Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 13546. (Read 26717886 times)
July 01, 2018, 09:54:09 AM
July 01, 2018, 09:51:30 AM
July 01, 2018, 09:49:57 AM
Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion is not the true vision of infofront.
infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be.
The new W/O thread will be ripped off from any troll protocols (like anonymint, roach, jbeher and other retards) and only infofront's true protocol to be left.
Raise hands now.
P.S: I won't be reverting your past crap. Your past messages (troll or not) will be safe. I'll copy everything from this topic one by one but (tr00) moderation will be taking place by the page 20781.
infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be.
The new W/O thread will be ripped off from any troll protocols (like anonymint, roach, jbeher and other retards) and only infofront's true protocol to be left.
Raise hands now.
P.S: I won't be reverting your past crap. Your past messages (troll or not) will be safe. I'll copy everything from this topic one by one but (tr00) moderation will be taking place by the page 20781.
you got your sherif star in an happy meal? please... go fork your self.
If you are bored with charts, moonrockets and others total losers who can't understand a market, you can always come and post on this great thread about coding a legal framework for C17H21NO4 in the usa :
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.41287597
July 01, 2018, 09:47:13 AM
July 01, 2018, 09:41:38 AM
The monthly update:
Guess we're in despair now. I've had to ignore more members in the last 30 days than in the 330 days before.
Guess we're in despair now. I've had to ignore more members in the last 30 days than in the 330 days before.
July 01, 2018, 09:33:23 AM
Precious metals are no longer a Schelling point because of the technology that governments have now, metals can no longer be moved without being confiscated. Gold and silver are under the control of nation-states, but Bitcoin has jurisdictional arbitrage and can’t be controlled by any partial grouping of nation-states.
Once again you have gotten your facts 100% opposite of what they are in reality. It's ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more cost effective to create and run a police state in cyberspace than in the physical world. So, no, metals are not at risk because nobody can afford to create a police state monitoring what everyone does in the physical plane, but they can easily do so for the digital one. You're using the govt's own infrastructure in the first place. Please do not try to pass off such statements that are laughable at face value as facts.
Shitcoins are the ones at risk due to having no valid Schelling point and ease of govt clamp down, not metals. If the govt attempts to outlaw silver and gold, they do not cease to exist. They still exist and have value. Since shitcoins have no intrinsic use or value, a govt clampdown destroys them. They're completely worthless. And yes, Kaczynski was right no matter how much you attempt to pretend he was not. The most oppresive forms of tyranny will manifest from the digital plane, not the physical one, due to the cheaper cost and ease of creating and running those systems as I mentioned above.
Only a complete fool would embrace these digital slave systems over sound money - physical silver and gold.
Gov are provenly good clampingdown physical ownerships. No chances for any PM here. Shop owners are at risk.
Its harder or impossible to clampdown IP or virtual bearer instruments. Use Bitcoin and brainwallets, how is that stoppable better than PM?
Never.
But very highest goal is to get many into Bitcoin daily use and these ppl will stopp any gov.
July 01, 2018, 09:31:38 AM
Here is a flow chart that you can use to predict the analysis of bulls over the next 6 months based on any possible combination of action that could occur over the next 3 months.
July 01, 2018, 09:23:09 AM
July 01, 2018, 09:15:14 AM
Precious metals are no longer a Schelling point because of the technology that governments have now, metals can no longer be moved without being confiscated. Gold and silver are under the control of nation-states, but Bitcoin has jurisdictional arbitrage and can’t be controlled by any partial grouping of nation-states.
Once again you have gotten your facts 100% opposite of what they are in reality. It's ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more cost effective to create and run a police state in cyberspace than in the physical world. So, no, metals are not at risk because nobody can afford to create a police state monitoring what everyone does in the physical plane, but they can easily do so for the digital one. You're using the govt's own infrastructure in the first place. Please do not try to pass off such statements that are laughable at face value as facts.
