BU does not want a contentious fork. It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests. Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks. They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot. There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork. Yeah let's all just trust the miners to behave nicely. Just what Bitcoin needs, to trust a bunch of centralized Chinese miners to do the right thing... You say BU does not want a contentious fork, but there is nothing at all in their code that will guarantee this. They have made no safety precautions at all and nobody has any clue when the fork will activate and whether it will be safe when it does. Considering the recent bugs coming from the BU camp I do not trust them at all. The Core team is a billion times better and I'm getting really tired hearing about all the bullshit conspiracy theories surrounding Core from people who have no clue what they're talking about. Obviously we can expect this from people who are ignorant about Bitcoin and want to see it fail, but it's very disappointing to see real passionate Bitcoin fans fall for this. I would like to see bigger blocks too but I prefer doing it in a safe and responsible way and that's exactly what Core is doing. But people are impatient or have begun wearing tin foil hats and now we have this whole mess with BU. And they're even blocking a blocksize increase themselves by being against SegWit which is even more ridiculous. Stop the irrational Core hate already and start thinking. If you don't trust the majority of miners, Bitcoin is DOA. I would love to be able to get behind SegWit, but I can't support such a large change that has never been live on a network with tokens that have actual value. Test nets don't count since there is nothing to be gained by disclosing a vulnerability when you could wait for it to go live and short the market. I don't hate core, but they have burned some bridges by promising a blocksize increase within 3 months of segwit release and then failing to deliver it ( https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.y441c9e2f points 2 and 3). They could regain some support if they would deliver on that now, even if it is very late. Trust me when I say I've thought more about the issue of scaling than most people on this forum. I would appreciate it if you didn't assume I was mindless just because I hold different opinions than you. |
|
|
|
In the hopes we can start an actual dialog and quit throwing insults at each other: C'mon! Stop talking BS and fork it! If you don't, just STFU! I guess you missed the part about BU doesn't want a contentious fork. I would be very happy if we could all STFU about BU, but people keep saying that BU wants to fork without consensus, which is an utter lie. |
|
|
|
Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!
And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?
Miners are free to prioritize however they'd like. I can't imagine you'd get more than a couple blocks accepted before they implemented countermeasures. Nodes are also free do decide what to forward. Unless your 0 fee transactions have sizeable outputs, they would already be dropped by today's network. How many btc are you willing to devote to this pointless attack? I'm not sure how broadcasting 0 fee transactions that send bitcoins to myself costs me anything. As I said, I would be paid block rewards. I don't know that the attack is considered pointless if I'm adding bloat to the chain without contributing anything. The "implemented countermeasures" is what I'm interested in. I mean, how does one tell my transactions from a regular user? Or my blocks, for that matter? As I said, I fully expect BU to eat itself in short time and be more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market. If they reject blocks that are more than 5% free transactions, you would lose your block rewards or have to limit your bloat to 5% of the block. They could alternatively do it using some measure such as (delta utxo)/(tx fees) >= some minimum. If you aren't bloating the UTXO, you're actually helping since miners can easily prune transactions with no unspent outputs. |
|
|
|
In the hopes we can start an actual dialog and quit throwing insults at each other: BU does not want a contentious fork. It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests. Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks. They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot. There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork. If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is. If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it. |
|
|
|
Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!
And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?
Miners are free to prioritize however they'd like. I can't imagine you'd get more than a couple blocks accepted before they implemented countermeasures. Nodes are also free do decide what to forward. Unless your 0 fee transactions have sizeable outputs, they would already be dropped by today's network. How many btc are you willing to devote to this pointless attack? |
|
|
|
BU does not want a contentious fork. It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests. Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks. They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot. There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork. If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is. If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it. |
|
|
|
Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................
One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.
This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions. So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU. Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever? I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market. we welcome fee paying spam.  if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards! And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time. Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker. It is this orphan risk that creates the cost. |
|
|
|
So how has this been working for everyone? Haven't gotten the code yet. Learning python myself and its kind of fun.
Bitcoinica went tits up years ago, so it probably didn't work out well at all. |
|
|
|
Buying now is stupid, you'll be out of money before you prop up this crash.
|
|
|
|
The ideal time to buy was a few hours after the ETF when the price fell below $1100. Now, I'm not sure. I still expect the price to rise eventually, and I'm not sure what negative news on the horizon could result in the price dropping low enough for most of you to want to buy. I agree it'll go a bit lower than this but I think people are pretty unrealistic to think it's gonna drop below $1000 again in the near future.
Correct. The ideal time to buy was exactly when OP said it was stupid to buy. |
|
|
|
No reason for bitcoin to rise? LOL
Do people really hang out on these forums and still not get it?
Go read the bitcoin whitepaper, think about future implications of this technological advancement. Look up the increasing bitcoin demand that is happening on a global scale already.
Yep, definitely no reason for a price increase...
Exactly. Those who don't bother to really learn, research or understand things very deeply, if at all = low information sheeple, err I meant people. Low information people  Man I was talking about short term, I repeat SHORT. Don't panic! If you can't buy now you'll have chance to buy at 1300 on Monday. All of you (or most of you) are really trusting that we will see blind green candle. Okay, I don't think so. When everyone is saying that BTC will rise (I'm talking about short term) everyone is buying, but that's just blind move imo. Big Bears want to pump price to get better profits on their shorts. Sooner or later we will see drop. Why? What evidence do you have that it will drop? Lots of people seem to be expecting that, but I just can't understand what would cause that to happen. Leveraged longs are low, leveraged shorts are high. Demand has been pent up awaiting the decision. Anyone who wanted to sell has sold. |
|
|
|
No reason for bitcoin to rise? LOL
Do people really hang out on these forums and still not get it?
Go read the bitcoin whitepaper, think about future implications of this technological advancement. Look up the increasing bitcoin demand that is happening on a global scale already.
Yep, definitely no reason for a price increase...
Exactly. Those who don't bother to really learn, research or understand things very deeply, if at all = low information sheeple, err I meant people. Low information people Man I was talking about short term, I repeat SHORT. Don't panic! If you can't buy now you'll have chance to buy at 1300 on Monday. The Japanese are already paying $1300. |
|
|
|
But this train already passed as we know this but bitcoin is the king of this world surely will survive. This train is just getting started. A small percentage of the world has even heard of Bitcoin. A small percentage of them have read the whitepaper and understood its implications. All I'm saying is if Bitcoin itself isn't exciting enough for you and you need to look for some other source of hype than maybe this isn't the market for you. TSLA is a good market to ride the hype-train. If you do want to stick around, learn all you can about bitcoin until you realize that it is an unstoppable juggernaut that will provide people living in places with high inflation a way to preserve value over time. It will do this in a way that can't be regulated or censored. That is the real value of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Ok, Maybe I wasn't too precise - IMHO It's going to rise in long-term. But in a short term I think there will be correction - pre-ETF hype took price to 1290$ level, ETF happened causing drop and now what? Why are we going up so fast? Price should oscillate around 1000$ imo.
See my reply to killerpotleaf a couple posts up. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg18159273#msg18159273 |
|
|
|
Feels like a big disconnect between trader's "sentiment" and the external market here to me.
I think traders got overly focused (obsessed even) with the wtf ETF because it was 'their thing', Wall St., big bucks, yada yada yada, etc BS. So price has been dominated by trader's sentiment towards ETF thinking since at least mid December .... meanwhile the physical market on the street in India, Japan, China, Asia, Brazil, S. America, UK Europe, USA, etc has been picking up some serious exponential growth steam, look at wallet adoption numbers, s/ware downloads, localbitcoins.com.
Just saying you guys might be missing the woods for the trees. Try not to get run over by the bitcoin moon train when scalping your trading card pennies up off the track ...
the question now is, can the market support these prices without this "ETF coming Soon TM" bullishness. i'm betting that it can't, and we in for a sizeable drop, probably Below 1000$.. i'm looking forward to a more reasonable 950 Well the worst is likely over, the big selloff was the bulk of it but there might be smaller dips later here and there. I'm betting we'll drop right back down again to 1000 once we poke around 1250 if we even get there or even lower. the sell off was the bets being placed. now we wait and see if the bets are winners. I'm sorry to tell you this, but the smart bets were placed before the announcement. The sell off was the longs taking their losses via stop-loss orders/margin calls. The shorts took profit during this time via limit orders. If you weren't proactive, it happened to fast to be reactive. Being reactive rarely works out. Leveraged shorts have built up quite a bit and leveraged longs have been coming down as the limit order dip buyers take profits. On top of that, everyone who was waiting for a dip and didn't have an order in place is waiting to buy. The ETF was keeping people from committing because they thought they could get in cheaper. If it was positive, they assumed they could buy in higher, but it wouldn't matter. Waiting for another dip probably won't work out very well. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin can't scale yet. If a major retailer tried to push adoption it would create multiday transaction confirmation times.
|
|
|
|
No reason for bitcoin to rise? LOL
Do people really hang out on these forums and still not get it?
Go read the bitcoin whitepaper, think about future implications of this technological advancement. Look up the increasing bitcoin demand that is happening on a global scale already.
Yep, definitely no reason for a price increase...
Yep. The whitepaper is in my sig for those interested. |
|
|
|
This is thread number 1000 about this ETF approval thing. Why don`t we just shut up about that ETF and move on. Congratulations that you bought some cheap bitcoins. Now we can wait for the next btc speculation bubble to appear on the horizon.  Someone is a little sore. How many did you sell at the bottom? Like it or not the community is still digesting the announcement. The ETF decision was going to be bullish either way in the long term due to media exposure for bitcoin. Yes, denial hurt the short term price, but we all knew that was a likely outcome since there are so many short term bitcoin traders who don't believe in the fundamentals. Weak hands have sold out, we are grinding up and the leveraged shorts are building. We may not go straight up from here, but if we do there will be a nice big short squeeze to put a cherry on top. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
