People are still reposting on reddit the rumor that Google's payment system may use bitcoin.  So that may be indeed the cause of the recent rise.

truely amazing, the crash is even faster than the rise..

bitcoins are both made out of thin are and in reality are more thinner than paper.

"artificial commodity" + "artificial scarcity"

Here we have a logic troll unscrupulously using facts and reason to inform people and lure them into doing something sensible. He has no respect for the way we do things here.

This is how a scam/ponzi/bubble graph looks like.




Nobody will EVER put their life savings in a - "irreversible transactions" - beta software that resides on a computer which itself is a great environment for viruses, data loss, keyloggers, theft and many other more. Not even you, hypocrite pigs!

Bye!

Nothing going on here right now? It's a seldom event to see the automated bot post two times in a row. But I think it actually perfectly represents the current sentiment, everyone's waiting and trying to figure out which way we're going from here. I'm optimistic.

If you hadn't posted it may have been 4. That might have been a record? 

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=bitcoin%2C%20diarrhea%2C%20boobs&cmpt=q&tz=

Your point?

What I meant is that "bitcoin insurance" can probably only be what circle and coinbase are offering, basically telling people that "it's all insured" but if your computer/account gets hacked you are screwed and they don't give you a penny.
Considering bitcoin is irreversible and all, good luck with actual consumer protection.

Sounds like utter bullshit.  What country do you live in?

Really?  I suppose everything's possible, but that's not really how things work.  Heard plenty of "happened to my neighbor" stories, usually turns out 2b bulshit tho.

The bogous assumption in these kinds of discussions, is that bitcoin is in competition with these bank like services. Bitcoin is not that, bitcoin is money, base money, like banknotes. The confusion stems from the fact that bitcoins are so easily transferrable, globally, instantly, that they seem to be something different from normal money. But they are money, only very easily transferrable.

The services of banking is of course possible for bitcoin, just as with any kind of fiat (and gold). So anything from the banking world that is useful, will be implemented by the market in due time.

Passing on the initial ignore list. Feel free to add as they create new accounts.   Haha


kwukduck
Wandererfromthenorth
MatTheCat
fonzie
12345mm
exocytosis
Silverspoon
NotLambchop
Mervyn_Pumpkinhead
fonsie
YourMother
Dump3er
fat buddah
homo homini lupus
Warren Buffett
Warren Buffert
NotHatinJustTrollin
Arpeggio
Second-base
bitards

Real wealth is houses, land, cars, food, services, etc.  Wealth gets created and destroyed, sometimes both in quick succession, as when a cook prepares a meal that gets eaten right away.  

Bitcoin does not create any wealth. Its contribution to productivity, by (allegedly) being a more efficient payment instrument is tiny.  In fact, the contribution of bitcoin to world's production of wealth, so far, has been humongously negative: 100 times (at least) more wealth has been destroyed by the bitcoin network than has been created thanks to it.

It is not because of that tiny positive contribution that large early adopters have become wealthier, either on paper (if they are still holding) or in reality (if they cashed out).  Bitcoin's effect has been mainly to move property from some people to other people, mostly independently of their actual contribution to society.   The gains from the early adopters, in particular, came from the (substantially bigger) losses of  those who have bough coins and are still holding them.  If bitcoin's price ever reached a million, as the holders dream, then trlliions of wealth would be transferred -- little by little, imperceptibly -- from those who buy bitcoins to those early adopters who hold most of the coins.  If a country like Greece adopted bitcoin, that wealth would be taken from its citizens.  

That is the same trick that governments and banks use when they create more money, indeed. But when the government does it, it is just another kind of tax: the government is supposed to use the wealth that it buys with that new money for the benefit of its citizens.  When banks do it, of course, there is no such return: there is net and permanent transfer of wealth from the general people to bank owners.

And that is the case too when private entities create new money, whether it is gift certificates or Linden Dollars -- or cryptocurrencies.  *That* is why cryptocurrencies are a scam, even if they were to succeed.  

Does not translate.  The replacement of barter by money transactions hugely improved the flow of goods and services, by breaking down complicated multi-party trasactions into independent two-party steps, that could be widely separated in time and space.

The losses caused by bitcoin include, first, all the wealth consumed by the "bitcoin phenomenon": the bitcoin mining equipment and electrical energy used by miners, all the time spent by bitcoiners looking at charts, trading bitcoins, and watching Antonopulos videos, all the time and equipment and electricity consumed by bitcoin companies, all the time spent by non-bitcoiners listening to bitcoiners and trying to understand the thing.  We should also add all the losses and hardships suffered by victims of bitcoin thefts, scams, and collapse of bitcoin companies.  Even if we discount from the latter the losses of wealthy people (which, a communist might argue, were just cases of thief stealing from thief), we can easily get to a billion dollars of damages.  

Hence the claim that, so far, bitcoin has brought 100x more losses than benefits to mankind.

These statemetns of course make no sense when applied to gold. Banks and governments do not create more gold, and private entities do not create new scarce metals.  It obviously applies to fiat money, such as dollars and cryptocurrencies.

Why do you insist with gold?  I said already that I am not a "gold bug".  To me, the speculative overvaluation of gold is almost as bad as that of bitcoin. ("Almost" only because gold does have some intrinsic value, although it has little infuence in the gold's market price.)

The things I say can't sound more like bullshit than the things you say. I live in the Netherlands. (Because you asked so nicely.)

This guy is also dumb.  And wires can be stopped after  they are transmitted.  I assume the receiver had a fake  bank account and id  too to open  it and make the  withdrawal.

I did  read  it.

Both the  account  and  guy were wrong if  they blindly  send  50k wires by email  instructions. 

Is lambie ill? I have not seen him often today

rofl is that a real anagram? im lazy counting the letters.. if so, +1! ^^

More than 1,700 people, silly  

Correct. I am from Norway, thats why I used a period to mark multiples of thousands.


Still, nobody is commenting on my pie charts. I had to convert 200+ currencies manually to make them. But people only care about comma vs. period!
I'm loosing my mind, HA HA HA!!!  <--- (Crazy norwegian laughing in a creepy way.)

The pie charts are here: https://imgur.com/KA8CuED

1.234.567,89

Why is Stamp 3$ lower than the rest of the exchanges ?

This.
EU will export a lot more now since stuff like that will become cheaper for others. On the other side import will go down - more spending for products made in EU. Tourist will also get more for their money in EU... Time will tell if this is positive or not  

When the blue/yellow lines cross, prepare for another nose dive...

I mean, its just a pattern I recognized. I admit I'm no day trader, but it doesn't take a pro to see some patterns and trends forming.

What do you mean they are incorrectly shifted to the right? How do I properly place it in the graph on bitcoinwisdom?  Thanks a lot.

We're actually in a very small 2 day downtrend, inside of a larger 2 month uptrend, inside of a longer year long downtrend within a very long half decade uptrend by the looks of it!

The "bearish sentiment" is solely connected to the imagined barrier of $300. If you look at 1d charts we are still just moving up the stairway to heaven.

Edit: So by wednesday we should be past $300.

That's an objection to the use of averages in TA I've heard several times, and it's valid in principle, but:

a) It assumes you are looking at it from a signal processing perspective, where using averages like this way would simply be wrong. Instead, chartists know (intuitively at least, I believe) what is going on, and accept that the m day average from days n-m to n plotted to day n is a lagging indicator, and then try to work around this inherent lag.

Obviously not. Though a non-shifted MA doesn't mean you treat a descent like an ascent, no? Here's the counter question: Can you exclude (in general) that a signal that lags by n day is useless to base a market decision on? Maybe. Next question: What if a certain number of market participants make a decision based on the (mis)application of the lagging indicator? Still guaranteed that there is no exploitable pattern in there?

