All posts made by brg444 in Bitcointalk.org's Wall Observer thread
1.
Post 8735262 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.11h):
Forget the price for a moment. Daily and weekly price movements are noise. Everyone who cries about companies adopting btc because it puts pressure on the price needs to get a brain that thinks more than a week in advance.
The big picture is that the future of bitcoin is adoption and usage by more and more people. Dell, Global Payments, PayPal, etc, are all steps forward in usage. Remittance actually works in the Philippines, at a total cost of 2% (buying, transmitting, selling, dumping cash into bank account), and other countries will follow. None of these will have a huge short term impact on price. But they are necessary and huge successes in the long term, and should be priced in as major stepping stones forward.
The next step is store of value, taking on the tax haven money and gold bugs. These will have a much larger effect on price, but require more stability in price.
If you only care about the price in 6 months, hate on PayPal adoption. If you care about the price in 2 years, cheer for PayPal adoption. More usage, more adoption, demands a higher market cap in the future.
I'm not hating on the PayPal adoption, i actually think it is a huge step forward. The product that PayPal is selling is their easy-to-use payment system. You can buy things internationally with one click and don't have to exchange money. PayPal takes care of it all. The thing that brought me to bitcoin is the economic principle behind it and in my opinion people will be able to use bitcoin just as another payment option. So they won't have to care about the idea behind it. While this widens the possible usage, it puts bitcoin as the great idea it is in the background. That's the risk i see. But i will hodl
Bitcoin is first and foremost money. Store of value first, then currency and eventually unit of account.
All this "payment system" and transactional utilities are bells and whistles. Merchant adoption is important but it is not what drives bitcoin.
In my opinion there is only a minority of people that care to use Bitcoin for daily transactions. Most people "hoard" it as a store of value and to speculate. This is what has driven the price of Bitcoin from 0 to now. And if the phenomenon continues on its exponential pace like it has for the past years, then we will be fine.
This is also why these news have no impact on the price. They bring awareness sure, but they don't bring in new "investors". I don't expect they should. Frankly, apart from a couple of minor use cases, there are little to no incentives to use Bitcoin as a currency vs. fiat as it is right now. And that's not a problem.
2.
Post 8735372 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.11h):
1. No one time. You have 50 BTC invested.
2. You take 1 BTC of your invested stack and buy whatever product you want
3. The you rebuy 1 BTC with fiat
So you only spend 1 times the fiat cost of the item you bought (although probably less due to all the benefits of Bitcoin)
Hmmm I'm sorry but how does this not entail spending 2x the amount of money, fiat or BTC.
3.
Post 8735471 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.11h):
But what about consumers who are not investors and just want to use coinbase to buy something? Would they be better off from a one time purchase using bitcoin in that case. I guess that is my question. If the threshold for consumers (to get an advantage) is to become investors of a large amount of bitcoin, well it seems a bit harsh, no?
Exactly, some seem to suggest that all bitcoiners are rich therefore we should be able to spend the scrapes of money we were able to put together to INVEST in bitcoin and then turn around and re-buy bitcoins so our stack remains intact.
This is certainly not my case. I'll be damned if I spend my bitcoins if I believe they are so damned undervalued right now
4.
Post 8849082 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.13h):
Here is Bitpay's new Amsterdam Headquarters
http://blog.bitpay.com/2014/09/07/bitpay-s-new-amsterdam-headquarters.htmlThey're only one of many Bitcoin companies, as you may know.
Should we carry on with this pissing contest or are you done ?
5.
Post 8994926 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.16h):
Such a toxic environment here.
Please go gamble in the casino, instead of raping some game-changing technology in it's infancy.
In its infancy ... yeah, right ...
It's only six years old, after all.
Most people here are late adopters, entering the world of Bitcoin in its twilight years. But of course, the cultists, permabulls and other scammers would have them believe they're all
early adopters.
care to lookup what the internet looked like 6 years in?
twilight years.... yeah right. it does look like we've come full circle.
6.
Post 9010895 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.17h):
The elephant in the room: consumers have almost no incentive to use bitcoin.
The common talking points are:
Low fees - The consumers pay no fees while using a credit card. They actually get rewards points back.
Privacy - As evidenced by a recent post, bitcoin offers little privacy out of the box. You need to go through hoops to achieve privacy. People who care enough to go through these hoops have better alternatives (like cash!), which are more foolproof.
Being your own bank - Few people want to take the risks associated with being a bank. It is more of a headache than a plus.
No consumer protection - No need to elaborate.
Distrust of the monetary policy - The volatility of bitcoin makes it useless as a store of value, and there are better and more reliable options to store your wealth. Few people buy into the tinfoil-hattery that the USD is about to crash.
There is simply no pragmatic answer to "Why should I buy bitcoin?"
Do you realize there are very few that are invested into Bitcoin to use it as their everyday currency?
Have you considered that maybe the "commercial" incentive to using Bitcoin are irrelevant at this stage?
I know everyone gets giddy when we get new merchants because they can say they used bitcoins to purchase an item and brag about how groundbreaking and seamless the process was. The reality is these applications of Bitcoin are, at this moment, nothing more than a distraction.
So.... why should I buy bitcoin?
Maybe you need to ask why have the majority of holders that exist have already bought bitcoins?
Surely not to use it as a currency, at least not at this stage.
The answer is very simple : speculation.
Some people value the attributes of Bitcoin as an hedge to national currencies. Some realize its potential as gold 2.0. Some are smarter than to call the economic turmoils we are living in "tinfoil-hattery".
One other fundamental that you have wrong is to suggest Bitcoin's volatility makes it useless as a store-of-value. This could not be more wrong. In reality, speculators LOVE volatility. Because volatility makes money. You suggest there are more reliable store-of-value. This is certainly true. What is also true is that for those that have held Bitcoin as a long-term investement for at least a year have so far seen better performance than any other asset on the market.
If you are here for more than uneducated trolling I highly suggest you listen to a couple of minutes from this speech of Wences Cesares of Xapo :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lqqNU3fQs#t=850from 13:45 to 15:00. hopefully you can understand
7.
Post 9015279 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.17h):
Circle registration is now open.
to the stratosphere we go
8.
Post 9015385 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.17h):
Circle registration is now open.
to the stratosphere we go
Ok, that's it.
Now I will quickly dump before the whales start dumping again.
Paypal did not get us to moon, neither does this.
Paypal news was miniscule compared to this, if you ask me.
9.
Post 9016049 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.17h):
I´m sure average Joe´s are killing themselves right now to buy Bitcoins...
Circle might be helpful in an uptrend, but right now....
you're right!
scrap that project, TOO LATE CIRCLE !
10.
Post 9108587 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.21h):
11.
Post 9108825 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.21h):
http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/06/what-is-happening-to-bitcoin-right-now/Note the quote. Exactly what i was thinking. It makes the most sense of all theories i've heard yet it's the hardest to believe for most here for some reason.
"Seems pretty clear to me. An early adopter decided $300 is their breaking point. They want to cash out their $9m before they miss their chance. They’re not experienced with handling this amount of money because they’ve never been rich before; they just got lucky. They don’t have the connections to sell off-market so they decided to sell the way they know and the way that’s guaranteed to work: a Bitstamp sell order below market. They could maybe get more money with a more sophisticated trading strategy but who cares? They’ll take their $9m and retire on a beach somewhere for the rest of their lives.
That’s what I’d do if I had 30,000 BTC right now and I bet you would too."
The guy was looking at the price going down every hour and basically panic sold. Below 300 was just too much for him. He was losing 10.000's per day.
He moved the coins to Stamp, right away did a 5k dump to secure a good amount of money (his aim was a million) and when he saw there were buyers he put the rest up at 300.
Perfectly reasonable explanation.
He wasn't the bearwhale. He also isn't buying back. Just a guy who wanted out. Yes, that happens.
a guy who has been around this long, with that many Bitcoin knows better than to put up for sale his whole 30,000 thousand coins in one order. I don't care how lucky he is or inexperienced.
"Decided 300$ was their breaking point"
Yeah right. As if people usually wait until rock bottom price to divest of an asset they have lost confidence in.
12.
Post 9108948 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.21h):
http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/06/what-is-happening-to-bitcoin-right-now/Note the quote. Exactly what i was thinking. It makes the most sense of all theories i've heard yet it's the hardest to believe for most here for some reason.
"Seems pretty clear to me. An early adopter decided $300 is their breaking point. They want to cash out their $9m before they miss their chance. They’re not experienced with handling this amount of money because they’ve never been rich before; they just got lucky. They don’t have the connections to sell off-market so they decided to sell the way they know and the way that’s guaranteed to work: a Bitstamp sell order below market. They could maybe get more money with a more sophisticated trading strategy but who cares? They’ll take their $9m and retire on a beach somewhere for the rest of their lives.
That’s what I’d do if I had 30,000 BTC right now and I bet you would too."
The guy was looking at the price going down every hour and basically panic sold. Below 300 was just too much for him. He was losing 10.000's per day.
He moved the coins to Stamp, right away did a 5k dump to secure a good amount of money (his aim was a million) and when he saw there were buyers he put the rest up at 300.
Perfectly reasonable explanation.
He wasn't the bearwhale. He also isn't buying back. Just a guy who wanted out. Yes, that happens.
a guy who has been around this long, with that many Bitcoin knows better than to put up for sale his whole 30,000 thousand coins in one order. I don't care how lucky he is or inexperienced.
"Decided 300$ was their breaking point"
Yeah right. As if people usually wait until rock bottom price to divest of an asset they have lost confidence in.
When I turned 2k into 50k in the alt market I felt rich and literally dumped at 40% below market price because I wanted a new car.
If I had 10 mil, seriously I would not care how I sold it and even if I lost a couple of mil because I know I'd never see that money in my life anyway.
this guy could've dumped a while ago if he had no confidence in his investment
13.
Post 9141418 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.22h):
14.
Post 9145746 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.22h):
they kinda failed to explain why the bitcoin is essential to the blockchain principles.
I hate that they brought up the Ecuador example when it is such a stupid idea
15.
Post 9145949 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.22h):
There was nothing positive or negative about that meeting. Nothing was decided it was just a Q&A session. Not well done, by the BTC side, either. They don't explain things well to those who aren't as technically savvy, which is unfortunate.
agree, the inability to properly explain the necessity of the bitcoin unit inside the ledger is becoming quite alarming IMO.
16.
Post 9159217 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.22h):
broke the pennant
17.
Post 9166933 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.22h):
miss that dude :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=24670Bitcoin is not a payment network
Published on Wednesday 25 June 2014 in English
Tags: bitcoin, bitpay, cash, coinbase, inflation, obligatory trilema whoring, on n'accepte pas les chèques.
Bitcoin is often presented as a payment network.
I think this happens because it is more convenient to ignore the more politically controversial aspects of Bitcoin.
After all, everyone agrees that credit cards suck. You’re basically giving your private key to entities so they can charge you what they want; fraud is very high and the fixes are inconvenient two-factor authentication systems. When you’re used to Bitcoin, where you only sign transactions, this is laughable. Merchants also enjoy the certainty of no chargebacks and small entities do not get fucked by bank fees.
So Bitcoin does all of this better than credit cards, however, it is mostly because the state-backed banking monopoly and the mountain of “regulations”.
There’s no reason we could not have payment systems with instant payments, policies against chargebacks, secure transaction signing, etc.
Ripple is actually quite close to that, if you ignore their own altcoin bullshit; but I doubt Ripple would survive regulation if it ever becomes too popular.
Bitcoin detractors that interact with the poorly informed “bitcoin community” will retort that Bitcoin has many issues as a payment network, and they will be right.
If you only want buy stuff, the price fluctuation risk is incredibly annoying. Of course, that’s what Coinbase wants you to forget, because they always try to fuck you on that aspect. They’ve even automated the fucking2.
Critics will also say that it does not scale. The blockchain as a payment network truly cannot handle the transaction volume of, say, Mastercard.
Unless you are bitcoin-rich, or have a bitcoin income, there is very little incentive to use Bitcoin to buy things online. So while merchants accepting Bitcoin take very little risk as payment processors give them the exact fiat amount they want, I do not think they get much volume from bitcoiners. MP goes as far as to say as payment processors are “not in Bitcoin”; I disagree, in the sense that payment processors are exchanges3. While those payment processors have no business long-term, they are very useful in the short term.
Decentralization is a compromise. Bitcoin as an ubiquitous payment network will not happen on the blockchain, and it will likely be through centralized services. The future of Bitcoin payments is to use the blockchain as a clearing house tool and for long-term savings, and there’s nothing wrong about that.
Because what Bitcoin really is is digital cash and digital gold.
Bitcoins are an extremely secure, unseizable asset that you can actually own; unlike how most fiat currency is used, bitcoins in your wallet are a not debt to you and are not exposed to fractional reserves.
It is much more convenient to hold and secure than fiat cash, and fiat cash only works in physical transactions (and is sometimes not even allowed).
Moreover, its limited supply is anything but a random choice; it is a clear message against governmental central banking policies. And it’s not so that it is deflationary, it is more that the monetary policy is known in advance and impossible to change. Bitcoin with an constant but reasonable inflation4 would not be so different.
And this is what we have really been longing for.
http://pankkake.headfucking.net/ps:
hoarders are the real heroeshit the nail on the head. this has been my thinking for awhile.
18.
Post 9168501 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.22h):
Can you please explain why ripple instead of any other crypto? Instead of just parroting the name every post?
I explained it a lot of time.
But mainly:
-this is scalable
-more dev and ressources
-bank friendly in regard of compliance (3banks on board already +bitstamp +lakebtc + cryptsy +other exchanges interested..(i asked this indian platform + another form honkkong)
-fast (5sec instead of 10-60min)
-no mining risk (51% attack ...power concentration ...)
-this address directly the remittance problem and that's why bank are onboards
At the same time:
-bitcoin lacks of dev
-bitcoin is slow
-banks can't handle it properly because of the lack of regulation
-volitity is really a problem for customers
Bitcoin is already the past, this community can't admit it because they are blinded by some kind of libertarian ideology but the reality is Ripple is far more revolutionnary than bitcoin.
Hard to hear but it's true. Understand it now or admit it later when you can't deny it. Up to you.
Ripple is a crypto paypal.
It will never become money and therefore is not even in the same league as Bitcoin
19.
Post 9168795 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.23h):
By the way bitcoin is not more a store of value than ripple... seriously...
you right, as good a store a value as fiat
20.
Post 9169258 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.23h):
I just can't wait for btc to hit 200$ =D
myself I can't wait for Ripple to hit 0.01
21.
Post 9178154 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.23h):
If you keep saying it lambchop and wish hard enough, perhaps it will become true!
Back in reality you are for the first time in a few months on the wrong side of the market.
It's already true.
Bitcoin has already been banned, or regulated to the point of losing its appeal to the original investors. It has turned from Rocky Erickson to a lame classic rock cover band. From outlaw's money into a scammy copy of fiat--with extra scam, none of the perks, and plenty of lulzy incompetence.
Remember, it's never too late to give up on your dreams!
why are they not selling then?
22.
Post 9202152 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.24h):
That's a different argument. Clearly BTC is worth more than my shitcoin. I simply pointed out that Bitcoin's inelasticity is, in itself, an insufficient reason for Bitcoin to succeed.
But money doesn't have to be elastic. And Bitcoin's inelasticity is absolutely the reason for its current and future success.
23.
Post 9203823 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.24h):
AMAIK Bitcoin isn't based on SSL3
Doesn't matter, he still likes to spread BTC die day FUD and Ripple shit...
I said nothing about Ripple.
so you agree on the FUD part
24.
Post 9217195 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.24h):
4 green daily candles, followed by 1 red, repeat until moon
I think we will see some more green, but no moon. Range of $100-$800 for 2015.
25.
Post 9256745 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
not long to wait now, then upto $490 before consolidation to about $430, and then slow growth picking up pace over the next few months towards the next megabubble.
Just how i see it at the moment.
these types of intersections are so open to interpretation though. If you created the same model about a week ago, it would show that we fell below the cross and thus right now should be bearish.
IMO long-term we are going up, but short-term its volatility until something happens to change that - either the coins distribute from big holders to dedicated smaller HODLers, or wall street gets involved and opens up bitcoin use to investors
There will be some big movement in the next few hours. We will see approx $490 next week.
The reason I am confident people will go long is because of the following factors:
1. MACD shows that there is momentum for a second phase of the uptrend
2. Every chart from 1 hour to 1 day shows quite clearly a reverse head an shoulders, indicating the downtrend since the ATH has finished.
3. It has followed the same pattern as the April 13 266 pump. using Fibonacci emphases this pattern repetition.
4. The April pump and consolidation took approx 3.5 months from start to finish (approx 4 x longer than Nov 13 pump and approx 4 times as large in BTC value.
5. The volume has been steadily increasing.
so far history has repeated, so why should this be different? Im not saying it's mega pump time just yet, but I am saying the the slide has halted.
The reason I say 490 is because the Trend line from the last 12 months is currently at that price, that's why i think we will bounce off it, consolidate at $430 and then go sideways and break that upper trend-line in Jan when it sits at about $430. From there steady growth gathering pace, before panic buying sets in again... and noobs start talking about the "S" curve again, and the cycle repeats.
See you at $5750 in June 2015...
all of this sounds good to me but I expect the Winks ETF to be approved before the end of the year which would certainly precipitate the run up
26.
Post 9257103 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
Am I the only one here who considers the recent bullish sentiment to be irrational?
The bulls' main argument for a trend reversal seems to be the fact that, after falling ~$400 from this summer's highs, we have seen the first really significant bounce upwards. Honestly, I think that crashing really hard after a months long downtrend isn't exactly the best advertisement for potential new buyers, despite the bounce. And we urgently need those newcomers in order to absorb the constant downward pressure applied by newly mined coins.
Except newly minted coins are not sold on exchanges.
27.
Post 9259903 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
With the leveling of the mining difficulty, inflation of the bitcoin money supply has fallen from 12% to 10% per annum. An instant 20% reduction in the new money supply has huge influence on tipping the equilibrium of the price.
Sure, good point. But I'd assume that rising prices will bring mining operations back in as the profitability of mining increases again, and inflation will pick up again. So I'm not sure if this will help a
sustainable rally to develop.
there is a fundamental misconception in your analysis that miners dump the coins they mine on exchanges, effectively putting pressure on the price.
in reality, there is a high probability that most of the mined coins, if sold, are sold in bulk to brokers OFF-exchange. there are numerous brokers out there offering to buy in bulk at a premium and considering privacy issues and exchange slippage it only makes sense for miners to get into supply agreements with them.
having said that, the exchange price is obviously impacted by this business because demand is satisfied elsewhere but this is not the same as selling pressure.
furthermore, in a scenario where price rises, mining operations will not want to sell coins AT ALL. in a bull market, miners are much better off holding on to their coins. therefore, the suggested "inflation" is negligible if not irrelevant as most of the newly minted coins do not reach the market, on or off exchange. in fact, this is exactly what substains rallies : buyers that would otherwise purchase OTC have no other options but to turn to exchanges.
28.
Post 9260004 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
there is a fundamental misconception in your analysis that miners dump the coins they mine on exchanges, effectively putting pressure on the price.
in reality, there is a high probability that most of the mined coins, if sold, are sold in bulk to brokers OFF-exchange. there are numerous brokers out there offering to buy in bulk at a premium and considering privacy issues and exchange slippage it only makes sense for miners to get into supply agreements with them.
Close, but in reality miners sell at a discount to OTC resellers, in cash, to avoid taxes. This is true for many of the Chinese miners.
Those OTC resellers turn around, and sell OTC at a premium to clients that want to avoid KYC compliance (no Coinbase, no exchanges).
Agree, this is more likely.
But considering we have seen some examples of advertised brokers actually buying at at premium, my guess is there is some kind of competition between brokers that effectively minimizes the discount charged to miners
29.
Post 9260466 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
there is a fundamental misconception in your analysis that miners dump the coins they mine on exchanges, effectively putting pressure on the price.
[...]
First off, I never talked about coins being dumped on exchanges. Maybe you are mistaking me for someone else? Also, my assertion still stands that a continuously watered down supply side increases downward pressure on the price, and I see no use in arguing that. Maybe your position is that there is no intersection between the OTC market and exchanges, but I have no reason to believe that this is actually the case. Actually, one obvious counter-example I can spontaneously think of would be the user "loaded", who is participating both in the OTC market and on the exchanges.
Second, I am doubtful that large industrial-scale mining operations engage in the speculation business on top of their main (mining) business. They most likely have massive regular expenses for employees, electricity, rent and of course for new hardware in order to stay competitive in the race for a large slice of the hash rate pie. I'd say this indicates that a certain amount of coins has to be sold in order to keep the operations running. And even if they are engaging in speculation - this just means that another failed attempt at a sustained rally will force them to sell a bunch of their held-back coins as soon as they realize that new buyers are not coming in to carry the rally further. So, that gives me one more reason why I suspect this current rally to fail spectacularly once the bulls run out of steam and momentum begins to decline.
BitFury founder and CEO Valery Vavilov indicated that the new funding will allow the company to complete production of its 28nm ASIC chip without selling the reserve bitcoins it has mined from its three industrial-scale data centres.
Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.
“We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price,” Vavilov added.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-raises-20-million-asic-development-mining-output/This is from the CEO of one of most important industrial scale mining operations.
For most of them, the "massive regular expenses" are paid for by massive VC investements. Don't forget that these entities also sell mining rigs at massive profit.
Money came easily to startup KnCMiner, which says it made $70 million in revenue in its first year of operations from selling bitcoin mining equipment.
This money is more than enough to cover for expenses. There was a miner convention no later than last week that kind of drove this point home : miners are some of the most bullish actors in the BTC scene. It is misguided to assume that they are selling most of their coins.
I am not arguing your analysis of the market but I don't believe your "inflation" argument to be a valid concern
30.
Post 9260757 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
Ok, fair enough. Thanks for the link, this is actually interesting.
I'm curious though if such miners will keep their faith and hold on to their coins with an iron fist even if the bear market continues into 2015. Time will tell, I guess.
Edit: On second thought, if large parts of the mining industry are subventionized by VC like that... how low would the price be without such subventions that allow miners to keep their coins off the market?
Interesting question but you also need to consider the profit generated by sale of mining rigs. VC investment is only one component of the invested capital. If we speculate that many companies follow KNC's and BitFury's mining model, then it is likely that only a fraction of their VC money is required to keep running :
Step 1. Design & produce a chip
Step 2. Mine bitcoins with new chip
Step 3. Sell new chip to clients
Step. 4. Use profit from sale to fund development of a newer chip
Rinse & Repeat.
At present it appears that only the business of manufacturing chip & selling them is profitable to some entities. Therefore, for the biggest ones out there, using their chip to mine on a larger scale could seem like an extra curricular activity with limited effect on their short term bottom line and considerable upside on the long term
31.
Post 9261520 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
WHales are playing games with us at their will. Hobo whale adding and removing 10k wall, pushing price up and down whenever he feels like it. Absolutely perfect market to lose money in it if trading.
This is the thing. Whales are accumulating coins. Until they say, "
I'm packed now, lets go to the moon"Hopefully we don't have to wait for this because I fear this could take a while.
I know good news hasn't had an impact in awhile but I'm hoping we carry this momentum to some big news that spurs new adoption
32.
Post 9261643 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
WHales are playing games with us at their will. Hobo whale adding and removing 10k wall, pushing price up and down whenever he feels like it. Absolutely perfect market to lose money in it if trading.
This is the thing. Whales are accumulating coins. Until they say, "
I'm packed now, lets go to the moon"Hopefully we don't have to wait for this because I fear this could take a while.
I know good news hasn't had an impact in awhile but I'm hoping we carry this momentum to some big news that spurs new adoption
Why would they be in a hurry? If the market is such that you can manipulate in your favor, you do, until it is no longer profitable to do so. The tide will turn when it turns. We'll just patiently wait it out. Well, I guess some of you give up your coins. That, after all, is what makes it profitable for them.
My point, exactly.
33.
Post 9262354 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
At the moment Bitcoin looks like just another scammy pump and dump coin.
These fucking traders are horrible. I wish they would move on to something else they can destroy.
You should just quit now.
When Wall Street enters, you're gonna be left with a heart attack.
34.
Post 9262407 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
With the leveling of the mining difficulty, inflation of the bitcoin money supply has fallen from 12% to 10% per annum. An instant 20% reduction in the new money supply has huge influence on tipping the equilibrium of the price.
Sure, good point. But I'd assume that rising prices will bring mining operations back in as the profitability of mining increases again, and inflation will pick up again. So I'm not sure if this will help a
sustainable rally to develop.
Remember that inflation used to be much higher
Yep, it was much higher but the the coins were being mined by "hobbyists" who didn't sell them. Right now the majority of coins are being mined in china where they have very little incentive of keeping them.
"As a response to the decline in the bitcoin price during the quarter, the company decided to reduce the number of bitcoins sold from its mining operations. It plans to sell its mined cryptocurrecy when the market value tilts in its favour."
http://www.zdnet.com/bitcoin-hoard-no-remedy-for-negative-cashflow-7000034841/Wow thanks for this link
There is some very interesting information in there from the September quarter report of DigitalCCLimited, parent company of the digitalX Direct platform used by GABI for OTC purchases :
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20141020/pdf/42t0mqrygyzd74.pdf
35.
Post 9262468 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
With the leveling of the mining difficulty, inflation of the bitcoin money supply has fallen from 12% to 10% per annum. An instant 20% reduction in the new money supply has huge influence on tipping the equilibrium of the price.
Sure, good point. But I'd assume that rising prices will bring mining operations back in as the profitability of mining increases again, and inflation will pick up again. So I'm not sure if this will help a
sustainable rally to develop.
Remember that inflation used to be much higher
Yep, it was much higher but the the coins were being mined by "hobbyists" who didn't sell them. Right now the majority of coins are being mined in china where they have very little incentive of keeping them.
"As a response to the decline in the bitcoin price during the quarter, the company decided to reduce the number of bitcoins sold from its mining operations. It plans to sell its mined cryptocurrecy when the market value tilts in its favour."
http://www.zdnet.com/bitcoin-hoard-no-remedy-for-negative-cashflow-7000034841/Wow thanks for this link
There is some very interesting information in there from the September quarter report of DigitalCCLimited, parent company of the digitalX Direct platform used by GABI for OTC purchases :
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20141020/pdf/42t0mqrygyzd74.pdffrom this we can assume GABI has bought no more than 2.5 millions $ worth of bitcoins so far.
"Significant increase in volume of bitcoins traded through Liquidity Desk operations with bitcoins sales of US$2.5 million during the quarter"
"This has been particularly evident for the company's Liquidity Desk operations with two "first ever" transactions, one with the bitcoin hedge fund GABI and another with derivatives exchange TeraExchange, being undertaken with regulated counterparties."
36.
Post 9292330 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
https://vimeo.com/107764380anyone caught that BitReserve video?
I have a feeling these guys are gonna be big time once they launch to the public.
My guess is 2015 is gonna see some full scale marketing campaigns from some of the big players (Circle, BitReserve, Coinbase)
37.
Post 9292643 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
Should we keep track of every $ fraud as well
38.
Post 9294325 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
price seems very stable. in the next month there will be an opening of an etf and we will see a new bubble
. however, don't sell now.
How the ETF is going to push the price up ? Winklevoss already owns a shitload of coins that will be liquidating at that ETF, with this kind of really slow demand and with the amount of coins they own it will be a long time before anything could happen, them holding that shit load of coins is one of the reasons the price is still holding.
Beside, don't even mention wall street and this ETF until we see how the Bitlicence is going to look like, if it will be remotely close to what the regulators of NY state are aiming for, then you just kiss wall street and that ETF goodbye.
Exchange demand != actual demand
ETF also create gateway for unseen amount of investors liquidity the type of which has never had access to bitcoin before.
Also, the ETF does not depend on the BitLicenses to operate.
39.
Post 9294828 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
price seems very stable. in the next month there will be an opening of an etf and we will see a new bubble
. however, don't sell now.
How the ETF is going to push the price up ? Winklevoss already owns a shitload of coins that will be liquidating at that ETF, with this kind of really slow demand and with the amount of coins they own it will be a long time before anything could happen, them holding that shit load of coins is one of the reasons the price is still holding.
Beside, don't even mention wall street and this ETF until we see how the Bitlicence is going to look like, if it will be remotely close to what the regulators of NY state are aiming for, then you just kiss wall street and that ETF goodbye.
Exchange demand != actual demand
ETF also create gateway for unseen amount of investors liquidity the type of which has never had access to bitcoin before.
Also, the ETF does not depend on the BitLicenses to operate.
See, I think some of you don't even really read the whole post, demand is not going to effect the market for long time, because Winklevoss got a shitload of coins that needs to be liquidated.... and yes, the Bitlicense is going to effect this ETF if it is going to operate in New York... I wont even start with wall street.
I think some people are questioning your definition of "shitload" and "long time". They have over 1 million bitcoins, sure, which will be 5 million "shares" according to their filings. A lot of people think an ETF will bring in multiple millions of people into the market. Those 5 million shares won't last a "long time" if 2% of the US population says to throw one of those Bitcoin shares into my 401k. Sure that is hard to imagine, and borders on the absurd give the current state of things, but its just as valid a speculation as yours.
The Winklevoss actually own not much more than 100k coins I believe which is a drop in the ocean of liquidity made available by the ETF
40.
Post 9294880 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
price seems very stable. in the next month there will be an opening of an etf and we will see a new bubble
. however, don't sell now.
How the ETF is going to push the price up ? Winklevoss already owns a shitload of coins that will be liquidating at that ETF, with this kind of really slow demand and with the amount of coins they own it will be a long time before anything could happen, them holding that shit load of coins is one of the reasons the price is still holding.
Beside, don't even mention wall street and this ETF until we see how the Bitlicence is going to look like, if it will be remotely close to what the regulators of NY state are aiming for, then you just kiss wall street and that ETF goodbye.
Exchange demand != actual demand
ETF also create gateway for unseen amount of investors liquidity the type of which has never had access to bitcoin before.
Also, the ETF does not depend on the BitLicenses to operate.
See, I think some of you don't even really read the whole post, demand is not going to effect the market for long time, because Winklevoss got a shitload of coins that needs to be liquidated.... and yes, the Bitlicense is going to effect this ETF if it is going to operate in New York... I wont even start with wall street.
The Winklevoss ETF is not a money transmitter. They don't fall under the BitLicenses regulation
41.
Post 9294901 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
Winklevosses, Draper, Horrowitz, Wilson, the list goes on and on and only serves to show: The establishment in Silicon Valley is already on board of Bitcoin, and they will never allow the price to get too low (long-term) as long as they haven't cashed out yet. If they wanted, they already have not only the financial but the legal means to prevent new lows. It's completely legal to manipulate Bitcoin prices.
This has been my thinking as well.
Not only can they prevent new low, they can also launch a new rally on a whim whenever it best fits their plans.
42.
Post 9295044 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
Winklevosses, Draper, Horrowitz, Wilson, the list goes on and on and only serves to show: The establishment in Silicon Valley is already on board of Bitcoin, and they will never allow the price to get too low (long-term) as long as they haven't cashed out yet. If they wanted, they already have not only the financial but the legal means to prevent new lows. It's completely legal to manipulate Bitcoin prices.
nah, these guys loses millions in order to make millions, they don't profit in every single investment they make, they allow a really good amount of failure chance before investing, even Marc Andreessen admitted it last time when he was asked " do you allow for the fact that you could be wrong about Bitcoin?"
you can watch his answer here You don't understand the premise here. They can literally control this market at their whim.
It is not a coincidence that most major VCs are betting on Bitcoin. Of course the politically correct thing to say is they could be wrong but in the back of their head they have a pretty good sense that they're right.
Marc Andreesen also said they would be developing a 100 million dollar fund around Bitcoin/blockchain in the coming years. That doesn't appear to me like someone who truly thinks he could be wrong.
43.
Post 9295106 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
Not only can they prevent new low, they can also launch a new rally on a whim whenever it best fits their plans.
Someone give them a call. Price action says they are needed pretty soon.
One could suggest they are responsible for current price action.
Someone is not done accumulating at these cheap prices
44.
Post 9295322 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
...
One could suggest they are responsible for current price action.
...
One could, if one was really desperate.
You would know about desperation
45.
Post 9296511 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
The lulziest one. The one that took Bitcoin to ATH, persuading some lunatics that it wasn't a fluke but a reasonable "investment."
To this day some refuse to accept their pathetic predicament, clinging clumsily to their (grossly devalued) coin in hopes of Fortuna smiling upon them again.
But, just like me, she responds only with guileless, childlike laughter.
can't wait for the next fluke
46.
Post 9296718 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
Winklevosses, Draper, Horrowitz, Wilson, the list goes on and on and only serves to show: The establishment in Silicon Valley is already on board of Bitcoin, and they will never allow the price to get too low (long-term) as long as they haven't cashed out yet. If they wanted, they already have not only the financial but the legal means to prevent new lows. It's completely legal to manipulate Bitcoin prices.
nah, these guys loses millions in order to make millions, they don't profit in every single investment they make, they allow a really good amount of failure chance before investing, even Marc Andreessen admitted it last time when he was asked " do you allow for the fact that you could be wrong about Bitcoin?"
you can watch his answer here You don't understand the premise here. They can literally control this market at their whim.
It is not a coincidence that most major VCs are betting on Bitcoin. Of course the politically correct thing to say is they could be wrong but in the back of their head they have a pretty good sense that they're right.
Marc Andreesen also said they would be developing a 100 million dollar fund around Bitcoin/blockchain in the coming years. That doesn't appear to me like someone who truly thinks he could be wrong.
Everything is based on risk/reward. If someone gave you 3-1 on a coinflip you would accept it instantly, but you could easily lose. Moreover, if they demanded you wager your entire net worth, the math would direct you to decline the offer.
the risk is increasingly becoming NOT to invest in BTC
47.
Post 9304231 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.25h):
Who are buying bitcoins now? Or do you wait for the price to even be lower or do you sell out everything? I've seen people saying that they fear the fall and end of BTC but many people just claim things they aren't so sure about. I mean that there are companies that does accept bitcoin and I am sure many more will, in the future. They aren't spending money, fiat, on something they don't belive in right. But what do they know that we dont know lol.
For months all the idiots here were praying for cheap coins. Every crash was amazing news. Best thing ever.
They expected that as soon as they bought a few "cheap coins" the price would move to 1k again.
Now they found out those days are over and the price isn't going anywhere but down.
People are getting out. There are no big players waiting to get in. There is no Wallstreet. There is no secret accumulation. It all turned out complete bs.
Bitcoin is dying. The party is over. The only thing it's good for are daily pump and dumps.
Nobody in real life is interested in Bitcoin. Apple pay did in a short time what Bitcoin couldn't achieve in years.
Unless you want to send money overseas and often there is no reason to use Bitcoin.
Average Joe doesn't give a shit about fees or decentralization and all the other Bitcoin selling points.
It's over.
While you're over here worrying about your measly investment in Bitcoin.
These people, some of which certainly could've been earning 6 figures salaries in traditional fintech companies, are betting their career on a new Bitcoin venture.
They are not early Bitcoin adopters. They are traditional finance vets who can see the bigger picture and realize where the future is headed.
Do you think they care about the price?
48.
Post 9315538 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.26h):
Repeating yourself doesn't help to make your point. If the consumers don't "know their money is being sent using the bitcoin network," how are they learning about Bitcoin? How are they in a better position to use Bitcoin without relying on the infrastructure they have grown to trust, i.e. for-profit gateways providing it?
They will learn Bitcoin is better money, with more features and eventually the same security they have grown accustomed to.
49.
Post 9315622 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.26h):
No mate. They don't have to convince consumers. That's the point. They'll never know their money is being sent using the bitcoin network just like people don't know anything about http works when they're surfing the web now. To the consumer, the infrastructure and methodology they use will be the same as it is now. There's no leap of faith they have to make.
https://stripe.com/blog/bitcoin-the-stripe-perspectiveOh I'm sorry but this is a wrong and myopic way to see Bitcoin's future.
There is NO hiding Bitcoin from the consumer unless Bitcoin essentially becomes a Ripple adopted by banks and this is not the goal here.
To fully realises the promises of Bitcoin they absolutely will have to convince consumers to use Bitcoin.
Fortunately the arguments will be many and greed will do the heavy lifting.
50.
Post 9330078 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.26h):
When the panic buys come and there is no Mt Gox to sell fractional reserve coins, how much faster will the price rise?
Interesting angle.
and no China to fake ban Bitcoin
51.
Post 9339860 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.26h):
There are surely better coins. but not accepted by community.
So there is very low chances other crypto coin will survive.
Even LTC people loosing interest.
which coins are better than Bitcoin exactly?
52.
Post 9344485 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.27h):
shakeout of weak hands finally complete?
made a panic move myself there losing a tiny bit
There is no such thing as shaking out the weak hands.
I've been reading that exact same at least twice a week since we went down from $1200.
there's weak hands to shake at every price level
53.
Post 9361426 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.27h):
It just hit me that Money20/20 is next week.
Expect some big announcement from Bitcoin companies.
54.
Post 9378015 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.27h):
You guys think Money 20/20 will cause any significant movements?
Winklevoss give keynote
Lawsky giving keynote
Bitcoin world is going to be there
Lots of big names as well
wow I didn't know the Winks would be giving a keynote
Yes I do expect great news to come out of this conference
NEXT WEEK IS CRITICAL !
55.
Post 9408638 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.28h):
Higher difficulty means less profit for miners, so they need to dump more percentage of their daily mining income to pay bills.... That's something bad for bitcoin price (and only good for security).
Highers transactions means more users, but if they are not willing to buy then it doesn't mean price will go up. People like to invest when price is going up, and when they look last year chart they get scared as fuck. This users will probably buy, but they will feel the real urge to buy when bitcoin is 2x or 3x over ATH because bitcoin will be "cool again" and they won't want to "miss the train".
I have discussed at length in the other thread why it is naive to assume that miners (well most of the ones that matter i.e. industrial ones) have to dump their bitcoins in order to pay bills.
They have several other revenue streams that can cover these costs.
56.
Post 9408645 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.28h):
Highers transactions means more users, but if they are not willing to buy then it doesn't mean price will go up. People like to invest when price is going up, and when they look last year chart they get scared as fuck. This users will probably buy, but they will feel the real urge to buy when bitcoin is 2x or 3x over ATH because bitcoin will be "cool again" and they won't want to "miss the train".
And I'm also convinced it is growing faster because people are sending more bitcoins to exchanges and expending them, adding more selling pressure.
I think bitcoin will have a shiny future, but it will need time to develop, maybe 6, 12 or 18 months. It is not magically goin to rally like lot of people think here.
but what if higher transactions translates to more coins being bought off exchange?
that sound like a pretty bullish scenario would you not agree?
57.
Post 9408714 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.28h):
I would like to read that thread. Can you give me link?
Even if that's true, part of that coins are probably sold to lock profits and others in order to wait for the trend to change.
Would me less than if they need to sell nearly all to pay bills, but still adding selling pressure though.
some of my posts from the therad
Well if the mining profit margins are so narrow, how are they staying in operation without dumping BTC for fiat to cover their costs? They must have endless reserves of cash to hold all that BTC until the price rebounds right?
1. They have millions of dollars from selling mining gears
2. They have millions of dollars from VC investement
3. They have millions of dollars in Bitcoin profit from mining in the early days
So yes they must be burning through quite a lot of cash right now but in the long run they will be fine and they know it. Of course I am not suggesting they are ALL holding 100% of the Bitcoin mined but my guess is they are holding a good majority of them.
[/quote]
Miners are industry insiders at the top of the pyramid. I'm sure they are pretty confident about BTC's future.
BitFury founder and CEO Valery Vavilov indicated that the new funding will allow the company to complete production of its 28nm ASIC chip without selling the reserve bitcoins it has mined from its three industrial-scale data centres.
Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.
"We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price," Vavilov added.
Here's another one from Josh Garza from GAWMiners at Hashers United conference :
Garza voiced the least concern regarding the price, saying that ultimately, the value of bitcoin is underpinned not so much by the consumers and merchants who use and accept digital currency but by the miners who facilitate the whole network.
“Miners believe in the currency the most,” he said.
More from this conference :
Terpin polled the crowd by asking how many sell a certain percentage of their bitcoins for fiat currencies like the dollar. One only miner raised their hand when Terpin asked if they sold 100% of their bitcoin for dollars, and about one-third of the crowd indicated that they don’t sell any of their generated bitcoins.
Again, I'm not saying all of the miners keep 100% of their coins but it is naive to believe the majority of them dump their Bitcoins for fiat
The thread is here :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=833155.0
58.
Post 9408940 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.28h):
The jury is still out on that. There have been many things "backed by nothing" that were highly prized and profitable -- for a while.
Success is never truly final unless something comes to an end. In the case of Bitcoin it is more of a process and considering the mind share and capital it has attracted in the 6 last years I would be very comfortable to say that Bitcoin is presently a success
59.
Post 9442272 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.29h):
I love that we have the internet just so that these idiots ignorance can eventually get exposed
60.
Post 9451758 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.29h):
61.
Post 9495065 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.30h):
How long until 400
62.
Post 9513655 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.30h):
looks like Vaurum rebranded :
https://mirrorx.com/interesting
63.
Post 9527505 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.31h):
64.
Post 9527509 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.31h):
Huobi has just gone mental
65.
Post 9527668 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.31h):
I hope Adam is enjoying this, wherever he is
66.
Post 9527675 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.31h):
Is Bitstamp dry?
I can't imagine what will happen tomorrow when deposits get it
67.
Post 9527758 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.31h):
that 3D green dildo is looking alright
68.
Post 9533996 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.31h):
Sellers are going to be completely butt-hurt next week. If you can't see the change in sentiment, media exposure, awareness...then you don't deserve to hold coins
I truly hope you are right but we've seen this before. A rally to 400+ and as soon as the buying stops and the dumpers start dumping as if their life depends on it. Unless the buying continues these monkeys will take us down to 350 or worse in no time. And i think this is the situation we are in now.
Another failed rally.
Another 2 months of downtrend.
you need professional help
69.
Post 9538018 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.31h):
if manipulator ddosing what would they gain?
Limit traders access to information
70.
Post 9544958 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.31h):
I wish I would have started with bitcoins two years ago
you're at the moment still an early adopter
When I discovered Bitcoin almost 2 years ago, I wished it had been 2 years earlier.
As I helplessly watched the price rise from $15 to over $60 while I tried to acquire some, I envied those who'd paid pennies.
Now my $68 coins look pretty good. In another 2 years today's $400 coins will seem dirt cheap.
We are indeed still all early adopters.
If the price would've been at 10k today would you still say we're early adopters?
It is all relative, if everyone in the world ends up using Bitcoin then certainly those who got in at 10k could be considered early adopters
71.
Post 9545169 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.31h):
The world is already adopting ripple , not bitcoin.
where are all these ripple users
72.
Post 9548771 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
Coinbase being valued at 400,000,000$ is pretty bullish.
How long until we get our first billion $ company.
73.
Post 9557902 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
This is why I think that that cannot be the support for the bitcoin price for a long, long time. I think that the main steady state drive will be "buying stuff", with my formula.
Speculation will be the driving force for Bitcoin until mass adoption.
It was designed by Satoshi to be so. Speculation is the bootstrapping method for Bitcoin to gain mass acceptance and only then will it realize its promises as a mean-of-exchange
74.
Post 9558005 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
that monetary velocity formula is a convenient fiction for ivory tower academic economists, e.g. I don't see anything about an human psychology factor in there.
Here's the one I use:
Bmo = N x A
Bmo ~ total value bitcoin M0 (also called 'market cap')
N ~ total number of entities holding bitcoins
A ~ average Amount of value holding entities are willing to hold in btc
It appears likely that N is only going to keep increasing for the forseeable future (perhaps with exponential adoption rates at times).
A will stay around the same but also may increase as the confidence in holding value in btc becomes firmer.
Yes, that is also correct, but it is the aspect of aggregate demand for store of value in bitcoin.
In fact, you ALSO have a "velocity" aspect in your formula, but it is hidden in N !
You are considering people "storing value for a long time" in N.
But it is in fact the "average number of people at a given moment in time wanting to store value A in bitcoin".
This average could be made up by 100 people holding coins indefinitely ; or it could be made up by 1200 people per year wanting to store value A for a month. Or it could be made up by 10 people per year wanting to store value for 10 years.
As I said in my earlier posting, I don't believe that bitcoin will be considered as a secure store of value for a very, very long time. I think the main price drive will come from bitcoin buying stuff.
Honestly, would *you* store value in bitcoin right now, if you didn't have any expectation of growth of its value ("to the moon") ?
I wouldn't but the reality is the expectation of growth in its value exist and you cannot simply pretend to remove it from your equation because it fits your argument.
Bitcoin is absolutely a secure store of value. More secure than any alternatives on the market. Stable? Obviously not but is stability a requisite to qualify as a store of value? I do not think so. Especially when considering this growth expectation it makes even more sense to store the value of your wealth in such an asset.
If you choose to ignore the daily fluctuation and look at the big picture, Bitcoin has been trending up since its inception. It has been what some would qualify as an EXCELLENT store of value historically, especially for those who were early to adopt it.
So far Bitcoin as grown exactly because of its store of value properties and certainly NOT because of "Bitcoin buying stuff". Why should we expect this to change so soon?
75.
Post 9558020 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
that monetary velocity formula is a convenient fiction for ivory tower academic economists, e.g. I don't see anything about an human psychology factor in there.
Here's the one I use:
Bmo = N x A
Bmo ~ total value bitcoin M0 (also called 'market cap')
N ~ total number of entities holding bitcoins
A ~ average Amount of value holding entities are willing to hold in btc
It appears likely that N is only going to keep increasing for the forseeable future (perhaps with exponential adoption rates at times).
A will stay around the same but also may increase as the confidence in holding value in btc becomes firmer.
Yes, that is also correct, but it is the aspect of aggregate demand for store of value in bitcoin.
In fact, you ALSO have a "velocity" aspect in your formula, but it is hidden in N !
You are considering people "storing value for a long time" in N.
But it is in fact the "average number of people at a given moment in time wanting to store value A in bitcoin".
This average could be made up by 100 people holding coins indefinitely ; or it could be made up by 1200 people per year wanting to store value A for a month. Or it could be made up by 10 people per year wanting to store value for 10 years.
As I said in my earlier posting, I don't believe that bitcoin will be considered as a secure store of value for a very, very long time. I think the main price drive will come from bitcoin buying stuff.
Honestly, would *you* store value in bitcoin right now, if you didn't have any expectation of growth of its value ("to the moon") ?
I wouldn't but the reality is the expectation of growth in its value exist and you cannot simply pretend to remove it from your equation because it fits your argument.
Bitcoin is absolutely a secure store of value. More secure than any alternatives on the market. Stable? Obviously not but is stability a requisite to qualify as a store of value? I do not think so. Especially when considering this growth expectation it makes even more sense to store the value of your wealth in such an asset.
If you choose to ignore the daily fluctuation and look at the big picture, Bitcoin has been trending up since its inception. It has been what some would qualify as an EXCELLENT store of value historically, especially for those who were early to adopt it.
So far Bitcoin as grown exactly because of its store of value properties and certainly NOT because of "Bitcoin buying stuff". Why should we expect this to change so soon?
TL;DR : All hail the hoarders
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/im-hoarding-bitcoins-and-no-you-cant-have-any/
76.
Post 9558446 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
You seem to miss the point. Growth ('to the moon') can obviously not last indefinitely. At a certain point, steady state will have to set in. Every form of speculation is essentially based upon a bet on that steady state value which is expected to be higher than right now, so that kind of speculation (which is now the main drive) will have to stop one day.
Steady? As in... fixed? You do know that Bitcoin is a
deflationary currency correct? Which means yes, the growth CAN and WILL last indefinitely.
So I propose to make the mental exercise to put yourself in the hypothetical situation where you eliminate mentally that speculative purpose, and try to find out your own drive to put value into bitcoin *for store of value* reasons, and not for "to the moon" speculative reasons. I very well know that the actual situation is the speculative "to the moon" drive. But in order to find out what is going to be the steady state situation, you have to be able to find out what would be the drive to hold bitcoin *without* speculative "to the moon" drive.
