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

[jbreher]

Jbreher

Let’s not kid ourselves here.  Bitcoin Cash is a money grab by Ver, Wu, Ayre, Peter R, Wright and the rest.

http://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-billionaire-calvin-ayre-building-100m-bcash-resort-antigua/

By continuing to support Bitcoin Cash, you are continuing to openly support fraud.  You will not get any sympathy from us so long as you openly support fraudsters.  

I ain't looking for sympathy (like I need it .... seen today's price action?). What I am looking for is some basic civility. Some assholes think it appropriate to turn every conversation I have into some sort of referendum on BCH. With unfounded/unsupported accusations to boot.

And no, BCH is not merely a money grab by a small handful of individuals. It is a legitimate contender in the cryptocurrency space, being developed by an legion of participants. And quite possibly in the long term the savior of Bitcoin. There is no fraud here. Nobody who looks at the issue more then five minutes is confused about the fact that BCH and BTC are two different things. The accusation that there is some intended fraud here is beyond ludicrous.

Show me someone who has had a loss due to 'Bitcoin' being in the name of Bitcoin Cash, and I'll show you someone who is cavalierly negligent, willfully ignorant, or both.

[bitcoinPsycho]

Jbreher

Let’s not kid ourselves here.  Bitcoin Cash is a money grab by Ver, Wu, Ayre, Peter R, Wright and the rest.

http://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-billionaire-calvin-ayre-building-100m-bcash-resort-antigua/

By continuing to support Bitcoin Cash, you are continuing to openly support fraud.  You will not get any sympathy from us so long as you openly support fraudsters.  

I ain't looking for sympathy (like I need it .... seen today's price action?). What I am looking for is some basic civility. Some assholes think it appropriate to turn every conversation I have into some sort of referendum on BCH. With unfounded/unsupported accusations to boot.

And no, BCH is not merely a money grab by a small handful of individuals. It is a legitimate contender in the cryptocurrency space, being developed by an legion of participants. And quite possibly in the long term the savior of Bitcoin. There is no fraud here. Nobody who looks at the issue more then five minutes is confused about the fact that BCH and BTC are two different things. The accusation that there is some intended fraud here is beyond ludicrous.

Show me someone who has had a loss due to 'Bitcoin' being in the name of Bitcoin Cash, and I'll show you someone who is cavalierly negligent, willfully ignorant, or both.

the fraud is trying to high jack the bitcoin brand and confuse newcomers. simple

[jbreher]

Jbreher lost a lot of my respect when he tried to sell the idea that bCash was as decentralized as Bitcoin because the potential set of bCash miners was the same as the potential set of Bitcoin miners.

On that mining share basis, one could easily make the argument that BTC is more centralized than BCH.
45.4% of BCH is mined by the same pools that mine 61.9% of BTC.

Bitcoin.com is a pool based in North America that mines roughly 15% of BCH blocks. 3% of BTC
ViaBTC is a pool based in China that mines roughly 10% of BCH blocks. 5% of BTC
AntPool is a pool based in China that mines roughly 9% of BCH blocks. 25.2% of BTC
BTC.top is a pool based in China that mines roughly 7% of BCH blocks. 11.2% of BTC
BTC is a pool based in China that mines 3.9% of BCH blocks. 10.2% of BTC
BTCC is a pool based in China that mines 0.5% of BCH blocks. 7.3% of BTC

https://blog.sfox.com/the-bitcoin-cash-people-platforms-wallets-and-miners-you-need-to-know-afa53aaa3c66
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/pools/

[jbreher]

Bitcoin is the only coin who solved the The Byzantine Generals Problem.

And by carrying on the design of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash has inherited this characteristic.

PS: only? Evidence would suggest otherwise.

[Anon136]

And no, BCH is not merely a money grab by a small handful of individuals. It is a legitimate contender in the cryptocurrency space, being developed by an legion of participants. And quite possibly in the long term the savior of Bitcoin. There is no fraud here. Nobody who looks at the issue more then five minutes is confused about the fact that BCH and BTC are two different things. The accusation that there is some intended fraud here is beyond ludicrous.

