I thought this morning is the start of btc price to go down cause when i wake this morning the price was at $1100 so i think that etf is rejected. But now were fully back at 1200$,seems that etf rejection has no big impact on btc price.
https://twitter.com/maxkeiser/status/840346004427853824The reason to buy Bitcoin is the same as reason why SEC rejected the ETF. Can't be regulated. SEC confirmed no. 1 reason to own Bitcoin. 🚀
|
|
|
|
Yes big chance of rejection for ETF but saying that rejection would kill bitcoin is overkill. Bitcoin will do fine without ETF being approved
Monday 13th rejection = price fall down to 900 USD range
Your sauce is very negative and it doesn't taste so good. I do like OP's sauces it's more reliable and tasty upon looking at the price. It dropped a couple of days ago but the price is increasing again. But for me, whether ETF will be denied or approved it doesn't matter at all. There's one sauce that keeps on telling price will rise whatever the result is. once in a while you get bad reading of the sauce. But i am back on track , todays sauce says 1500 is a good floor and ETF will be approved by default 1900 usd Too bad the sauce poured on the floor and the ETF was rejected. And yeah, I got a bad reading with these sauces. But I had another sauce. It says that don't rely to that ETF anymore, it's already been decided. The sauce says that we will need to wait sometime for another increase. Maybe we need to wait for some more months. The good news is we have quite a few more months coming up. |
|
|
|
Update [a few hours after the SEC rejected the Winklevoss twins' proposal for an ETF]:
BitStamp USD/BTC OKCoin CNY/BTC Kraken EUR/BTC Kraken CAD/BTC CoinCheck JPY/BTC
----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
1 2017-03-06 1275.58 | 1 2017-03-06 8326.63 | 1 2017-03-03 1204.97 | 1 2017-03-04 1696.03 | 1 2017-03-03 148944.55
2 2017-03-03 1274.36 | 2 2017-03-04 8292.43 | 2 2017-03-06 1204.54 | 2 2017-03-06 1692.49 | 2 2017-03-06 148507.83
3 2017-03-04 1259.81 | 3 2017-03-03 8271.13 | 3 2017-03-04 1185.79 | 3 2017-03-05 1681.71 | 3 2017-03-04 147837.60
4 2017-03-05 1258.92 | 4 2017-03-05 8252.25 | 4 2017-03-05 1184.41 | 4 2017-03-03 1647.95 | 4 2017-03-05 147192.86
5 2017-03-02 1246.92 | 5 2017-03-02 8098.76 | 5 2017-03-02 1177.22 | 5 2017-03-07 1639.02 | 5 2017-03-02 145445.49
6 2017-03-07 1237.90 | 6 2017-03-07 8012.99 | 6 2017-03-07 1168.24 | 6 2017-03-02 1619.84 | 6 2017-03-07 145404.48
7 2017-03-01 1210.05 | 7 2017-02-28 7969.60 | 7 2017-03-01 1143.89 | 7 2017-03-08 1587.84 | 7 2017-03-01 140647.88
8 2017-02-28 1192.35 | 8 2017-03-01 7966.18 | 8 2017-02-28 1120.27 | 8 2017-03-01 1585.51 | 8 2017-03-10 139612.61
9 2017-02-27 1187.58 | 9 2017-01-04 7930.09 | 9 2017-03-08 1118.76 | 9 2017-03-09 1576.31 | 9 2017-03-08 139417.27
10 2017-03-08 1187.03 | 10 2017-02-27 7924.76 | 10 2017-02-27 1117.60 | 10 2017-02-28 1559.68 | 10 2017-03-09 138000.46
11 2017-03-09 1178.33 | 11 2017-02-24 7885.10 | 11 2017-02-24 1113.01 | 11 2017-03-10 1552.00 | 11 2017-02-28 137761.07
12 2017-02-24 1174.77 | 12 2017-03-08 7818.89 | 12 2017-03-09 1111.18 | 12 2017-02-27 1495.83 | 12 2017-02-24 135923.92
13 2017-02-26 1167.15 | 13 2017-03-10 7784.76 | 13 2017-03-10 1107.14 | 13 2017-02-23 1480.83 | 13 2017-02-27 135030.14
14 2017-03-10 1160.23 | 14 2017-02-25 7771.73 | 14 2017-02-26 1101.62 | 14 2017-02-22 1462.33 | 14 2017-01-05 134130.07
15 2017-02-25 1158.37 | 15 2017-02-26 7730.95 | 15 2017-02-25 1094.56 | 15 2017-01-04 1447.48 | 15 2017-02-26 133575.11
16 2017-02-23 1153.56 | 16 2017-03-09 7705.69 | 16 2017-02-23 1091.44 | 16 2017-02-24 1445.98 | 16 2017-02-25 132916.76
17 2013-11-30 1132.29 | 17 2017-02-23 7670.37 | 17 2017-02-22 1062.21 | 17 2017-02-25 1431.30 | 17 2017-02-23 132337.14
18 2017-02-22 1126.24 | 18 2017-01-05 7503.71 | 18 2017-01-04 1045.93 | 18 2017-02-26 1396.75 | 18 2017-01-04 131489.82
19 2013-12-04 1111.56 | 19 2017-02-22 7464.16 | 19 2017-02-21 1043.01 | 19 2017-02-21 1378.77 | 19 2017-02-22 129848.88
20 2017-02-21 1104.60 | 20 2013-11-30 7405.69 | 20 2017-02-20 1003.13 | 20 2017-01-03 1371.34 | 20 2017-02-21 126654.44
As long as we keep pushing those 2013 numbers down I'll be happy. |
|
|
|
This may be a stupid question, but how exactly is the SEC going to announce the decision? Are they going to publish something online or will the king of SEC step out on a balcony of the SEC HQ and proclaim the decision to a raging crowd in front of the building or how else will they do this?
The appropriate official will spurt a 'Y' or 'N' with their semen across a stripper's breasts. Those guys know how to deliver a message that hits hard. Baaaahhahahahahaha I guess the first time I posted this it got removed for not being about walls or price movement? So, I'm using the wall @1207.10 as a safety net to do small trades, anyone else ever do this? Hopefully some people will see the arbitration opportunity at coinbase and dump the price down to what it is on the other exchanges. Unless the gap has already closed, I don't see enough of a gap to mess with. It is currently less than 0.5%, which barely covers fees. |
|
|
|
...figure only 1 out of 20 odds of this being true...but BTC can still go pear shaped...
... No, it won't cause an immediate fork once it gets to some magic threshold. Do you realise that once 51% of blocks are signalling Unlimited (according to Coindance today it is 33.3%) then the very first block mined by an Unlimited miner who cares to create a block of any size above 1 MB, will create a fork. BU miners will be able to follow that fork. That fork will be invalid for Core miners. The reasoning from some BU community members is that everyone will be sensible enough to wait until something like 75% of blocks support BU, before a miner creates such a block. I ask anyone following the whole scaling debate from both sides, are coordination and cooperation the hallmarks of this situation? The moment we reach 51% of blocks signalling BU, a whole new opportunity opens up for manipulation, for example for a miner to take a short position on Bitcoin and then mine +1MB blocks, before a more sensible threshold is reached. Bitcoin has always been about one chain, one history, no split, immutability. This is going to be the biggest paradigm shift since the genesis block. For months the talk has been ETF, China, etc. Scaling is by far and away the no.1 critical issue - has been for two years. I don't think people fully understand what's coming. For disclosure, personally I'm not heavily on one or other side of the debate. That is not how BU works. Miners have an "excessive block" (EB) setting. They will not produce or mine on top of a block that exceeds this setting. If an excessive block gets more confirmations than their acceptance depth (AD), then they will mine on top of it, but will still not produce their own larger blocks. 99% of miners signaling for BU have a EB setting of 1MB. At 51% you still can't cause a fork unless you can mine enough blocks to exceed the AD of half the miners, which is highly unlikely since most have an AD of 6. So, I'll repeat myself and ask people to put some effort into understanding how BU works instead of continuing to spread false information about it. |
|
|
|
Both camps will get nowhere imho. Thus 1mb will stand...bitcoin core prefers that anyway...and eventually BTC will likely FORK ..just because if they have
not agreed to a compromise by this time..they likely won't.....wait for bitcoin core to push an alternative way to do this as a softfork and the BU miners
will fork...
