|
well, didnt see this coming
|
|
|
|
|
This is not over, not until miners back off. Only one way to get miners to stand down, and this is it. Let's see how long they'll be able to keep their trolls going before public perception will turn against them, sheeple need to realize that investors don't want anything to do with their BTCINA coin.
|
|
|
|
Ver wont take the bet but if he does I'll throw all my btu at his btc any day of the week. But like i said. ver wont because he knows he would just be giving away all his money.
x2 No one really thought that selling BTU to miners is the easy part? BTC ina in miner conglomerate we trust™ |
|
|
|
BU Logic Step1: Conglomerate of miners corner the hash rate and fork to allow themselves to decide the size of the block. Step2:  Step3: People invest int BTC INA COIN Secured by code your friendly conglomerate of Chinese miners and PROFIT $$$Sure Wall St, Come over here, invest billions and approve your ETFs. You can trust us™  Is BU crowed seriously so we-tar-ded that no one considered that convincing the 50% + 1 of miners of something that is directly related to their short term profits might be the easy part? Miners need to be forced to realize that they might be left with their tokens to themselves. There will be blood, Loaded, once again, i applaud you! Core logic free the market free the world. right? Core's logic is security (decentralization falls under that) is above all. And people could stand behind that idea, you start f'ing with that and watch people vote with their feet, it really is that simple. The first stage will be the blame game, bring in the blood on the streets, decline in hash rate, lets see them start shutting down their plants, that's the only way for them to realize that they can't force investors as easily as trolling reditors! |
|
|
|
BU Logic Step1: Conglomerate of miners corner the hash rate and fork to allow themselves to decide the size of the block. Step2: Step3: People invest int BTC INA COIN Secured by code your friendly conglomerate of Chinese miners PROFIT $$$Sure Wall St, Come over here, invest billions and approve your ETFs. You can trust us™ Is BU crowed seriously so we-tar-ded that no one considered that convincing the 50% + 1 of miners of something that is directly related to their short term profits might be the easy part? Miners need to be forced to realize that they might be left with their tokens to themselves. There will be blood, Loaded, once again, i applaud you! |
|
|
|
This question might sound stupid but I have been an investor never a miner .
If the fork would damage the price that much why would the miners go massively to it ? Wouldn't it affect their revenue? Or does people like Vinny Ligham overreact to the effects of an eventual HF?
tl;dr Power grab, and miners are hoping for short term losses over long term control. People invested substantial amount of money in BTC, well, because it's a honey badger, and these people consider that centralization to be the Achilles heel of BTC. Right now the blocksize limit is governed by the hardlimit in the code. Now miners (where majority of them are in China) want to remove that hardcoded limit and instead saying that they should be the ones to set it as they please (and it so happens that miners profits are directly related to the block size as well as large mining farms also stand to get an advantage in mining, the bigger the blocks get. Where core gains no direct benefit from 1mb block). Now anyone with any basic coding experience can see that this would introduce a huge attach vector, but the miners are the ones that control the hashrate and are starting to get some traction. But what not many people are talking about, and admittedly is very hard to gauge (and what i believe miners are underestimating) is investors perception. Many people are willing to invest millions of $$ because of the code, but once the code is replaced with "you can trust us, because we wouldn't do anything bad" people are not so willing to invest in ChinaCoin. |
|
|
|
this is way overbought dont you think.
i mean wtf, tomorrow 1200 as if nothing happened?
really?
Yeah it seems like its acting in inverse logic, seems like everyone was actually expecting for ETF to fail and were expecting to buy the dip. Melt down didn't happen so all these money on exchanges got to go somewhere |
|
|
|
ETF failed and we're still at the price we were in Feb? I was told there would be a crash is it still coming once the BU decide to fork? |
|
|
|
Bam! cheaper go cheaper ...  |
|
|
|
And how's the market doing tod  whoa what did i miss? |
|
|
|
centralised from chinese are much better than "centralise" from usa or un or satan eu-nato!!!!
