Is market cap not the Current value of bitcoins in circulation X Current price of bitcoins???
Is it just "Volume" that you are saying??? Because if these numbers are baseless, then what is the base that should be used to calculate the actual worth of Bitcoins' cap???
the answer is simple there is no actual "worth" of bitcoins by measuring the cap vs price... simply you dont base bitcoins infrastructure and economy on the market cap. i can make an alt tomorrow with 5trill coins. put just 1 coin on an exchange and sell it to myself for $1.. and suddenly my alt has a $5trillion market cap, all for the cost to myself of 1cent(1% exchange fee of the $1 trade) you base bitcoins "value" on its UTILITY but that involves not using stupid todler level maths. but actually look at the bigger things like monetary value of combined asics. the real audited worth of companies actively in bitcoin and other things. but thats too complex for some people to understand/measure |
|
|
|
wtv i believe that:
miners will centralize and stop checking each other's blocks in order allow limitless blockspace at no cost.
1. miners make more money by competing and find any excuse they can to reject their competition..to have as many ACCEPTABLE blocks on the chain that the nodes can accept to see the rewards so that pools can spend their 'winnings'.. so following what nodes allow = able to spend winnings 2. pools can build any length height of blocks they want(privately). but if nodes reject them.. then places like coinbase and bitfinex are not accepting those blocks. and so the pools are not going to get paid because the exchange nodes dont see their(rejected) blocks EG NODES rejected this block of 1.000250mb in 3seconds. 2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16) and just like all other orphans that happen weekly(for many different reasons).. that work done to produce that non accepting block. is not acceptable to nodes. meaning pools wont be able to spend the rewards... once its in the reject/orphan trash.. its gone and forgotton pools can continue building ontop it all they like(privately).. but if the node network reject it.. then pools cant spend it. pools end up wasting time playing hot-potato privately between themselves and exchanges never have to accept it. so its wasting the pools time for them to play silly games in their own little corner, because once its time to cashout.. they cant |
|
|
|
Greg has openly called for full blocks and a fee market (which we have right now). If blocks are empty, then when the reward drops to zero how will miners get paid? miners will allow limitless space at no cost if they are left in charge of blockspace. miners are not given that power or limitless control EG. 2009 upper limit 32mb.. lower limit was 250kb 2013 upper limit 1mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 500kb(policy.h) 2015 upper limit 1mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 750kb(policy.h) 2016 upper limit 1mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 999kb(policy.h) dynamics is for instance (dont knit pick the numbers just see the concept) 2017 upper limit 4mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 1.25mb(policy.h) 2018 upper limit 4mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 1.5mb(policy.h) 2018 upper limit 4mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 1.75mb(policy.h) then a rethink about the network speed capability 2019 upper limit 8mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 2mb(policy.h) policy becomes more fluid and adjustable based on MAJORITY nodes useragent display of their LOWER limit. but consensus.h stays static, pools see where a MAJORITY of nodes prefer their policy limit. and the MINORITY get a message that their policy.h needs changing or will be surpassed due to the minority having too low a policy. but pools will not surpass the real main consensus.h limit a few dynamic implementations are actually looking into having speedtests in the node to actually know what the node is actually capable of. to make nodes more self reliant on setting their limits without devs in a different county having to guess whats 'safe' |
|
|
|
Segwit seems to have edged past Unlimited now (last 144 blocks mined). https://coin.dance/blocksSegwit supported by 37.5% of blocks, Unlimited supported by 36.8% of blocks. Overall, a pretty much split society.  meanwhile it still means that ~25% are still abstaining either way. trying to make jihan of 16% be the reason of 62% veto/abstaining against cores segwit. makes me laugh |
|
|
|
Greg has openly called for full blocks and a fee market (which we have right now). If blocks are empty, then when the reward drops to zero how will miners get paid? get your grandchildren to ask again in 100+ years, and tell them to relax.. even then in a century they will still have a couple decades to prepare for the answer |
|
|
|
core cry that splitting the network is bad.. sooo core propose to split the network laughing soo much meanwhile many different dynamic implementations continue plodding along without making threats and just letting real consensus find its way.
core cry that setting deadlines are bad.. sooo core propose a deadline laughing soo much meanwhile many different dynamic implementations continue plodding along without making threats and just letting real consensus find its way.