As long as I'm talking doom here....the 'supposed satoshi' 'craig wright' continues to claim on Jan 1st 2020 he will get a big trust of BTC set aside for
the founders/him/etc...that would be annoying..the 'tweb' imho will flush most of it and currently is making patents on the supposed proof he is such
by getting into the supposed trust with satoshi addresses on that date
figure only 1 out of 20 odds of this being true...but BTC can still go pear shaped...
The free market always finds a way. Once people understand how BU actually works instead of just parroting the propaganda it will be seen as a reasonable approach. Yes, it needs more testing. No, it won't cause an immediate fork once it gets to some magic threshold. What it does do is provide a mechanism for miners and exchanges to allow blocksize to be driven by the costs involved in processing transactions. |
|
|
|
I think they are not bulls and i think the reason why the price of bitcoin are getting dump due to the news about ETF rejection.
Well its been discuss few days ago and i think this is the reason because its started to dump when the news releases.
What are you talking about? The ETF has not been rejected yet. |
|
|
|
This is good.
Weak hands are shaken out.
A friendly advice, this isn't like other forums with small communities, there is a standard when it comes to using colored messages #default color.(I'm not an admin/moderator but I'm sure they'll warn you if you keep using colored fonts as a style) Back on topic, if there is no slight pump and dump no economy would exist at all, good thing about pump and dumps in bitcoin is that a real community stands behind it, I'm talking about at least 5 million people and it's more like a big city, there will always be someone to pick whatever others dump. Another example of the situation could be compared to a dam when it rains over a week the water overflows and even some might open a valve to decrease the pressure to avoid any collapse but the rain never stops for ever. In our case demand and new members count in community is growing, bottom line: you'll only lose selling at any given market price(the irony) and never will lose buying at any given market price. moreover actively trading bitcoins on highs and lows is where the real profit at. S3052 uses blue all the time and nobody seems to bother him about it. |
|
|
|
I came here because I was interested to read the stories of many of you fellas in respect to bitcoin price analysis and predictions. Instead, I see lot's of BU nonsense.   We see a dip yesterday from nearly upper $1200s to mid $1100s and then a return to mid $1200s.. and now a drop to upper $1100s. This all seems to be related to uncertainty either way regarding the direction of any possible ETF announcement, and folks seem to be kinda raring to go, no? Of course, some have pre-emptively struck in one direction or another with their belief about what the outcome is going to be. lol ya, Me too, seems that when price drops, we all come here, some poeple post a link or 2 explaining why price is acting the way it is ( the ETF thing coming soon) and then we proceed to discuss the all the other forking shit. Antpool mined a few BU blocks and this subforum went nuts with threads about an imminent fork . Naturally, this thread got caught up in it. |
|
|
|
And let me tell you something else, Satoshi never envisioned centralized mining in China or mega mines with ASICs when he wrote the white paper. He envisioned decentralized mining, with people mining in their homes on PCs.
At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
Here is the source of that quote in context: https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09964.html |
|
|
|
Emergent consensus is not elimination of block size restriction. Miners will always restrict size because there is a cost to increasing it. When BU forms a chain, it will take one, and only one, 'valid' malicious block to ruin that chain forever. Any BUcoin will exist forever with that Sword of Damocles hanging over it. On that one fatal security flaw alone it is not a serious contender for solving capacity expansion for bitcoin. WTF are you talking about? Can you please go into detail about how a single malicious block can cause any harm to anyone other than the miner who produced it? |
|
|
|
|
Be proactive, not reactive. Place limit orders ahead of time and when one is hit, put in the opposite order at a reasonable profit level. Then, just let volatility handle the rest.
|
|
|
|
Actually, pools control the blocksize.