Well the list is pretty long, but if you insist here's a few : 1. Deflationary 2. Ideal property as money 3. Distributed and outside the reach of any singular entity (read: government) 4. Programmable 5. Highly secure 6. Unseizable
So in order to make that exercise, suppose that six months from now, for one or another reason, the bitcoin price has gone up to $ 500 000,- (and not because the dollar collapsed) and it stays there for 6 other months with fluctuations of 10% or so. Obviously, at that price, the "to the moon" expectation afterwards is gone. You do not expect it to rise to 10 million, do you. You might still hope for a small factor of 2 or 3, but that's it.
I can certainly envision it reaching 10 million per BTC in my lifetime. But lemme play along to your "scenario"....
Are you going to put your savings at that moment in $ 500 000,- coins ? Seriously ?
(or are you going to sell part of what you have to cash in ? :-) ).
At this point it is clear you have no understanding of the dynamics at stake. At 500,000$ per coin I have no interest for your worthless fiat. No I am NEVER going to cash out because at that point it is clear and beyond evident that BTC has won. So yes, I am going to make sure every single penny I have is used to buy BTC. In fact, disregarding your speculative scenario, I can confirm to you that I am going to make this move MUCH earlier
This, to find out if you *really* consider bitcoin a good store of value for your savings without any "to the moon" speculation anymore, just a reasonable potential to rise somewhat, like other stores of value like gold, real estate and the like.
[/quote]
Bitcoin is a GREAT store of value, the best there is in fact. The reason for this is it is simply the best form of money that has ever been created. Gold pales in comparison to Bitcoin. Real estate can be seized through coercion or devalued by speculative market.
You are obviously missing the point, right. *Of course* the speculative drive is the strongest one. But it cannot last, of course. Once it is over, I'm trying to find out what would be the drive. Because ultimately, *that* drive is what is going to give bitcoin any value as store of value. Otherwise, it is indeed, just Ponzi, if nothing holds it up once it cannot grow anymore. Just to be clear, I don't think it is Ponzi. But in order for it not to be, one has a clear view on its fundamentals. Fundamentals are never "growth to infinity", but are "steady state" arguments that are sustainable.
In the long term, fundamentals always win. That is why a real Ponzi, which has no fundamentals, always collapses.
So I'm trying to find out what are the fundamentals of bitcoin. As I said, my opinion is that it is "money to buy stuff". Some think it is "store of value". My *opinion* which can be wrong, is that that can only come much later. But "expectations to the moon" are never fundamentals by themselves.
The fundamentals are that Bitcoin is the best form of money that exists. Point blank. Period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKkfhi8Eaiw
77.
Post 9558461 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
This is why I think that that cannot be the support for the bitcoin price for a long, long time. I think that the main steady state drive will be "buying stuff", with my formula.
Speculation will be the driving force for Bitcoin until mass adoption.
It was designed by Satoshi to be so. Speculation is the bootstrapping method for Bitcoin to gain mass acceptance and only then will it realize its promises as a mean-of-exchange
Of course. But speculation is always based upon an expectation in the future, and if that expectation is wrong, the speculator looses. So rational speculation is based upon a long term estimate of the fundamentals.
And my aim here is to find out what those fundamentals are. As you say, it can be mass adoption as "means-of-exchange", and then the "quantity theory of money" jumps in to indicate what will be the price of things in bitcoin, which will inversely indicate what will be the market price of bitcoin (as compared to other monetary assets such as $ that can buy the same stuff).
The market value of bitcoin "as a means of exchange" will then be the fundamental, and it is determined by how much stuff one can buy with it, and what is the average holding time between such buys, as that will determine the aggregate demand for bitcoin, and hence determine its market value.
The *other* fundamental is "store of value for the long term". In my opinion, that can only come in once bitcoin is established as a means-of-exchange for some time. Maybe I'm wrong here.
But speculation by itself, cannot be a fundamental. It has to AIM for a fundamental. And I'd like, in this discussion, to find out what it is.
Read this here :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9247581#msg9247581These are the fundamentals we are dealing with.
78.
Post 9558863 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
Yes, but that doesn't give you any idea of its market share in 'steady state', nor as specific parameters such as hold time, and as such cannot be used to estimate a price. Of course bitcoin has good potential. But the price is not determined by that.
Government can kill bitcoin very simply, by rendering it illegal: openly, or by putting regulations on it that make it too difficult to handle. Then bitcoin is reduced to the black market as it was for a good part recently. I think, btw, that government is the biggest threat to bitcoin.
Some government making Bitcoin illegal will only serve to legitimize it and accelerate its growth. Remember also that Bitcoin is GLOBAL, I don't believe you suggest all of the worlds' governement would ban BTC do you?
The market share, in the proposed "steady state" can only be 100%. Only when it has attained 100% of its potential market adoption does it then become "steady". The universe wants ONE money. Good money drives out bad money.
I'm trying to make you make a gedanken experiment. That doesn't seem to work. I'm asking you how much you honestly would put bitcoin at work as a store of value without huge expectations in gain (eventually just fluctuations and economic growth, which is the normal value evolution of any collectable) ; and in how much you think majority of people are going to act like that. Because *that* is what is going to determine its market share of the "store of value" aggregate demand, and hence part of its price.
The $500 000,- was just a mental exercise to make you think of a situation where "to the moon" growth is not to be considered anymore. My opinion on that is that most people holding bitcoin are mostly into it for the "to the moon" scenario, and NOT as a store of value without much hope of spectacular rise in the next 10 years or so.
I do not have to argue against your misrepresentation of Bitcoin holders. So without any huge expectations in gain, and given a scenario where BTC's value is "stable" I would put 100% of my wealth into it for the reasons stated previously :
1. Deflationary 2. Ideal property as money 3. Distributed and outside the reach of any singular entity (read: government) 4. Programmable 5. Highly secure 6. Unseizable
There are of course people who think that fiat will collapse and so on, but that is certainly not such a big majority that they can carry a market cap worth of hundreds of billions of dollars. People able to carry such a market cap are probably still into fiat and other stores of value.
Again, good money drives out bad money. Given a choice to transfer their stake 1:1 into Bitcoin and have it remain "stable" then it is obvious that given proper education and some time to realize the benefits of Bitcoin money vs. Fiat the choice would be a no brainer.
My point is not to argue what people *should* do, but what they are *going* to do. And my claim is, that today, and in the coming few years, there's not enough aggregate demand for store of value in bitcoin (without the speculative 'to the moon' aspect) that could sustain a high bitcoin price. That can only come much, much later in my opinion, in at least a decade or a few decades, and on the condition that bitcoin has had *another* support, namely as a means-to-buy-stuff.
Your point is useless if you choose to ignore the speculative aspect. This is simply a dishonest way to argue against reality.
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/speculative-attack/Bitcoin will not be eagerly adopted by the mainstream, it will be forced upon them. Forced, as in "compelled by economic reality". People will be forced to pay with bitcoins, not because of 'the technology', but because no one will accept their worthless fiat for payments. Contrary to popular belief, good money drives out bad. This "driving out" has started as a small fiat bleed. It will rapidly escalate into Class IV hemorrhaging due to speculative attacks on weak fiat currencies. The end result will be hyperbitcoinization, i.e. "your money is no good here".
Yes, all this is true in theory. The question is how much people RIGHT NOW and in the few coming years are going to take that argument and are going to put their value according to that statement.
I don't see many people selling their real estate to buy bitcoin because they are afraid it might get seized. Because the opposite side of the medal is that government renders bitcoin illegal. Then they cannot seize it, but what are you going to do with your coins ? Flee to a country where you can still exchange it against something ? Against what ? Fiat ? Real estate ?
You see, I also agree with all those potential aspects. But the price is made in the market, and is a matter of offer and demand. The part of demand that is speculative "to the moon" is not sustainable. So one has to have other steady state demands that are the ultimate drive to base speculation on.
This is where we disagree again and where I have to insist that your argument is disingenuous and brings no value to the discussion. The speculative "to the moon" aspect is absolutely substainable. In fact it is only getting started.
My claim is that right now, these fundamentals are:
- the stuff you can buy with bitcoin (growing, but still small, except maybe black markets)
- store of value in the long term, of which I think that for the moment, without speculative "to the moon" drive, there is not much, and there won't be as long as "the stuff you can buy with bitcoin" is not the main carrier of the aggregate demand.
Step aside from your dream for a moment because
right now, the speculative "to the moon" drive is alive and well.
So your claim is essentially, that bitcoin will take over all of the money market, and the store of value market.
That the 50 trillion dollar equivalent worldwide of M2 fiat money will completely turn into bitcoin. And you think that governments will let that happen any time soon. And that most of the rest of store of value will be in bitcoin (gold, ...).
When do you think that will happen ? A century from now ? 50 years from now ?
Yes I believe this could happen. I don't want to guarantee it but it is likely and becoming more inevitable every day.
Governments will be powerless unless they turn into full on tyranical totalitarian states which I can tell you that as much power as you can bestow to governments history has shown that they are effectively no match against a full on revolution.
If it does happen. Then it will be MUCH quicker than you would tend to believe. And IMO, yes gold will be relegated to a useless relic used only for certain industrial purposes. It is no match for Bitcoin.
It is a way to look at things, but I would give it a rather low probability. It is probably much more realistic that bitcoin will take a small share of the market, and try to estimate that. That will happen much sooner, a few decades from now at most.
Either Bitcoin is relegated to insignificance or its network effects gobbles up all of the financial world. Assuming that Bitcoin will satisfy itself with a "small" share of the market and stagnate is even less probable and IMO very naive.
79.
Post 9558944 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
Good money drives out bad money.
Gresham's law? It is commonly stated as: "Bad money drives out good".
Your arguments would be a whole lot more palatable without the ad hominems.
Thiers law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_law#Reverse_of_Gresham.27s_Law_.28Thiers.27_Law.29Gresham's does not apply to BTC.
80.
Post 9562135 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
The universe doesn't want any one money. Even with gold, there was also silver. And there are many, many other stores of value, such as famous paintings and other artwork, real estate and so on.
Of course it does. The reason why we had silver to complement gold was because of physical issues pertaining to divisibility, transportation and weight. Those do not exist in the digital world.
There is no silver to BTC.
I wouldn't be so sure that a few big governments wouldn't agree on banning bitcoin. For the moment bitcoin has legal problems in Russia and in China to a certain extend. The day the US government also jumps in, I don't see how bitcoin can become a universal currency rapidly.
It is too late for the US government to jump it. Bitcoin is now an industry in the US and they will face a colossal fuck up if they even attempt to squash it for what would be very anti-constitutional reasons.
Because, after all, as long as there is no general *merchant* adoption, the only gateway to "buying stuff" with bitcoin are exchanges between fiat and bitcoin. This is why I think that the first adoption has to be merchant adoption.
But it has to be more than that: merchant adoption has to be such that the price is quoted in bitcoin, and is not just the "latest conversion of the price in fiat according to the rate at a given exchange".
This is backwards thinking. First it becomes a store-of-value, then a means-of-exchange and ultimately a unit of account.
I don't think many people would, at the moment. I wouldn't. I might change my mind if I could buy most of the stuff directly quoted in bitcoin. If I could buy a car in bitcoin (and not as "a conversion from $ into bitcoin"). At that point, I would start to trust bitcoin as a store of value. I think many people would. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I wouldn't think right now, or in the coming years, that many people with a lot of money would put it into bitcoin as a store of value.
I think you're wrong. The features I have noted above demonstrate why it is so. Bitcoin is an infinitely better store of value than fiat. It has qualities that are too attractive for even the commoners to ignore. And as I've said above, it makes to sense to suggest Bitcoin would be used as a unit of account until it is adopted as a store of value.
The devil is in the details: it is in the assumption of "stable". Stable in the sense of buying power. That can only be taken seriously if a lot of important stuff can be bought directly quoted in bitcoin, I would think.
In several developing countries, you're probably right, and I think that developing countries are probably the potentially biggest attraction pool of bitcoin usage, because their fiat is not very reliable. But the main currencies, like Euro or $$, I don't think people would bet on bitcoin in the coming years as "safer".
Why not? It shields your wealth from inflation and keep it out of the hands of banks and mobsters. Buying power? Someone has informed you already but it is worth repeating that Bitcoin can buy any of the top major world currencies at extremely favorable exchange rates.
Would you prefer holding inflationary fiat that loses buying power or Bitcoin that grows it with time?
Your point is useless if you choose to ignore the speculative aspect. This is simply a dishonest way to argue against reality.
I do consider the speculative aspect, but the speculative big growth expectation has to be based upon something else than "more growth", because that is exactly what drives a Ponzi. There needs to be something else.
Now, I was given a clear answer: bitcoin is going to be the unique and universal money and value store.
Ok, but I do buy that only at very low probability in the foreseeable future, and I would think, most people with money, too.
I do not suggest that Bitcoin would become the one an only store of value but yes I do envision it become the unique money. Of course the probability is very low but the mere fact that it exists is what is responsible for that potential "to the moon" growth and therefore will continue to attract investors.
That makes me smile a bit. *Fiat* is forced upon you because you have to pay your taxes in fiat. As long as a government decides that you have to pay your taxes in fiat, and as long as taxes make up a serious fraction of the economy, bitcoin *can't* take over the whole of payments. Because fiat will be in high demand to be able to pay taxes with !
Of course, the day that you are allowed to pay your taxes in bitcoin, your hypothesis has come true. I don't see that happening for a long, long time. I would think that most people would think that too.
Simple : hold Bitcoins and cash out the necessary amount of fiat when it is time to pay your taxes. All the upsides of Bitcoin without the downsides of fiat.
At this point I am not so sure the government is gonna be interested in its own worthless fiat though... which is why they'll probably be happy to get paid in BTC
Once you are on the moon, the "to the moon" argument won't work anymore, right.
Now, I understand your stance here: you say that "to the moon" is a justified expectation as long as not everything monetary isn't done in bitcoin, and once everything is done in bitcoin, the discussion is over.
My point is that that scenario is highly unrealistic in the coming several decades, and if no "moon" is realised earlier, I think many will LEAVE bitcoin if there is no widespread merchant adoption.
You are severely underestimating the power of network effect and technology adoption. It is not a slow, linear growth. It is exponential and once we go vertical (following the typical technology adoption s-curve) then it is hyper-exponential.
If your scenario is realized 100 years from now, I'm honestly not interested, and I don't think many people would be interested. I'll be dead, my children will probably be dead, and I don't care further along the road. I don't think many people would buy into bitcoin if they had to wait for 100 years for "full moon".
And if your scenario is realized much earlier, I would be surprised. I don't think that 10 or 20 years from now, this will be the case. I wonder how many people would want to hold serious money into bitcoin waiting for more than 20 years "for full moon".
We don't have to wait for full moon. If Bitcoin continues its growth trend then WHO would not want to hold their wealth in Bitcoin, hell you are almost guaranteed a 10x increase in buying power EVERY YEAR. Another thing you are severely underestimating is human greed.
Just wait until we get to the next bubble and it will all become clear.
So we have to consider something less ambitious, but more realistic as a "fundamental". This is what I'm after. What will be the expected market share of bitcoin, say, in 20 or 30 years ? Because that gives a *realistic* idea of the price of bitcoin to expect.
And the realistic answer to that is either 0,01%-1% or 95-100%. There is no in between.
I have to disappoint you, but the current price doesn't indicate that. In order to have an idea what price expectations to hold realistically, you need also to have a realistic view on fundamentals in a few decades. And that's what I wanted to discuss. Now, you made your point, you think "full moon" is realistic. In that case, indeed, the real price should be tens of millions of $ per coin. Fact is, it isn't for the moment, which means that most market players don't think so. Now, of course, the main reason to be in a market is that one thinks one is smarter than the market - me too.
In order for a high price, say, $100 000, - to be sustainable, this would mean that enough people need to believe "full moon" with enough money. I don't think that moment is there yet.
Not there yet but just around the corner.
I would like to believe them, but unfortunately, I don't. I do think there is a place for bitcoin, but a much more modest one than you describe here (even though deep inside I wish you were right). In my opinion, the scenario you describe is at least a century away. It would be great if not, but I can't believe it.
Again, you severely understimate the hyperexponential growth of technologies and the overwhelming power of something that combines the network effect of a protocol (think the internet) and money.
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/why-bitcoin-will-continue-to-grow/
81.
Post 9562416 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
...
It is too late for the US government to jump it. Bitcoin is now an industry in the US and they will face a colossal fuck up if they even attempt to squash it for what would be very anti-constitutional reasons...
>a few bil. $$$ market cap
>most businesses located outside of US
An industry
And since when did US gubermint lackeys care about constitutionality, hmm?
Oh sorry, I forgot to include the usual "Lambroll, fuck off" advertisement.
82.
Post 9562485 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
I think you severely, severely underestimate the power of the financial-governmental complex. As long as the kids are playing in the park, they'll let you do. Once you are threatening their lucrative business of pumping productivity of the economy in the hands of their elite, all means are good to kill you. Wars have been fought over much less.
You think the old-boys networks of banksters and government are going to let this happen ?
I think when this is the only arguments doubters can come up with then half of the battle is won. The fact is bitcoin is an internet protocol, they can only hope to slow it down for so long until the masses unanimously reject their worthless fiat.
The banksters have their own economic crisis to worry about anyway.
.... as long as the banks and mobsters allow you to !
I see you've ran out of attempts at reasonable argumentation. That's okay.
Most technology adoption didn't have a flame-throwing dragon the size of US government and the banking sector fighting for its privileges in front of him :-)
They are well on their way to lose this privilege by their own action so Bitcoin is the lubricant that will ease and hasten the transition.
83.
Post 9565936 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
Fiat is designed to lose value, 2 percent in some countries, 2 1/2 in others. Bitcoin not.
Bitcoin too, until the year 2150 or something ! Although you are right that bitcoin has monetary mass inflation until then, while many central banks have price inflation targets. The difference between both is (at constant velocity) given by economic growth.
The danger is altcoins. Altcoins = infinite inflation potential for crypto-currencies as a class. Though so far they aren't catching on.
###
absolutely correct
i expected them to gain ground in 2014 and to take a big bite out of bitcoins marketcap. but they didnt. with sidechains in the making innovations could eventually build into the bitcoin protocol in the future.
but generally speaking altcoins could act as the inflation that bitcoin was trying to avoid.
altcoins are as inflationary to Bitcoin as my monopoly money is to the USD
84.
Post 9567739 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
Here's the [ formula ] I use:
Bmo = N x A
Bmo ~ total value bitcoin M0 (also called 'market cap')
N ~ total number of entities holding bitcoins
A ~ average Amount of value holding entities are willing to hold in btc
It appears likely that N is only going to keep increasing for the forseeable future (perhaps with exponential adoption rates at times).
A will stay around the same but also may increase as the confidence in holding value in btc becomes firmer.
You can let N to be any number of people, as long as it includes all people holding bitcoins in some time interval of interest and A is the average over that same set of people.
So, let N be the number of all people who have held some bitcoin at any time since January. Then N is fixed.
The Bmo of bitcoin has fallen 50% since January. Therefore A must have fallen by that much, too. So much for "A will stay around the same".
The formula is problematic also because it does not take into account the dynamics of BTC investing. It seems that most of the extant bitcoins are held by "old" inactive investors, who are confident enough to hold them for a while longer, but were not confident enough to buy more coins over the last year. (If the price keeps falling and they eventually decide to sell at 100 $/BTC, their old bitcoins would still have been a great investment, but any bitcoins acquired over the last year would have been a terrible one.)
So, the contribution to the A factor of those old investors does not depend on their confidence in bitcoin. Rather, the amount of
BTC that they are willing to hold is constant, and the amount of
value that they are wlling to hold in BTC varies according to the market price of BTC, as determined by the Chinese traders.
In that case the value of A does not determine the market price, but is passively determined by it -- making the formula useless as a predictor of price.
VC's are doing their value added inputs (like the miners before them) once that market has a little more hierarchy, I can visualize it will be like the miners before them they'll realise it's cheaper to buy coins than build business to skim off the top.
Some smarter ones have realized it already. In fact, most diversify their porftfolio by buying the underlying asset. I believe Chamath Palihapitiya is solely buying Bitcoins and has expressed his opinion that this is the very best bet one could make at the moment.
85.
Post 9568444 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
There's no news to create a panic buy and a huge rise.
We will be bouncing around for a while.
there's no news until there's news
86.
Post 9569816 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
Just another week of pump and dumps.
.
87.
Post 9577983 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
Wedbush Securities Inc., the Los Angeles-based financial-services firm founded in 1955 by friends fresh out of college, took a stake in bitcoin venture Buttercoin and is using the platform to buy and sell the virtual currency.
The deal makes Wedbush, with offices from Manhattan to Honolulu, the first Wall Street firm to announce a stake in a bitcoin startup, Buttercoin Chief Executive Officer Cedric Dahl said. Buttercoin, with backers including Google Ventures and Y Combinator, helps businesses shift between cash and bitcoins to use the virtual currency or provide related services to clients.
“Wedbush will be bringing in their friends from Wall Street,” Dahl said in an interview. The Palo Alto, California-based startup plans to talk with potential investors in January about raising more than $25 million, he said, declining to specify the size of Wedbush’s holding.
so in one day Bitcoin has attracted the investement of mostly anyone that matters in the tech world to a 20 million
seed round (blockstream)
and
we learn that Wedbush Security are buying Bitcoins and investing in Google-venture backed Bitcoin company (Buttercoin)
more gentleman please
88.
Post 9578040 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.32h):
Has anything interesting happened in the last month or two?
look up
89.
Post 9614596 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.33h):
I stand corrected. By that document, that company has mined ~13300 BTC to date, and is holding ~8500, so it has dumped only ~4800, or about 1/3.
EDIT: Actually they claim to have sold ~6200 on the table. Whatever.
Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.
"We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price," Vavilov added.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-raises-20-million-asic-development-mining-output/Bitfury is not selling.
Terpin polled the crowd by asking how many sell a certain percentage of their bitcoins for fiat currencies like the dollar. One only miner raised their hand when Terpin asked if they sold 100% of their bitcoin for dollars, and about one-third of the crowd indicated that they don’t sell any of their generated bitcoins.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-mining-las-vegas-convention/The folks at Hashers United conference were not selling
90.
Post 9614783 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.33h):
I stand corrected. By that document, that company has mined ~13300 BTC to date, and is holding ~8500, so it has dumped only ~4800, or about 1/3.
EDIT: Actually they claim to have sold ~6200 on the table. Whatever.
Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.
"We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price," Vavilov added.
But they did sell more (up to 50% of mined amount) when the price was a bit higher.
Note that, for digitalBTC, "reserve bitcoins" means "the bitcoins that we did not sell yet". Does it mean the same for BitFury?
Terpin polled the crowd by asking how many sell a certain percentage of their bitcoins for fiat currencies like the dollar. One only miner raised their hand when Terpin asked if they sold 100% of their bitcoin for dollars, and about one-third of the crowd indicated that they don’t sell any of their generated bitcoins.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-mining-las-vegas-convention/So 1 miner sold 100%, 1/3 of the miners sold 0%. What about the other 2/3?
The folks at Hashers United conference were not selling
Without an official balance like that of digitalBTC, I don't know whether to trust these statements. Obviously it is their interest to say that they believe that the price will go up, hence they are holding. Anyway, like the folks at digitalBTC, they may be only hoping/waiting for the price to rise again to sell.
So the data seems to say that miners are selling at least a sizable fraction of their mined bitcoins.
Obviously it is in your best interest they are selling and that your interpretation of clear-cut counter-indicative comments and official releases is the correct one.
I don't know whether to trust these people or JorgeStolfi from bitcointalk.org.
Bottom line is you're wrong
In short, the answer is "no, there is no evidence that miners are holding".
91.
Post 9635626 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.34h):
price is not moving until after the auction
92.
Post 9635662 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.34h):
price is not moving until after the auction
Very probable
Someone should tell the price, we´re up over 5% today
impressing.
93.
Post 9635716 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.34h):
price is not moving until after the auction
Very probable
You think the price will stay here for 11 days?
All other the other holders have a vested interest in making sure the bids are high on the 4th Dec. imho.
The bidders have more fiat, more BTC to dump and have a vested interest that the price remains low.
94.
Post 9635723 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.34h):
price is not moving until after the auction
Actually prior to the previous auction the market rallied quite a bit into it and also after it.
exactly. auction will be a non-event.
I don't expect anything to happen because of the auction. I'm just saying don't expect any significant rally before we're past that date.
95.
Post 9638004 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.34h):
What?! We are still below 10k page? This is insane!
I'm bearish on page count.
The page count topic is sooooo 50 pages ago,
I'd like to hear what
you think about sidechains...
I am of the opinion that Side Chains are controversial.
Not sure why you're saying that
96.
Post 9638140 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.34h):
regarding the fed auction - I assume it will be as bearish as the last one was
at these prices I assume they will change hands with a 10-20 % mark-up - gl to the shorters
I'm hoping some big pocket swoops all of them in one set a la Draper and advertises the purchase and its price
Too bad we're not likely to have a leaked list of bidders like last time
97.
Post 9638144 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.34h):
what's up with this volume
98.
Post 9668153 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.35h):
anyone thinking bitcoin black friday will flop because of the price (vs. last year) ?
99.
Post 9668230 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.35h):
anyone thinking bitcoin black friday will flop because of the price (vs. last year) ?
idk about you but at < 3000 a bitcoin i'll spend my fiat thank you very much.
make it 5-10k
100.
Post 9705785 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.36h):
101.
Post 9706651 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.36h):
During last 6 months Ruble fell almost over 55% to US Dollar.
Here troll, some perspective. Bitcoin is not the only thing losing value.
102.
Post 9720846 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.36h):
everyone seems to think we're going to go up soon.
I'm not so sure, just because of that.
I think we're going down as well, would be the first time I'm right
Hopefully my shorts are profitable this time.
I think we could go as low as 208 to 240 at january 1st.
Besides, in a few hours we probably have a big fear factor as well.
Difficulty seems to be adjusting lower for the first time since ages!There are a lot of people who have never experienced such a thing before.
is this your new prediction below your username?
you turned bear because of your failed prediction?
103.
Post 9721091 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.36h):
everyone seems to think we're going to go up soon.
I'm not so sure, just because of that.
I think we're going down as well, would be the first time I'm right
Hopefully my shorts are profitable this time.
I think we could go as low as 208 to 240 at january 1st.
Besides, in a few hours we probably have a big fear factor as well.
Difficulty seems to be adjusting lower for the first time since ages!There are a lot of people who have never experienced such a thing before.
is this your new prediction below your username?
you turned bear because of your failed prediction?
Yes!
I also discovered some new technicals which made me think twice about my previous prediction.
This time I actually took a position to support my new theory, I went (partially) short.
Isn't predicting a fun game!
Also, predictions are 208 to 240 but did not have enough space.
208 is absolute bottom(bitstamp).
Well then hopefully you're as wrong as you were last time around
104.
Post 9721649 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.36h):
That is if there is no Draper 2.0 willing to pay "more than everyone else" for the whole lot.
105.
Post 9722022 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.36h):
That is if there is no Draper 2.0 willing to pay "more than everyone else" for the whole lot.
Can't be completely ruled out. Your Bitcoin Savior could also have fluffy fur, long ears, and carry a basket of Easter eggs.
I wouldn't bet on it, but don't let that discourage you
Well it happened first time around so what do you suggest will be different this time.
106.
Post 9886019 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.40h):
3D MACD is negative again. 2014 was truly a great year for the "value" of bitcoin, but was terrible year for its price.
I think we will be in the high $200's, IE 270-290's before the end of 2014.
what if they are waiting for the sell wall to build and buy up quick, could it turn MACD positive
Yeah the 3D MACD could reverse, but the overall morphology of the recent 3D MACD isn't the same as it was in the previous bubbles where each box on the histogram increased from the previous until its decline. I think a lot of TA becomes completely useless in the cases of market manipulation and big news, both of which could explain the current MACD and any reversal if it were to occur.
Most recently when the 3D MACD goes red, it's red for about 4 months...no bueno
You can't have it both ways though.
Either the 3D MACD is misrepresentative and "useless" or it is not.
The historical trend after it turns red could turn out to be as irrelevant to predict the future as this turn to green ended being
107.
Post 9934883 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
...
Those twin girls are just so nasty and repulsive to look at.
...
That pic just blew me away the first time I saw it. Everything about it, down to harsh flash shot with contrast and saturation cranked up, the nasty palate, the way it's composed
(like an engineering drawing with multiple projections). And the pretty_but_eVol thing.
13-yr.-old little sisters from hell
you're an idiot but goddamn that was funny
108.
Post 9935896 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
Monero is junk.
I am convinced, by facts and logic, that it is the best investment on the planet at this time. If it goes lower, it becomes even better.
Fact: U.N. estimates global black market at 2 tn USD in 2012.
Fact: PQ=MV
Fact: Cryptonote is the only dark transaction protocol providing useful levels of unlinkability and untraceability.
Fact: XMR is the leading cryptonote coin by orders of magnitude in liquidity.
Fact: XMR is not usable by non-technical persons without trusting a web wallet today, but will be when GUI, DB, and multi-sig are officially released.
Logic: Dark markets will adopt the best usable privacy and hence PQ is assured to approach some fraction of 2tn
Fact: Multinational corporations require to maintain secrecy in their internal cross-border transactions.
Logic: When XMR liquidity is high enough, it will be adopted by multinational corporations for internal cross-border transactions
Fact: Nation-states and the central banks which own them seek to enslave the planet, taking control of financial assets at will.
Logic: Wealth will migrate to dark storage, and when XMR has sufficient liquidity, it will be the dominant form of dark storage.
There is a clear three stage path from miniscule to gigantic, each step of which bears a fundamental inevitability. It is possible although unlikely for an alternative dark ledger to take the lead, but until then, XMR has the most asymmetric risk/return in the history of finance.
The points you made and their relevance are questionable, but even if we accept them all:
-Dark Wallet is being developed for BTC. Once that works there is no point at all in adopting a lower liquidity lower confidence altcoin that will basically be a clone of BTC.
-Monero shares the same problems of Proof of Work coins (including BTC of course) so if BTC dies because of that (or any reason at all intrinsic to BTC), Monero is no different. If BTC survives and Dark Wallet can be used for anonymity on BTC, Monero will not have a purpose anymore.
I'm not certain dark wallet can provide the same level of anonymity as Monero does.
109.
Post 9949136 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
The Buffett quote is several months old. Care to explain why it is relevant again?
110.
Post 9949432 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
How does BTC reach the general public though?
What event will push BTC forward?
Hardly anybody is interested.
People compare BTC to the internet in 1995, will we follow the same path or are we destined for failure?
This comparison is often touted but it's misguided. Bitcoin is the first example of blockchain technology put to use.
Gopher is an early example of widespread usage of the internet. How many people still use 'gopher' ?
Gopher was an application layer protocol. As far as I know it ran on top of the TCP/IP protocol which we still use to this day.
Bitcoin is very similar to TCP/IP, and its network effect much, much stronger.
111.
Post 9949568 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
...
Bitcoin is very similar to TCP/IP, and its network effect much, much stronger.
Except you didn't invest in TCP/IP, which is as free to use as Bitcoin code. You invested in
We've had that discussion before. You don't get it, we get it.
112.
Post 9949675 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
...
Bitcoin is very similar to TCP/IP, and its network effect much, much stronger.
Except you didn't invest in TCP/IP, which is as free to use as Bitcoin code. You invested in
We've had that discussion before. You don't get it, we get it.
What a well-reasoned & elegantly stated argument. Allow me to counter:
No U!
If you have nothing to say, simply don't say it.
Let me break it down for you
There exist many ways to implement an internet packet transmission/communication protocol. TCP/IP protocol is one.
In the same way, there are many implementations of cryptographic value transmission protocols. The Bitcoin (BTC) protocol is one.
For reasons of network effect it happens that in each case only one eventually "win" and becomes the standard protocol.
I and many here are invested in the Bitcoin (BTC) protocol, the only value transmission protocol with any kind of significant network effect.
113.
Post 9949782 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
...
There exist many ways to implement an internet packet transmission/communication protocol. TCP/IP protocol is one.
In the same way, there are many implementations of cryptographic value transmission protocols. The Bitcoin (BTC) protocol is one.
For reasons of network effect it happens that in each case only one eventually "win" and becomes the standard protocol.
I and many here are invested in the Bitcoin (BTC) protocol, the only one with any kind of significant network effect.
Lol, so you've invested in TCP/IP? How much are the owners of TCP/IP getting for their investment, and who do I owe money to for using it?
Everything has a significant network effect, until it doesn't. Otherwise all the shitcoiners would be farting through silk by nao.
Invested in TCP/IP
No, unfortunately as you probably know that is not possible else one could've made a killing, really.
So far the Bitcoin network effect is still strong so anything you say is fabulation & FUD.
Impressive argumentation though, not quite convincing but certainly up to your standards
114.
Post 9949975 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
...
Why would a multi billion dollar conglomerate like Microsoft have to pander to such an insignificant currency as Bitcoin and such a small minority of users like us Bitcoiners?
Because it costs them nearly nothing, far less than they hope to get from (admittedly) nearly-irrelevant contingent like you Bitcoiners.
So they're using a payment processor. So what? They immediately convert fiat, we know!
They're definitely not hurting or needy for these measly sales.
I'm pretty sure they're way smarter than you, and know a thing or two about tech and business, than NotLambChop.
Large profits result from series of small profits. That's how money is made.
Now go play your new vidya.
So answer me this, NotLambChop. Why bother adding it as a payment? Apple, Amazon, and Google haven't done it yet.
Very curious of company as successful as their's to just add it. Adding Bitcoin won't make them any real profit, Why add it?
Think deeper, this is a Multi Billion dollar company, and please don't retort with "it costs them nothing".
I think you're asking a little too much
115.
Post 9950057 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
...
Why would a multi billion dollar conglomerate like Microsoft have to pander to such an insignificant currency as Bitcoin and such a small minority of users like us Bitcoiners?
Because it costs them nearly nothing, far less than they hope to get from (admittedly) nearly-irrelevant contingent like you Bitcoiners.
So they're using a payment processor. So what? They immediately convert fiat, we know!
They're definitely not hurting or needy for these measly sales.
I'm pretty sure they're way smarter than you, and know a thing or two about tech and business, than NotLambChop.
Large profits result from series of small profits. That's how money is made.
Now go play your new vidya.
So answer me this, NotLambChop. Why bother adding it as a payment? Apple, Amazon, and Google haven't done it yet.
Because the companies you've listed think Bitcoin is too embarrassing? What point are you trying to make here?
Very curious of company as successful as their's to just add it. Adding Bitcoin won't make them any real profit, Why add it?
Think deeper, this is a Multi Billion dollar company, and please don't retort with "it costs them nothing".
A rational agent should take profit, no matter how trivial, when no risk is involved. So yeah, it cost them nothing & they make money.
Not sure how this could be made any simpler.
Now run along & play your vidya.
Nothing?
It cost them resources & time that could theoretically be used for more profitable ventures than the thrills of a couple Bitcoiners buying Xbox Ones on their website.
Surely you're not thinking they're making any significant profit with Bitcoin as it is right now
116.
Post 9950189 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
How much resources does it take to start using a payment processor for select digital content, with barely any PR--a few blog posts? If you're suggesting that Microsoft made a mistake, that's possible too tho. I'm on the fence re. this, convince me
Not a mistake. It's called foresight and having a vision. Something you so evidently lack.
117.
Post 9950273 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
How much resources does it take to start using a payment processor for select digital content, with barely any PR--a few blog posts? If you're suggesting that Microsoft made a mistake, that's possible too tho. I'm on the fence re. this, convince me
Not a mistake. It's called foresight and having a vision. Something you so evidently lack.
So Microsoft, having decided to let a payment processor pay it in $$$, is now a visionary?
But brg444, you said open source...
Baby steps
You know they can decide to hold whatever % of BTC they choose right?
"Microsoft has a long-term vision for bitcoin, BitPay and the blockchain. Starting with digital goods in the US is the logical first step, however, they want to expand to Europe and globally and add support for other products as part of that rollout."
118.
Post 9950317 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
How much resources does it take to start using a payment processor for select digital content, with barely any PR--a few blog posts? If you're suggesting that Microsoft made a mistake, that's possible too tho. I'm on the fence re. this, convince me
Not a mistake. It's called foresight and having a vision. Something you so evidently lack.
So Microsoft, having decided to let a payment processor pay it in $$$, is now a visionary?
But brg444, you said open source...
Baby steps
You know they can decide to hold whatever % of BTC they choose right?
"Microsoft has a long-term vision for bitcoin, BitPay and the blockchain. Starting with digital goods in the US is the logical first step, however, they want to expand to Europe and globally and add support for other products as part of that rollout."
Lol, do understand that Microsoft flatters you only to get into your
pants wallet.
as if I'd let them have my Bitcoins
119.
Post 9951235 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.41h):
As a difficult, but early year in the emergence of bitcoin comes to a close - it continues to prosper into a more and more powerful network. The units themselves being described as worthless at only $320 by people apparently unaware of what $320 can buy.
If a blockchain can become healthy it will represent a huge amount of power - belonging to a necessarily huge number of people whose interests are simple yet predictably consistent.
Absolute domination becomes inevitable for the world's first and most sought after real change to the old, creaking, bloated, largely inaccessible, reckless and ultimately unnecessary banking paradigm. Not because it replaces it, but because it isn't constrained by limiting factors that have been overcome thanks to the internet and the solving of the Byzantine General's problem.
The anti-fragility of simplicity cannot be questioned.
+1
120.
Post 9996790 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.42h):
please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline. At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts.
That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware. Would this change improve the chances of approval?
The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.
Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.
yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval
Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.
as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations
IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.
How the f--- did you come to that conclusion, exactly? They've fundamentally changed their filing -- they didn't just cross a "t" or dot an "i." No, they subjected themselves to an entirely different state of incorporation at the umpteenth hour. Logical reasoning is not a core criterion for becoming a Bitcoiner, is it?
If the SEC had decided they wouldn't approve a math-based assets ETF they would've made it clear to the Winklevoss instead of suggesting corrections to their filings.
Logic would suggest that no amount of countless lawyers hours at a hefty price should be spent further pursuing a hopeless goal. Clearly the Winks have some indications that following due process their project has a chance and will ultimately be approved.
121.
Post 9996833 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.42h):
If the SEC had decided they wouldn't approve a math-based assets ETF they would've made it clear to the Winklevoss instead of suggesting corrections to their filings.
Logic would suggest that no amount of countless lawyers hours at a hefty price should be spent further pursuing a hopeless goal. Clearly the Winks have some indications that following due process their project has a chance and will ultimately be approved.
I don't like the timing of the revision. Christmas is a good time to bury bad news. I'll wait to find out the reasons behind the revision before making up my mind about its implications.
There is no news whatsoever.
Typical ETF proposal fillings usually get no mention or attention. Only because this one is Bitcoin related does it make its rounds in the media.
It is my understanding that revisions after an original proposal is a very normal process and arguably a good sign.
122.
Post 9997652 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.42h):
regulation and laws are meaningless when the actors behave above the law and the regulators/enforcers are bought and paid for, you are pissing into the hurricane with Dodd-Frank (both of whom were irrevocably compromised by wall st. funding btw)
Wall st. is beyond help, the only thing that will change them is a truly better technology that makes them obsolete ... that's why they hate bitcoin and spew their vitriol ... it is also why they WILL adopt.
Lol, You're talking about securities? Let's see, the foremost bitcoin securities exchange, Havelock Investments, had dozens of "securities" listed throughout its existence. At this point, all but one are showing spectacular loss (the one that is not yet showing loss is a cloudmining contract, so give it another month). And that's the ones that didn't simply run away with
their marks' investment enthusiasts' coins.
TL;DR: bitcoin's equivalent of Wall St. is 100% scam and theft, impossible to surpass or even match by the crookedest IRL exchange.
Surprised by the dearth of knowledge, marcus_of_augustus, you've been around long enough to know better
Edit: Of course, if we're talking financial services, there's Pirate@40, Nefario, TradeFortress, Ukyo, Cryptocypruss (Neo Bee Danny), Gox Mark and so on. Not just scamming you, buddy, simply taking your coins and waving se ya
A lamb and his money....
123.
Post 10024958 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.43h):
NotLambchop,
So much hard work (trolling) devoted to counter the bulls with solid Fud.
When once you hold precious btc and parted from them at 600-ish ( so late
)
And now you plan to buy back, as you are working hard for those discounted coins all day long
If you were certain of your arguments, should have opened a big short long time and advertise it here
You just want to buy back cheaper
Disappointing bear are you
We need a true disbeliever!
Nah, no certainty on my part. Since you know that I averaged in the 600s (wasn't a single sell, who does that?), you also prob'ly know that I haven't done any serious trading for over a year.
I started posting in this thread when BTC was above $500 (on the way down), and never bragged about my trading because I find doing so distasteful. Some bulltards goaded me into revealing what little you know, so yah, faux pas on my part. Not losing sleep over it tho.
Why is it you think that I'm looking to get back in again?
Because you're here
124.
Post 10043448 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.44h):
595 buy on stamp
125.
Post 10044544 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.44h):
126.
Post 10262503 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.53h):
Now I am so mad I didn't bother setting up with another exchange after Vault of Satoshi's closure.
127.
Post 10262536 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.53h):
Now I am so mad I didn't bother setting up with another exchange after Vault of Satoshi's closure.
Try Circle.
I have maxed out the stupid weekly limit already
128.
Post 10265837 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.53h):
I miss proudhon
He made trolling a art
Yeah, pretty much everything about Bitcoin has been turning to shit lately. All the cool kids bailed a while ago, even the trolls
what, you don't like our brand new shiny exchanges
129.
Post 10313557 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.55h):
Jees ... the level of delusion in thinking that people will rush to the security of BTC in times of crisis. We are soooo not ready for that and neither are the masses. But the story will be spread and people here will buy into it, not realising that it is just another pump, like Coinbase, and that until enough infrastructure is in place BTC is mostly useless to people in these countries in crisis. They have more pressing problems, like how to find work and how to feed their families, and in most cases are not going to find BTC either useful or easy to use at the moment. That will likely change with the level of infrastructure investment, but that takes TIME.
Switch from your decimated currency to the worst (or was it 2nd) performer of 2014 ... sounds reaaaally smart
Anyone with decent chunks of cash will likely be switching it to dollars if they have not done so already (and doing very well out of it)
And the fact that people hope that the pain of others will be their own saviour is, quite frankly, nauseating to me
Buy BTC because you believe in it and believe it has a future, not because you think it will make you rich quickly from somebody's else's pain. And only risk what you can afford to lose. There is no real sign yet that this bear market is over IMO. It may be, but it is definitely not a given that the low is in.
Coming here and asking for advice on BTC is like going to a gold forum and asking Gold Bugs if you should buy gold NOW! Hmmm ... what do you think most will say most of the time. Call it 'cult', 'perception bias', 'dogma','vested interest', whatever you like - its no different.
I am not bashing BTC or Crypto in general, it is extremely interesting and I think it will almost certainly have some place in the future financial order, but changing people's perceptions of what money is and how to use it does not happen overnight. This is just the beginning.
And neither does changing people's perception of BTC as a 'get-rich-quick' scheme - that takes a grinding bear market and some independent thought. Perhaps that is why this is taking so long ... lots of new entrants have to learn to love BTC for what it is or learn the hard way what it is not.
/soap box mode
Mostly agree with the gist of your argument but the kind of change some are suggesting (even you) does not wait for all "people's perceptions of what money is" to change.
Ultimately laggards will be forced into BTC by economic reality. Question remains when will this take place and at what point are you at a loss (pain) jumping ship.
Bitcoin
time waits for no man.
130.
Post 10313656 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.55h):
<nsip>
Mostly agree with the gist of your argument but the kind of change some are suggesting (even you) does not wait for all "people's perceptions of what money is" to change.
Ultimately laggards will be forced into BTC by economic reality. Question remains when will this take place and at what point are you at a loss (pain) jumping ship.
Bitcoin
time waits for no man.
That is by no means the certainty that you present it as. This is still an experiment. It may yet fail, or BTC may not be the winner.
Some form of cryptographic money will almost certainly play a part in our future IMO. What part, and when, is very much undecided.
The market seems pretty decisive as to where "other forms of crypto money" stand : in the trash bin.
"This is still an experiment" Lol you sound like Gavin
131.
Post 10360019 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.56h):
Has anyone else thought that the winklis are opening their "gemini" exchange out of despair because they know that their ETF won´t be approved?
That's what I'm thinking.
More likely that an established US-based exchange is a pre-requisite for the approval of the ETF
132.
Post 10368845 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.56h):
The Observer has learned that this would not be the first time that Wells Fargo has expressed deep concern about crypto, specifically singling out Mr. McCaleb for special scrutiny. Until the beginning of 2014, Wells Fargo had a whole task force at its highest level comprising 20 of its top executives and advisors, including Susan Athey, a Stanford economics professor who sits on Ripple Labs’ board. They were marching forward to be the first U.S. bank to dive into crypto. All of a sudden, in March, just after the February collapse of Mt. Gox, they did a complete 180, shutting down the entire program that had been exploring crypto.
http://observer.com/2015/02/the-race-to-replace-bitcoin
133.
Post 10403524 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
Correction: the "4.1 billion USD" for the GBL scam seems to be a newspaper error. Other sources say "4.1 million", with is of course much more plausible.
is this for the exchange in HK that apparently stole funds and goxxed users ?
It was not an exchange. It was a good ol Ponzi scheme using a Bitcoin facade to lure suckers in.
134.
Post 10403646 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
Correction: the "4.1 billion USD" for the GBL scam seems to be a newspaper error. Other sources say "4.1 million", with is of course much more plausible.
is this for the exchange in HK that apparently stole funds and goxxed users ?
It was not an exchange. It was a good ol Ponzi scheme using a Bitcoin facade to lure suckers in.
Sorry for the confusion...
MyCoin.hk is the new Hong Kong mining ponzi scam, that collapsed last December and broke the news yesterday;
estimates (based on mycoin.hk statements) are still 3 billion HKD = 385 million USD.GLB was a Hong Kong exchange that closed and stole all client funds in November
2013. One newspaper yesterday said that the loss was 4.1 billion USD, but it was actually 4.1 million, it seems.
Estimates that are most likely erroneous
135.
Post 10403772 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
Correction: the "4.1 billion USD" for the GBL scam seems to be a newspaper error. Other sources say "4.1 million", with is of course much more plausible.
is this for the exchange in HK that apparently stole funds and goxxed users ?
It was not an exchange. It was a good ol Ponzi scheme using a Bitcoin facade to lure suckers in.
Sorry for the confusion...
MyCoin.hk is the new Hong Kong mining ponzi scam, that collapsed last December and broke the news yesterday; estimates (based on mycoin.hk statements) are still 3 billion HKD = 385 million USD.
GLB was a Hong Kong exchange that closed and stole all client funds in November
2013. One newspaper yesterday said that the loss was 4.1 billion USD, but it was actually 4.1 million, it seems.
It´s hard to keep track and not to be confused with all those big bitcoin scams and frauds that appear almost weekly.
Especially went we have frauds the likes HSBC enabling hundreds of billions of dollars of tax evasion on an international scale plastered all over the news.
One has to dig deep to find relevance in the miniature scams involving a mere 3 billion dollar market!
136.
Post 10403887 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
3000 and only 30 want to go to court?
I understood that 30 victims contacted a local Councillor because they had no proof of investment and thought that the police would not take up their case. The Councillor directed them to the police, let's see what comes of it.
(...) estimate is based on the company's own earlier claims that it served 3,000 clients who had invested HK$1m ($12,890) each.
Are you suggesting to us that numbers brought forward by an apparent ponzi scheme promoting their scam to suckers should reasonably be assumed to be truthful?
137.
Post 10403944 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
3000 and only 30 want to go to court?
I understood that 30 victims contacted a local Councillor because they had no proof of investment and thought that the police would not take up their case. The Councillor directed them to the police, let's see what comes of it.
(...) estimate is based on the company's own earlier claims that it served 3,000 clients who had invested HK$1m ($12,890) each.
Are you suggesting to us that numbers brought forward by an apparent ponzi scheme promoting their scam to suckers should reasonably be assumed to be truthful?
I know that the denial is strong among the bitcoiners, but according to some websites these numbers have been reporterd by the "inverstors" and not by mycoin.hk.
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1707565/investors-fear-hk3b-losses-closure-bitcoin-trading-company"Investors said they were lured by promises of a HK$1 million return in four months for buying a HK$400,000 bitcoin contract which would produce 90 bitcoins on maturity."
