Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 22144. (Read 26608981 times)

legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1441
I watched a documentary last night that had this full-blooded giraffe neck fight. It was vicious...

Good morning, bitcoiners!



Crazy no?

They are neck and neck
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
I watched a documentary last night that had this full-blooded giraffe neck fight. It was vicious...

Good morning, bitcoiners!



Crazy no?
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
... I really dislike justin bieber's music. Maybe I should register an account on a bieber forum and bash him all day! ...

Maybe.  Guessing you'll find Bieber fan antics a bit less amusing than Bitcoin cultists' wacky shenanigans tho.
How about you give Bitcointalk another try, huh buddy?  
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1441
All this talk about how "miners would never attack the network because that would destroy confidence in the blockchain and they would stop making money" is kinda bogus IMHO.

Basically double spends already happened but the bitcoin community just looks the other way and pretends that never happened.

Are you sure "miners have no incentive to perform double spend attacks" if all that happens after a double spend (that doesn't seem that easy to investigate into too apparently) is some posts on reddit trying to figure out what the hell happened and bitcoiners just forgetting about it?

Apart from, are there more miners trying to destroy the network, or trying to facilitate it?

If the market really says that its more profitable to destroy it, then maybe that will happen....if not, then why would the attackers choose a less profitable option? if it was more profitable to support the network than decide to take it down? if attackers manage to destroy the network, then miners, will obviously shut up shop and go home, and become tulip farmers.

They would just perform double spends here and there.
If they get caught doing it (like the GHASH.io double spend on that gambling site I posted from last year) what's the problem? Bitcoiners look the other way and say "you see? nothing happened? Everything's fine"




of course they do because charity... right?
What do you mean?

Because everyone involved in BTC just wants to throw money away right? like charity....

Self interest.

If its broken, it will fall... if not, it wont.

If it is more profitable to attack the network, then it will happen, if it is not then it will not happen.

If it is more profitable to facilitate the network, then it will happen, if it is not then it will not happen.

So , the parameters are clear..  as they have been the past 6 years.

So......

Go.
 
sr. member
Activity: 437
Merit: 250


Why do you presume you have the consensus on your side? Do you think a majority of the users/miners/pools will suddenly adopt your, or a like minded model?

You come across with great egotism and hubris, like you have all the answers. As if no-one has ever dared deliberate your concerns.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1441
I am not even kidding though....

If I do not get some DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM and soon....

Then I am gunna be all disgruntled and discombobulated and shit.

Well at the very least I am gonna lose my DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM boner.... which would be sad.

Not even in the slightest bit kidding though... spike that shit down overlords

Spike it down.

Make me happy.

Make it shnappy.




hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
All this talk about how "miners would never attack the network because that would destroy confidence in the blockchain and they would stop making money" is kinda bogus IMHO.

Basically double spends already happened but the bitcoin community just looks the other way and pretends that never happened.

Are you sure "miners have no incentive to perform double spend attacks" if all that happens after a double spend (that doesn't seem that easy to investigate into too apparently) is some posts on reddit trying to figure out what the hell happened and bitcoiners just forgetting about it?

Apart from, are there more miners trying to destroy the network, or trying to facilitate it?

If the market really says that its more profitable to destroy it, then maybe that will happen....if not, then why would the attackers choose a less profitable option? if it was more profitable to support the network than decide to take it down? if attackers manage to destroy the network, then miners, will obviously shut up shop and go home, and become tulip farmers.

They would just perform double spends here and there.
If they get caught doing it (like the GHASH.io double spend on that gambling site I posted from last year) what's the problem? Bitcoiners look the other way and say "you see? nothing happened? Everything's fine"




of course they do because charity... right?
What do you mean?
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1441
All this talk about how "miners would never attack the network because that would destroy confidence in the blockchain and they would stop making money" is kinda bogus IMHO.

Basically double spends already happened but the bitcoin community just looks the other way and pretends that never happened.

Are you sure "miners have no incentive to perform double spend attacks" if all that happens after a double spend (that doesn't seem that easy to investigate into too apparently) is some posts on reddit trying to figure out what the hell happened and bitcoiners just forgetting about it?

Apart from, are there more miners trying to destroy the network, or trying to facilitate it?

If the market really says that its more profitable to destroy it, then maybe that will happen....if not, then why would the attackers choose a less profitable option? if it was more profitable to support the network than decide to take it down? if attackers manage to destroy the network, then miners, will obviously shut up shop and go home, and become tulip farmers.

They would just perform double spends here and there.
If they get caught doing it (like the GHASH.io double spend on that gambling site I posted from last year) what's the problem? Bitcoiners look the other way and say "you see? nothing happened? Everything's fine"




of course they do because charity... right?
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1441
This guy makes good points (read the other posts also):


https://twitter.com/patio11/status/583697371378257920





Basically, bitcoiners don't know how remittances actually work.