I know there's a kind of "law" in (amateur, perhaps also professional) algorithmic trading that your strategy should be time invariant. Some even go as far as saying it should be market invariant. In reality, I think it's more a heuristic to find out if the "pattern" you think you detected is just noise, or if you're onto something.

This is completely 'finger in the air', but I sometimes think that certain patterns that seem to be a good predictor emerge across different time scales (hence, motivation for the above "law"), but they're not equally important/active across all scales.

EDIT: The previous paragraph would still be compatible with "TA is based on the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. This seems to implicate that if the same pattern emerges in the charts in April or June, the conclusions should be the same" I would argue: you could simply be missing one variable, say, something like "total volume necessary until pattern x becomes active/has a strong enough influence on the market".




That was the point I was trying to make. I believe "chartism"/TA is more than just a self-fulfilling prophecy, but there is some self-fulfilling aspect to it, mainly in the form of the exact points of resistance/support.

What I mean is: Some combination of signals tells traders "market is bearish, even though we're currently going up" (the non circular part of TA). Next question, where exactly to go short? "Hm, let's say DSMA50. Seems like a good place as any." After the first few sell at exactly that point, it becomes a "point of heavy resistance" (the circular part of TA).

/my 2 crackpot cents

As price slowly drifts upwards on low volume

Btw: The word is spelled loser. By misspelling it, it boomerangs on you.

Someone is trying to induce panic selling

Sure we have lost $15 in a morning of course it is done, i am offloading my 0.2btc as we speak this is not going to be pretty. Next stop $220

Huh, $270. Shit, we were so close to breaking the year long downtrend. No $300 this week, maybe next month.

Why do you bother? I don't know if he can qualify as a tldr-troll or just a stubborn idiot, but he won't budge.
And he sort of shows the limitations of other people I respect on this forum.
He's managed to engage people like oda.krell and others in long winded discussions where he is impervious to reason, but manages to make them believe that they are having a real discussion rather than him using them as his soapbox.

It's no use. Let it be.

If it was an attempt at squeezing longs think it's safe to say that so far it's a failure (to my surprise as well was expecting more closed longs)

300 this week seem " hard " , i think it can rise 260 by this week-end and then we may see a dump
or pump   l you are from sellers right ?? you like that bitcoin price go to the top   !

silly bitch

This is ridiculous.
Around half my income comes in the form of bitcoin payments for copywriting and communications work with clients around the world. Payments are typically $50-300 each. Without bitcoin, it would be utterly uneconomical to transfer those amounts through the traditional banking system. There's clear value there to me: the ability to access global work, without which this month I'd have trouble paying my mortgage and feeding my kids.
And yes, to pre-empt your next point, I do pay my mortgage in fiat. But I also keep some in bitcoin, because it's the best way of paying for goods and services globally, like the gigs on Fiverr I've been using to create material for communications campaigns using professionals around the world, and because the punitive bank rates make it smart to keep the money in the system rather than going via fiat. Some of those people, I imagine, will do the same, and some of them are only able to access the work I give them because I pay in bitcoin, rather than be extorted by a fiat transfer. Ever tried sending $5 across continents by fiat? A clue: Fiverr wouldn't be called Fiverr any more. And so the bitcoins go round, providing a useful and valuable service as a fast, cheap means of international currency transfer.
I love that you're so engaged and enthusiastic about proving bitcoin is a ponzi/scam/will never work, etc. Really. But while you're pontificating about why it can't work, you seem not to realise there are people like me who are able to pay the bills and create real value for other people because it does work.

lol

The high so far today on finex was 270.8

"Well below 270" is less ambiguous. One could just check what coindesk puts as average price when the day is over.

Here in the Netherlands I only pay 4% per year lol

ive actually never seen the books look so lopsided bearish ... 5000 coin to 250 ($5 gain) ... 5000 coin to 230 ($15 loss) ... of course this means we'll be moving up from here , because the books are a lie and always move opposite to how they appear ...

Maybe people are getting frustrated that the price doesn't show any sign of rapidly increasing at any point.
I can't remember the last time we were at a respectable (in my opinion) price.
Disapponting.
Therw hasn't been any great news on big merchants adopting bitcoin for a while.

Plus we've been told there will be several exchanges getting approval to trade soon plus the ETF & yet nothing.

Maybe people just can't be bothered waiting any more.

I wasn't  thinking of the impact of trading those coins, but of the bad press, and possibly bad actions by the SA government.

https://t.co/K2yZIH58nP

confirmed trend reversal, its the official end of bear season... YAY

now this is interesting moves, this makes shanghai stock exchange become international stock exchange...

A lot of people were forced out of their positions due to this glitch. That has to have repercussions of some kind. We might just as well see another jan 13-14 crash. But idk, I'm lubed up both at the front and the back atm, hoping to get lucky.

Somehow newbies are always eager to write such statements. Almost every single "bitcoin is dead" post on this forum comes from a new account.

The GBTC market has closed. It definitely didn't continue crashing toward BTC parity.



Oops, 15 minute delay..?

Except at market extremes its a coin toss to say which way the price will go lfc..

People are idiots. That's the only thing holding us back. We went to $1000+ two years ago, when Bitcoin was wobbling on a knifes edge and the leading star was a retarded frenchman who moved to Tokyo just to make the abbreviation of his stupid exchange make sense. Now, there is a whole industry backing it up. Every bank, insurance company, and financial institution are looking at ways to implement Bitcoin or blockchain technology and somehow a market cap of roughly a couple of billions is thought to be reasonable. If this doesn't go sky high rather immediately I will lose all faith in humanity. Maybe we should send some coins to Elon Musk. WS likes to pump his shit into orbit.

The GBTC market closed at 49 dollars per share with volume of 2286 shares (less than 225 bitcoins).

Are you the professor Jorge Stolfi? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Stolfi)

In late 2013 Jorge took an active interest in the economics of cryptocurrencies. He became extremely skeptical about its underlying soundness and chances of success, and has been advising the Brazilian public against investment in bitcoin while spending much of his time trolling the bitcointalk forums.

If we pass 260, I'll make myself a strong drink. I don't care if it's in the middle of the day!  

It's at $251 on the Kraken at the moment and 253 on OKcoin. That's not a very big difference considering the Kraken is low volume and a small amount of coins can move its market by a considerable amount. Where did you get your figures from?

It's at $251 on the Kraken at the moment and 253 on OKcoin. That's not a very big difference considering the Kraken is low volume and a small amount of coins can move its market by a considerable amount. Where did you get your figures from?

I was looking at different currency markets to you. I only checked the USD markets without doing the conversions into different currencies. I got my figure directly from the Kraken. There is a spread between $249 and $251 on the Kraken and someone had probably brought when I got my figure.

This is what the Kraken's USD market looks like to me.

Which site shows that table of prices on different exchanges please? That looks like extremely useful information.

I hate when BTC-e is $10 lower than other exchanges and no one arbitrages.... Cmon people.....

It has four, unless a keynesian tries to count them.

Also linguistically, my use of the word is correct. A can of beer can cool your throat, make your jokes worse, give you a little energy and balance your bodys fluid contents. It is the intrinsic aspects of the beer that give you these services. It is contained in the beer, it is inherent, inborn native, inseparable, deep-rooted in the beer itself. The properties are therefore intrinsic, and it is the intrinsic value of the beer for anyone who prefer those things.

