In this article they state that 4/5 banks will be using blockchain tech (not bitcoin) in 2017. But if they have their own blockchain it'll be centralized and not have the "bitcoin network." Is it inevitable that they will turn to bitcoin in the end?
Who really cares? Horse renting companies will not be using gasoline engines, instead they will train horses to drink gasoline because it's hip and everybody does that. Will they turn and replace all their horses when they start to explode spontaneously? I really do not know, but I am sure by that time they will be completely irrelevant anyway  Nah they still use horses to give rides around parks. I'm sure we can find some niche for them |
|
|
|
Woo hoo $800 now i'm only $400 down  wake me up when we're past $1200 |
|
|
|
My spidey senses are tingling, and weekend is upon us  |
|
|
|
i want to go on a bit of a rant. its not price related but here's the chart anyway.  what would be best for bitcoin right now is unity.image core devs and bu devs and Gavin! coming out of the wood work all collaborating to give us segwit + free market BlockSize. that IMO is gold. that will yield small reasonable blocks size increases along side a LN network cooking to perfection. this outcome would yield 32,000$ a coin.. admit it. fight for this outcome. run a BU client if for no other reason as to express your desire for more diversified set of bitcoin BIPs on the table at any one time. anyway you look at it bitcoin is a buy right now, if it go segwit if it goes bu if it dose both in short order and then some. time is now. buy. Nope. Having no restriction on a size of a block chain is suicide! If core goes full retard and actually try that i'm shorting BTC getting some popcorn and will watch that dumb ass idea collapse on itself in fireworks. But don't let that discourage you. You go ahead and keep on shilling, BTW i like the rebranding from unlimited blocks to "free market BlockSize" how about "BestFlexibleBlocksThatSaveChildrenAndEndWars BlockSize" TM you too funny, but you try too hard |
|
|
|
|
Any updates on the Winterfloss twins and their ETF? What is the totally guaranteed 100% supercereal last deadline date for the ETF decision?
|
|
|
|
Or maybe, y'know, not everyone out there is a foaming anti semite? There are people out there with different points of view.
It looks like you might be a:  Scarey conclusions ya make. Why in hell do u talk about Jewish mental health establishment on the speculation-nebulation topic? Meet our local nazi. He's been trying to rally up people to start another holocaust. Something about murdering innocent children that somehow purifies you. No one knows wtf he's talking about, but there's an Ignore button that makes him stfu for good |
|
|
|
And as usual BTC does the inverse of what the wall observers expect... honey badger? On a separate note, if my math is right about BTC12.600 (12.5*6*24*7) BTC are mined every week. Finex is showing about BTC40.000 weekly volume but i guess most of that can be attributed to speculation even with their fees? Not even going to talk about Chinese exchanges  But  https://coin.dance/volume/localbitcoins/ALLshows that there have been sustained volume of around BTC24.000/week for pretty much two years now, since the begging of 2015 on LocalBitcoins. That's about twice the volume of all BTC mined traded just on LocalBitcoins. Which is not a great platform for speculations. Which leads me to believe that either 1-Volume is fake 2-Majority of acquired BTC are used for transactions and are quickly traded back into fiat 3-Someone is selling their reserves to meet the demand  |
|
|
|
something nasty brewing ... wouldn't want to be leveraged right now Did someone's shorts caught on fire?  imagine if all your undeclared profits were from shorting bitcoin for 3 years and held in fiat at a bitcoin exchange that just got a federal court summons from IRS ... wouldn't that suck worse than your shorts blowing up in your face?! A fiat meister's hell on earth. Who trades on coinbase? Especially in 2014? I'm guessing those number are marginal at best. And market is showing how much it cares for it right now Looking at a report apparently they show any coins deposited at what the value was at that specific time, meaning they have no knowledge of how much you paid unless you bought the bitcoin on their site. Yep plus people who bought and HODLed are once again not effected |
|
|
|
something nasty brewing ... wouldn't want to be leveraged right now Did someone's shorts caught on fire? imagine if all your undeclared profits were from shorting bitcoin for 3 years and held in fiat at a bitcoin exchange that just got a federal court summons from IRS ... wouldn't that suck worse than your shorts blowing up in your face?! A fiat meister's hell on earth. Who trades on coinbase? Especially in 2014? I'm guessing those number are marginal at best. And market is showing how much it cares for it right now |
|
|
|
something nasty brewing ... wouldn't want to be leveraged right now Did someone's shorts caught on fire? |
|
|
|
Whoboy is at $790 just $10 more ... push baby push |
|
|
|
I'd feel much more bullish if segwit was getting activated
... member when one coin was 15 cents ?
oooooh, I member!  I don't member 15c exactly, but i member mining it on my CPU for one night, then realizing that i didn't mine a single block for the whole night it was running so I gave up on BTC for a year or so. Damn this ADHD generation |
|
|
|
|
I'd feel much more bullish if segwit was getting activated
|
|
|
|
Mr Bear Dolphin is back on finex ? BTC618 ask @ $730
BTC618 is a wall for finex nowadays right?
