At least you get to be an early adopter, most people won't get this golden opportunity we have, to buy in lower triple digits

So you are the idiot who want's to buy 2'000 BTC urgently?

@BldSwtTrs: When did you order your bank to start the deposit, if I might ask?

Fresh funds just cleared at Bitstamp, and it's nicely low at the moment. (For a certain value of "low").

Litcoin breaks $7!  The whole crypt-currency space is going parabolic.  

+1 Me too! 

Why can't Bitstamp provide some info regarding their current issues on Twitter? That would be the professional thing to do.

Chinese arbitraging.

Send wires. Every chinese national is entitled to $50k / year conversion.

Even if that was the truth, after investigation by their bank they must come to the conclusion they aren't doing anything illegal by running a bitcoin exchange. Yes they were missing the proper licenses, but surely this can be resolved by mtgox actually getting them and maybe paying a fine to the authorities. So I think in time, their accounts will be unfrozen.

I just went to their site and it seems to me they are issuing payouts to people who are not under investigation of authorities.

Why only 72%? Do the authorities take a premium or something?

If I was the manipulator, I would lure all the suckers in now, and then drop the bomb with a market order.

The "price per coin sold" times "number of coins possible to sell" is now much higher than at the pop.

Main question - if bitcoin is short term worth this price, no problem. If not, somebody will notice and sell some

Begins to look a lot like it yes, plus new money coming in. Next 24 hours will be very important i think.

No.

Lol, I just made 5.5 BTC on that scam Maxcoin in like 5 minutes 

Monero (what MRO stands for) will have a max supply of 18.446 million MRO. So a relation with Bitcoin of 0.878. With a current price of $1.73 we can normalize to $1.52 if MRO had a 21M supply like Bitcoin.

In other words, the current exchange rate implies  that 520/1.52 = 342 Bitcoin is only 342 times more valuable than MRO right now. This multiple seems way too low for me (>1:10,000 seems more correct) so at least relative to Bitcoin MRO is vastly overpriced in my opinion.

Having observed many rallies in bitcoin (and none anywhere outside of cryptos), this one feels like it's happening in slow-motion?

A correction like we just had today and recovery from it used to happen both earlier and faster the way I recall the past rallies.

Is it just me? What could be possible explanations? Higher liquidity? lower amount of traders? Better distributed holdings?

(I'm not saying I don't like the relatively slow pace)

Quantum physics and chaos theory say no.

Any word of why we just flash crashed?

I have run out of painkillers, which is making me grumpy.  I am rather annoyed with the monkey as well.  If I report his cogitations (which are always indecisive until he calls a turn)  I risk my own reputation.  Oh well, I am pseudonymous for a reason:

Monkey says 625 on the 10pm bar was a low.  (He decided that at midnight, two hours later, with the price at 638.50.)  Monkey likes the upside for at least 4 more hours, considers 656 likely resistance.  EDIT: Monkey changed his mind and thinks its going down for 5 hours now.

On a daily basis, monkey is expecting to stay biased long until next Tuesday.  He first started to like the upside on the 16th, which was a pretty good call, methinks.  He had thought the 29th might turn south, but he was (a) wrong and (b) hedging.

On a weekly basis, the last time monkey gave up on his longs was the week of the 13th of December, 2013.  He failed to call that top out clearly, although he was on the verge of doing so.  He decided he liked the long side again the week of the 23rd of May, 2014, and is presently expecting to stay long for at least a month and a half.

Disclaimer:  The monkey swills expensive single malts constantly.  Invest accordingly (i.e., in distillers).  Monkey is a fuzzy reasoner.

What a boring week.


I have a bank account that only my bank and me can see. No 3rd parties like the tax people or the government.
You should be able to make that in any bank in the European Union.

Yeah true, so much true now sodl and gtfo, go play with wow gold.

Oh I'm sorry did I scared you, I'm sorry I didn't mean to scare you, I'm not aggressive in nature, sorry again. So this is your 1st 51% incident is that true?

So as I understand it from what you write the smart thing to do is to sodl nau and gtfo is that right?

You don't think my solution is plausible?

Solution is to run away from ghash.io and not be to greedy for couple of extra bucks from theirs no fee and merged mining.

So your solution is to say "Bitcoin isn't trustless anymore oh unfortunate" and shit... what you even mean by that?

This is try #2 for them.

Their only chance of getting it right for once is via the stopped clock effect.

Note that their first attempt was an even more blatant market manipulation scheme.