core cry when the price moves up and down and try making it sound important meanwhile exchange move from $935 ⇘ $933 by a user with just $302(324mbtc) meanwhile exchange move from $933 ⇗ $935 by a user with just $50(54mbtc)  (note trades measured in mBTC (0.001btc)less than $302(324mbtc) to drop the price from $935 to $933 ⇘yep $302 to make the market cap change by $32,470,200.00 then ~$50(54mbtc) to ramp the price from $933 to $935 ⇗yep $50 to make the market cap change by 32,470,200.00 price movements are not a sign of any "community consensus" due low funds being used and also the high increments per orderline causing the volatility($1 gap per increment)... making it easy to make the market volatile without needing large community/whales |
|
|
|
|
core crew gave THEIR votes to pools.
now trying hard to blame others.
so funny.
meanwhile many different implementations continue plodding along without making threats and just letting real consensus find its way.
while core are shooting themselves in the foot and pointing towards the anyone they can see to blame for it. and all finding the excuses they can to launch the nuke which they pretend others will fire first.
|
|
|
|
AntPool = BTC-U supporter of bigger blocks HAHAHAHAHA fuck them those china miners cartel
they need BIGGER BLOCKS ? Why ? They can't even mine constant 1MB....
AntPool = BTC-U supporter of bigger blocks miner control of the networkThere, fixed it for you CK... you should know better shame on you trying to make scare stories fud and propaganda.. even you know if NODE consensus does not exist, then whatever gets made which does not follow node consensus gets rejected in 3 seconds. need proof: 2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)
try sticking with facts next time |
|
|
|
THE MAJORITY is with you 21 million %.
cant even get your numbers right there are only 16m coins in circulation and if everyone was kissing his ass it would have been running by christmas |
|
|
|
blah blah blah OP just reads reddit doomsdays rhetoric.. .. now to correct him with reality. pools do not control bitcoin.. pools just collate data. if they do not collate it in a way that NODES accept.. its rejected in 3 seconds.. need proof? 2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)
there... gone in 3 seconds. need more proof? https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocksas for thinking node consensus is not needed. its core who have bypassed a node vote. remember its just a vote. nothing more. pools didnt create the vote, pools did not create the code. pools did not beg to bypass node votes. core and only core done that. pools are 71% abstaining/vetoing. because nodes are not ready. infact pools could vote. but pools even with 100% VOTE still would not actually MAKE new blocks unless they knew NODES would accept it. so pools are holding off and waiting unofficially for node consent. if core want to resolve things.. there are 2 options 1. PROVE how backward compatible things are by getting their partner BTCC to make a segwit block with a segwit confirmed tx in it.. worse case rejected in 3 seconds.. best case nothing bad. and it instills confidence. 2. make it dynamic segwit. that way when people realise segwit activation day solved nothing(due to needing users needing to do other things beyond segwit activation).. atleast people are then able to move on with dynamics rather than waiting another 2 years for core to make more excuses |
|
|
|
Would you please obsessing over me? It's creepy.
I am not your mommy.
You do not get to determine how I spend my time, you do not get to restrict what I say or believe. I don't force anyone to do anything. You will you make me cow down and obey you through threatening me by lying to the public to try to raise a mob of idiots against me, and even if you do manage to kill me you will not stop bitcoin, you will not convert it to the centralized coin you seem to so desperately want.
So give it a break.
you are the centralist!! how about just add a few lines of code to be dynamic with segwit. get your own desires of being god/mommy removed.. and bring yourself down to being on a level of PEER. not the TIER network you want P.s dont reply commenting about your own mommy complex.. only reply about: GMAXWLL: if core want to resolve things.. there are 2 options
1. PROVE how backward compatible things are by getting their partner BTCC to make a segwit block with a segwit confirmed tx in it.. worse case rejected in 3 seconds.. best case nothing bad. and it instills confidence.