"An 81-year-old woman surnamed Chan said she recovered only HK$1.2 million on her HK$3 million investment on seven bitcoin contracts. "
"“No one seems to know who is behind this,” said a woman surnamed Lau, who saw her HK$1.3 million investment in four bitcoin contracts evaporate. "
Can you read?
The HK$3 billion figure is based on an earlier statement by the company that it had 3,000 clients in Hong Kong, each investing an average HK$1 million.
138.
Post 10404086 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
It is 8pm in China now. The mycoin.hk story playing on TV, perhaps?
that's probably it
139.
Post 10404164 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
so the scam was..
give me money and i will mine bitcoin for you...
ran off with money...
bitcoin never got mined...
-> there will be no dump
This essentially has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
The equivalent of someone creating random wealth management ponzi and switching "trading performance" for "mining revenues" as a wealth generation/redistribution mechanism.
Of course suckers at the bottom paid the bills for the ones at the top.
No actual Bitcoiner was hurt in this experiment
140.
Post 10404180 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
Some whales throwing their weight around this morning
141.
Post 10404216 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
so the scam was..
give me money and i will mine bitcoin for you...
ran off with money...
bitcoin never got mined...
-> there will be no dump
This essentially has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
The equivalent of someone creating random wealth management ponzi and switching "trading performance" for "mining revenues" as a wealth generation/redistribution mechanism.
Of course suckers at the bottom paid the bills for the ones at the top.
No actual Bitcoiner was hurt in this experiment
Let´s just hope that you are not one of the suckers when the next exchange (Bitfinex, okcoin...) blows up, cause they are probably acting with fractional reserve. Which means that you never had or traded "real bitcoins" (aka mining revenues, trading performance).
Let's just hope that you end your miserable life
142.
Post 10404274 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
so the scam was..
give me money and i will mine bitcoin for you...
ran off with money...
bitcoin never got mined...
-> there will be no dump
Correct that far. However, an academic (ahem!) in Hong Kong called for tighter regulations on bitcoin. That by itself does not mean anything, but it is noteworthy that the news arrticle closed with his opinion. There may be repercussions on exchanges.
And then we have the current dump. Just a coincidence, or triggered by the mycoin.hk news?
Let´s hope that the PBOC put´s an end to this scam and finally
protects it´s citizens. I already wrote them 3 mails in the last 7 days.
143.
Post 10404636 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
so the scam was..
give me money and i will mine bitcoin for you...
ran off with money...
bitcoin never got mined...
-> there will be no dump
This essentially has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
The equivalent of someone creating random wealth management ponzi and switching "trading performance" for "mining revenues" as a wealth generation/redistribution mechanism.
Of course suckers at the bottom paid the bills for the ones at the top.
No actual Bitcoiner was hurt in this experiment
could have been the exact same scam with rare metals or whatever
But it wasn't...because rare earths don't attract scammers, crooks and con artists at quite the same level as BTC.
Another nail.
144.
Post 10404642 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.57h):
Page 11337?
Not quite the same as 1337 but I was here for that too.
I see we had a foolish 12k dump on Finex that dropped the price about 1%. LOL
Back to bed.
And not even a reason for which it's been dumped...
I will give you a reason > freshly mined coins.
Coins are freshly mined every 10 minutes, your point?
145.
Post 10429637 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.58h):
This video appears to show a MyCoin.hk convention in 2014:
http://my.tv.sohu.com/us/201860874/69946081.shtmlGiven the number of atendees in that event, the claim of 3000 victims now seems more credible.
The gray-haired Westerner may be William Dennis Atwood, the director of the parent company who seem to have left shortly before MyCoin.hk collapsed.
The CCB reports that 43 investors between the ages of 21 and 71 years old lost anywhere between HK$50,000 to HK$15m each when the exchange ceased operations. Such estimates would place the total consumer loss at HK$63m, or $8.12m at press time.
http://www.coindesk.com/mycoin-hong-kong-police-8-1-million/Just a little off from previously reported 387$M.....
146.
Post 10504699 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.59h):
I highly doubt that this time there will even be enough bidders for all 50k coins if the price is >100$
They struggled to find enough last time. Market is saturated.
FUD
147.
Post 10551424 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.00h):
If this bear market has been largely caused by Chinese miners that can do nothing with bitcoins except sell them, then it is likely to end when one of two things happen: Either they run out of stockpiled coins to sell over and above coins they are mining, or when the Chinese economy gets so bad that they realize that the killer app is to sneak out of the country with them.
Right now Bitcoins seems to be an answer in search of a problem: Most obviously capital controls in a world where capital is still largely mobile. When this situation changes, it is likely to be sudden and swift although the time frame is difficult to predict with any accuracy.
Miners aren't the ones selling in this market. It's pure speculative manipulation. A miner would never dump coins and cause the price to decline. They would sell the minimum number of coins necessary to cover costs at the best price possible and stock the rest for a much higher price.
Lets put this one to bed, miners are not dumping coins and they are certainly not doing them as a market order.
Best... Post... Recently.
Gotta agree with rolling. Miners are among the most optimistic of the bulls as a group.
It doesn't matter how optimistic miners are. Miners have to service their debt and to meet expenses just like everybody else. If you postpone selling because of a bear market, you can end up NEEDING to sell more rather than less because the price is lower, the loan payments are higher and all your other expenses remain the same. It doesn't matter one bit if it's market orders or limit orders creating more overhead resistance.
Unfortunately you are making the popular but incorrect assumption that mined coins are mining companies only revenue streams.
148.
Post 10616143 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.01h):
No hope for one of them decentralized exchanges we bitcointalk so much about?
I was thinking about this. Has the Coinbase exchange lessened the desire for a decentralized exchange?
I never understood how one dealing with fiat was possible in the first place
149.
Post 10624264 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.01h):
150.
Post 10627807 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.01h):
nice buying action on finex
151.
Post 10638769 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
Bitfury boys getting cozy with the NSA
https://twitter.com/BitfuryGeorge/status/572631596387463168Emergency meeting was probably called when it was revealed a few days ago that 50%+ miners are Chinese operated
152.
Post 10648033 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
What's funny enough is that when everybody expected rise (ton of good news etc) there was a dump-fest. Now we're expecting some Ks of BTCs to hit the road at the auction and the price goes bananas. Go figure...
Nothing too surprising.
It seems everyone forgot the market rallied in a similar way before the 1st auction.
153.
Post 10648201 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
What's funny enough is that when everybody expected rise (ton of good news etc) there was a dump-fest. Now we're expecting some Ks of BTCs to hit the road at the auction and the price goes bananas. Go figure...
Nothing too surprising.
It seems everyone forgot the market rallied in a similar way before the 1st auction.
If you're right then it should be 'sell the news'? Couple of days to go for that, yet. We'll see. For me we had the bottom mid-Jan. Bear market had to end at some point.
I think it did. How far we go up and in what time frame is all down to honey badger.
FWIW there was no significant sell off after the results of the 1st auction were announced. The price did continue its long grind down afterward but you are correct that this was a different market and the situation is different now.
154.
Post 10656283 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
and here we go.
155.
Post 10656378 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
This thread feels so weird with so much positive energy lately.
I'm starting to miss those trolls with the 255 different sock puppet accounts posting rubbish and non sense that even they don't truly believe what they're posting.
Maybe they're waiting for the Marshall's auction before making a cameo again, who knows. We need more Bitcoin going to $0, Ripple and Stellar are king, you'll never unseat Gold, Silver, aluminum foil type posts...
ripple is gimppled.....
http://www.ripplecharts.com/#/markets stellar sounds cool but is run by guy who started mount gox (and ripple) and that is what caused ripple to lose wells fargo .. stellar probably not going anywhere due to this fact....
ripple is gimppling because they hired some obamaturd and NOTHING good has ever come from obama wh ..... we only get executive orders (cuz noone likes his gay laws), more and more taxes (irs made record taxes last year and this year they got obama scheme-care money grab), and catastrophes ....... we'll see... but if obama's hand is in ripple then it probably will fail because all of obama's strategies have been failures ...
hopefully obama admin doesnt lose a major strategic region or something like that before they leave the wh (oops they did that too!)..
steller sounds cool except for the fact that they have a broke consensus protocol and are pretty much useless
156.
Post 10662331 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
The M-Pesa for the world is here
https://www.goabra.com/
157.
Post 10662486 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
i use mpesa on most days.
also buy bitcoin via mpesa from fiat-btc
the reverse as well btc-mpesa (eFiat)
Well this is basically it but on a global scale.
This looks like it could very well be the remittance killer app.
158.
Post 10662539 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
i use mpesa on most days.
also buy bitcoin via mpesa from fiat-btc
the reverse as well btc-mpesa (eFiat)
Well this is basically it but on a global scale.
This looks like it could very well be the remittance killer app.
killer app for bitcoin you mean?
Killer app for Bitcoin is bitcoin (money)
159.
Post 10671719 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
http://www.rre.com/blog/90-why-we-started-abraAbra app-based transfers use the blockchain to settle, and transactions are published directly to the blockchain from your phone. Abra’s back-end servers never touch consumer’s money or their transfer requests. The value of the holdings in your wallet do NOT fluctuate with the value of Bitcoin for at least 3 days after initial deposit onto your phone. Abra is not a financial service -- it is an app that facilitates storing digital currency equivalent to US Dollars directly on your smartphone and transferring your money from your Abra App to any other Abra App anywhere in the world.
To design Abra we turned to the traditional Hawala model. (...) Traditional Hawala’s are generally illegal in the United States as no one is allowed to hold or remit funds on behalf of someone else without being a licensed money transmitter both with FinCen (the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) and with the US State regulators where the consumers’ reside. In the case of Abra, however, consumers and Tellers are always holding their own money just as with the standard open source Bitcoin software. Abra Tellers simply buy and sell digital currency directly to and from other consumers in their neighborhood in small amounts.
www.goabra.comthis might be a watershed moment for consumer adoption. was not expecting this at all. Goodbye KYC/AML
160.
Post 10707894 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.03h):
now that's what I came for
161.
Post 10742661 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.04h):
32,000$ by mid 2017?
what did i missed???
Should i book from now my vacations?
32,000$ by mid 2017 is my prediction.
I've seen utility and usability grow enormously the past year, and i hear of many cool projects in the works. Market has been and continues to totally ignore all this and has been only focused on finding a bottom, I believe we found that bottom and we're heading up now, when the ball really starts to roll, poeple will come back and take another look at bitcoin and find that it can be very useful to them. Bitcoin will begin to fulfil its promise of being better more useful and cheaper, the world will take notice, we'll see it being used as a parallel currency here and there, china will have no choice but to reviste its ban on bitcoin use in order to participate in the "digital economy", and then...
ok, fuck it, setting new target: 320,000$ by 2020
I much prefer sgbett's $520,000 by October, I believe, this year!
162.
Post 10758633 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.04h):
bears are pathetic
163.
Post 10787534 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.04h):
There are a lot of skeptics that this alone will be the spark to lead to the next rally (I'm talking about their exchange). It's an overestimated aspect if you want my opinion. Besides there were a lot of other bullish news that the market didn't even care for. The ETF on the other hand...
the exchange itself shouldn't move the market at first but I expect that the potential announcement of it being "sponsored" by X major US bank will give us a lift.
164.
Post 10787729 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.04h):
There are a lot of skeptics that this alone will be the spark to lead to the next rally (I'm talking about their exchange). It's an overestimated aspect if you want my opinion. Besides there were a lot of other bullish news that the market didn't even care for. The ETF on the other hand...
the exchange itself shouldn't move the market at first but
I expect that the potential announcement of it being "sponsored" by X major US bank will give us a lift. This. If somehow they will be able to establish an "i/o" through the fiat world, this will be the catalyst towards the biggest rally so far. Yet though, there's also another bank in the EU that plays that role (Fidor Bank) but no significant CCMF yet. Maybe because the EU BTC infrastructure is a lot smaller than the USA's one.
I'm confident though, that the twins are on the right track for a perfect rally. We'll see.
Fidor is small time though isn't it? I was thinking more along the lines of a Citigroup/BoA/Wells Fargo type announcement.
I agree with you that the twins are somehow someway playing their hands perfectly and will ride this next rally in the driver seat once they "IPO" Bitcoin through their ETF.
165.
Post 10813030 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.05h):
delusional bulls will suffer.
i'm buying
Are you using QuadrigaCX now Adam?
166.
Post 10813210 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.05h):
delusional bulls will suffer.
i'm buying
Are you using QuadrigaCX now Adam?
ya
How's it been? How long does it usually take for BTC withdrawal to show up in your wallet?
167.
Post 10813259 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.05h):
delusional bulls will suffer.
i'm buying
Are you using QuadrigaCX now Adam?
ya
How's it been? How long does it usually take for BTC withdrawal to show up in your wallet?
its instant.
As it should be of course... I'm having all kind of trouble with them since I signed up... Delayed deposits, withdrawals not being processed.. I'll need to give em a call again I guess
168.
Post 10962998 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.08h):
Speaking of Ripple.
I present : the Ripple death blow, running on the only blockchain that matters.
https://aligncommerce.com/A Pantera portfolio company...
169.
Post 11021868 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.09h):
170.
Post 11139422 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.12h):
GBTC might start trading on monday, but I would think Gemini/Coin would want to comply with the final BitLicense before they launched.
As I understand, Gemini (the Winkles' exchange) depends only on ordinary bureaucratic licenses (MSB, MTB, whatever). If Coinbase can function, they should be able to function too (unless they are based in NY and have to wait for the BitLicense because of that).
The COIN ETF is more complicated: it must be approved by the SEC, which is not just a bureaucratic formality. There is no way to tell how long the SEC will take to decide, or whather it will get approved at all. (In fact, I have read somewhere that, the longer the SEC takes to decide, the less likely is that it will be approved.)
See this is the crux of what I'm sure is a tense debate behind the scenes between the industry and regulators.
By all appearances Coinbase is fully compliant w/ all known existing regulations in most states they operate.
AML/KYC/MSB/MTB you name it.
Now statists and "lawmakers" being what they are they can't help but having to try and "regulate" anything new under the sun.
In which case gov puppets like Lawsky assume they have authority to impose largely useless, wholly unnecessary and realistically impracticable regulations, the BitLicenses, under the false pretense of "consumer protection".
The Winklevoss being they corporate shills they are they will sing the praise of such "initiatives". They will go as far as to claim other exchanges operating without being "licensed" could be considered "unregulated".
Companies like Coinbase are satisfied enough with their legal status they feel comfortable operating under current state & federal laws.
It will be interesting to find out what becomes of the BitLicenses after reading the industry's stance on the last revised version.
They are evidently not having it.
171.
Post 11157105 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.12h):
that 1H dildo though
172.
Post 11239973 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.13h):
Today we announced a major step forward in the execution of our vision and product strategy. We've closed a new $50 million strategic investment round co-led by Goldman Sachs and IDG Capital Partners.
http://blog.circle.com/2015/04/30/new-circle-investors-new-us-dollar-account-features-china-horizons/Gentlemen, get your engines ready
173.
Post 11240013 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.13h):
Whoa. You would have been called a dreamer predicting this kind of news "in three years" in 2012.
Wait till you read this:
New Dollar Features
We’re also introducing new US dollar features that enable customers to hold, send, and receive dollars. Customers with dollar accounts gain all of the benefits of digital currency -- instant, secure and free payments to anyone in the world -- without holding or explicitly converting dollars into bitcoins. Dollar account balances held by Circle customers are FDIC-insured.
174.
Post 11797763 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.19h):
FOMO in action
175.
Post 11810164 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.20h):
Anybody worried about this yet?
Thanks
flat earth 1MB maxblocksize aficionados!
Nah...
A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System*
*
A limit of less than three transactions per second occurring on planet earth may apply.
It's about monetary freedom.
If three transactions per second is not enough, then there will grow an ecosystem of alt coins to pick up the slack. We will see exchanges grow that allow for easy transfer of value from one coin to the next and through this multi-coin environment, we can scale without limit.
There is no solution for one chain to hold all the transactions. Any proposal that suggests compromising the security, integrity, or distributed nature of bitcoin in order to gain some kind of imaginary "adoption" is an attack and should be treated as such.
amen
176.
Post 11810488 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.20h):
precipitous dump
with china out the way is easier to smash down .. probably not 284, more likely 250 - 255 tomorrow morning . i'm HODL through the smash again .
What did I miss about China ?
177.
Post 11841039 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.20h):
This litecoin rise won't break anytime soon. Couple of other interesting btc-e coins will see even bigger gains in the close future.
This was all predictable if you knew more then to buy one type of coin and then just sit on your ass, trying to pray for success.
178.
Post 11853516 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.20h):
What the heck is wrong with you people ?
Why everybody is losing his mind ?
Someone is swearing that we will see $400 on Sunday and the other is gurnating that we will see $500 in the time we are struggling to pass the $300 mark.
Are the trolls becoming super-uber-mega bulls or what ?!!!!
PPl are insane...the 500$ mark will not be reached Monday! If anything the irrational target prices makes me want to sell into a rally. Bollinger bands don't lie and we can't go up forever...400-500 within a couple months but it must be in an orderly fashion!
when has Bitcoin ever behaved in an orderly fashion or cared for "bollinger bands" and your, or anyone's, opinion of what is "irrational"?
179.
Post 11890505 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.21h):
well it's quite clear the bulls don't give a f*ck about Greece
180.
Post 11912475 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.21h):
Australia? Well, some islands will be more expensive than others...
Apparently, there are Approximately 180,497 available islands in the world. ->
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090510184804AArokSMThat means an average of 21,000,000/180,497 = an average of =116.3454240237 per island.
Keep in mind this does not take into consideration that some islands will be with more than others ( see Australia ) or that bitcoin might be used for other things than buying islands. For example, yachts, Ferraris, castles, etc...
I still harbor hope that for a princely sum of 50 or 60 bitcoins I might someday be able to buy my own island. I do not imagine it might be as nice as some of those depicted.
http://www.privateislandsonline.com/islands/near-batteau-islandMore like that, I suspect.
There are plenty of cheap and nice islands up for purchase in South-East Asia. Hell, I own a part of one in the Philippines. Yes it can be a hassle legally and you cannot always outright own the place but if you have money there are ways around
181.
Post 11912509 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.21h):
There are plenty of cheap and nice islands up for purchase in South-East Asia. Hell, I own a part of one in the Philippines. Yes it can be a hassle legally and you cannot always outright own the place but if you have money there are ways around
Panama seems to be a hotspot for island bargains. However a few buyers have arrived to find their very own surprise populations. I presume under those circumstances you're fully legally entitled to auction off the hunting rights to depraved Wall Streeters.
Yes! I love Panama
182.
Post 11912574 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.21h):
Hmm... you do realise this is from 10 months ago?
183.
Post 11929660 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.21h):
I bet we'll see 269 or 265 before 300 again, but 280 is a fucking good buy, and so is 300, FFS its going to 32,000K next bubble scheduled for take off in ~2years, buy or die.
Welcome back Adam's.
Hope you had enjoyed your vacation buddy.
You are right, even at $300, still it's very cheap.
I will be buying around 4.5 coins within the coming few days to add to my stash.
So it's cheap at $300, but not at what... $32k? So for it to even get to $32k/btc, millions of people have to happily be buying at that price, yes? So why would they?
You guys don't get it, will never get it.
Not quite.
We just need a couple of banks and hedge funds with billions
184.
Post 11929701 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.21h):
I bet we'll see 269 or 265 before 300 again, but 280 is a fucking good buy, and so is 300, FFS its going to 32,000K next bubble scheduled for take off in ~2years, buy or die.
Welcome back Adam's.
Hope you had enjoyed your vacation buddy.
You are right, even at $300, still it's very cheap.
I will be buying around 4.5 coins within the coming few days to add to my stash.
So it's cheap at $300, but not at what... $32k? So for it to even get to $32k/btc, millions of people have to happily be buying at that price, yes? So why would they?
You guys don't get it, will never get it.
Not quite.
We just need a couple of banks and hedge funds with billions
Never. Gonna. Happen. Banks are laughing at bitcoin.
Best hope is that some whales pump the hell out of it again, and a couple million young retail investors are foolish enough to buy at literally any price.
Because "to da moon!" and all dat stupid nonsense.
They are only laughing because they cannot get in the game and rub elbows with everyone.
When we get the NASDAQ ETF they are going to be riding this baby to the moon indeed.
185.
Post 11929759 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.21h):
So for it to even get to $32k/btc, millions of people have to happily be buying at that price, yes? So why would they? Why would we all be happily buying more at that price?
Supply versus demand. The supply of bitcoins is limited. The demand will grow.
...It's the equivalent of saying that Gold is cheap at $1100/ounce, since it will be at $30k/ounce...
For years gold was $35/oz. It could certainly go a lot higher than $1100.
Some people just don't get it, will never get it.
Hey, you're talking to a bitcoin bull here. I'm still in. But going on 2 years of nothing and I'm still seeing, well, nothing going on. Seriously. Adoption ground to a halt. People have lost interest.
No major retailer announcement since early 2014. It's getting a little ridiculous at this point.
Oh but that is why. You are obviously looking at the wrong things. Major retail adoption is irrelevant to Bitcoin success. It will come organically much later.
Bitcoin is steadily adding thousands of users every day which is somewhat encouraging given the bear market we have experienced. Now while user adoption may not be through the rough, corporate acceptance, interest and participation is at an all time high.
Billions of dollars are actively put to use by some of the smartest brains in finance and computer science to develop an infrastructure that can manage and ultimately substain the coming levels of adoption.
186.
Post 11960935 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.21h):
Did you bother reading the article?
I can't find any explanation or arguments from which his theory of "BTC cannot become reserve currency" can be derived
Troll Swanson trolling as usual
187.
Post 11961007 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.21h):
I see, we're dealing with a serious lack of foresight here.
Gvt of the world will not willingly convert to BTC. They will do it because their economy will eventually crumble and BTC will be the only safe asset left.
Here, some reading for you:
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/speculative-attack/
188.
Post 11963084 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.21h):
Can I ask what is so good about Gemini?
Aren't there already exchanges? Why expect a upward movement in price?
Just wondering.
Thanks
Gemini will be a "fully regulated, fully compliant" exchange with major fiat backing (Winklevoss twins) They also have a major stake in Bitcoin with a reported 1-2 percent of there assets in BTC.
The Twins seem serious and motivated to "Make Bitcoin bigger then Facebook".
If sombody will make BTC "Mainstream" it will be them.
Yeah but is this just a U.S thing only? Most exchanges are awful with Euro, pound sterling etc.
Apart from in the U.S. it's pretty shitty for the average person to buy bitcoins.
This has most likely been mentioned 100s of times but if the winkles have that much what's to stop them dumping on Gemini?
Not trolling, just asking.
Latest report mention they are filling for charter in the New York State which, correct me if I'm wrong, would make them the second fully regulated exchange in the U.S (on a national scale).
My guess is chartered banks are likely to eventually have better support for international customers than traditional exchanges.
189.
Post 11985067 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.22h):
Is bitcoin connected in any means by SDR (The supposed to be New Word Currency) ?
Bitcoin is the new world currency
190.
Post 11985151 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.22h):
Is bitcoin connected in any means by SDR (The supposed to be New Word Currency) ?
Bitcoin is the new world currency
How is that ?
Pardon me, but I smell trolling here.
Just wait a couple of years
191.
Post 11986842 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.22h):
Wall observer economists (but in particular in reminds me of ponzielita):
very original
192.
Post 11987053 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.22h):
Bitcoin is currently at the same stage you just hodl your long position until the market stops looking bullish
For a permabull the market always looks bullish.
Only trolls can't see that the whole crash from ~1200 to ~160 is nothing more than a bull flag!
if you just look at the chart BTC is currently for the first time really in a bullish phase...
The problem is there is nothing fundamental backing this Bull-trend up like Interest rate decision etc. pp.
You trolls really need to try harder.
193.
Post 12012944 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.22h):
I kinda agree with you... When I started learning about Bitcoin I was also like: "Fuck this is going to take over the hole universe, here you have all my worthless FIAT money..."
But the more you understand the world around bitcoin, the more you should become disillusioned about bitcoin as a competitor to the traditional finance system. It is maybe better for a online payment system... But there is no REAL problem with the traditional Kredit-Card / PayPal /Skrill / SEPA system...
Sure Bitcoin is currently cheaper from a retailer point of view but someone has to pay the system in order to maintain it. I mean if you leave out the Blockreward subvention a TX would cost about 50$...
You should maybe read this
The main things that Bitcoin offers over the traditional fiat monetary instruments are: a fixed economic base3, uninterdictable transactions and unfreezable funds, and an immutable history of all transactions that have ever taken place, secured by proof of work on the technical side and mutually-assured-destruction on the game theory side.
Bitcoinating very specifically has nothing to do with: making people rich by virtue of holding bitcoin keys, "banking the unbanked", processing as many transactions as Visa, or any of the other entirely orthogonal concerns USG muppets routinely trot out in vain attempts to undermine the thing in the way they've become accustomed to coopting other "open source" projects like GPG and OpenSSL.
http://cascadianhacker.com/blog/2015/04/24_bitcoin-needs-no-changes-to-destroy-your-world.html
194.
Post 12038450 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.22h):
On a serious side note, if mark gets jailed in japan... well even he doesnt deserve that...
oh, I think he does. The lives he ruined is one thing, but he caused more damage to our project than any other single person. Bitcoin may be the only thing that saves our children from living in a vastly poorer world. If it is, and mass adoption was delayed by about a year or two because of him, the loss of potential benefit is incalculable.
The Mt.Gox fiasco was a blessing in disguise. A necessary cold shower for everyone involved in security malpractices and general amateurism in the space.
195.
Post 12039127 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.22h):
Well look what we have here
196.
Post 12073812 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.22h):
If you can't see through the smoke in this one...
This has penny stock pump and dump written all over it w/ a twist of GAW Miners.
197.
Post 12162203 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.23h):
I love short sellers. Every short has to either cover and provide support or to get squeezed and spike into my sell orders. We're seeing higher highs and higher lows on the daily chart, even if the moving averages look a little scary. This fork controversy will get resolved eventually one way or another. Block size will be increased even with chain bloat because more and more of those "dust" transactions will be time stamps or colored coins representing title to something. Processors are getting faster. Bandwidth is getting wider. Hard drives are getting bigger. It won't be an issue.
Meanwhile the fiat printers are printing, on-ramps for institutional investors are being built and the halving just gets closer.
You're gonna hold out that long?
These are day traders... make a few bucks and short attention spans. I'd be doing that too but I see too much potential. I'd rather hold calm for a 200$ trade instead of bust a sweat for a 20$ trade. And miss out on the way up. But there is quite a bit of opportunity... for some reason people are still seeming indecisive...
Either that or the Bitcoins are just being spent in retail.
It's the 3600 coin/day inflation that's putting the downward pressure on price. What's amazing is that there has been an average ~$1 million/day being pumped in to hold the price ever since the $166 bottom last winter.
Miners are selling all or almost all they mine. You gotta love the Chinese. On a macro level, they sell stuff at cost and then lend us the money to buy it. No way that can end well. I'm not just talking about bitcoin. All their exports. If you think about it, Chinese miners are using subsidized electricity so it's actually the Red Chinese government that are providing us all these cheap coins. It's the only thing China actually sells that prolly won't be worthless in five years.
Do we have any proof of that? I'm really quite tired of seeing this assumption thrown around as fact...
198.
Post 12180136 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.23h):
feels a lot like the action on the silk road take down flash crash (which began the major 2013 major leg up), like market is waiting for some "news" to flush out the last of the weak hands before hitting major bull mode ... and $161 on finex is now double bottom no?
this is how it works new actors and coin distribution = new market information. this is the one chance those cripple coiners get to buy in before we say good buy. (up or down)
Would you please stop your bs and concern yourself with supporting what is essentially NSA-XT
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.html
199.
Post 12180200 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.23h):
feels a lot like the action on the silk road take down flash crash (which began the major 2013 major leg up), like market is waiting for some "news" to flush out the last of the weak hands before hitting major bull mode ... and $161 on finex is now double bottom no?
this is how it works new actors and coin distribution = new market information. this is the one chance those cripple coiners get to buy in before we say good buy. (up or down)
Would you please stop your bs and concern yourself with supporting what is essentially NSA-XT
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.htmlif that's true it's the cripple coiners to blame, they are holding the network hostage with limited transactions calling the only option to allow bigger block next year a unnecessary rush. Gavin has found a willing option to increase the block size in XT.
I think it's quite clear by now there is consensus that blocks should eventually increase. As such there is no "cripple coiners". Only people in disagreement as to how we should proceed.
Where is the demand for your transactions !? I'm not seeing it. Except some useless spam tests the network is in no way, shape or form, "held hostage". This is just another one of you XT supporters urgency "hyperbole"
Gavin has been compromised and working with Hearn to sabotage Bitcoin or shape it into a corporation playtoy.
It's time we rid ourselves of these two dangerous government shills. It's been a long time coming really...
Get to grip with reality and stop making yourself sound like a retard.
"Herrppp it's the cripplecoiners to blame for Gavin siding w/ a known Bitcoin-breaker and promoting a divisive fork riddled with NSA extra-code, derpppp"
200.
Post 12180294 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.23h):
feels a lot like the action on the silk road take down flash crash (which began the major 2013 major leg up), like market is waiting for some "news" to flush out the last of the weak hands before hitting major bull mode ... and $161 on finex is now double bottom no?
this is how it works new actors and coin distribution = new market information. this is the one chance those cripple coiners get to buy in before we say good buy. (up or down)
Would you please stop your bs and concern yourself with supporting what is essentially NSA-XT
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.htmlif that's true it's the cripple coiners to blame, they are holding the network hostage with limited transactions calling the only option to allow bigger block next year a unnecessary rush. Gavin has found a willing option to increase the block size in XT.
I think it's quite clear by now there is consensus that blocks should eventually increase. As such there is no "cripple coiners". Only people in disagreement as to how we should proceed.
Where is the demand for your transactions !? I'm not seeing it. Except some useless spam tests the network is in no way, shape or form, "held hostage". This is just another one of you XT supporters urgency "hyperbole"
Gavin has been compromised and working with Hearn to sabotage Bitcoin or shape it into a corporation playtoy.
It's time we rid ourselves of these two dangerous government shills. It's been a long time coming really...
Get to grip with reality and stop making yourself sound like a retard.
"Herrppp it's the cripplecoiners to blame for Gavin siding w/ a known Bitcoin-breaker and promoting a divisive fork riddled with NSA extra-code, derpppp"
demand can come at any time, its not rushing anything to implement a temporary measure to allow bigger blocks that executes next year.
non the less, it seems the science and the maths behind the incentives implies that the miners will limit them selves and its just the ignorant that think they need the laws of me to govern the block size.
It's not a temporary measure it's a network fork.
Another important principle of Bitcoin is that stakeholders know the protocol can't change unless a vast, nearly-unanimous consensus agrees to those changes. We have never instituted a protocol change without this threshold of acceptance. It is important to achieve overwhelming consensus on changes to Bitcoin, because that stability underlies confidence in Bitcoin itself. It is disappointing to see so much support for a 75% threshold, which is unprecedented, and with the current network security (SPV mining, etc.) an even lower threshold of support is necessary for this fork to win.
Aside from mere miner consensus, it is a fact that nearly all of the technical expertise in our community outside of Gavin and Mike, including experts from within and outside of the core dev team, do not agree with this fork. It is not a rejection of increasing the block size limit, but a desire to be conservative, spend a little more time fleshing out ideas, and come up with a solution that does not harm decentralization. The block size limit is not just a number, it has huge implications for the scalability, decentralization and security of the entire network. All of the most reputable engineers and cryptocurrency experts in this community are urging caution.
There are workshops on scalability in the following months. There is an active discussion about scalability and the block size limit among the core developers. There is code being developed, and research being done on alternative designs and approaches to our scalability problems.
I would hope that the community could see through this, and understand that hastily forcing a technical decision on the network through politics is a bad idea. If you bypass a process (achieving consensus among experts on well motivated protocol changes) that is designed to be conservative and forge the right path on difficult issues, you risk upending all of the work the developers have done to make Bitcoin a useful monetary system. You not only upend the decision-making process and alienate the people best equipped to improve Bitcoin, but you set a terrible precedent for future disputes on technical matters. It sets a very bad standard for Bitcoin's approach to development.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hhykk/bitcoin_xt_will_shake_our_faith_in_bitcoin_in/?sort=confidenceGet some sense would ya
201.
Post 12180364 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.23h):
If bitcoin gets backed by the NSA is this bullish?
This is the most important and well crafted attack on Bitcoin since probably its origins. They've resorted to use their most experienced and well entrenched moles to institute an hail mary coup to overthrow Bitcoin out of the open-source, cypherpunk community into the hands of corporate and state actors.
It will fail, and this is absolutely bullish.
202.
Post 12180782 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.23h):
Those are relay nodes, not miners. They have no direct say on the bock size increase; but by showing support they may convince miners to switch.
Chinese didn't want the fork.
They were OK with 8 MB but did not want to switch to XT; they wanted all the devs to get together. But that was weeks ago, and it is clear that Core will never agree to any increase. Who knows what they are thinking now.
I'm saving all the code here just in case they decide to hide it. We need a skilled programmer to go through this and see just how bad it is, there's so much code itd be easy to hide some malicious stuff in here.
Keep in mind this code is all for the IP logger and blacklist, they worked hard on this! I would just post it here but it is an absolutely immense amount of code.
There's both a whitelist and a blacklist, like Coinbase. From what I can tell it is NOT all objective, they can subjectively put people on the lists. This would give them complete control of anyone who uses Bitcoin.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByLnBVYGlyDsT25MNExSUDB2NTA/view?usp=sharingI think they're thinking the same as everyone : burn that shit with fire
203.
Post 12189275 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
I really dont think that there is an excuse not to scale up. Hell, it should be an automated process by now. The community will grow and we're going to need the larger blocks. I dont see how making the block, say... 8MB would cause any trouble. At all. Personally, I dont think this most recent crash back to $220s is merely because of the blocksize debate, but it's not helping. Bitcoins are good for me at $1000 or $100, it's just too useful to not use. Much more useful than some other methods of transferring money. If we let Bitcoin stall behind, we have hundreds of other cryptocurrencies lining up to be the face of cryptocurrencies.
Bitcoin will live on, ether in scaled-up core or XT. Meanwhile, there will be more "bitcoin is dead" headlines to add to that one webpage.
Oh yeah? I'm curious how do you use Bitcoin?
204.
Post 12189282 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
I'm sure the NSA will be glad to assist in keeping an entire copy for you. Including every government agency in the world.
I can't tell if he's trolling or not.
Either way, the comment is quite pertinent regarding pruning.
205.
Post 12189315 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
This is an attempted coup alright, but it's from idiot miners who want a bigger slice of a smaller pie. If we cave on this, they will never allow our network to become competitive enough to disrupt the banksters.
Bloating the blockchain to DOA levels will disrupt bitcoin, not the banksters.
Besides, 8mb blocks, or even 80mb blocks, aren't enough to scale to such levels. You'd need enormous storage (and bandwidth) per day to compete with the volume of banks and credit cards.
so which is it, the increase is too big and too small at the same time? We don't need to go head to head with VISA right now. We need grown up core devs who don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Why do you need bigger blocks
right now?
Stop promoting this false dilemma. It's not XT or nothing.
206.
Post 12189321 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
I'm sure the NSA will be glad to assist in keeping an entire copy for you. Including every government agency in the world.
I can't tell if he's trolling or not.
Either way, the comment is quite pertinent regarding pruning.
A not-so-sophisticated attacker could spam the hell out of the blockchain, while also ensuring that his bloat doesn't have the potential for much pruning.
Don't get me wrong I agree with you.
I absolutely despise "blockchain pruning"
207.
Post 12189379 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".
Maybe you ought not to take these polls too seriously
208.
Post 12189383 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
This is an attempted coup alright, but it's from idiot miners who want a bigger slice of a smaller pie. If we cave on this, they will never allow our network to become competitive enough to disrupt the banksters.
Bloating the blockchain to DOA levels will disrupt bitcoin, not the banksters.
Besides, 8mb blocks, or even 80mb blocks, aren't enough to scale to such levels. You'd need enormous storage (and bandwidth) per day to compete with the volume of banks and credit cards.
so which is it, the increase is too big and too small at the same time? We don't need to go head to head with VISA right now. We need grown up core devs who don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Why do you need bigger blocks
right now?
Stop promoting this false dilemma. It's not XT or nothing.
I'm totally on board with the guy who doesn't know how to spell
brakes. Obviously a Top Mind™.
The guy is Greg Maxwell. Of course small brains such as yours can only fixate on grammar mistakes and not the content of the message.
209.
Post 12189484 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Back clearly does not understand economics. Mining gets more centralized because of economies of scale. this is unavoidable unless you intentionally want to keep mining as a hobby. Look at gold mining. At the beginning of the California Gold Rush, anybody with a shovel and a pan could make a buck. After the low hanging fruit all got picked,you had to invest more and more capital and have more knowledge and specialized knowledge.
Back's basically saying that he doesn't want to scale up at all, but if we are to scale up it should be as little as possible. He offers valid concerns, but in practice, that means that "reasonable" block size increase means no increase.
Mining centralization is unfortunate and unavoidable but there is also limits to centralization in an open network. The barriers to entry are hardware efficiency, cost of hardware, cost of electricity, technical skill and other things like bandwidth.
Every single barrier can be overcome if the price of bitcoin gets enough. The same thing happened a few years ago when gold prices jumped so high that placer mining became profitable again. Smart rich people from lower margin industries come in and compete--But that WON'T happen if most bitcoin transactions go off blockchain because of economics.
Oh yeah. Economies of scale. Surely he hasn't heard that one before. Good on you to point this out.
I'd say you clearly don't understand english maybe? Did you somehow miss this paragraph ?
Adam Back: The worry with extremely large blocks is that they can be used to exacerbate a selfish mining attack. If you’ve got a large miner or a couple of large miners, they can create very large blocks and other people won’t be able to receive them or process them in time. So, they will gain an advantage in mining.
Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.
By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.
If you increase the block size rapidly, the level playing field is eroded. If it gets eroded too much, once miners are able to create blocks that only they and a couple of other big miners can mine, they can exclude everybody else because [other miners] can’t keep up.
The block size is there to put a check on these economies of scale and level the playing field.
210.
Post 12189593 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Why does this sound so plausible
Agent A : “Ok team, listen up, I’ve assembled you here today because we haven’t a moment to lose. These are the direst of times and we’re running out of options.”
Agent C : “I have the same sense, so what’s the plan ?”
Agent A : “We’re going to fast-track our proposed ph0rk, wind up the media marionette, and squeeze the price signal with everything we’ve got. I don’t know if it’ll be enough, but we have to do something. We can’t just take this laying down. The stakes are simply too high.”
Agent C : “I’m already on the phone with Agent E(conomist).”
Agent D : “I have Agent B(itfinex) on hold.”
Agent E : “Agents G(avin) and H(earn) are standing by awaiting your orders, sir. What shall I tell them ?”
Agent A : “Tell them to fire when ready. Hell, tell them all to fire, fire, fire. What choice do we have ? What else can we do ? Good God I hope this works. The People are counting on us…”
Agent B(BC) : “Bitcoin could split in debate over currency’s future”
Agent B(usiness)I(nsider) : “A bitcoin civil war is threatening to tear the digital currency in two”
Agent E(conomist) : “A spat between programmers may split bitcoin”
Agent G(uardian) : “Bitcoin’s forked: chief scientist launches alternative proposal for the currency”
Agent V(ox) : “Bitcoin is on the verge of a constitutional crisis”
Agent W(all)S(treet)J(ournal) : “Bitcoin’s Noisy Size Debate Reaches a Hard Fork”
http://www.contravex.com/2015/08/19/vox-populi-vox-dei-no-more/
211.
Post 12193818 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
indeed, if you don't trust Mike and Gavin's XT code, but (for some unfathomable reason) you do trust Adam and Greg's Core, and Wladimir, Jorge, Pieter, Matt, Todd, Mark and all the others
You pathetic pathological lying POS
212.
Post 12193873 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Higher fees don't remove the upper limit of 7 transactions per second. Is that so hard to understand?
Neither does XT altcoin. Is that so hard to understand?
XT is not an altcoin. And it does widen the bottleneck until a better scaling solution is in place.
The point is it's still not a very good solution and the bottle neck would not be present without the spam/dust transactions.
It's really that simple.
It's a kick the can down the road situation that amounts to Gavin and Mike throwing a hissy fit.
Do you read the BIP's? Its not like core are sitting there saying 1mb is good forever, just that the solution isn't to suddenly throw 8mb patches into the mix. Further XT is basically Gavin and Mikes coin, are you confident that you want to trust the future of the project to these two dictators who, even if other devs join them on XT, could just do the same thing further down the line when they want to change something else.
I aggree it's kicking the can down the road. It's a temporary solution to a problem that can become significant next year. Adoption of bitcoin can suddenly grow exponential if it becomes popular. Gavin and Mike plan for success. In the future, I hope a scaling solution will be subsets of nodes verifying subsets of the transactions. (Today, everybody must verify every transaction.)
None of the BIPs you talk about have been put in effect. That's why we have XT today.
EDIT: And yes, I trust Gavin more than Wladimir.
Why?
Cause he seems like a nice guy?
Cause he managed to make himself the Bitcoin Santa Claus, the one who couldn't say no to "Bitcoin users" and was always "working for them"?
213.
Post 12193951 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?
An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.
With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.
What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.
LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.
The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.
Who is we?
Cause the more I look the more I can't find any significant support for XT from anyone that actually matters in the ecosystem. Just a bunch of reddit trolls, forum posters and general foot soldiers of the "Free Shit Army"
214.
Post 12194065 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
What's up with these bs rally and fades right back down to the beginning of the rally point? Pretty annoying. Plus XT talk has killed this thread as well.
Bad times we are living in
If you are a trader you should be well advised to keep track of the XT issue.
Anyone and their mother could tell we were going to see a dump after the PR propaganda that begun on Monday.
There is no point trading this absolutely manipulated market at this point anyway.
215.
Post 12194195 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
What's up with these bs rally and fades right back down to the beginning of the rally point? Pretty annoying. Plus XT talk has killed this thread as well.
Bad times we are living in
If you are a trader you should be well advised to keep track of the XT issue.
Anyone and their mother could tell we were going to see a dump after the PR propaganda that begun on Monday.
There is no point trading this absolutely manipulated market at this point anyway.
I can keep track of XT elsewhere. Wall observer thread is not the right place.
Everybody and my mother were surprised with the dump.
XT could have easily been seen as the savior and price could have skyrocketed.
Manipulation, manipulation, manipulation...don't you guys ever get sick of crying manipulation? It's the way markets work, big money moves the markets.
Maybe you need to keep track better.
About markets: I absolutely agree but there is an important difference, in Bitcoin big money
breaks the market. We are in an accumulation phase and so you never know when a whale might get hungrier for more cheap coins. When they do there is nothing your TA & wall watching do to help.
216.
Post 12194333 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?
An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.
With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.
What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.
LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.
The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.
Who is we?
Cause the more I look the more I can't find any significant support for XT from anyone that actually matters in the ecosystem. Just a bunch of reddit trolls, forum posters and general foot soldiers of the "Free Shit Army"
If there is so little significant support for XT, what are you afraid of?
Afraid?
I'm just trying to show you the light
217.
Post 12194424 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?
An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.
With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.
What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.
LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.
The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.
Who is we?
Cause the more I look the more I can't find any significant support for XT from anyone that actually matters in the ecosystem. Just a bunch of reddit trolls, forum posters and general foot soldiers of the "Free Shit Army"
If there is so little significant support for XT, what are you afraid of?
Afraid?
I'm just trying to show you the light
The light is built into the system. If a group of developers fail to deliver,
WE replace them
The "we" you're referring to is the crowd. The "we" you represent doesn't have a say in this issue
218.
Post 12194566 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?
An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.
With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.
What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.
LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.
The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.
Who is we?
Cause the more I look the more I can't find any significant support for XT from anyone that actually matters in the ecosystem. Just a bunch of reddit trolls, forum posters and general foot soldiers of the "Free Shit Army"
If there is so little significant support for XT, what are you afraid of?
Afraid?
I'm just trying to show you the light
The light is built into the system. If a group of developers fail to deliver,
WE replace them
The "we" you're referring to is the crowd. The "we" you represent doesn't have a say in this issue
The chinese mining pools are not happy with status quo and push for 8 mb limit. Will be exiting to see what they choose in january. At that time, I guess Wladimir has been pushed to come up with a core solution. (No, not the "wait for lightning"-solution, he he).
Solution will come in due time. Unlike what Gavinco would like you to believe there is no rush.
If there is consensus right now amongst relevant actors, it's that XT is not that solution.
See you weren't so wrong. The proper "we" will take action and the ones left in the dust will be Mike & Gavin.
219.
Post 12194662 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out
And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure...
220.
Post 12194816 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out
And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure...
There are no devs working on Bitcoin atm. They are all working on altcoins if you also include XT in that category.
what are you talking about
221.
Post 12194829 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out
And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure...
... there is no reason why the core devs can't update the fork when the dust settles.
"Update the fork" ?
How is that suppose to work again?
222.
Post 12194904 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out
And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure...
There are no devs working on Bitcoin atm. They are all working on altcoins if you also include XT in that category.
what are you talking about
Aren't they all working on sidechains, LN, Eth, and XT?
Oh yeah you right!
BTW I just spoke with one of them and they'd ask that you stop looking over their shoulders. It's your breath they say. It stinks of bullshit.
223.
Post 12194924 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out
And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure...
... there is no reason why the core devs can't update the fork when the dust settles.
"Update the fork" ?
How is that suppose to work again?
You just negotiate a deal with the NSA where you provide chinese miners as slaves in return for access to the mothership.
Or find common ground with the XT team and agree on an update. Or just do what Gavin and Hearn is doing.
Nahh.. NSA/Mothership.
common ground with the XT team ??
you haven't been following too well have you.
there is no place for common ground in XT:
https://bitcoinxt.software/faq.html#who-is-involvedDecisions are made through agreement between Mike and Gavin, with Mike making the final call if a serious dispute were to arise.
224.
Post 12195358 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
indeed, if you don't trust Mike and Gavin's XT code, but (for some unfathomable reason) you do trust Adam and Greg's Core, and Wladimir, Jorge, Pieter, Matt, Todd, Mark and all the others
You pathetic pathological lying POS
These developers are listed on Blockstream's "Team" page: Adam Back (President), Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Matt Corallo, Mark Friedenbach, Rusty Russell, Patrick "Intersango" Strateman, Jorge Timón, and Glen Willen. There may be others. Luke "Tonal" Jr works for Blockstream as contractor. Peter Todd works half-time for Viacoin, an altcoin that claims to be bitcoin done right -- e.g. with 25 times faster confirms.
Who is paying Wladimir's salary now?
Who's paying Mike's or Gavin's? You think these two are free from conflict of interest?
What really matters is you trolls still haven't been able to put forward a legitimate case of Blockstream benefitting from small blocks that doesn't rely on pure conjecture or total inability to grasp what it is they are doing.
225.
Post 12195564 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out
And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure...
Bitcoin XT is the only viable implementation of BIP 101, that is the only reason miners and node hosts are switching, if you had been paying attention this debate it about avoiding dictatorships not supporting them.
Mile knows as well as you that fungibility (
no black green or red lists) is essential for bitcoin to succeed as money, he discussed an idea and yes I agree with you, that he even entertained the idea is a little disturbing.
if he is as clueless as you it will be much easier to not employ his changes than it is to improve bitcoin with BIP101.
You're not seeing things very clearly. Maybe ask your bro cypherdoc for an eye check?
1. There are no miners switching.
2. This political coup is precisely an attempt to establish a "benevolent" dictatorship over the governance of Bitcoin
Mike knows went further than "entertaining" the idea he implemented it in hundreds of line of codes being run right now by XT nodes (code that was reviewed and approved by Gavin btw).
226.
Post 12195602 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
indeed, if you don't trust Mike and Gavin's XT code, but (for some unfathomable reason) you do trust Adam and Greg's Core, and Wladimir, Jorge, Pieter, Matt, Todd, Mark and all the others
You pathetic pathological lying POS
These developers are listed on Blockstream's "Team" page: Adam Back (President), Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Matt Corallo, Mark Friedenbach, Rusty Russell, Patrick "Intersango" Strateman, Jorge Timón, and Glen Willen. There may be others. Luke "Tonal" Jr works for Blockstream as contractor. Peter Todd works half-time for Viacoin, an altcoin that claims to be bitcoin done right -- e.g. with 25 times faster confirms.