There is a big possibility that he is verified only at Bitstamp (in instance I am verified only at stamp), the other possibility is him selling for the available 5KBTC and watching if anyone is prepared to buy his stash which eventually failed, and I think he did remove that Bid wall to not cause more panic.... after all, I think he still interested in selling even more, we will see how things develop when more bids build up.

The ~1M$ sell wall on stamp has been broken.

Seems weird that international sepa proceeds instantly
Fiat rocks

did to anyone occur that he who is opening those short knows what is he doing?

We are on track to cross over the 12 HR moving average into bull market territory this weekend. That hasn't happened since Paypal announced they would be accepting bitcoin at one of their subsidiaries. At ~$400 we would see the first daily crossover since July 1. Of course that buy signal couldn't have been more wrong, so take market momentum as a guide, but a far from infallible one. What is more encouraging is that the order books are strongly bullish at Stamp and BFX.  

I'm keeping some powder dry, but looking for an opportunity to load up, possibly late Sat or Sunday when the banks are closed and buyers are out of fiat. I suspect soon that sellers and the people who made a quick $100/BTC on the latest dip/spike will run out of coins first, but time will tell.

Also shave the stache, yes or no?

Re: Coinbase valuation. I'm not saying the company's valuation (or those of other Bitcoin companies) is unrelated to network valuation, but I am pointing out that a 1:1 comparison ("it's way too high at 10% of BTC mcap") is naive, in my opinion. Two (so far) largely unrelated market dynamics determine the value of one and and the other, and it'll be a while before those dynamics converge enough that this argument will become useful.

Trading bitcoin is a negative-sum game because of the bank and trading fees.  Exchanges do not create any money or bitcoin, but they consume some of both when coins and dollars move through them or inside them.

Suppose that, since 2009, all the traders, current and past, put a total of X bitcoins and Y dollars into the exchanges (both net, deposits minus withdrawals).  Because of the fees, all those people together now have less than X bitcoins and less than Y dollars left in their exchange accounts.  So, as a group, they lost some bitcoins and lost some money.  No matter how the deposits, withdrawals, and balances have been divided among those traders, and how you measure the gains and losses, every gain that a trader made is more than offset by the losses of other traders.

Fuck Coinbase anyways regardless of their news.

Not understanding why a West Coast company would break news for their company at 6am.... I'm seriously going to be pissed if I stayed up to hear I can buy fucking litecoin at coinbase, but I wouldn't sell my coins based on that.

i think there is something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnBAp_G3SyA

35k stores.

68 million customers DAILY.

in 119 different countries.

Links?

The GBTC market has closed.

It means they are not accepting the proposed deal, but there will be more talks soon. AFAIK there's no way to leave the Eurozone without leaving the EU completely.

Just because the treaties do not provide for an exit, does not mean that there is no way. This is politics: laws or treaties do not apply (as if they would ever apply to others than Joe Sixpack...)

They will probably find a way to change the treaties. The Germans said the Greeks were voting on whether to stay in the EU or not, despite what the referendum question was.

Mr. Gabriel, the German economics minister said “But it must be crystal clear what is being decided. It is, at the core, yes or no to remaining in the eurozone.”

Ah the old " china wakes up in... "

Works every time!

It looks like some kind of circuit breaker tripped on bfx. no trades for a while.

Xt is dead!?:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21699/major-mining-pools-make-stand-bitcoin-xt-fork-support-bip-100-grows/
without the biggest mining pool they will never reach 75%

XT is dead tho...

it has like 2% hashing power voting for it while BIP100 or 8MB options are both at like 20%

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools

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..

Plenty of other projects for him to try and ruin... https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/633800882942025729

Last 44k BTC will be auctioned by the end of 2015:
http://www.coindesk.com/us-marshals-bitcoin-auction-2015/

You might be embarrassed but i'm not. 10 years from would be 2025 (two halving from now). I expect the price to be between 300,000 - 1.2M USD

I doubt even Marx himself would still believe in the Labor Theory of Value if he had ever been introduced to Marginal Utility.  

Once we get to 600 and then see the first weekly red candle, then the mini-rally is over. If you were in the business of speculation or wanted to lighten up, the good time to sell is the dcb after that. So wait for the bubble, and the pop, and the next bounce. Then sell.

I'm leveraged long and this is the worst day of my life. If 430 doesn't hold, why, I just don't know what I'll do.

Do traders provide some benefit to the system? (no just BTC traders, but traders in general) or they are just plain parasites?

No. Not at all. The fact that you're saying that means that's you probably never produced anything in your life.

The baker buy primary resources, add their skill, their time, their energy and their effort to create something new that worth more.
What do traders do? They buy things that don't exist, in order to sell them on a higher price to other people who expect to do the same. It's basically a huge Ponzi scheme. Most of the time nothing is exchanged and nothing is produced.

