Hahahahaahaa..

I received a merit from V8 in my post in that thread (responding to Cøbra... so maybe I inadvertently won the v8 contest but did not even realize I was contending...   I felt like I was doing it for fffffrrrrrreeeeeeeeee...

Thanks for the windfall, v8.        makes me feel mucho warm and fuzzy.. on the inside... (or is it the outside...? I am losing track)








#nohomo

Are you sick, infofront?



Your wife must be nearby.

Yeah, sometimes memories can start to fade, and after further mauling over the situation, I recall that there were some things that I left out.

For example, many folks who were somewhat paying attention to the introduction of segwit as a possible BIG blocker solution and even compromise would have recalled that in around November/December 2015 Peter Wuille had proposed segwit as a possible compromise, and he got many praises across the sides of the isle, and even Luke Jr. had proposed that segwit could be accomplished via softfork rather than hardfork, which also seemed brilliant and received a lot of praise.

So coding took a few months and then testing started in around second quarter 2016, and sure there were some complaints brewing up regarding how long it was taking to get segwit, yet it still took some time for the anti-seqwit passions to really build and largely showed that a lot of the anti-segwit passion was fabricated bullshit.

Anyhow, I don't feel that I necessarily need to go into more details because I believe that I painted the matter in broad enough strokes, and it is NOT like getting into the weeds is really going to help very much, even though sometimes if we would be attempting to deal with a specific situation that is in front of us, sometimes we will need to get more into the weeds to really discuss it and sometimes the back and forth can also help to hone some arguments or at least to refresh some memories, too.

So, even if there have been a lot of seeming generalizations batted around by categorizing purported political camps in bitcoin, sometimes some specifics might be necessary to call some of the generalizations into question.... so surely, in any case, if we consider segwit as good or bad, we might tailor our views accordingly, and perhaps part of my criticism of Cøbra has evolved into an impression that he is one of the whiners in terms of his having difficulties accepting segwit as a valid transition that had already happened nearly three years ago in bitcoin.. with of course, subsequent and ongoing building upon that nearly 3 year ago transition that has value and establishes our messy bitcoin in its current state of "as is" rather than wishing it to be something that it is not.

What the fuck is crypto?  I thought that this was bitcointalk?

If you cannot bring yourself around to use the word "bitcoin" then maybe you, yourself, are having troubles understanding some of the merit distribution dynamics of the forum or to identify the extent to which merits might be being effective in terms of achieving forum preferences... .or even understanding why bitcoin remains king daddy.


 

I doubt that bitcoiners are engaging in as much of a battle as is being ascribed to it.

Sure bitcoiners might be resentful about some of the shitcoins, but ultimately, many are allowed to do whatever they want with a kind of theory that they are likely to die anyhow.. Ultimately, king daddy does not need to prove itself because value will gravitate and flow into it, even if it might take 50 years or longer to play out.


You didn't go there.

Can't help ur lil selfie, can you Globb0.

 


Good point, Cøbra.  The default that bitcoin is not broken, so if it does not change, then it is not a bad place to be.  If your proposal is not good enough to get overwhelming consensus, then I suppose bitcoin just will stay the same.. and that is not a bad place to be.



Wrong presumption.

Bitcoin is already a success, and likely if it does not change for 100 years, it will still be a success.  That's a big presumption because people and institutions are going to continue to build on bitcoin. Maybe they have to build second layer, but bitcoin is not broken, even if it stays the same forever and ever from here on out.

 

Sure... if there is a bug, then it needs to get fixed.  We should be able to reach overwhelming consensus for that.  do you have any examples in which some critical bug was not fixed, resolved or nipped in the bud as soon as it is found.  Let's say the bug is discovered several blocks later, then that will be a BIG deal.. so yeah, those kinds of bugs are likely to be resolved.  At least, that is my tentative ongoing presumption.
 

That all seemed to work out pretty well, even though there was a lot of drama at the time.  I was there and I followed a lot of it.  So, maybe my experience was different than yours, but it seemed to have worked out pretty well in the end in terms of getting segwit and not getting that 2x bullshit.  And, also not having to resort to something less than overwhelming consensus to get segwit passed.