A bunch of dollars do not have these values intrinsically. You can, on the other hand, fill your pockets with dollars and go to bali, in the speculation that you can exchange them for beer. It is not certain, you need to find someone who has beer and wants to sell. The risk is low, but not zero. The money is liquid. The value of the dollars is not that it can cool your throat, they can't. You have to speculate that you can exchange them for beer. Wen you get there, you are only loaded with money value.

You seem to think that intrinsic means absolute, it does absolutely not mean that. It does not mean static, it does not mean physical, or hard, or measurable. Intrinsic value is not better than money value. In fact, money value is better because it is more general. (Well your body exists in the physical world, so you sometimes have to consume something). You can easily google the words meaning yourself.

By erring in these definitions, it is impossible to discuss bitcoin with gold bugs. "But gold has intrinsic value!!! It shines!!!". Who cares? We are here to discuss money, and as you said, the intrinsic value of gold exists, but is small, the money value is the important part of the value, and bitcoin has only speculative, money value. That is what it is all about.

The newcomers have a hard time with this, because bankers and other politicians all the time wants to obscure what they are doing. Use the correct words and lay it out, and it is easily understandable for everyone.

Well, incorrect.

https://www.btcgreece.com/

you know greece can go buy euro or usd they dont have to buy bitcoin just saying 

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.

How? In the end its just the handful of pools who will decide.

We are going down from 280$ to 220$ in less than 10 days because two shills want to prove their might by forking bitcoin?

The answer from community is clear now, Gavin & Mike ?

About 12% of nodes are running XT with zero blocks mined.

A miner's ultimate incentive is the block reward which requires the survival and adoption of Bitcoin so that the reward can actually be worth something. A solution that causes investors to panic and devalue Bitcoin is not one that they would logically adopt.

Traders love news they can use and forced a shakeout on the XT uncertainty (there was a Forbes article) to weed out the last remaining holdout weak hands. The stabilization is a natural market dynamic--a rebound effect caused by shorts covering and high quality demand.

A lot of people sold (not just on Finex) into the dropping price and low sentiment, which devalued Bitcoin. It is absolutely related to uncertainty caused by XT.

Gold is a store of wealth because it's a metal with very useful properties. If it were cheap everything made out of copper would be made out of gold instead, but there isn't enough gold to do all that, so it can never be cheap.

I've said it before, but doing something that has a 0% to undermine the network (which is nothing) is better than doing something with 0.5% or even 0.1% chance to harm the network (XT) in the long term.

I'm not against raising the block limit, but there is not one solution. For the umpteenth time, it is not black and white, not XT or nothing.

Use logic and facts to form your opinion. It's important to not let fear cloud your judgement, nor marry oneself to a particular point of view.  Should we rush to judgement based on someone's opinion or weigh all evidence and make the most informed decision possible based on the facts?

As always we are here.

I used btc today.  Anybody else?

Hearn would only be the dictator of XT development, not the protocol. XT is only one implementation of BIP101.  Other implementations would be compatible, as XT is currently compatible with core. ANY change in the code that would make XT incompatible would orphan XT, not the other implementations. Anyone can write code using core or BIP101 components and run it on test net to see if it works and then release it into the wild.  This is open source. XT will only succeed if people use it.

A certain amount of skepticism is healthy, but I think we all need to take off our tin foil hats. We just end up talking past each other and getting nowhere.

I read the BITfury white paper in support of BIP100. There are some good points in it, but it doesn't address the big problems that are holding up infrastructure development and mainstream adoption. Entrepreneurs can't build business models around how miners may or may not vote. Issues such as node centralization are secondary.  A fully validating node is and likely will always be many orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to setup and run than a profitable mining operation.

It seems that a major concern for BIP100 supporters is that miners with slow internet connections are disadvantaged by larger blocks. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, why should the rest of us subsidize these slow miners? They are mostly in China which means that if they have less of a competitive advantage then mining will likely become LESS centralized with large blocks rather than more.

Miners are producers. They are essential to the network but we know what happens when producers are in control of the economy. We saw it in the Soviet Union, North Korea, East Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and Red China. Rent-seeking behavior kills growth. In the free market, the consumer is king which is actually more fair because we are all consumers.

If we want bitcoin to survive, it has to grow. If we want it to grow, it has to scale. If we want it to scale, then we have to make some trade-offs that will benefit various people and groups differently. This is unavoidable. What is also unavoidable is technology proliferation. If we don't fix this scaling problem, banksters are going to jack our tech,  make their own coin(s), and wave at us as they leave us in the dust.

Scale or die.

I agree

However, if core devs don't agree on something substantial soon I think we may all be praising the hearncoin soon. Everyone watches the debate, if the climate changes XT might get a sudden boost. If people really wants larger block sizes and have to choose between BIP100, BIP101(XT), BIP102, BIP105 or BIP106 without agreement among core devs, I think XT has a good chance of pulling ahead.

Obama is dancing around like a ninny because americans turn around every two years and vote for fucking republicans for Congress. Republicans have had one goal for the last 8 years: make Obama look like a worse President than Bush. They don't care if they destroy the country in the process. And you lot keep voting for them.

Bitcoin expert on Bloomberg:  Increasing the block size limit will increase the supply of bitcoins and cause the price to fall, by the law of supply and demand. 

Oh, and in matters of bitcoin should trust only the opinion of people with Ph. D. 

Well, I can agree with that part. 

Ok, to play devil's advocate he's sort of right in a way that laymen will misinterpret and not understand. Recall the basic economics equation MV=PQ
basically, money supply (M) multiplied by velocity (V) equals Price of goods (P) times quantity of goods (Q).

Increasing block size means that bitcoin will have the POTENTIAL of greater velocity, which (if M remains constant or growing at a constant rate) means that (assuming quantity of goods remains constant) Price of goods goes up in BTC which means that the value of Bitcoin will fall.

that's a lot of assumptions that I don't think are warranted.  Q will likely go up massively as the utility of the network expands. For example: people will buy blockspace for timestamps, title records, etc.  also microtransactions.

I believe I said exactly that. Did you even read all of what I wrote? Yes, I completely agree with you.

About a third of Bitstamp's volume: localbitcoins.com vs bitstamp.

I think it would be great if they develop an open source software layer to handle the internet of things, I just don't see the point in the HW bit.

I don't see the potential. You don't need special chips or computers to do micro payments. As a charity node, a standard Raspberry Pi 2 is cheaper. And the mining part of it is really lame. To me, it just sounds like a clusterfuck of bitcoin buzzwords. Either the VCs have been fooled, or there is a dimension to this that is still a secret.

A webserver (Apache) is software, not hardware. I made a micro payment solution for web content via sms payments in 2001. Micropayments is not a new revenue model. Bitcoin can make this happen in a big way. ChangeTip is leading the way right now.

If you look at the volume on a larger scale it actually looks like massive volumes of BTC were purchased on Bitstamp. still theres no telling if its real or fake.

If its real then some massive companies are accumulating tens of thousands of coins (the volume on bitstamp would actually be unbelievable in this case and bitfinex would no longer be the largest exchange).
If its fake, then who is paying the trading fees and why? or is bitstamp themselves faking the volume like the chinese exchanges always do?

Where did you get this chart from?

XT nodes are less now
http://xtnodes.com/

That's it. I'm switching from this forum to:

https://bitco.in/forum/

They even have a new Wall Observer thread there.

There is too much shit from the Theymos shills here.

See you on the other side, guys! 