The "invisible hand" as commonly misunderstood would only work if there weren't asymmetric information nor externalities.
Furthermore in the past, when capitalists would observe "God, Fatherland, Family", laissez-faire capitalism had natural boundaries which are absent today and the tragedy of the commons is a reminder of the need for limits.

Furthermore in the past, when capitalists would observe "God, Fatherland, Family", laissez-faire capitalism had natural boundaries which are absent today and the tragedy of the commons is a reminder of the need for limits.

Maybe the word "produce" is not the same for you than for me, but for the Oxford dictionnary it is: Make or manufacture from components or raw materials.

Oh my god you just can't say this it's too stupid  

You're whether trolling or plain stupid. As if all actors had all the same information and there was no externalities xD

Oh sorry. I'm really sorry I used precise words to talk about precise things.

My apologies I'll stop talking.
I bid you all a goodnight  

Would you care to provide evidence?

In the most renowned European languages the concrete meaning of "to produce" is to make, manufacture, fabricate things and it is a concept which evolved from agriculture: plants pro-duce, bring forth, bear fruit.

We mean that the word production leads to something that actualy produce something and not just arbitrary value creation such as what you're reffering to  

I only gave you the correct definition which seven-year-old children already master.

"Nobody has the same information". That's right: this is the definition of asymmetric information. The solution to this issue is hard to envisage, not to mention to implement, and this is the fundamental reason why the much sought-after free-market "equilibrium" is a chimaera whose proponents, unbeknownst to them, effectively adopt an economic scheme in which, at the end of any process, there's a benevolent dictator who evens out any ruggedness (of which the concept of "ceteris paribus", "all else being equal" is often a pernicious symptom).

Emissions, present in any economic activity, are an example of negative externalities and they can be addressed pricing them. Not doing so - thereby introducing a terrible mismatch in the resources valuation - is one of the failures of the "free market".

corporatist cheerleaders gettin all wet and sassy before their overlord Brian Armstrong and Fred Ehrsam from Goldman Sachs to ph0rk bitcoin and (hopefully) put an end to his useless cash burning regulated service.


edit: go for it kids!

can you even read? here i bolded the evil part for ya.

ps: i dont give a heck about core which is more of a debased codebase anyway, may they phr0k you noobs *softly*

seem you corporatists regulated sheeps like it with some lub after all.

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.

Bitcoin is not about community, it is about money.

It is not clear what Satoshi thought of bitcoin in Oct/2010.  At that time, the project was already giving signs of drifting away from the goal that he stated in 2009.  (Who knows why he left the scene abruptly, shortly therafter; but one theory is that he was smart enough to see that the protocol would fail to achieve that goal, and lost interest in the project.)

There is no sign that he ever intended bitcoin to be a replacement to the traditional payment system (cash, credit cards, bank wires, etc.), which, as he admits in the whitepaper
 Surely he was sensible enough to realize that, while bitcoin could scale to VISA size in the distant future, it could not compete with it in all the comfort features that the traditional systems offer but bitcoin lacks.  

So, he did not intend bitcoin to be used for buying coffee or groceries, sure. But he did not intend it to be used for buying cars, houses, or space shuttles, either.  Or for large-volume settlements between banks or big corporations either. Or to be a general-purpose shared database for things like BitDNS.  

Bitcoin was designed to be It was meant to render a service, not to make anyone rich.  If it had an adoption goal, it was only to be available whenever two parties needed to make an internet payment, and a trusted intermediary was not available or desirable -- and that need was strong enough to overcome the limitations and inconveniences of the system.  For normal law-abiding people, such situations should be few and far between.  Even today, the system would be quite capable of handling such traffic.
 
If we assume that he was still clinging to his original vision, that message quoted by @AlexGR does not mean what it may sound today.   First, in his vision, there should be only two kinds of players: the miners (that he called "nodes"), and the simple clients that did only limited validation, followed the majority chain, and trusted the miners for the full validation.  (There was no provision in the protocol for the non-mining relay nodes that are now claimed to be the Guardians of the CryptoRevolution, which in fact  are the sort of middlemen that bitcoin was supposed to get rid of.)  

Moreover, Satoshi did expect that, as the volume increased, mining would be limited to entities with a stake on the network's wellbeing.  But he obviously assumed and hoped that there would be thousands of independent miners with comparable hashpower, scattered all over the world.  That assumption was needed to exclude the risk of a "majority cartel" -- a subset of the miners holding a majority of the hashpower, who conspired or were forced to act against their immediate financial interest. Such a cartel could completely block the network, and therefore could blackmail the other miners and clients into accepting arbitrary changes to the protocol.  Majority voting weighted by proof-of-work is essential for the protocol to work at all; therefore, if such a cartel forms, there is no way to protect the protocol from its abuses.