2. make it dynamic segwit. that way when people realise segwit activation day solved nothing(due to needing users needing to do other things beyond segwit activation).. atleast people are then able to move on with dynamics rather than waiting another 2 years for core to make more excuses
|
|
|
|
|
he has a point about forget the price and instead concentrate on the infrastructure..
as the concentration on the infrastructure will take care of the price as a side positive effect anyway..
but his understanding of the debate seems to be more of reading the reddit doomsday scripts, rather than the reality.
its core that have all the splitting the network crap. (bip9 that can activate below 95%) (UASF) (PoW algo changes).
core are the ones with wanting the TIER network not the decentralised diverse PEER network
if core is having issues getting consensus they need to NOT press their red button doomsday bombs but instead THEY need to compromise with the community.
the community was going with 8mb base block then lower then lower. and now even dynamic where (heres the truth) the nodes set the limits and pools follow what nodes prefer as a majority.(nodes have 2 limits. pools follow and adjust the lower limit not upper limit)
core can level themselves and unite their side with a few lines of code. rather then get everyone else to rewrite everything for cores half promises
..
as for the arguments of 'giving pools the power'
again only core have done this when they went soft.
...
the consensus was segwit would be accepted if a baseblock increase was part of the deal. core renigged that deal by pretending what they signed meant about just as much as asking their evening carpet cleaner to turn up. pretending they had no power.
core need to take a step back and do something the community want.
dynamics and segwit seems the only compromise which was the original late 2015 debate. so they need to reagree to do it. not hold the network hostage with their doomsday red buttons. while pointing the finger else where blaming everyone else.
they know they cant blame bU. because be has not big red button. they shouldnt blame pools because no matter what pools make, without consensus it will get dropped in 3 seconds.
core need to realise going soft and avoiding the community was CORES mistake, stop acting like gods, admit they are human and realise that the community is more important then devs god complex
Mr Madbitcoins and vinny think its a "roger vs" debate.. its not..
when will those blockstreamists wake up that there are many more people against cores dominance then just roger.
seems they are repeating that rhetoric to feel like core should win. by pretending there is no community divide by pretending its just a 1 man vs
they are both trying to say anyone against segwit is impatient..
yet its core making dadlines and threatening the doomsday buttons while trying to play the victim card.
the solution is simple.
core add just a few lines of code and give users more control and devs less control.
all the dynamic and base block increases are patient and not set deadlines..
im about half way through the video while writing all this.. and all i can see is 2 guys deep in the blockstreamist camp that have no clue about what segwit really does and actually works beyond cores 30 second elevator pitch.
all they care about is getting core activated without actually understanding it.
they pretend core are going slow.. yet core have all the deadlines and red doomsday nuke buttons. they only thing they are slow on is what was actually asked at the consensus meetings.
|
|
|
|
market cap is a meaningless number
i can create an alt tomorrow with 5trill coins.. get just 1 coin on an exchange and sell it to myself for $1.. and instantly my alt is market capped at $5trillion...
there are NOT $25billion fiat sitting around in bank accounts ear-marked to back the entire cryptocoin market.
anyone can make the market cap spiral up to trillions just by using small numbers.
this is true, but the bitcoin real marketcap, based on how many coins where actually traded, and not on simple math, is still high enough, there is a way to calculate this number maybe? Bitcoin will raise its value only with the growth of its popularity. If users help raise demand for crypto currency, then bitcoin prices will go up. The main thing is not to panic when racing on stock exchanges prices. It always happens, that's just all react differently to this. saves me rewriting... The whales are now dumping their coins and it has caused a major fall in the bitcoins price.
Whales?? lol remember the prices and bitcoins are measured in mBtc (1 thousandth's)  it took only ~99btc (99,392mbtc) to move the price from $931 to $926 for all you fake market cap lovers out there.. under $100k to turn $15,114,878,100 market cap down to $15,033,702,600 market cap thats a drop of $81,175,500 using under $100k
edit few minutes later less than $302(324mbtc) to drop the price from $935 to $933 ⇘yep $302 to make the markt cap change by $32,470,200.00 then ~$50(54mbtc) to ramp the price from $933 to $935 ⇗yep $50 to make the market cap change by 32,470,200.00 ... one of the reason on why others tends to panic sell.
Users panic because .. blah blah.. Therefore, only calmness is needed. its not about panic.. its market manipulation by the markets own programming and order limits. if the only orders you can make are in $1 increments.. then thats $16m-ish market cap change every time an order line is filled. even if that order line only contains 1mbtc (0.0001) the fix is to allow more increments EG not 0.934-0.935 but 0.93401-0.93402-0.93403-0.93404-0.93405 that way the price doesnt move by the whole dollar (volatile with no pressure needed/much coin needed).. but instead in cent amounts more smoothly |
|
|
|
... one of the reason on why others tends to panic sell.
Users panic because .. blah blah.. Therefore, only calmness is needed. its not about panic.. its market manipulation by the markets own programming and order limits. if the only orders you can make are in $1 increments.. then thats $16m-is market cap change every time an order line is filled. even if that order line only contains 1mbtc (0.0001) the fix is to allow more increments EG not 0.934-0.935 but 0.93401-0.93402-0.93403-0.93404-0.93405 that way the price doesnt move by the whole dollar (volatile with no pressure needed/much coin needed).. but instead in cent amounts more smoothly |
|
|
|
The whales are now dumping their coins and it has caused a major fall in the bitcoins price.
Whales?? lol remember the prices and bitcoins are measured in mBtc (1 thousandth's) it took only ~99btc (99,392mbtc) to move the price from $931 to $926 for all you fake market cap lovers out there.. under $100k to turn $15,114,878,100 market cap down to $15,033,702,600 market cap thats a drop of $81,175,500 using under $100k
edit few minutes later less than $302 to drop the price from $935 to $933 ⇘yep $302 to make the markt cap change by $32,470,200.00 then ~$50 to ramp the price from $933 to $935 ⇗yep $50 to make the market cap change by 32,470,200.00
edit hour later  0.013btc ($12.13) to move the price from $950 to $948 thats $32m off the meaningless market cap.. yep $12.13 caused that |
|
|
|
market cap is a meaningless number
i can create an alt tomorrow with 5trill coins.. get just 1 coin on an exchange and sell it to myself for $1.. and instantly my alt is market capped at $5trillion...
there are NOT $25billion fiat sitting around in bank accounts ear-marked to back the entire cryptocoin market.
anyone can make the market cap spiral up to trillions just by using small numbers.
Yes....That's an accurate observation. In cases such as the one you described, the volume of trade needs to be factored into the speculation when considering marketcap. However, wise traders pay attention to volume. If you look more closely, you will find that some of the alts have huge volumes, and according to the charts, those which do have large volumes of trade are on the top, right? until you take away the bot trading by 2 people every few seconds 10btc traded by 2 bots can equal thousands of "volume" a day just playing tennis with 10btc back and forth yep 100k volume does not mean 10,000 separate coins were bought or sold. it means maybe 10btc played tennis back and forth 1000 times meaning even volume doesnt represent real transaction desires, or even show how much actual different coins changed hands |
|
|
|
Plausible deniability for multisig: using Schnorr threshold signatures it may be easier to prevent multiple signers or third-parties from knowing who else signed or didn't sign. That's because the individual signatures are merged into a unified signature that doesn't directly reveal who signed it. This can be used in situations where the signers are afraid of reprisals for spending funds in a particular way. or used by managers to create 1 of 2 multisigs, and pretend its just a single signer.. but shhhhh dont tell people it before gmaxwell has control of the network to abuse it.. |
|
|
|
LN may be permissionless theoretically, but in practical terms, it may not be...because it may not be economically
feasible to open your open channel, and you'll have to rely on someone else's.
LN is not prmissionless. its a 2 party signature EG imagine it like a co-sign bank account.. you cant buy a hooker without your wife signing the cheque.. you cannot just send funds(permissionless). you need to find a second party to agree. |
|
|
|
|
market cap is a meaningless number
i can create an alt tomorrow with 5trill coins.. get just 1 coin on an exchange and sell it to myself for $1.. and instantly my alt is market capped at $5trillion...
there are NOT $25billion fiat sitting around in bank accounts ear-marked to back the entire cryptocoin market.
anyone can make the market cap spiral up to trillions just by using small numbers.
|
|
|
|
if what you're saying is true and not exaggerated/spin, then they (core) has truly gone mad.
well segwit only fixes things if everyone is disarmed from doing quadratics/malle which is only really achieved by moving to segwit keys. (the activation is more about getting the topography of the tier network inplace when people set up thier node ... mimble works by having a mimble manager with the key to a multisig to use funds without the owner having to be actively online. ... the spin is only.. if these get activated and if they are used by the managers for negative purposes.. there is no spin about the functions abilities. just who and how it could be used by the wrong people incharge sorry if im never the utopian dreamer and ass kisser. but i look for flaws to wake people up to risks. P.S core went mad ages ago. for many many reasons |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