Who is paying Wladimir's salary now?
Who's paying Mike's or Gavin's? You think these two are free from conflict of interest?
What really matters is you trolls still haven't been able to put forward a legitimate case of Blockstream benefitting from small blocks that doesn't rely on pure conjecture or total inability to grasp what it is they are doing.
I think your hijacking this tread too. (I'm sorry theymos closed down the thread where this debate was happening, some times when the truth is a treat authoritarian interests have to silence it and delete posts.)
I will not let misinformation stand uncorrected
227.
Post 12195617 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
can we have a sort of crowdfunding to pay core devs? like "put your money where your mouth is"? where is the Bitcoin Foundation when you really need them?
Bitcoin Foundation was the first attempt by Gavin at hijacking and centralizing Bitcoin development under his reign. They can stay in the dirt where they currently rest
228.
Post 12195827 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
About 12% of nodes are running XT with zero blocks mined.
If this number doesn't start rising XT will be DOA, Bitcoin will have worked as intended, and Gavin/Mike will have egg on their face for unnecessarily causing a rift and spooking the market.
I support a block size increase but not something as contentious as XT. There has to be a better solution.
Personally I think this will blow over soon and better solutions will be found.
I think the longer this debate continues the more toxic it will be for Bitcoin. One of my main interests in Crypto right now is as a counterbalance to financial instability I'm anticipating in September/October of this year. If there is a big market crash and/or US Dollar devaluation then Bitcoin may not stand to benefit at all if this debate isn't settled by then (and it looks like it won't be, what with conferences in September and November/December about this scaling issue).
There is no such uncertainty about a contentious fork lingering over Litecoin for instance, so if Bitcoin looks to be in shambles throughout the rest of 2015 then don't be surprised if an altcoin might just overtake BTC in terms of market cap. The XT implementation doesn't seem like a big deal to me, although I would prefer it if the alternatives to XT were more clearly defined.Never happening in a million years. Litecoin should not be considered "safe" just because there is no contentious fork... the infrastructure simply isn't there.
229.
Post 12195834 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
That is all they got in the 0.022 years since the 8 MB XT code was released. They have only 316'000 minutes left before the end of the year. What a flop.
That's if we're to assume all these nodes are in actual XT-nodes
230.
Post 12196293 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out
And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure...
... there is no reason why the core devs can't update the fork when the dust settles.
"Update the fork" ?
How is that suppose to work again?
You just negotiate a deal with the NSA where you provide chinese miners as slaves in return for access to the mothership.
Or find common ground with the XT team and agree on an update. Or just do what Gavin and Hearn is doing.
Nahh.. NSA/Mothership.
common ground with the XT team ??
you haven't been following too well have you.
there is no place for common ground in XT:
https://bitcoinxt.software/faq.html#who-is-involvedDecisions are made through agreement between Mike and Gavin, with Mike making the final call if a serious dispute were to arise.
... and he will include a link to the new code fork on his pages.
I'm sure he will welcome the pull request of everyone who NACKed him over the years with open arms
231.
Post 12196944 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
If there is consensus right now amongst relevant actors, it's that XT is not that solution.
Depending upon the definition of relevant actors.
I seriously doubt that "we", "the community" will be regarded as most relevant.
There is no "we, the people" in business.
In general there is no "we, the people". It's just socialist propaganda.
232.
Post 12197116 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
If there is consensus right now amongst relevant actors, it's that XT is not that solution.
Depending upon the definition of relevant actors.
I seriously doubt that "we", "the community" will be regarded as most relevant.
There is no "we, the people" in business.
In general there is no "we, the people". It's just socialist propaganda.
Ok, now I understand. You're a nutter. Damn you internet!
TIL takine a stand for
individual freedom = being a nutter
233.
Post 12197960 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
234.
Post 12198156 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
unfortunately did not get the chance to mingle with him. can you confirm this would be the same one that used to hang here?
235.
Post 12198559 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
It doesn't change the fact that the core devs have known about this issue for years and can't even come to an agreement on the direction much less the implementation of the scalability issue. Some are even arguing that we don't need to scale bitcoin at all because we can work around the limit.
Consensus only works until it doesn't. Then leadership is needed. I'm as anti-government as it gets, but this conspiracy crap is getting ridiculous. It's trivial to flip the switch that allows TOR routing, so individual nodes can turn it on or off depending on their security concerns.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, y'all are aggravating. I understand exactly why Gavin and Hearn released XT.
maybe Maggie Thatcher was right when she said "Consensus is the abdication of leadership."
You know I thought about this a lot today and had quite some reflections about it on twitter.
The leadership you refer to, it reminds me of Hayek. Here is what he had to say on the matter:
We must here return for a moment to the position which precedes the suppression of democratic processes and the creation of a totalitarian regime.
In this stage it is the general demand for quick and determined central government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic processes which make action for action's sake the goal.
It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough to "get things done" who exercises the greatest appeal.
"Strong" in this sense means not merely a numerical majority - it is the ineffectiveness of parliamentary procedure with which people are dissatisfied. What they will seek is somebody with such solid support as to inspire confidence that he can carry out whatever he wants.
Are we forgetting history and just about to repeat it? I sure hope not.
236.
Post 12198682 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
It doesn't change the fact that the core devs have known about this issue for years and can't even come to an agreement on the direction much less the implementation of the scalability issue. Some are even arguing that we don't need to scale bitcoin at all because we can work around the limit.
Consensus only works until it doesn't. Then leadership is needed. I'm as anti-government as it gets, but this conspiracy crap is getting ridiculous. It's trivial to flip the switch that allows TOR routing, so individual nodes can turn it on or off depending on their security concerns.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, y'all are aggravating. I understand exactly why Gavin and Hearn released XT.
maybe Maggie Thatcher was right when she said "Consensus is the abdication of leadership."
You know I thought about this a lot today and had quite some reflections about it on twitter.
The leadership you refer to, it reminds me of Hayek. Here is what he had to say on the matter:
We must here return for a moment to the position which precedes the suppression of democratic processes and the creation of a totalitarian regime.
In this stage it is the general demand for quick and determined central government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic processes which make action for action's sake the goal.
It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough to "get things done" who exercises the greatest appeal.
"Strong" in this sense means not merely a numerical majority - it is the ineffectiveness of parliamentary procedure with which people are dissatisfied. What they will seek is somebody with such solid support as to inspire confidence that he can carry out whatever he wants.
Are we forgetting history and just about to repeat it? I sure hope not.
You get Austrian cred for quoting Hayek, but nobody is using, threatening or advocating physical force be used or initiated. Leading is not the same as ruling.
I don't believe the "Final Solution" was included in the National Socialist party pamphlet either
Yet, though the road be long, it is one on which it becomes more difficult to turn back as one advances.
237.
Post 12198841 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Don't you think that's just a touch hyperbolic? Godwin's Rule is already in play?
Involving Nazis ? Hyperbolic? never !
Still...
Ire of the masses? Check
Populist agenda? Check
Common enemy? Check
"Strong leader"? Check
Enough to raise an eyebrow IMO
238.
Post 12198887 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
BitGold members with bank accounts at Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citi, US Bank, USAA, Fidelity, Charles Schwab, Capital One and American Express will now be able to instantly deposit money from their bank account into Bigold, and vice versa.
http://bitgoldinc.tumblr.com/post/126948191730/bitgold-now-connected-to-nine-of-americas-largestDamn, these guys are not messing around.
Tells you how little respect Bitcoin companies get from banks
239.
Post 12222281 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
I like you Adam but this is so wrong I'd sell all my bitcoins the day we even consider using this decision process
240.
Post 12222458 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
I like you Adam but this is so wrong I'd sell all my bitcoins the day we even consider using this decision process
Why ?
Because
Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be.
Democracy is the rule of the mob.
Bitcoin is a consensus system. Anyone trying to contaminate it with "democractic" process is proposing an attack at the heart of Bitcoin ethos.
It is beyond me how anyone could still be fooled by the pipe dream of democracy anyway.
241.
Post 12223117 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Democracy is the rule of the mob.
Bitcoin is a consensus system. Anyone trying to contaminate it with "democractic" process is proposing an attack at the heart of Bitcoin ethos.
Imagine we have a project that requires consensus. You've invested 1M$ and I've invested 1$. Now I would be able to blackmail you, not giving you my consensus until you give me most of your M$. And in the long run nobody will invest in such a project. So if you want a project to work, you'll have to use force against me, obstructing minority, i.e. to switch from consensus to democracy.
At democracy majority oppresses minority. Brute force wins.
At consensus minority blackmails majority. Those who care less wins.
The both systems are inherently bad.
The good solution is the free market.
Consensus =! Unanimity
If you only have 1$ at your disposition then you are by definition poor and at a disadvantage over someone with millions. In an ecosystem as big as BTC this will make you an outlier and no matter how strong you shout your voice will not be heard because it is not respected.
Stop throwing "free market" around as if it makes any sense or is relevant in that situation.
242.
Post 12234987 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Chinese stocks getting slammed again
243.
Post 12235181 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
China crashing worse than Bitcoin
Down 15% in 2 days !!
244.
Post 12235221 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
No. I believe Chinese got out of BTC or LTC to buy cheaper Chinese stocks...
That doesn't make any sense. A quick look will tell you no one is buying Chinese stocks at the moment. I know we Bitcoiners like to catch falling knives but this China situation is something else...
245.
Post 12235321 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
The same kind who'd be looking for bargains when the sky is falling.
OMG!!! The sky is falling!
Give me a break! Chinese stocks increased by 10x over the last 7 years - what is a small 15% correction... lets get things in perspective here...
More like 40% from its peak this summer...
246.
Post 12236346 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
Does it have to be the compromised shitcode of XT: definitely not
There is a version of XT with the block size limit increase only, without the other controversial changes.
If you don't trust XT, but (for some bizarre reason) you do trust Blockstream, you can take a copy of BitcoinCore and apply the size increase patches from XT yourself. There may be a copy of that out there, too.
Indeed, if you are not a miner, you can just take the BitcoinCore code and replace the one line where it says "MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000" by "32000000". That way you will accept big blocks if they are in a blockchain that is longer than any other. There are some hypothetical situations when that will be the "wrong" chain for a block or two, but those situations may occur only briefly sometime in 2016, and will not be different from the orphan blocks that happen 2-3 times every day already,
Stolfi did Blockstream took your daughter out for dinner and brought her back late or something? Your butthurt is something else.
By all accounts the actions of Mike & Gavin warrant far more suspicion than conjectures about Blockstream's influence over the block size decision.
247.
Post 12236479 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
By all accounts the actions of Mike & Gavin warrant far more suspicion than conjectures about Blockstream's influence over the block size decision.
You have your nose, I have mine...
Seeing as Blockstream would clearly benefit from block size increase, please entertain us with your arguments.
248.
Post 12241677 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
wasn't just laughing about the fact that people have been touting slush pool on the side of xt so it's funny to see them come out and say they wouldn't run it. Besides, If you can't see the difference between xt and just running big block patch on core that's your problem.
Well, I find it funny that people care about whether others run XT or Core; since that choice, besides being irrelevant, is practically invisible from the outside. Even the difference between the various BIP100s is not important at first.
The fact that you are too dense or disingenuous to understand the differences between XT, Core & the various BIP1xx does not make it true Stolfi, go play outside won't you? You brain is in need of much needed fresh air.
249.
Post 12249154 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
The important thing is to get a majority of the miners to agree to raise the limit to 8 MB (or some other common value in that ballpark). Then they need only agree for a date to start doing so, and tell the world about it.
Which software they will use for that is irrelevant, as well as the method that they use to get into agreement, announce their decision, and enable the new limit. If the Blockstream developers do not cede, the miners can either use another version, or take the Core base and patch it themselves.
All major miners suerly have enough programming expertise to do that. Unlike whatever lunatic scenario your come up with trolfi know that miners trust core and they will do whatever core tells them they should do.
And that's not gonna be 8 MB.
250.
Post 12249205 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
there pretty much consensus about this, XT is a flop
XT has reached is goal imo to put more pressure. It has also brought out the worst in some people and pointed to some related problems (centralization of control over the places the community uses to communicate, for example).
I ran XT on my node for a while for exactly this reason. I never intended to blindly follow Hearns changes in the future and I think I'm not alone.
The biggest mystery to me is how we arrived at this situation, where Gavin and Mike (felt they) had to resort to the fork
solution mess...
Sure, a certain number of
maxblockheads resisting any and all changes to the protocol I can see as being unavoidable. But why Gavin didn't manage to convince a majority of the core devs to support some adjustment is still not entirely clear to me.
Either Gavin tried to push exclusively his idea of an adjustment (which, admittedly, can seem a bit drastic) - in that case, it's a failure on his side to compromise. Alternatively, there was a consensus by the rest of the team that the current limit better not be touched at all right now (in which case, Gavin did the right thing, even if the right thing is a huge mess as well).
From the outside, I got the impression it was a combination of the two above, but I wonder if someone closer to the core team knows if one of these two aspects was the dominant factor.
Here's what happened.
Gavin pulled numbers out of his ass based on faulty tests (remember 20MB first?) then when core devs made it clear they wouldn't agree with his proposal dude ran home crying to Mama Hearn and they both decided to bypass core decision making process on the pretence of urgency.
The consensus was that current limit should not be touched under more rigorous testing was done to understand better the implications and unintended consequences of such a decision. Gavin couldn't convince anyone since instead of supporting his proposal w/ more technical material Gavin and Mike went full retard political and steered the ignorant masses into the mess you are witnessing.
That's if you actually believe that Gavin & Mike are not government agents trying to break Bitcoin which a good case can be made for..
251.
Post 12249315 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
yup. looks like the final nail into the Bitcoin XT coffin.
won't have lasted more than 2 weeks
252.
Post 12249428 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
there pretty much consensus about this, XT is a flop
BIP100 is looking promising, i think if they tweak it a bit to address some people's paranoid concerns about it, its going to win.
Right now, it looks more like the "industry" wants XT and the pools seem to want "something else".
Nobody even bothers to ask what the community wants, since we're all just a bunch of nerds sitting in their mom's basements and trolling each other.
But I agree, XT/BIP 101 doesn't look like it's going to fly.
The "industry" is nothing more than VC-tit sucking "entrepreneurs" being lobbied by Gavin & Mike. They're as clueless as they come.
253.
Post 12249455 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Here's what happened.
Gavin pulled numbers out of his ass based on faulty tests (remember 20MB first?) then when core devs made it clear they wouldn't agree with his proposal dude ran home crying to Mama Hearn and they both decided to bypass core decision making process on the pretence of urgency.
The consensus was that current limit should not be touched under more rigorous testing was done to understand better the implications and unintended consequences of such a decision. Gavin couldn't convince anyone since instead of supporting his proposal w/ more technical material Gavin and Mike went full retard political and steered the ignorant masses into the mess you are witnessing.
That's if you actually believe that Gavin & Mike are not government agents trying to break Bitcoin which a good case can be made for..
So you break Bitcoin by giving choice to the economy to use one code or another?
It's like saying the first altcoin was an attempt to break Bitcoin. If Bitcoin cannot survive these kind of things it doesn't deserve all the hope we put in it. Choice is good, something that has to be a Monopoly to survive is just not worth the attention.
They made it clear to the Blockstream's guys that they don't control the thing, I think that was needful since these guys had started to gain too much confidence.
[/quote]
It was never about "the Blockstream" guys. That's just an invention trolls come up with when all other arguments fail. There's a gang of reputable,
technical people opposing Gavin.
The XT coup was never about choice. It was political propaganda to try and create a schism fork by dividing consensus by way of steering the ignorant masses using fallacious arguments.
254.
Post 12249636 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
The "industry" is nothing more than VC-tit sucking "entrepreneurs" being lobbied by Gavin & Mike. They're as clueless as they come.
It doesn't matter if they're talking kittens from outer space, the ones running the show have the weight.
miner vs "industry" vs developer
which one is really running the show ?
Money talks. People listen.
In Bitcoin the amount of USD you can throw around, unless you buy BTC with it, is pretty much irrelevant.
A bunch of startups "running the show".... Gimme a break
255.
Post 12249706 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
A bunch of startups "running the show".... Gimme a break
What do you think would happen if it came to a fork of some kind, let's not necessarily assume XT/Core but anything else.
Bitpay choses to no longer process payments coming from one chain but only from the other.
Which chance of survival would you give the other chain?
I'd say zero.
Bitpay's "payment processing" is an irrelevant, marginally small aspect of Bitcoin as it is now.
Are you really under the impression that people are actually buying stuff with Bitcoin? By that I mean any significant amount?
256.
Post 12249887 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
A bunch of startups "running the show".... Gimme a break
What do you think would happen if it came to a fork of some kind, let's not necessarily assume XT/Core but anything else.
Bitpay choses to no longer process payments coming from one chain but only from the other.
Which chance of survival would you give the other chain?
I'd say zero.
Bitpay's "payment processing" is an irrelevant, marginally small aspect of Bitcoin as it is now.
Are you really under the impression that people are actually buying stuff with Bitcoin? By that I mean any significant amount?
It doesn't matter how marginally tiny the effect is.
Two coins, both alike, one with the added benefit of being usable in thousands of online stores, the other not so much, that's a no-brainer.
I thought this debate made it clear that no one w/ half a brain really cares about spending Bitcoin at online stores. If Bitpay decides for some reason to support Bitcoin XT then by all means go ahead. They'll be left with no users in no time. The economic majority (people who actually hold coins) couldn't care less what Bitpay decides to do, they're not trying to spend their coins anyway.
I'm sorry but your logic is very stupid.
257.
Post 12250633 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
The biggest mystery to me is how we arrived at this situation, where Gavin and Mike (felt they) had to resort to the fork solution mess...
Sure, a certain number of maxblockheads resisting any and all changes to the protocol I can see as being unavoidable. But why Gavin didn't manage to convince a majority of the core devs to support some adjustment is still not entirely clear to me.
Either Gavin tried to push exclusively his idea of an adjustment (which, admittedly, can seem a bit drastic) - in that case, it's a failure on his side to compromise. Alternatively, there was a consensus by the rest of the team that the current limit better not be touched at all right now (in which case, Gavin did the right thing, even if the right thing is a huge mess as well).
Seeing that Blockstream rejected even Jeff's 2 MB attempted compromise proposal, it is undeniable that they don't want ANY incerase in the block size limit at all. Their concerns about the effect of big blocks on nodes are just excuses. In fact, they have clearly stated their plan for bitcoin: get the network into congestion so that users are forced to compete for space in the blocks by raising the fees. Until most peer-to-peer traffic is driven out to off-chain solutions, leaving only high-value traffic on the blockchain -- such as settlements between hubs of some "overlay network". Some Blocstream devs mumbled about fees in the range 10--100 USD per transaction...
Blockstream's plan makes no sense to me, and neither to Gavin and Mike. I thought that Blocksream may have some secret agenda that justified wreching bitcoin, but maybe they are just unable to do such quantitative analyses and genuinely believe that their plan will work. Gavin says that he has tried to convince the Blockstream devs to increase the limit for a long time, byt they refused.
The 20 MB of Gavin's first proposal, and the automatic increases of BIP101, were clearly motivated by the FUD that Blocksrteam planted about hard forks (which in fact
are not technically different from the soft forks that Blockstream likes). A single increase to 8 MB, that the Chinese pools considered acceptable, would have been good enough; but critics would say that it would require another hard fork, a few years later.
Let it be known that every single word is patently false and a blatant misrepresentation of reality.
The Blockstream guys AND a group of other developers are apparently working hard behind the scene testing, formalizing, validating new & refined proposals that I imagine is the plan for them to present at the ScalingBitcoin workshop. There will be compromise and it is very doubtful 8 MB blocks will be in the discussion or contention. This proposal has generally been met with little interest from the network other than the minions of Gavin & Mike's lobbying. I would wager to say it will hover around Jeff's proposition as far as immediate increased is concerned but the whole proposal might see some reworking.
I plan to be there.
258.
Post 12250665 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
I thought this debate made it clear that no one w/ half a brain really cares about spending Bitcoin at online stores. If Bitpay decides for some reason to support Bitcoin XT then by all means go ahead. They'll be left with no users in no time. The economic majority (people who actually hold coins) couldn't care less what Bitpay decides to do, they're not trying to spend their coins anyway.
You obviously don't seem to understand the peculiarities of a fork here.
For anyone holding Bitcoins before the fork, there'd be a huge incentive to spend their coins on the chain they don't feel like supporting. After all, they would still hold all coins in their respective preferred chain, while at the same time, they could go shopping "for free" with their assumed worthless Altcoins. Basically, the more convinced you are that you're on the "right" side of the chain, the stronger your motivation to push the "wrong" side.
You obviously don't seem to understand the reality of what we have to deal with here.
The millions of coins held on cold storage and paper wallets will NEVER risk the security of their holdings by starting to shop their coins around in the event of a fork. That's just outrageous to say.
259.
Post 12250770 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Let it be known that every single word is patently false and a blatant misrepresentation of reality.
The Blockstream guys AND a group of other developers are apparently working hard behind the scene testing, formalizing, validating new & refined proposals that I imagine is the plan for them to present at the ScalingBitcoin workshop.
You mean Lightning Network? I am anxiously waiting for such "refined" proposals. Hopefully with numbers on them -- which so far seem to be curiously absent from Blockstream plans.
There will be compromise and it is very doubtful 8 MB blocks will be in the discussion or contention.
Well, His majesty King Adam just conceded "2 MB now, then 4 MB in 2 years, and 8 MB in 4 years" -- and only then Gavin will be permitted to raise his hand again.
Gavin should kiss the ring yes.
Dude has made a clown of himself and has started trolling the community and escaping discussion, challenge & attention.
No, not Lightning Network you lying shill. I'm talking about Greg Maxwell's flexcap and I would assume quite possibly a revision of Peter's BIP. No one can tell of course so we will see then but people have been working all while trying to avoid this unproductive mess.
260.
Post 12259786 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
There should be more than one implementation of the bitcoin protocol.
Also, there might be legitimate use cases for "enterprise" style full nodes etc.
I could think of a thousand reasons why XT could be useful, but the most important ones will likely be the ones I can't imagine right now.
Exactly. What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?
I'm just going to quote myself since you didn't seem to bother replying in the other thread.
2. You absolutely don't understand or are being willingly misleading about this "centralization" issue. There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code. That's pretty much the only way Bitcoin works. It happens that the core developers have historically been the one trusted with maintaining this code and updating it. Several implementations have been built around this consensus code. Most of them have little support for very valid reason: their implementation is generally considered less tested and therefore potentially less secure than core implementation. Now should we blame core for attracting the most competent developers in the space? Would it be rational to ask of them to each start dividing their work between different implementations just for the sake of "decentralization"?
The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus.
261.
Post 12260177 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
The longest proof of work chain is the consensus mechanism.
You keep spreading this falsehood. While it is not exactly wrong, it's not perfectly right either.
Not really. "the longest chain" is ambiguous. It should really be "the longest valid chain", and then you need to define which coin's concept of "validity" you're using. Every client follows the longest valid chain - that's precisely how they decide which chain to follow.
So assuming the question is "will my node follow the longest valid Bitcoin chain?", then the answer is "no" for XT once BIP101 is activated. At that point XT stops following the longest valid Bitcoin chain and starts following the longest valid XT chain, whereas the answer is "yes" for Bitcoin.
262.
Post 12260584 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
The longest proof of work chain is the consensus mechanism.
You keep spreading this falsehood. While it is not exactly wrong, it's not perfectly right either.
Not really. "the longest chain" is ambiguous. It should really be "the longest valid chain", and then you need to define which coin's concept of "validity" you're using. Every client follows the longest valid chain - that's precisely how they decide which chain to follow.
So assuming the question is "will my node follow the longest valid Bitcoin chain?", then the answer is "no" for XT once BIP101 is activated. At that point XT stops following the longest valid Bitcoin chain and starts following the longest valid XT chain, whereas the answer is "yes" for Bitcoin.
It's my understanding that neither of these assertions is true in Bitcoin XT. XT changes the consensus mechanism significantly:
Another less cited new feature of the XT client is a change to chain selection/consensus rules. XT clients don't follow the longest chain, they follow the chain with the highest XT checkpoint embedded into it.
Exactly what is a checkpoint and how is it embedded in the blockchain?
How does the XT wallet decide which chain to embed a checkpoint into, and how does it decide what height to embed a checkpoint at?
How does the XT wallet decide the frequency and time to embed checkpoints at?
There is only one thing you really need to know: checkpoint is not Bitcoin.
Checkpoint is an attempt a rewriting history. One of Hearn's favorite tool.
263.
Post 12262620 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Hm, why are people euphoric about BIP100 superseding BIP101?
Because BIP101 is broken.
Moreover, BIP100 will allow blocks larger than 1 MB, won't it?
Yes, correct, this is the purpose of BIP 100.
Moreover, BitcoinCore does not implement BIP100, and so fat Blockstream has been totally opposed to any increase. So, if BIP100 gets into effect, it will be by some other implementation, right?.
Blockstream is leading the development of a block size increase with a number of upcoming BIPXXX release as I understand it.
I don't trust much the votes from the miners but one thing is for sure they want no business with 8 MB blocks.
Am I missing something?
Everything!
264.
Post 12262878 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Blockstream is leading the development of a block size increase with a number of upcoming BIPXXX release as I understand it.
The Flexcap idea doesn't make sense to me. It seems Adam is trying to
artificially make it more expensive for miners to publish large blocks. The reason this doesn't make sense to me is that
even without a block size limit it would be more expensive for miners to publish large blocks due to the orphan cost. Why use "Flexcap" to simulate the natural supply and demand dynamics that already exist?
The fact that larger blocks are more costly to produce is illustrated in Fig. 8 of
this paper:
your beautiful graphic can't help you Peter.
you have been well advised that propagation time is not a constant and will very much improve over the years making it increasingly cheaper for miners to publish bigger blocks.
265.
Post 12268460 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Bitcoin is only decentralized as it stands because the people mining are not the same as the ones running nodes.
An inconsiderate block size increase would change this dynamic and forever lead to more centralization.
266.
Post 12268496 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Bitcoin is only decentralized as it stands because the people mining are not the same as the ones running nodes.
An inconsiderate block size increase would change this dynamic and forever lead to more centralization.
it will always be decentralized in the sense that no one corporation or government controls it, so who cares.
Centralization is a spectrum, if we get to close to the centralize edge you should absolutely care
267.
Post 12269991 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
all this time we were worried about central control systems from outside but it turns out they are like cancer they grow from within.
And they thrive because the organism fails to recognize tumors as malignant, and even feeds them more than the sane organs.
I am in agreement with Stolfi? This isn't the end of Bitcoin. It's the end of the world!
1. Seriously, the core dev's involvement with Blockstream is a real conflict of interest. Sidechains can be used as a way to route around a bottleneck. They will profit from bottlenecks that they created in the first place.
2. There is something wrong with a protocol if there is no diversity of code running on top of it, or that can run on top of it.
3. It's silly to argue about the trade-offs in scalability vs mining decentralization when code development is so centralized that it is essentially a monopoly.
That's a lie, why do you entertain it?
Code development is by necessity a monopoly as in everyone needs to run the same, unique, consensus code. A
protocol, ya know.
268.
Post 12270000 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
all this time we were worried about central control systems from outside but it turns out they are like cancer they grow from within.
And they thrive because the organism fails to recognize tumors as malignant, and even feeds them more than the sane organs.
I am in agreement with Stolfi? This isn't the end of Bitcoin. It's the end of the world!
1. Seriously, the core dev's involvement with Blockstream is a real conflict of interest. Sidechains can be used as a way to route around a bottleneck. They will profit from bottlenecks that they created in the first place.
2. There is something wrong with a protocol if there is no diversity of code running on top of it, or that can run on top of it.
3. It's silly to argue about the trade-offs in scalability vs mining decentralization when code development is so centralized that it is essentially a monopoly.
1) I don't think see any way this can be avoided. The top Bitcoin developers will always be in demand by the top Bitcoin-related companies, and developers are free to work for anyone they want. I don't think it's really a problem in the long run. If people really believe that the Bitcoin Core project is compromised by developer self-interest, someone will start a BitcoinXT-like project, and Core will no longer define what IS Bitcoin.
I would caution that you shouldn't assume out-of-hand that developers are acting purely in their own interest, like Dr. Stolfi does. Isn't it possible that the Core devs who are also Bitstream devs have thought a lot longer and harder about this problem than most of us, and realized (like I said earlier) that there really IS no way (as of now) to have Bitcoin be both scalable AND decentralized, and set about building a project that might insure that Bitcoin will still be usable anyway? Sure they MIGHT be acting solely (or even partly) in their own interest. But making money out of having the foresight to anticipate this problem does not, a priori, mean that their solution is not the RIGHT solution.
2) I can't parse this. If you think a protocol must have multiple, conflicting versions of itself, you may not understand what the word 'protocol' means. If you mean something related to alt coins, I would point out that there are plenty of those already.
3) It's not just an issue of mining scalability - it's a matter of even being able to just run a validating node. There is no monopoly, as Gavin and Mike have proven. Anyone who is unhappy can fork, and if the world agrees with them, their fork will become Bitcoin.
A rational post for once. 10/10. Would read again
269.
Post 12277836 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Laws can be enforced if there is enough will to do so. (not always....but in this case the bigger mining plants have physical address and people, so it would be fairly easy to shutdown)
If miners start messing with a worldwide financial ledger, it's like poisoning the water purification plants. It'll have negative consequences for them. But like I mention before, I rather see bitcoin become resilient enough so this won't be necessary.
//I'm talking 20+ years from now when bitcoin is BIG.
I can't believe what I'm reading
You realise an ever important aspect of Bitcoin is that miners should remain anonymous if they wish to.
270.
Post 12278357 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
(2) Max blocksize is nothing but a hardcoded upper limit. If miners really have an interest in creating artificial scarcity then they can already do so, collectively, by changing the default fee settings. No need for a vote to set a hard upper limit when they could have adhered to any arbitrary limit all by themselves before. The entire scarcity through max blocksize debate reminds me of an alcoholic who, on one of his good days asks someone else to locks away his booze, to be protected from himself on one of his bad days.
you're oversimplifying an economic problem
The obvious oversimplification in your case is really not a surprise to read as it is indeed so common: the "miners".
Understand that "the miners" is kind of like "the people" and "the community". It really doesn't exist.
As such, their "interest" cannot be projected "collectively". We can assess their individual actions in the present but not predict
The reason this is important is some not all miners have an interest in creating artificial scarcity. In the case of a couple they simply couldn't operate above a certain limit. Others could not particularly care.
As technology improves, bigger actors get into the game and the inherent economies of scale take place, orphan risk from including too many transactions will necessarily diminish and large miners will necessarily have an advantage and an ability to drive smaller ones out of business in a precipitated way. This is concerning because while mining consolidation into enormous corporations is by all account an obvious outcome, we cannot afford for the same for nodes.
It helps to think of it as a tragedy of the commons: absent of a blocksize it will eventually become in the miner's best interest to include as many transactions as possible in their blocks and consequently restricting access to governance of the network by way of bloating the blockchain.
271.
Post 12278446 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
They can include or exclude any transactions as they see fit.
Then this is the culprit that needs to be fixed in a future update. Miners should have no say whatsoever in which transactions to in or exclude.
Unfortunately, Satoshi's breakthrough, that made bitcoin possible, was to give all the power to the miners -- with the proof-of-work trick to keep them from cheating. That would have worked if mining had remained well-distributed, so that it would be practically impossible to convince a majority of them to sabotage the system.
But it did not happen that way, basically because the price shoot up to 100 or 1000 times what it should have been, given its usage. With that hyperinflated price, and the fixed block reward, mining become a very profitable activity, that was worth carrying out in an industrial scale, by entities distinct from the users. Then the mining industry got concentrated in a few companies because of economies of scale.
Bitcoin was created to be a peer-to-peer payent system that did not require trusted third parties, including central authorities. Strictly speaking, bitcoin is broken right now; because the top 5-6 miners are third parties that must be trusted not to abuse their power. With the BIP100 discussion, bitcoiners seem to be gradually becoming aware of that fact: it will be the miners that will decide whether, when, and how to change the block size limit
Bitcoin may still get "cured" if mining becomes again distributed among the users. However, I do not see how that could happen, unless the price crashes to such a low level that no one will want to mine for profit, and mining becomes again a client activity -- say, a convenient alternative to buying bitcoins, that an ordinary person could use to get some bitcoins to pay for coffee or whatever.
Taking away the power from the miners -- in particular, forcing them to process all transactions issued by clients -- would require reforming bitcoin to the core. It seems that another Satoshi-level ingenious idea would be needed do that without introducing some trusted central authority.
All of this would be true if it wasn't for the nodes actually enforcing governance on the system.
Miners won't decide anything but what the economic majority gets consensus on.
The reason the block size is here is precisely to put a check on these miners and their selfish interest by protecting the network of nodes and its decentralization from the inherent economies of scale at play.
272.
Post 12278471 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
who will bother to open an account with coinbase to buy bitcoins so they can buy stuff while paying a high fee ?? whats the point.. pay high fees.. instead use a debit card doesnt cost end user nothing to use a debit card and its easy.. no reason to use bitcoin that has multiples of issues that we all are aware of .. and if you are a gun owner and support the second amendment then you need to oppose the implementation of the "blockchain blacklists" code. i happen to be one of the "dwayne" brothers and i think your "blockchain blacklists" is a real cute trick. obviously there is only once choice.. cripple bitcoin with low bandwidth, slow payments with high fees ...... RIP XT or bitcoin make your choice.
about to get smacked down by the bear troll fud (i gotta get me one these cameras!) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIhCNbdIFT4Indeed. What is the point of buying bitcoins to buy stuff? That is the question maybe you should ask yourself.
Did you consider maybe you did not have the right idea about what Bitcoin's real utility is?
273.
Post 12278538 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
[ mass adoption ] will NEVER happen if the network doesn't scale efficiently.
One must wonder whether mass adoption will ever happen. The block size limit has not been an obstacle so far, yet adoption does not seem to be exactly exploding. (The block size limit might be an obstacle within a year, if the traffic keeps growing at the recent rate.)
Internet adoption didn't dramatically accelerate until the World Wide Web. Bitcoin is still looking for that "killer app". There are many potential candidates, but what will take off is probably something we haven't even thought of yet.
Heh, so you're a "killer app" troll too
Consider that Bitcoin adoption is not merely about adding users but attracting capital. Bitcoin as it exists can accommodate an infinite amount of capital. There is no "scaling" problem in that regard.
Now what you are concerned with "transaction scaling" is a different set of problem. One that is often correlated to the growth of the network but any perspicacious onlooker will have noticed there is something missing from this theory.
You have misconception about Bitcoin's utility value and you need to address it before coming forward with more arguments!
274.
Post 12278561 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
who will bother to open an account with coinbase to buy bitcoins so they can buy stuff while paying a high fee ?? whats the point.. pay high fees.. instead use a debit card doesnt cost end user nothing to use a debit card and its easy.. no reason to use bitcoin that has multiples of issues that we all are aware of .. and if you are a gun owner and support the second amendment then you need to oppose the implementation of the "blockchain blacklists" code. i happen to be one of the "dwayne" brothers and i think your "blockchain blacklists" is a real cute trick. obviously there is only once choice.. cripple bitcoin with low bandwidth, slow payments with high fees ...... RIP XT or bitcoin make your choice.
about to get smacked down by the bear troll fud (i gotta get me one these cameras!) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIhCNbdIFT4Indeed. What is the point of buying bitcoins to buy stuff? That is the question maybe you should ask yourself.
Did you consider maybe you did not have the right idea about what Bitcoin's real utility is?
it doesnt matter what i think or used to think about bitcoin utility.. problem is i think making a tool to intimidate gun owners with "blockchain blacklists" is unacceptable .. bitcoin not going to be reserve currency .
Uh. Ok.
Now I remember why I always skip over your posts.
275.
Post 12278650 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
[ mass adoption ] will NEVER happen if the network doesn't scale efficiently.
One must wonder whether mass adoption will ever happen. The block size limit has not been an obstacle so far, yet adoption does not seem to be exactly exploding. (The block size limit might be an obstacle within a year, if the traffic keeps growing at the recent rate.)
Internet adoption didn't dramatically accelerate until the World Wide Web. Bitcoin is still looking for that "killer app". There are many potential candidates, but what will take off is probably something we haven't even thought of yet.
Heh, so you're a "killer app" troll too
Consider that Bitcoin adoption is not merely about adding users but attracting capital. Bitcoin as it exists can accommodate an infinite amount of capital. There is no "scaling" problem in that regard.
Now what you are concerned with "transaction scaling" is a different set of problem. One that is often correlated to the growth of the network but any perspicacious onlooker will have noticed there is something missing from this theory.
You have misconception about Bitcoin's utility value and you need to address it before coming forward with more arguments!
I know what Bitcoin's utility value to me is, but nobody has the whole picture. What are you implying is the "real" utility value? Yes, we absolutely need to attract new capital. How do you think we're gonna do it?
By attracting capital looking for a safe, deflationary, impossible to censor or seize store of wealth.
Stop the posturing about mainstream sheeple adoptions. The sheeps are generally poor and can only procure so much value to Bitcoin. We are still a couple years from crossing the technological chasm as Bitcoin as it stands is quite honestly not a competitive consumer product.
Fortunately there are trillions of capital who will soon be looking for that exit. Better strap your helmet and just be patient. Stop trying to "make Bitcoin better"
276.
Post 12278654 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Bitcoin's killer app is whenever bank lets you create a savings account in bitcoin and you don't have to worry about ever losing your keys.
Bitcoin's killer app is its deflationary nature and scarce supply in a world of inflationary money and quantitative easing.
277.
Post 12278798 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Bitcoin's killer app is whenever bank lets you create a savings account in bitcoin and you don't have to worry about ever losing your keys.
Bitcoin's killer app is its deflationary nature and scarce supply in a world of inflationary money and quantitative easing.
they will make more when the "cripplecoin" miners vote to make more .. they have to because
people lose bitcoins all the time by losing their private keys to their cold storage wallets and stuff..
precious metals is a much more true deflationary and scarce supply than cryptos... Do you realise how retarded you sound?
Bitcoin could run fine under 10 bitcoins with some little magic.
278.
Post 12284099 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
It helps to think of it as a tragedy of the commons: absent of a blocksize it will eventually become in the miner's best interest to include as many transactions as possible in their blocks and consequently restricting access to governance of the network by way of bloating the blockchain.
Now, your objection (ToC) is valid in principle, that it is indeed in each of A, B, C's personal interest to include as much as possible contrary to the larger scarcity goal, but I point out that in this particular scenario, self governing is less likely to fail because (a) cooperation needs to be established only among a small group of actors (i.e. pool operators) that directly control the majority behavior, and are able to directly communicate with each other (as opposed to a large, amorphous population that usually underlies ToC type scenarios), and (b) because defection is publicly visible.
If, say, the two or three largest pools really
want scarcity, they could try to cooperate, set a limit, and self-enforce it. (yes, free market lovers, that's a form of collusion). Blocksize is public, so cheating is possible but visible. If cooperation of the relevant majority fails (which I consider unlikely, as per the argument above), it makes sense to talk about voting processes and hard coded limits, but not before it has been established that this type of cooperation cannot be handled by individual actors.*
Ignoring the BIP100 voting scenario I really fail to understand your logic here.
In the outcome where the blocksize limit is lifted it doesn't matter who wants scarcity and whether or not they collaborate. As soon as the "artificial" scarcity cap is removed it enables the unlimited amount of resources competing for block creation to ignore the capacity of others and drive the creation of bigger and bigger blocks. No amount of pools or "majority" can discourage them from doing so. Their only deterrent is the orphan risk which becomes infinitely small as technology improves.
Smaller players who cannot process such large blocks will simply be driven out of the market by more resourceful actors.
279.
Post 12284841 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
In the outcome where the blocksize limit is lifted it doesn't matter who wants scarcity and whether or not they collaborate. As soon as the "artificial" scarcity cap is removed it enables the unlimited amount of resources competing for block creation to ignore the capacity of others and drive the creation of bigger and bigger blocks. No amount of pools or "majority" can discourage them from doing so. Their only deterrent is the orphan risk which becomes infinitely small as technology improves.
With the current limit of 1mb for the last 5 years, the vast majority of blocks averaged about 40% of this limit. Miners are incentivized to produce the tightest, efficient blocks dependent upon tx's. Its only in the last few months that tx'x are such that block sizes are tending to close on this limit.
Correct observation though there are a couple reasons to explain that, mainly:
1. Connectivity: orphan risks have been a considerable issue early on as connectivity between miners, nodes was not properly optimized and propagation delays were a concern. These risks have been considerably alleviated recently by different methods and generally by more centralization between miners. Chinese miners have a indeed a tendency to produce smaller blocks because of their inherent bandwidth issues.
2. General state of the ecosystem which still hasn't fully moved out of the amateurs phase. Don't get me wrong there is now various absolutely professional mining operations being ran but there is still enormous room for hardware corporations to move in and totally run the small players out of the game. These actors will not be deterred by bigger blocks and connectivity issues.
280.
Post 12295292 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
I'm really neutral in which way I want the market to go. I'm still over 90% long, but I want the cripplecoiners to get the message that coins on a throttled network are not as valuable.
Retail is not buying in.
Why are you so excited about scaling transactions for retail demand that doesn't exist?
281.
Post 12295604 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
I'm really neutral in which way I want the market to go. I'm still over 90% long, but I want the cripplecoiners to get the message that coins on a throttled network are not as valuable.
Retail is not buying in.
Why are you so excited about scaling transactions for retail demand that doesn't exist?
If you wanna get people interested in coin collecting, you don't start them out with Krugerrands. You start them out with wheat pennies. Then, I want anti-spam email, faucets to drive traffic to websites, etc.
That's the gist of your broken logic. That somehow the "mainstream" sheeps are going to drive Bitcoin success and its price.
Better get this idea out of your head because it's not happening. The average consumer will get in Bitcoin much later in the game.
282.
Post 12295908 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
That's the gist of your broken logic. That somehow the "mainstream" sheeps are going to drive Bitcoin success and its price.
Better get this idea out of your head because it's not happening. The average consumer will get in Bitcoin much later in the game.
No shit, Sherlock. But when the sheep get in, microtransactions will be a feature. People with vision will have to continue to build the infrastructure first, and part of that infrastructure will involve microtransactions.
You're starting to piss me off. I've seen nothing from you to merit your arrogance. Keep it up and you go on the ignore list. Criticism is cheap. Show me some insight.
Talk about flawed logic: Retail isn't interested in Bitcoin, so we shouldn't cater to retail, which isn't interested because we don't cater to retail. Fuck you.
Microtransactions will be handled off chain, either through Lightning or sidechains. I don't see a problem here, Sherlock.
Bitcoin, the foundation layer, should not, ever, cater to retail.
283.
Post 12295922 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
That's the gist of your broken logic. That somehow the "mainstream" sheeps are going to drive Bitcoin success and its price.
Better get this idea out of your head because it's not happening. The average consumer will get in Bitcoin much later in the game.
No shit, Sherlock. But when the sheep get in, microtransactions will be a feature. People with vision will have to continue to build the infrastructure first, and part of that infrastructure will involve microtransactions.
You're starting to piss me off. I've seen nothing from you to merit your arrogance. Keep it up and you go on the ignore list. Criticism is cheap. Show me some insight.
Talk about flawed logic: Retail isn't interested in Bitcoin, so we shouldn't cater to retail, which isn't interested because we don't cater to retail. Fuck you.
Concur with Billy on this one. Masses need an Xt(ish)coin that lets them transact at the current price per txn, so they can roll in Bitcoin into their daily lives.
Let the fork happen, Bitcoin classic can be used as the store of value, settlement layer. Xt can be the cheap txn, coffee purchasing network.
(Or do the block size increase to buy time and hope for lightning type tech to be built to allow both use cases)
This ignores the whole value of having one uniquer ledger of ownership. We don't need another coin, additional layers can serve these needs equally well.
284.
Post 12296785 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
I'm as dubious as the next person as to people's intentions with this stuff.
I've already challenged billyjoelallen for what I think is rhetoric each time he signs off a post with "scale or die".
I think there's an inordinate amount of black and white thinking going on with these changes to Bitcoin. And responses like yours are also unhelpful as they're overly dismissive and just add to the dissension.
Did you listen to this podcast?
There's genuine concern and care being expressed by Gavin. There may be some over-reach too. And maybe he's gone too far....or maybe not. And I reject your assertion that I'm impressionable and am going to "blindly follow some dude". You know nothing about me, my life experience, skills and knowledge so it's completely and utterly banal of you in the extreme, to make such an assessment.
Either way to just write him off with "fork you Gavin!" summation is hardly fair, decent or helpful.
Perhaps you could consider debating key parts of what you consider to be wrong with his ideas rather than just putting up a blanket "I just don't like it...." wall.
Here is what's wrong and what should be obvious to anyone with an once of discernment: this is an all too obvious attempt to "teach the controversy"
"It is not about the block size but this is an issue of Bitcoin governance"
Teaching the controversy is a typical psyop/propaganda tool that amounts to creating an appearance of reasonable debate between informed persons on a given subject. This has for effect of giving credibility to a lie by confusing people into thinking there are two legitimate claims being debated. Here the debate being pushed on us is that Bitcoin governance is somehow subject to be changed.
285.
Post 12314322 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
My personal impression is that hash rate is dictated by price and (more importantly?) technology, with rate reacting to price and not the inverse. The two big ramps were directly related to a paradigm shift in mining tech, CPU to GPU, and GPU to ASIC. With ASIC gear becoming increasingly efficient we will probably see a rise in hashrate even in the face of a flat or modestly declining price. The upcoming halving should be pretty interesting for those watching this relationship.
Agreed. Hashrate
should follow price, but it seems like during those two massive increases it was the price chasing the hashrate....
Someone better suited to scientific analysis of data sets would do a better job of analyzing this relationship ( hint, hint, Professor Stolfi )
Anyways, I don't expect any further large expansions in mining technology or efficiency, certainly nothing on the scale of cpu>gpu>asic.
Many people mocked me many pages ago for my concern that the block size could not simply scale exponentially for the next 20 years, but I still believe we are reaching the limits of physics and any further significant exponential type gains in computing power beyond asic will likely take us beyond the singularity. I just hope our new synthetic overlords accept bitcoin. (Ok, yes, I've been watching too much humans (tv show))
The big difference this time around... We have our own little OPEC (OCDM organization of chip designing miners), with apparently only bitmain selling next gen hardware to the small fish. Small fish are more likely to mine and hoard, using it almost as a form of indirect purchase. The current dynamic makes me think that as a percentage, more coins are being mined and sold than in days of yore. The days of mining at a loss with your gaming rig in 2012 are surely over.
Contrary to popular opinion I am confident that a considerable (it may be a majority) part of newly minted bitcoins are being held.
286.
Post 12314396 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
My personal impression is that hash rate is dictated by price and (more importantly?) technology, with rate reacting to price and not the inverse. The two big ramps were directly related to a paradigm shift in mining tech, CPU to GPU, and GPU to ASIC. With ASIC gear becoming increasingly efficient we will probably see a rise in hashrate even in the face of a flat or modestly declining price. The upcoming halving should be pretty interesting for those watching this relationship.
Agreed. Hashrate
should follow price, but it seems like during those two massive increases it was the price chasing the hashrate....
Someone better suited to scientific analysis of data sets would do a better job of analyzing this relationship ( hint, hint, Professor Stolfi )
Anyways, I don't expect any further large expansions in mining technology or efficiency, certainly nothing on the scale of cpu>gpu>asic.
Many people mocked me many pages ago for my concern that the block size could not simply scale exponentially for the next 20 years, but I still believe we are reaching the limits of physics and any further significant exponential type gains in computing power beyond asic will likely take us beyond the singularity. I just hope our new synthetic overlords accept bitcoin. (Ok, yes, I've been watching too much humans (tv show))
The big difference this time around... We have our own little OPEC (OCDM organization of chip designing miners), with apparently only bitmain selling next gen hardware to the small fish. Small fish are more likely to mine and hoard, using it almost as a form of indirect purchase. The current dynamic makes me think that as a percentage, more coins are being mined and sold than in days of yore. The days of mining at a loss with your gaming rig in 2012 are surely over.