From the whitepaper:

Note that he was not even assuming that the transctions would propagate through all miners.  

Quoting the first version of the bitcoin.org website:

But it is clear that he never intended for some clique of developers to put a limit on the size of blocks to force all cients to compete for block space by raising their fees.  That would not be an "open market", but a centrally-planned market reminiscent of the Soviet economy (only dumber).  He clearly intended that miners would operate as any business in a free market.  Namely, each miner figures out his optimum fee (the fee that maximizes his net revenue), and then processes all the transactions that he gets that pay that fee -- expanding his bandwidth and servers as needed.

To be sure, that part of his plan seems rather fuzzy.   Why would miners volunteer to process an arbitrary amount of anonymous transactions for free?  How would clients get to know the cutoff fees of each miner?  How would the miners find their optimum fee (that depends on other miners's decisions?  And so on.

Although Satoshi comes out as a competent software engineer and a fairly sensible person overall, his knowledge of economics was clearly limited, with the misconceptions and as one would expect from a computer scientist (like myself, I must confess).  See for example his belief that a good currency should be inflation-free, his decision to reduce the reward by abrupt halvings intead of a gradual decay, and his failure to foresee the speculative bubbles and the inevitable concentration of mining.

A fellow computer nerd, I presume? 

Lots of people would disagree with you bro. You're basically saying the more we are the smarter we get. Numerous scientific studies are explaining the contrary! It all depends of the way you canalize things, and it can be done very badly.

Free market would have the same consequences in btc than in real life currency. I don't want to get the same thing here than outthere :/

So you think that 1 000 000 traders could have designed bitcoin?  

The market is only the average of all the trader hunches.  For a purely speculative asset like bitcoin, the hunches cannot contain any intelligence, and the average is still a random value.  The bitcoin market is like a headless pig flying in circles, chasing its own tail.  (Hm, wait, I think I must work some more on that metaphor.)

Observers? If traders don't want to buy your BTC, BTC price collapses. If traders are willing to pay $1,200 (lol, remember?) that's what your BTC is worth.

Thinking of upset Hearn joining R3 and arrogantly ragequitting. Now banks getting behind Garzik's "classic" fork. It is too obvious what is going on.

Banks need bitcoin blockchain but without bitcoin and that's exactly what big-blockers are doing crippling bitcoin as store of value. Hurray... free block space to every spammer!

Only dumb people think miners can pay their bills with the miserable tx fees big-blockers are willing to pay.

i love those full blocks! its a fckn good sign!

Wait, what?

Core is simultaneously accused that they want "higher fees" or "fee competition" and now accused for "wanting to massively reduce fees with lightning".

Please decide what core wants.

Are you a BitPay employee? Are you horrified that merchants will set up Lightning pools instead of using your service that is dependent on ALWAYS use the dollar as a crutch to crippled Bitcoin? Do you even realize that Lightning is build UPON a base named Bitcoin? Do you even realize that a house CAN'T exist without its base? How is Lightning bad thing for minors? Lightning can't exist without bitcoin and bitcoin can't exist without minors. Is Lightning a bad thing for Lightning?!

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=true&timespan=30days&daysAverageString=1&scale=0&address=

0.71mb = there's an extra 40% capacity.

Ane people are still paying peanuts for the bulk of transactions (free or near free): http://www.cointape.com/

....with not much "urgency" in their tx confirmation - otherwise they'd bump their fees up by a few satoshis.

On the other hand those that pay more normal fees, get included in 0-1 blocks.

The future is kind-of-accounted for (considering the problems of BTC in scaling, which are much deeper with current technology than a change in block size) through

a) devs working on scaling
b) fees that will eliminate a lot of dust/spam that are now processed when they shouldn't

Blocks getting full is a meaningless factoid without seeing the quality of transactions and fees involved. We could have 2 mb blocks tomorrow morning and someone could activate a script and fill them up for peanuts. He wouldn't be in any hurry of course for inclusion, so he'd pay the absolute minimum he could get away with. After all even if 500kb legit transactions are ahead of him and he takes the last 1.5mb of the block with zero/near zero fees, the effect for an outsider would be that "...oh my gawd blocks are full - even after we went from 1mb to 2mb... Oh shit we need 4mb!!!"

