Anyone worrying?
HODLED through $230s so just enjoying the show |
|
|
|
This block thing needs to be solved once and for all now and never addressed again. "The Last Hardfork".
Anything less than that and Bitcoin will fail.
It's this kind of thinking of getting a silver bullet rather than an ongoing process that gets us in trouble |
|
|
|
...blah blah large font...
...To save Bitcoin we must execute a benevolent, temporary 51% attack on Chinese pools and/or vote to change Core to blacklist them (or use any similar method, I don't know - I'm not a programmer ;3) to 'force' Chinese monopolistic miners OUT OF THEIR DDOS'ING, SELF-INTERESTED, CHINESE-WALL+AUTHORITARIAN-REGIME-PROBLEMATIC MAJORITY.
...If Bitcoin is to succeed, CHINA MUST GO.
...even if that concedes a certain unfortunate 'central planning' cost for the greater good of safeguarding Decentralized Trustlessness... Your logic and use of large fonts in attempt to further your point makes me think you're 16? Not sure where to even start on this but i'll just say that vigilante can be a solution to an international payment system as much as 'central planning' can be a solution to decentralization. Thankfully the badger doesn't care. |
|
|
|
Price is dropping because Bitcoin Classic hardfork is being priced in.
Market is telling us what is good for bitcoin and what is bad. Consenus = good, disagreement = bad. It is quiet that simple, just the nature of open project makes things much more over blown and should not be priced in as much as say a disagreement between the CEO and the board, as i feel it is now. |
|
|
|
Can't he say what he thinks?
I don't see anything wrong in what he's saying. BTC is really shady he's right on that. Users don't have any correct informations you can't deny that.
So after spending countless years of his life working with Bitcoin, a few months after his departure Bitcoin is dead? Please.  If you defend such a person you are not any better than him. Bitcoin is not that shady, especially not since there's no Silk Road equivalent. Stop your gibberish. I don't understand the hate, he's someone who worked on btc and thinks it's a failure and warned people about it, is it a reason to hate him?
Because he's a paid bulldog who backstabbed the community with this article. Should we love him for it? not really news ... we already knew hearn is a bitcoin hater and saboteur, except for the NYTimes readers who will no doubt lap up Hucksters Hearn's soundbites for the sheeple
That is the problem of this story, NYTimes and the sheep that are going to believe this nonsense or defend him. It has already reflected itself on the price (incl. news about Cryptsy). Seems we won't be able to discuss. You don't seem to understand the position of someone who is not informed. Most people don't have the time to spend hundreds of hours to understand exactly how everything works and who's in charge of what. "You're not better than him if you defend Hearn" You don't understand. I don't know who he is, he just doesn't seem like somebody bad. Bitcoin IS incredibly shady in the sense that normal people have no idea of what's happening, what's currently developped, who's in charge of what, what can or can't be done etc... I'm not talking about drugs or anything that something else. I'm talking about how btc works and will evolve. You're all talking about "bitcoin core" "bitcoin XT" "forks" and things like that. I've no idea of what it is, and I'm an engineer which means i got some basis in science... So btc IS shady in the sense that a small percentage of users actually understand it. He shouldn't have declared bitcoin as dead. And should NOT have said that he's selling all his bitcoins. There are good reasons why people in control are not allowed to do that on exchanges. Everything else he can vent as much as he wants |
|
|
|
i guess the collapse from the cryptsy led to this kind of the bitcoin price decrease. anyone? would you sell your bitcoin right now? it could be an effect of the bitcoin price, beware. FYI regarding the cryptsy, there are some of the probable phishing site like cryptsy refund. Nope just a Finex long squeeze. They try to time it with some bad news to magnify the effect. |
|
|
|
If you double the blocksize, you also double the fees miners get paid without increasing the rate at all!
This might increase the cost of mining by some tiny fraction but nowhere near 100%. So let's be generous and say 2MB blocks will cost miners 110% of 1 MB Blocks.
So how about this calculation:
scenario A: 12.5BTCblockreward+3BTCxactionfees=15.5 BTCminerreward
scenario B: (12.5BTCblockreward+6BTCxactionfees)/1.1=16.818BTCminerreward
And that doesn't even factor in the very likely probability that BTC exchange rate will go up significantly due to the added utility.
So why do miners object? Could it be that they will get no reward at all because they are mining over a slow internet connection (through TOR or behind the Great Firewall) that means they cannot compete with miners with faster connections?
All the other objections are just to obscure this one. The real one. Forget the decentralization argument. Forget the "any hard fork is too radical" rationalization. These are not honest people and they are taking wealth, not making wealth.