Contrary to popular opinion I am confident that a considerable (it may be a majority) part of newly minted bitcoins are being held.
Meaning their profit margin may be > 50% of their revenue?
Consider that some of these mining firms have other revenue streams. You cite BitMain and it is an absolutely perfect example. Considering the amount of money and profit they make selling mining gear. Do you actually believe that they need to sell any % of the bitcoins they mine to cover expenses?
Another example is BitFury which is getting fed by VC money at record rates and have also, in the past, had their fair share of surely spectacular revenues and profit selling their mining gears. Now we don't actually have to speculate about them since they have made it clear in interviews they are absolutely not considering selling any of the bitcoins they mine.
These together amount to nearly 25% of the network. Would you like to suggest they are the exception?
287.
Post 12314551 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Consider that some of these mining firms have other revenue streams. You cite BitMain and it is an absolutely perfect example. Considering the amount of money and profit they make selling mining gear. Do you actually believe that they need to sell any % of the bitcoins they mine to cover expenses?
Selling mining gear is a welcome addition to mining yourself (unless it dilutes you too much via difficulty, an OCDM would likely frown on selling to the public), Bitmain's prices seem to track what the device might return before it becomes inefficient. It's almost like selling a bond to another bond investor.
Another example is BitFury which is getting fed by VC money at record rates and have also, in the past, had their fair share of surely spectacular revenues and profit selling their mining gears. Now we don't actually have to speculate about them since they have made it clear in interviews they are absolutely not considering selling any of the bitcoins they mine.
These together amount to nearly 25% of the network. Would you like to suggest they are the exception?
VC funded mining operations as the new 2012 guy with GPU's mining at a loss... I like it.
For everyone else, profit vs loss is a more tenuous balance, and as a whole, I think the industry sells more as a % vs the hobbyist days.
Did you not read what I wrote? I won't bother hunting down the source because you are apparently too obtuse to change your mind about it but a BitFury is not alone in publicly stating they are not selling their bitcoins.
Selling mining gear is by all account a ridiculously profitable business because if it weren't they wouldn't bother with it and just use the gear to mine themselves as you've stated. It is quite likely the profit they derive from it is well enought to cover a large portion of their expenses.
288.
Post 12314613 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Many people mocked me many pages ago for my concern that the block size could not simply scale exponentially for the next 20 years, but I still believe we are reaching the limits of physics and any further significant exponential type gains in computing power beyond asic will likely take us beyond the singularity. I just hope our new synthetic overlords accept bitcoin. (Ok, yes, I've been watching too much humans (tv show))
Block size MUST scale exponentially whether it's simple or not. A crypto with a block size limit is analogous to an Internet with a bandwidth limit of 56K modems. No video. No VOIP. Vastly more limited functionality. It may be hard, but don't fucking tell me it's impossible. Some other crypto will do it if we don't.
You are clearly clueless about why the block size limit is necessary and there in the first place. Go back to your homeworks. First assignement:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/007880.htmlTo elaborate, in my view there is a at least a two fold concern on this
particular ("Long term Mining incentives") front:
One is that the long-held argument is that security of the Bitcoin system
in the long term depends on fee income funding autonomous, anonymous,
decentralized miners profitably applying enough hash-power to make
reorganizations infeasible.
For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective
scarcity of capacity. The fact that verifying and transmitting
transactions has a cost isn't enough, because all the funds go to pay
that cost and none to the POW "artificial" cost; e.g., if verification
costs 1 then the market price for fees should converge to 1, and POW
cost will converge towards zero because they adapt to whatever is
being applied. Moreover, the transmission and verification costs can
be perfectly amortized by using large centralized pools (and efficient
differential block transmission like the "O(1)" idea) as you can verify
one time instead of N times, so to the extent that verification/bandwidth
is a non-negligible cost to miners at all, it's a strong pressure to
centralize. You can understand this intuitively: think for example of
carbon credit cap-and-trade: the trade part doesn't work without an
actual cap; if everyone was born with a 1000 petaton carbon balance,
the market price for credits would be zero and the program couldn't hope
to share behavior. In the case of mining, we're trying to optimize the
social good of POW security. (But the analogy applies in other ways too:
increases to the chain side are largely an externality; miners enjoy the
benefits, everyone else takes the costs--either in reduced security or
higher node operating else.)
This area has been subject to a small amount of academic research
(e.g. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519). But
there is still much that is unclear.
The second is that when subsidy has fallen well below fees, the incentive
to move the blockchain forward goes away. An optimal rational miner
would be best off forking off the current best block in order to capture
its fees, rather than moving the blockchain forward, until they hit
the maximum. That's where the "backlog" comment comes from, since when
there is a sufficient backlog it's better to go forward. I'm not aware
of specific research into this subquestion; it's somewhat fuzzy because
of uncertainty about the security model. If we try to say that Bitcoin
should work even in the face of most miners being profit-maximizing
instead of altruistically-honest, we must assume the chain will not
more forward so long as a block isn't full. In reality there is more
altruism than zero; there are public pressures; there is laziness, etc.
289.
Post 12314684 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Many people mocked me many pages ago for my concern that the block size could not simply scale exponentially for the next 20 years, but I still believe we are reaching the limits of physics and any further significant exponential type gains in computing power beyond asic will likely take us beyond the singularity. I just hope our new synthetic overlords accept bitcoin. (Ok, yes, I've been watching too much humans (tv show))
Block size MUST scale exponentially whether it's simple or not. A crypto with a block size limit is analogous to an Internet with a bandwidth limit of 56K modems. No video. No VOIP. Vastly more limited functionality. It may be hard, but don't fucking tell me it's impossible. Some other crypto will do it if we don't.
You are clearly clueless about why the block size limit is necessary and there in the first place. Go back to your homeworks. First assignement:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/007880.htmlTo elaborate, in my view there is a at least a two fold concern on this
particular ("Long term Mining incentives") front:
One is that the long-held argument is that security of the Bitcoin system
in the long term depends on fee income funding autonomous, anonymous,
decentralized miners profitably applying enough hash-power to make
reorganizations infeasible.
For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective
scarcity of capacity. The fact that verifying and transmitting
transactions has a cost isn't enough, because all the funds go to pay
that cost and none to the POW "artificial" cost; e.g., if verification
costs 1 then the market price for fees should converge to 1, and POW
cost will converge towards zero because they adapt to whatever is
being applied. Moreover, the transmission and verification costs can
be perfectly amortized by using large centralized pools (and efficient
differential block transmission like the "O(1)" idea) as you can verify
one time instead of N times, so to the extent that verification/bandwidth
is a non-negligible cost to miners at all, it's a strong pressure to
centralize. You can understand this intuitively: think for example of
carbon credit cap-and-trade: the trade part doesn't work without an
actual cap; if everyone was born with a 1000 petaton carbon balance,
the market price for credits would be zero and the program couldn't hope
to share behavior. In the case of mining, we're trying to optimize the
social good of POW security. (But the analogy applies in other ways too:
increases to the chain side are largely an externality; miners enjoy the
benefits, everyone else takes the costs--either in reduced security or
higher node operating else.)
This area has been subject to a small amount of academic research
(e.g. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519). But
there is still much that is unclear.
The second is that when subsidy has fallen well below fees, the incentive
to move the blockchain forward goes away. An optimal rational miner
would be best off forking off the current best block in order to capture
its fees, rather than moving the blockchain forward, until they hit
the maximum. That's where the "backlog" comment comes from, since when
there is a sufficient backlog it's better to go forward. I'm not aware
of specific research into this subquestion; it's somewhat fuzzy because
of uncertainty about the security model. If we try to say that Bitcoin
should work even in the face of most miners being profit-maximizing
instead of altruistically-honest, we must assume the chain will not
more forward so long as a block isn't full. In reality there is more
altruism than zero; there are public pressures; there is laziness, etc.
There will never be no limit. Sure, we could remove the limit from consensus requirements (which I would actually support), but transactions still have a cost. They have to be verified and then stored until all outputs are spent. This requires storage hardware and bandwidth. Also, larger blocks will be orphaned more frequently, providing additional pressure for miners to voluntarily keep blocks small.
Did you bother reading this part?
The fact that verifying and transmitting transactions has a cost isn't enough, because all the funds go to pay that cost and none to the POW "artificial" cost; e.g., if verification costs 1 then the market price for fees should converge to 1, and POW cost will converge towards zero because they adapt to whatever is being applied. Moreover, the transmission and verification costs can be perfectly amortized by using large centralized pools (and efficient differential block transmission like the "O(1)" idea) as you can verify one time instead of N times, so to the extent that verification/bandwidth is a non-negligible cost to miners at all, it's a strong pressure to centralize.
This pressure for miners to keep blocks small is temporary and will eventually decline and disappear, it's already starting to seeing as numerous improvements have been made in improving general block propagation time between miners.
290.
Post 12314701 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
I thought billyjoe was being silly and hyperbolic about the fight being over tor mining... Damn
Oh yeah, and we need to focus on building a fee market at the 25 per block level...
When do you propose we focus on this? When the block reward disappears? Raising the block size is basically a subsidy. If you insist on constantly subsidizing transactions cost people will begin expecting it and it will be considerably more difficult to say no in the future. That is the slippery slope of raising the block size.
291.
Post 12314833 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
I thought billyjoe was being silly and hyperbolic about the fight being over tor mining... Damn
Oh yeah, and we need to focus on building a fee market at the 25 per block level...
When do you propose we focus on this? When they disappear? Raising the block size is basically a subsidy. If you insist on constantly subsidizing transactions cost people will begin expecting it and it will be considerably more difficult to say no in the future. That is the slippery slope of raising the block size.
Miners are being subsidized in these early stages precisely because we want the security of the network to be greater than what would be provided using only the current fee income. This is part of BTC's competitive advantage.
While this subsidy exists, the transaction cost should be as close to zero as possible to capture market share from other value transfer and storage systems. Growing now is what allows survival later.
Of course there are limits and dangers, I haven't been convinced that removing the limit entirely is safe or wise. I most identify with Jeff Garzik's approach to this debate (maybe not in bip100's proposed mechanism), and hope we find some common ground.
As I have just explained I think this is a dangerous road to follow as it amounts to selling people onto Bitcoin using features which are not inherent or guaranteed given its design. We should absolutely avoid the danger of instilling into Bitcoin users some kind of belief that they have a right to free transactions. Nothing in life is free and the costs of security & decentralization cannot forever be externalized to nodes & miners.
In that sense it is perfectly reasonable to suggest we should strive to keep block size limit as close as possible to actual network demand. Flex cap proposals are interesting in this aspect.
292.
Post 12314970 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
It's important to consider those who forgo investing in utilizing the system because it is currently capped at 2.7 effective tps.
If you put the actual cost (without block reward) of processing a bitcoin transaction on the user, bitcoin would die tomorrow. Maybe not completely, but it would be like pokemon cards for the "old money" hodlers.
You may think that permissioned sidechains will deliver us from not having the throughput to survive on fees alone, but I think that's an even bigger gamble.
It sounds corny, I agree, but billyjoe's Scale or Die has some truth to it.
It is equally important to recognize the actual utility value of Bitcoin. I wouldn't blame anyone on foregoing transactional use of Bitcoin seeing its very real shortcomings as a payment system. Let us be honest with ourselves this system is absolutely not ready for mainstream consumer acceptance and we shouldn't be concerned about consumers looking the other way.
Give it some time and the necessary infrastructure and tools to abstract the highly technical and generally confusing nature of Bitcoin will be built. We should also admit that these mainstream users looking for an efficient payment system do not care at all about the decentralization or security of the thing. Let's be real here regular joes just want something that works, centralized or not.
The people pouring big money into Bitcoin (I'm talking about buying bitcoins) couldn't care about its transaction capacity at the moment. Most rational investors are in it for the long haul and a majority of the coins are kept in cold storage and paper wallets where they haven't and won't move for years.
There shouldn't be any urgency to cater to a userbase which is inexistent as it stands. Technology will evolve over the next few years and will provide the necessary tools for proper, actual scaling of the system. No amount of block size increase will allow us to serve a mainstream consumer base doing hundreds of thousands of transactions per seconds. Bitcoin is not designed to handle this load while staying secure & decentralized.
293.
Post 12315003 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
[Greg Maxwell:] For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective
scarcity of capacity.
The error is in that very first claim. There need not be a scarcity of capacity for the fees to serve their purpose. The fees could, and should, be mandatory and set in the 'consensus rules'.
In fact, scarcity of capacity in a network means lousy service, which means loss of users, which means that the fees will not rise as hoped....
Fortunately Bitcoin is not meant to be a service.
You are interpreting the argument in the wrong way. There needs to be a scarcity in order for a fee market to be sustained. Fees need to adapt to the ever changing reality of the system and could not possibly be forced or determined through any algorithm.
294.
Post 12315092 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
I think a fee market that is relative to demand for blockspace is perfectly reasonable... but not today. We're too small to sustain the demand in the face of countless competitors. Bitcoin doesn't have the benefit of the periodic table, if we don't capture share while miners are subsidized and incentivized to secure and process transactions... it becomes like rpietila's castle game, with you and a few thousand others trading pogs back and forth.
Again you seem to confuse what it is you'd like to or perceive Bitcoin should compete with and what Bitcoin's unique value and properties are.
If we can't agree on this I guess we can never agree on the rest but my opinion is we want Bitcoin to compete with gold, offshore saving accounts, safe havens of all sort , therein lies the value (and the "moon" valuations), not competing with VISA/Mastercard or Square.
295.
Post 12315116 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Fees need to adapt to the ever changing reality of the system and could not possibly be forced or determined through any algorithm.
The Blockstream plan is to FORCE a particular capacity, by setting the block size limit in the consensus rules, and then let the fees "naturally" adapt to that artificially constrained capacity.
Why is that better than forcing the fee directly, and ensuring that the capacity is well above the demand? (I ca think of several reasons why it is much worse.)
Is it possible that the devs do not see that their plan is just as "ideologically impure" as setting the fee directly?
Blocksize limit already exists in the consensus rules, nobody from Blockstream forced it into them.
Again, "fees need to adapt to the ever changing reality of the system and could not possibly be forced or determined through any pre-determined algorithm."
It is better because the block size limit also serves an anti-spam function and a "check" on inherent economies of scale within mining which, removed, would necessarily lead to a precipitated centralization of mining. Regular users running nodes would lose their ability to keep up with the required resources to maintain their access to , and therefore decentralize, the governance of the system.
296.
Post 12315147 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
I think a fee market that is relative to demand for blockspace is perfectly reasonable... but not today. We're too small to sustain the demand in the face of countless competitors. Bitcoin doesn't have the benefit of the periodic table, if we don't capture share while miners are subsidized and incentivized to secure and process transactions... it becomes like rpietila's castle game, with you and a few thousand others trading pogs back and forth.
Again you seem to confuse what it is you'd like to or perceive Bitcoin should compete with and what Bitcoin's unique value and properties are.
If we can't agree on this I guess we can never agree on the rest but my opinion is we want Bitcoin to compete with gold, offshore saving accounts, safe havens of all sort , therein lies the value (and the "moon" valuations), not competing with VISA/Mastercard or Square.
I didn't reply with a hope to change your mind. But I do hope we can build a bridge from the middle of the river
I'm just thinking you are hoping to sell 1. the wrong people onto Bitcoin using 2. the wrong "features" of Bitcoin. This necessarily creates a steep obstacle to the "adoption" you are wishing for.
To be quite honest I have been guilty of this in the past and have long maintained this delusion that Bitcoin was somehow this fantastic payment network that would replace credit cards, etc etc. Until I finally came to sense and understood what the true value of it was. Note that you shouldn't forego your dreams of moon because of this. The markets I am suggesting we target are enormously more valuable than replacing simple payment processors!
297.
Post 12315405 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
I think a fee market that is relative to demand for blockspace is perfectly reasonable... but not today. We're too small to sustain the demand in the face of countless competitors. Bitcoin doesn't have the benefit of the periodic table, if we don't capture share while miners are subsidized and incentivized to secure and process transactions... it becomes like rpietila's castle game, with you and a few thousand others trading pogs back and forth.
Again you seem to confuse what it is you'd like to or perceive Bitcoin should compete with and what Bitcoin's unique value and properties are.
If we can't agree on this I guess we can never agree on the rest but my opinion is we want Bitcoin to compete with gold, offshore saving accounts, safe havens of all sort , therein lies the value (and the "moon" valuations), not competing with VISA/Mastercard or Square.
I didn't reply with a hope to change your mind. But I do hope we can build a bridge from the middle of the river
I'm just thinking you are hoping to sell 1. the wrong people onto Bitcoin using 2. the wrong "features" of Bitcoin. This necessarily creates a steep obstacle to the "adoption" you are wishing for.
To be quite honest I have been guilty of this in the past and have long maintained this delusion that Bitcoin was somehow this fantastic payment network that would replace credit cards, etc etc. Until I finally came to sense and understood what the true value of it was. Note that you shouldn't forego your dreams of moon because of this. The markets I am suggesting we target are enormously more valuable than replacing simple payment processors!
Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System
vs
Peer to Peer Electronic Wealth Storage System
I think we've distilled it down. I also think it can be both, but the former facilitates the latter.
Every thread seems to be a mixed topic thread recently
A $5 variation in price for days on end will do that.
I was hoping you'd bring this up.
Did we ever consider what Satoshi insinuated by "cash"?
Is it because of the ability to be easily transferable at low cost or because of its nature as a bearer instrument free of censorship from authorities or third parties?
After all, Bitcoin is proposed as a solution to the Byzantine Generals problem isn't it? I think Satoshi makes it pretty clear the essence of his proposition is to remove trust from transactions.
It makes sense considering his design of the system that Bitcoin can not ever reach the ubiquity of cash in transactions worldwide. This would necessitate such as scale as to effectively centralize Bitcoin and therefore defeats the original attempt to remove trust. Even the proposition to remove trust is admittedly naive. There exists inherent trust in Bitcoin as it exist. We currently trust a handful of miners to behave according to everyone's interest and game theory suggest they should do so provided with the right incentives but what happens if they somehow become coerced into taking a different road?
298.
Post 12315451 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
We should absolutely avoid the danger of instilling into Bitcoin users some kind of belief that they have a right to free transactions. Nothing in life is free and the costs of security & decentralization cannot forever be externalized to nodes & miners.
In that sense it is perfectly reasonable to suggest we should strive to keep block size limit as close as possible to actual network demand. Flex cap proposals are interesting in this aspect.
Those transactions aren't free for the user even if the miners eat the cost. They STILL have to suffer exchange rate risk while using bitcoin. If they have to pay a fee higher than nominal WHILE BITCOIN IS STILL IN ALPHA, for the vast majority of people, that just isn't worth it.
Miners have to subsidize transaction costs to bootstrap usage or this baby will die in its crib. That's why you're getting the goddamn block reward. I am the customer. I am the user who buys your fucking coins. What am I getting for my money if I have to take this monster risk and have to pay a fee anyway? VISA gives me cash back for chrissakes. They are your competition. If you can't beat them, you won't earn their customers.
Don't you small block fuckers know how business works?
This post is full of misguided assumptions.
It should come as a rational observation considering the shortcomings you have pointed out that there exist absolutely no incentive to
purchase bitcoins to make purchases. No amount of scaling is going to incentivize mainstream consumers to go through such hoops for a low-cost/free transactions as most of the time they don't pay for the transaction anyway, merchants eat them. You are correct that there is absolutely no way for Bitcoin to compete with VISA as a consumer payment processor and again, no amount of blocksize scale is going to change this.
The reasonable thing to ask then is do we really want Bitcoin to compete with Visa or is there another, possibly more valuable, use case for Bitcoin? What about digital gold? That sounds like an area where Bitcoin could thoroughly outcompete other players in its current state, with little to no change necessary. Why are we targeting to replace payment processors when we could somehow attract the incomparable value that resides in precious metal markets, offshore saving accounts and general safe havens? That sounds like a much more interesting moonshot if you ask me.
299.
Post 12315481 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Did we ever consider what Satoshi insinuated by "cash"?
...
It makes sense considering his design of the system that Bitcoin can not ever reach the ubiquity of cash in transactions worldwide. This would necessitate such as scale as to effectively centralize Bitcoin and therefore defeats the original attempt to remove trust….
Perhaps not as ubiquitous as cash transactions worldwide, but it is crystal clear from the 3rd sentence in the Introduction of the Bitcoin white paper that Satoshi expected Bitcoin to be
more useful for small casual online transactions than Visa, PayPal, etc:
Sure, does he necessarily imply that these should take place on the mainchain or did he not envision (and maybe couldn't at this stage) that Bitcoin would spawn an entire ecosystem that would serve all use cases he describes using Bitcoin as the settlement layer?
It's been 5 years now since the paper was released. Maybe we ought to admit that there are intricacies about Bitcoin that Satoshi had no possible ways to know about when he laid the groundwork? I believe nullc was quick to point out a couple of these to you on reddit the other day. Consider for example the 21 million limit which was not specified (and actually not even enforced in the original code).
300.
Post 12315554 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Why is that better than forcing the fee directly, and ensuring that the capacity is well above the demand? (I ca think of several reasons why it is much worse.)
It's not. In fact, Nicolas Houy shows in this paper that a block size limit is economically equivalent to a minimum fee:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519One criticism of the minimum-fee approach is that it would be possible (albeit awkward) for miners to refund fees out-of-band.
I think this paper was quite helpful, however, one thing it did not consider is the fact that miners may have their blocks orphaned, thereby forfeiting the block reward. This orphaning risk serves as a production cost for our new economic commodity called block space. In
this paper (which I know you've seen), I build from Nicolas Houy's work to show that if orphaning is included, that a healthy fee market would exist without a block size limit.
I bought into Bitcoin because I thought I WAS buying block space by buying bitcoin. If I have to include fees, and am limited in my ability to use the block chain for title transfer and recording, timestamps and microtransactions, then it is analogous to buying raw land only to discover I am not allowed to build on or develop the land and also have to pay property taxes. Have I been duped? Are the haters right when they say this is a scam? Scarcity means nothing if their is no utility value also. There are only 21 million bitcoins, but a potentially infinite number of cryptocoins. What makes BTC better than the rest? Network effects did not save Myspace.
What makes Bitcoin better is the trust that investors have put into it. Trust is a very organic process which takes an enormous amount of time and cannot possibly be replicated so easily.
You will never be limited in your ability to use the blockchain but one day you might be lead to ask yourself: does this transaction necessarily require the full security and trustlessness of the Bitcoin blockchain or could I compromise some trust and use such a service which promises to be more efficient and will eventually settle on the blockchain anyway. Do you really care if some of your daily expenses are not all sanctified into the holy blockchain?
What you've bought is digital gold that is outside of the reach of any authority or censor. You can use this digital gold for a variety of use cases that all present different security and trust pre-requisites. What you need to consider is that the ultimate security and decentralization of the Bitcoin base layer comes at great cost which must be paid for. It's a trade-off like most every decisions you make in life.
301.
Post 12315603 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
The entire paper is about transactions occurring on the Blockchain.
...Maybe we ought to admit that there are intricacies about Bitcoin that Satoshi had no possible ways to know about when he laid the groundwork? I believe nullc was quick to point out a couple of these to you on reddit the other day. Consider for example the 21 million limit which was not specified (and actually not even enforced in the original code).
Satoshi
does mention a limit to the number of coins:
Satoshi does NOT mention a block size limit AT ALL, regardless of what nullc says.
I see you've replied to the post I was going to quote but I'm gonna post it here regardless since it pretty much address in a succinct way all that is wrong with your recurring tendency to point to the white paper as some sort of holy scripture.
Bitcoin has evolved since the whitepaper was written. It gives a good introduction to the overall concepts, but the whitepaper gets many of the details wrong
302.
Post 12315632 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Bitcoin has evolved since the whitepaper was written. It gives a good introduction to the overall concepts, but the whitepaper gets many of the details wrong
Name one detail it got
wrong (and I don't mean one detail that it omitted).
Sure, easy: Satoshi makes no distinction between miners and nodes.
303.
Post 12315668 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Bitcoin has evolved since the whitepaper was written. It gives a good introduction to the overall concepts, but the whitepaper gets many of the details wrong
Name one detail it got
wrong (and I don't mean one detail that it omitted).
Sure, easy: Satoshi makes no distinction between miners and nodes.
How is this an error? The network is composed of nodes. Some nodes mine, some don't. (I could also be pedantic and say all nodes mine but some have zero hash power.) I don't see how this is an error.
This is absolutely an error because it ignores significant game theoric scenarios such as the one we are experiencing now which is that not all miners validate themselves their transactions causing the SPV mining fiasco we've recently experienced.
This is a perfect example of Bitcoin evolving in a way Satoshi did not think of.
304.
Post 12315673 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Did Fatman sell his account to Lambchop or something?
305.
Post 12315831 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
We should absolutely avoid the danger of instilling into Bitcoin users some kind of belief that they have a right to free transactions. Nothing in life is free and the costs of security & decentralization cannot forever be externalized to nodes & miners.
In that sense it is perfectly reasonable to suggest we should strive to keep block size limit as close as possible to actual network demand. Flex cap proposals are interesting in this aspect.
Those transactions aren't free for the user even if the miners eat the cost. They STILL have to suffer exchange rate risk while using bitcoin. If they have to pay a fee higher than nominal WHILE BITCOIN IS STILL IN ALPHA, for the vast majority of people, that just isn't worth it.
Miners have to subsidize transaction costs to bootstrap usage or this baby will die in its crib. That's why you're getting the goddamn block reward. I am the customer. I am the user who buys your fucking coins. What am I getting for my money if I have to take this monster risk and have to pay a fee anyway? VISA gives me cash back for chrissakes. They are your competition. If you can't beat them, you won't earn their customers.
Don't you small block fuckers know how business works?
This post is full of misguided assumptions.
It should come as a rational observation considering the shortcomings you have pointed out that there exist absolutely no incentive to
purchase bitcoins to make purchases. No amount of scaling is going to incentivize mainstream consumers to go through such hoops for a low-cost/free transactions as most of the time they don't pay for the transaction anyway, merchants eat them. You are correct that there is absolutely no way for Bitcoin to compete with VISA as a consumer payment processor and again, no amount of blocksize scale is going to change this.
The reasonable thing to ask then is do we really want Bitcoin to compete with Visa or is there another, possibly more valuable, use case for Bitcoin? What about digital gold? That sounds like an area where Bitcoin could thoroughly outcompete other players in its current state, with little to no change necessary. Why are we targeting to replace payment processors when we could somehow attract the incomparable value that resides in precious metal markets, offshore saving accounts and general safe havens? That sounds like a much more interesting moonshot if you ask me.
As is yours. Making the assumption that bitcoin was never intended to be a transaction system is probably the biggest assumption of them all.
Why would I want to use Bitcoin for transactions? 1) I don't have to go to the bank to get a cashiers check or a deal with questions to withdraw cash for my son's college car. 2) As a business owner I loathed paying fees to credit card companies, so I help other businesses as much as possible by using cash, I use bitcoin when they support it because I know the business will take in more money.
Bitcoin has ALWAYS been a system for transactions, that has never changed, suggesting otherwise is ignoring history and inventing a new future for Bitcoin.
Frankly, I am not really caring where this blocksize debate lands, but being dishonest about Bitcoin and its history with transactions is absurd.
Were do I mention that Bitcoin is not intended for transactions?
There are plenty of legitimate use cases for transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. The purchase of your son's college car might be a good one. Surely you wouldn't mind paying some extra fees to secure this purchase without having to rely on any third party?
As for your hardships as a business owner I am sorry to hear this but rest assured necessary technology will evolve using Bitcoin as a settlement layer and should be able to accomodate you transactions needs in a more efficient, faster and private way than you could ever hope for on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Suggesting that Bitcoin is better at processing large value transactions should not be interpreted as an assumption that Bitcoin "was never intended to be a transaction system".
306.
Post 12315875 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
do we really want Bitcoin to compete with Visa or is there another, possibly more valuable, use case for Bitcoin? What about digital gold? That sounds like an area where Bitcoin could thoroughly outcompete other players in its current state, with little to no change necessary. Why are we targeting to replace payment processors when we could somehow attract the incomparable value that resides in precious metal markets, offshore saving accounts and general safe havens? That sounds like a much more interesting moonshot if you ask me.
Gold has utility value. Even so, it has become a financial backwater. A "barbarous relic". At least gold can be used for jewelry, dental fillings, electrical connections, etc. It's been a poor store of value this century.
Bitcoin doesn't even have those advantages. Without the blockchain, Bitcoin is just another crypto and those are in infinite supply. How can a cryptographic token be a store of value without any utility value? No micropayments? No remittances? no irreversable consumer payments?
The thing about Swiss bank accounts was that they were bank accounts, only secret. There are several cryptocoins that are better at anonymity: Monero, Dash, etc.
The thing about gold is that it is not in alpha or beta, but has a five thousand year history. After Gox, Silk Road and all the other thefts and scams, you really think Bitcoin can be seen as a safe haven? With no utility value?? Are you fucking insane?
Still don't get it do you.
Discussing gold's "utility" value is absolutely a non-starter. Such a thing was scarcely considered in its history of human adoption as a store-of-wealth.
How can you pretend Bitcoin has no utility value? Censorship resistant deflationary store of wealth is not good enough for you?
You sound like a troll bringing up Gox & Silk Road against Bitcoin. Whatever happened to the people who lost any Bitcoin from these event is entirely up to them. It was their responsibility to properly secure their wealth and by all accounts, against all principles of Bitcoin, they didn't. Too bad for them but fortunately some people are smarter.
At the risk of repeating myself, "a cryptographic token" gains value by attracting trust in its sound economic nature as digital gold. Why is it this trust can not be replicated in just any other altcoins you ask? Because: "Trust is a very organic process which takes an enormous amount of time". Bitcoin has 5 years of history for that trust to build on.
307.
Post 12315905 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Did Fatman sell his account to Lambchop or something?
Why?? Do you think that pointing you out as a fool should be a monopolized industry as well
"Speak of the devil...."
308.
Post 12315911 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
#1 smoking gun problem with Bitcoin, not enough distinct miners make up 75% of hashing power. It is making me want to no longer be a HODLER as I think about it.
I'm thinking the same thing. I can't decide if these cripplecoiners are really that stupid or just plain evil. My inner conspiracy nut suspects that they are just waiting for us hodlers to dump and then they will suddenly see the light about block size and scalability.
You do realize bigger blocks encourage mining centralization don't you?
309.
Post 12316050 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Discussing gold's "utility" value is absolutely a non-starter. Such a thing was scarcely considered in its history of human adoption as a store-of-wealth.
That's because no other metal was as recognizable, divisible, rare, etc. Cryptocoins are all more or less equally fungible, recognizable, divisible, portable and rare.
That's absolutely not true. For starters, no other coins can rival Bitcoin security which is what basically guarantees its fungibility property. At this point in time, any POW coin that suggests to be a threat by Bitcoin could be trivially attacked by the network of Bitcoin miners.
ALL cryptocoins are censorship resistant and some are more so and also more deflationary.
See response above. Bitcoin has an history and infrastructure that cannot be easily replicated.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious: 5<5000
also, there are no limits on gold transactions/second. A throttled network capacity makes Bitcoin digital fool's gold.
At the risk of repeating myself also: Network effects didn't save MySpace. I'm starting to think all those talking heads on the idiot box who said Bitcoin was too new, experimental and would be replaced by a better crypto maybe had it right.
Yes. Obvious is obvious. In crypto 5 might as well be 5000 when referring to the competition.
Your point about gold's transaction throughput is laughable. The limits on gold transaction and its very real cost is considerable given its physical nature. Even 7 tps accross the world is better than the transportability of gold.
Comparing Bitcoin's network effect to MySpace where there is essentially no cost to the users for switching networks confirms you as just another simple noob. Did you buy this account? You can't have possibly registered in 2011 and utter such idiocy.
310.
Post 12316086 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
You do realize bigger blocks encourage mining centralization don't you?
We've discussed this ad nauseum. GPU mining caused centralization. Pools caused centralization. ASICS caused centralization. Capitalism causes centralization because capital increases productivity and there are fewer people with capital than without. The only way around that is to leave the free market and that causes an even worse form of power centralization.
Growth causes centralization. I think you know this, but unlike you I think a certain degree of centralization is preferable to no growth.
There is an important distinction. The existing mining centralization comes at little cost to nodes precisely because the blocksize cap is there to limit the resources required to process the blocks mined by miners.
You are perfectly correct that the hash rate centralizing is already a reality but lifting the cap or increasing the limit by too much too soon only precipitate and encourages this phenomenon at the loss of individuals running nodes.
This is important because it increases the cost to access governance of the network and consequently centralizes it into the hands of more wealthy people.
311.
Post 12316157 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
We should absolutely avoid the danger of instilling into Bitcoin users some kind of belief that they have a right to free transactions.
This post is full of misguided assumptions.
It should come as a rational observation considering the shortcomings you have pointed out that there exist absolutely no incentive to
purchase bitcoins to make purchases.
As is yours. Making the assumption that bitcoin was never intended to be a transaction system is probably the biggest assumption of them all.
Were do I mention that Bitcoin is not intended for transactions?
see above
I see. Maybe that came off wrong but that wasn't my point. The point being it makes little sense for the average consumer to have to jump through all the hoops of buying bitcoins just to make a purchase. Now don't get me wrong it might serve some niche use cases but this is simply not something you can sell to mainstream consumers, even if they can make 100000000000000 transactions for free.
312.
Post 12316176 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
In other words:
The value of Bitcoin is its utility,
The utility of Bitcoin is its ability to store wealth.
Any alarm bells ringing?
Circular argument, anyone?
Seems like you're twisting things a bit. Maybe I ought to clarify?
The value of Bitcoin is in being deflationary, censorship resistant form of money.
I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this
313.
Post 12316276 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Bitcoin has an history and infrastructure that cannot be easily replicated.
Newsflash, dipshit: Bitcoin's infrastructure is as a payments network. Bitcoin's history means zip diddly squat if some other alt is backed by a bank with a 50 Billion dollar market cap.
In crypto 5 might as well be 5000 when referring to the competition.
against another grass roots bootstapped alt, yes. Against an alt backed by a Fortune 500 company or billionaire with a slick multi-million dollar marketing campaign, no.
Your point about gold's transaction throughput is laughable. The limits on gold transaction and its very real cost is considerable given its physical nature. Even 7 tps accross the world is better than the transportability of gold.
yes, but your fees make the divisibility of BTC much more limited. I'm pretty sure there are far more than seven global gold transactions per second. Even more when you count micropayments, like buying shots of Goldschlager. And, other than Government thugs, no assholes arguing that we should minimize them.
Comparing Bitcoin's network effect to MySpace where there is essentially no cost to the users for switching networks confirms you as just another simple noob. Did you buy this account? You can't have possibly registered in 2011 and utter such idiocy.
What's the cost of trading BTC for any alt on any one of a dozen exchanges? A fraction of a percent? The only costs are paying your goddamn miner fees and waiting for your confirmations. It's not the switchers like me you need to worry about. It's the people who enter crypto going straight to the alt that better suits their needs.
It's early but that might just deserve our award for stupid post of the day.
Might as well say people will throw themselves at Govcoin while you're at it
This is just beyond hilarious. Why the fuck would you even think a centralized payment network supported "by a Fortune 500 company or billionaire with a slick multi-million dollar marketing campaign" would bother creating a cryptocurrency. Do you understand the necessity for the blockchain and POW design and why it is totally worthless and ridiculously inefficient under centralized control?
By the way I'm certain Germany would kill to be able to get the Fed to return their gold to them even if they'd have to wait for the next block
And finally of course you would totally miss the point about "the cost" of switching network. I encourage anyone to invest into an alt that suits their needs ...... and it's gone!
"Newsflash dipshit" Bitcoin would be worth absolutely fuck all if it was valued for the success (or lack thereof) of its "payment network". It's only worth anything because people have decided to trust a portion of their wealth into it.
Are you cypherdoc's brother by any chance? This sounds like some of the stupid shit he'd say to hopelessly defend his points.
314.
Post 12316339 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Why?? Do you think that pointing you out as a fool should be a monopolized industry as well
"Speak of the devil...."
Just sayin', dude. So far you have argued that the definition of cash is 'wrong' and that satoshi got bitcoin wrong day one.
You think everyone is wrong, and you constantly support this by suggesting that we should all just 'educate' ourselves.
But in reality, all you have is your version of what you believe to be true. Your 'truth' is that bitcoin is fundamentally broken, and the only way to fix it is by going off-chain. And to make that
more profitable in the short term, you need a fee market to drive traffic to it -
ergo SmallBlocks. Which is fine. But it is flawed.
I contend that:
1. Bitcoin isn't broken. Its evolving - everything is on the table. There is no 'single' solution.
2. Its utility value far outweighs your ludicrous need to have it solely as a 'store of value'
3. Off-chain solutions provide an invaluable aid to scaling bitcoin, but they must compete on a level playing field with on-chain transactions.
4. Any solution that depends on artificially throttling capacity is flawed.
I can tell you woke up in a good mood
I can count at least 2-3 strawmen just from this one post! Impressive!
I retort that:
1. Bitcoin isn't broken. It will simply never scale to accommodate mainstream consumption levels under existing design. Maybe you wanna try Visa or Square?
2. It's principal utility is absolutely as I've described it: a deflationary, censorship resistant form of money. The inefficient and rather handicapped "payment network" sitting on top is a necessary by-product but unfortunately design with security and decentralization in mind, not worldwide payment processing.
3. False dichotomy here. Both provide their own benefits and trade-offs.
4. It is more of an absolutely necessary throttle on resource consumption to prevent deadly centralization of the system.
315.
Post 12316367 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Are you cypherdoc's brother by any chance? This sounds like some of the stupid shit he'd say to hopelessly defend his points.
It must be 4am where you are. You should get some sleep. You are starting to blub.
We don't all get the chance to rotate at the troll desk
316.
Post 12316380 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.
"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles
I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.
How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
317.
Post 12316609 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
This is just beyond hilarious. Why the fuck would you even think a centralized payment network supported "by a Fortune 500 company or billionaire with a slick multi-million dollar marketing campaign" would bother creating a cryptocurrency. Do you understand the necessity for the blockchain and POW design and why it is totally worthless and ridiculously inefficient under centralized control?
Centralized control works for linux. It's better than the decision-making gridlock of the core devs.
To answer your question, we already have centralized control of code development, but an alt could have better management of code development. Maybe they just want a crypto that scales better and starting over from scratch is easier than convincing people like you to improve Bitcoin.
They could pay for the marketing by selling pre-mined coins and kickstart mining with a guaranteed price floor. The maximum it would take to absolutely guarantee a 100MM market cap would be $100,000,000 but would almost certainly be a fraction of that. Throw in a plunge protection team to smooth out the most extreme volatility and you'd have a coin anyone and everyone would want to buy or mine.
You're hopeless. How can you possibly hold on to your bitcoins while entertaining these thoughts. This is really all kinds of wrong I'd be embarassed if I were you
I hope for your sake you are trolling me
318.
Post 12316661 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.
"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles
I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.
How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?
You are buying space on the ledger, not the block. You need to pay to move these bitcoins to a different address on the ledger.
So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
319.
Post 12316731 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Again, it is possible that the devs do not see how wrong that argument is?
The max block size that was put into the rules in 2010 was not "1 MB" but "a value small enough to prevent big-block attack but still much larger than traffic so that it would not create spurious scarcity, and every transaction would be confirmed as quickly as possible."
Can you provide source for this or did you just make it up?
There is NO evidence that the centralization of mining that happened so far was due to the natural growth in the block sizes, or that such growth would affect it in the foreseeable future. That is just one of several dishonest FUD arguments that Adam Back used at one point. The economies of scale that resulted in concentration of mining are due to the savings in the costs of equipment, space, electricity, cooling, personnel, management, etc. that exist for bulk purchasers and for certain geographic locations.
You are again completely fabricating a straw man...? That's absolutely not what I'm saying and I don't believe I've ever read anything of the sort by Adam.
As for increasing block size having an effect on mining centralization if we do not proceed carefully and by increments there are several technical aspects that can lead to this conclusion.
You need to try harder trollfi this isn't up to your standards...
320.
Post 12316769 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.
"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles
I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.
How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?
You are buying space on the ledger, not the block. You need to pay to move these bitcoins to a different address on the ledger.
So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
Nope. I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply.
Confusing the ledger composed of bitcoins with the chain... now that is something else!
Guys it looks like we had it wrong all along! We're not actually buying bitcoins! We're buying parts of the blockchain!
Do you have any concept of what "the chain" is? Imma let you in on a killer deal: if you decide to run a full node, you will not only get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain, you'll get ALL OF IT without having to spend a dime. Now isn't this AWESOME?
321.
Post 12316850 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
The maximum it would take to absolutely guarantee a 100MM market cap would be $100,000,000 but would almost certainly be a fraction of that. Throw in a plunge protection team to smooth out the most extreme volatility and you'd have a coin anyone and everyone would want to buy or mine.
Ah come on, you. must. be. joking.
He doesn't even know someone tried that already. Paycoin was it called?
322.
Post 12316899 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.
"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles
I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.
How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?
You are buying space on the ledger, not the block. You need to pay to move these bitcoins to a different address on the ledger.
So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
Nope. I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply.
Confusing the ledger composed of bitcoins with the chain... now that is something else!
Guys it looks like we had it wrong all along! We're not actually buying bitcoins! We're buying parts of the blockchain!
Do you have any concept of what "the chain" is? Imma let you in on a killer deal: if you decide to run a full node, you will not only get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain, you'll get ALL OF IT without having to spend a dime. Now isn't this AWESOME?
If you're not gonna answer my question, then it is fair to assume you don't have an answer.
What question? Do you realize how utterly confused you are, talking about buying fractions of the blockchain?
323.
Post 12317175 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?
Just quoting this again for posterity.
324.
Post 12345473 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Into the 240's I see. Nice little surprise, but where are the double digit couns we were promised as a result of Hearn's (FAIL) XT plan? Bitcoin is not going anywhere & will not be destroyed by a pair of power hungry ass holes.
No, Bitcoin is going to fade into irrelevance because of a 7 transaction per minute network capacity unless someone (perhaps a pair of power hungry assholes) can save it.
don't confuse a symptom with the disease.
Maybe you should sell us some blockspace to help with the problem
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?
325.
Post 12348659 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
I have not done anything regarding this. I told you the two reasons for this in my previous post. (The post you are responding to.)
1: Gavin have talked about statistical distribution of confirmations before.
2: Somebody are working on tree chains, which I think is related to the same, but I'm not sure.
The ideas are out there. I think Core devs Gavin & Jeff are capable of handling this shit, but Core boss Wladimir is just too scared to make any decitions or point in any direction.
If I don't see any development in this area in 6 months, I will probably contact Gavin to propose a deterministic distribution of transaction confirmations. But I do think fresher brains than mine are woring at it now. So I don't worry too much about bitcoin scaling.
I don't understand what you mean by your puff and pass remark. Probably a language thing, as I am from Norway.
Sorry for being glib. It's more a product of my own frustration with the progress (or lack thereof).
You may be thinking of IBLT?
Probably don't need to remind Gavin, he made a nice gist about it.
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2I gotcha
He he, no problem. And I don't even know what glib means!
Can you give me the short version of what IBLT is? (Clicked the link, but too drunk to read many letters, ha ha ha)
Anyway, don't worry about bitcoin scaling, it's not very difficult to scale. The beauty of the power distribution is simply that the best code will be used!
CHEEEEEERS MATE!!!!
I'm sorry but you might as well drink more so that tomorrow you have forgotten all about the idea.
The problem of scaling is indeed not technically difficult at all. The problem resides in messing with Bitcoin's carefully incentives. It is not enough to enable miners to process more transactions, we have to consider what the costs are on the whole network.
326.
Post 12355502 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Strike One: Playing Doubting Thomas to blockchain tech, despite compsci/fintech consensus that (per Horowitz) "it may be the most important computer science breakthrough since packet switching."
And it will end poverty and corruption. And maybe cure cancer too.
Strike Two: Declaring XT would win, after getting suckered in by Gavin and Hearn's false sense of urgency and other social engineering attacks.
I don't recall saying that
BitcoinXT would win; if I did, I apologize profusely. No matter how much I try, I always overestimate the intelligence of bitcoiners.
(I just saw a bunch of them exchange hate comments about Gavin on reddit, as if he had always been the arch-enemy of bitcoin. Amazing what you can do with a smear campaign, if you have 21 M$ of capital to defend and a couple thousand bitcoiner minds to play with.)
I still think that the limit will be raised, and the Blockstream guys will either cede or be left sucking their thumbs. But I may be overestimating again...
Bonus Strike: Being embarrassingly jealous of Dr. Back's far more lucrative and history-making, world-changingly influential CS career.
After having admired Dr. Back's words, and even having had the honor of debating directly with him on reddit, I must say that, for his technical and ethical qualities, he is one of the most outstanding bitcoin personalities -- right there besides Roger Ver. I do hope that his career develops the way he deserves.
Who pays you though?
Sometimes I'm curious if you, Lambtroll and a couple others sit at the office cafeteria table and try to think of the most stupid brain dead shit to say
327.
Post 12355805 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Using the estimate of Seven Transactions per Second, the network is capable of handling only ~ 604800 transactions a day. That's not even enough for one million people to use on a daily basis. Bitcoin will never be able to replace fiat even if it scales up 100X. or 1000X.
Bitcoin was designed as an electronic peer to peer cash system. Lack of scalability is clearly a severe limit to adoption in that regard. It may be useful for other purposes, but each time it is used for something else, it's capacity as an electronic peer to peer cash system is reduced.
When I first read the story of the Coinwallet stress test, I thought immediately that they were planning to do something harmful, but then I thought about it. Bitcoin is antifragile. It needs to be stressed so that it can grow stronger. Is there even a working process for increasing scalability? We may find out soon. If there isn't one, then knowledge of that deficiency will be the first step towards solving it.
You are not qualified to speak about these issues.
Keep to financial speculation please.
328.
Post 12366310 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
... and really some of the extent of your drama or exaggeration seems to be attempting to cause an effect rather than really talking about the real state of bitcoin today.
That's partially true and I'll be the first to admit it. I want the price to go down IF it leads to cause the core devs to implement a workable scale patch or else leads to some other group replacing them. I want bitcoin to succeed as an electronic peer to peer cash system as it was designed, not as some cloistered settlement network only used by the same assholes who run the current system.
Fiat money is debt. It is lent into existence. That makes the entire global financial system a giant pyramid scheme. I don't have to wish for economic Armageddon to see one coming (or more likely a series of disasters eventually having the same effect). I don't have to cause it or contribute to causing it. It's going to happen as a mathematical certainty. If we don't find a way to escape the system, we will go down with it.
A network capacity of seven transactions/sec is a life boat with very few seats.
All money is debt, bro
What do you know about Bitcoin anyway?
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?
329.
Post 12375266 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Well yeah. Blockchains are great. 7 TPS not so much.
Maybe we can get our hands on some space from these blockchains? Do you know what they're going for?
330.
Post 12375886 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.25h):
Hey BJA, when did you become such a pessimist? I use to enjoy reading your posts.
Maybe when he realized he has no clue about even the most basic aspects of bitcoin
331.
Post 12383035 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
Geez, Newbie. It's a trivial matter to turn off the I.P. "blacklisting". It's just a feature for nodes that don't want to deal with slow-ass onion routing.
These objections to larger block sizes seem disingenuous. It appears to be just a miner power grab, and a wrong-headed one at that. The real way to create a market for miner fees is to expand adoption, not squeeze the current users.
Erhmmm
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?
332.
Post 12385121 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
Geez, Newbie. It's a trivial matter to turn off the I.P. "blacklisting". It's just a feature for nodes that don't want to deal with slow-ass onion routing.
These objections to larger block sizes seem disingenuous. It appears to be just a miner power grab, and a wrong-headed one at that. The real way to create a market for miner fees is to expand adoption, not squeeze the current users.
Erhmmm
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?Give it a rest already. It should have been obvious that I wasn't being literal. Do you has Asperger's Syndrome?
Are you sure?
So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
Nope.
I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply.
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying?
333.
Post 12385241 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
Julio Faura, Santander :
"Micropayments and Internet of Things will be one of the game-changers.
The whole thing will change when Central Banks issue currency on distributed ledgers."
334.