If you see threads back in 2013, you'll see they anticipated that given the size used they were expecting a problem in 2014 or so and some were like, bullshit, it's just a lot of spam by satoshi dice and similar stuff. Those who went with just the quantity of data failed to predict that we'd be still running in 2016 with 40-50% capacity to spare, those who examined the quality of data knew there was nothing to worry about. That's not to say that an increase is not needed. Of course it is. Multiple increases will be needed. But nothing will happen even if blocks are full 100% of the time with junk. We've seen emulation runs with the various "stress tests". All normal txs went through with a fee, spam stayed in the queue. The fullblockalypse that never was.

(There is an exchange in this forum, some years ago, where Greg says that the 1 MB limit is as sacred as the 21 M BTC limit, and he would not have put any time into bitcoin if Satoshi's design did not include it.  Gavin then points out that the 1 MB was not in the original design, and quotes Satoshi's Oct/2010 post where he explains that the limit could be lifted when needed by a simple 2-line patch and a routine hard-fork release.  I did not see Greg's answer.  Considering that he has never answered Mike's "crash landing" post either, I assume that he just shut that fact too out of his mind, since it did not fit his convictions...)

why is your pseudo frecnh blog not up anymore? your inputs are so valuable.. much clue, such bitcoin expert.

He states the obvious.

If BTCs were endless why would anyone pay 400$ for them?

Likewise, if blockchain use was infinite in terms of transaction capacity & storage, why would anyone pay fees?

You don't pay for things that are provided in abundance.

If the system is designed in a "go-ahead-use-as-much-space-as-you-want-for-free" the lack of scarcity would lead to few incentives for those using the space to pay the fees.

Theoretically miners would prevent this thing. The game theory would say "but it is not in their interest to process spam, dust, zero-fee txs etc etc". In reality they do. They don't act like rational miners and the irrationality in the mining business where the miner subsidizes (!) blockchain abuse breaks the system of supply/demand in the case of larger and larger blocks.

Ok, let's say you hit the "real world constraints", what then?

Someone will come along, proclaim the new version of fullblockalypse, say the end is near because blocks are at the technological limit and we now have to make people pay fees, etc etc... then they will say they have that fantastic solution of changing the X parameter in the network (like block times issued in 20 minutes instead of 10m to allow larger blocks to get propagated without getting orphaned, or the implementation of some other "hack", to "solve" the "problem") and if we don't do that NOW, it would be a frickin' disaster.

A new rift ensues etc etc and then we have yet another currency after BTC and BTCC.

This is bullshit. It never stops.

I am tired of all that shit. I quit Bitcoin until the next ATH.

Good. We need all your bitcoins. Thanks.

Haha, shame the price won't go up 10% after this nobody quits bitcoin

Let's see how the recovery unfolds, if any. It might bring back the memories of the arrest of Ross Ulbritch to the market if a steady rise ensues.

We shouldn't be doing status trips on the interwebs.... Instead, post some substance, and then we will consider your thoughts.

If you are going to quit, then no problem with that; however, what would be the reason to publicly announce it, unless you are some kind of attention whore or you really don't  mean it.... and you are just playing it for its trolling effect.

Now, you are just continuing drama in a troll-like and apparent disingenuous manner.    It's like you are just making things up, and do you even hold any coins?   People who invest in coins take their involvement a bit more serious even if they cannot decide whether they are bears or bulls, or some hybrid.


Surely, there is nothing wrong with a bit of humor and even indecision regarding the proportion of investment and maybe beginning to disinvest some of your BTC if you are either in profits or you believe that you have overextended for your own level of tolerance... but really, you are appearing to be more of an attention whore in your weak walking back of your supposed quit.

Classic release is expected next week. Binaries should come just after that. Be patient.

XT altcoin was much more serious bitcoin take over attempt than this joke named ClasSick.

Wrong. Think again.

Unbelievable number of antibitcoin trolls are pouring in. Who is paying? That is the question!

Right now it is not the block size that needs to be increased. It is the tx fees that need to be increased!

Finally some intelligent thinking. Thank you miner revolt. A non political fork from 1-2 MB that is driven entirely by miners and not an attempt to take over future network control is exactly what is needed.

Call it Bitcoin Core 2MB or something, get a 90% majority of hashing power behind you, fork and then step back and let the experts in at bitcoin core do there thing and work continue working on making bitcoin better a with segregated witness which is complicated and should not be rushed.

A contentious hard fork would be a disaster. An apolitical miner driven fork would probably still cause some to grumble but it is probably something everyone could live with. This is promising.

I call bitcoin core experts because they are experts that is not disputable much their competition are experts too. Scaling is a complex topic. There are strong disagreements about what is optimal. No one has made a definitive case but everyone agrees bitcoin needs to scale.

A politically driven contentious hard fork that seems to be much more about who gets to control the future of bitcoin rather then actually about increasing the block size is a known evil. Bitcoin is intrinsically just a computer ledger. It's value comes from the talent of those involved in its ecosystem. The goal is to grow that ecosystem not rip it apart.

But with your logic reasoning, the plebs can use Bitcoin as well. No, one must limit the block size so in the end only banks can afford to use it. If you like to make cheap transactions, please use one of the many centralized options available.

give that champ a nickel!

Again this comes back to what makes bitcoin valuable. Bitcoin is valuable because it is a transparent trustless distributed consensus system that allows exchange to occur free from centralized choke points and government debasement of the unit of exchange. A bitcoin is only as valuable as the network of people participating and accepting it as a medium of exchange.

A contentious hard fork is incredibly destructive because it tells the minority that their opinions and interest do not manner. It is a use of force over persuasion. The proper way to fork bitcoin is to build an overwhelmingly large supermajority demonstrate a clear need for the change and then fork as slowly and as possible with a significant lead time to bring as many as possible with you. Every individual who leaves bitcoin or forks off into an alternative is lost value for the ecosystem.

This scaling debate appears to be more about who gets to control future forks and changes then it is about increasing the block size. The answer to that should be simple. Whomever can build true voluntary consensus should prevail and attempts to browbeat the opposition into submission should be opposed.

The Chinese miners with their 90% hash rate support requirement for a hard fork have the right idea. Even with 90% such a fork should be rolled out a slowly as possible with maximum possible outreach to the remaining 10%.

how critical it is that BTC become high-powered money rather than yet another retail payment rail.

Blocks full with no stress test seem only good to me, I don't like the price movement lately. That's a concern.

http://xtnodes.com/ classic crashed and burned already ...

zOMG! Kill them with fire!!  

(or LN)

Momentum building behind Core Roadmap -

Greenaddress added -
https://twitter.com/btcroundtable/status/697767225155940352

Coinfloor added -
https://twitter.com/btcroundtable/status/697771059861331968

Rocktrading added-
https://twitter.com/btcroundtable/status/697773063274803200



A supermajority of the economy , developers, and mining power is now finding consensus.

This should put an end to Ethereum's pump and spam campaign and bolster Bitcoin.
It will be interesting to see a reversal in price, not just for the profits but because it will be a clear signal that the general investing ecosystem is now at ease that a contentious HF is no longer on the table.

How many times do we have to repeat? We want , need (for payment channels), and require bigger blocks. Core has been discussing and planning for a HF block size increase for months. Our disagreements with Classic have to deal with the timing , and way it was being deployed... as of which the statement indicates both a support of segwit as the temporary capacity bump and--



If you have been following the conversations between the miners and developers "long enough deployment timelines" means 1 year. This statement indicates that the signers want to plan for and get ready for a goal for a future HF a year from now. They want come up with a rough plan immediately(3 weeks) so  the HF does happen 1 year from now and doesn't get pushed off indefinitely.

ether can't scale either. has same problem . #GimpedCoin

That's a true advantage to got a leader indeed... It prevents any divisions of point of view or of development as long as he's not making too crazy decisions.

I see all the trolls and paid shills are back working hard on Monday ... wonder how long until their Crassic contracts run out?

Side note: this thread has become the longest thread on the internet

There's no such thing as a small block retard.

People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.

It seems to me you have a very precise idea of your own position at least.

I don't have such brutal and clear opinion on this issue. And from the grasp of complexity I was able to see, it seems impossible for me to have a clear point of view of the situation as we're still lacking data.

Yeah small blocks have problems, but what do you want? Bigger and bigger blocks? You do realize that in order to scale the Visa transactions we would need 800GB blocks... Seems complicated to me...

Very Well Said



http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/

This is true, and why Peter Todd suggests a safer 99% HF  threshold with an option to softfork in a 95% threshold if there is no progress within a defined timeline. This would allow for non-contentions and widely accepted HF to more securely be adopted.
Of course this simply moves the degree from 75% to 95-99% but this is indeed a significant difference and it really depends upon a subjective sense of what you define as a rough consensus. There are a few (less than 0.1% of the community) who believe there should never be any HF's or even many SF's and we would necessarily have to ostracize them to make any upgrades.

It isn't just a subjective difference of what one feels should be the correct threshold but objectively 95% is safer than 75% with many attack vectors.


I don't know why this needs to be endlessly repeated, but some people appear to be a little slow to pick it up... almost no one wants capacity to remain an effective 1MB. I and many others not only want larger blocksizes but much larger block sizes are necessarily required for payment channels to handle mainstream txs. (Go back and read the LN slides if you have any questions) We simply disagree on the timeline, order and manner in order to scale.

Yes, we clearly disagree on the balance of dexterity and security. IMHO, There should be more testing done and we should be more careful as the market cap continues to grow.


Thus far the majority of users doesn't appear to agree, but even if this were reversed our priorities wouldn't change and we would stay the course. We do not need an inefficient form of paypal. This has never been the goal and Bitcoin would be considered a failure if it devolved into this. We will move on with or without the bitcoin name and continue as always with our original goals of a decentralized and sovereign currency.

LoL... Its not about being smarter than the market. If the market prefers an inefficient and censorable version of paypal than so be it. That doesn't interest me, they are free to carry on with this decision and all the benefits and consequences that come with it.

Yep. In that respect, when dealing with money and likely to continue to be attacked by governments and financial institutions, security is much more important than trying to grow too fast and to act as if you are visa when you don't have institutionalized protections.

You are ridiculous.

You are not saying much of anything in your above post.. or at least whatever you seem to be saying is quite unclear.  You seem to be attempting to suggest that currently bitcoin is suffering from some kind of pending emergency, when actually the opposite is the case, and bitcoin happens to be super secure with a tremendous amount of hashing power.. which is really a great thing to have during such infancy years and while bitcoin is still suffering multiple spam / ddos attacks (and still remaining robust under such attacks).

O.k.  let me presume that you are a supporter of XT and or classic.  Just for a moment, if we remove their fatal flaws (that is their attempts to make changes to bitcoin governance), and we only focus on their blocksize change proposals, then we see that XT had a schedule of changes (doubling the blocksize limit every couple of years), and classic had an immediate blocksize limit increase.

What are you saying that you want?

Are you only talking about blocksize limit increases, or are you talking about governance?  You seem to be using words to talk about blocksize limit increase, but your insistence on such (seemingly right away) makes it sound as if you have a hidden agenda and what you really want is some kind of change to bitcoin governance.. which is a much more complicated issue.

So clearly state exactly what you are proposing and why the current path of implementing seg wit first is supposedly not sufficient in order to achieve what you want?  Hello goofball.  

Well:

https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees

Have they killed general purchases?

They are doing 230 bn USD in annual transactions.

And somehow BTC's 0.01-0.05$ (depending priority) fees are a problem? For real?

In fact, if you want BTC/EUR to rise, it would make sense rationally to encourage punters to get into ETH  -- although not morally, as ETH is a valueless speculation with an inevitably ignominious end-game.  

Except that you are the liar. In one sentence you managed to lie 3 times: "account sold" - that never happened; "Zionist banker shill" - I am not a zionist nor a banker; and the third with "crashing to $1 tomorrow".
I am not going to extrapolate this to 24 hours and call you names, other can draw their own conclusions.

I do speak my book, as do most of posters here. And so far the price has failed to break 450$, so right now the bearish scenario is more probable, and I am counting on it.
The MACD is negative in 1h, 2h, 6h, 12h and 1d time frames, 6h and 12h PSAR have flipped to bearish yesterday, so it does look promising for the bears.
If there will be a crash, I expect to test 300$ support, that's something I have been waiting for a long time. My bids (to close my short) are now in the 300$ - 320$ area.

If it hits $300, we're likely all fucked... and accordingly, we would probably get another 2 years of flat BTC performance if such a scenario were to play out, no?

In the future there'll be more capacity to satisfy actual txs (not spammy near-zero cost txs). That much is a given.

Yeah... frequently there are these quasi abstract criticisms suggesting that core is not looking into the future enough... but really?

You gotta walk before you run, and segwit seems to be the next best step, and there seems to be no real question that there will be timely scaling.. and yeah, if there were a real and actual emergency, some kind of actual blocksize limit could be implemented.  

The assertion of  emergency has been exaggerated.

What's important is to keep it as decentralized as possible without F'ing up. The true use case is still pretty low and adoption has slowed a bit. Segwit and 2mb fork are in the works, even if we have an explosive natural growth next few months worst case i'm willing to pay $0.06 for a transaction instead of $0.03 when the blocks get crowded

Gee lets see technological fuck up could be catastrophic on a $6B market, but sure lets rush it in to solve that non yet existing problem that may potentially come a bit sooner than expected through this explosive organic growth in next few months, and make everyone pay few cents more  

well hopefully you can keep some sense of humor about this, but I put myself in the group of thinkers, rather than parrots.  

I gather that you already understand the idea of Quasi-abstract, but are having fun with my description choice.

I don't buy your assumption of inelastic supply, and especially your assumption that some kind of tragedy is going to come from a few more months or even years delay in scaling.. I think that there is enough in the pipeline and development to keep us busy for a while, and this baby is likely going to go up in price, even if some folks continue to suggest that there are tragic emergencies (which I believe are much more imaginary rather than real.. so therefore, they sound good in theory, but are not as big of an issue as they are made out to be by the hypers).  Lot's of great work is continuing to be done by coders, miners, developers and lots of folks in this space.  

How about first you prove me that pushing that lever will NOT fuck things up? You know stuff that engineers do, and not, well, we can't conclusively prove to a 100% that it will blow up so fuck it lets try it and see what happens.

Silly whabit because if there's one thing everyone (except for you?) can agree on is that there is no survival without decentralization. This would be a horrifically ineffective paypal#2

Think i was able TO answer no?

For some reason, I had thought that you were reasonable bidswtTrs, and continuing with loony and fantastical speculations.

The practical of the matter is that Segwit is agreed to, while 2mb increase is not... Therefore, segwit comes first.... why do some people keep whining about matters that are pretty much already settled.  Neither XT nor classic were able to achieve support, so they are currently dead (or pretty close to being dead - except for the ongoing whining of people about make believe shit).

Yeah right.  We are going to crash our way up to the mid $600s, and transactions are going to continue.. maybe they will take 10 minutes rather than 6 minutes, and maybe cost up to $.10, to the extent that folks want to prioritize them.

What's the denial, there is a lacking of any evidence of any major problem.. the only problem that I see are various folks whining and exaggerating about non-existing problems.

It's not too late.... Things are fine.  Both XT and Classic attempted to create artificial deadlines in order to cause an emergency.. but almost all of that was fabricated, but some folks want to keep attempting to suggest an emergency in order to save face for supporting the ideas behind those two fake proposals.

They are doing a good job, and this is not apples, it is internet.... the supply moves along with demand to cause more elasticity than you assume and fees adjust or waiting time adjusts... It will all work out because there are major developments in the pipeline, and if we have some time periods of bottle necking, that is much better, as Darude also suggests, to implement matters with thought and preservation and testing rather than to just throw it out there willy nilly....

You keep suggesting to assume a problem, and the actual evidence does not support such problem that you want us to assume.

tomorrow is today in europe ... what it means is all the EUR demand can be reflected in USD/btc price and easily arbitraged onto bitfinex (using on-chain real time settlement feature) where the usd/btc futures are causing all the trouble ... the bears can 'manage' futures pricing with games and lead the market around but they cant satisfy real demand when the shtf

http://www.coindesk.com/kncminer-declares-bankruptcy-cites-upcoming-bitcoin-subsidy-halving/

... so this is the real reason behind the rise, or rather the reason why bitcoin was being held down and now allowed to rise.  KNC miner was going broke and the chinese miners got wind of it so conspired (probably in cahoots with some notorious shorts) to hold price below cost of production until KNC was bust.  As soon as that happened they let the price go up to a new level ... where they think they can manage it.

These shennanigans have released some important information into the market, givn some of the game away so-to-speak.  Cost of production is somewhere around $480 at current difficulty so after halving that will be around ~$960, by a simplistic 1st order estimate.  Bitcoin price has never spent large amounts of time significantly below cost of production so it is a good bet that 3-6 months after halving bitcoin price is going to be ~$960.

one of it's ideal use cases is for settling large amounts across exchanges in real time, arbitraging cross-border financing ... your comment gives away one of two things about your nature, you are a duplicitous opportunist or an ignoramus, your choice?

ya, I think once we reach $1k, we could stay there for a long time. Unlike what happened few years ago.

How low does Bitcoin need to go before Jihan BU stops signaling that shit?

Don't be trying to act as if you are some kind of enlightened one and you are appealing to Satoshi's original vision with your attempts to impose your own values about what bitcoin should be.  Bitcoin has evolved into something that you seem to not like, and it is being worked on.  If you do not like bitcoin, find some other thing to invest in.  I am not sure about what your supposed point is to come into this thread and to spout off patronizing nonsense, as if you supposedly know something that others here do not.

You are merely a party pooper and a negative nancy, who  focuses on some narrow construct attempting to impose your values onto other people and seemingly out of touch, for that matter, too.

That's shocking... Especially the Minister of Finance quote because that's something completely uncorrelated to crypto knowledge. Maybe he assumes some serious leveraged trading

I can read French, but I lack training in listening it even if it is somewhat understandable. It's more that I am against losing time listening long uninteresting videos that could be summarized in a few paragraphs that can be read in a split second as you did above.