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? |
|
|
|
.....
its a very complex issue.... with no clear cut right answer.
+1 This I can agree with. I have read and read as much as I can, but all I can conclude is that I don't know the right answer. Try to see if you can find a single good argument against SegWit or LN. Free instant transactions sound terrible right? Now put yourself in the miners shoes, where you just invested millions in these mining farms and the only way you make money is by mining blocks. Bigger blocks = more money. Now i wonder why would miners want unlimited blocks hmmmm  |
|
|
|
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. Yes that times a million. Its a business which they've literally invested millions into. If the block size is limited = their profits are limited. Thats why they want unlimited blocks i'm yet to hear a single good reason against SegWit |
|
|
|
how can you claim to know what the majority want?
even people that love core want dynamic blocksize. the only argument they can come up with though is that they would only TRUST gmaxwell to write the code for it. they are even screaming to tell the community that core never said no to a increase of the base blocksize, they just waiting for gmaxwell who proposed a dynamic blocksize LAST YEAR!afterall the altcoin dooms day myth has been busted. all that will happen is an elevation of possible orphan rate due to how small or large the minority is (hense 95%+ acceptability to implement). making under 5% (under 250 of 5000 nodes) not sync and need to upgrade. afterall the bloat doomsday myth has been busted. 4mb bloat is acceptable so the solution/compromise is obvious. core tweak their segwit code to 2mb base 4mb weight.. call it 0.13.1b release it alongside 0.13.1 and let the community choose to download either 0.13.1 or 0.13.1b atleast if everyone happily downloads 0.13.1b segwit also gets activated by default too. if there is no desire of a jump in base block.. then no one will download 0.13.1b and it wont activate. meaning no harm either fanboys just download 0.13.1 instead but simply preventing even letting the community have the release to even have a choice under their 'trusted' brand they wont run away from. is no longer the right course of action then. when activated and we have more REAL capacity because the buffer has increased. that gives alot more time to code new features instead of these stupid delays Personally I'd like to see some research on what effect 4mb weight blocks would have on further centralization, but that's what i foresee most likely to happen. If 0.13.1 won't get enabled, bump up blocks to 2MB+segwit and let people vote on that. |
|
|
|
main community wants segwit!
who are you referring to? the poeple from the censored forms? node count? hashing power? how can you claim to know what the majority want? Are you asking me or franky1? Let me highlight the important parts that you cut out from my quote to make it seem out of context Only problem is that big blockers realizes that even 20MB blocks cannot accommodate the transaction volume they speak of, nor does it solve 10min confirmation time. So other layers must be implemented which cannot (efficiently) be done without segwit. So they're just trying to hold segwit hostage.
holding it hostage?? um... like core not coding something so holding the other bip hostage by not even having a release available. which is far more hostile then having code released but people choose not to use it. also are you presume bitcoin is going to jump in utility by a factor of 20, in days, weeks, months, years..? seems your opinion is that its going to jump in days-months and so your upset that bitcoin cant cope.. yet RATIONALLY bitcoin utility will grow over YEARS and in those YEARS larger blocks would be happily relayable. the main community is not saying jump to 20mb in weeks-months. its instead asking for a rational growth over rational time without having to beg devs "can i have some more" every couple years. by allowing the growth to be dynamic and not controlled by a team of people paid by banks. its also worth looking at the bait and switch proposals and who actually proposed them, to then realise that it was done to scare people into loving core If a space on a distributed blockchain costs only $0.01 i might use it as a notepad to store my reminders. e.g. if it's free (or almost free) to spam i can't imagine mempool being empty again, regardless of the size of a block. by allowing the growth to be dynamic Yes sure why don't we introduce this HUGE attack vector into BTC? Sounds like a good plan. No one in their right mind would allow this. How big should a block be to handle Visa volumes?I like your assumptions of the desires of "main community". I can do that too, main community wants segwit! There is a group that proposed Classic/XT/BU which was/is rejected by the main community. Now there is a proposal for segwit, yet there is a group that is blocking it. So what are the options? Main community must agree with BU minority or otherwise no one gets segwit? |
|
|
|
Only problem is that big blockers realizes that even 20MB blocks cannot accommodate the transaction volume they speak of, nor does it solve 10min confirmation time. So other layers must be implemented which cannot (efficiently) be done without segwit. So they're just trying to hold segwit hostage.