you have short memo or iq "boy"
i don´t get your point. please let your iq enlighten me. if chinese not work ,bitcoin is now = 0 Yeah bitcoin wasn't 0 before chinese got in so... |
|
|
|
No, take off the hard block limit and leave BTC exposed to miner's will, you can trust us err them, you have nothing to worry about. Centralized miners are nice guys we ahem they wouldn't do anything bad with that. tl;dr: Centralized Chinese miners are threatening to spend $100 million to kill off Bitcoin if it tries to fight miner centralization. https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/827697817154052096*EDIT |
|
|
|
A week before I will get my 860 coins I WILL!  |
|
|
|
Is $1k party #3 still planned?? Or is everyone waiting for $10k party now? |
|
|
|
Finex is getting some volume back? Shorts are at 1yr high too, grab your torches? Do you think that when there are that many shorts, then the price is more likely to go up? I have no real clue, except that I do understand the motive to push the price in the opposite direction to force those shorts into being called. shorts are not at 1 year high, the 1 year high is 25,345 BTC August 1 2016 03:00 I was not really so worried about whether DaRude was technically correct, only whether there was some kind of significance in the quantity of change that he was witnessing... and whether that quantity of shorts would be some factor that would influence our insights concerning probabilities of the price moving in one direction or another. I do understand that it means that a lot of folks are appearing to be betting that the price is going down - but it does not necessarily mean that they are correct - but it does mean that we have had a significant amount of time in a price range that may cause some folks to believe that prices are going to be going down - even though they may not be going down.. Also, if the price went up to $950 or $990, would many other those shorts either be forced closed and sure some folks may chose to close them early or they may have taken certain stop loss measures... even at prices lower than $950. Ultimately, these matters can be a bit complicated, but still some folks may bet on shorter ranges without really appreciating that the price had been suppressed for about 2 years.. and we are likely still in a bull market and still in the process of rebounding from nearly two years of bear market. Edit: I just noticed the August 1, 2016 date that you mentioned - and yeah, what a coincidence, one day before the supposed "hack"... Well, those people that are betting are not doing it at BitFinex according to the pic below.  I see longs being more or less constant but shorts going up, are you seeing something else? |
|
|
|
Finex is getting some volume back? Shorts are at 1yr high too, grab your torches? Do you think that when there are that many shorts, then the price is more likely to go up? I have no real clue, except that I do understand the motive to push the price in the opposite direction to force those shorts into being called. shorts are not at 1 year high, the 1 year high is 25,345 BTC August 1 2016 03:00  Not seeing shorts crossing BTC25k on Aug 1st |
|
|
|
Finex is getting some volume back? Shorts are at 1yr high too, grab your torches? |
|
|
|
No, I'm not trolling. Some simple math: Say the network capacity is 15000 transactions per hour before the difficulty increase. Now the difficulty jump reduces capacity by 17%. So now capacity is 2550 transactions per hour less. Now assuming transaction demand remains the same, in 12 hours you'll amass 30k transactions above capacity which go into the mempool. So that alone explains more than half of the effect. No need to postulate a "spam attack". Any slight (10%) increase in demand at the same time would account for another 18k transactions making that 48k transactions, almost your measure 55k. Wait even with you math, a sudden consistent spike of 10% in volume across the board right at the time of difficulty adjustment looks normal to you? Now just a hypothetical, if you had limited resources and were to trying to spam the blockchain how exactly would you approach or perhaps time your attack?  we might be sending real users away to altcoins/paypal/...I'm not ruling out a spam attack, what you say is correct. I just don't like the going from "woah, there's 50k tx in the mempool" to "it must be a spam attack" when any 10% fluctuation in demand would explain it because this "jumping to conclusions" is really diverting the view from the actual problem we have here: namely that we might be sending real users away to altcoins/paypal/.... I don't want that happening, but I'm pretty sure it is.Postulating a spam attack (because it doesn't look "normal") everytime we hit the usage ceiling negates the existence of this problem and effectively diverts energy from solving it. I offered a different view that explains what's happening as quite "normal" so we can focus on the problem at hand: not enough capacity. That's funny cause actions like these cause the exact opposite reaction in me. Like every time there's blatant spam attack some BU supporter hilariously attempts to claim that it's normal organic growth. To a point where they lose all credibility and i find myself automatically starting to assume that it's shilling. Not that it can't be organic growth just because there's so much attempt at disinformation as if someone is trying too hard |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