Norway

http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg360ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv

Kind of sad when you look at it this way.

im still hls my bitcoin 
we will back to $300
come on guys  we can do it , we can hit $300 at this week ,

without a verified account, you're SOL.  Your only bet with banks closed is LocalBitcoins and be prepared to pay a hefty premium.  You can buy me a gift card on purse.io with a credit card, but again, you'll pay ~ 20-25% over spot.  You gotta plan ahead for these things.

Aren't you busy building the next global payment system over at bitco.in?

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited 

There is no purpose for bitcoin to be digital gold if another blockchain is widely used. That blockchain will turn out to be the true digital gold.

wow, just wow.

yes, we most likely will hit 300 the coming days, but china is just a non-event. thats basically all just fake over there. imo they have maybe 1/10 of the stamp volume at best.

Just like Finland doesn't exist.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2qjohv/what_did_your_parents_show_you_to_do_that_you/cn6pn30?context=3

troll harder

Possibly part of the explanation for low Gemini volume, and even lower volume on the weekends, so far.

Gemini does seem to be slow as fuck to get deposits.

On 10/16 I sent a fiat deposit to Gemini and I sent one to Coinbase.  I received my Coinbase deposit on 10/22, and I just today received my Gemini deposit.  Actually I recall initiating the Gemini deposit process several hours before I initiated the Coinbase deposit. 

And that's why the US Dollar is world reserve currency, and GBP is ...didn't you guys have a some sort of an empire to exploit once? What happened with that?  When did everything begin to all go so wrong?

Thank you for the answer. I was so incandescently enraged by having my national currency insulted that I smashed up the house and pushed Grandma's head through the wall. I don't know if she's going to make it through the night. There's consequences to internet baiting, kids.

I'm pretty sure that's a glitch(??). I'm not seeing that on my side - might want to try refreshing that page.

BTC-E joined the $300 party!

Yeah, pretty much matters for Europeans.

Western exchanges seemed to be hesitant on following China's prices as it seemed to be fake. I wonder why arbitragers can't close this gap even up to 3% too.

BTC-e is a diffirent market, very easy to withdraw uSD with payeer or other payment and easy too to deposit
and i think it's a reason why btc-e market is diffirent with other

He obviously wanted to talk about the post you firmly supported; and you decided to shut him down. If you think he had a point, why not admit it. I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a flying fuck anymore, but I am baffled by this. What is it with core fans that makes them unable to provide proper thought through arguments whenever someone tries to peel off some poorly applied veneer of reason? I think I saw one properly thought through argument from a 1mb-supporter (I think his nick was Holiday). All the rest, from Waldemar and gmaxwell to brg444 and hdbuck, is just waffle and personal attacks.

Already down ~$10 from 363 high and selling pressure is continuing. Not sure whose gonna run out of ammo first at this point, the bulls or the bears

Nerve wracking stuff, this one hourly candle is quite the fight

Actually bought my first coins in May of 2013, just never cared to register/post here.

People, serious question here, aren't you afraid that we will crash really badly after this insane move ?

Didn't we always say, slowly and steadily better than this circus !!

I'm really afraid !!

For those of us who lived through December 2013, and are still around, this 'ain't nothing'.

Can you show some news? I don't see anything new for the next wave. What's the difference than yesterday?

404 MONEY NOT FOUND 

That is nonsense.  Someone with no idea of how things work just tossed a number.

Once the average traffic (transactions issued per day by all users) exceeds the effective capacity of the network (about 240'000 tx/day, 2.8 tx/s), there will be a steadily growing backlog of unconfirmed transactions.  There will not be a fixed delay: the average delay will keep increasing, day after day.

If the traffic were to be 300'000 tx/day (3.5 tx/s), for example, the backlog would grow at the rate of ~60'000 tx per day (~0.7 tx/s).  The transactions received in one day will take 300'000/240'000*24 = 30 hours to be confirmed; so the average delay for 1-confirmation will keep growing by 6 hours every day.  

If the transactions were serviced first-in, first-out, then all transactions sent in the same hour would be delayed by about the same (but always growing) number of hours.   Since the processing priority is largely determined by the fees paid, however, some transactions may be processed in the next block, independently of the backlog, while others will be delayed even more than they would with the fair policy.   However, there will be no way to estimate the fee needed to get your transaction confirmed in the next block, or within X hours; because that depends on the fees of transactions that will be issued before your confirmation -- by clients who will want their transactions to be processed before yours.

But that regime cannot last for long, of course.  Clients will give up on bitcoin, until traffic drops below the capacity -- say to 220'000 tx/day (~2.6 tx/s). Then, part of the time, there will be no backlog: all transactions will confirm in the next block, even if they pay the minimal fee.  However, the traffic varies a lot depending on time of day and day of the week.  During peak hours and peak days, the traffic will be quite a bit more than 2.8 tx/s. Then there will be a temporary backlog, lasting several hours, that will be cleared slowly when the traffic subsides.  

As before, the backlog and the average confirmation delay will keep growing while the traffic exceeds the capacity.  The delay for your transaction, specifically, will depend on its fee, on the transactions that are waiting in the queue, and on the transactions that will be issued by other clients until your transaction is confirmed.  On some occasions, many transactions may get delayed by several hours, perhaps by a day or two.

Let me put this another way:

I bought bitcoin because it never even occurred to me that it wouldn't scale.  Many new users don't know now that it doesn't scale, but when we run up against the hard limit and your beloved transaction fee market kicks off, everyone will know and nobody likes paying high fees for something they are used to getting nearly free.

The investors/speculators are the only reason this thing works at all.  You are taking us for granted.  We do not exist simply to facilitate drug deals.  WE buy the coins. WE supply the liquidity. If you don't give us what we want, we invest elsewhere.  Without us, nobody pays the miners and everything grinds to a halt.

This discussion is getting annoying. Of course people who pay no transaction fees are getting stuck, but that is not a cause for greater blocksizes.

You think you have the power because you buy bitcoins? You do NOT pay the miners, the system does.

It's actually your attitude that is pretty arrogant, not the other way around. Do you know what would happen when the miners decide to cut back their hashing power? I do. VERY few blocks found for a LONG time! You have to realize that mining is not cheap, and miners do require those fees more and more since block rewards diminish. https://blockchain.info/de/charts/network-deficit  
The times when people were willing to get negative balances for their mining are long gone, the market regulates itself.

That being said, I am all for bigger blocks, but not because of the - excuse my french - bullshit arguments some people tend to bring forward.

The thing is, even with bigger blocks people will have to pay fees. People who want free transactions will always complain the moment there is a chance they will have to pay something or risk getting no service.

just tired of reading the same nonsense all over the place.

you wannabes invaded this forum, where we once would have real debates and technical conversations.

now its trolls and kiddos bitching around.

so i say let's settle this once and for all.

FORK OFF.

Most (as far as I can tell) big blockers are not opposed to side-chains or other of-chain transaction methods. We are mostly opposed to blocking the removal of the temporary and arbitrary restriction. Particularly at a time when interest in Bitcoin is increasing and off-chain solutions aren't available for use.

The BTC market is unpredictable in the short term, but longer term the obvious patterns form.  If you are a long term bull, then trade on the long term patterns.  Buy/accumulate when the market is bottomed and no one cares, sell near top of rallies.  Then be patient to get back in, because a rally bubble can take a while to unwind. A LONG while.  There may even be several mini bull runs/short squeezes along the way, but ultimately the price ends up bottoming out way lower and all volume/volatility dies.

Hasn't crossed over quite yet  

Have you backtested it against historical data?  Performing well down is one thing, sideways is another, that tends to kill MA crossover strategies.  Goomboo's Journal thread has some relevant advice. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60501.0

Edit: If you start looking for optimal signals, you might want to try this heatmap approach: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60501.msg736808#msg736808

Yeah, these indicators are great for telling traders what has already happened.....