minners are free to pick the pool they mine at. Exactly, but who has the control over block size other than the pool operator. P2Pool? the network as a whole? nothing really changes, bitcoin is not free of its limits only more able to coordinate its limits without being less hindered by politics. I would hope that if EC is to be successful, it's with >90%. and I Really hope all the small blocks stay, and provide adequate pressure to make sure blocks grow at a respectable comfortable rate. Democracy is about compromise, SegWit was Core's compromise. It was up to the pool operators to accept the compromise. Please broaden your outlook, it is easier to point fingers than do critical thinking. If SegWit was the compromise, what was the original position? Besides, according the the hong kong agreement, the compromise was segwit + a can kick blocksize increase. The latter part never materialized. You can't "compromise", and then abandon the concessions you've made to achieve that agreement. |
|
|
|
Just bought the dip  This guy gets it. |
|
|
|
The price was pretty high, no? The pre ETF pump seems to have got a scare from the Bitcoin Unlimited threats of a fork. Meh.
I want to know something, what do you think will happen if BU can successfully fork and become the majority? do you think that bitcoins prior to the fork will no longer hold any value or if you try to transfer them then they will never get included and validated by miners and nodes? Miners will have to stop operations because their ASICs will no longer be able to function as before? Will I be able to still buy and sell bitcoins or not? These things should be thought of when community wants to get scared and dump, stop being dumb and think about every aspects of any possible scenario. If bitcoin's price only goes up without any drops it's not called bitcoin it's called bubblecoin. No miner in their right mind would create an excessive block larger than the majority is willing to accept. The majority won't accept larger than 1mb until they have assurances that the exchanges will follow the longest chain. People would rather run around screaming about the sky is falling than to take the time to understand how emergent consensus works. It is the underpinning of the entire bitcoin network and always has been. |
|
|
|
according to the graphic above EC has ~40% and EC+8MB has ~60%
wow, i didnt realize we are so DOOOOOOMED!
last chance to sell V1 coins.
I don't understand your constant whining guys. What's the problems with the fees and the limiting number of txs per day? If you want to get in the block pay more. it's so easy. yes bitcoin isn't your free coins that you can get anything for free with it. It's not like what you are used to. if you want to get in a block pay the fees, as such you support the miners and the networks. if you find it too expensive why aren't you mining? that's right because it's not free. you want a free miner, with free electricity... I hope that some of you will reconsider their positions. with bitcoin you can store and move value very efficiently and cheaply and safely against all regulations or actors. The limit should be determined by miners. Bitcoin core developers controlling block size is just another form of price fixing/rationing. We all should know how well that works out by now. the last block happened ~30 mins ago and ~5mbs (3100) of new txs are waiting (on top of the queue from before the last block). there is 1 big question: should bitcoin be the one coin to bind them all, meaning forks and others side chains are seen as uncomplimentary. in the one coin optic 8mb, 80mb or 80 Gbs will never be enough... but in my opinion it's unsafe and not very resilient. I prefer to keep the original network at 1mb (and why 8mbs? to please the "chineses", why not directly 10mb?). Forks and side chains will play a role, but if bitcoin doesn't allow the people with the most information about what the network can handle (the miners) to optimize block size, some other coin will. Then bitcoin won't have a role at all except as a historical curiosity. Emergent consensus is not elimination of block size restriction. Miners will always restrict size because there is a cost to increasing it. |
|
|
|
according to the graphic above EC has ~40% and EC+8MB has ~60%
wow, i didnt realize we are so DOOOOOOMED!
last chance to sell V1 coins.
I don't understand your constant whining guys. What's the problems with the fees and the limiting number of txs per day? If you want to get in the block pay more. it's so easy. yes bitcoin isn't your free coins that you can get anything for free with it. It's not like what you are used to. if you want to get in a block pay the fees, as such you support the miners and the networks. if you find it too expensive why aren't you mining? that's right because it's not free. you want a free miner, with free electricity... I hope that some of you will reconsider their positions. with bitcoin you can store and move value very efficiently and cheaply and safely against all regulations or actors. The limit should be determined by miners. Bitcoin core developers controlling block size is just another form of price fixing/rationing. We all should know how well that works out by now. |
|
|
|
|
March 3rd around 7am GMT was the best moment to sell.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