Please enlighten me. The early rhetoric from ver and the bcash community turned me off to it so much that I have had no interest in learning anything about the project since. So really all I know is that they intended to "scale" by increasing the blocksize and that ver is the only one true disciple of satoshi capable of correctly divining his will (holy crap he really does think hes bitcoin Jesus). Both absolutely ludicrous propositions. Has anything changed? Are they proposing realistic alternatives to lightning for scaling? Are there new developments that I should be aware of?

[JimboToronto]

I have read about your journey through Mayan lands, and I am glad that life is treating you well.
When you say that the earth is cheap ... How cheap is it?

Thanks in advance.

I bought a 2 story palapa, cookhouse, eco toilet (composting outhouse) 2 wells (1 dug, 1 drilled) on almost an acre of land for about $15kCAD  ($11.8kUSD) half cash, half Bitcoin in January.

This week I'm buying a smaller lot, about 40 meters road frontage and 20 meters deep, with no structures for $3.1kCAD ($2.4kUSD).

The house is connected to water and electricity from town. It's on the edge of a village of less than 1k people on a gravel road.

The vacant land is less than a quarter mile away just beyond the reach of electricity on a mud road. Motions are already in place to extend electrical service there, hopefully within months.

There's already a larger gauge water line (suitable for irrigation) in front of the property, but I don't know if I can connect domestic service to it. No problem though. You can't drink the tap water anyway and bottled water is cheap. A large jug (25 liters?) costs 12 pesos ($0.80CAD/$0.60USD) plus deposit delivered daily by truck.

Edit: Do note that both properties were bought on canstancia not title. Land ownership by title requires family residency of over 100 years.

The only way to get around this is to register a corporation and then only if the owners of the ejido (in this case the Mayan community) agree to transfer title. This requires a large outlay so most people, foreigners and Mexicans alike, own by constancia.

You can read more about it here: https://www.mexperience.com/legal-title-of-mexican-property/

[jbreher]

So really all I know is that they intended to "scale" by increasing the blocksize. ... Has anything changed? Are they proposing realistic alternatives to lightning for scaling? Are there new developments that I should be aware of?

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.

[vapourminer]

In other news who's gone short on 4/20 day?? bad move, expect the pump on 4/20.

I'm going real long on 4/20 day, if you catch my meaning, friend.

im down with that, and will being doing my part.

[Anon136]

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.

I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal.

But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former.

[cAPSLOCK]

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.

I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal.

But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former.

You're the guy that when the Mormons ride up to your door, you invite them in, make them a strong mug of caffeine free tea, and then engage in a spirited discussion with them about the finer points of their beliefs with no serious intent on being converted.

Aren't you?

[Anon136]

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.

I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal.

But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former.

You're the guy that when the Mormons ride up to your door, you invite them in, make them a strong mug of caffeine free tea, and then engage in a spirited discussion with them about the finer points of their beliefs with no serious intent on being converted.

Aren't you?

Haha guilty . I have never done that specific thing, but yea, I'm that guy.

[jbreher]

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.

I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal.

But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former.

Well, the way I see it, Lightning was two years too late. And it will be three or four years too late before it makes an appreciable difference. In professional engineering, one always does the best bang for the buck before engaging more resource intensive, longer, more complex solutions. Simple blocksize increase first.

Add that the way Core/BS implemented the ugly kluge of shoehorning segwit in via a so-called soft fork has fundamentally changed Bitcoin's security model, and there is not much to love there.

Sure, Lightning allows high frequency txs between a limited set of participants, but it really doesn't do much for increasing the number of participants themselves. You can still only open or close about 5 channels per sec. How long will it take if everyone in the world wanted to open _one_ channel? Three decades.

But we've been over all these points - and more. I will continue to believe that Bitcoin Cash has the right way forward for Bitcoin. Others will continue to think that I am daft. I don't much care. I am happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But when others cast aspersions, I will reply to the slander.

[doc12]

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.

I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal.

But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former.

Well, the way I see it, Lightning was two years too late. And it will be three or four years too late before it makes an appreciable difference. In professional engineering, one always does the best bang for the buck before engaging more resource intensive, longer, more complex solutions. Simple blocksize increase first.

Add that the way Core/BS implemented the ugly kluge of shoehorning segwit in via a so-called soft fork has fundamentally changed Bitcoin's security model, and there is not much to love there.

Sure, Lightning allows high frequency txs between a limited set of participants, but it really doesn't do much for increasing the number of participants themselves. You can still only open or close about 5 channels per sec. How long will it take if everyone in the world wanted to open _one_ channel? Three decades.

