@Fakhoury: Go be a faggot elsewhere, ty. No need to be harsh babe, take it easy babe  Just stay in your thread if it bothers you Fakhoury, there are actual risks in bitcoin investment... as you may know. The informed investor will weigh it and decide the legitimacy, relevance, and impact. The intellectual "lalalala, can't hear you", is in poor taste. One can still take the other side of the trade without acting out. "This is what gets you gay porn!!!!1!!", is also acting out, but that chapter has apparently come to a welcome close. Honestly, you would/should have to pay money for some of the satiric banter that emanates from ahpku. |
|
|
|
The train is going to leave the station soon people!
Crypto is becoming mainstream! The ENTIRE ALT game and crypto game in general is changing.
If I was you I would stock up on as much BTC as you possibly can now!
I have this strong and inexplicable urge to plow my nest egg into Digibytes tho. Did you buy bitshares? Naw, I lost what was going to be the bitshares allocation at the Evolution Casino. |
|
|
|
The train is going to leave the station soon people!
Crypto is becoming mainstream! The ENTIRE ALT game and crypto game in general is changing.
If I was you I would stock up on as much BTC as you possibly can now!
I have this strong and inexplicable urge to plow my nest egg into Digibytes tho. |
|
|
|
What are you gonna do when we break 273 tarmi?  lol, INB4 Tarmi covered his short at 262.35 and went long. |
|
|
|
ok guys.... this change everything, i see 10000 next year or even 100.000 that is after China officially give green light to bitcoin.  hahahahahahahahahaha You going to take back your previous comment regarding "stagnant through December" ? sure if this is true and the news is real, dammnn China has what ? like 1/4 of world population ? and they sure love to gamble/invest/moving money... but... sometimes they post wrong article u know...  Yes, it is good for you to qualify your assertion - especially since in the BTC space, we have experienced quite a few ambiguities regarding translations and culture, etc etc. when it comes to China news. I don't really trust cointelegraph, so I thought I'd drop it in here and hear what you people had to say. They basically just stole this article: http://shitco.in/2015/10/19/china-unbans-bitcoin/If it makes you feel any better... |
|
|
|
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size. Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful. Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then. Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut? Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.) I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose. Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak. Land owners?  Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down. Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you. How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species? You've replaced one bad analogy with another. Both reeking of statist sentiment. Bigger blocks aren't going to destroy the rainforest and kill endangered species, and you should be ashamed for using such comparisons. Mircea would be appalled. The decentralized relay network is an asset to the miners, they would be fools to destroy it. I mean it this time chartbuddy. |
|
|
|
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size. Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful. Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then. Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut? Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.) I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose. Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak. |
|
|
|
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap. In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network. Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear". Ah, the old, "if satoshi had more foresight he would agree with me" argument. As for what he actually said: It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
) I am increasingly astonished that people who gravitated to bitcoin for its free market incentives and function, are simultaneously terrified that without central control over "consensus" it would fall on it's face. Which one is it then? Cap or no cap? Do you oppose central control or do you not? Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size. Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful. |
|
|
|
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap. In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network. Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear". Ah, the old, "if satoshi had more foresight he would agree with me" argument. As for what he actually said: It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
You still completely miss that miners actually do determine what happens to the network, and that's ok, because our interests align. Making blocks so big as to destroy the node network is bad, yes, for them as well as the users. (Not even considering the orphan costs.) I am increasingly astonished that people who gravitated to bitcoin for its free market incentives and function, are simultaneously terrified that without central control over "consensus" it would fall on its face. |
|
|
|
I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs.
Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works.
Hmm wait a minute. Who ever mentioned fiat profit? Profit, in this case, is denominated in Bitcoin. Bitfury mines the Bitcoin blockchain simply because it is the most valuable coin. The value is not in the future but now. The fact that it fluctuates is irrelevant. As for your last comment, what is it you don't agree with? Do you propose miners are origins of Bitcoin value? Or that we should set the rules of the protocol so as to maximize their profits regardless of the costs externalized to other participants? I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet. Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service. |
|
|
|
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck. You couldn't possibly be taking sides with a guy who believe you can buy block space on the blockchain, are you? Using an admittedly shitty analogy doesn't automatically mean everything he subsequently says is invalid. I similarly don't write off all of your opinions, despite your recent statement that people might pay $5, 10, 50 to make an entry on your easily replicated, 5 mining pool run, settlement layer. Good luck easily replicating 500,000,000 GH/s People invest in mining coin because of what it can be. Not for what it is today. More fees spread over more transactions is definitely in their interest. If core devs insist on keeping this veneer of control, they would be wise to compromise for 4MB in 2016, and doubling at the halvings. That's actually not how it works. People invest in mining coins to make a profit. That's it. They do so by mining the chain that holds the most value, value that is entrusted to it by investors. Don't believe for a second that miners decide what chain to follow or that rules should be set according to what is "in their interest". I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs. Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works. |
|
|
|
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck. You couldn't possibly be taking sides with a guy who believe you can buy block space on the blockchain, are you? Using an admittedly shitty analogy doesn't automatically mean everything he subsequently says is invalid. I similarly don't write off all of your opinions, despite your recent statement that people might pay $5, 10, 50 to make an entry on your easily replicated, 5 mining pool run, settlement layer. Good luck easily replicating 500,000,000 GH/s People invest in mining coin because of what it can be. Not for what it is today. More fees spread over more transactions is definitely in their interest. If core devs insist on keeping this veneer of control, they would be wise to compromise for 4MB in 2016, and doubling at the halvings. |
|
|
|
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck. You couldn't possibly be taking sides with a guy who believe you can buy block space on the blockchain, are you? Using an admittedly shitty analogy doesn't automatically mean everything he subsequently says is invalid. I similarly don't write off all of your opinions, despite your recent statement that people might pay $5, 10, 50 to make an entry on your easily replicated, 5 mining pool run, settlement layer. |
|
|
|
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck. |
|
|
|
Dash? Monero? (less traceable) Bitshares? (much much larger transaction capacity, built in smart contracts, etc) Should I go on? Network effect didn't save MySpace.
So a pre-mined POS & a ripple rip-off are going to steal Bitcoin's lunch money? Please... Comparing Bitcoin network effect to Myspace confirms my suspicions: you are beyond retarded. Monero feels left out? Your Stannis smashing compatriot seems to be rather enthusiastic about its prospects. |
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty far from a socialist and a "rich-shamer". I see this as more of a pragmatic question. The number of transactions needs to be allowed to grow now, while the block subsidy is comparatively huge, vs later, when another implementation has eaten our first mover lunch.
|
|
|
|
-snip
There will be a gang of persons willing to pay 5$, 10$, hell 50$ for complete monetary sovereignty.
These people are presently paying orders of magnitude more to move their money around the world unnoticed.
With a market cap supported by hundreds of people lining up to buy popescu pesos... 1MB blocks will be plenty, believe me. |
|
|
|
I read something about a vast Russian MMM ponzi currently operating in South Africa buying up Bitcoins. Any news? Bobby Lee, CEO of Chinese exchange BTCC, told CoinDesk his platform has seen a significant volume increase, though he dismissed much of his competitors' volume as "artificial".
Those behind the volume, he said, are not traders but consumers sucked into a Russian ponzi scheme, MMM.
"We have posted warnings on our site and on our social media to warn users to be careful, but they have been coming to our exchange and buying out like crazy," he said, adding:
"This time it's not speculative trading but based on them getting sucked into this ecosystem." https://twitter.com/YourBTCC/status/654273706013798401?lang=en"South Africa" must include a many of the poorest and least educated people there. Ah, bitcoin -- bringing First World financial ruin to the unbanked in the Third World... May you all go broke, and burn in hell... How often do they adjust your salary? serious question |
|
|
|
|
So $18 spread from hoo-oh-boy to bitfinex? Something is off here.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