Post 12385803 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
Julio Faura, Santander :
"Micropayments and Internet of Things will be one of the game-changers.
The whole thing will change when Central Banks issue currency on distributed ledgers."
OMG, that means even more blockspace to buy!
335.
Post 12394383 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
miners want bip100. case closed.
Fortunately Bitcoin is not about doing what the miners want.
336.
Post 12442268 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
I don't think you're being fair. Yes you are doing something by putting a little money into Bitcoin here and there. You are supporting Bitcoin because you want a better monetary system that isn't based on debt, and isn't confined by borders. When times are lean then it makes sense to stash something valuable away, until it becomes worth more. When the value appreciates again, Bitcoin holders can use their increased purchasing power to support businesses that embrace crypto, rather than cash out. That's what 'many around here' are waiting to do I'm sure.
Buying a bitcoin and doing absolutely nothing with it for 10 years is about as useless to the bitcoin ecosystem as completely ignoring it.
You dont support bitcoin by wanting a "monetary system that isn't based on debt, and isn't confined by borders" .. thats called dreaming. You can support bitcoin by actively seeking out ways that you can integrate bitcoin in your daily life, and maybe provide services to others using bitcoin.
Quite a twisted and erroneous view of economics.
Holders are the ones giving value to the coins.
Ask Rothbard:
Money is just as useful when lying “idle” in somebody’s cash balance, even in a miser’s “hoard.” (At what point does a man’s cash balance become a faintly disreputable “hoard,” or the prudent man a miser? It is impossible to fix any definite criterion: generally, the charge of “hoarding” means that A is keeping more cash than B thinks is appropriate for A.) For that money is being held now in wait for possible future exchange—it supplies to its owner, right now, the usefulness of permitting exchanges at any time—present or future—the owner might desire.
337.
Post 12442918 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
I don't think you're being fair. Yes you are doing something by putting a little money into Bitcoin here and there. You are supporting Bitcoin because you want a better monetary system that isn't based on debt, and isn't confined by borders. When times are lean then it makes sense to stash something valuable away, until it becomes worth more. When the value appreciates again, Bitcoin holders can use their increased purchasing power to support businesses that embrace crypto, rather than cash out. That's what 'many around here' are waiting to do I'm sure.
Buying a bitcoin and doing absolutely nothing with it for 10 years is about as useless to the bitcoin ecosystem as completely ignoring it.
You dont support bitcoin by wanting a "monetary system that isn't based on debt, and isn't confined by borders" .. thats called dreaming. You can support bitcoin by actively seeking out ways that you can integrate bitcoin in your daily life, and maybe provide services to others using bitcoin.
Quite a twisted and erroneous view of economics.
Holders are the ones giving value to the coins.
Its whether or not the next person wants to buy your coin, and for how much, is what gives them value. Not the holder.
If there is no utility, no infrastructure and no potential then there is no market.
There is utility, it's called a store of value with rather unique properties. Bitcoin grew to 3B$ market cap with little utility & infrastructure.
It's really simple, Bitcoin is money and as such as more capital is trusted into it (holders) the higher its value is so it's absolutely wrong to pretend that "buying a bitcoin and doing absolutely nothing with it for 10 years is useless".
338.
Post 12449108 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
tl:dr BTC velocity is high, other assets are likely better long term storage
Where do you get this idea?
339.
Post 12487001 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
https://21.co/ [Suspicious link removed]j.com/moneybeat/2015/09/21/21-inc-releases-first-product-a-bitcoin-computer/
A wobbly Raspberry Pi?
Can someone explain to me why this isn't the dead end I think it is?
This is more of a prototype, according to the article. A proof-of-concept, something for the devs to tinker with.
The finished product would have a real, full-featured OS (Windows), and a real, robust payment system (Visa/$).
And why would anyone buy the finished product? I thought they were going to integrate their chips or their chip-tech into standard PC chipsets, not make their own computers. I don't see a market for such a product. If it weren't for the mining bit I would think all of this could be done in software. Actually, I don't really see the point of this chip at all. The amount of coins it will be able to mine is so minuscule that it would make more sense for the users to just bite the bullet and buy some coins. In fact, what we need is (please don't shoot the messenger) the option of exchanging fiat for BTC directly through our online banking solutions.
It's quite simple: it enables true micropayments on the Bitcoin blockchain by making access to mining ubiquitous.
Eventually their chips will be integrated into PCs. As the person you quoted above mentioned, this is the pilot version.
The amount of coins mined is negligible from a financial standpoint but not if someone is concerned with interoperable communication by devices using the Bitcoin protocol.
340.
Post 12487197 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
It's quite simple: it enables true micropayments on the Bitcoin blockchain by making access to mining ubiquitous.
It's amazing how people with 1 year activity on this forum don't have a clue about bitcoin
How the hell is that piece of garbage enabling micropayments?
Why so butthurt?
Tell me genius, how do you send a 2 satoshi transaction on chain right now?
341.
Post 12487259 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
It's quite simple: it enables true micropayments on the Bitcoin blockchain by making access to mining ubiquitous.
It's amazing how people with 1 year activity on this forum don't have a clue about bitcoin
How the hell is that piece of garbage enabling micropayments?
Why so butthurt?
Tell me genius, how do you send a 2 satoshi transaction on chain right now?
Tell me genius , how will you send a 2 satoshi transaction with that device?
Is that device not following the bitcoin protocol rules?
That device is a miner tied to a non negligible mining pool.
Using some payment channel magic and their microtransactions server your 2 satoshi transaction will be aggregated with a bunch of others and settled into the blockchain as they mine blocks.
342.
Post 12496976 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
21 inc are either geniuses so far ahead of the curve we can't even see it, or goats enjoying splurging a fuck ton of money on convoluted junk. I very much look forward to finding out which they are and hopefully we'll know soon.
I vote geniuses!
https://elux.svbtle.com/the-21-inc-computer-is-the-new-altair-8800
343.
Post 12515965 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
this is the bottom
X
Nice pic but what does your broad think about you posting that?
You're free to post and stuph and all. Did she realize your epic status on a world-wide forum dedicated to disruption?
she has no idea what i post. and does not care to know. I do not talk about bitcoin at all with her, this is like my secret identity.
Adam, I think that you kind of know my story... No?
I have been pretty much continuing to buy BTC and hold and I never really sell any BTC (except if I do sell any, then I replace them within days).
You have been in BTClandia longer than me, but you said that you had bought and sold and bought before the last bubble, but then as prices were going down in this latest downward from November 2013, I think that you continued to buy and hold, no? Are you accumulating a fairly decent stash of BTC over these last couple of years?
I feel like I have been building a pretty decent stash, and probably I have a few times more than I ever thought that I would because I did NOT expect prices to go below $500 or to stay below for very extended periods of time (like what has been happening the past 9 months-ish).
Recently, I have developed various plans to strategically sell at certain points (by conceptually dividing my stash into three parts), and then I trade with one of the portions (and only specifically triggered at certain points), until BTC prices go up to trigger me to move to the other portion of my stash... my model presumes BTC prices will go up at some point, but continue to have some volatility....
I think that my plan forward is pretty decent... and yes it kind of presumes that the bounce out of this $220 to $290 price will be upwards, likely less than a year?
maybe?? ; however, in the mean time, I continue to buy BTC (at least while the price is below a certain point), and if prices continue to go down, my plan will be to continue to buy, rather than selling any.. my selling behavior is only going to be triggered if prices begin to go back up.. .. hopefully some day in less than 12 months-ish, no?
I am in the same boat as you are and IIRC got into the game at the same time as you did.
Don't sweat it for a second and continue accumulating. I know you are sitting on a pretty stash right now and I'd kill for this amount of BTC.
If there is one thing I have to thank the block size debate for is that I barely watch charts or the price anymore. I could care less if we drop to 100$ tomorrow.
Bitcoin is the only prospect left on this side of the earth for monetary sovereignty and unless you are going to drop dead in the next 5 years you are going to need it as we venture into what's likely to be a very turbulent next decade or two. .
I suggest you watch this excellent interview for a fresh perspective on where we are at.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk
344.
Post 12516358 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
seemingly the same amounts being sold & bought repeatedly
345.
Post 12516728 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
I am in the same boat as you are and IIRC got into the game at the same time as you did.
Don't sweat it for a second and continue accumulating. I know you are sitting on a pretty stash right now and I'd kill for this amount of BTC.
If there is one thing I have to thank the block size debate for is that I barely watch charts or the price anymore. I could care less if we drop to 100$ tomorrow.
Bitcoin is the only prospect left on this side of the earth for monetary sovereignty and unless you are going to drop dead in the next 5 years you are going to need it as we venture into what's likely to be a very turbulent next decade or two. .
I suggest you watch this excellent interview for a fresh perspective on where we are at.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUkYes, it feels pretty good to have a decent stash of BTC, even though they are currently in the red....
I watched the youtube video, and I would suggest that Trace is a very smart guy, but he doesn't really come off as being very objective... and like he seems to be pushing an agenda that is so much money driven that sometimes he seems to be losing some necessary compassion for non-monetary considerations and some times the necessity for collaboration and consensus,... even if some of those practices may NOT always be the most efficient way to go.
Non-monetary considerations are the reason hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted as we speak chasing pipe-dreams of mainstream retail adoption.
What he advocates is a return to the basics. An introspection into what makes Bitcoin great in the first place and how far we have come into picking the low-hanging fruits that will drive real adoption and growth as an economy.
People tend to forget that this is what Bitcoin is: an economy, and an economy is not built on BTC grocery bags, fancy "killer apps" and "science projects", it is built on capital investment. I remember a talk from him back in early 2014 about how Bitcoin is a storage tank, others often use the term a battery, for capital to pour in from other markets worldwide looking to be stored in & benefit from Bitcoin's unique monetary properties. Some people have seemingly lost track of these properties and are attempting to turn Bitcoin into a payment processing business in which it has no chance of competing with the existing industry incumbents.
We'd all love for Bitcoin to be ubiquitous as a currency but until a majority of people get paid in BTC and hold a considerable amount of their wealth in it these promises can not be realized. For very understandable economic reasons fiat will continue to remain the dominant transactional currency for years to come. Gresham's law will make sure of that and if we are to sell Bitcoin to potential adopters it should be on its merits as a deflationary store-of-value. Leave all that commercial consumerism to inflationary fiat currencies.
"Fiat runs, Bitcoin rests."
346.
Post 12516979 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
Also let me gloat for a minute for calling Bitpays business model unsustainable way back.
What can possible be unsustainable with any payment processor business model?
One that claims 0% fees on transactions?
Surely you're kidding...
347.
Post 12516995 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
90% of this forum is probably in denial about it.
Also let me gloat for a minute for calling Bitpays business model unsustainable way back.
itshappening.gif
I still can't believe VCs were willing to plow 30M$ into this company..you truly have to wonder wtf these guys are thinking sometimes.
348.
Post 12517068 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
90% of this forum is probably in denial about it.
Also let me gloat for a minute for calling Bitpays business model unsustainable way back.
itshappening.gif
I still can't believe VCs were willing to plow 30M$ into this company..you truly have to wonder wtf these guys are thinking sometimes.
well bitcoin was not meant to be a payment processor à la visa/paypal it seems..
*btw, pedo spotted:
http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-bitcoin-broker-and-the-13-year-old-girl-in-the-biki-1563202590ewwwwww what a creep.
349.
Post 12517084 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
nice little price movement this morning
350.
Post 12625853 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
That's a circular argument. Lots of people are reluctant to adopt a technology that isn't scalable. In't isn't exactly the Field of dreams. If you build it, they may not come BUT if you DON'T build it, they certainly won't.
This.
I was talking to the owner of the bar I was at the other day and was explaining Bitcoin to the owner. I almost had him convinced to start accepting bitcoins for payment when he stopped and was like "wait a minute, what are the block size parameters and transactions per second?". Needless to say he was displeased that in 2 years the code would need to be changed if current transaction volume continued to increase at the current rate. He then started asking me about alt coins like Doge. He decided to start accepting Doge instead because he thought it had a funny picture with the dog and he was like "you has doges?".
A SNARK IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT SOFTWARE INFRASTRUCTURE ARE NOT GOING TO LAYER ON TOP OF A NON-SCALABLE BLOCKCHAIN. It's too much work for too little reward. The people who finance the infrastructure are not going to pay for it. Speculators like me are not going to invest when the expected future returns are based on the utility of only a settlement network.
We don't have two years. Bitshares 2.0 is going to launch literally in a week. Altcoins can take all your good code and build a chain on top of it now. Many have and a billion-dollars to launch a real competitor is chump change for Silicone Valley or Wall Street. I understand you want an armored truck and not a sports car, but even a Brinks truck has to keep up with traffic. If you want Bitcoin to be the MySpace of crypto, keep doing what you're doing.
how old are you again?
You guys still bother to engage in discussions with THIS guy?
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
Nope.
I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply.
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying?
351.
Post 12626468 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
that sounds perfectly sane to me.
352.
Post 12626641 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
that sounds perfectly sane to me.
Me too. If we start using bitcoin like real money, other people might get the wrong idea and start using it like money, and then where would we be?
of course. cause everyone knows money burns a fucking hole through your pocket and you absolutely HAVE to spend it. Right?
353.
Post 12665991 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
354.
Post 12671037 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
seem to recall, several years ago, an announcement by some exchange that they were implementing "shadow" book orders, that are invisible to most ordinary clients. Perhaps they just started showing shadow-book trades on the ordinary ticker, to boost their public volume numbers...
That seems to be what's happening. But why would they want a lot of off book transactions? Don't they make money based on a percentage of the order cost? Why would they not want the price to rise as much as possible?
OKCoin and Huobi do not charge fees for trading, only for deposit and/or withdrawal, and interest on leveraged trading. As I recall, the shadow book was meant to cater for clients who wanted to trade on the exchange, but did not want their large orders to affect the price against them. (I may have misunderstood, and I don't know whether that makes sense.)
It's hard to see responses between all these ChartBuddys.
Thanks, I think they would be better for all if we could actually see the effects of the trades that are happening.
Right, so we are supposed to belive that while BFX volume has continued at an a consistent mostly anaemic pace for the last 2 months, OKC and Huobi have a bunch of 50k BTC orders that they suddenly decided to announce in their volume figures ...OK .... <sips Kool Aid> .... perfectly reasonable explanation.
Oh wait ...no announcement from an exchange that is being accused of faking numbers that they have a valid reason for suddenly higher numbers. OK ... <sips more> that makes perfect sense
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... most likely explanation is 'it's definitely not a duck'
it's clear enough by now that these exchanges are bucket shop status, especially BitFinex
355.
Post 12676077 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
^ Meh. Guess you know for sure the forum / population has changed when a (relative) newcomer account blocks (justified or not, doesn't matter) a bunch of posters that have been here from day one.
for someone who has been here from day one billyjoeallen is probably as clueless as they come so I wouldn't even blame newbies for ignoring him.
356.
Post 12678867 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
Turning the Blockchain into a pure high-stake clearing network before it had a chance to establish itself as a useful, reliable tool for smaller transactions is not without risk either.
The XT approach was pretty odious but no more odious than the twitching whack jobs who believe the planetary population will skip Christmas so they can afford those gorgeous Bitcoin transaction fees.
They won't have to, they'll use open source payment layers.
357.
Post 12679101 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
I'm sure closed source, pay Blockstream per month, federated chains, using multi sig secured collateral have a place in the ecosystem. I welcome them and applaud the effort in their creation.
However, there is a real concern regarding the motivations of veto wielding devs. Are they making decisions that would be best for Bitcoin, or decisions that might mold Bitcoin towards an environment that benefits Blockstream software products?
Their Bitcoin-related solutions surely would benefit from what is best for Bitcoin, wouldn't you think?
358.
Post 12679197 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
There is no reason why they couldn't just implement BIP101 and simply change the blocksize limit again if the assumptions behind BIP101 turns out not to be true.
Oh please
359.
Post 12679205 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
Then, again, miscommunication -- unless you consider the likes of Mircea Popescu "not status quo", which would be just plain twisting of words.
I don't have any idea what his opinion is about this.
In other subjects in the past he's been completely right about the subject matter, excessive in his language. Something that has happened also to Luke. This doesn't make them any less right when they are right.
Then again, how exactly is status quo an irrational stance?
360.
Post 12679325 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
So what if he/they make a decision sometime late 2016/early 2017, and it turns out to be the "wrong" one? Will they spend three years to change that as well?
If it can't offer enough people usability then other systems will and it'll die. It's a trillion miles away from being 'too big to fail'. I can see why they'd grind to a halt but it doesn't exist in a vacuum and the world is a fast moving place that don't give a shit about Bitcoin's nobility.
This works only under the presumption that Bitcoin competes only on the basis of transaction throughput which it does not.
361.
Post 12679350 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
Then again, how exactly is status quo an irrational stance?
It depends on how you define the status-quo.
I would define it as we currently have more than ample space in a block for genuine transactions. I'd like to keep it that way.
We also have a valuable limit used to avoid spam filling up blocks, I'd also like to keep it that way.
362.
Post 12684357 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
We also have a valuable limit used to avoid spam filling up blocks,
Wait - what?
Clearly, the limit just ensures that relatively few spam transactions are required to fill up blocks.
Exactly, so that when they interfere with actual demand for transactions they soon find themselves having to compete on the transaction fee market.
363.
Post 12684506 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.27h):
I've been sitting on the train, ready to go for a long time now. Let me know when it's about to go so I can wake up & post GIF's, rockets & other stuff to piss off the resident bears.
Your faith will be rewarded
There'll be some slashed seats soon if some passengers aren't satisfied. I'm content to enjoy the view for now.
Ride is much nicer when there isn't so much noise
364.
Post 12704802 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Winklevis orchestrating a pump ?
365.
Post 12710889 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Huobi is downright retarded 15$ over, wtf is happening over there.
366.
Post 12713459 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
People really need to stop being ignorant and childish. Every increase in price is not a 'pump' and every decrease is not a 'dump'.
miners have to unload their 3600 coins per day at some point...
Yes.
miners attitude has changed over the years.
todays miners are not bitcoin-enthusiasts anymore, they sell their coins as fast as they can. therefore the halving will be a big fucking kick in their ass.
Demonstrably false.
367.
Post 12713496 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
People really need to stop being ignorant and childish. Every increase in price is not a 'pump' and every decrease is not a 'dump'.
miners have to unload their 3600 coins per day at some point...
Yes.
miners attitude has changed over the years.
todays miners are not bitcoin-enthusiasts anymore, they sell their coins as fast as they can. therefore the halving will be a big fucking kick in their ass.
Demonstrably false.
why?
Because the largest solo miner, for example, has publicly said they don't sell their bitcoins.
368.
Post 12713514 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
People really need to stop being ignorant and childish. Every increase in price is not a 'pump' and every decrease is not a 'dump'.
miners have to unload their 3600 coins per day at some point...
Yes.
miners attitude has changed over the years.
todays miners are not bitcoin-enthusiasts anymore, they sell their coins as fast as they can. therefore the halving will be a big fucking kick in their ass.
Demonstrably false.
why?
Because the largest solo miner, for example, has publicly said they don't sell their bitcoins.
"largest solominer" has a marketshare of?
15%
There are numerous other instances where this has been proven wrong.
The idea that 3600 coins are being dumped on the market daily is a myth.
369.
Post 12713619 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
how do they pay the electricity if they don't sell their coins? 15 % of the network today is like few MW a month.
The entity I'm referring to is Bitfury
1. They're already wealthy people.
2. They have loads of VC money
3. They used to make what is likely to be ridiculous amounts of profits selling mining gear.
370.
Post 12713665 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
People really need to stop being ignorant and childish. Every increase in price is not a 'pump' and every decrease is not a 'dump'.
miners have to unload their 3600 coins per day at some point...
Yes.
miners attitude has changed over the years.
todays miners are not bitcoin-enthusiasts anymore, they sell their coins as fast as they can. therefore the halving will be a big fucking kick in their ass.
Demonstrably false.
why?
Because the largest solo miner, for example, has publicly said they don't sell their bitcoins.
There are numerous other instances where this has been proven wrong.
and there are numerous other instances where this has been proven right. i remember knc selling their shit as soon as possible. i also remember a documentary about some chinese farm. they were also selling as fast as they could. giving a shit about what the actual underlying of their business was.
edit: i would love to do some analyzing here, were the fresh coins go. but so far i had no luck finding that out.
I'm convinced KNC is not selling all of their coins.
371.
Post 12713892 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
solominer = 1 BTC per month ...
so, they don't sell
Bifury mines a couple blocks on average per day
372.
Post 12713927 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Because the largest solo miner, for example, has publicly said they don't sell their bitcoins.
Source?
Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.
"We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price," Vavilov added.
373.
Post 12714071 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
nice discussion we got going here.
no i don't know exactly were freshly mined coins are going. nobody knows. everybody has just hear-and-say informations.
i personally did some business some time ago with mining farm folks and my impression was they gave a shit about bitcoin. privately they held no more than a handful of coins maybe. for them it was just a better kind of investment as into high-yield-bonds or something.
but i accept that bitfury may keep them, quite possible.
nevertheless the market has to absorb 1 mioUS$ everyday, thats a fucking lot and halving will kick some ass.
Make it half that
374.
Post 12714103 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Because the largest solo miner, for example, has publicly said they don't sell their bitcoins.
Source?
Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.
"We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price," Vavilov added.
So, their funding rounds are basically to pay for their costs while they hold their coins. How could that possibly go wrong?
No, their funding round is likely to develop new ASIC technology and develop their infrastructure.
As I've said previously they've had other revenue sources in the past which might still pay for their existing costs.
Moreover I'm quite confident their energy costs are absurdly low since they seem to have quite a special relation with the government where their farms are set up (Georgia)
375.
Post 12714114 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
... can you read?
"We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price," Vavilov added.
If 350-400$ was a low price back then what do you believe they consider 250 nowadays?
Spare me with your trolling...
376.
Post 12714291 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
If 350-400$ was a low price back then what do you believe they consider 250 nowadays?
A lesson?
Yes, I'm sure millionaires that have probably been mining since the double digits days are quite bothered by a price drop.
.... or maybe not
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-details-100-million-georgia-data-center/BitFury will invest $100m in building a 100MW bitcoin mining data centre in Georgia
377.
Post 12714298 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
The idea that 3600 coins are being dumped on the market daily is a myth.
3600 coins are
created daily. demand absorbs them, otherwise price would fall. nothing mythical about it.
Well to be clear the myth is that miners sell those coins on the market which would definitely affect the price.
In reality it isn't so black and white and a considerable portion of coins are certainly held by these same miners.
378.
Post 12715601 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Huobi on weekly
Volume is a joke
2M
BTC
379.
Post 12724403 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I'm not pushing XT specifically. Not even Gavin and Hearn are doing that. Sure, I would prefer BIP101 to BIP100, but it's not even clear that we'll get ANY scaling solution and certain people are being manipulated by powers that don't want any scaling solution to be implemented.
What is clear is that the argument that small block size prevents centralization is a bogus argument. Routing around the xaction limit reintroduces trusted third parties. These smallblockers are not defending the true decentralized vision of the project. Just the opposite is the case. They want to take power away from the end users (the customers) and give it to the employees (the miners). Whether or not the owners (hodlers) like that idea is going to be reflected in the charts.
Let's leave it to people who understand Bitcoin to discuss these issues, shall we?
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
Nope.
I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply.
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying?
380.
Post 12724491 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I'm not pushing XT specifically. Not even Gavin and Hearn are doing that. Sure, I would prefer BIP101 to BIP100, but it's not even clear that we'll get ANY scaling solution and certain people are being manipulated by powers that don't want any scaling solution to be implemented.
What is clear is that the argument that small block size prevents centralization is a bogus argument. Routing around the xaction limit reintroduces trusted third parties. These smallblockers are not defending the true decentralized vision of the project. Just the opposite is the case. They want to take power away from the end users (the customers) and give it to the employees (the miners). Whether or not the owners (hodlers) like that idea is going to be reflected in the charts.
Let's leave it to people who understand Bitcoin to discuss these issues, shall we?
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
Nope.
I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply.
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying?
As many times as you've quoted me, you've never refuted my argument. You know damn well I wasn't being literal, as I've repeated many times. But yes, the hodlers are the owners as the bitshares network make more clear by having a less confusing name for the trading tokens.
How many coins you got, Fucktard? Are you an owner or a miner employee? Who do you think buys those coins if not people like me? Who do you think is going to use a hobby network with a 7 TPS capacity when the transaction costs (currently around $4) go unsubsidized? Hell, even ACH is cheaper than that.
What argument, this one ?
I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?
There will be a gang of persons willing to pay 5$, 10$, hell 50$ for complete monetary sovereignty.
These people are presently paying orders of magnitude more to move their money around the world unnoticed.
381.
Post 12724537 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I'm not pushing XT specifically. Not even Gavin and Hearn are doing that. Sure, I would prefer BIP101 to BIP100, but it's not even clear that we'll get ANY scaling solution and certain people are being manipulated by powers that don't want any scaling solution to be implemented.
What is clear is that the argument that small block size prevents centralization is a bogus argument. Routing around the xaction limit reintroduces trusted third parties. These smallblockers are not defending the true decentralized vision of the project. Just the opposite is the case. They want to take power away from the end users (the customers) and give it to the employees (the miners). Whether or not the owners (hodlers) like that idea is going to be reflected in the charts.
Let's leave it to people who understand Bitcoin to discuss these issues, shall we?
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
Nope.
I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply.
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying?
As many times as you've quoted me, you've never refuted my argument. You know damn well I wasn't being literal, as I've repeated many times. But yes, the hodlers are the owners as the bitshares network make more clear by having a less confusing name for the trading tokens.
How many coins you got, Fucktard? Are you an owner or a miner employee? Who do you think buys those coins if not people like me? Who do you think is going to use a hobby network with a 7 TPS capacity when the transaction costs (currently around $4) go unsubsidized? Hell, even ACH is cheaper than that.
What argument, this one ?
I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?
There will be a gang of persons willing to pay 5$, 10$, hell 50$ for true monetary sovereignty.
These people are presently paying orders of magnitude more to move their money around the world unnoticed.
So that's your answer? criminals? A network that is useful only to criminals will get isolated. the on-ramps and off-ramps are vulnerable. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so I could give a fuck if bitcoin is used to buy drugs or launder money, but I also have to live in the real world where the State takes a dim view of such things and has the means to discourage them. There is safety in numbers and a small network makes the users more of a target than a large one with lots of "legitimate" clients. Ever think about that?
Criminals ?
Sure if that's your word for individuals interested in keeping their wealth of out of touch from nation states and their bullies we can call them that.
Let me guess, your idea of "legitimate" clients is the typical pay check to pay check person interested in shopping with BTC at their local supermarket?
This strength in numbers mentra is so incredibly broken you have no idea.. In the real world, small networks of wealthy people are typically the most able at defeating oppression from ill-intended entities.
Bitcoin will grow stronger by attracting large amounts of capitals, not "moar users". For the millionth time, it is a value network, not Facebook.
382.
Post 12724569 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Aren't you busy building the next global payment system over at bitco.in?
I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited
383.
Post 12724586 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I'm not pushing XT specifically. Not even Gavin and Hearn are doing that. Sure, I would prefer BIP101 to BIP100, but it's not even clear that we'll get ANY scaling solution and certain people are being manipulated by powers that don't want any scaling solution to be implemented.
What is clear is that the argument that small block size prevents centralization is a bogus argument. Routing around the xaction limit reintroduces trusted third parties. These smallblockers are not defending the true decentralized vision of the project. Just the opposite is the case. They want to take power away from the end users (the customers) and give it to the employees (the miners). Whether or not the owners (hodlers) like that idea is going to be reflected in the charts.
Let's leave it to people who understand Bitcoin to discuss these issues, shall we?
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
Nope.
I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply.
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying?
As many times as you've quoted me, you've never refuted my argument. You know damn well I wasn't being literal, as I've repeated many times. But yes, the hodlers are the owners as the bitshares network make more clear by having a less confusing name for the trading tokens.
How many coins you got, Fucktard? Are you an owner or a miner employee? Who do you think buys those coins if not people like me? Who do you think is going to use a hobby network with a 7 TPS capacity when the transaction costs (currently around $4) go unsubsidized? Hell, even ACH is cheaper than that.
What argument, this one ?
I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?
There will be a gang of persons willing to pay 5$, 10$, hell 50$ for true monetary sovereignty.
These people are presently paying orders of magnitude more to move their money around the world unnoticed.
So that's your answer? criminals? A network that is useful only to criminals will get isolated. the on-ramps and off-ramps are vulnerable. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so I could give a fuck if bitcoin is used to buy drugs or launder money, but I also have to live in the real world where the State takes a dim view of such things and has the means to discourage them. There is safety in numbers and a small network makes the users more of a target than a large one with lots of "legitimate" clients. Ever think about that?
Criminals ?
Sure if that's your word for individuals interested in keeping their wealth of out of touch from nation states and their bullies we can call them that.
Let me guess, your idea of "legitimate" clients is the typical pay check to pay check person interested in shopping with BTC at their local supermarket?
It's not MY idea of "legitimate" that is relevant. That's why I used quote marks. You didn't really respond to my argument. I had the same problem with the Seasteaders. a successful floating anarchotopia would not withstand a Mark 48 torpedo after the media reported that some floating prostitutes, druggies and gamblers were laundering money for terrorists. You can't beat these assholes playing by their rules. You need human shields. You need the damn Walmart shoppers.
International banks are laundering money for terrorists & drug dealers gimme a fucking break.
The same banks are now refusing large cash deposits. When shit hits the fan where do you think this money will inevitably trickle into?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-banks-to-americas-companies-we-dont-want-your-cash-1445161083“At some point you wonder whether there will be a shortage of financial institutions willing to take on these balances,” said Kelli Moll, head of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP’s hedge-fund practice in New York, saying that where to hold cash has become an increasing topic of conversation as hedge funds are shown the door by longtime banking counterparties.
Where else but Bitcoin?
384.
Post 12724607 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
-snip
There will be a gang of persons willing to pay 5$, 10$, hell 50$ for complete monetary sovereignty.
These people are presently paying orders of magnitude more to move their money around the world unnoticed.
With a market cap supported by hundreds of people lining up to buy popescu pesos... 1MB blocks will be plenty, believe me.
The socialist rich-shaming reeks through your posts.
I'd rather we have 100x more Popescus buy into Bitcoin than a million more "community" retards like you. I learned that from Warren Buffet
http://www.contravex.com/2014/03/13/on-making-bitcoin-accessible-or-not/
385.
Post 12724657 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Dash? Monero? (less traceable) Bitshares? (much much larger transaction capacity, built in smart contracts, etc) Should I go on? Network effect didn't save MySpace.
So a pre-mined POS & a ripple rip-off are going to steal Bitcoin's lunch money? Please...
Comparing Bitcoin network effect to Myspace confirms my suspicions: you are beyond retarded.
386.
Post 12724707 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
-snip
There will be a gang of persons willing to pay 5$, 10$, hell 50$ for complete monetary sovereignty.
These people are presently paying orders of magnitude more to move their money around the world unnoticed.
With a market cap supported by hundreds of people lining up to buy popescu pesos... 1MB blocks will be plenty, believe me.
The socialist rich-shaming reeks through your posts.
I'd rather we have 100x more Popescus buy into Bitcoin than a million more "community" retards like you. I learned that from Warren Buffet
http://www.contravex.com/2014/03/13/on-making-bitcoin-accessible-or-not/
Bitcoin is not a stock. I was really hoping you were linking to someone
a bit smarter than you so we could get a convincing argument on this.
But no.
Whether we are referring to a stock or money, the difference is irrelevant and the logic still applies.
You are not very smart yourself are you?
387.
Post 12724734 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Dash? Monero? (less traceable) Bitshares? (much much larger transaction capacity, built in smart contracts, etc) Should I go on? Network effect didn't save MySpace.
So a pre-mined POS & a ripple rip-off are going to steal Bitcoin's lunch money? Please...
Comparing Bitcoin network effect to Myspace confirms my suspicions: you are beyond retarded.
Ok, so humor a retard, Einstein. what's wrong with the comparison? What make a four billion dollar first mover advantage so insurmountable in a world where WhatsApp gets sold to FB for 19 billion?
Cost, retard.
Moving from Myspace to Facebook entails no cost for the user.
Divesting from Bitcoin to some other cryptocurrency "because it is better" undermines the very trust that holds the concept together and would result in a complete destruction of any value created over the years. If we are to assume that something better will always come along why would I invest myself into the current "implementation"?
Your economics, it's broken
388.
Post 12724739 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Dash? Monero? (less traceable) Bitshares? (much much larger transaction capacity, built in smart contracts, etc) Should I go on? Network effect didn't save MySpace.
So a pre-mined POS & a ripple rip-off are going to steal Bitcoin's lunch money? Please...
Comparing Bitcoin network effect to Myspace confirms my suspicions: you are beyond retarded.
Monero feels left out? Your Stannis smashing compatriot seems to be rather enthusiastic about its prospects.
I'm cool with Monero but it has its own scalability issues to address. Not to mention it is economically irrelevant as it stands (in relation with Bitcoin).
389.
Post 12724826 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Dash? Monero? (less traceable) Bitshares? (much much larger transaction capacity, built in smart contracts, etc) Should I go on? Network effect didn't save MySpace.
So a pre-mined POS & a ripple rip-off are going to steal Bitcoin's lunch money? Please...
Comparing Bitcoin network effect to Myspace confirms my suspicions: you are beyond retarded.
Ok, so humor a retard, Einstein. what's wrong with the comparison? What make a four billion dollar first mover advantage so insurmountable in a world where WhatsApp gets sold to FB for 19 billion?
Cost, retard.
Moving from Myspace to Facebook entails no cost for the user.
Divesting from Bitcoin to some other cryptocurrency "because it is better" undermines the very trust that holds the concept together and would result in a complete destruction of any value created over the years. If we are to assume that something better will always come along why would I invest myself into the current "implementation"?
Your economics, it's broken
That's a really good question, but I'm glad people are pumping now as it allows me to divest with lower cost. Don't worry though. I'll buy back in probably when a scaling solution is implemented,
assuming I haven't found a better altcoin by then. If you don't want that "complete destruction" you mentioned, you'd be wise to help ensure that there isn't something better by supporting improvements to the protocol.
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
390.
Post 12724876 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck.
You couldn't possibly be taking sides with a guy who believe you can buy block space on the blockchain, are you?
391.
Post 12724881 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Dash? Monero? (less traceable) Bitshares? (much much larger transaction capacity, built in smart contracts, etc) Should I go on? Network effect didn't save MySpace.
So a pre-mined POS & a ripple rip-off are going to steal Bitcoin's lunch money? Please...
Comparing Bitcoin network effect to Myspace confirms my suspicions: you are beyond retarded.
Ok, so humor a retard, Einstein. what's wrong with the comparison? What make a four billion dollar first mover advantage so insurmountable in a world where WhatsApp gets sold to FB for 19 billion?
Cost, retard.
Moving from Myspace to Facebook entails no cost for the user.
Divesting from Bitcoin to some other cryptocurrency "because it is better" undermines the very trust that holds the concept together and would result in a complete destruction of any value created over the years. If we are to assume that something better will always come along why would I invest myself into the current "implementation"?
Your economics, it's broken
That's a really good question, but I'm glad people are pumping now as it allows me to divest with lower cost. Don't worry though. I'll buy back in probably when a scaling solution is implemented,
assuming I haven't found a better altcoin by then. If you don't want that "complete destruction" you mentioned, you'd be wise to help ensure that there isn't something better by supporting improvements to the protocol.
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
Because I don't want a race car. I want an armored truck, just one with more than a ten pound cargo capacity. Still, if they can beef up that car without slowing it down too much, I might
What are you going to secure your armored truck with? "Decentralized datacenters" ?
392.
Post 12724913 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck.
You couldn't possibly be taking sides with a guy who believe you can buy block space on the blockchain, are you?
Using an admittedly shitty analogy doesn't automatically mean everything he subsequently says is invalid.
I similarly don't write off
all of your opinions, despite your recent statement that people might pay $5, 10, 50 to make an entry on your
easily replicated, 5 mining pool run, settlement layer.
Good luck easily replicating 500,000,000 GH/s
393.
Post 12724919 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
There will be a gang of persons willing to pay 5$, 10$, hell 50$ for complete monetary sovereignty.
These people are presently paying orders of magnitude more to move their money around the world unnoticed.
Any given type of money is only useful to the very rich in that it gets the little people to do stuff for you like build your yacht or pass legislation in your favor.
If Bitcoin is supposed to be some token that the wealthy only pass around amongst themselves (it isn't), it will fail.Yes, similarly SDRs are known to be worthless
394.
Post 12724951 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I'd rather we have 100x more Popescus buy into Bitcoin than a million more "community" retards like you. I learned that from Warren Buffet
Ah, Warren "Asset stripping" Buffet, the guy who enriches himself at the expense of turning good strong companies into worthless husks. Appropriate.
Oh don't get me wrong nowadays he is senile but in his heydays you'd have been hard pressed to find many as sharp a financial mind as he was.
395.
Post 12724961 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck.
You couldn't possibly be taking sides with a guy who believe you can buy block space on the blockchain, are you?
Using an admittedly shitty analogy doesn't automatically mean everything he subsequently says is invalid.
I similarly don't write off
all of your opinions, despite your recent statement that people might pay $5, 10, 50 to make an entry on your
easily replicated, 5 mining pool run, settlement layer.
Good luck easily replicating 500,000,000 GH/s
People invest in mining coin because of what it
can be. Not for what it is today. More fees spread over more transactions is definitely in their interest. If core devs insist on keeping this veneer of control, they would be wise to compromise for 4MB in 2016, and doubling at the halvings.
That's actually not how it works.
People invest in mining coins to make a profit. That's it. They do so by mining the chain that holds the most value, value that is entrusted to it by investors.
Don't believe for a second that miners decide what chain to follow or that rules should be set according to what is "in their interest".
396.
Post 12724976 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Yes, similarly SDRs are known to be worthless
Explain SDRs to me in a way which doesn't involve currencies that millions, if not billions of people from poorest to richest use in transactions everyday (including "tipping for coffee").
Are you really that dense? Would you have preferred I use gold?
You are insinuating that Bitcoin becoming a settlement layer for large value transaction excludes the possibility that it becomes a monetary reserve for open source payment layers and fiat currencies which the "billions of people from poorest to richest" will use in transactions everyday. I personally think that's the likely outcome.
397.
Post 12724991 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
People invest in mining coin because of what it can be. Not for what it is today. More fees spread over more transactions is definitely in their interest. If core devs insist on keeping this veneer of control, they would be wise to compromise for 4MB in 2016, and doubling at the halvings.
Nah, I'd suggest that most miners are in it for the block subsidy right now.
Now, when that goes away and the richest of the rich, well, those who want to keep their currency movements secret,
well, those who don't have the "right contacts" to do it for them in the demonstrably corrupt banking system have Bitcoin usage down to a couple of transactions an hour, I guess someone will fire up a GPU miner for beer money.
Do you propose these shenanigans don't cost them a pretty penny? You do realise corruption involves bribes?
What would you guess is more expensive, Bitcoin transactions or bribes to various bankers, accountant & state officials?
398.
Post 12725009 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Are you really that dense? Would you have preferred I use gold?
Ah yes, that well known universal settlement mechanism, gold. You watch too many James Bond movies
(Which also happens to be used by billions of people, from rich to poor, in electronics and jewelery BTW)
The good ol' industrial use argument...
While not the same universal settlement mechanism it very much once was, seems to me gold still retains a pretty market cap absent of any actual adoption as money from "billions of people".
But rejoice! Bitcoin is even better than gold at this job.
If independence means freedom, in the emerging Era of Bitcoin, independence means freedom from physicality, both geographic and material. If Germany had its wealth stored in BTC instead of gold, it wouldn’t have to beg the USG to please, pretty please, let it audit its own stores under Manhattan. If Germany stockpiled bitcoin instead of gold, it might actually be an independent nation.
Consider yourself lucky. Seeing as you have realized the "Bitcoin opportunity" sooner than 99% of the world's population you shouldn't have any problem transacting directly on its blockchain in the future.
399.
Post 12725029 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck.
You couldn't possibly be taking sides with a guy who believe you can buy block space on the blockchain, are you?
Using an admittedly shitty analogy doesn't automatically mean everything he subsequently says is invalid.
I similarly don't write off
all of your opinions, despite your recent statement that people might pay $5, 10, 50 to make an entry on your
easily replicated, 5 mining pool run, settlement layer.
Good luck easily replicating 500,000,000 GH/s
People invest in mining coin because of what it
can be. Not for what it is today. More fees spread over more transactions is definitely in their interest. If core devs insist on keeping this veneer of control, they would be wise to compromise for 4MB in 2016, and doubling at the halvings.
That's actually not how it works.
People invest in mining coins to make a profit. That's it. They do so by mining the chain that holds the most value, value that is entrusted to it by investors.
Don't believe for a second that miners decide what chain to follow or that rules should be set according to what is "in their interest". I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs.
Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works.
Hmm wait a minute. Who ever mentioned fiat profit?
Profit, in this case, is denominated in Bitcoin. Bitfury mines the Bitcoin blockchain simply because it is the most valuable coin. The value is not in the future but now. The fact that it fluctuates is irrelevant.
As for your last comment, what is it you don't agree with? Do you propose miners are origins of Bitcoin value? Or that we should set the rules of the protocol so as to maximize their profits regardless of the costs externalized to other participants?
400.
Post 12725043 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Do you propose these shenanigans don't cost them a pretty penny? You do realise corruption involves bribes?
What would you guess is more expensive, Bitcoin transactions or bribes to various bankers, accountant & state officials?
What do they do when they transfer these bitcoins to their other rich friends, have them transfer them back to them? If you want to use them, you'll have to convert to a real-world currency which can be spent and then you're back in the world of bankers anyway.
So your way is Clandestine $->
BTC , $4 transaction fee then clandesting
BTC->$
Or just go with the clandestine $ shenanigans anyway.
Bitcoin is not a real-world currency?
I can understand that your mind is programmed to think in terms of fiat but I would ask that you come up with a hint of foresight so that we can proceed with this conversation...
If everyone and their rich friends are using Bitcoin to preserve their monetary sovereignty why would they ever convert their money back to fiat?
401.
Post 12725045 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
If independence means freedom, in the emerging Era of Bitcoin, independence means freedom from physicality, both geographic and material. If Germany had its wealth stored in BTC instead of gold, it wouldn’t have to beg the USG to please, pretty please, let it audit its own stores under Manhattan. If Germany stockpiled bitcoin instead of gold, it might actually be an independent nation.
Consider yourself lucky. Seeing as you have realized the "Bitcoin opportunity" sooner than 99% of the world's population you shouldn't have any problem transacting directly on its blockchain in the future.
There's not enough value of Bitcoin for Germany to do that currently. We're playing in the shallow end of the pool and if Bitcoin is going to do anything serious, it's going to have to learn to swim. I have little doubt it will though. And that will mean bigger blocks, one way or another.
Gawd you are such a buzzkill
Do you have no imagination?
402.
Post 12725063 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
If independence means freedom, in the emerging Era of Bitcoin, independence means freedom from physicality, both geographic and material. If Germany had its wealth stored in BTC instead of gold, it wouldn’t have to beg the USG to please, pretty please, let it audit its own stores under Manhattan. If Germany stockpiled bitcoin instead of gold, it might actually be an independent nation.
Consider yourself lucky. Seeing as you have realized the "Bitcoin opportunity" sooner than 99% of the world's population you shouldn't have any problem transacting directly on its blockchain in the future.
We're playing in the shallow end of the pool and if Bitcoin is going to do anything serious, it's going to have to learn to swim. I have little doubt it will though. And that will mean bigger blocks, one way or another.
What's that even supposed to mean? So because Bitcoin is small we should cater to small pockets and de minimis use cases? How dare should we have ambition and focus our efforts on the more wealthy adopting it, right?
No! Bitcoin is for the people, not the rich! Let's aim for "mainstream adoption", that's where the REAL value is! Right...... right?
403.
Post 12725086 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
If everyone and their rich friends are using Bitcoin to preserve their monetary sovereignty why would they ever convert their money back to fiat?
Because Scrooge McDuck diving into a vault-full of gold is a cartoon and not real. People with wealth generally want to do things with it. Buy yachts, build Casinos, hookers and blow, all that. And that requires a currency that others transact in.
You cannot be serious....
So savings are not a thing anymore? I guess that's how serious the fiat economy has mindfucked everyone's brain...
I guess you are right if you think of bitcoins as dollars, which they are not but to entertain the idea:
The problem inflationary currency bestows upon capital allocators is insolvable. They are given money of no certain value (pretty much the only sure thing about the paper currency is that it is, literally, burning in your hands, it ticks away like a bomb, it blows in the wind like dust - all this while you're holding it) and have to do something with it. They always, always, always, absolutely always have more than is in fact needed.
http://trilema.com/2012/the-problem-of-too-much-money/#selection-163.0-163.438Fortunately we all know this is actually not the case and seeing as Bitcoin is deflationary by nature one should be well advised to consider hoarding that shit as long as reasonably possible.
404.
Post 12725103 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs.
Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works.
Hmm wait a minute. Who ever mentioned fiat profit?
Profit, in this case, is denominated in Bitcoin. Bitfury mines the Bitcoin blockchain simply because it is the most valuable coin. The value is not in the future but now. The fact that it fluctuates is irrelevant.
As for your last comment, what is it you don't agree with? Do you propose miners are origins of Bitcoin value? Or that we should set the rules of the protocol so as to maximize their profits regardless of the costs externalized to other participants?
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap.
In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network.
Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear".
405.
Post 12725189 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs.
Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works.
Hmm wait a minute. Who ever mentioned fiat profit?
Profit, in this case, is denominated in Bitcoin. Bitfury mines the Bitcoin blockchain simply because it is the most valuable coin. The value is not in the future but now. The fact that it fluctuates is irrelevant.
As for your last comment, what is it you don't agree with? Do you propose miners are origins of Bitcoin value? Or that we should set the rules of the protocol so as to maximize their profits regardless of the costs externalized to other participants?
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap.
In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network.
Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear".
You send to be struggling with the reality that a temporary max_blocksize was introduced by Satoshi. Such limitation has never been part of the protocol or original design.
Would you please go back to the asylum over at bitco.in? I thought you guys were busy designing "Bitcoin Unlimited"?
406.
Post 12725196 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap.
In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network.
Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear".
Ah, the old, "if satoshi had more foresight he would agree with me" argument.
As for what he actually said:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
) I am increasingly astonished that people who gravitated to bitcoin for its free market incentives and function, are simultaneously terrified that without central control over "consensus" it would fall on it's face.
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
407.
Post 12725207 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
If everyone and their rich friends are using Bitcoin to preserve their monetary sovereignty why would they ever convert their money back to fiat?
Because Scrooge McDuck diving into a vault-full of gold is a cartoon and not real. People with wealth generally want to do things with it. Buy yachts, build Casinos, hookers and blow, all that. And that requires a currency that others transact in.
You cannot be serious....
So savings are not a thing anymore? I guess that's how serious the fiat economy has mindfucked everyone's brain...
I guess you are right if you think of bitcoins as dollars, which they are not but to entertain the idea:
The problem inflationary currency bestows upon capital allocators is insolvable. They are given money of no certain value (pretty much the only sure thing about the paper currency is that it is, literally, burning in your hands, it ticks away like a bomb, it blows in the wind like dust - all this while you're holding it) and have to do something with it. They always, always, always, absolutely always have more than is in fact needed.
http://trilema.com/2012/the-problem-of-too-much-money/#selection-163.0-163.438
Fortunately we all know this is actually not the case and seeing as Bitcoin is deflationary by nature one should be well advised to consider hoarding that shit as long as reasonably possible. Bitcoin isn't deflationary. And ZIRP / NIRP is what has killed savings and by extension has changed the rules of capitalism.
Not yet, indeed (but fixed supply and all that...). And no.
I'd suggest you go read the article linked to better understand. It's explained very well. "Capital misallocation" are the key words here.
408.
Post 12725240 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap.
In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network.
Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear".
Ah, the old, "if satoshi had more foresight he would agree with me" argument.
As for what he actually said:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
) I am increasingly astonished that people who gravitated to bitcoin for its free market incentives and function, are simultaneously terrified that without central control over "consensus" it would fall on it's face.
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.
Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.
Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.
Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?
409.
Post 12725335 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.
Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.
Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.
Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?
Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.)
I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to
burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose.
Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak.
Land owners?
Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down.
Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you.
How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species?
410.
Post 12725425 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
In this case they unanimously chose to retain the 1 MB cap until a better proposition comes along.
Maybe they're waiting for "Bitcoin unlimited"?
411.
Post 12725478 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.
Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.
Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.
Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?
Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.)
I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to
burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose.
Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak.
Land owners?
Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down.
Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you.
How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species?
You've replaced one bad analogy with another. Both reeking of statist sentiment.
Bigger blocks aren't going to destroy the rainforest and kill endangered species, and you should be ashamed for using such comparisons. Mircea would be appalled. The decentralized relay network is an
asset to the miners, they would be fools to destroy it.
I mean it this time chartbuddy.
Who said they'd destroy it?
Given the incentives under a unlimited block size what'll happen is they will slowly but surely bloat it until it eventually becomes so large that only large datacenters will be able to act as peers on the network. It's a very simple dynamic but one that necessarily leads to capture of the network by the same statists you resent.
412.
Post 12725510 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.
Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?
Lots of stupid analogies today. The Blockhain isn't the Amazon rainforest.
Increasing blocksize will not lead to any analogous detrimental effects. I guess we could force your analogy into the carbon footprint debate. Do you want to shut Bitcoin down or go from PoW to PoS?
Yes, it has a direct effect on the cost of running a node.
413.
Post 12725516 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
If Core supported
free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc. That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.
However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose. And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.
Solve it how exactly? By a vote?
Did you learn nothing from the XT fiasco? For all I care I could put up 10,000 nodes that "express" support for 0.5MB block size. What then?
414.
Post 12725568 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.
Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.
Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.
Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?
Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.)
I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to
burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose.
Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak.
Land owners?
Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down.
Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you.
How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species?
You've replaced one bad analogy with another. Both reeking of statist sentiment.
Bigger blocks aren't going to destroy the rainforest and kill endangered species, and you should be ashamed for using such comparisons. Mircea would be appalled. The decentralized relay network is an
asset to the miners, they would be fools to destroy it.
I mean it this time chartbuddy.
Who said they'd destroy it?
Given the incentives under a unlimited block size what'll happen is they will slowly but surely bloat it until it eventually becomes so large that only large datacenters will be able to act as peers on the network. It's a very simple dynamic but one that necessarily leads to capture of the network by the same statists you resent.
What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?
Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?
In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.
415.
Post 12725576 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
If Core supported
free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc. That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.
However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose. And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.
Solve it how exactly? By a vote?
For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support. Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time). The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.
This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes. Now if miners are intent on forking off to their own worthless chain then by all means...
416.
Post 12725608 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
If Core supported
free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc. That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.
However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose. And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.
Solve it how exactly? By a vote?
For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support. Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time). The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.
This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes.
Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting.
Am I correct that your vision for Bitcoin is that the block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization?
Let me get this right... you propose that miners have the ability to vote on the proposal they support (which they do already) but that they should only go ahead with mining such a chain if the economic majority agrees (nodes move forward with a similar block size adjustment)....
How is that any different than what is currently occurring?
417.
Post 12725664 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?
Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?
In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.
But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.
I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.
418.
Post 12725755 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
If Core supported
free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc. That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.
However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose. And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.
Solve it how exactly? By a vote?
For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support. Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time). The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.
This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes.
Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting.
Am I correct that your vision for Bitcoin is that the block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization?
Let me get this right... you propose that miners have the ability to vote on the proposal they support (which they do already) but that they should only go ahead with mining such a chain if the economic majority agrees (nodes move forward with a similar block size adjustment)....
How is that any different than what is currently occurring?
The biggest source of "friction" preventing a market process from resolving the block size limit debate is that many people view Bitcoin Core as the core of Bitcoin. They are leery to use XT or modify the code themselves because hard forks are an unknown at the moment. If Core were to facilitate this market process by supporting all popular BIPs, then the process would proceed much quicker. This, of course, is the reason Core doesn't do this.
For the record, Core's hesitance to allow the free-market to function is a good thing for Bitcoin in the long run. I am happy with how the debate is evolving. It is getting people familiar with the idea that multiple protocol implementations are a
positive thing for future Bitcoin governance. Interestingly, have you noticed that block size limit topics are no longer as heavily censored on r/bitcoin but things related to decentralizing development are? In fighting the community against the block size limit, Core has shown the community a much bigger problem: Bitcoin governance itself.
There is no "friction". This is a total fabrication of yours Peter and yet another of your attempts to "teach the controversy".
The market process has resolved the block size debate so far in that status quo prevail until a better proposition comes along.
What exactly do you suggest when you say that Core should "support all popular BIPs"? How is that supposed to work?
Please stop mischaracterizing the support for your position. Core has not fought "the community". Core has fought away a small but pernicious minority of very loud individuals who attempted an absolutely irresponsible political coup over Bitcoin's governance under the guidance of a "charismatic" "leader".
The community of Bitcoin peers, evidenced by the decision of full nodes, has so far shown unanimous support for Core and so has the community of miners.
419.
Post 12725775 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
The way forward for someone who wants to make changes seems straight forward enough, release the code and see what happens.
I agree. We are presently working on
a proposal called Bitcoin Unlimited that does exactly this without any voting requirement at all. We'll see if the idea has legs over the next few weeks...
For the record, the biggest obstacle is /r/bitcoin's policy that such code is an "alt coin" and thus off topic and censored. Many people at Core share this view. Over time, /r/bitcoin will lose its importance; however, at present it is still the dominant medium for the dissemination of Bitcoin related information. It is a slow process to overcome these network effects.
There you are again thinking that Bitcoin decisions are taken over at /r/Bitcoin.....
420.
Post 12725883 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
What exactly do you suggest when you say that Core should "support all popular BIPs"? How is that supposed to work?
I mean they could add code to support all popular BIPs. Miners and node operators could express their free choice by activating one or several of them in the GUI or with a run-time parameter. Eventually, either nothing would happen or the one of the BIPs would be activated and the market would settle on a solution with the blessing of Core
Or...they could not do this while support continues to migrate away from Core. This would be my preference as it ends the block size limit debate AND the governance problem.
Can you provide evidences for "support" continuing to migrate away from Core. Support from whom? Surely not the relevant actors as I've explained in my last post they are, by all accounts, still satisfied with current state of the network.
Let's be clear: either nodes unanimously decide to hard fork to a larger block size or they don't. The free floating setting you have been proposing would irremediably lead to fracture of the network into multiple forks. It makes absolutely no sense from a technical perspective.
421.
Post 12725911 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?
Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?
In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.
But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.
I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.
Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node.
The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.
As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.
422.
Post 12725937 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
423.
Post 12726100 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?
Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?
In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.
But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.
I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.
Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node.
The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.
As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.
You'll find anecdotal evidence for everything, and there's no denying that people have different points where they find they cannot/will not continue running a node, but the fact that those people are not being replaced at a higher rate has much to do, in my opinion, with the stagnation in price since the last bubble and the lack of attractive use cases. Hopefully there will be more attractive use cases for ordinary people after the next peak. Use cases that will make Bitcoin more relevant to people and help the number of nodes to grow. Nodes run on enthusiasm and nerd-cred.
Here's another anecdotal evidence: the number of nodes did not increase with the latest price rise.
424.
Post 12757037 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
You've had a bunch of southern racists and a certain australian media mogul telling you for decades that you shouldn't learn about true liberalism and true socialism. That's what makes the US of A such a fucked up place. A strong state is important. True liberal values are important. A strong democracy is important. The political analfabetism of americans is what's destroying America.
Are you serious? You think we get our ideas from Rupert Murdoch? We have the largest economy in the world because of...what exactly? The Teamsters?
You don't, that's the EU. If you're talking about nation state economy, it's because you have one of the largest populations in the world.
This sort of speaks to my point. You only refer to socialism as a charicatured bogey. If you've ever spent some time in Sweden, or comparable social democracies, you'd know that the whole basis of the american political debate is perversely skewed to the right.
This hostility you feel towards the state is due to the democratic deficit in the US political system caused by the demonization of the left, intellectual laziness and conformity.
Your anarcho-liberal stance is a conform expression of your unease with this democratic deficit.
Grow some balls! Fight for a state that works FOR the people!
Sweden's wealth was originally built on the grounds of strong free-market capitalism
425.
Post 12774040 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
... but BitFury alone is building a 100 million dollar mining facility right now, so not exactly a big deal.
The naivete and and confusion in this thread is reaching the tipping point. In hopes of righting your Titanic:
1. Casinos get built because gambling is profitable, but not in the way degenerate gamblers think.
2. "BitFury is building a 100 million dollar mining facility in Georgia" should be read as
"We'll turn $100 mil free money into spendable $10 mil in our pocket, and if there's a stupid warehouse full of useless gear left over, so be it."
Hope this clears up some misunderstandings.
So which is it, BitFury's casino is profitable or not?
426.
Post 12800623 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
what double top ?
427.
Post 12800672 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
Abra is certainly one of the most interesting companies in the space. One of the few novel use of Bitcoin that addresses a real problem and makes abstraction of traditional fiat practices.
428.
Post 12804513 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
I'm looking at Nov. 2013 late rise and still can't shake out how quickly the price rose.
The idea of this repeating simply has me in awe. Especially if you consider the amount of money standing on the sideline at this point are straight out frightening
429.
Post 12804815 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
“What we’re building is the largest early-stage investment portfolio in the digital currency and blockchain ecosystem,” Silbert explains. “We’re also going to start high-growth businesses of our own, and develop a global platform and network to support our companies.”
DGC is structured as a company rather than as an investment vehicle, in part because Silbert hopes to someday take it public. To that end, he has raised what he refers to as a “very large” new round of funding.
Among the new investors is MasterCard, which seems to be making its first formal foray into the bitcoin space. The others are: Bain Capital Ventures, CIBC, CME Ventures, FirstMark Capital, New York Life, Novel TMT, Oak HC/FT, RRE Ventures, Solon Mack Capital and Transamerica Ventures.
Choo choo
430.
Post 12809740 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
Average blocksize is roughly about half a MB already. Do the math. am I being hyperbolic?
Half a megabyte which is full of dust / spam transactions.
The blockchain is extremely valuable to be used in this way.
Some of those dust xactions are colored coins and timestamps carrying far more than their nominal value.
That "value" isn't worth anything to Bitcoin.
431.
Post 12809778 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
I really don't want to entertain the MMM discussion but I find it funny how we're supposed to believe these people from South Africa are all active & buying on Chinese exchanges during chinese day time
432.
Post 12809927 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
@brg444: Not just South Africa, desperate poor everywhere. Bitcoin is the fastest, safest way to rob people anywhere in the world!
Why is the buying pressure not 24/7 then?
433.
Post 12810677 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
310-320 = resistance
I would be ok with that. Important is not to drop significantly.
i like that we are not in panicbuying-mode yet. slow and steady looks good so far.
if there is no panic buying, then why am I getting 0.09% DAILY interest on my fiat at BFX?
Let's see.. Last 24 Change: +3.08%
That's more than 0.09% interest. Better keep your holdings in BTC.
It's only my trading stash that's in fiat.
So why the urgency for "MOAR TRANSACTIONS" then?
434.
Post 12810811 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
310-320 = resistance
I would be ok with that. Important is not to drop significantly.
i like that we are not in panicbuying-mode yet. slow and steady looks good so far.
if there is no panic buying, then why am I getting 0.09% DAILY interest on my fiat at BFX?
Let's see.. Last 24 Change: +3.08%
That's more than 0.09% interest. Better keep your holdings in BTC.
It's only my trading stash that's in fiat.
So why the urgency for "MOAR TRANSACTIONS" then?
Urgency? Gavin has been pushing for this for over TWO YEARS. Should we wait for it to become urgent? Smallblockers like to pose as the calm conservative side, but the prudent, conservative thing to do it address the issue before in becomes urgent. You won't know it's too late until it's too late.
There's still plenty of space in the blocks. Better we start filling them up on average until we can think about increasing their size.
435.
Post 12811267 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
I really don't want to entertain the MMM discussion but I find it funny how we're supposed to believe these people from South Africa are all active & buying on Chinese exchanges during chinese day time
The MMM ponzi has pages in other languages and (thanks to bitcoin) can make victims everywhere, not just in one country. OKCoin's CEO just confirmed that they are seeing buying pessure connected to MMM and several copycat ponzis in China.
I'm gonna repeat the question: why then is the buying pressure not 24/7 and only on China day time?
436.
Post 12815240 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
I can smell the coffee already!
437.
Post 12825508 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
China only getting out of bed.
438.
Post 12826041 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
Crypto history was made yesterday when Microsoft Corp fully embraced Ethereum for their Azure platform.
Microsoft Azure /ˈæʒər/ is a cloud computing platform and infrastructure, created by Microsoft, for building, deploying and managing applications and services through a global network of Microsoft-managed and Microsoft partner hosted datacenters. It provides both PaaS and IaaS services and supports many different programming languages, tools and frameworks, including both Microsoft-specific and third-party software and systems. Azure was announced in October 2008 and released on 1 February 2010 as Windows Azure, before being renamed to Microsoft Azure on 25 March 2014.[1]
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/case-studies/http://news.microsoft.com/cloud/index.htmlJust reported you for spamming this thread.
Keep your Ethereum stuff out of here.
439.
Post 12826594 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
finex and stamp gonna have to catch up at one point... RIP shorters
440.
Post 12826706 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
CCMF
441.
Post 12826826 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
One of the more recent posts from Tarmi was that he claimed to have been, "shorting like a mo fo"
haaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaaaaaa
DUMMB!!!!
He's playing the odds as he sees them. I will probably do likewise soon-ish, but risking only the gains made on the bull side on the run up so far.
Unless the chinese do it themselves I don't see who'd dare go against their momentum right now.
442.
Post 12826876 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
This is starting to look extremely fake in my opinion those Chinese exchanges are ridiculous.
I still find that the MMM ponzi (and copycats) is the most plausible explanation for the rise of the past few days. The other theories that have been aired do not seem more
But this current sprint seems to be too fast to be due to MMM alone.
Perhaps some Chinese know something (true or false) that the rest of the world doesn't know yet.
It does not seem to be a repeat of the Jun-Aug Greek bubble -- that is, Westerners buying on the mistaken belief that the Chinese will rush to bitcoin as a hedge against some Chinese crisis. The Chinese exchanges are leading this time.
But it may be simply a speculative frenzy: people buying like crazy just because they see the price shooting up, without knowing why, or caring to.
That is exactly right and is why you should stop entertaining the ponzi red herring.
If true that users of MMM ponzi buy bitcoins to participate in the scheme surely they are not asked to speculate and drive the price up with large buying spurts.
Something else is driving this market in China.
443.
Post 12827548 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
Huobi @ 2300
444.
Post 12833259 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.30h):
hopefully day closes above 2200 cause I don't like the current shooting star setup on the daily.
If China wakes up with the same ammo as they did last night expect a lot of bear-in-shorts blood shed
445.
Post 12835431 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.30h):
What surprise, Chinese exchanges openly refuting that their business is being used to escape capital control! Who would've thought?
Alert
the press BitcoinMagazine!!
446.
Post 12854922 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.30h):
Disappointed, expect a huge pump avec this nice close to the week
447.
Post 12857229 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.30h):
Market doesn't care
Bulls are Core supporters
448.
Post 12862021 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.30h):
How is trollfi explaining this one?
Has the MMM ponzi also reached finex & stamp
449.
Post 12862459 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.30h):
And just like that Finex hits 372
450.
Post 12863030 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.30h):
Do you have a better explanation? I don't see any news or rumor that could explain it.
I just posted the explanation Stolfinator. When something like 70% of coins have been mined, price has already hit the bottom as evidenced from the last year, and the upside potential is listed below, we haven't witnessed anything close to a bubble yet:
Incoming $163,000,000,000 market cap and $7700 coinshttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1235466.0Well, six months ago 68% of the coins were already mined. Why wasn't the price ~$340 back then?
Didn't investor know then that, within six months, 70% of the coins would be mined?
Whatever the cause for the rally,
one thing you should keep in mind: every penny of profit that a bitcoin investor makes can only come from the pocket of another bitcoin investor...Like money right?
451.
Post 12868874 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.30h):
yes and then no
yes - we have been going up in the past few days at first 1-2% per day then 3-4% now 10%.
this is not being driven by any real news but by ourselves just punting it up so it may well gone on for a while at even higher % increases
so yes we may well go to $500, $700 or $1000.
but then at some point we will collectively loose our nerve and be down to $200 ish in a few months after the ath.
its what happened when we hopped on the willy bot train and it will happen here again.
and long before willy bot there was a period when we rocketed to $31 and crashed to $2.
rinse and repeat
Nice try you bitch ass shorters!
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/03/bitcoin-to-be-6th-largest-reserve-currency-by-2030-research.html
Sixth ?
Try 1st.
452.
Post 12868888 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.30h):
yes and then no
yes - we have been going up in the past few days at first 1-2% per day then 3-4% now 10%.
this is not being driven by any real news but by ourselves just punting it up so it may well gone on for a while at even higher % increases
so yes we may well go to $500, $700 or $1000.
but then at some point we will collectively loose our nerve and be down to $200 ish in a few months after the ath.
its what happened when we hopped on the willy bot train and it will happen here again.
and long before willy bot there was a period when we rocketed to $31 and crashed to $2.
rinse and repeat
Nice try you bitch ass shorters!
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/03/bitcoin-to-be-6th-largest-reserve-currency-by-2030-research.html
Sixth ?
Try 1st.
On a more serious note you know the pump is real when MSM start putting out puff pieces like that.
453.
Post 12873321 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
“The idea is now at the forefront of every financial institution, every corporation, every media outlet,” said Bobby Cho, director of trading at New York-based exchange ItBit. “Even if you’re reading about blockchain technology, you’re inherently reading about bitcoin also.” The interest is driving up the trading activity, and the increased activity is spurring interest from institutional traders who’ve been sitting on the sidelines, waiting for bitcoin’s market to perk up again. “Now the volatility is back,” Mr. Cho said, “and they’re thinking, ‘we can make some money here.’ These guys are looking for a product to trade.”
454.
Post 12873568 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
LMFAO Right back over $400.
This is wack as hell.
Encouraging, looks like bulls still have plenty of ammo.
455.
Post 12873662 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
That 1D volume though
456.
Post 12873815 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
this shorter is going all in
What shorter? There's only 9300 BTC swaps on BFX. It's just a seller.
BTW, thanks bulls. I just made so much money shorting today, that I can dump again if you wanna take another swipe at $420.
So you opened you're just when exactly? When we busted through 380? 400?
I call BS
457.
Post 12874375 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
Smallblockers happened to me. Scale or die.
Terabytes of blockchain that are to be filled with junk, with near zero cost, does not equal scaling but an open-wide attack vector to destroy BTC.
Then fuckin find a solution that works! I don't give a shit how it's done but it's got to get done. Years and years to figure out a way and if they can't come up with a scaling solution, then either they are incompetent and need to be replaced or they are intentionally obstructing progress and need to be replaced.
god .... you guys, pull yer heads out of yer arses and look around.
you lost the argument, get over it. there's solutions all around and many more on the way, for real. Just because you're not technical doesn't mean you're not being listened to ... but come on, when better brains say "we got this" then let them get the fuck on with it without all the back-stabbing!!!
Well to be fair technical stuff is not his strong suit...
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
Nope.
I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply.
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying?
458.
Post 12874385 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
Smallblockers happened to me. Scale or die.
Terabytes of blockchain that are to be filled with junk, with near zero cost, does not equal scaling but an open-wide attack vector to destroy BTC.
We should put you in charge. you seem to know how people should spend there money! remind me again who in bitcoin land has the power to decide which bitcoin transactions are junk?
money velocity is not junk, its a fundamental measure of an economy, we have a limited supply so the only place to grow is increased velocity.
and "at near zero cost"? what planet are you on!
we are paying miners with Bitcoin inflation 25BTC every 10 min. it's still early days and needed for security while we grow economies of scale.
you choose:
Limit Block Size we'll see 1MB blocks push tx fees above $10. per transaction. (if the new users think its a good idea and pay to use bitcoin it may gorow - demand in bitcoin is not a given dispirit what some Core Developer - Experts think)
or
lets the free market decide and let in an extra 1000 transactions generate the $10 fee along with added security in diversity.
Why you here? Getting a little boring over at bit.con forum?
459.
Post 12874984 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
Fears of centralization are real, fear of 3 tps being a huge bottleneck are real.
Calling large miners centralized is like saying Kenya rigs the Boston Marathon. Bitcoin needs to be competitive. Should they limit the run to only white middle-class factory workers from Peoria? Watching them drop dead from heart attacks wouldn't be much fun, nor does watching blocks take days to process and get dropped. You can't make rules that exclude people because they are good at what they do.
"This forum is comatose"
Lulz.
Looks like the bitco.in forum exiles are back in full force.
460.
Post 12875116 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
Fears of centralization are real, fear of 3 tps being a huge bottleneck are real.
Calling large miners centralized is like saying Kenya rigs the Boston Marathon. Bitcoin needs to be competitive. Should they limit the run to only white middle-class factory workers from Peoria? Watching them drop dead from heart attacks wouldn't be much fun, nor does watching blocks take days to process and get dropped. You can't make rules that exclude people because they are good at what they do.
"This forum is comatose"
Lulz.
Looks like the bitco.in forum exiles are back in full force.
Go back to your ad hominem thread instead of destroying this thread.
You wouldn't be trying to censor me now would you
461.
Post 12875129 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
Miners are sufficiently incentivized to choose an appropriate block size. Too big and their chances of being orphaned increase. This is the decentralized solution for a decentralized system.
I'm not sure if you're thinking of "no block size limit" or BIP100, I'm guessing the latter. As a miner myself, and from keeping an eye on the mining field, I can tell you that giving miners this kind of power might lead to some very odd behavior. Most of the companies and pools should not be trusted with that kind of power. It's no point with incentives if you don't understand the consequences of your actions. Just look at Ghash.io's 51% attack scare last summer. There's also the fact that we have no idea who the big actors in the field will be in five years time, nor their motives. The devs need to find a clearly defined solution and implement it. Preferably before we hit the wall.
I meant the former. BIP100 adds a convoluted voting mechanism in an effort to mimic what the free market would do on its own. Go ahead and look at the Ghash debacle, it will show you that mining isn't quite as centralized as it appears.
The miners already have the power, it's just that right now Core serves as a veneer of "community" central control. The same factors that prevent malicious mining behavior (killing the golden goose and mutually assured destruction) will work in this case too.
On the "before hitting the wall" vs "after"... wholeheartedly agree.
What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?
462.
Post 12875271 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?
Are you suggesting protocol level changes to combat this? Economies of scale guarantee there will be a relative level of centralization in mining.
I'm not. To be fair I'm not too concerned with miners centralization but it's another thing to pretend that things are all jolly and there's no consolidation going on behind the scenes.
463.
Post 12875284 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
Fears of centralization are real, fear of 3 tps being a huge bottleneck are real.
Calling large miners centralized is like saying Kenya rigs the Boston Marathon. Bitcoin needs to be competitive. Should they limit the run to only white middle-class factory workers from Peoria? Watching them drop dead from heart attacks wouldn't be much fun, nor does watching blocks take days to process and get dropped. You can't make rules that exclude people because they are good at what they do.
"This forum is comatose"
Lulz.
Looks like the bitco.in forum exiles are back in full force.
Go back to your ad hominem thread instead of destroying this thread.
Sorry, wrong guy. I don't own any forums and I was never banned. This forum is no longer used much by devs, mostly it's for speculators and non-bitcoin related discussions. It's still fun to come here every once-and-again.
I couldn't sworn you were part of frapdoc's little clique?
Oh well, my apologies.
464.
Post 12875329 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?
Are you suggesting protocol level changes to combat this? Economies of scale guarantee there will be a relative level of centralization in mining.
I'm not. Too be fair I'm not too concerned with miners centralization but it's another thing to pretend that things are all jolly and there's no consolidation going on behind the scenes.
if the miners go rogue or gets too much power in a disruptive way, trust in the network will dissipate and everybody looses..
and especially them who has spend millions building top notch infrastructures.
Absolutely agree with that. To be clear: I'm not concerned with miner's centralization under current parameters.
Leaving them decision power over block size is just begging to fuck shit up and skew the incentives.
465.
Post 12875374 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
What exactly happened? The 2-3 giant mining operations who accounted for a majority of GHash's power dispersed into different mining pools so as to camouflage their actual share of the network and give the appearance of decentralization?
Are you suggesting protocol level changes to combat this? Economies of scale guarantee there will be a relative level of centralization in mining.
I'm not. Too be fair I'm not too concerned with miners centralization but it's another thing to pretend that things are all jolly and there's no consolidation going on behind the scenes.
, trust in the network will dissipate and
everybody looses..and
especially them who has spend millions building top notch infrastructures.
You're so close hdbuck
Some of the giant chinese mining pools are currently centralizing the validation of every transactions they mine.
Do you find that to be a concern?
466.
Post 12875388 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
[–]solex1
Yes. I think the Bitcoin ecosystem will move to a big-blocks version whether Core updates or not.
However, there would be a lot more price volatility and bad publicity the longer Core Dev continues with the "settlement layer" fantasy.
[/i]
Yeah we get it. We didn't reject it. We're "just not ready".
Seriously, take your meds.
467.
Post 12875415 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
Some of the giant chinese mining pools are currently centralizing the validation of every transactions they mine.
Do you find that to be a concern?
I do. And I recall some of them paid dearly for that recently, so they might be thinking about it too.
What part of "they're still doing" did you not understand?
You'd
think they would've stopped by now if really it wasn't profitable.
But no, we'll just pretend that a couple of dropped blocks undermined weeks and months of cheating the system.
"That'll make em learn"!
468.
Post 12875571 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
[–]solex1
Yes. I think the Bitcoin ecosystem will move to a big-blocks version whether Core updates or not.
However, there would be a lot more price volatility and bad publicity the longer Core Dev continues with the "settlement layer" fantasy.
[/i]
Yeah we get it. We didn't reject it. We're "just not ready".
Seriously, take your meds.
'We'
And who exactly are you?
469.
Post 12883122 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
Do you know why nuclear explosions don't blow up the whole planet? Because the chain reaction needs a certain amount of heat to continue. Yes, it's an awesome event, but it doesn't last long.
why so grumpy?
Well, I'm considerably upside down on my short, but I'm gonna let it ride. Coins bought at auction tomorrow will get dumped if we stay anywhere near this high. Somehow I doubt it will stay this high. But then again, I've been wrong before.
Remember Remember the Fifth of November.
Why do we always perpetuate the lie that auction coins are sold? You have no idea at what price they will be bought? With the end of the bear market seemingly in sight it could be the last time a chunk of coins like this can be bough so easily. They could easily go over market price.
There's also no evidence that previous coins have been sold. Drapers coins haven't moved. The only evidence for auction coins being sold before if that 1 block that got sent to bfx, thats it.
Typical FUD.
No one is stupid enough to buy these coins to dump them on the market.
470.
Post 12884533 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
Six times the Army of Northern Virginia BTC assaulted the heights of Little Round Top 500. Six times the 20th Maine 500 repelled them.
There's a bunch of bid over 500$ over at $GBTC
Soon it will be history.
471.
Post 12885600 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
looks like $460 is the next line of resistance.
China don't care
472.
Post 12905143 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
if blocksize gets an issue it will be solved in 24h
its not a big deal, more a question of details
ideialy there wouldnt be this "blocksize" issue in the first place
but there is
so how do we deal with it
dealing with it by ignoring it until it actually start to mess shit up and then saying " that's fine! bitcoin was meant to be slow and costly, using the holly ledger is a privilege! " is wrong.
on ther other hand gavins proposal is equally ridiculous to the other extream.
i'm confident devs will implement a happy middle ground
On what do you base this confidence? Past performance?
from what i see, the scaling conference, the open letter from devs, the on going discussion about it.
it seems pretty clear
something will be done about it, extcal what and when is up in the air.
also what's encouraging is that there is still a lot of room for improvement in a few aspects of the protocol, after a little bit of study 2 months ago i concluded we could grow the network 250 times bigger without demanding more bandwidth than is currently being used, if all these improvements were rolled out. and from there i think 10-100 X increase in bandwidth requirements to run a full node isn't all that crazy, so from where i'm standing bitcoin can potently scale by a factor of 2500 - 25000 while still being very decentralized.
of course i'm probably being a little optimistic on these potential coding gains. but i ain't worried about scalability anymore.
To anyone reading these this "study" was based on flawed assumptions and rather broken understanding of how Bitcoin's gossip network operates.
TL;DR the claims in this post don't match reality
473.
Post 12905293 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
To anyone reading these this "study" was based on flawed assumptions and rather broken understanding of how Bitcoin's gossip network operates.
TL;DR the claims in this post don't match reality
You and hdbuck add nothing to this debate. Nothing you've said in this post can be backed up. You retract from it. You're polluting the debate.
I can certainly point you to a whole thread filled with Adam's poor understanding of the networks' architecture... but you'll have to dig for it yourself if you really care
474.
Post 12905379 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
thoughout the rally the market was still trading very technically. Institutions are the ones that know how to move price in a coordinated way across multiple exchanges. A Russian ponzi scammer, no matter how good he is at his craft, can’t.
He didn't quite get it... It is not Sergei who buys the bitcoins, but the victims -- wherever they are, in any whatever market they can get. And there have been reports that the ponzi (and some copycats) was quite popular in China, so it is not strange that the Chinese exchanges were leading.
Not to mention that Sergei's previous ponzis moved more money than all that has been invested in bitcoin over the last six years. And that there is no evidence that "institutions" have ever tried to "move [bitcoin's] price in a coordinated way across multiple exchanges".
It seems you're the one who didn't quite get it.
While the allusion that Mavrodi was orchestrating the buys is indeed mistaken the reality is even more supportive of his point.
To pretend that the the technical movements, coordination of buying and selling action in clear trends & patterns stemmed from individual suckers buying bitcoins to support a ponzi is asinine.
475.
Post 12905398 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
To anyone reading these this "study" was based on flawed assumptions and rather broken understanding of how Bitcoin's gossip network operates.
TL;DR the claims in this post don't match reality
You and hdbuck add nothing to this debate. Nothing you've said in this post can be backed up. You retract from it. You're polluting the debate.
I can certainly point you to a whole thread filled with Adam's poor understanding of the networks' architecture... but you'll have to dig for it yourself if you really care
by all means do dip it up.
i recall being mostly right, except for the gossip network, but that too clearly needs improvements infact the very day i was talking about it, gavin was writing up a paper about the efficiency ( or lack thereof ) in bitcoin's current gossip network implementation.
bitcoin is not a holly ledger, and yes there is much improvements to be made at its core.
You were spewing complete non sense about block compression and the mere suggestion that the network can support 250x more load using a couple of coding improvements is straight out of retardlandia.
476.
Post 12905463 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
as i already say, my 2 cents on the parabolic pump would be the fbi auction.
simple, and yes, these people have the means to manipulate whatthefuckever they want.
edit: just look at the chart, the pump is very well calibrated, almost perfection. only 'professionals' are the ones capable of such things.
If the FBI has the ability to manipulate the global price on our censorship-resistant network, then we really don't have a censorship-resistant network.
What does censorship have to do with price manipulation
I swear the shit you come up with...
477.
Post 12905536 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
To anyone reading these this "study" was based on flawed assumptions and rather broken understanding of how Bitcoin's gossip network operates.
TL;DR the claims in this post don't match reality
You and hdbuck add nothing to this debate. Nothing you've said in this post can be backed up. You retract from it. You're polluting the debate.
I can certainly point you to a whole thread filled with Adam's poor understanding of the networks' architecture... but you'll have to dig for it yourself if you really care
by all means do dip it up.
i recall being mostly right, except for the gossip network, but that too clearly needs improvements infact the very day i was talking about it, gavin was writing up a paper about the efficiency ( or lack thereof ) in bitcoin's current gossip network implementation.
bitcoin is not a holly ledger, and yes there is much improvements to be made at its core.
I'd love a link from either of you.
where to start....
1) making sure the gossip network actually does make every peer on average use 503Bytes to get everyone to hear about a 500Byte msg.
2) communicate new blocks by listing all the TX ID's in that block instead of in full.
3) has SOME trusted centralized nodes dedicated to allowing new nodes to sync fast ( probably don't even need to trust them using some fancy PGP or something)
4) and yes some SPV, and maybe different types of nodes, simi-full node, full node, super node, minner node.
wtv it takes.
"Whatever it takes"
478.
Post 12905556 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
as i already say, my 2 cents on the parabolic pump would be the fbi auction.
simple, and yes, these people have the means to manipulate whatthefuckever they want.
edit: just look at the chart, the pump is very well calibrated, almost perfection. only 'professionals' are the ones capable of such things.
If the FBI has the ability to manipulate the global price on our censorship-resistant network, then we really don't have a censorship-resistant network.
What does censorship have to do with price manipulation
I swear the shit you come up with...
A price signal is important communication. If that information is intentionally distorted, the signal is censored.
You are conflating two completely separate mechanism: the market & Bitcoin's peer-to-peer network.
Go home, you're drunk.
479.
Post 12905660 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
wtf i dont get why i get so much heat every time i suggest that improvements can be made and scalability can be overcome.
you trolls are paid by blockstream or something...
Suggesting that improvements can be made is one thing...
Pretending that you have it all figured out and that with a couple coding twist we can improve the load of the network by 250x when we have PHDs & decades of cryptography & computer science mind share actually working on these issues rather than posturing about their "solutions" on a forum is just inviting critique...
480.
Post 12905689 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
wtf i dont get why i get so much heat every time i suggest that improvements can be made and scalability can be overcome.
you trolls are paid by blockstream or something...
Suggesting that improvements can be made is one thing...
Pretending that you have it all figured out and that with a couple coding twist we can improve the load of the network by 250x is just inviting critique.
Given you are unwilling to listen to any arguments from anyone at all about increasing the blocksize that is a slightly hypocritical statement.
I've listened to most arguments and have not been convinced by any.
How is this hypocritical?
481.
Post 12907240 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
What if chinese exchanges are the ones entertaining the MMM red herring to explain the "high activity"?
Dress it with some wash trading to cover up the exact volume and it makes for a nice cover for the actual currency control escape going on.
You can't possibly take Bobby Lee on his word when he pretends there's none of that stuff going on, only an idiot would say otherwise in this position.
It would also make sense to "pause the operations" for awhile to allow things to cool off.
482.
Post 12907701 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
...
That would be an ideal time for someone to launch a competing coin. I figure it would take <$1 Billion to overcome Bitcoin's first mover advantage and then the banksters will just keep running the world as if we never existed.
lmao you really should lay off whatever you are tripping on.
You think it would take less or more? Surely you know that it's possible at some number with the right technical design and promotion. You seem to be not understanding what's at stake here.
it would take broad consensus amongst the community that this altcoin is the new future of money.
i mean they can pump there coin all they want, all they really do is create a very large honey pot no one dare touch.
?? our entire market cap is a fraction of what Facebook paid for Whatsapp. They don't need our community at all. All we're doing is their test marketing and technical research for them. A few tweaks, a few power players (in finance, not crypto) backing, and they capture everyone who wants low cost electronic cash without all the anarcho-capitalist drug market baggage. Oh yeah, and it'll scale.
What type of moron..... I can't...
483.
Post 12933991 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.33h):
About the winners:
Among the companies at the forefront of this move is DRW Holdings LLC, a high-frequency trading firm in Chicago founded by former options-pit trader Donald Wilson in 1992. DRW is a founding investor in a new bitcoin financial-services firm called Digital Asset Holdings that launched last month. Cumberland Mining & Materials LLC, a DRW subsidiary, has “begun to experiment with cryptocurrency trading,” DRW said.
That is very interesting. That's Blythe Master's box.
If I'm not mistaken this is their second purchase amounting to well over five digits in bitcoins.
Blythe has been buying ladies and gentlemen?
Have you?
484.
Post 12934386 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.33h):
About the winners:
Among the companies at the forefront of this move is DRW Holdings LLC, a high-frequency trading firm in Chicago founded by former options-pit trader Donald Wilson in 1992. DRW is a founding investor in a new bitcoin financial-services firm called Digital Asset Holdings that launched last month. Cumberland Mining & Materials LLC, a DRW subsidiary, has “begun to experiment with cryptocurrency trading,” DRW said.
That is very interesting. That's Blythe Master's box.
If I'm not mistaken this is their second purchase amounting to well over five digits in bitcoins.
Blythe has been buying ladies and gentlemen?
Have you?
This is uber fucking bullish
Yep. 50,000BTC+ and counting. Whale.
485.
Post 12934493 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.33h):
About the winners:
Among the companies at the forefront of this move is DRW Holdings LLC, a high-frequency trading firm in Chicago founded by former options-pit trader Donald Wilson in 1992. DRW is a founding investor in a new bitcoin financial-services firm called Digital Asset Holdings that launched last month. Cumberland Mining & Materials LLC, a DRW subsidiary, has “begun to experiment with cryptocurrency trading,” DRW said.
That's pretty juicy. I'm surprised that info was released.
To be clear that is from a previous article from WSJ back in March. It was apparently revealed today that another winning lot was linked to them.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-investor-involvement-could-boost-bitcoin-1428259814
486.
Post 12934628 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.33h):
2500
Don't mind me. Just recycling.
Jinxed us
487.
Post 12940373 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.33h):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-10/hackers-accused-by-u-s-of-targeting-top-banks-mutual-fundshacking the system hackers
Two indictments, unsealed Tuesday, tied three of four suspects to previously reported hacks of JPMorgan Chase & Co., E*Trade Financial Corp., Scottrade Financial Services Inc. and Dow Jones & Co., a unit of News Corp.
Hackers and conspirators in more than a dozen countries generated hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit proceeds om pump-and-dump stock schemes and particularly lucrative online gambling, prosecutors said.
The global network, with 100 employees and co-conspirators, stretched from Israel to the U.S., with a dozen online casinos and payments that ran through Cyprus, Azerbaijan and Switzerland.
The co-conspirators deceived financial institutions into processing and authorizing payments to and from the casino companies and others, prosecutors wrote in their latest indictment of Gery Shalon, Joshua Aaron and Ziv Orenstein, who they say are at the center of the scheme. Shalon and Orenstein were arrested in Israel in July. Aaron remains at large.
Sounds like they needed to use Bitcoin.
488.
Post 12940590 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.33h):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-10/hackers-accused-by-u-s-of-targeting-top-banks-mutual-fundshacking the system hackers
Two indictments, unsealed Tuesday, tied three of four suspects to previously reported hacks of JPMorgan Chase & Co., E*Trade Financial Corp., Scottrade Financial Services Inc. and Dow Jones & Co., a unit of News Corp.
Hackers and conspirators in more than a dozen countries generated hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit proceeds om pump-and-dump stock schemes and particularly lucrative online gambling, prosecutors said.
The global network, with 100 employees and co-conspirators, stretched from Israel to the U.S., with a dozen online casinos and payments that ran through Cyprus, Azerbaijan and Switzerland.
The co-conspirators deceived financial institutions into processing and authorizing payments to and from the casino companies and others, prosecutors wrote in their latest indictment of Gery Shalon, Joshua Aaron and Ziv Orenstein, who they say are at the center of the scheme. Shalon and Orenstein were arrested in Israel in July. Aaron remains at large.
Sounds like they needed to use Bitcoin.
Likely, they already do.
According to Europol, Bitcoin accounts for over 40% of criminal-to-criminal online payments. Well ain't that fantastic?
Let's make it 100% !
489.
Post 12940707 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.33h):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-10/hackers-accused-by-u-s-of-targeting-top-banks-mutual-fundshacking the system hackers
Two indictments, unsealed Tuesday, tied three of four suspects to previously reported hacks of JPMorgan Chase & Co., E*Trade Financial Corp., Scottrade Financial Services Inc. and Dow Jones & Co., a unit of News Corp.
Hackers and conspirators in more than a dozen countries generated hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit proceeds om pump-and-dump stock schemes and particularly lucrative online gambling, prosecutors said.
The global network, with 100 employees and co-conspirators, stretched from Israel to the U.S., with a dozen online casinos and payments that ran through Cyprus, Azerbaijan and Switzerland.
The co-conspirators deceived financial institutions into processing and authorizing payments to and from the casino companies and others, prosecutors wrote in their latest indictment of Gery Shalon, Joshua Aaron and Ziv Orenstein, who they say are at the center of the scheme. Shalon and Orenstein were arrested in Israel in July. Aaron remains at large.
Sounds like they needed to use Bitcoin.
Likely, they already do.
According to Europol, Bitcoin accounts for over 40% of criminal-to-criminal online payments. Well ain't that fantastic?
Let's make it 100% !
It's bitcoin's niche, that's for sure. Did you know that it's not just for shitty overpriced drugs and CP anymore? Sure! Why, CryptoWall alone has raised over $325 million in bitcoin, and now even
real-life kidnappers have taken a fancy to our coin of choice!
Onward and upward!
490.
Post 12961201 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.33h):
So the trend for bitcoin is that it will be the safest haven for all investors. While all other asset classes can only diminish in the eyes of the ever improving bitcoin. Eventually the wealthy will come to terms with this inevitability and start to buy bitcoin to preserve what wealth they have as Bitcoin will become the obvious choice to everyone.
cheers
491.
Post 12961235 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.33h):
So the trend for bitcoin is that it will be the safest haven for all investors. While all other asset classes can only diminish in the eyes of the ever improving bitcoin. Eventually the wealthy will come to terms with this inevitability and start to buy bitcoin to preserve what wealth they have as Bitcoin will become the obvious choice to everyone.
cheers
"Just not tonight, dear."
492.
Post 12967215 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.33h):
how far away is the halfing?
July 2016
493.
Post 12991913 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
Fucking lambie, the most disruptive technology ever!
lmao!
So Gmaxwell blaims trolls for Core's inability to get their act together? How does that work? If their sensitive minds break down with 4-billion-usd-market-cap-trolling (...catching air, I need to lose weight), how will they hold up at 40b?
Disclaimer: I am not paid for this service. This is freebie trolling.
Get their act together?
We just had a milestone development today
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3t0kff/core_switched_to_libsecp256k1_for_verification/
494.
Post 12992209 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
other source? sputnik is usually crap.
it's hard to believe they got 3million dollars of donations they must of been playing with bitcoins for years.
maybe they were selling their drugs on SR or something...
if the whole network agrees we can take their funds..
i think that would be cool to see.
I think some hardcore bitcoiners would go ape shit and maybe fork off.
hey that would be a good way to get rid of all the trolls
yep, a cool surefire way to drive Bitcoin to 0$
censorship resistance but only for good guys right ?
495.
Post 12992219 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
other source? sputnik is usually crap.
it's hard to believe they got 3million dollars of donations they must of been playing with bitcoins for years.
maybe they were selling their drugs on SR or something...
if the whole network agrees we can take their funds..
i think that would be cool to see.
I think some hardcore bitcoiners would go ape shit and maybe fork off.
hey that would be a good way to get rid of all the trolls
3 million usd isnt that much for big organization, imagine for 1000 follower they just need to raise 3000 usd each ppl within 1 year or 10 usd per day per each ppl for 1 year. then imagine how many donation needed for 1 million follower.
How hard would it be to black-bag the entire developer community and force them to fork those coins out of existence?
that is not something that can be done
496.
Post 12992302 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
There's not a single hint of evidence in these "news" anyway. That's just pure manufactured FUD. Seriously, stop wasting your time with these websites.
497.
Post 12992438 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
There's not a single hint of evidence in these "news" anyway. That's just pure manufactured FUD. Seriously, stop wasting your time with these websites.
Right. Gubermint lies spread by their jackbooted Jewish lackeys of the mainstream media
MSM?
Cryptocoinnews
newsBTC
Network World
498.
Post 12992443 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
^Hmm. Something to think about.
International terrorists really could benefit from a more privacy-conscious way to move massive amounts of money while saving on transaction fees! Finally, a Bitcoin use case scenario that doesn't sound totally contrived!
They don't have this problem, they can use their privileged HSBC account for that. Bankers take care of their exclusive clients
499.
Post 12992484 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
^Hmm. Something to think about.
International terrorists really could benefit from a more privacy-conscious way to move massive amounts of money while saving on transaction fees! Finally, a Bitcoin use case scenario that doesn't sound totally contrived!
They don't have this problem, they can use their privileged HSBC account for that. Bankers take care of their exclusive clients
Bankers=Rothschilds=Illuminati=Saurians=NSA
TL;DR: The Jews did it, in the drawing room, with thermite.
Why do you keep switching accounts? Did they ban the Lambchop one?
I mean we're all friends here, there's no reasons to hide behind sockpuppets
500.
Post 13041083 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
Bitcoin works just fine without them.
Even better.
+1
Bitcoin doesn't need its name attached with fiat failures hanging onto VC life support.
501.
Post 13041096 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
Chris Odom really nailed it in his presentation at the Bitcoin Investors Conference.
"Everyone is still building 20th century financial institutions with the words "bit" and "chain" and "coin" in their name. And they are going to get disrupted by the very technology they were supposed to be spearheading."
Yep, fiat parasites masquerading as Bitcoin businesses.
502.
Post 13041147 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
Bitcoin doesn't need its name attached with fiat failures hanging onto VC life support.
Businesses abandoning BTC is actually good for Bitcoin.
More Bitcoin businesses only lead to more bitcoin spending, -- the exact opposite of Bitcoin hodling, which is what gives Bitcoin value and what everyone should do.
BINGO
503.
Post 13041161 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
Woud you have sold shares of the Federal Reserve early on?
"But, butttt Satoshi told me I can send it all over the world!"
"Not tonight, dear"
504.
Post 13041402 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
Bitcoin doesn't need its name attached with fiat failures hanging onto VC life support.
Businesses abandoning BTC is actually good for Bitcoin.
More Bitcoin businesses only lead to more bitcoin spending, -- the exact opposite of Bitcoin hodling, which is what gives Bitcoin value and what everyone should do.
BINGO
Not all business is bad for bitcoin. I just thought of a great one:
1. Buy an old vending machine. Any kind will do, 'long as it accepts foldin' money.
2. Print up paper wallets with $5 - $50 worth of BTC.
3. Stick them into whatever packaging your used vending machine was designed for -- empty soda cans if Coke machine (throw a handful of sand into empty cans along with BTC. Weight is important for flawless operation), wrap wallet (along with small twig) in tissue paper if candy bar/general purpose machine, etc., etc.
4. ? ? ?
5. PROFIT!
6. HODL!!
505.
Post 13042229 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
yea, mySQL databases does not need tokens.
Their digital tokens will be represented in USD and Euros primarily. For the time being these provide relatively stable forms of currency with low volatility(although the euro was more volatile than bitcoin week to week for the first 2.5 months 15' when it radically dropped in value) but just make sure you spend those currencies quickly as they aren't stable long term stores of value.
Not quite.
Banks, so far, are not trying to digitize currencies but titles which is pretty much the difference between Bitcoin the asset and their databases.
506.
Post 13042388 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.34h):
yea, mySQL databases does not need tokens.
Their digital tokens will be represented in USD and Euros primarily. For the time being these provide relatively stable forms of currency with low volatility(although the euro was more volatile than bitcoin week to week for the first 2.5 months 15' when it radically dropped in value) but just make sure you spend those currencies quickly as they aren't stable long term stores of value.
Not quite.
Banks, so far, are not trying to digitize currencies but titles which is pretty much the difference between Bitcoin the asset and their databases.
we all know their dirty secret is to ban cash and digitalize your influx so they can
track tax you better.
Of course but now we have Bitcoin
507.
Post 13061238 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
Why in the hell would anyone want a prepaid card that costs $40 and charges them 5% for the privilege of using their own money?
Well, the Shift card is $10 for the card itself and zero-point-zero to use, but why let the truth get in the way of a good bout of hyperbolic ranting?
Personally, I don't find a one-time charge of around the cost of a good hamburger to be too much to be able to convert my Bitcoin into merchandise at will, at literally every merchant that accepts Visa. But maybe I'm unique in that regard.
What is the point though?
Do you hold most of your money in Bitcoin?
I'm really trying to see what the incentive would be for someone that is not paid in bitcoins to use it as a mean of exchange at this current stage of its evolution. What problem do you have with spending fiat like everyone else?
It seems rational to me, if you value your coins, to hold them and rather spend inflationary fiat for your expenses.