Maybe cause they want to show solidarity and are hoping for an organic growth of the core without intensifying the fighting and splitting in pro/against camps imagine what would that do to a price Maybe also there is a sense that "if it's not broke, then why fix it?" Not broke ... yet. Don't think anyone can argue that 1MB 3tps is sustainable. |
|
|
|
If you double the blocksize, you also double the fees miners get paid without increasing the rate at all!
This might increase the cost of mining by some tiny fraction but nowhere near 100%. So let's be generous and say 2MB blocks will cost miners 110% of 1 MB Blocks.
So how about this calculation:
scenario A: 12.5BTCblockreward+3BTCxactionfees=15.5 BTCminerreward
scenario B: (12.5BTCblockreward+6BTCxactionfees)/1.1=16.818BTCminerreward
And that doesn't even factor in the very likely probability that BTC exchange rate will go up significantly due to the added utility.
So why do miners object? Could it be that they will get no reward at all because they are mining over a slow internet connection (through TOR or behind the Great Firewall) that means they cannot compete with miners with faster connections?
All the other objections are just to obscure this one. The real one. Forget the decentralization argument. Forget the "any hard fork is too radical" rationalization. These are not honest people and they are taking wealth, not making wealth.
Maybe cause they want to show solidarity and are hoping for an organic growth of the core without intensifying the fighting and splitting in pro/against camps imagine what would that do to a price They are showing solidarity with each other, but open hostility to their customers, the users, the holders, the companies and the people that have done the most to promote Bitcoin. That is not how successful business is done. "organic" growth is a stalling term. There's nothing organic about an arbitrary cap imposed by a cabal of sidechain peddlers and miners with slow connections. The DDOS attacks and censorship wasn't decreasing the fighting. Those tactics were used EXCLUSIVELY used by smallblockers. Again still think that's better than two (or more) waring factions trying to convince more people to stick to their chain |
|
|
|
If you double the blocksize, you also double the fees miners get paid without increasing the rate at all!
This might increase the cost of mining by some tiny fraction but nowhere near 100%. So let's be generous and say 2MB blocks will cost miners 110% of 1 MB Blocks.
So how about this calculation:
scenario A: 12.5BTCblockreward+3BTCxactionfees=15.5 BTCminerreward
scenario B: (12.5BTCblockreward+6BTCxactionfees)/1.1=16.818BTCminerreward
And that doesn't even factor in the very likely probability that BTC exchange rate will go up significantly due to the added utility.
So why do miners object? Could it be that they will get no reward at all because they are mining over a slow internet connection (through TOR or behind the Great Firewall) that means they cannot compete with miners with faster connections?
All the other objections are just to obscure this one. The real one. Forget the decentralization argument. Forget the "any hard fork is too radical" rationalization. These are not honest people and they are taking wealth, not making wealth.
Maybe cause they want to show solidarity and are hoping for an organic growth of the core without intensifying the fighting and splitting in pro/against camps imagine what would that do to a price |
|
|
|
"...if decentralisation is what makes Bitcoin good, and growth threatens decentralisation, then Bitcoin should not be allowed to grow. Honestly it's hard to disagree with this statement. Growing now at a cost of centralization is very short sighted. I do believe that centralization is Bitcoins' Achilles' heel. Now how much centralization would a 2MB or an 8MB block cause that can be debated. Don't really get the end of the world catastrophe just yet. Lets get SegWit in there, and bump blocks to 2MB to be extra conservative, and have a sidechain do 0 confs, then we party! |
|
|
|
Good that should keep the pressure on the price a tad bit longer till the halfing |
|
|
|
You got to send first. PMed but you didn't reply  |
|
|
|
can anyone get onto btce?
afaik this is the longest its ever been offline.
Nope been trying.... Was about to ask if they went full gox any news from them at all? They provided detailed reassurance 3 hours ago.  Cool. Thnx |
|
|
|
can anyone get onto btce?
afaik this is the longest its ever been offline.
Nope been trying.... Was about to ask if they went full gox any news from them at all? |
|
|
|
Is bitcoin dead?  |
|
|
|
|
Whoa that was beautiful on finex
|
|
|
|
 I'm sorry. How can anyone be comfortable with the walls looking like THIS? Before the last rally from $375 to $475, a huge wall base built up and the bids looked 3x bigger than the asks. Now it just looks like it could go for another Friday. Longs are also even higher than before at $27.1M One word China. $27MM longs at ~24%/yr with only BTC6k in shorts! Yet we keep going up... It's not a one exchange player anymore. That's not to say Finex won't flash crash to shed those longs :/ |
|
|
|
Where did that ~$1.5MM in BFX longs go!?!? Did i miss something?
Borrowed doesn't necessarily mean used...? That dump earlier was pretty underwhelming. Currency Flash Return Rate Total sum of active margin funding Total amount used in margin positions USD 0.0531% 25,395,106.54 24,946,110.62 https://www.bitfinex.com/pages/statsIt was only $400k in unused longs |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
