Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19390. (Read 26609788 times)

NSA Switches To Quantum-Resistant Cryptography

According the NSA, the following isn’t safe to use:

    ECDH and ECDSA with NIST P-256
    SHA-256
    AES-128
    RSA with 2048-bit keys
    Diffie-Hellman with 2048-bit keys

Comes a time when you know a poster's response is so goddamn predictable no matter what happens or is presented to them that you can blissfully ignore them and still know exactly what they're gonna say. I appreciate the time such people save me by not having to read them. All this block shit is certainly reducing the length of my webpages nicely.

LOL -- that article doesn't even mention segwit. iCEBREAKER is so freakin' stupid!

You're fukkin' #R3KTM8.

Cite: http://coinjournal.net/gavin-andresen-mike-hearn-will-be-the-benevolent-dictator-of-bitcoinxt/

Coin



Explanation

For that reason alone I will support Classic, just to make sure I'm on a different fork to you and your JazzCoin.  /s

Come on PissPukeFunCoin!!

Even though the above-linked article is from about 2 months ago, I believe that a lot of people on both sides of the blocksize argument have conceded that seg wit is likely going to come first and be implemented prior to any attempts at a hard fork.

In that regard, there is a pretty clear path forward for bitcoin, except for the ongoing posturing and attempts at FUD spreading.

After seg wit and maybe other currently unknown developments begin to unravel, we are going to again begin to go down the road of considering whether an outright blocksize increase is needed or a schedule of blocksize increases may be warranted.


Some of the public voices of the various blocksize camps do talk out of both sides of their mouth and sometimes change their position and sometimes seem to contradict their earlier statements, but really it seems that seg wit implemented at 1mb is the likely next phase of bitcoin... and coming soon to a(the) blockchain nearest you.       

Surely fungibility is very important to maintain into the future for bitcoin, but I doubt that fungibility summarizes my ONLY points.


I recall that there is some case law regarding attempts to mark dollars and to make recipients responsible for looking for blacklisted bills.

Ultimately and luckily, those kinds of responsibilities did not fall upon dollar recipients because it would have likely crippled the dollar's fungibility and devalued the dollar worse than it already is... hahahahhaha


Surely, there are some responsibilities on people not to accept counterfeit bills and things like that, and we are still learning in the crypto-space the extent to which fungibility is going to remain a value and built into the custom and practices.

When I buy bitcoins on local bitcoins, I do not make any meaningful attempt to figure out from where someone is getting their coins; however, if the behavior of someone is strange and they seem to have a lot of bitcoins that they are discarding for under market price, I worry about getting involved with them and taking their bitcoins (because I don't really want to be a target of any law enforcement efforts).

When I am selling bitcoins on local bitcoins, I make a simple disclaimer that I will not sell to persons who inform me directly or indirectly that they are purchasing bitcoins for any illegal or arguably illegal activities.

I am not sure whether I am completely protecting myself in regard to such practices, but ultimately, I am taking certain measures to attempt to protect myself and also assuming a considerable amount of fungibility remains in the bitcoin space (at least for the time being).

Coin



Explanation

You're an idiot.

I've got proof: http://gavinandresen.ninja/segregated-witness-is-cool

Fungibility fungibility fungibility. That's all you care about. There's more to life than turning shit into fungus, you know! Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day.
Well. I just don't understand it.

Well Said. hdbuck has already let the public know he doesn't have a clue about how Bitcoin operates , especially segwit. He may be better off sticking with gold being mailed through the post office by the manner he thinks.

"Some random dev" doesn't have commit access, just to name the first problem with your false characterization that comes to mind.

"Some random dev" isn't an accurate way to describe the widespread, albeit not universal nor harmonious, consensus behind segwit.

Do you have a better plan to fix tx malleability and accrue the other benefits segwit brings to the table?

Besides the excruciatingly nuanced 'better as a hard fork' critique, I've yet to hear a good reason to eschew segwit, much less a plausible way to prevent other people from using that soft fork.  Ranting about transvestites and vague threats involving gold purity metaphors won't cut it.

You know you can't force unwilling miners to keep tx and sigs desegregated (and malleable), right?

You are acting retarded, Mr. Aztec.   You are trying to act as if you don't realize that you are asking stupid ass question, and really these are a kind of trolling disingenuous search for responses.


Accordingly:

>>>>>>are u saying u want gavin and coinbase out ??<<<<<

these are pushers for increasing the blocksize and threatening hardforks to achieve these goals


>>>>>.. i am trying to interpret what u mean . u do not like the "blockchain blacklists" because of what reasons again ?? from what i gather from what u said, u don't like "blockchain blacklisters" or "cripplecoiners" .. that sounds like a real problem .<<<<<

Not too many people really like the idea of blacklists because that would inevitably take away from fungibility, and ultimately remove most value from bitcoin.


>>>can u look outside your window ?? are the blacked out SUV's parked outside yet their might be a drone too watching you what you say about gavin and coinbase .<<<<<

People do not need to be paranoid or conspiratorial in order to arrive at the conclusions that there may be nefarious forces that are pushing these various kinds of measures to make bitcoin more trackable and to keep bitcoin under wraps in significant ways and even to imply certain threats of monitoring to individuals who are using bitcoin (maybe to attempt to deter them from currently illegal acts?)
 

 

War ain't nothing but an icebreaker

Out of those three exchanges:

Finex,

Poloniex

Kraken


Isn't Kraken the most secure and responsible with customer funds?    There's gotta be a certain value with exchange reputation and whether there is a possibility that the exchange will go under or run off with your funds?

Also, I don't mind putting some money on exchanges in order to potentially trade and/or to profit from such trades, but likely we have to be careful with the percentage of our funds that we are putting on potentially riskier exchanges, no?

Coin



Explanation

Look at you?


Attempting reverse psychology!!!!




 


 

Wow , you are just as ignorant about segwit as many classic supporters.

How do you intend to keep you un-tainted coins from accepting coins segwit free?
Are you going to create a new implementation to explicitly deny coins delivered via segwit thus hardforking yourself into an alt?
Or are you going to do your best to convince the miners to not adopt segwit?


Carnival and the jazz fest are much better. Mardi Gras is more for alchoholics and immature boys who are impressed by a set of tits.