BU doesn't need any signaling. It will control the longest chain today if 51% of mining power supports it.
Also know as a 51% attack. I see what you're attempting with your rhetroric. Clever. People need to wake up and stop living in denial. China is trying to take control of Bitcoin. Anyone who agrees with BUChina does not believe in decentralization and supports the hijacking of Bitcoin. huh? So if China does the most work in a proof-of-work system, that means Bitcoin is hijacked? Sorry i'm confused what you're saying here. People don't seem to understand bitcoin. From the abstract of the whitepaper (see my sig). The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.
Without trusting in majority hashpower, the entire basis for the functioning of the bitcoin network falls apart. If you'd rather trust a privileged group of people, stick to traditional banks/fiat money. |
|
|
|
BU is garbage, only a fucking idiot thinks it's a good idea.
I think BU is a good idea. I realize you don't know me from adam, but I assure you, I am not a fucking idiot. Certainly the evidence of my position in life disproves the assertion. Mr. "I'm gonna defraud a million bucks from daddy under false pretenses" (bystanders might ask Dafar what I refer to here) I note you make no argument -- only sling shit -- in your screed. Oh look - new material edited. OK - amongst the ad-homs you do say one thing at least defensible: BU may never achieve critical mass. As neither has done Classic or others... ...As neither has done The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. It is hilarious how much panic a few BU blocks can cause. Even if BU becomes the majority, it won't fork until a large size is coordinated with all the relevant actors. Nobody in their right mind would mine a block bigger than 1MB before everyone is ready. If they do, fuck 'em. But all the smallblockists are shitting themselves over nothing. BU doesn't solve the block size debate or remove the block size limit. It just enables decisions to be made by people who aren't developers. If you want your decentralized money system to have price controls, I'm not sure why you chose to support bitcoin. |
|
|
|
text
The blocksize will obviously need to be larger or the fees will become too big. Why is that hard to understand tho? The fees need to become too big to accelerate development of long term scaling solutions like LN. Why is that hard to understand tho? Show me a solution to the decentralized routing problem that prevents LN from devolving into a hub and spoke model that just creates a new banker class (or is bought up by the existing one). |
|
|
|
What panic? No sudden moves showing on coinmarketcap. Somebody's watching the 5 minute chart and hasn't realized that the $5 range today makes tiny moves look huge. |
|
|
|
I will just add some theory-crafting to this, otherwise, troll thread. I wanted to bet whether ETH will be/won't be approved.
These are the odds for this event, taken from one of the sportsbook's operators offering the bet: No @1.54 Yes @2.65
Considered that almost everyone agrees that ETF won't be accepted, then why we have so high odds for 'No'?
If you're going to quote odds, why not provide a link so that OP can bet on yes and even it out? |
|
|
|
That page literally says "Unlisted" right below "COIN". The COIN symbol has been reserved for years. This is not an indicator of anything. |
|
|
|
is there any way we can user activate women out of cryptocurrency? that would be nice lol
I have found if you just talk computers or bitcoin in general to women they run away. So I don't think we have to worry about that in our geek/lame world here on bitcointalk. (or in real life for that manner) hmmm..that may have been a bit too harsh for this group.... on the other hand I have heard that if BTC gets to be around 10k a BTC and you have 100 BTC you suddenly without rime nor reason become very attractive...its a mystery? go figure? Some women are more devoted to BTC than the men around here.  They would have to be to stick around in the face of the infantile ignorance shown towards their gender. |
|
|
|
Lol here's a suggestion, use the correct number. The shorts right now are 13400 and longs are 28k. The chart you're using is including btc swaps used to long altcoins. Here is the correct chart: https://www.bfxdata.com/positions/btcusdLong alts against btc is short btc. However, thank you for pointing out the correct numbers for the btcusd market, although now it is $27.6k for longs and $13.5k for shorts. Using the btcusd figures, the shorts did get up around 50% from around 1000 to 1040, but dropped from there until around March 1st. They have begun to rise again, but are currently only 32.8%. |
|
|
|
If COIN is approved [25%] then GBTC will trade at a discount Given that the underlying BTC represented by a GBTC share would still be worth just the same as any other such amount of BTC in such a scenario, I'm curious to know how much of a discount people think GBTC would trade at versus BTC, also given that COIN wouldn't be immediately available after approval. They are worth less because they are guaranteed to decay due to the fund's fees. Each share started at 0.1 BTC, but is now 0.09336483 BTC. |
|
|
|
Wow, that's a beautiful beach in Cuba ... commies can ruin anything.
