Seen the stones play a few times...... no one owns a stage like these guys....old or not.
i'm a fan of the music the stones made / (continue to make? ... not really familiar with any of their new stuff if any) ... haven't seen em in concert ... oldest old school musician i've seen in concert would probably have to be ... hmmm ... i guess bob dylan would be it ... also seen ringo and his "all-star-band" ... dylan's voice was incomprehensible unfortunately , but they hid it well under the instrumentals ... ringo and co were ... ok ... definitely easier to listen to than dylan in any case ...
Last time I saw em was at isle of wight festival and they played classic after classic after classic, every single tune, they were on fire, they played a note perfect set, with some insane bluesy interludes.... I have seen a lot and I mean a lot of live acts, gigs, festivals etc over the last few decades, and I have never seen anyone so at ease on stage as the stones... but then I guess they have had a lot of practice. Yeah Dylans voice is shot. |
|
|
|
Seen the stones play a few times...... no one owns a stage like these guys....old or not. |
|
|
|
old news
Wow... shocking news!! /s Russia? a draconian law? wow... that is really quite shocking. I am surprised, so shocked, so worried. (ps also, that^^ is clarity, so yeah still helpful, helpful to anyone wanting to start a BTC business based from, or targeting Russia, once the laws are passed they will know, instead of just guessing, and then they can decide what to do, ie give it up, or move, or not target russians) |
|
|
|
i hate to be bear, but all these news lately really bad. I mean, bitcoin foundation bankrupt ? bitcoin trader get civil forfeiture ? Obama EO ?
but bad news usually makes bitcoin price jumps anyway, 300 usd on monday yay !!!
Meh.... no one gives a hoot about the bitcoin foundation, and it seems like Wagner was due to get his collar felt regardless, and the Obama "news" imo is being blow out of context. None of these are aiding my DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM boner in the slightest. no one care about bitcoin foundation ? well noobs surely do and they get freaked to hear that bitcoin is bankrupt. this is bad for mass adoption. i still has hope for ETF however... No, no one really gives a shit about the foundation, it has been a shambles forever, tbh I never did give a shit about it apart from wishing it would go away, quickly. As for Bitcoin being bankrupt, what are you smoking? edit: Also like or hate the regulations that are being proposed/being rolled out but they will bring some clarity to the space, and this will be a good thing, investors and businesses like clarity. Gemini will not launch until the NYDFS roll out their regs, and I am not expecting the ETF until after then. UK is also making moves to get to grips with BTC and how they intend to deal with it. The seed money that has been invested already despite the lack of clarity is impressive and I expect that once there is more clarity there will be more interest still. It will be interesting to see how the market develops when there are no more doubts about the regs and the framework is in place. It will be interesting to see the services and products rolled out as a product of the seed money already invested over the past 2 years. It will be interesting to see how the market will react once there are trusted exchanges. It will be interesting to see how all of the clarity and legitimisation will effect public perception/adoption and the market. Also it will be interesting to see , when there is some clarity there, who else and what else comes to the market next. |
|
|
|
i hate to be bear, but all these news lately really bad. I mean, bitcoin foundation bankrupt ? bitcoin trader get civil forfeiture ? Obama EO ?
but bad news usually makes bitcoin price jumps anyway, 300 usd on monday yay !!!
Meh.... no one gives a hoot about the bitcoin foundation, and it seems like Wagner was due to get his collar felt regardless, and the Obama "news" imo is being blow out of context. None of these are aiding my DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM boner in the slightest. |
|
|
|
The gold market is 99% speculation and 1% jewelry and computer parts. So what? And it does matter because you are just talking your book. Because when you are long you will spout an opposing opinion without believing it. That is important because boiled down it means no one can trust or believe a word coming out of your mouth.  Except it's not. Half of all gold mined to date is in jewelery. Mainly thanks to india and the dowries (followed closely of course by China) (hint: a lot of the jewelry bought by indians and chinese in these scenarios IS bought as a form of investment, and a store of value, helpful to the many who have no access to banks, for many in India and China, gold = money, the only money, and how they store parts of their wealth, and they give it away for presents at weddings, new years etc or give gold for dowry, in jewelry form, and it is considered very much an investment/money/saving vehicle/inheritance vehicle and it is tradedas such, and not just a flash bit of bling ) |
|
|
|
|
$10-$20 dollars because rich people selling and potheads buying, oh and horoscopes...