Surely, various people are going to get different lessons from that experience, and hopefully, it can help with future situations like that, if they were to happen and maybe how to deal with those kinds of situations similarly or differently depending on how any such future similar situation might present itself. 


Good point about the never changing, Cøbra, even though you seemed to have meant it as a negative, when in fact the never changing would be a positive... a feature and not a bug, in bitcoin. 

Accordingly, the default in bitcoin is that it is not broken, and in that regard, satoshi made a powerful thing.   Don't be fucking with it.  Sure there have been some changes along the way, but those changes in bitcoin have come through overwhelming consensus... which mean that the changes are bitcoin.

In other words, if bitcoin does not change and it calcifies right here in its current state, then it is not a bad place to be. 

If your proposal (or the proposal of anyone else) is not good enough to get overwhelming consensus, then bitcoin is just not going to change.  It will stay the same.. and that is not a bad place to be.  Right?


Wrong presumption.  Bitcoin is not a failure. Why u so negative?

Bitcoin is already a success, and likely if it does not change for 100 years, it will still be a success.  That's a big presumption because people and institutions are going to continue to build on bitcoin as it is and as they expect it to be. Maybe they have to build various second layer solutions, but bitcoin is not broken, currently, and we cannot just presume away that bitcoin is going to become broken.. or that some change has to go through immediately or else bitcoin is going to become broken.. blah blah blah..  even if bitcoin stays the same forever and ever from here on out like you postulate, you and I reach a different conclusion about whether bitcoin is successful or a failure.

 

Sure... if there is a bug, then it needs to get fixed.  We should be able to reach overwhelming consensus for that.  No?  do you have any examples in which some critical bug or needed change was not fixed, resolved or nipped in the bud as soon as it was found.  Let's say the bug is discovered several blocks later, then that will be a BIG deal because more difficult to get a roll back and the blockchain does not tend to stop, right?.. so yeah, those kinds of BIG bugs are likely to be resolved... and if they are found in a kind of late state, then they are going to have more complications.. for sure.. but at least my tentative ongoing presumption would be that there would be efforts to try to resolve bugs or nip bugs in the bud to the extent that they are identified.. maybe another reason to be really conservative with the introduction of any new code, too.
 

That all seemed to work out pretty well, even though there was a lot of drama at the time.  I was there and I followed a lot of it.  So, maybe my experience was different than yours, but it seemed to have worked out pretty well in the end in terms of getting segwit and not getting that 2x bullshit.  And, also not having to resort to something less than overwhelming consensus to get segwit passed.

Surely, various people are going to get different lessons from that experience, and hopefully, it can help with future situations like that, if they were to happen and maybe how to deal with those kinds of situations similarly or differently depending on how any such future similar situation might present itself. 

Hey Cøbra, mucho gusto conocerte.  I know that we have had interactions previously, but I am getting to know that you have a lot of nonsense in your thinking.

I will admit that frequently when I kind of get to know a poster, I will not even read his/her response before I start creating my response.  That way I do not get mixed up with all of the muddle, and I can just start to respond to each point.  Here, I had to read just past your third paragraph before I recognized that something is wrong with your thinking in a variety of ways... not that you are totally bonkers, but surely something is wrong, and I do not expect to change your thinking, so in that regard, I am not really responding to you personally, but just the variety of your ideas, which I mentioned that I recognized are surely devolving into various levels of nonsense.

In other words, for the good of the members and maybe even the public who might read this thread, your nonsense ideas should not be allowed to stand, even though you have had a lot of authority and power in the bitcoin community.

I did bold your above statement: "Satoshi didn't fully understand the implications of his invention, and that's not a dig at him either because most inventors don't."  Maybe that statement was a reason that I had to read a few paragraphs to try to figure out if you were saying something that might be important in regards to some kind of Satoshi misunderstanding, and you did not.

Think about it.  Your statement is a bit crazy.  I accept the idea that no inventor is necessarily going to be able to see several steps ahead in order to know how his/her invention is going to play out or how it is going to be used, but surely Satoshi knew enough about what he was inventing to be able to understand what it was attempting to achieve, so your criticisms of Satoshi's purported lackings are presumptuous at best, and really show your own seemingly lack of understanding of the topic in which you are trying to spout out knowledge.

No way am i saying that you are any kind of dummy, Cøbra, but surely from your statements in regards to Satoshi's supposed lackings in understanding, you are really overstating the case in a way that just seems to be motivated to make your own nonsense points and to try to show that you know something material that Satoshi had not accounted for, and your post really fails in that direction.



Can't really disagree with what you are saying here, yet you seem to be describing a kind of objective value rather than subjective value.  Currencies achieve values that are systematic and does not really matter what the individual assigns to it or the various actors within those systems.


Makes little sense.  Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are not really behaving differently, except that you are trying to make a distinction that does not have a difference.

Of course, we can attempt to get to considerations regarding which of the crypto currencies are the most sound of moneys, and that leaves us with bitcoin, and then the category of cryptocurrencies are either a bunch of lame imitations (snake oils) or they are trying to provide another kind of value that may or may not be as recognized as bitcoin with the passage of time.

So there remains a need to differentiate bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies in making this kind of assessment in order to recognize both how it compares to gold and fiat and how it differs from gold and fiat in that bitcoin is more sound than both gold and fiat.. Of course, there is a bit of a spectrum with gold being more sound than fiat and less sound than bitcoin, but some of these matters are sometimes questioned too and speculated on, and maybe that is where you are trying to play out the subjective matters to some extent, which surely cause individuals to act in different ways in trying to recognize the differing values of different asset classes - including assessing how present value might diverge from future value and how others might be getting their calculations right or wrong in regards to future value.



Let's just stick with bitcoin.. fuck trying to equate other cryptos... so in regards to bitcoin, you are presuming everyone is running node?  Many people are not running a node, but they are trusting that there are enough nodes to verify... so I am not verifying, but sure, if I want to increase my no need to trust, then I can run a node to do that.

I doubt that whether any of us is running a node or not is very relevant in terms of our ability to attempt to assess the soundness of the money, bitcoin compared with fiat and gold and other assets such as equities.... bitcoin is more sound, and sure some of that soundness comes from the fact that a lot of individuals can run nodes and make sure... so bitcoin becomes assessed as being sound than gold or fiat.. so we would rather spend our fiat or gold first before spending our bitcoin.. (that is if we have a choice and options and apportionment of different assets in our various wallets).




In the end, who gives any shits about your various subjective values.  You either choose to use bitcoin or you do not, and you can also choose your level of allocation, it is not an all or nothing decision.   I might have 25% of my value in bitcoin, and the other 75% in a variety of other assets.. maybe a couple percent in shitcoins and gold and maybe I have several assets that are tied to fiat values in various ways which might include having a few percentage points in actual cash for a kind of floating balance which is going to vary from person to person depending on a variety of individual reasons including how far they need to project out their expenses (whether a few months for someone who lives with mom and dad or maybe 18 to 24 months for someone who has a variety of complicated business arrangements or needs to support various families), and I might have some property (real estate), so if I have less confidence in bitcoin or where I perceive it to be going then I will reduce my allocations in it or decide NOT allocate into it or to use it versus some other assets or currencies.



Again.  A big so fucking what?  If half of the people use one bitcoin and the other half uses the other bitcoin, then who cares?  People can choose to use what they want, and if there is no real perceivable difference in their soundness of money including network effects, then maybe some kind of balance will be reached there in which people allocate 50/50 in each.  Most likely with the passage of time, however, one might show itself to have a more sound money aspect which would likely cause more people to allocate towards the asset with the more sound money aspect.. but in the end, who fucking cares if they gravitate or not or if they recognize one for being more sound or not, and even if they pick the one with the less sound money aspect for utility reasons or something, I don't see why it matters.  Individuals can decide to allocate however they like, even if they are wrong from an objective viewpoint.



First of all, those both should be referred to as bcash variants, and second of all they are NOT ahead of bitcoin in any regard because they are just inadequate imitations (snake oils) that are trying to pose as if they have the same or similar qualities as bitcoin when they do not.  They have very few network effects, which also seems to be reflected in why they have way lower prices than bitcoin to the extent that either one might also be artificially pumped up by bullshit smoke and mirror nonsense.




I doubt that whatever jockying of position in the various bcash camps teach much to bitcoin, except maybe what not to do, but sure, can give you some benefit of the doubt in that sometimes there might be some things that can be learned about preferred ways to attempt to approach some issues that might be divisive... and sometimes some variation of a scenario might come up in one of the bcashes but it could also come up in some other shitcoin, too.... sure the bcashes have some greater similarities to bitcoin, which could cause greater similarities in some regards, so i doubt that their various ongoing dramas need to be completely ignored.

At the same time, sometimes it might be a better practice to just ignore some of the drama of the bcashes, too... because sometimes like a misbehaving child, their behaviors might improved if they are ignored because they might be seeking attention without any real constructive or meaningful purpose... so whether to ignore completely or to attempt to learn from the child might not be a blanket rule.



Might not be disgust.. just a need to point out the drama and to denigrate it for what it is... sure if something can be learned from some of it, then no problema...



Sure, of course bitcoin is not immuned from potential drama, and even some of the similar drama that happens in the bcash camps could end up happening in bitcoin, perhaps in some situations.



Too strong of a statement, Cøbra.  You want to point out and exaggerate political attributes in bitcoin, when there seems to be a striving to remove a lot of the political, and sure probably the political cannot be removed completely, but that does not make bitcoin hyperpoliticized merely because you are striving to ascribe such a label to it.



You are not really describing bitcoin here.  Sure people are still going to be political, but bitcoin is not really seeming to address the political aspects, but instead just creating a common money that has incentives that people can act upon.  It is not really clear how a lot of the politics are going to play out and if bitcoin can cause incentives for differing people to take a lot of the politics out of money.  Just have to see how some of it plays out in terms of ongoing incentives and if bitcoin can maybe allow for some bridging that could take many decades to see play out.



Why?  And who cares?  Some of this will work itself out, and probably many of the more than 2,000 shitcoins of today will not exist or there will be some other shitcoins.

Maybe bitcoin will be the most soundest of money in 2120 or maybe there might still be competing variants?  How does 2120 affect what any of us might do today?  Are we buying bitcoin or not, today?  If so, how are we allocating ourselves in bitcoin, today?  How about how we spend our time?  Same thing.  Are we spending or time on bitcoin or some shitcoin?  We can make these choices today, and of course, there is a theoretical trajectory regarding how bitcoin might progress towards 2120, but seems a bit dumbass to be making our decisions of today based on what might play out in 2120 or even what might play out in 2070.  Does not mean that we are blind or that we do not consider the future, but instead that we should attempt to be more grounded in our choices because if we cannot even make it to 2021 because we make stupid ass bad choices, then we might end up dead by 2022, so there remains some need for balancing in our aspirations and making sure that we are in a meaningful allocation in the present based on our own particulars which includes our cash flow, our other investments, our view of bitcoin as compared with other assets, our risk tolerance, our timeline, our time, skills and abilities to learn, trade and tweak our allocations from time to time.



I doubt people are giving as much weight to some supposed hate of Roger Ver as you would like to believe, and throughout this post, you, Cøbra, seem to be attempting to ascribe and fantasize way more about political nonsense than what really exists.  Might be a good thing that you are retiring your Cøbra persona, but I doubt that you are retiring your inclinations to overly politicize matters.  I hope you are able to make a good decision regarding bitcoin.org, whether you stay onto the project or figure out a way to fairly pass it on, and surely I don't seem to understand some of the personal politics of the matter including some of the politics of the contributors.  I do understand that legally it is probably cleaner to pass onto one or two individuals rather than a group, and sometimes there can be greater confidence in the character of a person because even if you were to pass the domain onto an entity (or institution), frequently entities can become dominated by changes in the personal... and gosh none of us are going to live forever, either, so understandably, even passing onto an individual has problems, too.

You must be feeling much MOAR better, Arriemoller. Congrats!!!!

You are back to arguing your same old self-absorbed nonsense... that would be quite difficult to replicate, except maybe by some other wishful-thinking pie in the sky narrow perspective nutjob.

 

Let's say starting with 1 BTC.. that would NOT be a 100% loss in the value from the initial stash. 

Rather the final amount of the stash would be a bit more than a 65% loss from the initial stash. 

Cut and pasted from my creation of a quickie Excel spreadsheet causes the pyramid of devaluation of the stash to look like this:

   1 BTC
1   0.9
2   0.81
3   0.729
4   0.6561
5   0.59049
6   0.531441
7   0.4782969
8   0.43046721
9   0.387420489
10   0.34867844 BTC

Surely, I would not be advocating any practice that results in continuous losses, so let's turn the scenario into a positive rather than a negative... let's say that instead of losing 10% on each trade, you are not greedy and you figure out a way to gain .1% on each trade.. after taxes and trading fees.   Of course, figuring out ways to profit are structural and depend upon how you value the wealth - whether you are stacking sats or stacking dollars and surely in bitcoin whenever you sell any BTC you have to be willing to let that BTC go.. because they price might never come back to that sales price... which means overstacking in BTC so that you are actually willing to sell it at prices that are lower than future prices.

Anyhow, because of the modesty in any plan, it takes a long time to gain value.. and if you stack for .1% profits in each trade, then after 10 trades you gain just a bit more than 1% on your trading stash...

   1 BTC
1   1.001
2   1.002001
3   1.003003001
4   1.004006004
5   1.00501001
6   1.00601502
7   1.007021035
8   1.008028056
9   1.009036084
10   1.01004512  BTC

Losses are not guaranteed and gains are not guaranteed, and personally I consider the trading of BTC to be insurance rather than measurable and meaningful gains, so on a personal level, I am not really pursuing the gains.. the gains are very modest in the whole scheme of things and are a kind of side benefit... and of course, there tend to be several third party risks that come with any kind of trading, too... so surely, no walk in the park for anyone to be playing around with trading.

Having BSV as a worse scam does not justify supporting BCH.   

Personally, if I was in the job market I would have that part clearly noted as bitcoin, but that is just me, because I am not sure what I would do with any of that other stuff anyhow.  I could not see myself wanting to get involved in some kind of ICO or shitcoin unless it was somehow connected with bitcoin.. so it would be worth it to me to make that part clear on my resume, but yeah, maybe I am not so practical anyhow, because it is one thing saying what you would do if you were in the market versus if you are actually in the market and you might feel a need to appear more flexible.  So, admittedly, there is that real world appearing flexible, aspect that could come into play when seeking employment.

I remember both segwit and 2x being proposed and various packages, but only the segwit portion passed with overwhelming consensus.

The 2x portion was neither able to gain considerable consensus and also resulted in a forkening into bcash... 

There was another hardfork that was proposed to try to force the 2x into bitcoin after segwit had already passed to get added, but that proposal was largely withdrawn several weeks before it was going to go into effect when the supporters of such nonsense saw that they could not get large support.


I'm sure if it was reasonable to increase the blocks or to hardfork, then it will happen.  I doubt that people in bitcoin are so opposed for the mere sake of being opposed, but of course, if there are some folks who are not really looking at the technicals and the practicality, and they are merely just trying to break bitcoin with disingenuine  assertions, then they are going to receive greater hostility from bitcoiners.. and bitcoiners will be in a defensive posture, as you seem to be suggesting is the case. 

Roger ver and his ilk were not really concerned about technicalities.  They were just using that as a ruse to whine about bitcoin governance.  Roger ver wanted more of a say in bitcoin.. and he was getting laughed at by developers and told that he was dumb and he took it personally.. but that did not make him smart about anything because he thought that he should get more say because he had a lot of bitcoins and he was bitcoin jesus who evangelized bitcoin blah blah blah, but in reality he acted just as a stubborn child that just wants to get his way and NOT to work with others or to even try to get consensus because he was smarter than everyone else (in his mind)... it was probably inevitable that he was going to find a reason to split or to fight no matter what.. that seems to be a personality flaw that he has.

That's why if you have a hard time getting the change you want or consensus, we just stick with the status quo.

Good thing that seqwit was passed with overwhelming consensus, so that should shut up the whiners, but it does not.

Anyhow, sure anyone can make proposals and if they cannot get traction, then we just stick with the status quo, which difficulties to change remains a bitcoin feature not a bug.

Regarding lightning network, it gives options, and there are quite a few people working on developing it, but surely if it is not performing up to the task and it is just a mess then people do not need to use it, which I suppose is part of the reason that there are people working on alternative second layer solutions too, and maybe something better than lightning network will come along - or otherwise there might be some break throughs in lightning network to cause it to become more user-friendly - which seems to be one of the complaints about that option.

We might have a little bit of different ideas about masks, and I don't really consider them to be necessary when outdoors (especially if no one is around) or if you are in your car by yourself, so I have seen people wearing masks in those circumstances, and just seems to be overkill to me, but of course a personal choice, and great that they have masks, and  I understand that if someone just gets used to wearing a mask a lot of the time, then maybe they will fidget around less with it.

There still seems a BIG lacking of information regarding how contagious the virus is, so yeah, if you go to a bar, and you are close to people, then you touch a glass that was touched by someone else that had the virus and then touch your face, you could get it by the touching or just by being in close proximity with a bunch of people not wearing masks.

We don't necessarily need to go over all of the contexts in which some people are going to be less careful than others, and if you recall in the beginning some of the deniers were going to social events and shaking hands with everyone just to show how tough they were, and then in churches there is a bit of a tragedy with some of those kinds of interactions too, such as the thoughts that god is not going to allow good people to get struck down, and there have been quite a few of them struck down.

It seems to me that there is even some evidence being developed that even if facilities (such as nursing homes) have gotten compromised, there can be effective preventative measures, even in closed environments like that, but the evidence is still developing in those regards, and surely not very scientific to try to figure out what differences might exist between one facility or another, and sometimes we might assert that we do not care whether prisoners get infected, but that is ridiculous, too because even though people frequently don't want to see prisoners getting benefits that regular people do not or cannot get, obligations (standards of care) do trigger when a state takes control over other people, but then sometimes states might relieve themselves of such care obligations by releasing people who might not deserve to be released.... so lots of craziness, inconsistencies, and just gathering of data by some people trying to figure out what is going on - to the extent that data is available (and becoming more available with the passage of time) and not either being hidden or destroyed.. because we have examples of misinformation out there too, which is sad and seems to be part of the motivation behind the lack of PPE and lack of testing.   

A problem with other people being idiots is that their stupidness affects the non-idiots, too.

Perhaps the idiots will get weened out first, but surely not going to be able to stop the virus from infecting the innocent, including if anyone has to go to a hospital, then it will be difficult to be separated, or perhaps not to get infected or even to be seen by a health care professional without having your own care compromised because systems are going to become compromised and overwhelmed.. showing a lot of vulnerabilities in supply systems since there are likely inadequate facilities, inadequate supplies and which may well lead to inadequate number of people wanting to work in such hostile work environments.

The nexts months will be interesting to see how these matters are playing out in terms of which areas are becoming more overwhelmed.

Would be nice, if at least, systems were put in place so that regular people could get decent personal protective equipment such as n95 masks, but it is crazy that we are several months into this matter and still have not figured out how to make and adequately distribute n95 masks to regular people or even test kits to professional facilities get some priorities straight..

Instead, we neither need personal protective equipment, apparently, nor do we need to have testing available and carried out.

Segwit was passed by overwhelming consensus in August 2017, and thereafter (same month) implemented.

In other words, node operators and miners saw it in their interest to pass segwit... 

If you want segwit reversed, then you are likely going to need to muster up overwhelming consensus to reverse it, and you are likely going to need more than some vague claims of purported undue influence including overcoming lots of reluctance that building has been done and continues to be done upon segwit related systems.. not impossible, but an obstacle since bitcoin is a community effort rather than flopping around because some people are whining that they do not like the direction of bitcoin blah blah blah.



Sure Satoshi set up a lot of parameters in bitcoin that are still followed but they are also a product of a community, so even though Satoshi set up a lot of parameters, it is likely that he disappeared for a reason, which also allowed bitcoin to continue to evolve and to be developed on and to improve as a community... and surely there are ways to contribute and to propose changes and to get involved in order to attempt to affect various changes that you want to see or you believe that you can achieve consensus for your proposals.


They do not run bitcoin... remember consensus?  Blockstream and Greg could both disappear from the scene and bitcoin would continue, but they do not need to disappear, and it seems to me that both are well respected in the bitcoin community but each of them still have to convince others if they want to propose some changes or to get them passed or adopted or tested or whatever various stages proposals get reviewed and are frequently a product of a whole number of people and entities rather than your narrow conspiratorial framing regarding supposed undue influences.


I doubt that it is necessary for me to respond to each of these individually, because they seem to be failing and refusing to accept that these various changes, to the extent that they exist or even matter materially or are negative, are not the product of a few individuals or blockstream et al.


Well, if you know so much, then I am glad that you are participating and educating the rest of us (or at least trying).  I am not convinced by your various points because I have seen variations of that seeming nonsense on a number of occasions, but hey, maybe you have exposure to some enlightening information, participation or interactions with some of the characters that you seem to hate so much that may have ended up locking some well-intended people/proposals out of bitcoin in terms of being considered or being tested, and I will grant you that you might have some information that I don't have.  And, I am not even saying that convincing me matters or I am anybody important except I participate in this forum in terms of my having had been investing in bitcoin for about 6.5 years and continuing to try to follow various aspects of bitcoin within my time and abilities within my own reason and discretion. 

Over the years, I have seen a lot of stupid-ass BIG blockers putting forth their nonsensical conspiratorial points similar to the ones you are making, and I have seen how a lot of those whiners went over to bcash forks, but hey some of those folks were just lying about their concerns about wanting BIG blocks and merely using those ploys as a means to want to cause it to be really easy to change bitcoin (in other words change governance), and like that is NOT going to do much if any good to have bitcoin really easy to just change in any willy-nilly way merely because a bunch of whiners are complaining but neither putting forth valid and sound proposals nor convincing others in the bitcoin community to adopt, code or test those proposals.

Have you heard about BTC's difficulty adjustment?

It's a little thingie-ma-jiggie that happens about every two weeks, every 2016 blocks to be more exact.

You might want to look into that difficulty adjustment thingie... before getting your panties into a twist regarding played out nonsense downward spiraling mining theories.

Fair enough.... I did not know that there was such a situation that could arise, and accordingly, then maybe Hairy had answered your question for that kind of a scenario.

Seems that my hypothetical revision of the question then would have ended up being for me, then.  I still would not mind an answer to my revised and seemingly misplaced question.


Hahahahaha..

Actually better to just sell now... Why wait for $8k when currently you can sell for $8,960-ish?

I am no expert about any of this, either, which is maybe causing me to be overly confused by your explanation 2.

Let's stay with the example of a short, for now:  I thought that Globb0 was suggesting a situation in which a trader wants to get out of short prior to getting force out of it (presumably a trader gets forced out when the BTC price moves too far up before the trader can close the position).

So, for the sake of attempting to learn MOAR better (hypothetical) let's also assume some terms of a recent BTC trade, let's say on May 21, a trader was convinced that BTC prices were going down to below $8,500 or lower before the BTC price goes above $9,200, so that trader enters a fairly aggressive position to short 1BTC at $8,800-ish, with a plan to close that short at around $8,500 - but will be willing to ride out such short under certain circumstances or to close such short earlier if the BTC price does not reach $8,500 as expected.  So the level of confidence causes the shorter to leverage in such a way that he would be forced to close his short at $9,300 and lose his whole BTC- so feeling some confidence that he has a cushion between $9,200 and $9,300 because he does not expect the BTC price to go above $9,200 before it at least goes down to $8,500.

The BTC price ends up moving against this trader's short, and on May 23, he gets nervous that he is going to be forced to close at $9,300 and lose his whole BTC, so instead he manually closes the short at $9,250.  I am thinking that he just closes and loses most of his position but not all of it.  Maybe he loses 80% rather than 100%?  Globb0 seemed to have been asking whether the trader has to buy into the trade to close early, but I am thinking that the trader had already put up all of the collateral that he needed, so if he decides to close early, it is just a matter of where he closes that determines how much he is going to lose, but he does not have to put any more BTC into his trade because whatever he does is already been put up as collateral.

My whole point in bringing this up, Hairy, is because I thought that your answer was only addressing the more extreme situation of being forced out of the position when I thought that Globb0 was trying to explore the extent of the negative impact on a trader (or perhaps if a trader could save himself some money) when the trader decides to close out early rather than being forced out of his position.

Don't get me wrong. I am NO shitcoin enthusiast, and during a large portion of our 2018/2019 flushing out of weakhands from bitcoin, and even though the shitcoin correction tended to be greater than bitcoin's, I still had tentatively conjectured that there is likely going to be at least one more shitcoin season.

Of course, more and more confidence might be drawn away from shitcoins, and if they would hurry up with their ethereum 2.0, then that will likely show a lot more lack of there, there, but I still have troubles writing off the shitcoins from having another pumpening.. even though I certainly would not be bothered if they don't.

Another reason for this particular post relates to your changed avatar.  For some reason, I had not even thought about stock 6-door station wagons, and when I googled it, I had not realized that there had been quite a few of them from different car makers.. limited edition, but still.  Surely, any of those 6-door station wagons would be collectors items if you had a garage big enough to store one of them... Interesting to drive around from time to time, too, when you are feeling like having a lot of passengers, whether adults, kids or a combo.

Largely agreeing with the analysis of your earlier post, but just want to respond to the above portion.

I believe that the initial OP of this thread was largely welcoming of TA, and even had a kind of preference that BTC price speculation should be backed up by more than non-substantiated assertions.

Of course, thread culture kind of evolved, and frequently we are not really posting TA, but even aside from the broad topicality of this thread, I would not conclude that many of us don't respect TA, but instead some of us, including yours truly, have become somewhat hostile to nonsubstantiated BTC price assertions, especially when they are prognosticating for down.

Yeah, I said it, we have a biasness for up, and I have no real problems with that on a personal level, and maybe it is largely an overreaction to the beartrolls and shills - who surely tend to take decent beatings in this thread in recent times, and not going to get any sympathy from me for anyone devolving into something that smells or a beartroll or a shill.

I believe that in recent times, I have warmed up to some kinds of TA, and I will admit that I did edit my earlier post several times to tone down some of my hostility towards your assertion that some down BTC price might be in the cards.

My actual hostility towards TA has frequently revolved around what I perceive to be too much assurity (confidence) assigned to squiggly lines drawn on a chart.  Like you said, maybe a lot of the times we might be floating around in a kind of 50/50 level of confidence regarding which way that we believe that the BTC price is going to go in the short term, but some chart indications are going to tip the balance to cause greater degrees of confidence that cause short and medium terms to no longer be 50/50 and the further we move off 50/50, the more confidence that we can have to bet in the direction that favors our leanings.

So, yeah in my thinking sometimes charts could provide something approaching 70% probabilities in a certain timeline, but I personally might not agree or understand the chart, and I might not be willing to move very far off of 50/50, and maybe I understand a bit of it, but I only assign 58% to such direction, which does not motivate me to make any changes, but the one who understands and recognizes the 70% is motivated to make some "calculated bets" as you deem them, and over time, the multiple bets would likely cause the one who is calculating better to have more profits as long as s/he is not betting beyond what the TA is able to accurately tell him/her and accounting for the unknowns, too.   

So, yeah, I become a bit irritated by either assignments that are too high, and surely, for clarity of my above hypothetical, I am granting that there might be some scenarios that actually show 70% probability, which I would argue is a rare fucking set of circumstances, even though there are frequently posters who are either assigning that level of probability or even higher levels of confidence to areas that are quite unknown and then they promote theirselves as a genius if they end up being correct - which ended up being way more luck than they were willing to admit.

Many times, the TA is not going to be giving high levels of confidence, but it could create some edge, as you mentioned.

By the way, even though I was kind of fighting you in my earlier post, I do recognize that even if the $3,850 from March 12 was filled with a lot of bullshit and a lot of probable manipulation, we have not had too many corrections on our way back to $10k, so when we bounce around and have difficulties breaking up, at a certain point, down just starts to seem easier.. so we surely have to accept that if whales are able to muster up some coins (and maybe even some spreading of FUD or whatever) to get the BTC price to go back down, they are not going to let such opportunities go to waste.. and just allow regular dip buyers to get 150% profits without any check... and without trying to incentivize some of them to lock in their profits, even if such "lock-in" ends up taking place at a much lower level... which means scaring those March 12 dip buyers to sell (or skim off) their BTC on the way down.