holding it hostage?? um... like core not coding something so holding the other bip hostage by not even having a release available. which is far more hostile then having code released but people choose not to use it. also are you presume bitcoin is going to jump in utility by a factor of 20, in days, weeks, months, years..? seems your opinion is that its going to jump in days-months and so your upset that bitcoin cant cope.. yet RATIONALLY bitcoin utility will grow over YEARS and in those YEARS larger blocks would be happily relayable. the main community is not saying jump to 20mb in weeks-months. its instead asking for a rational growth over rational time without having to beg devs "can i have some more" every couple years. by allowing the growth to be dynamic and not controlled by a team of people paid by banks. its also worth looking at the bait and switch proposals and who actually proposed them, to then realise that it was done to scare people into loving core If a space on a distributed blockchain costs only $0.01 i might use it as a notepad to store my reminders. e.g. if it's free (or almost free) to spam i can't imagine mempool being empty again, regardless of the size of a block. by allowing the growth to be dynamic Yes sure why don't we introduce this HUGE attack vector into BTC? Sounds like a good plan. No one in their right mind would allow this. How big should a block be to handle Visa volumes? I like your assumptions of the desires of "main community". I can do that too, main community wants segwit! There is a group that proposed Classic/XT/BU which was/is rejected by the main community. Now there is a proposal for segwit, yet there is a group that is blocking it. So what are the options? Main community must agree with BU minority or otherwise no one gets segwit? |
|
|
|
...
Standard fallacy by misguided and/or delusional people.
The problem is far more complex that what you tend to show. There are currently two (primary) implemented proposals for on chain scaling:
1) Segwit via soft fork (Core).
2) Block size increase via hard fork (maximum 16 MB) (BU).
Okay, so the BU crowd wants to scale via a hard fork. But why this specific proposal? There are other, much more reasonable ones (e.g. the one with 17% yearly growth) that could work. I am in support of a hard fork post-Segwit, but I'm surely not going to support random node operators voting on these limits up to an absurdly large limit (16x higher than what is currently available).
Only problem is that big blockers realizes that even 20MB blocks cannot accommodate the transaction volume they speak of, nor does it solve 10min confirmation time. So other layers must be implemented which cannot (efficiently) be done without segwit. So they're just trying to hold segwit hostage. |
|
|
|
The bear is coming. Run for your lives.
unfortunately i agree market understands now that segwit wont come If it doesn't come because of opposition from the bigblockers, then this makes it apparent that they are not really interested in scaling and they probably never were. They just used scaling as an excuse for attempting a governance coup. So when scaling solutions were presented they didn't go with it and instead pretended to be dissatisfied opting for something else. the explanation is much easier than this: pride. the chinese miners have been humiliated in public with the breach of the HK-2MB-agreement and now maxwell and others expect them to cooperate? it would be seen as a public bowing infront of folks that insulted and betrayed them publicly for the last 12months. i remember here especially LukeJr that said some pretty nasty things about the chinese mining operators. so even if you look at it from an western perspective you should be easily able to understand why after all this fuck-up they refuse to cooperate. and if you go one step further and are able to understand asian culture you will even more be able to understand why (after the breach of the HK-agreement and the open insults) they are basically not able to activate segwit. pride is some strong motivation. even in greece. yeah that might be a problem. People digging in their feet for their agenda instead of what's good for BTC. Yeah segwit is great but we won't let it happen because we're upset, i doubt they'll get much empathy from the community that way |
|
|
|
Nah 2012 passed and we all lived through it |
|
|
|
This frustrating  I know for sure that if I sell it will go up and if I hold the price will go down Then sell damn you. Take a bullet for the rest of us. We promise to remember you as the geekiest sacrifice |
|
|
|
Hello Mr BTC2500 ask wall @ $740 on Finex. Wait are we still doing this wall thing?
Currently, I see 2,611 BTC at $740 on bitfinex. Will be interesting to see how long that wall lasts, and whether it gets eaten into, pulled or causes a price reversal. Most likely will be pulled once refueling expectations have been met. POOF aand pulled |
|
|
|
|
Hello Mr BTC2500 ask wall @ $740 on Finex. Wait are we still doing this wall thing?
|
|
|
|
China currency keeps devaluing. So i guess Trump was better for BTC.
Make Bitcoin Great Again!!!!
not until I see bitcoin price up price up = price>$1200 fine i agree |
|
|
|
|
China currency keeps devaluing. So i guess Trump was better for BTC.
Make Bitcoin Great Again!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