Car manufacturers did not necessarily know how horses worked either.
You forgot to say that bitcoin is "like the internet in its early days", that blockchains cure cancer, that satoshi is the savior of mankind, that people in 2050 will sell their yachts, islands or houses for a fraction of a bitcoin, etc etc

Sure, right on point there.
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
This guy makes good points (read the other posts also):


https://twitter.com/patio11/status/583697371378257920





Basically, bitcoiners don't know how remittances actually work.

Car manufacturers did not necessarily know how horses worked either.
You forgot to say that bitcoin is "like the internet in its early days", that blockchains cure cancer, that satoshi is the savior of mankind, that people in 2050 will sell their yachts, islands or houses for a fraction of a bitcoin, etc etc

^^  Huh  are you lost, or getting paid? You know I really dislike justin bieber's music. Maybe I should register an account on a bieber forum and bash him all day! ... nope sorry I actually have a life that's not worth wasting.
That was a joke dude, no need to take it personally.
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
All this talk about how "miners would never attack the network because that would destroy confidence in the blockchain and they would stop making money" is kinda bogus IMHO.

Basically double spends already happened but the bitcoin community just looks the other way and pretends that never happened.

Are you sure "miners have no incentive to perform double spend attacks" if all that happens after a double spend (that doesn't seem that easy to investigate into too apparently) is some posts on reddit trying to figure out what the hell happened and bitcoiners just forgetting about it?

Apart from, are there more miners trying to destroy the network, or trying to facilitate it?

If the market really says that its more profitable to destroy it, then maybe that will happen....if not, then why would the attackers choose a less profitable option? if it was more profitable to support the network than decide to take it down? if attackers manage to destroy the network, then miners, will obviously shut up shop and go home, and become tulip farmers.

They would just perform double spends here and there.
If they get caught doing it (like the GHASH.io double spend on that gambling site I posted from last year) what's the problem? Bitcoiners look the other way and say "you see? nothing happened? Everything's fine"


legendary
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1186
This guy makes good points (read the other posts also):


https://twitter.com/patio11/status/583697371378257920





Basically, bitcoiners don't know how remittances actually work.

Car manufacturers did not necessarily know how horses worked either.
You forgot to say that bitcoin is "like the internet in its early days", that blockchains cure cancer, that satoshi is the savior of mankind, that people in 2050 will sell their yachts, islands or houses for a fraction of a bitcoin, etc etc

^^  Huh  are you lost, or getting paid? You know I really dislike justin bieber's music. Maybe I should register an account on a bieber forum and bash him all day! ... nope sorry I actually have a life that's not worth wasting.
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
This guy makes good points (read the other posts also):


https://twitter.com/patio11/status/583697371378257920





Basically, bitcoiners don't know how remittances actually work.

Car manufacturers did not necessarily know how horses worked either.
You forgot to say that bitcoin is "like the internet in its early days", that blockchains cure cancer, that satoshi is the savior of mankind, that people in 2050 will sell their yachts, islands or houses for a fraction of a bitcoin, etc etc
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1441
All this talk about how "miners would never attack the network because that would destroy confidence in the blockchain and they would stop making money" is kinda bogus IMHO.

Basically double spends already happened but the bitcoin community just looks the other way and pretends that never happened.

Are you sure "miners have no incentive to perform double spend attacks" if all that happens after a double spend (that doesn't seem that easy to investigate into too apparently) is some posts on reddit trying to figure out what the hell happened and bitcoiners just forgetting about it?

Apart from, are there more miners trying to destroy the network, or trying to facilitate it?

If the market really says that its more profitable to destroy it, then maybe that will happen....if not, then why would the attackers choose a less profitable option? if it was more profitable to support the network than decide to take it down? if attackers manage to destroy the network, then miners, will obviously shut up shop and go home, and become tulip farmers.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
The "top 4-6 chinese miners" will fork bitcoin to delay the halving. Thereby giving themselves 0% revenue, instead of 50% revenue. TIL
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1441
This guy makes good points (read the other posts also):


https://twitter.com/patio11/status/583697371378257920





Basically, bitcoiners don't know how remittances actually work.

Car manufacturers did not necessarily know how horses worked either.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Even with Memristor technology it would take more than a small group to jam out the global hashpower.  There's billions in infrastructure and it would require trillions to topple.

As said before, the "small group" will be the top 4-6 miners, who already have enough power to overcome all the others.

That is a paradoxical thing about the bitcoin protocol: no matter how massive he mining network, there will always be a potential enemy with the all power needed to take control of it.  Just as, no matter how big of an army a country has, it will never be big enough to protect it from a military coup...



Yes but, notice, that countries with small armies, do exist.

Sure, a bigger army could , right now, tomorrow take over the whole world, and then a little country would not have the ability to "protect itself"
but do you notice, that the people of Luxemburg, the people of Ireland, the people of New Zealand, manage to get to sleep just fine.

(and whilst no countries are immune to a military coup, in most countries it is not something that keeps people awake at night, why? because, the second you instigate something like a military coup, then all bets are off, you have changed the entire game)
  

I feel like there were definitely some long stretches of recent history where the Irish and Maori did not sleep well.
Jump to: