 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
|
gold isn't a standard to measure the value of something else, because itself is based on fiat too, it's like we take any altcoin to measure bitcoin, it does not make much sense imho
also you should evaluate something against its competitor, not against what it is akin
yes i can see now the problems with dollars but do not agree we should not measure bitcoin against gold in some way. Bitcoin is in competition with gold albeit not in the same way as fiat. perhaps a better measure would be something like - comparing the gold to bitcoin buying and holding levels of all those people who are under 30? or something else that looks at uptake/use etc. I realise there are lots of measurement issues but if bitcoin wants to be taken seriously (and get more users) it needs to be seen as an active participant in the market place and being 'measured'/'compared' in various ways is part of that. People get confidence from the new (here bitcoin) in part by seeing it in terms of/contrasted/compared to the old/familiar (here gold) |
|
|
|
|
I know we want bitcoin to be a competitor to fiat etc but when looking at in terms of price movements should we not be using gold in all these charts as bitcoin it is sort of a electronic gold ie gold has much of the stored value etc features we hope for bitcoin.
to that end on 1 january 2015 an ounce cost 3.79 bitcoin. Today it costs around 4.88 bitcoin. in other words we are going backwards - ie we are not convincing the real and conservative world we are at least as good if not better than their traditional safe haven.
Comments?
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the bitcoin economy has matured enough that a set max block size is not actually needed anymore?!
What if we had some type of patch that eliminated "silly sized blocks" and allowed miners to set any soft limit they want? Have it something like: allow any size as long as it's not more than x3 (or other number) the previous months average block size.
Market incentives will drive each mining pools soft limits. Increasing the limits will stimulate growth (increase centralization if done too fast compared to technology because of resources needed) while smaller blocks will increase fees. Some may like smaller blocks because of risk of orphans while others will want large blocks to grow the user base of people using bitcoins. Allowing a x3 size block means that as long as a minority are making small blocks, those who want larger ones can still help grow the "silly size" limit and those who have weak internet connections just have to download the blocks and can continue making small ones.
A spam attacker could only create large blocks that were bigger than all the pools soft limits only by mining it himself and the largest block he could create would be a x3 of the blocks on the system. And just like it's in their economic self interest to not get bigger than 51% it would also be in pools own self interest to not have a soft limit that would risk too much centralization of the system by making it too large for current technology and allows for the system to rapidly adapt at the time. The fact that most mining is done by pools means that the soft limit can be more fluid.
Ultimately if we let pools set any limit they want would they set limits that would allow bitcoin to thrive? If we assume the majority of pools act in the interest of a growing decentralized system would max block size be needed anymore other than something to prevent a "silly size" block?
That's my ultimate vote; no block size limit. I also agree and think it fits the original satoshi idea - let the market decide but set some bound to stop accidental or deliberate ruining of the system (here 'silly sized' blocks) |
|
|
|
Ehhh no...
Pay attention to the market. Just look at yesterday.
It took about 8000 btc to go from 243 to 248. It took about 600 btc to bring it back again to 243.
Currently greatly overpriced and there is hardly any room to go up even with a lot of pumping being attempted, it will fail.
these sort of ups and downs on odd volumes are interesting but in no way indicate failure. bitcoin worked at 10c , at $5, at $1000 and now $2xx. it is a solid idea. it is also very new (we do not even have a "trusted' exchange yet as seen by the man in the street) so there is much more room for success. Gold and fiat have had a long time to settle into bed - bitcoin is so new it has not even found the bedroom let alone the bed. A bit of wandering in the hallway is not failure just immaturity |
|
|
|
not sure why people are feeling a bullish vibe. I consider we were rightly slowly coming down off the willy bot high and then 1 or a few big players set out to stop it going below $200. the fact that we have after sustained efforts on their part now got a small rise is to me just the bumps in any market. Only a few weeks ago everyone was saying we are not going to see the price go up until we have 'new' demand. To my mind that has not arrived so there is no change in where things are at. I am hoping it to go (be allowed to go) below $200 or even down as far as say $60 and then have a "clean", "true' climb - to the extent that is possible while speculation is still the main reason for current short term buying /selling (ie slim chance)  |
|
|
|
Do you know if there's a way to see what fee they paid? Was it like normal fee of 0.0001 btc? (About 2 or 3 cents)
If so, wouldn't a move to a minimum fee of say ten cents largely fix the problem?
I watched the transactions for a short while during the test, I remember seeing many 0.0001, several 0.0002, a few with larger fees. I don't know whether the 0.0002 were part of the test or not. Perhaps they answer that in this threadRaising the minimum fee to ~0.10 USD would make this sort of attack more expensive, but it would still be cheap and simple compared to, say, a 51% attack by an outside party. Also raising the block size to 8 MB would make it 8x more expensive. A mandatory 0.10 USD fee would have other advantages. It would encourage miners to fill blocks. It would cut down annoying small transactions that are being spammed to random addresses for advertisement purposes. However, it would have some drawbacks. It would harm things like tumbling and gambling, which many people consider important. It would also probably cut the number of transactions by 50% or more, that would look bad on charts. Also, do you know why Satoshi decided to limit the block size in the first place? I mean, I've heard it was to prevent some kind of spam attack, but now people are saying that increasing block size will prevent spam attack... I've never seen a good description of the attack they were trying to mitigate by limiting block size in the first place. Best guess is simply to prevent bloat?
There are posts by Satoshi on this forum discussing that; check his posts through his user profile. The original limit was 32 MB. Then people thought that a malicious miner might create 32 MB blocks full of garbage transactions, that would take a long time to send across the network, validate, download when syncing, etc.; that could break some nodes or clients. So Satoshi and/or Gavin changed the limit to 1 MB, and commented that it should be raised later if necessary. in the future when the average person is starting to get around to using bitcoin a set fee rather than a percentage fee would have some adoption advantages. Most people are bad at maths (or rather never got taught properly) so even relating percentages to a base is scary for them even if the resulting cost (fee) is small - they just are in the dark. But they know what 10 cents is or $2 or whatever. It may also help get more remittances via bitcoin as they can compare bitcoin fees to western union (although at present the service provision of the two is not currently like for like). If we want more "demand' them some bitcoin development decisions may have to be increasingly market (ie user) focused should there be a choice of options to solve a given issue |
|
|
|
Silver at 9$? Party time  at 9$ there will be queues to buy monster boxes -with me in. This is what I don't get about the theory BTC will drop down to below triple digits. Look at the volume on the bounce back up in January off 166. There will be so many people ready to buy around that price again that it is practically an impossibility, except in the event of some catastrophic flaw found in the protocol. I see variations of this same argument in lots of places on this forum but am not sure I agree. if you believe in a rising bitcoin price longer term which i do (but am bearish short term) then the recent price level of around $230 is very good yet the buyers were not piling in. ie if you are to hold them for a while then a price like $230 should work out fine - ie the return will be alot more than most other opportunites. if the price went down to say $60 sure you can get 4 times as many bitcoins for $230 as now but other market forces come into play ie the uncertainty that caused it to go to $60 may be the strongest effect on buying patterns. I do no think the quick recovery from a one off drop to $166 is a reliable guide to anything in the future. back when the price was $31 and dropped to $2 there was not a sudden influx of money to pull it way up again beyond about the $5 level. While that is not a better (or worse) guide than the quick pull back from $166 it highlights that we really do not know what will happen to the price when it is at certain points. |
|
|
|
On Bitstamp, there is a descending logarithmic line starting at the top of about 1150 with several touches at 659-582 and 454. This line was touched at 258 yesterday and there was a pull-down. Without a clearly breach of the 258 with high volume, IMO, one should forget about entering now.
But read, think for your self, and make your own decisions.
I'm not convinced the normal technical analysis rules apply to Bitcoin. The market is so small and dominated by the big players that they can break every technical analysis rule in the book. If a whale wants to pump or dump he can do it regardless of the fact he might be breaking technical analysis rules that make his pump or dump apparently impossible. totally agree - also any whale changes can be magnified by insider trading at these exchanges. I think ok coin is one of the bigger and the allegations against it by Changpeng Zhao were damning. They seem to have oddly even more credibility by okcoins recent rebuttal which is an incredible piece for a company with a good share of trading volume to issue (link below) https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37u6ca/okcoins_response_to_czs_lies_and_desperate/ we have a few big players and really a very weird exchange market place so I have real doubts about the usefulness of any data being "normal" enough to make line drawings on especially if the aim is to predict the future bitcoin price |
|
|
|
the biggest threat to bitcoin is not its price but its public relations. It needs people to be confident being involved with it - from both big and small players. The current squabble about the 1 MB limit is an example - it is fine and even healthy for it to go on for a short time but if it goes on and on then confidence that "bitcoin is OK" will wane and may never return
I dont think public relations are threat at all. People will not even know they use Bitcoins. Companies and banks will just use what is cheapest for them to provide their service they will not explain their customers or they are using blockchain or any other technology. People dont even care. What they care is that their service will be fast and cheap. I did not mean PR for the users (ie remitters). I agree people will use fast and cheap and will not care how the mechanism works. I meant PR for getting certain keys pieces in place. we have been going 5 plus years with bitcoin but there is not yet an exchange you could call "normal". To get "normal' yet need to spend the sort of money/time the twins are doing. They may be able to essentially self fund but other ventures/startups need capital and that only comes when the people putting in the money have confidence. They only gain confidence when the thing they are investing in is explained to them. Take Apple - it did the PR so well through Steve that customers/investors etc became essentially fans. they willingly paid huge premiums for an apple product. Bitcoin does not have a CEO or Chairman of the Board. That is good and bad. the bad part is that there is no one out there selling confidence in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Point of no return is when and IF bitcoin price falls under $100. but I doubt that we will see that day anytime soon.
but if price continues this way, and gets to that point in a short term, it is gonna be catastrophic but if takes so long that people get use to the price it might be different.
¸ Don't think that 100$ would be enough for people to back off, since there's a lot of money in bitcoin related industry, so i guess the people would mass buy and gold, however, going way under it, like 50-60 bucks.. im pretty sure people would stop dreaming about 10k bitcoin and such, and just turn their backs on it. I do not agree. Bitcoin a while back crashed from $30 and stopped. at $2. It did not go back to say 50c. I have seen somewhere but now cannot find it a chart showing that $50-$60 in 2015 is roughly what the $2 was back then. So if it goes down to that level for a while so be it. If it continues on its exponential growth from there it will still do fine. agree though that at that level while users of bitcoin (eg to send remittances) are still ok the people that work in it to hold it up may have difficulties. maybe since it costs virtually nothing to send remittances the shortfall for the workers in the industry could be made up by higher charges. I realize this goes against what some want for bitcoin but so long as it is cheaper than existing methods eg western union people will pay. the biggest threat to bitcoin is not its price but its public relations. It needs people to be confident being involved with it - from both big and small players. The current squabble about the 1 MB limit is an example - it is fine and even healthy for it to go on for a short time but if it goes on and on then confidence that "bitcoin is OK" will wane and may never return |
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a bit more noise on here than usual with what seems to me to be a very minor change in price.
using the date today 1 june and going back to 1 june 2012 you will find
1. the price has changed each year by $111 (up), $538 (up) and $430 (down)
2. the percentage change each year is 2180% (up), 472% (up) and 66% (down)
sure what happens to the bitcoin price in the future will be from different factors (eg there may not be another willy bot) but it is very possible that the new factors will create a similar order of change.
In summary stop moaning about change unless it is way above the levels we have had in the past.
|
|
|
|
It's one of the darkest period for Bitcoin right now despite all good news that people don't really know how to read, it's all just hype for everyone. Until some of the major problems are resolved Bitcoin will remain what it has been for several years a speculation instrument. Since high leverage and shorting were introduced the amount of money poured into the market has gone lower and lower and it's becoming harder and harder to sustain or even reach higher prices.
I see bitcoin in 2015 as fundamentally no different to bitcoin in any other year. Its still new and is still experimental. Anything that is new and experimental will be speculated - that is just "natural". Again allowing high leverage and shorting are just part of a commodity/currency getting more and more of the treatment that other commodities/currencies have to face. It is not necessarily a dark period let alone one of its darkest periods. New demand is weak currently but we have not even got to the point where the average person would trust one of these exchanges - as they are far from transparent eg about internal manipuation. That is why the twins exchange might bring about more volume. Give bitcoin a few more years and it will be doing much better |
|
|
|
|
I call this stagnation thing gothic. not in the architecture sense but those young people dressed in black and looking glum/angry even on a sunny day. I am 61 and have seen goths since I first noticed them at about 11?. The number of goths leaving gothdom (eg to get married, take up jobs etc) seems to perfectly match the new numbers joining (ie from the 13-18 age group). So at any time over the last 50 years the same number of goths seem to be walking around.
|
|
|
|
2. he was using bitcoin and not fiat ie he was successfully running a commercial operation with bitcoin. This is good news. It was however found what he was connected to (drugs etc) was against the law so he is off to prison but he would have gone to prison for doing the same things using fiat.
Bitcoin's raison d'ętre is to be a xerox of fiat in the sense of allowing the government to regulate commerce and legal tender? I thought Bitcoin was supposed to enable permission-less commerce. Never mind the small details. Carry on. I do no think there has ever been "permission-less' commerce nor will there ever be. For example, governments run on tax revenue so they are always going to put things in place to collect some from commercial activities. They expect even illegal activities to declare taxable income. So if trading with Bitcoin or fiat the tax man cometh. You are free (ie do not need permission) to set up silk road 3.0 and start trading anytime you like. By using bitcoin you can send and receive funds that do not go through permission based entities (eg banks). Just do not expect governments to do nothing, They react to fiat based activities so they will do the same for bitcoin eg in my country the tax man carries out snap audits of house painters that are doing all their jobs for cash with homeowners so they can to avoid sales and income tax. And after the tax man comes the law enforcers. Governments are not good ie efficient or effective at controlling things but they love to do so - and will dedicate lots of resources to it. So if you take up being the new Ross then you had better be more nimble than he was. |
|
|
|
|
I see it as good news because:
1. as the saying goes all publicity is in the long run good news. Bitcoin needs more adopters so any publicity is good as more people might look at bitcoin as an idea the more they "hear' about it no matter how they "hear' about it. Also bitcoin is not a brand so it cannot be damaged unlike the very upset FIFA sponsors with the recent corruption allegations in world football.
2. he was using bitcoin and not fiat ie he was successfully running a commercial operation with bitcoin. This is good news. It was however found what he was connected to (drugs etc) was against the law so he is off to prison but he would have gone to prison for doing the same things using fiat.
|
|
|
|
|