Shitcoins are the ones at risk due to having no valid Schelling point and ease of govt clamp down, not metals. If the govt attempts to outlaw silver and gold, they do not cease to exist. They still exist and have value. Since shitcoins have no intrinsic use or value, a govt clampdown destroys them. They're completely worthless. And yes, Kaczynski was right no matter how much you attempt to pretend he was not. The most oppresive forms of tyranny will manifest from the digital plane, not the physical one, due to the cheaper cost and ease of creating and running those systems as I mentioned above.
Only a complete fool would embrace these digital slave systems over sound money - physical silver and gold.
July 01, 2018, 09:10:40 AM
Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion is not the true vision of infofront.
infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be.
The new W/O thread will be ripped off from any troll protocols (like anonymint, roach, jbeher and other retards) and only infofront's true protocol to be left.
Raise hands now.
P.S: I won't be reverting your past crap. Your past messages (troll or not) will be safe. I'll copy everything from this topic one by one but (tr00) moderation will be taking place by the page 20781.
infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be.
The new W/O thread will be ripped off from any troll protocols (like anonymint, roach, jbeher and other retards) and only infofront's true protocol to be left.
Raise hands now.
P.S: I won't be reverting your past crap. Your past messages (troll or not) will be safe. I'll copy everything from this topic one by one but (tr00) moderation will be taking place by the page 20781.
Infofront isn't the true originator of this thread. adamstgBit is. However, adamstgBit became inactive. Bitcointalk locked this thread because it was becoming too much of a chore moderating it. They appointed infofront as the new OP, to give this thread a little moderation.
I think there was an even earlier WO thread, still run by Adam that pre-dated even this one which started in 2013. This one was supposed to be more 'on topic'
So this is at least version 2.0, maybe 2.1 since infofront took over when the thread was saved from closure.
July 01, 2018, 09:02:33 AM
Fucking dumb ass question but how do you know if your bitcoin’s are being held in a SegWit or Non SegWit address?
If the address begins with 1, they are definitely not Segwit coins.
If the address begins with 3, they are held in a P2sH address. They could be segwit or could just be a multisign address. If the private keys are under your control, you should know. Likely they are a segwit address since you would definitely know if you set up a multisig address since it involves a very complicated process to set up. If the private keys are under someone else's control, like an exchange or online wallet, you will need to research or ask.
If the address begins with bc1, it is definitely a segwit address.
Pretty sure all of my bitcoin’s are in addresses begginning with a 1
I will need to check this tonight
But yes I am the sole owner of every single private key.
July 01, 2018, 09:00:40 AM
Fucking dumb ass question but how do you know if your bitcoin’s are being held in a SegWit or Non SegWit address?
If the address begins with 1, they are definitely not Segwit coins.
If the address begins with 3, they are held in a P2sH address. They could be segwit or could just be a multisign address. If the private keys are under your control, you should know. Likely they are a segwit address since you would definitely know if you set up a multisig address since it involves a very complicated process to set up. If the private keys are under someone else's control, like an exchange or online wallet, you will need to research or ask.
If the address begins with bc1, it is definitely a segwit address.
So it’s a lot safer if my bitcoin’s are all held in addresses beginning with a 1
Only if you believe that a fork that will treat and spend segwit coins as anyonecanspend transactions will eventually become the chain with the most work. (And also the chain with the most economical support.) Your segwit coins will be basically unspendable on this chain. As soon as you attempt to spend them, you can only use the segwit redeem script which the miners will appropriate for themselves as an anyonecanspend.
Your segwit coins are safe and sound on any fork that enforces segwit rules.
July 01, 2018, 08:55:57 AM
Fucking dumb ass question but how do you know if your bitcoin’s are being held in a SegWit or Non SegWit address?
Segwit addresses begin with a 3
So it’s a lot safer if my bitcoin’s are all held in addresses beginning with a 1
July 01, 2018, 08:50:07 AM
Fucking dumb ass question but how do you know if your bitcoin’s are being held in a SegWit or Non SegWit address?