Got it.
|
|
|
|
I watched a documentary last night that had this full-blooded giraffe neck fight. It was vicious...
Good morning, bitcoiners!
 Crazy no? They are neck and neck |
|
|
|
All this talk about how "miners would never attack the network because that would destroy confidence in the blockchain and they would stop making money" is kinda bogus IMHO.
Basically double spends already happened but the bitcoin community just looks the other way and pretends that never happened.
Are you sure "miners have no incentive to perform double spend attacks" if all that happens after a double spend (that doesn't seem that easy to investigate into too apparently) is some posts on reddit trying to figure out what the hell happened and bitcoiners just forgetting about it?
Apart from, are there more miners trying to destroy the network, or trying to facilitate it? If the market really says that its more profitable to destroy it, then maybe that will happen....if not, then why would the attackers choose a less profitable option? if it was more profitable to support the network than decide to take it down? if attackers manage to destroy the network, then miners, will obviously shut up shop and go home, and become tulip farmers. They would just perform double spends here and there. If they get caught doing it (like the GHASH.io double spend on that gambling site I posted from last year) what's the problem? Bitcoiners look the other way and say "you see? nothing happened? Everything's fine" of course they do because charity... right? What do you mean? Because everyone involved in BTC just wants to throw money away right? like charity.... Self interest. If its broken, it will fall... if not, it wont. If it is more profitable to attack the network, then it will happen, if it is not then it will not happen. If it is more profitable to facilitate the network, then it will happen, if it is not then it will not happen. So , the parameters are clear.. as they have been the past 6 years. So...... Go. |
|
|
|
|
I am not even kidding though....
If I do not get some DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM and soon....
Then I am gunna be all disgruntled and discombobulated and shit.
Well at the very least I am gonna lose my DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM boner.... which would be sad.
Not even in the slightest bit kidding though... spike that shit down overlords
Spike it down.
Make me happy.
Make it shnappy.
|
|
|
|
All this talk about how "miners would never attack the network because that would destroy confidence in the blockchain and they would stop making money" is kinda bogus IMHO.
Basically double spends already happened but the bitcoin community just looks the other way and pretends that never happened.
Are you sure "miners have no incentive to perform double spend attacks" if all that happens after a double spend (that doesn't seem that easy to investigate into too apparently) is some posts on reddit trying to figure out what the hell happened and bitcoiners just forgetting about it?
Apart from, are there more miners trying to destroy the network, or trying to facilitate it? If the market really says that its more profitable to destroy it, then maybe that will happen....if not, then why would the attackers choose a less profitable option? if it was more profitable to support the network than decide to take it down? if attackers manage to destroy the network, then miners, will obviously shut up shop and go home, and become tulip farmers. They would just perform double spends here and there. If they get caught doing it (like the GHASH.io double spend on that gambling site I posted from last year) what's the problem? Bitcoiners look the other way and say "you see? nothing happened? Everything's fine" of course they do because charity... right? |
|
|
|
Car manufacturers did not necessarily know how horses worked either. You forgot to say that bitcoin is "like the internet in its early days", that blockchains cure cancer, that satoshi is the savior of mankind, that people in 2050 will sell their yachts, islands or houses for a fraction of a bitcoin, etc etc Sure, right on point there. |
|
|
|
All this talk about how "miners would never attack the network because that would destroy confidence in the blockchain and they would stop making money" is kinda bogus IMHO.
Basically double spends already happened but the bitcoin community just looks the other way and pretends that never happened.
Are you sure "miners have no incentive to perform double spend attacks" if all that happens after a double spend (that doesn't seem that easy to investigate into too apparently) is some posts on reddit trying to figure out what the hell happened and bitcoiners just forgetting about it?
Apart from, are there more miners trying to destroy the network, or trying to facilitate it? If the market really says that its more profitable to destroy it, then maybe that will happen....if not, then why would the attackers choose a less profitable option? if it was more profitable to support the network than decide to take it down? if attackers manage to destroy the network, then miners, will obviously shut up shop and go home, and become tulip farmers. |
|
|
|
Car manufacturers did not necessarily know how horses worked either. |
|
|
|
Even with Memristor technology it would take more than a small group to jam out the global hashpower. There's billions in infrastructure and it would require trillions to topple.
As said before, the "small group" will be the top 4-6 miners, who already have enough power to overcome all the others. That is a paradoxical thing about the bitcoin protocol: no matter how massive he mining network, there will always be a potential enemy with the all power needed to take control of it. Just as, no matter how big of an army a country has, it will never be big enough to protect it from a military coup... Yes but, notice, that countries with small armies, do exist. Sure, a bigger army could , right now, tomorrow take over the whole world, and then a little country would not have the ability to "protect itself" but do you notice, that the people of Luxemburg, the people of Ireland, the people of New Zealand, manage to get to sleep just fine. (and whilst no countries are immune to a 100% internal military coup, in most countries it is not something that keeps people awake at night, why? because, the second you instigate something like a military coup, then all bets are off, you have changed the entire game) |
|
|
|
Sorry but thats bullsh*t, if the block halving changed the price would crumble.
Already replied to that. It is a subjective prediction of how "the bitcoiners" would behave. My view of "the bitcoiners" and their motivations is obviously very different from yours. You suggest that the miners could agree on it and everyone who pays their bills (the buyers) would just be like ah okay. Not gonna happen.
Today, the new investors (those who buy or earn coins and hold them for a while) are quite happily paying 900'000 $/day to the miners, plus who-knows-how-much to the earlier investors who are selling; money that will never come back to the system. The new investors cannot be entirely conscious of that. So, if the halving were to be postponed, they would probably not take notice, and continue pouring in the same daily amounts, either way. By the way, don't expect the price to immediately double when the next halving happens. The miners will put 1800 fewer coins per day on the markets, but many earlier investors will start selling their coins once the price rises a little. In other words, there is lots of hidden liquidity in the old hoards, that will readily absorb the 450'000 k$/day that the miners will stop receiving. right well if it so so "subjective" in your opinion, stop harping on about how you think it will go down, as a "non investor" your opinion, literally means jack shit. Let me tell you, and you can add this to your research, if you care for such things.... fuck with the halving, or the coin limit, and I am OUT. So take that as you will, for what its worth... in a way I am agreeing with you, yeah they could change it, and I suggest if they think it is a good idea, they try it, and see what happens. I and many, many, many others will be out, simple as that. It really is simple as that. So I agree with your Jorge, and I say let "them" who are actually "we" , try it, and lets see what happens. Either scenario works for me, if they do it, then the market can decide, and I will decide, and if i no longer think BTC is what I want to invest in, then I will withdraw my support, as will others, and it will stand or fall on its merits. Fine with me. Something else will pop up, after, one thing for sure. The system, that you seem to think will remain in place, regardless of the world swirling around it, will also continue to be accepted , or , it will not be, and it will change.... I bet on the fact it will change, and regardless of if BTC as we know it, will succeed or not, then I and everyone else will have the choice as to whether or not to support BTC, or any new innovation, or not. The market will ultimately decide what survives or not. |
|
|
|
what you describe is a scenario that would = me pulling out what I have in BTC and investing it back into other areas.
it would be the end of BTC as we know it, and then it would be something else.
Like many many have said before, try it...
The bitcoiners who can understand the risk say so, obviously because they have no other hope to cling on. Wow... literally the daftest thing you have ever written on these forums. not "the only hope" but the basis of the entire premise of Bitcoin, if you fuck with what makes Bitcoin, then you destroy it. It is not a "hope" I cling onto, it is a simple truism, mess with the protocol, and I will simply move the funds I hold in BTC out, and into property and various commodities/stocks that I prefer. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
This would kill bitcoin value, this is called suicide.
That is the only "defense" I have seen against that "attack". But it is only wishful thinking about how the users and other players would react. I bet that, if that "attack" were to happen, 99% of the users would not even understand what it means, or care to know. They would just see the notice "new client release available, please upgrade before 01/Mar/2016", and will comply. Even the ideological bitcoiners who understand and hate the change would comply, and even support the change; because making a fuss about it would be suicide for them. Just close your eyes and repeat "om mani blockchain hum, bitcoin was meant to have a 25 M BTC cap, the current cap is wrong". After saying it a few thousand times, hopefully your soul will open and you will see the light.  nah.... I disagree, it would be the end of BTC as we know it, and then it would be something else. Like many many have said before, try it... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