508.
Post 13061411 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
For what reason do they need to charge for such a card?
Call me a cheapskate, but I think that I will wait it out until either such issuance is free to me or there is some tangible (and/or financial) benefit that would cause me to earn back such $10 within a reasonable period of time.
Issuing and sending a card to you isn't completely free for them.
This card is cheap compared to Bitstamp, Xapo or Bit-x.
>Bitcoin lets you be your own bank, thus avoiding exorbitant fees charged by middlemen such as CC companies.
>Coinbase CC is the most reasonably priced of all the grossly overpriced preloaded bitcoin CC.
Bitcoin Visa doesn't charge hidden fees Visa typically charges retailers. This allows you to get ~5% discount, whenever and wherever you use it. Not 100% sure, but would make sense. Please correct me if wrong.
If I were to receive a 5% discount or any other meaningful amount, then surely that could cause me to pay for such card under the belief that the card will pay for itself.
Use fiat and get 5% cash back on all your purchases!
509.
Post 13087984 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
PS. About MMM's Bitcoin Ponzi, a perturbing factor is what MMM will do with the bitcoins that it collects.
(Ostensibly, the victims send bitcoins directly to each other, and MMM does not touch the bitcoins and does not take commission. However, it is a safe bet that many of the people asking for donations are actually MMM bosses.)
I doubt that he will want to keep bitcoins for long. So, after the ponzi collapses, the price may eventually return to the $220 level.
Still entertaining the MMM boogeyman?
I thought we had put this to bed once and for all. Considering the volume of the last few weeks it seems pretty clear that their role in last month's rally was quite exagerated and marginal at best.
510.
Post 13088311 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
AFAIK the ponzi is still going on.
Right, and has been for the last couple of weeks yet no sign (except for the last couple days) of the volume that was previously credited to it.
511.
Post 13088442 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
AFAIK the ponzi is still going on.
Right, and has been for the last couple of weeks yet no sign (except for the last couple days) of the volume that was previously credited to it.
Could you please check the daily volume at OKCoin and Huobi over the past year? And compare to Bitstamp and Bitfinex...
Oh so now you're suggesting the totality of Chinese exchanges volume is a consequence of the MMM ponzi.
It's quite amazing how you manage to twist and turn any news item into a rationale as to why Bitcoin's price is rising but of course it explicitly never is because of normal demand for Bitcoin.
512.
Post 13103363 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
513.
Post 13104594 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
We are supposed to see a dump because of the coins used in the Black Friday and dumped by the merchants, why does the price keeps slowly rising?
Because Bitcoin's retail adoption is pretense and has no bearing on these markets.
514.
Post 13106970 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
515.
Post 13106977 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
Bid support on Stamp is slightly worrying
Deposits get cleared tomorrow
516.
Post 13116985 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
Guess I was wrong guys, this pump continues. Sold at 377 when I saw it running out of steam, rebought at 377 when I saw manipulation maintenance buys coming in to extend the wedge, now it's 379 o_O. If manipulators were going to dump I don't think they would be trying to extend this wedge at all and already would have dumped, so to infinity dollars we go!
it's going to "crash" very soon... it make sense to support slightly lower prices as you unload slightly higher, scraping 1% as you unload, i do this often. bulls just wrecked themselves, when the selling is done the support from the scraping is done too. and what are you left with? a bunch of lagtards trying to grab profits as the top clearly forms, then panic ensues and i cover.
Exactly, 13 1-week candles, and 12 of them green? It'll balance out soon.
we're just getting started
517.
Post 13126350 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
RE: localbtc anybody can link me to the website with all the pretty charts of volume by country?
518.
Post 13142607 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Hey Everyone,
I wanted to see if there were any comments regarding the new pre-mine fair launch coin, SETLcoin, and how it could possibly take away marketshare and volume from Bitcoin.
My understanding is that they will allow FPGs, ASIC's, and probably GPU's to mine Setl's. I wasnt able to find how many will be created or at what values they're be allocated, but I thought it was interesting.
"The patent application addresses chain of custody of an asset, counterparty risk and settlement through a cryptocurrency called SETLcoin. According to the patent application viewed by Bitcoin Magazine, SETLcoin ownership can be used to prevent fraud, including float fraud such as kiting."
http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/brokerage/goldman-sachs-files-patent-to-settle-securities-in-bitcoin-114721-1.htmlThoughts, comments, suggestions?
Why use BTC when you can just SETL...?
SETLcoin is a private blockchain (read: database) for bankers.
Nothing to see here.
519.
Post 13151966 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
520.
Post 13158622 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.
Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?
This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.
I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin
Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.
Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.
Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.
Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.
521.
Post 13158652 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.
Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?
This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.
I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin
Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.
Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.
Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.
Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.
no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.
Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.
The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.
522.
Post 13158759 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.
Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?
This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.
I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin
Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.
Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.
Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.
Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.
no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.
Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.
The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.
oh ya i always forget about that complicated idea with no real implementation....
wtv i'm fairly certain we'll never get to find out what will happen to bitcoin if we limit its main chain scalability.
8MB blocks here we come!
Bitcoin also used to be a complicated idea with no real implementation, development takes time
523.
Post 13159393 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.
Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?
This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.
I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin
Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.
Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.
Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.
Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.
no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.
Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.
The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.
Such a strange fantasy world you erect around yourself...
Titans of industry, meeting in back alleys or smoke filled basements to buy thousands of bitcoin... (surely they wouldn't send fiat wires to regulated exchanges that will have their identity and amounts on file, along with the addresses those coins were removed to.)
Good one.
Of course everyone knows BitFinex is where whales meet to exchange large lots of coins
edit: speaking of Popescu....
I don't think it's either practical nor feasible nor even desirable to use Bitcoin in the day to day dabble of pizzas, phone credits, hairspray and sneakers. People try to, because of the misguided belief that Bitcoin value is somehow related to or deriving from its crossection in the retail market. This happens to be completely untrue : you can't buy any pizza with SDRs, and yet that doesn't somehow make SDRs worthless. The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference.
524.
Post 13159976 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
edit: speaking of Popescu....
I don't think it's either practical nor feasible nor even desirable to use Bitcoin in the day to day dabble of pizzas, phone credits, hairspray and sneakers. People try to, because of the misguided belief that Bitcoin value is somehow related to or deriving from its crossection in the retail market. This happens to be completely untrue : you can't buy any pizza with SDRs, and yet that doesn't somehow make SDRs worthless. The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference.
"Interraction" with the economy... like exchanging shares of blogs and gambling sites with other titans?
Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System
vs
Peer to Peer Electronic Wealth Storage System
I think we've distilled it down. I also think it can be both, but the former facilitates the latter.
I'm not even sure if you're trolling or actually stupid... maybe just shortsighted.
There's a time for everything. While Bitcoin is doing the thing called price discovery any attempt to compare it to cash in terms of velocity and ease of exchange is positively retarded and shows an absolute lack of economic aptitude.
"buttt bbbbbuttt buttt Satoshi told me I could send it all over the world NOW"
Oh well.. if spending bitcoins makes you "warm and fuzzy" inside go right ahead...
525.
Post 13160156 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
...
There's a time for everything. While Bitcoin is doing the thing called price discovery any attempt to compare it to cash in terms of velocity and ease of exchange is positively retarded and shows an absolute lack of economic aptitude.
"buttt bbbbbuttt buttt Satoshi told me I could send it all over the world NOW"
Oh well.. if spending bitcoins makes you "warm and fuzzy" inside go right ahead...
I agree. For now, Bitcoin is useless as money. As are Beanie Babies. OTOH, both could be used as "stores of value."
When pitching BTC to the neighbor you've trapped in the elevator, make sure not to bring up the fact that Bitcoins have lost 2/3rds of the value they were storing over the last 2 years, while Beanies did not.
Original Bitcoin collectors are enjoying tremendous returns
Didn't you get humiliated enough by oda.krell last time you recycled this trolling point? Or did you miss the part where I mention "price discovery"?
So, realistically, you had about 1 year of time to buy at a "loss" compared to current prices, between Nov. 2013 and Nov. 2014. Buying at any other time means you're not in the red, and, in fact, made a profit (on paper, assuming you're long)
Jesus Lambie, you've really become a weak, washed-up version of yourself
"Looking like Larry Holmes, flabby and sick"
526.
Post 13160233 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Original Bitcoin collectors are enjoying tremendous returns
Worthy of emulation, right?
So, realistically, you had about 1 year of time to buy at a "loss" compared to current prices, between Nov. 2013 and Nov. 2014. Buying at any other time means you're not in the red, and, in fact, made a profit (on paper, assuming you're long)
Date Registered: February 16, 2014, 06:46:12 PM
I know, it's a shame you've been here 2 years longer than me yet can't seem to grasp the most simple concepts
527.
Post 13160503 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
ech... who cares?
Bitcoin XT is winning now that Gavin Andresen is at the helm.
I'm actually curious to see if you and hdbuck will keep bitching on about this stupidity when it's all over.
Over 25% of the hashing power has explicitly said they wouldn't be doing 101, especially as XT.
Both fundamentalist camps are going to have to swallow their pride and come to a compromise in the form of a more conservative increase schedule.
You friggin twerp! I was trying to troll brg444!
Of course Bitcoin XT is dead, but it would be nice to annoy brg444 one last time.
528.
Post 13160723 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
I have no idea what drives this price, this is extremely manipulated isn't it?
buyers
529.
Post 13169402 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Seems to be a lot of resistence, people don't want us to get past 400.
Just wait an hour or two...
530.
Post 13170150 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Pieter Wuille live at Scaling Bitcoin presenting how we can use a soft fork to increase the block size using segregated witness. Proposes a raise to 4MB.
Bullish.
531.
Post 13170897 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Pieter is sharp. This is an actual innovative breakthrough in the field and a very promising development.
532.
Post 13179530 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
533.
Post 13179854 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
why no one told me $gbtc closed at 520$
534.
Post 13180192 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
To be sure, Blockstreamers only now are coming to realize that an increase of the effective block size limit to 4 MB will have the unexpected and unwelcome consequence of increasing the effective block size limit to 4 MB.
Jesus christ at least get your FUD right.
So Luke has already proposed to keep the 1 MB limit for the total block size, including the segregated part.
Provide quotes or GTFO.
But they should not worry, since the space savings will only occur if the clients start issuing transactions in the new SW format. Which will not happen right away, if SW is deployed by soft fork. And even after the clients have upgraded, the use of SW will be optional. Will there be incentives for the clients to use it?
No, regular transactions get a 75% bump in space.
535.
Post 13187100 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Actually I have been programming almost daily for the last 40 years. And I have watched from front row some of the best software developers in the world as they worked. As well as some terrible ones.
That is why I think that swapping Gavin for Greg was a disaster for bitcoin...
Actually the jokes on you, Jorgi. I'm a career programmer too, that's actually looked at some of the recent Core releases, and I can tell you that there's been maybe only a handful of lines of code added to Core in the last year or two.
A. Handful. Of. Lines. In. Over. A. Years. Time.
So let's don't over-glorify these so called developers and put them up on some sort of pedestal. Like they've got their noses to the grindstone every day, furiously cranking out mountains of code. If they had only coded that much in a business world white collar desk job setting, they'd be fired by now for being over-paid slackers.
P.S.- And the truth/reason is, after 6 years of development, Bitcoin Core is pretty much complete and solid at this point. All the heavy lifting was done years ago. With the exception of increasing block size, and maybe a few other little things, there's very little left for the Core developers to actually do. So they're basically just downshifted into long term maintenance mode at this point, which anyone with their knowledge can do on the side for a few hours a week.
That is because they are only working on their own company's off-chain solutions and stonewalling on any improvements to the client to enable scaling. Oh they also spend tons of time on reddit and other forums posting messages to argue why blocking the stream of transactions is necessary.
Greg, Peter and several others have openly stated that they do not like Bitcoin's design and that it shouldn't work in practice. Despite the fact that it does. These are the people that have taken over control of the project because Gavin was too nice and wanted to share developer control, only to see these guys take over and shut him and the other early developers who actually built Bitcoin out.
Under Satoshi and then Gavin we had don't of regular improvements in the client, now under Greg and Peter we have none.
That is complete and utter BS.
The work done to scale Bitcoin to where it is today by Core developers is above and beyond most of what Gavin has ever done for Bitcoin.
Gavin's solution to scaling: increase a constant. Give. me. a. break.
Do you have any idea the amount of work and testing that went into libsecp256k1 and what it represents ?
536.
Post 13188602 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
This is fucking bearish, if true. I've read it and not yet convinced but I'll be damn if there's not some rather odd things in there.
I truly hope they're wrong as it would be extremely bearish IMO.
537.
Post 13189532 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Okay so this guy is clearly not Satoshi but most certainly one hell of a sociopath
That'll get Bitcoin in the news though and a lot of people will notice the current price raise.
Bullish.
538.
Post 13189600 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
Okay so this guy is clearly not Satoshi but most certainly one hell of a sociopath
That'll get Bitcoin in the news though and a lot of people will notice the current price raise.
Bullish.
I don't follow. One hell of a sociopath how?
It's rather clear this thing is a hoax. Don't ask me the intentions behind it but this egomaniac couldn't possibly be Satoshi.
539.
Post 13196715 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.36h):
At risk of repeating myself.
That Satoshi hoax?
So bullish.
540.
Post 13208634 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
And downloading terabytes of blockchain bloat will?
Bitcoin is a protocol and while it is true that scaling issues exist, they are being worked on to find solutions. But nobody says we all have to use just one blockchain for storing everything, and doing so with zero cost.
Having a second blockchain does absolutely nothing to reduce bloat. In order to use a federated blockchain in a trustless manner requires the user to download the entire bitcoin blockchain plus the entire federated blockchain. This can be no smaller than the bitcoin blockchain would be if all transactions were done in bitcoin. What's the point?
Multiple blockchains do not reduce bloat on aggregate, they multiply it. However, you only download the blockchains you want. You are not forced to use 1000 blockchains if there are 1000 altcoins. You only download and use those that you like.
So you're saying... don't use bitcoin then? Great! Scale bitcoin by not using it!
Finally someone get it
HODL Bitcoin spend fiat !
541.
Post 13209119 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
So you're saying... don't use bitcoin then? Great! Scale bitcoin by not using it!
don't use it for crap, like ads/spam, dice with 0,0000000001 tx, and so. Do you trade physical gold daily? Me neither.
It's not a peer-to-peer electronic gold system. It's by design a peer-to-peer electronic CASH system. There may come a time when microtransactions will need to be off chain, but that time will never come if we don't get a critical mass of users first.
This type of idiocy is often repeated but absolutely misguided.
The term CASH stems from the notion that Bitcoin, like cash, is a bearer instrument, not that it should be freely spent on trinklets at no cost.
542.
Post 13209532 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
Money has five properties: Recognizable, portable, fungible, scarce and divisible.
Small blocks make bitcoin less divisible for practical purposes. Lack of divisibility is one reason why gold is no longer used as money, even in black markets. Been tracking gold prices lately? You want that to happen for Bitcoin?
You should really stop posting. It's like you can't help but embarass yourself.
543.
Post 13209694 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
>>>brg444
I think he meant "makes small transactions impractical." Imagine if every fiat transaction cost you a dollar to make. Sure, you still have pennies and dimes and stuff, but your prices can't go down to a penny anymore, thus "less divisible for practical purposes."
Except with Bitcoin there are alternatives. If you wanna send pennies around why not use Changetip? Do you really need 700,000,000 GH/s of security for your latte purchase?
544.
Post 13210142 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
It's by design a peer-to-peer electronic CASH system.
your words.
No wonder nobody takes you idiots seriously because you have no arguments just dumb half-baked economic theories, innuendo and then finally smearing and butthurt ragequit.
But I also suspect this is not the real BJA but someone he sold his account to ... someone who is quite happy to troll endlessly on a seemingly divisive issue (but that in reality was settled long ago) to stir up the FUD and milk the confusion cow for as long as possible.
It's the title of the motherfucking white paper, Marcus. If it's settled, then why do you even bother responding to me? Are you afraid your fear-mongering about centralization isn't as effective as you want it to be?
Right.
Notice the peer-to-peer part?
545.
Post 13219753 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
That volume though...
546.
Post 13220885 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
this is nuts
547.
Post 13220984 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
This rally is losing steam. Nobody wants to pay $450+. Everyone remembers what happened last time the price went this high this fast. When the bubble pops again, people are gonna get hurt.
Yep, losing steam alright, all the way to over $460.
The people getting hurt are the shorters and those who sold too early.
Of course we'll have corrections along the way but this 5 month old uptrend is far from over.
+1
there is no supply at these prices
miners are fighting for coins, weak hands have been flushed.
the scarcity is real. you can feel the halvening already
548.
Post 13221055 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
Finex is leading the charge like a champ !
549.
Post 13221079 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
How is stamp/finex $40 over Huobi?
Normally its the opposite
It's not
Are you on bitcoinwisdom? It's buggy.
550.
Post 13221144 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
551.
Post 13226108 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
BitPay is fine, they will probably end up needing to hire again soon....
Fine?
They were on the verge of bankruptcy a few months ago.
They're on VC life support and in all likelyhood generate not one dollar of profit
552.
Post 13226814 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
And china shit theirs pants
It was foreseeable
Was it China? It looks to me like the heavy volume during the dump was on the USD exchanges (well, stamp and finex) - on the CNY exchanges volume didn't seem to change during the dump.
It's probably just Christmas. I've been waiting for the price to climb as high as it can before about the 20th so I can sell and use any realized profit for presents. I expect small batches of sell offs between now and the 24th on USD exchanges will continue to happen as people find things they want to give as gifts.
Christmas dont dump 80 000 BTC in 3 min.
Why not? Do you have any idea how much is spent on Christmas every year? U.S. shoppers spent $9.1 billion at stores on Black Friday.
First of all we are all following China and China doesn't give F*** about christmas. Secondly this swings are heavy manipulation of whales for sure. When some individuals cash out 10 BTC on different times on western exchanges it won't move the price and China man are happy to buy your western coins. We didn't see big movements on Black Friday also. It was just going up a bit and dump what everybody where afraid after never happened.
I don't think christmas will give any important effect on price.
Really? Oh, excuse me then. I didn't realize they did so much trading in the middle of the night. lol
Every night for Westerners 3AM-4AM CST (5-6PM Hong Kong Time (HKT) provides activity. If I were more efficient yet, I would've shorted the 375 exit. My short money was on a 385 exit. All the FIB lines pointed toward it. Now, when you get some skiddish bears with a monstrous pocket. It's like riding the tallest roller coaster in the world. My short standards were set too high I guess.
I can most certainly see this is the bottom though. Head and shoulders drop off line rejected. Willy says up. This was just a small correction in the rocket's course.
What do you make of giant cup & handle forming?
553.
Post 13227119 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
What do you make of giant cup & handle forming?
Which chart are you looking at? 1Day?
Showing up on the 6h & 4h
554.
Post 13227271 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
What do you make of giant cup & handle forming?
Which chart are you looking at? 1Day?
Showing up on the 6h & 4h
Meh. I don't really see a cup and handle in the 6H/4H. Just noise.
I see this in the 1Day:
I also see that we have broke the down trend in the bigger picture as of September.
I'll take that!
555.
Post 13227316 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
[quote author=Yrpapyrtersplooz
>Who do you think controls the stock market ? Not the retail investors...they are just pawns in the game!
It's a cat and mouse game between regulators and people finding ways to circumvent regulations. Been going on forever, both sides have great arsenals.
What you're seeing in BTC markets is, all of a sudden, the regulations are removed. And every scheme from the turn of the past century is suddenly new & fresh again, nothing to stop it.
That said, the retail [I'm guessing you mean 'small-time, Joe Average' investor is always at a disadvantage. That's why real markets have notions like 'accredited investor,' to save Joe Sixpack from his own ignorant greed, from having his ass handed to him.
This, BTW, is also the reason behind regulations against Three Card Monte games -- your Saurian Overlords don't want you to go broke 'calculating risks for a living,' & ending up on Welfare
The Original HyperJacked...
Your debating with someone who has been around the stock market since the 1970's..
[/quote]
And you're debating with an unrepenting troll
556.
Post 13229881 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
When the network gets near hitting capacity of ~220,000 tx per day, the rally gets its head lopped off... coincidence?
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactionsAny future rally will be meaningfully constrained by this "safety feature".
... soon time to start high-grading for valuable TX anyway. It's an industrial level tech., can't always remain a sandpit for toy projects. Which makes you misguided about rallies being "constrained" ... but hey, who am I to stop people losing money?
which transactions are valuable enough to process,
B. not a central planning committee. Especially not a committee which is dominated by a for profit company which was explicitly formed to offer a "solution" to the "problem".
*facepalms*
which one is it.? a central planning committee of miners?
557.
Post 13230145 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
miss me with your transaction FUD
them chinese keep all their coins on exchange anyway
558.
Post 13238748 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
here's my back of the envelope... First bubble to $3-$5k. Correction to $1.5k. Second bubble to $12-$18k Correction to $7k-ish... maybe all of this could occur within the next 18 months, but it does not seem likely that there is going to be enough upcoming mass adoption to sustain any bull market for a "few years"
Bitcoin doesn't need "mass adoption" for its value to skyrocket.
559.
Post 13238870 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
here's my back of the envelope... First bubble to $3-$5k. Correction to $1.5k. Second bubble to $12-$18k Correction to $7k-ish... maybe all of this could occur within the next 18 months, but it does not seem likely that there is going to be enough upcoming mass adoption to sustain any bull market for a "few years"
Bitcoin doesn't need "mass adoption" for its value to skyrocket.
I concede on that point; however, as adoption increases, we are going to witness more and more increases in bitcoin's infrastructure developments and BTC price is going to continue to rise under basic supply and demand analysis.
I was addressing your point that we would need sustained influx of users to support a multi-year bull market.
We only need a couple more trading desks
560.
Post 13245018 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
So anybody knows wtf is happening at Coinbase
561.
Post 13245782 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
Perhaps some think this is next
562.
Post 13250543 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
bye bye shorts !!
563.
Post 13250988 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2015-December/000384.htmlWe (me+Tadge+Joseph) are planning on publicly releasing our in progress implementation of Lightning, sometime near the end of this month (December)
.
bullish
564.
Post 13251482 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.37h):
nice little fight at 3000
565.
Post 13279753 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.38h):
Look, i'd love to chat about economics and such, but I can't get over this scaling problem. This network can only support about half a million active users, but it has a market cap of 6.7 billion dollars. That's crazy overvalued until we get bigger blocks.
A bunch of nonsense once again.
Bitcoin is not a social network, it's not Facebook.
Its value is not determined by its number of users but the amount of capital that is trusted to it.
The network's capacity in that regard is arguably limitless.
566.
Post 13281718 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.38h):
ok ... the overnight model runs are in and the news looks good.
456 was expected to be an important number and looks to have confirmed. 500 is a pressure point but not an important number as such, 600 equally weighted.
620 is an important number ... strangely there doesn't seem to be much else between ATH 1250 ish (pressure point) and then important number 1666!
You mean much else besides a 1 MB brick wall? You seriously think we could get that high without jamming up the network? I'm a firefighter. You can't put out a conflagration with a garden hose, no matter how much water you have in the tank. Capacity matters.
Do you honestly believe people right now are buying coins to use them for transactions? Are you that dense?
567.
Post 13282197 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.38h):
How to know you're on the right side of things: spot where notorious paid troll jstolfi's allegiance lies and support the opposite.
568.
Post 13282205 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.38h):
Gmaxwell's roadmap for increasing the network capacity has good consensus and is the most logical way forward. Solutions for the long-term will gradually become more apparent as it approaches but a better solution is always only 1 lightbulb moment away. Discounting human ingenuity in favour of mediocre workarounds will doom you to losing money.
They've had YEARS to get a lightbulb moment. It's like waiting for economically viable fusion reactors. It's not just a technical issue. But it's worse than that. It's philosophical and ideological. It's expecting two guys who by your own admission have incentives to not do their goddamn jobs--who both have effective veto power--to come up with a solution that will ruin their side businesses.
The market had a chance to adopt an implementation that supported big blocks and it didn't so clearly there's a couple of holes in your logic.
569.
Post 13291724 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.38h):
The western world doesn't really understand the problem.
Yep, typical egocentric spoiled little brats
570.
Post 13292898 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.38h):
In any event, when Bitcoin becomes more mainstream we will see regular computer nerds start firing up nodes. We're talking about a sizable group of individuals who'll spend as much as BJA spent on his "swampnode" on a keyboard.... with fancy buttons with programmable led's (Fingers crossed. Bring it to me Santa!!!).
I'd love if that were true but we've reached a considerable percentage of the nerd market in the last few years and yet for the amount of nodes count as never been lower.
571.
Post 13311224 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.38h):
Someday a bitcoin node may be the size of a google datacenter. So what? Google seems to be doing pretty well. They don't seem to care that most searches aren't for anything important
*facepalms*
572.
Post 13317353 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.38h):
Page 14444 incoming in a 444.44 incoming price. The singularity is near.
Bullish
573.
Post 13329547 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.38h):
Gentlemen.
As the mempool fills, and our great (totally not captured) technocrats continue to implement what's best for Bitcoin. I'd like to remind you that a new moon is cresting the horizon. Some say $5000 incoming, some say $32000, these are all low-ball estimates.
Some may say that it will take 9-12 months to roll out a complicated accounting trick to gain us 0.75MB of effective space. I say nay, it might happen tomorrow. Wumpus, sipa, and gmax have your best interests at heart. They have heard a panel representing 90% of hashing power state that they are ready for 2MB, and they have graciously and courageously rejected it... to keep you safe.
Institutional investors are very aware that the current number of users and transactions are more than enough to support mining security as the block reward dwindles. This is why they continue to pile in at ever increasing rates. There is not a private, for profit, company that is ready to use the blockchain as their own personal settlement network, this is a lie proffered by conspiritards.
For the first time in Bitcoin's history, everything is looking poised for success, and I've never had more confidence in our future.
Keep the price in the 400's gentlemen, at least for this week.
Rollout of the softwork is planned to take no more than 3-4 months and will indeed provide 75% immediate increase in capacity and in all likelyhood significantly more seeing as most hosted wallets responsible for a large quantity of today's transactions have clear economic incentives to upgrade to SW ASAP.
Damn, Core really did pull a rabbit out their hat
574.
Post 13342174 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
shorters get #rekt
575.
Post 13342461 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
back over 3000
that bull though
576.
Post 13364515 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
Are you lambie? lambie used to post some variation of this over and over...
Why would you think Lambie ever left?
577.
Post 13365708 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
If Core development can be hijacked by a for profit corporation then I might as well be all in PayPal. Bloody humbug.
bye!
578.
Post 13365799 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
If Core development can be hijacked by a for profit corporation then I might as well be all in PayPal. Bloody humbug.
bye!
Go suck a Blockstream. I'm not finished yet.
I wonder how you'll feel when you use your first sidechain or make your first SegWit transaction
579.
Post 13365852 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
If Core development can be hijacked by a for profit corporation then I might as well be all in PayPal. Bloody humbug.
bye!
Go suck a Blockstream. I'm not finished yet.
I wonder how you'll feel when you use your first sidechain or make your first SegWit transaction
No matter how benevolent it thinks it is a corporation is still a sociopath. You don't think it's dangerous on principle to cede control of development like this?
The sociopaths are over there : bitco.in
Would you rather we cede development to Mike Hearn & the bankers?
580.
Post 13366242 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
If Core development can be hijacked by a for profit corporation then I might as well be all in PayPal. Bloody humbug.
bye!
Go suck a Blockstream. I'm not finished yet.
I wonder how you'll feel when you use your first sidechain or make your first SegWit transaction
No matter how benevolent it thinks it is a corporation is still a sociopath. You don't think it's dangerous on principle to cede control of development like this?
The sociopaths are over there : bitco.in
Would you rather we cede development to Mike Hearn & the bankers?
I don't how to answer that. Are these really the only options?
Hearn left, so you're stuck with the guy who made Bitcoin what it is today or Leeches Inc.
Which one would that be? Surely not USGavin?
581.
Post 13367565 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
back over 3000
that bull though
shorters get #rekt
Thanks
Obama Blockstream!
All that good momentum wasted by Coinbase XTards...
582.
Post 13394170 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
Conspicuously missing from the Blockstream roadmap are any specifics such as:
At X time, the block size limit will be increased by Y amount
When X% of blocks are full, the limit will be raised by Y amount
At X difficulty level, X transaction fee level, X number of nodes, etc...
Simple: there is no plan to increase the block size through a hard fork anytime soon seeing as there is no valid reasons to do so.
Fork off if that doesn't make you happy.
583.
Post 13394275 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
Conspicuously missing from the Blockstream roadmap are any specifics such as:
At X time, the block size limit will be increased by Y amount
When X% of blocks are full, the limit will be raised by Y amount
At X difficulty level, X transaction fee level, X number of nodes, etc...
Simple: there is no plan to increase the block size through a hard fork anytime soon seeing as there is no valid reasons to do so.
Fork off if that doesn't make you happy.
Why don't you, small blockers, fork off? Most people want raised block size...most people = bitcoin...if you don't hear the community, YOU FORK OFF
the community is not represented by loud mouths on btctalk and reddit you chump
if you don't like Bitcoin as it is, YOU fork off.
584.
Post 13394408 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
Conspicuously missing from the Blockstream roadmap are any specifics such as:
At X time, the block size limit will be increased by Y amount
When X% of blocks are full, the limit will be raised by Y amount
At X difficulty level, X transaction fee level, X number of nodes, etc...
Simple: there is no plan to increase the block size through a hard fork anytime soon seeing as there is no valid reasons to do so.
Fork off if that doesn't make you happy.
Why don't you, small blockers, fork off? Most people want raised block size...most people = bitcoin...if you don't hear the community, YOU FORK OFF
the community is not represented by loud mouths on twitter and reddit you chump
if you don't like Bitcoin as it is, YOU fork off.
Nobody likes Bitcoin as it is. That's why everyone is screaming for more and better developers.
Did you volunteer yet?
Who's going to lead development of your new coin. Peter R?
585.
Post 13394417 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
Bitcoin is not about community, it is about money.
+1
586.
Post 13403840 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
ppl who lie and know they've done something wrong tend to hide.
Except sociopath weirdos who've made an habit out of defrauding people, isn't it so
Dr. Marc A. Lowe?
587.
Post 13404136 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
Nop, that's the urologist
588.
Post 13404885 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
Anyhow, probably time to put on a full-node again,
I restarted 24/7 on mine about a month ago, due to the controversy. Currently running Core, but not as support for core dev position. I am _very_ motivated to find an alternative. If only the 'anything but 1MB4EVA stasis' crowd had a single standard to rally around...
Do you run yours from your computer at home, or from a vps?
I have been meaning to start running one, but I can't run mine from home, and it costs quite a lot for a decent vps that's reliable and has sufficient bandwidth. What's the lowest spec vps that can run a full node, and how much data would it probably use in a month?
Home. My entire bitcoin folder tree amounts to less than 64 GiB - or less than USD $10 of disk space. Bandwidth is such that I don't even notice any degradation to other apps. I admit that my ISP is better than many. I've never thought to measure it with any finer resolution than 'computing demands are irrelevant'.
Care to share how many peers you're connected to?
589.
Post 13410686 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
So, the facebook generation or the twitteraty or similar starts using Litecoin, taking with them massive liquidity and a market cap 10 times (or more) that of Bitcoin. Why would you buy a car with Bitcoin instead of Litecoin? Why would you transfer 50 million USD from the US to China using Bitcoin rather than Litecoin?
The poor generation somehow is going to lead the way for a coin to grow 10x the size of Bitcoin.
590.
Post 13410965 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.39h):
So, the facebook generation or the twitteraty or similar starts using Litecoin, taking with them massive liquidity and a market cap 10 times (or more) that of Bitcoin. Why would you buy a car with Bitcoin instead of Litecoin? Why would you transfer 50 million USD from the US to China using Bitcoin rather than Litecoin?
The poor generation somehow is going to lead the way for a coin to grow 10x the size of Bitcoin.
There's strength in numbers. The common dross may be distasteful to you, but they do have volume.
591.
Post 13449990 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.40h):
this thing is headed north soon, just look at those 6hr BBANDS
592.
Post 13475196 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.40h):
593.
Post 13533244 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.40h):
This drop is brought to you by the good folks at Bitcoin Classic.
Hopefully ya'll enjoy being hard forked into double digits prices
594.
Post 13556672 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.40h):
bitcoin serves as a fungible currency
You mean like how the 13,000 BTC stolen from Cryptsy are fungible?
https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/0c07e0bec1002bd2BigVern must be mistaken when he says "If they are returned, then we will assume that no harm was meant and will not take any action to reveal who you are. If not, well, then I suppose the entire community will be looking for you."
Last we heard of the guy he was flying out to China isn't it?
These 13,000 coins will find their way diluted into the market in due time.
595.
Post 13567294 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
"Raise the block size!" they said.
"We have consensus!" they said.
"Market is going to rally around big blocks" they said.
welp
596.
Post 13613151 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I'd advise trader here to secure their long position.
We have consensus.
597.
Post 13613369 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I'd advise trader here to secure their long position.
We have consensus.
When did this royal "we" come to this result?
Should I act quickly, or do I have a few days of down before the up comes?
Not long ago.
I'd advise you act quickly.
598.
Post 13618741 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I'd advise trader here to secure their long position.
We have consensus.
When did this royal "we" come to this result?
Should I act quickly, or do I have a few days of down before the up comes?
Not long ago.
I'd advise you act quickly.
Called it
599.
Post 13621325 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?
Didn't you get the news?
600.
Post 13621411 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?
Didn't you get the news?
What news?
The news that f2pool doesn't care for Classic. That Bitfury was just bluffing and is meeting Core this weekend.
Some sort of compromise is being worked out that would lead to a 2MB hard fork in........ Feb/Mar 2017.
So sorry,
not tonight dear.
601.
Post 13622679 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?
Didn't you get the news?
i didnt get the news. where to find it?
Here:
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2016-01-20/?msg=58304091&page=2
602.
Post 13623086 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
agree, that's it with classic.
I would take anything brg444 says with a pinch of salt as he completely lacks objectivity.
I shoot straight. You can dig yourself for the facts, troll.
603.
Post 13623576 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
So now that there's rumblings of Blockstream "capitulating" with an empty promise for 2017... are you guise gonna let me sell some above $450 for the 3rd time in 2 months??
Not surprised that cripplecoiners can't discern the difference between Jonathan Toomim and his stoner brother Michael... oh wait... it's just a smear tactic by association... gotcha.
Software coming out at the end of the month... the DDoS'ing should be pretty epic!
Should also be interesting to see what Loaded has to say tomorrow, if he says anything at all.
Choo Choo Gentlemen. To 450 and slightly beyond!
What a douche.
Core prevails. Market is going to rally.
You're gonna stop posting.
604.
Post 13924019 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
ok so i listen to the first few min of this, it pissed me off, then i turned it off and tried to go to bed... i can't sleep...
i want to slap this TODD guy in the face
i want him to apologize to everyone for lying, and FUDing in order to push his lighting network horse shit
and then i want him to resign from bitcoin
i never liked what he had to say but this is too much.
listening to the full thing now...
Fuck out of here, Peter Todd is the man.
605.
Post 13924100 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
says brg444
i have a problem with when he implies that a small or medium size miner would get affected by 2mb block and move to pools
as if small or medium size minners solo mine.
i mean come on todd show me 1 small or medium size miner that doesn't already mine at a pool.
he then talks about how we shouldn't touch 1MB and use lighting, that really ticked me off.
other then that the rest of the interview was easier to digest
Yeah, well clearly you don't understand how this stuff works so your opinion is as good as the hobo down the street's
606.
Post 13924163 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
says brg444
i have a problem with when he implies that a small or medium size miner would get affected by 2mb block and move to pools
as if small or medium size minners solo mine.
i mean come on todd show me 1 small or medium size miner that doesn't already mine at a pool.
he then talks about how we shouldn't touch 1MB and use lighting, that really ticked me off.
other then that the rest of the interview was easier to digest
Yeah, well clearly you don't understand how this stuff works so your opinion is as good as the hobo down the street's
ok prove it
show me 1 small or medium size miner that doesn't already mine at a pool.
he lied pure and simple
Let me repeat: you don't know how this stuff works.
Keep your eyes on the scoreboard, this stuff is way beyond you.
Look! Price is rising!
607.
Post 13924240 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
when he says "give companies time to transition" he means "give companies that rely on cheep transaction,time to close up shop, becuase lighting wont be ready for years"
it feels like he knows lighting won't be ready in time, so he needs to HOLD back any blocksize increase now because he knows once we start to bump it up and the system doesn't implode we'll just keep doing it, and lighting will be drastically less useful.
bwahaha
what an idiot you are
did you spend all these years only looking at chart and not bothering to understand how the stuff works?
608.
Post 13924339 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
EVERYONE wants bigger blocks, except for these guys, and it's not because they are all knowing gods and know what's best for us. there are many poeple that understand the nitty gritty details who agree bigger blocks is safe.
step out of your bubble for a minute kiddo.
maybe start by paying us a visit over at core slack?
609.
Post 13924510 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
EVERYONE wants bigger blocks, except for these guys, and it's not because they are all knowing gods and know what's best for us. there are many poeple that understand the nitty gritty details who agree bigger blocks is safe.
From what I saw it seems like bigger block is at least canted by all users. It's the miners who don't want it?
the chinese miner, along with everyone else, were ready for 8MB.
the block size increase has been pushed back for one reason alone, the core dev team deems it unsafe.
who am i to disagree? i'm no one...
but gavin isn't no one, and fucking big chunks of hashing power isn't no one either....
CORE MUST DIE!
they forced our hand, it's them or us....
We have scientific data showing that the network can't handle much more than 3mb right now so yeah.... GTFO
You people seriously need to get out of this little cargocult @ bitcointalk, there's a world out there with science and stuff. It's very cool but admittedly it's harder to figure out than looking at charts all day and posting about moon.
Did ya'll not read the miners letters basically telling that Classic and their fork YESTERDAY!!!! can go get fukt. Even Jeff Garzik isn't buying this shit.
610.
Post 13924635 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
they change their position as often as i do.
you probably have some data showing that smaller miners become handicapped by larger blocks nothing more.
show me this "scientific data"
Sure, here's one of the papers:
http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdfObservation 1 (Throughput limit)
Given the current overlay network and today’s 10 minute average block interval, the block size should not exceed 4MB.
A 4MB block size corresponds to a throughput of at most 27 transactions/sec.
Observation 2 (Latency limit)
Given today’s overlay network, to retain at least 90% effective throughput and fully utilize the bandwidth of the network, the block interval should not be significantly smaller than 12s
There's also the data obtained by Jonathan Toomim from his testnet tests and his survey of Chinese miners.
Like I said, you're so far behind with regards to this stuff you might as well keep concerning yourself with the price and leave the other stuff to competent adults.
We all appreciate your role as a cheerleader, sincerely, we do.
611.
Post 13924647 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
..GTFO...this little cargocult...posting about moon... go get fukt...isn't buying this shit.
Your words can't hold back the market, brg444.
Hey Peter! Still alive?
How's that BU going? How many nodes now? 10? 15?
Yes yes, you'll get your 2MB chain, but.....
not tonight, dear
612.
Post 13924709 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
don't you geniuses has a better forum to chat on? or did you get kicked out for being such a dick?
I do but I like to come in here once in a while to hurt your feelings.
613.
Post 13924859 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
Boom BTC3K market buy on Finex. Been too long since i've seen those.
FOMO
614.
Post 13925034 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
The future is bright. All we need to do now is decentralize away from Blockstream and Core.
Yes yes Peter
Maybe if you wish for it hard enough it'll come true one day.
Ever thought of writing Santa Claus about it?
615.
Post 13925185 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.44h):
Bitcoin is ours!
Indeed.
Bitcoin is defined by the code we choose to run.
Thing is, no one wants to run your shitty code.
616.
Post 13948641 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.45h):
Core prevails. Classic coin #rekt. Ya'll #rekt.
GG
617.
Post 13951432 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.45h):
618.
Post 13953187 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.45h):
July 2017 == forever
Segwait in april and classic in october. We can and we will do it.
Fork off Pricewatercoopers
I suggest vaseline for the butthurt
619.
Post 13953290 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.45h):
it would be nice to get some estimate as to how much hashing power behind this meeting
oh wait these are pool right?
hahahaha they own 0 hashing power
That's about 80% of the hashing power.
Pool maintainers are delegates of their clients, they wouldn't shake hands on a decision they feel others wouldn't agree with
620.
Post 13953715 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.45h):
Another kick in the balls -
Once I get some more sleep, I'll write up a post explaining why I think our hard-fork recommendation is safe
So now to plan b: That hard fork that would kill bitcoin?, well... Its not dangerous at all really.
4 legs good, 2 legs better!!!
Tell your desperate boss he might have to resort to the Satoshi impersonation
621.
Post 13966964 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.45h):
burn indeed
622.
Post 13967088 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.45h):
burn indeed
Yeah, well,
Gavin is the Chief Scientist of Bitcoin. Who, exactly, are your lame friends again?
Lol, Lambie you've been losing your edge lately. What happened?
623.
Post 14029923 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
as well as f*cked up code that actually gives them a competitive advantage for crappy bandwidth (selfish mining).
Explain
624.
Post 14043712 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
625.
Post 14051829 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
Spam limit working as intended
626.
Post 14051873 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
Spam limit working as intended
no the transactions centralized control deemed undesirable were not written to the blockchain but bloated the Mempool, something that was not supposed to happen.
Mempool bloat? Meh, just another spam attack. Honeybadger eats those for lunch.
$0.06 to get in the next block! Who's buying?
627.
Post 14051902 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
1MB wins, gavin or hearn or whoever forker or angry banker turns back their spam scrypt.
still not tonight dearies.
not sure that argument holds anymore Blockstream have a huge investment from the existing banking incumbents, ironically they are invested in Blocking the stream of bitcoin but not invested in Bitcoin itself.
Says the guy pushing for CorporateCoin.
628.
Post 14051950 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
Mempool bloat? Meh, just another spam attack. Honeybadger eats those for lunch.
That's why our honey badger is getting his tummy pumped. By a semi tire
Do you see anybody but the sockpuppets sitting beside you caring? I don't
629.
Post 14051994 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
Spam limit working as intended
no the transactions centralized control deemed undesirable were not written to the blockchain but bloated the Mempool, something that was not supposed to happen.
Mempool bloat? Meh, just another spam attack. Honeybadger eats those for lunch.
$0.06 to get in the next block! Who's buying?
You keep telling us we should stop bitcoin for coffee, what your encouraging it now. Each transaction is subsidizes by $5-10 in monetary inflation, such ignorance calling a $0.06 increase in fees a win. Core 0.12 claims to only allow transactions that meet a specific centralized control policy to be admitted to the mempool, so yes a win for Core 0.12 nodes and a big middle finger to the rest of the Bitcoin network.
Do you have daddy issues?
The network, not Core, not centralized policies, decide if your transaction is good or not.
If you can't pay then you get the big middle finger indeed, simple as that.
630.
Post 14052007 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
1MB wins, gavin or hearn or whoever forker or angry banker turns back their spam scrypt.
still not tonight dearies.
not sure that argument holds anymore Blockstream have a huge investment from the existing banking incumbents, ironically they are invested in Blocking the stream of bitcoin but not invested in Bitcoin itself.
Says the guy pushing for CorporateCoin.
Shills keep saying this, but you need to explain it, Blockstream almost has an exclusive monopoly on corporate influence on the development of Bitcoin.
Not my problem if shitty Coinbase can only afford Gavin
631.
Post 14052084 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
Spam limit working as intended
no the transactions centralized control deemed undesirable were not written to the blockchain but bloated the Mempool, something that was not supposed to happen.
Does 0.12 include a big flashing sign to remind me that my transaction is spam? I sure hope so. Then I can reenter it with a non spam mindset.
No but they have included a new feature called
Opt-in Replace-by-fee transactions you need to use this feature if you want to make your invalid transaction valid again.
it's a change to Bitcoin that comes with a with a lot of new problems but just ignore them for now.
RBF was actually invented by Satoshi and implemented in the original release. Try again
632.
Post 14052105 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
The network, not Core, not centralized policies, decide if your transaction is good or not.
hardly, its those who manage to veto the proposals to allow blockchain grow that exert control what transactions become valid - demand is moving off bitcoin blockchain and your calibrating.
By those you mean 4000 nodes and about 80% of the mining power?
633.
Post 14052162 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
I think you need to "try again", that's such a week response. and I suppose the Block limit is just a temporary limit that can be removed when transaction volume approaches the limit.
who said that? surely not satoshi
634.
Post 14052275 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
The network, not Core, not centralized policies, decide if your transaction is good or not.
hardly, its those who manage to veto the proposals to allow blockchain grow that exert control what transactions become valid - demand is moving off bitcoin blockchain and your calibrating.
By those you mean 4000 nodes and about 80% of the mining power?
The standoff is just FUD and censorship if anyone knows how much the PR cost to keep control of Bitcoin Development you should have an idea. How sustainable is it?
most people want to avoid corporate control of bitcoin and you keep telling us Blockstream has no influence, its independent bitcoiners who are corrupted by corporate control. I get it.
The standoff is actually called status quo in absence of any interesting option.
You didn't really think your merry bunch of mental midgets could fork bitcoin did you?
635.
Post 14052319 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
Ahh... The Wonder And Beauty of a planned economy.
+1 it's actually quite funny, when libertarians turn into communists.
No whats funny is that bitcoin has fallen victim to the exact same problem, while under control of the exact same PTB.
the existing Financial incumbents are seeing a return on there investment in Bitcoin already, despite the fact that they didn't have to buy one single bitcoin.
welcome to the future.
Didn't you sell your bitcoins anyway? Why do you care?
I mean face it Blockstream won, time to jump ship to a new altcoin. Better luck next time
636.
Post 14052664 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
we are two months away from being one full year on this block size debate:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgentand within that year blocks have filled up that the red and blue 3d glasses person did not post this morning because we will see all the blocks are filled up all the time now.
the more the blocks fill up the more valuable the bitcoins become in relation to fiat currencies.
something wrong with this scenario .
People don't go there anymore it's too crowded!
Bitcoin, so useless you can't use it because there's too much demand
637.
Post 14053380 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
look at the blocks, all spam.
638.
Post 14053917 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
v.0.12.0 has only been out for a week!
639.
Post 14438349 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.48h):
$421 boring action man. Somebody wake me up from hibernation if/when we hit $700 or something.
Even in the best-case scenarios, $700 is going to be a while... Maybe 4 months or longer....?
I would think that if we get into the $480s (and possibly into the $470s would be sufficient), then it is very likely that we would be able to experience the $600s within that same price run... and the $700s seem to be quite a longer shot, especially without some correction (profit-taking) period, first.. which could cause several months of delay... but really, I would like to be wrong, and it does seem difficult to deny that bitcoin is due for some kind of upwards price explosion... I just fear that getting into the $800s would likely require movement to a new ATH (and we may not be quite ready for that, yet?).
680 is next stop
640.
Post 14586217 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
641.
Post 14587952 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
What is it?
They are testing big blocks in another chain or simulator, or what?
this is a testnet for segwit. before a release to public or on the mainnet Core is testing all the improvements.
Do you know how much of it is witness data and how relevant this would be to the kind of usage patterns we have today? Are these kinds of segwit block sizes perhaps more relevant for when LN is launched?
The kind of usage we have today doesn't fill a 1MB block segwit or not.
642.
Post 14620829 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
$GBTC trading at nearly $700/BTC
643.
Post 14859358 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
Here is hoping you are correct, Adam. Since BTC and LTC are moving in lockstep and trading at odds with XMR/ETH etc.. it makes sense to buy a little LTC if you really believe bitcoin is about to rally hard.
After three and a half years of accumulation I have become patient.
I thought you were contemplating selling because BorgStreamCore or w/e?
What are you doing on a censored forum btw?
644.
Post 14991216 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.51h):
dang this is bearish.
hash rate will drop by~4% with KNC gone?
how many others will turn off their small and medium sizes rigs and yield to the chinese mage mining farm?
They are filing for bankruptcy because of "high uncertainty around the block halving" and because of "continued mining pressure from china".
How is that bearish?
Right? A bunch of scammers going out of business because they couldn't get their Bitcoin Classic bailout
645.
Post 15337256 (copy this link) (by brg444) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.54h):