July 01, 2018, 08:19:26 AM
Why would anybodies coins be lost by HODLING in Core addresses? Anybody else please deny or confirm this?
this is a conspiracy and can not be denied or confirmed that easy. infofront wrote a good summary:
I'll give it a shot.
- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miners wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.
The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:
- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the segwit coins.
- Plan B seems unlikely, but:
- As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
- Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
- Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
- Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
- As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.
- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miners wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.
The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:
- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the segwit coins.
- Plan B seems unlikely, but:
- As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
- Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
- Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
- Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
- As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.
I'll give it a shot.
- Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions.
Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen.
Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't),
- As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit.
In this case, miners will take all the segwit coins.
- Technically it wouldn't even be theft, who cares the original bitcoin will fork back making it redundant, keep your crap altcoins no-one will buy them after
- Even though the majority of ALTCOIN users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the
ALTCOIN buyers will flood to the new SECURE and SAFE segwit fork or whatever code they want to centralize
- Mining is decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
- As we head toward the future, mining rewards always increase. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees when they blow profits. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these profits. Segwit does cut into these fees.
July 01, 2018, 08:11:18 AM
Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion is not the true vision of infofront.
infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be.
The new W/O thread will be ripped off from any troll protocols (like anonymint, roach, jbeher and other retards) and only infofront's true protocol to be left.
Raise hands now.
P.S: I won't be reverting your past crap. Your past messages (troll or not) will be safe. I'll copy everything from this topic one by one but (tr00) moderation will be taking place by the page 20781.
infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be.
The new W/O thread will be ripped off from any troll protocols (like anonymint, roach, jbeher and other retards) and only infofront's true protocol to be left.
Raise hands now.
P.S: I won't be reverting your past crap. Your past messages (troll or not) will be safe. I'll copy everything from this topic one by one but (tr00) moderation will be taking place by the page 20781.
Infofront isn't the true originator of this thread. adamstgBit is. However, adamstgBit became inactive. Bitcointalk locked this thread because it was becoming too much of a chore moderating it. They appointed infofront as the new OP, to give this thread a little moderation.
July 01, 2018, 08:07:37 AM
Why would anybodies coins be lost by HODLING in Core addresses? Anybody else please deny or confirm this?
this is a conspiracy theory and can not be denied or confirmed that easy. also there is no core address, they are trying to rebrand bitcoin. infofront wrote a good summary:
I'll give it a shot.
- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miners wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.
The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:
- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the segwit coins.
- Plan B seems unlikely, but:
- As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
- Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
- Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
- Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
- As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.
- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miners wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.
The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:
- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the segwit coins.
- Plan B seems unlikely, but:
- As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
- Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
- Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
- Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
- As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.
July 01, 2018, 07:51:19 AM
Why would anybodies coins be lost by HODLING in Core addresses? Anybody else please deny or confirm this?
July 01, 2018, 07:20:05 AM
Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion is not the true vision of infofront.
infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be.
The new W/O thread will be ripped off from any troll protocols (like anonymint, roach, jbeher and other retards) and only infofront's true protocol to be left.
Raise hands now.
P.S: I won't be reverting your past crap. Your past messages (troll or not) will be safe. I'll copy everything from this topic one by one but (tr00) moderation will be taking place by the page 20781.
infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be.
The new W/O thread will be ripped off from any troll protocols (like anonymint, roach, jbeher and other retards) and only infofront's true protocol to be left.
Raise hands now.
P.S: I won't be reverting your past crap. Your past messages (troll or not) will be safe. I'll copy everything from this topic one by one but (tr00) moderation will be taking place by the page 20781.
July 01, 2018, 07:16:58 AM
Ultimately, you can do whatever you want. I am largely suggesting that if you support a system, then you should use it to make it stronger rather than getting scared away by fear mongers.. and largely a lot of speculative disinformation that is not likely to play out in real life scenarios. Yes, I recognize that you seemed to have identified a compromise that you believe to be acceptable (and that is surely for yourself to decide what you feel comfortable with), but maybe you should question the extent to which you might be overly cautious and not even attempting to use the segwit aspect of addresses for storage.