I highly recommend you watch The Cuba Libre Story on Netflix. Yes, Che Guevara was communist, but Fidel Castro was opposed to it until the US branded him as one. At that point he had no choice but to embrace the Soviets. That said, we've never seen real communism on a national scale. We've seen autocracies hiding behind a communist banner. The central tenant of communism is worker owned businesses, not state run economies. yea, but now the concept of communism is tainted by those autocracies, so we may never see a real one. least in our life times. Certainly not an entire nation-state. Communism is alive and well on a small scale embedded in every nation. Even in the uber-capitalist US, there are companies who are nearly entirely employee owned. There are many advantages of such a structure, starting with the ability to look more at the long term consequences of decisions rather than focusing on the next quarter's earnings. |
|
|
|
Wow, that's a beautiful beach in Cuba ... commies can ruin anything.
I highly recommend you watch The Cuba Libre Story on Netflix. Yes, Che Guevara was communist, but Fidel Castro was opposed to it until the US branded him as one. At that point he had no choice but to embrace the Soviets. That said, we've never seen real communism on a national scale. We've seen autocracies hiding behind a communist banner. The central tenant of communism is worker owned businesses, not state run economies. |
|
|
|
I saw that wall. It's kind of ridiculous. Don't multi-millionaires have more fun things to do than flash monster-sized bitcoin walls?
That wasn't a wall of bitcoins. It was a wall of USD. Saw the same thing yesterday. An offer to buy 1000 coins appears out of the blue and vanishes seconds later. Same person or group? These are possibly Virtu, Convergex, and KCG (COIN ETF Authorized Participants) testing out their buying process prior to launch. The ETF only accepts "Baskets" of 1,000 BTC minimum in exchange for COIN shares to sell. I think it is 1,000 shares, and with 0.01 btc/share, it is 10 btc. If the minimum trade was over $1 million worth of btc, the price would not track very closely. |
|
|
|
We might break negative on the premium soon. Watching the intra-day price moves today it touched something like 1.65%.
This seems extreme, especially since premium has been so high in the past (up to 80% wasn't it?). Any ideas what's going on here, I know ETF is muted as a reason but could it be something else also? Just COIN as far as I know. However, consider that COIN will be a stable 0.01/share and should track very closely. Since GBTC has fees that eat at the btc/share, it makes sense that in a competitive market it would indeed trade at a discount. |
|
|
|
Today we could hit the third lowest percent difference ever at close. GBTC would have to close below a 3.48% premium.
Using $1190 as the current btc price, $115 as the gbtc price, and 0.09336483 as the current btc/share, the premium is 3.5%. |
|
|
|
1 minute charts... what could go wrong? |
|
|
|
Guys.. I'm drunk, and I just bought some more....I never bought this high before, not even close. I think I made a big mistake, but fuck it!  you'll do just fine |
|
|
|
hey guys, he was just trolling... but don't let that stop you from trying to tell him how wrong he is Just kiding guys  Currently celebrating ATH. Cheers. |
|
|
|
This isn't making a whole lot of sense because we're hitting all time highs at the same time that fees are climbing and transaction times are increasing. It seem like it would be the other way around for some reason. Can somebody explain?
You're thinking about it backwards. Price rise causes the increase in transactions. Some people move their BTC to sell, some people take advantage of the opportunity to buy things and pay with BTC. I guess that's one way of looking at it. But, it seems like if people we're selling off, it would drive the price down, and it seems like increased fees would reduce the frequency of smaller transactions which would then increase transaction speeds by reducing the stress on the mempool. Maybe I'm going to have to think about it a little more. Maybe it is different this time with the transaction limit pressure, but in previous rallies payment processors like bitpay have reported huge jumps in bitcoin transactions. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