Look back to Sept 30th 2013. Bitcoin was just above $100, we had the Silk Road crash, and the Weekly KDJ was pointing DOWN! Probably, at the time, the KDJ was right on the point of crossover, except Bitcoin then shot up to $1200, and the lagging KDJ indicator took a slight little turn up again, for just a short time, as Bitcoin went up by over 1000%.

In otherwords, a fucking terrible indicator to be using in isolation.

Hasn't crossed over quite yet  

You can add delayed deposits to the long list of problems Kraken has been having lately. I hope I didn't totally miss the buy-in opportunity.

I heard a Russian idiom once which I sort of like: "Cheapskates pay twice".

We could have helped the Syrians when they asked for help with toppling Assad and getting the country on track, but it was too expensive back then.

What is considered off-topic in this squalid thread?

I live in the US which is comprised of 99% immigrants.  In one small section of one borough of NYC 167 languages are spoken.  The people there look suspiciously human.  

5 years ago there was a census.  Being a procrastinator I hadn't returned the form so a lady came knocking on my door.  The last question asked for your race.  The reason for this is info for government programs.  I told her that if she wanted to pigeon hole me she could put me down as mammal.  Of course she just stared blankly at me.  To help her out I said, oh you are looking for a race, put me down as human, human race.

muslim youngsters migrating to europe wants to breed your sisters and daughters. its a breeding war.

Look, I get it, you're trying to re-frame the discourse and/or perception of the market. No idea why, but your behavior makes little sense otherwise.

However, may I suggest to start a bit smaller? Looks like you're trying to bite off more than you can chew with such claims. Let's take a look at the larger market picture:



That's the market on Bitstamp since April 2012. "Ancient history", you'll shout, but shush -- it was your idea to talk about the big picture, not mine.

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).

That's going by daily price. If we're more cautious, and instead use some smoothed-out price proxy, say the 200 day simple moving average as plotted above, then the picture still only slightly shifts, to around 13 months chance to buy at a loss (Nov 2013 to end of 2014).

What do we get then? As of now, the market (since mid-2012) gave you a chance of around 1 year of "investing at a loss" vs. 2 and a half years of "investing at a profit", by current (smoothed out) price.

However, that's not even including the pre-Bitstamp period. Let's say Bitcoin trading seriously began in May 2011, when volume (in USD) crossed the 1 million USD mark. Which means, looking at the market as a whole, we get: ~1 year buying at a loss vs. ~3 and a half years of buying at a profit.

Like I said, maybe rethink your strategy. In order to get the idea into peoples' heads that "the market mostly took away" from investors, you're going to need a much longer bear market than this. Try again in two years from now, if price is still making new lows by then -- but maybe don't hold your breath for that happening

Well, I tried to post only serious stuff to /r/btc .  Perhaps I am a better bitcoiner than buttcoiner after all... 

Or perhaps, in those filtered and pasteurized forums, they feel the lack of a villain to shoot at...


It was a 90 day ban.  I don't know why.  I asked the mods but did not get any answer. 

I only made two posts there yesterday, after being absent for ~2 months.  One critic of the 21co Computer, the other explaining the new RBF and criticizing the lack of a fixed queue policy. 

Maybe the ban had nothing to do with those posts.  Probably some of my old "enemies" there just reported me as a troll based on the whole of my "work".

Or perhaps Roger Ver, the owner of /r/btc, was pissed off about some not so nice things I wrote about him elsewhere (such as taking the side of OKCoin in the dispute over bitcoin.com).

I'm surprised it's taken this long to implement retroactive transaction fees. Not sure about spending to different outputs though.

RE: localbtc anybody can link me to the website with all the pretty charts of volume by country?

Since 2015-11-25, when the daily volume at OKCoin and Huobi jumped to a new level,  there seem to be a relatively sharp daily spike in volume. In the 1h chart, those spikes stand out quite clearly, often 50%-100% higher than the adjacent bars.  Yesterday's peak at OKCoin was ~350 kBTC in one hour, which used to to be a large number for the daily volume until a couple of months ago.  

These sharp daily spikes apparently started in Sep/2015, with the start of the exponential mini-rally that peaked on 2015-11-03.  Curiously the time of the spikes seems to be drifting.  At OKCoin (UTC times):

2015-11-25 11:00
2015-11-26 03:00
2015-11-26 12:00
2015-11-27 03:00
2015-11-28 05:00
2015-11-29 08:00
2015-11-30 09:00
2015-12-01 10:00
2015-12-02 12:00

China local time is UTC plus 8 hours, so the local times range from 11 am to 8 pm.

OH-MY-FRIGGIN-FIDDLY-BLIMMIN-BLURTING-GOD!!!!!!

BJA IS SATOSHI NAKAMOTO!!1!!1!!

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Chinese BTC is getting sold on Western exchanges? Shouldn't we be seeing a bit more (as in 'corresponding') volume if that's the case?

.... guess you missed the friday night dump in your razor-sharp focus there? 29k in 3 mins, probably some room for chinese btc in that flood.

Equally in and outside China if you do the math.

Of course the rise in dump volume will be lower in the chinese exchanges because they are bigger

Throttling the network in the name of security is like fucking for virginity.

BASE TEN MATH

Some day in the near future, Ten or more companies will make 10K transactions or more each. These are your usual suspects: Circle, 21, Coinbase, Bitpay, and some large exchanges.
10 X 10000 =100,000

On that same day, 100 smaller companies are going to make 1K transactions or more each. These are companies like purse.io, bitquick, small gambling sites, smaller exchanges, darknet sales, etc.
100 X 1,000=100,000

Also on that same day, 1000 or more companies will make 100 or more transactions selling goods, remittances, etc.
1,000 X 100=100,000

But we can't forget about the much more common small businesses and individual heavy users who will make ten or more transactions that day.
10,000 X 10=100,000

And then you have people like you and me who may make just one transaction.
100,000 X 1=100,000

So that fills up the entire days worth of blocks and then some, but we still have the light users, the ones who do maybe 1 transaction every 10 days:
1,000,000 x 0.1 =100,000

How many transactions is that? 600K? way too many. So fees creep up. 10% decide that the cost is too high in time or fees and give up.  How many left? 500K. still too many. Fees keep going up.  Transactions take hours to confirm. This makes some traders nervous, and they start pulling coins off exchanges. Traffic increases by the same 10% who gave up. This makes other people nervous. Coinbase and Bitpay users start to users start to fear their business model is unworkable and move their coins to private wallets. This increases traffic even more. It now takes 10 hours to confirm a transaction.

At this point, Ten of the many, many enemies of bitcoin see an opportunity. For $10,000 in fees, they flood the blockchain with yet MORE transactions, increasing the panic which of course makes even more people want to move their coins around. When they see how effective this attack is, they go for the kill and spend $100,000 to back up traffic for 10 days. 

What would happen after that is unpredictable, beyond the singularity. What do you think might happen?

It's probably caused by the Chinese dumping to pay for their New Year celebrations. There was a dump before Christmas, probably a result of people dumping to pay for Christmas. Everyone needs money to buy presents, alcohol, and food. I had to dump some of my stack to pay for Christmas.

That doesn't mean they don't celebrate the usual new year
Also chinese new year is not 6 weeks, it was on March if i memorize the dates correctly

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.

Civil engineer: Hey, Boss. Traffic on the bridge is increasing by 50% per month. Shouldn't we widen it?

Bureaucrat: Ha! That bridge has excess capacity. If traffic gets too high, we'll just increase the tolls. Most of those schmucks don't really need to go anywhere anyway.

Civil engineer: Do we know that for sure? What if there is an evacuation or something?

Bureaucrat: That bridge was intentionally designed with low capacity to prevent invasions! Widening it would be a dangerous departure from historic bridge operations.

Civil Engineer: Aren't bridges supposed to be used to facilitate travel?

Bureaucrat: Yes, but only the right sort of travel. That's for me to decide! If traffic gets too heavy, and tolls get too expensive, the people can use buses. Too many single passenger cars anyway.

Civil engineer: Do you own a bus company?

Bureaucrat: Purely coincidental! I'm just guarding against bridgebuilder centralization.

Civil engineer: I see. No conflict of interest there. What's the name of your company anyway, Busstream?

Bureaucrat: Bridgestream_TM, Smartass.

What I don't understand is: who chooses?
I mean, I could have my opinion (I don't cause I'm not technical enough to understand everything) but even if I had, what influence would that have? Who decides in the end?

Yes. A 'spammer' with sufficient resources can clog the system, no matter how high the maxblocksize is. So what? That is not the relevant point.

The relevant point is that, at the current maxblocksize, the system supports only a half-million transactions per day (+/-). Period. No more may be processed, even if every such attempted transaction was accompanied by 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, or more BTC. This is a hard limit currently, and this is an absolute fact. I don't know why you keep trying to deflect the conversation to the less-important 'amount of fees issue'.

In and of itself, the half-million per day limit would be no issue, but only as long as no more than a half-million 'valid' transactions are attempted per day. However, we are currently trending towards saturation. On average, blocks are currently approximately half-full. And in the last year, actual block size has increased 136%. On current trend, we don't have a year to raise this limit before user frustration. We don't have a half-year. If we get a surge in adoption this month (not an unlikely prospect, given the widely-media-discussed doubling in price over the last quarter), we could easily saturate within weeks of today.

When new interested parties arrive, money in hand, but are thwarted by not being able to acquire Bitcoin due to there being no room in any block for their transaction, what do you think the result will be?

what does this mean? i never understood it

WTF is a bitpay node? Has bitpay started up its own version of the Bitcoin wallet? What's the differences between bitcoin XT nodes, Bitcoin Unlimited nodes, bitpay nodes, and bitcoin core nodes?

I know XT wants massive blocks if enough people use it, but I don't know what the other two contender wallets want.

Well gentlemand is a hero and he doesn't know what a bitpay node is, and I'm only senior. Fortuitously Fatman3001 read an explanation by brg444 who said they want kill all the firstborn. Gentlemand came to the conclusion that bitpay is coming to his shack to strangle his kitten, so it must be an evil node.

Can you add to our knowledge about WTF a bitay node is?

It happened to me last week, my PC froze & I had to turn it off at the socket. Thought I'd lost all the bitcoin's I have stored in Core. Balance reset to 0, thought my life was over

After literally 2.5 days of reindexing balance was restored to correct amount. They really need to sort this shit in one of the next updates.

Bitcoin Classic seeks 75% miner adoption. That eases my nerves a little bit, if they get >75% than we wont have two competing forks, which is a good thing.

In the end of the day there is an equilibrium between the available transaction space, the fees paid, the abuse the network gets and the willingness of miners to mine transactions. And this equilibrium will not get any better (in favor of scaling) if either

a) the software itself doesn't gets better in terms of using storage, processing and network resources
b) the resources themselves aren't upgraded to cope, as technology improves

Thanks for the explanation on the fullness of the block

So those few hours with totally full blocks are the sign of the beginning of the end of btc?  

Well I suppose it will be fixed in a way or another.

Are we?

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Avg size is between 0.5mb and 0.7mb the last few days. Which means there is an extra 40% to 100% available capacity, depending the day.

Yes, it is perfectly ok if I don't pay fees.

Not all txs have the same urgency. Consolidating dust in my wallets is not the same as wanting to be including in the first block because I want to transfer money to an exchange *right now*. I can wait 10 blocks or 100 blocks for the dust, but I'll pay extra for the first block inclusion if I need it.

Yes, because fees are too low for some miners to even bother. When you get 25 btc from block reward and 0.2-0.4 from tx fees, why would I even risk orphaning the block by taking longer to transmit my block finding? It's not worth it.

This is a problem that sooner or later will be understood by "large blockers" when the percentage of the miners not bothering to even mine transactions will increase dramatically. So when half the miners will mine the 2mb blocks, and it's an effective network capacity of 1mb, what then? We'll be asking for 10mb blocks? And what will change then, if miners still refuse to mine txs without the fees going up significantly?

At 0.5 - 0.7mb avg, we have plenty of space left. Obviously if some miners feel they don't want to mine almost free txs, that's not a capacity problem, but a broken-fee-model, in terms of the "customers" who want to transact for free or almost free, and some miners are like "yeah, ok, please go somewhere else for your free or cheap tx processing".

I'm not sure if you guys have read this yet but it's crazy...

Mike Hearn's exit mic drop

I find it tough to dispute his arguments. It's getting close to fork or die time...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.m7ipd85nk

I have always suspected this guy is a clueless zombie. Quite the opposite, filled up blocks is not a failure but success! Economy is always about supply and demand. Success of a product or service you are offering is measured by how much demand is surpassing supply.

The bitcoin civil war just started

After 400 level is broken, i believe we will see much more less prices

I hope that these wave of frightening news will end soon !

bitcoin will not die because one devolepor abandoned it !

NYTimes big fud: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/business/dealbook/the-bitcoin-believer-who-gave-up.html?_r=1


FUCK YOU HEARN.


PS/ and FUCK YOU GAVIN TOO.

No, the periods of totally full blocks show that we are hitting the ceiling of the transaction capacity. It's not the beginning of the end of Bitcoin (yet).

It will be fixed. Either by raising the transaction capacity of the network. Or the service becomes too expensive for a part of the users, and the growth of Bitcoin will come to a halt at a quarter of a million transactions per day. And that (given a current user base of only about 1 million) may be the beginning of the end of Bitcoin if the current users (like me, who are expecting growth) lose confidence and start selling their stashes.

Note, the latter situation can develop quite quickly, since the price of Bitcoin is almost entirely based on speculation about its future. Once the hoodlers lose their faith in Bitcoin's future, the price will collapse.

The volatility IMO is due entirely to the hard fork. A big player (likely miner) sold at 450 because they know what is coming.

Expect price volatility to be much higher for a bit whilst the market tries to understand the ascent of Classic over Core in the upcoming hard fork.

I think we get short term negative price action followed by a huge relief rally leading up towards the halving.

Be careful with leverage because I wouldnt put it past some rabid small-blocker-early-adopters to dump thousands of coins in a futile attempt to prevent miners switching to Classic (though that is now almost fait accompli).

 'lel' to brg444, marcus of augustus and all those who thought they knew better than the market.

There will be two coins of 21mn supply after the fork. The money supply will be doubled. Some that prefer the 25% variant will be dumping on the 75ers. The opposite may not even work due to lack of exchange support, lol.

[...]

Do you feel lucky?

I don't.

There has been a social engineering attack and it has been successful.

if core folds and goes to 2mb or segwit right now => it's theoretically better than turning btc into gavincoin but it's still a social engineering attack success, in terms of pushing things and breaking consensus under the threat of a hard fork.

The parameter that "btc fails because there is no space" is for technically ignorant people. At most some dust will transact with a lower priority due to zero or low fees.