Largely you may be correct that there is not much of a difference... there also may be a certain non-necessity to move coins from legacy addresses to segwit addresses if they are already sitting in those addresses.
Largely you may be correct that there is not much of a difference... there also may be a certain non-necessity to move coins from legacy addresses to segwit addresses if they are already sitting in those addresses.
yup more or less this. at this point i see no need to move my legacy hodl coins just for the sake of a new format. when i do move them for trade/buy/whatever i move them in chunks to segwit as segwit does have an advantage in fees.
Yes. I am not really talking about fees and transaction times for long term storage. I do think that there are modern solutions to privacy that are being worked on with segwit. I am not sure if there would be as much development on legacy systems... but I am not really sure. So for example, I think that it can be helpful to divide your coins into different wallets, instead of keeping them in one wallet, and sometimes wallets will engage in some kind of unclear method of combining addresses within the wallet that you may have been trying to keep private, but then when you send, the wallet combines the addresses, so the output shows both addresses connected to you. In that regard, there may be newer wallets (such a segwit wallets) that are trying to deal with this issue and give more power to users to control.
this is a good point. legacy sucks for privacy and segwit/lightning may help in that. at this point segwit doesnt (that i know of) but as it evolves then there will be a real reason to use segwit aside from lower fees.
BTW trezor allows multiple wallets and each wallet is completely independent with its own addresses and coins that never mix. you can make each wallet legacy or segwit. i believe some software wallets can or are starting to allow much finer control of how coins are combined when spending, but i havent done any real research into it. i use trezor, paper and core for wallets.
so how is that playing into anyones hand?
I should not have to explain this concept. If segwit fear spreaders are trying to cause folks not to use segwit or to adopt it, then they achieve part of their objective when users act on such fears and fail/refuse to use segwit. It is largely a systemic issue rather than an individual issue.
ah i understand now.
i figure since im using core whether im using segwit or not, im supporting core as much as the next guy, im just not using all its features at all times. 98% of my current transactions are segwit with only the occasional transfer of legacy to legacy addys that i do to claim fork coins. for example the bulk of my coins have maybe four xfers.. pool -> core wallet -> paper -> trezor -> trezor again (to claim forked coins). i have a trezor t now so ill probably move them once more and claim whatever crap has forked since my last move. but ill keep the legacy coins legacy. yes, im stubborn i know. i dont like change when it comes to the storage of my money. segwit is too much change at the moment. safe storage is better than convenient storage. and legacy is the safest format at the moment. legacy has been battle tested. seqwit has not, as there is an attack vector segwit coins have that legacy doesnt have. so for the 1st time there is an attack that targets coins stored in a specific format (segwit) while leaving coins in another format (legacy) alone, and is easier to do. that is not what i want in my long term storage coins.
core offers both format. i chose legacy for storage and move the amount i foresee using for the next few months or whatever to segwit.
works for me.
i guess it boils down to why i would go out of my way to use segwit addys for long term hodl?
We remain early adopters and kinds of guinea pigs. We are going out of your way to use bitcoin, and to learn about bitcoin. The more we learn, the better we understand it.... Of course, there is a balance and only so many hours in the day to learn about new systems. When I first got into bitcoin, I attempted to learn about just a couple of aspects, and through the years, I have added more and more kinds of activities and for me, my participation in the bitcoin ecosystem has continued to be an ongoing learning process.. but I admit that I can only do so much at any one time. I am currently considering adding another wallet for myself, and so I understand that it can take a while to learn and to add more bitcoin tools to my bitcoin toolbox.
total agreement. i spent coins early on whenever i had the chance just to support the ecosystem and support vendors who accepted btc. at todays prices i dont even want to think about the value of the coins i more or less blew just to support the ecosystem, but i dont regret it a bit. after all its we who are proving the value of btc. we need to prove it "just works." to me that btc was well spent.
we agree on many things. especially the freedom to choose how we store and use btc. its up to the individuals comfort level and how much he trusts their knowledge of the subject.
Jump to: