumping information sources.. Many of those "information" sources are loosely connected to reality, at best. On the other hand, if you are able to understand what you read (which seems a bit questionable at this point), you might be able to just follow this thread for a while or go back and read this thread more before you post any further nonsense? Perhaps?

Hmm, seems like you have Segwit coin mixed up with Bitcoin.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

@jbreher So what is likely to happen if BCH-ABC or SV wants to implement another improvement of the protocol that a significant portion disagree with? Are groups of miners going to square off on two or more camps and cause more forks, each fork being less secure since each have less hash rate? Unfortunately, BCH only had fleeting moments in the beginning when it was more secure than BTC due to the EDA disaster and strip mining. Perhaps it would have been better if Bitmain and allies had decided to devote all of it's hash to the chain that they "believed" in, rather than trying to play double dipping games.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2758

Merit: 13660

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

encycrypto

member

Activity: 294

Merit: 53

The true bitcoin will always have the most hash power, BSV and BCHABC don't have that. They can be easily 51% attacked. So, only BTC = true bitcoin.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: ?? on ??

This entire discussion is irrelevant it's the Bitcoin Wall Observation not the bastard alt fork wall thread.

This entire discussion is a result of you wading in quizzing me about what I think about CSW in response to this post of mine:

Quote

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.

In what way does my quoted post have anything whatsoever to do with anything but BTC?

The answer is obvious to all. It is absolutely, positively, completely on this topic of BTC. It was you whom inserted the irrelevancy of CSV, thereby using it as a wedge to insert your inane views on BCH and SV into the conversation. Your. Fucking. Doing.

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 11080. (Read 26731121 times)