There does seem to be a considerable tendency in this thread to get caught up on the big block small block discussions, which I suppose has some relation to the walls, but from time to time does get to be a bit much... and even seemingly tangentially related to wall observer speculations...  rather than some more relevant discussion regarding  putting forth various price theory and wall speculations.


Really, I was of the opinion that we were probably not going to witness prices below $390.. and even reaching as low as $351 was a bit of a surprise...   and certainly, we are not out of danger yet of potentially even lower prices in the coming days.....

If we could get a fairly volume heavy rebound above $410-ish, I would feel a bit better in assessing $351 as the bottom.

It's funny how the dev side has more small blockers, while the speculation side is almost entirely large blockers nowadays.  Why is this?  Because the dev side doesn't understand markets.  People evaluate stocks by things like cash on hand and future expansion prospects.  If blocks are full, this is bad for speculators because you're no longer getting price appreciation from increased utility, but relying entirely on things like Gresham's law to push the price up for your artificial scarcity tokens with people hoarding it.

Relying on price appreciation through artificial scarcity of coin count and block space is a magician's trick.  It may or may not work, because as we all know, things like Litecoin and a million other altcoins exist.  No matter what you believe is the proper technical solution to the problem, the wise speculator, economist, or even honest human being is going to prefer to increase price via increased utility rather than increase solely by trying to recruit people to invest more.  If you're not increasing utility, that's the point where it does turn into kind of a scheme.  Unless you're going to try and claim the markets currently have vastly undervalued Bitcoin, but that's a different argument.

Things like Lightning Network will increase utility a lot by increasing throughput, the only problem is, it's currently nowhere to be seen.  People demand an increase in utility now, otherwise they feel stupid to invest or tell others to do so because it seems like a greater fool theory when utility is not increasing.  This is what the devs do not understand, and Segwit is kinda too little, too late.  This is the reason why I believe the blockchain does need an increase, to allow expansion until something like Lightning Network is released (assuming it works).

The bottom line is, due to the factors cited above, an increase in block size can really only be beneficial for price, assuming it didn't infringe upon decentralization, and you would need very big blocks to centralize things more in comparison to the size of mining pools that already exist.  Whether you're trying to avoid the greater fool theory, or if all you care about is making money and don't give a shit about anything else, you're going to be in the large(r) block camp.

You're using double standards acting like Blockstream pretending they should have dictatorship over Bitcoin isn't a social engineer takeover attempt itself.  Devs don't control Bitcoin.  Devs are politicians and we don't have a one party system.  If we did, Bitcoin would be centralized and worthless.  Whoever wants to rage quit because they don't get to be dictator and do everything their way, let them.  

I'm also tired of people pretending the Lightning Network is actually a sure thing.  I have my doubts about how it will work in the real world, and people like Anonymint claim it won't work at all.  Maybe it will, but people aren't very big into just trusting some group of people that they will maybe someday in the future increase scalability while price could either stagnate or go down until that happens.  Segwit is too little, too late, and LN is too far off.  There has to be some kind of bandaid for investors in the meanwhile until LN can be fully released and evaluated.

And please, don't even pull the "price doesn't matter" bullshit lol.  Bitcoin is a currency, if one of your main development goals isn't to increase it's network effect and value, then you're probably doing it wrong.  A currency is a consensus mechanism between individuals in lieu of barter.  In order to fulfill that goal, the largest number of people possible have to be holders or it's either harder for them to do business, or they can't do business at all.  This means sane Bitcoin development has to constantly be trying to expand capacity to fit more users.  Unless capacity is already high enough for world reserve currency, any stagnation of capacity increase while users are demanding more will be viewed negatively by the market.

There's also no such thing as "spam".  If you think spam exists, it means minimum transaction fee is not set high enough.  Zero fee transactions should not exist in the first place.

Satoshi said the system was not suitable for micropayments. He said it would probably not be suitable for <0.01 txs. He considered spam a problem and he said he is taking intentional measures to restrict very small transactions.

The value of the network will not increase if the blockchain is 100 terabytes full of junk, requiring gbps to move around junk. But it will increase if it is efficient in its hardware and network resources even if that means restricting dust - as it was intended to. Not by me, not by "blockstream", but by satoshi himself.

Just as r0ach and others tried to explain, and frankly, it gets frustrating after a while:
Economic reasons trump technical/engineering/ideological reasons in real life EVERY time, especially in an open, competitive market.

If you click the link, you'll see the discussion was from a question of a member about what does the 0.01 btc fee solve in terms of antispamming and how this would prevent microtransactions etc, and satoshi explains that it is intentionally limiting them.

=>


In any case, I wouldn't take it as a fixed value. I mean if BTC goes to 10.000 dollars, 0.01 BTC is meaningless as a limit (it's 100$).

See? It works as Satoshi said

This could be a nice meme though... split screen shows a guy with a happy face and has a caption like "Doesn't complain for paying XXX in bank fees per month", the other side shows him using btc and yelling at the screen with a caption like "Gets furious at 'smallblockers' due to paying 0.16$ fee for a BTC tx".

Something like that...

The hypocrisy, some times, is mind-blowing. And I'm not talking about specific users, you, or someone else - I mean generally.

Personally I expect that subsidy reduction will mostly be covered by price increase in BTC.

As far as fees are concerned, we'll see how it goes. We are somewhat far from the point of replacing the subsidy and by that time a lot will have changed, both in blocksize and scaling solutions.

Some of us remember 8 bit CPUs running at 4Mhz with 1k of RAM and software stored on audio cassettes. Hard drives were just something you read about. The first one I actually had (nearly 10 years later) was 40MB

In the past 10 years, I have seen 10 racks of servers in a server room disappear into a handful of Virtual hosts. I'm currently running a full node on Amazon's smallest, weakest instance type. Their cost for storing the blockchain as it currently stands is on the order of $5/month.

These are issues we should not be worrying about until they are measurably becoming an issue. Like regularly full blocks already *are*

I don't know why but the bolded bit really made me laugh.

The real question is why miners aren't mining these transactions to get to the limit. Why are they issuing empty blocks, why don't they even care to change the 750kb parameter to 1mb etc etc. The obvious answer is because the fee incentives are too low, so why should they?

Regarding existing holders, if you have your own keys you are relatively ok (minus the obvious destruction of USD value), but the situation with coins in online exchanges and wallets will be "problematic" if say an exchange with 500k BTCs, say 'ok my clients, now you have 500k BTCCs because we adopted this fork' (and we are keeping 500k BTCs of the other fork for ourselves). It would be like stealing BTCs and exchanging them for Gavincoins.

People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.

AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services.

All those bitcoin alliance folks and corporates that have made their businesses out of holding on to other people's coins in custody should keep that mind whilst they are pushing for contentious hardforks.

has anyone noticed that you cant make new btc addresses on exchanges now!, bittrex and polo dont allow it anymore, its one address per account ( with id on polo )
hmm i wonder why??

Which idiots are going to leave their coins on an exchange or with Coinbase or BitGo or Bitpay before a hardfork? Almost all custody coins are going to be going back to their rightful owners before a contentious hardfork, the free market will do its job no?

Why leave the vote with the third party holders which fork your coins will end up on when you can keep your options open and hedge bets by holding them in cold storage for yourself?

*edited.

Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?

Didn't you get the news?

I think he's referring to f2pools tentative agreement with core about a 2mb block size in 2017.

So we know f2pool and probably Kano supports core. Kano is insignificant and f2pool might shrink quite a bit in a couple of months.

I am doubting myself for being bearish but at the same time this pump does not make too much sense.
I feel like this should dump back down. What am I missing here?

Toomim on wechat (I think). Gives a little more insight to what has happened, and what he thinks, agree or disagree... worth a read if you can handle it... loooong.