*Poof* and it's gone. Well he moved it up to $735 |
|
|
|
|
Mr Bear Dolphin is back on finex ? BTC618 ask @ $730
BTC618 is a wall for finex nowadays right?
|
|
|
|
Is Ether good for btc price?
Huh straight to the point. I'm kinda split on that. From the investment stand point, it's a competitor so it takes market cap away from BTC and has a theoretical potential to dethrone BTC. But currently it's only like 6% of BTCs market cap so not much to worry about yet (if ever). On another hand it's a cryptocoin so it gets publicity to the space, and technically can be seen as a testbed for new proposals to see how technology/market will behave and the good ideas can be cherry picked into BTC and for the bad ones they can just hard fork and roll back like twice a day and no one cares Probably good now, but can start turning bad if they'll start picking up market share say above 25% of BTC |
|
|
|
This is it, time is up. rewards have been halved, hype is brewing. Bitcoin always going to be bummin' around, and paper $$$ only gets less useful by the day.
In 1 week we will be pushing 800
In 1 year we will be pushing 2400
In 10 years, global economic unity.
Liquid fucking bits
I like your optimism. I don't know why, when I read Cmacwiz's post, I felt it's really true and it will happen. You better hope that BTC won't become the "global economic unity". If so even one BTC would be worth hundreds of millions US$ and every current holder would be haunted. We can decide to just distribute our wealth and fund programs of art, athletics and academics. Maybe invest in renewables research, desalination, etc... We don't all have to Scrooge McDuck our BTC forever. With regards to my oracle sh!tpost: I hardly can find anything to say, but I'm trying to get that fourth coin next to my username! I do believe what I said. Hmm already talking about islands and body doubles. The inverse theory says we must be going down soon?!?! Plus i'd venture a guess that most here would OD on hookers and blow, way before private islands would get in range |
|
|
|
... moving txs to LN will hurt miners revenue in the future so they will ultimately reject segwit without a block increase first
Segwit != moving TXs to LN. Stop spreading false information. Segwit is a block size increase. firstly your playing semantics.. segwit is a BLOAT size increase(4mb). with a side effect of capacity increase (1.8mb-2.1mb) the 4mb weight limit has no correlation to capacity. the base block and witness does.. which is having a one time side effect on capacity increase, but cannot scale. EG you cannot re segwit a segwit, so has nothing to do with scaling. its a one time boost. stop over selling it. secondly your right segwit doesnt mean moving txs to LN. (but your just twisting 'why' its not directly involved with LN) much like seeing a baby take its first step doesnt mean all babies should be entered into a cities marathon race event. but without being able to take a certain step early on, marathons in the future would never happen. lets atleast not think that marathons are made compulsory for anyone able to walk in the future. lets atleast not think LN is compulsory for anyone able to use bitcoin in the future. so i hope i never see you in the future talk about LN as the solution to scaling. or i will have to refer you to this post to remind you So let me see if i understand you correctly, now we are able to process 1MB of transactions every 10 min, after the upgrade we will be able to process 2.1MB of transactions every 10min. Which as you agree is a capacity increase, yet somehow it doesn't equate to scaling because babies can't run marathons. Yes how can the rest of the world not understand that logic, the only reasonable explanation is a conspiracy by the big bankers. You'd have a much better argument just straight up saying that you don't consider manual increases of throughput as scaling, and what YOU mean by scaling is AUTOMATED scaling e.g. where block size can be adjusted unlimitedly up by the protocol i.e. BU. And your logic on why LN is not a solution to scaling, is most people think of scaling in terms of throughput/tps e.g. how many transactions can be made with BTC. Where your definition of scaling is the the size of the blocksize data structure in C++ See how easy that was, no that we agreed on terms there's no need to argue anymore |
|
|
|
I still don't understand why there are some people opposed to the SegWit implementation. Isn't it something that will make the Bitcoin ecosystem better? What are the arguments against this? Could it take more than a month for the consensus to be reached?
Let me try to explain it the way I see it. The problem the Chinese have with Segwit, is not so much with Segwit itself but with what will happen after Segwit. The Chinese are afraid that the side-chains the core devs are working on will take money out of their pockets by reducing the number of potential transaction fees in the future. So by blocking Segwit, they are blocking side-chains like lightning network. The Chinese want bigger blocks to collect more money in fees in the future. At least this is what I think, maybe I am wrong or maybe someone can explain it better. I have heard that explanation before, and it really makes very little sense because bitcoin takes a really long time to develop and evolve, and there are always going to be changes in one direction or another and various kinds of ways to tweak your own business method in order to attempt to increase profits or to make various bets upon the future. Seg wit was largely a consensus driven development that has been considerably tested and has taken a while to get to its current stage of attempted activation. Even with all of this, miners are going to be able to adapt in order to find profit models, and I doubt that any miner really expects bitcoin to stay stagnant or that their way of mining does not have to evolve with changes in software, fees and/or practices. So after investing millions in technology which would possible take years to get a return on investment you're saying miners should be happy about instant (almost free) LN transactions which they can't profit from? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