But we've been over all these points - and more. I will continue to believe that Bitcoin Cash has the right way forward for Bitcoin. Others will continue to think that I am daft. I don't much care. I am happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But when others cast aspersions, I will reply to the slander.

Shill your shitcoin in Rogers forum please... Thanks...

There is only one bitcoin and if there is a "bitcoin cash" then its monero and not your shitty forkcoin.  

Bcashers are the MOST annoying people in cryptospace, by far (Only challanged by the Verge-Shills)

[Ibian]

What I am looking for is some basic civility.

You don't deserve it.

[Toxic2040]

-edited-
But we've been over all these points - and more.  Others will continue to think that I am daft. I don't much care.

Ad Nauseam.  The only way it gets better is a full retraction and admission that Bcash has perpetrated fraud for years and has been stealing brand identity for profit. Just buck up and admit your a shill and be on your way..please.

[HairyMaclairy]

Jbreher

Let’s not kid ourselves here.  Bitcoin Cash is a money grab by Ver, Wu, Ayre, Peter R, Wright and the rest.

http://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-billionaire-calvin-ayre-building-100m-bcash-resort-antigua/

By continuing to support Bitcoin Cash, you are continuing to openly support fraud.  You will not get any sympathy from us so long as you openly support fraudsters.  

I ain't looking for sympathy (like I need it .... seen today's price action?). What I am looking for is some basic civility. Some assholes think it appropriate to turn every conversation I have into some sort of referendum on BCH. With unfounded/unsupported accusations to boot.

And no, BCH is not merely a money grab by a small handful of individuals. It is a legitimate contender in the cryptocurrency space, being developed by an legion of participants. And quite possibly in the long term the savior of Bitcoin. There is no fraud here. Nobody who looks at the issue more then five minutes is confused about the fact that BCH and BTC are two different things. The accusation that there is some intended fraud here is beyond ludicrous.

Show me someone who has had a loss due to 'Bitcoin' being in the name of Bitcoin Cash, and I'll show you someone who is cavalierly negligent, willfully ignorant, or both.

Tell me this isn’t confusing. Because I have been tricked by this Bitcoin Cash logo once already thinking it was a Bitcoin logo. And if I can be tricked, what chance do the noobs have?




What about these promoters of Bitcoin Cash?

[url=https://ibb.co/i7sEZ7]


You pretend that there is no brand hijacking going on.  You cannot possibly be so naive to genuinely believe that on the evidence so you must be a fraud like all the others.

[LastJedi]

Oh, he's a major whack job, no doubt, but he denies ever doing Coin of the Week.

He did have a photo with him and Satoshi Nakamoto having dinner in Japan last night.

No wonder the price shot up so quick cause he found who the creator of bitcoin is.


Who would of ever thought he would be so young but accomplish such things in his brief time on this earth.

[Neo_Coin]

[Torque]

You pretend that there is no brand hijacking going on.  You cannot possibly be so naive to genuinely believe that on the evidence so you must be a fraud like all the others.

jbreher's not naive about the brand hijacking, he just doesn't give a shit. And he's in hella denial about BCash's chances of being successful in the future.  

For everyone one person that buys some BCash, there's a million buying Bitcoin. And that ratio will only get worse for BCash in the future. Do the fucking math, jbreher.

[Ludwig Von]

You pretend that there is no brand hijacking going on.  You cannot possibly be so naive to genuinely believe that on the evidence so you must be a fraud like all the others.

jbreher's not naive about the brand hijacking, he just doesn't give a shit. And he's in hella denial about BCash's chances of being successful in the future.  

For everyone one person that buys some BCash, there's a million buying Bitcoin. And that ratio will only get worse for BCash in the future. Do the fucking math, jbreher.

BCash is created as a parasite, on the base of imaginary flaws to be fixed. It was created as a parasite and only survives by the grace of it 's ghost. If it becomes too greedy, it could kill it 's ghost and by
doing that commit suicide. luckilly the parasite has attracted other parasites to itself, so it is flawed in it 's expoitation of the ghost. Ultimately the parasites will just turn out to be reinforcing the resilience of the
ghost and simply destroy themselves. Nothing in the whole discours about the raison d' ëtre in the BCash story makes sense.