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ

If the chinese can produce something domestically, they do.

Why "import" BTCs for dollars, from foreign miners, when they can produce them locally?

If Chinese production of BTCs can satisfy local BTC hunger (prevents USD outflows) or even be used for "export" (USD inflows), then it's a "profitable" activity for their economy.

It's a typo. Meant to be CountChocula. Unfortunate

Longterm Bitcoin has to gather enough fees to survive, without fees no miners.

Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever.

edit: the fees will longterm lead 1:1 to Bitcoins security. the higher the gathered fees the higher the security of the network.

With 1MB blocks Danny Hamilton estimates fees could reach as high as $100 a transaction.

In the EU, farmers are often getting paid to destroy their production if it exceeds specified quotas. Whether it is milk, cotton, peaches or grapes => they'll end up in some landfill.

There are even subsidies to cut down trees, kill your animals etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy


Production quotas and 'set-aside' payments were introduced in an effort to prevent overproduction of some foods (for example, milk, grain, wine) that attracted subsidies well in excess of market prices. The need to store and dispose of excess produce was wasteful of resources and brought the CAP into disrepute. A secondary market evolved, especially in the sale of milk quotas, while some farmers made imaginative use of 'set-aside', for example, setting aside land that was difficult to farm.

Have the reasons that satoshi imposed the quota become invalid over time? Has a solution been found that I'm unaware of? Or is it just because "we are approaching the limit"?

I have not yet seen a single cryptocurrency that hasn't resorted to dev intervention under circumstances of bloat/flood attack. Whether it is about fees or block size, something has to give in order to stop it or restrain it.

Near-zero to zero fee txs equals near-zero to zero fee attacks. Attacks which do not have serious economic disincentives betray a broken underlying game theory.

Let's hope, once we get to 2mb, miners will be more selective with the trash txs.

The network is in constant saturation by dust and spam that want to be processed for free or near zero cost. A stress test is just a more focused version of the same issue.


It is a problem but we also face political pressure. You can get crucified for doing the right fee with populist bullshit like "ohhh the devs are raising the fees, they want to make BTC expensive for users" crap.

Free or nearly free txs = free or nearly free abuse. If you allow that = you are a joke coin that can be attacked by script-kiddies.

In BTC the last line of defense, in absence of serious fees requirement, is the block size.

[...]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

Who's qualified to determine those fees, Alan Greenspan?

pfahahaha, poor kid.



That one is gold too. Time to go to bed peterpan.

The average is problematic because there are some guys who are paying A LOT of fees without actually needing to pay them:

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Anything above 50 satoshis/byte right now is overkill, yet some are paying >100 satoshi/byte which distort the average, while a lot of txs are in the 0, 1-10 and 11-20 satoshi/byte categories.

I'm more concerned about 0 and 1-10.

10 satoshi x 250 bytes = 2500 satoshi for a normal tx = 1 cent.

Yeah, I say fuck them. Some countries even stopped minting 1 cent coins altogether due to the coin metal and minting costing more than 1 cent

Blockstream is moving rapidly on segwit, sidechains, and Lightning.  They are meticulously preparing Bitcoin to be carefully scaled ASAP.

Classic, OTOH, is spreading '2MB? Not much testing needed' nonsense.

And yes, we will "go to war" to defend Bitcoin's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient characteristics, from which its key interesting property of antifragility emerges.

Whine about it all you want.  Nothing you do can move our Honey Badger's needle one iota.  You have no power here.

As you clearly you lost any ability to think, it would still be appreciated that you mind your manners and do not answer a question that is not being asked to you.

during the last two years , January was always the month in which the price start falling, is this going to happen this year also ?



it is like the first half of the year is always a fall and the second one the price recover what was lost

Funny, I had only 2,550 results... Seems not everyone has the same Google  

Along with satoshi saying bitcoin is not suitable for micropayments perhaps

Of course, if you do, you have no assurance that bitaddress.org does not have a copy of your private key. Sure, it is said that the code runs locally. Did you audit it? At that instance?

If you're gonna be paranoid, you better noid harder.

Note: you can download the bitaddress page locally, and run it on an airgapped computer. Not too complex an operation to be sure your funds are safe.

Just like in the US they would focus on the exchanges.

Bitstamp, Bitfinex...

Wow. That was a bit of a stretch!  

You're right.

It was spot on toilet paper.

Oh. OK.

I thought you were referring to the fact it was a spot on toilet paper.

Stalling roadmap? Stalling of what? block size increase? Ofcourse it is and thats good. Block size should only be increased when needed. We should try and 'stall' for as long as possible. It trades off decentralisation.

Block size should only be increased when needed.

There has been some incompetent economics coming out of Peter R and the classic camp. G Maxwell seems to have a much better understanding of economics.

Actually when it comes to economic understanding and crypto, I consider Nick Szabo as a thought leader. He is ofcourse very much against classic coup.

I agree.

The block size limit however should be removed alltogether.

When the avg. blocktime is 10 minutes how does each of your transactions receive at least 3 confirmations within 15 minutes?

I use the recommended fee in my electrum wallet yet I have had bad luck getting my transactions included in the first block.  It oft times takes 3 blocks to get included, I seem to run into those empty blocks on a regular basis.

Actually several years. We've been repeatedly pointing at the same stupid, unnecessary hard ceiling, and pointing out that the inexorable trend of increasing transactions has us on a clear intersect.

In the meantime, we have recently gone from things never sucking in regards to capacity, to things sucking for brief flashes of time. The issue is not how much one needs to pay to get a transaction through, the issue is that with the current block size, no more than about 350,000 transactions can be processed in a day. Period. No matter how much money is thrown at the transactions.

Yeah right. A rough estimate can be different from precise timing, and yep I agree that no one likes anyone who exaggerates.

I think that I tend to not worry whether it takes 15 minutes or an hour or perhaps a day in some instances for the bitcoins to actually be available because I tend to maintain a sufficient balance in Bitcoin and dollars to provide a bit of a cushion for possible volatility.   Therefore if I'm really worried about having some bitcoins locked up in one place for an extended period of time (more than 15 minutes, for example), I could sell an equal or proportionate amount of bitcoins in another place.

And, yep I can imagine instance in which the cushion of bitcoins would not  be there for me for one reason or another, or possible the amount of bitcoins in the pending transaction is really high, so it's more difficult to maintain a cushion or to sell somewhere else .

I suppose if I were dealing in some hypothetical situations in which I needed access to the bitcoins more quickly then I would need to measure more the amount of time more precisely for actual availability versus the bitcoins just showing up as "pending."


I also recognize that other people may experience other kinds of use cases that make it better to have actual access to the coins more quickly, and there are some people who do not operate their lives with various cushions in their finances, so they get a bit more anxious through either inadvertence or lack of preparations.

No.  I don't understand:  "non-parallel lines in a two-dimensional cartesian coordinate system."

O.k.  I will accept your representation.  Currently, we seem to be a long ways away from the "fact" that you are asserting to be coming about, and from my understanding, there are several potential bandaid solutions in place until a possible more permanent solution is agreed upon or implemented by coup de at... 

Here's what those two non-parallel lines would look like if the bump to 2MB occurs May 1:

Yes, this is still the best meaningless graph, Andre#.

You are so "spot on" lately.

Wahou wahou wahou!

Thanks for the graph indeed, it's a good way to see things.

But what I get from this graph is that 2mb blocks would be a very temporary solution no? Is it only me?
Cause it seems like even if we go to 2mb it'll last for a few months maybe a year or two before we need another action taken.