Will the price be back over 30k next week?
I think AUR is dead again. Lol. A little endurance can go a long way, my friend. |
|
|
|
@ Danslip and y2cafuse
may i ask you guys to post your addresses when claiming how many coins you have because you lack credibility when you just shoot off numbers like you're the richest people in auroracoin world.
who uses single addresses? |
|
|
|
Kann mir jemand vielleicht einen Anwalt empfehlen, welchem ich Fragen zu Versteuerung von Bitcoin stellen könnte?
Hier kennen sich auch einige Leute gut aus. |
|
|
|
Why does this buy wall keep moving down?
0.00022000 16379.31609612 3.60344954
It started at 28k sat, then 26k and now down to 22k?
I am very disappointed the pump did not go as high as I thought it would, but I will be patient and wait for the price of 75k to come along one day.
It's not a buy wall, it's a scare wall. Clearly someone is selling. I think ~0.00022 is bottom EDIT: don't get me wrong, I think this correction is very healthy. |
|
|
|
Dieses mal sollten wir aber packen die 1500 nach all den positiven nachrichten, wird mal wieder zeit das mal zur abwechslung wieder gemupt wird, der neue Boden scheint sich gebildet zu sein, diesen haben wir nun mehrfach seit Anfang des jahres getestet. Zudem sprechen die ganzen Charts auf Blockchain weiterhin für sich, immer mehr nutzen den Bitcoin  1550 angekratzt. und 1500 hoffentlich jetzt support  EDIT: jedenfalls ist mal wieder was los ;-) |
|
|
|
There is a fundamental design error. They are just farting around the edges without going to the heart-of-the-matter, which is that transactions need to be orthogonal to blocks.Bitcoin is headed towards centralization at a few servers. It was designed that way! What do you mean by the bolded part? |
|
|
|
I don't know enough about the block size limits really but is increasing it just kicking the can down the road. Can we just keep doing that? A bit like how USA used to keep increasing the debt ceiling
Yes, it's kicking the can down the road. But nothing else is ready and hitting the limit might spell big trouble. EDIT: sorry, this got already answered 10 times or so. I should read threads from back to front... |
|
|
|
I feel bad that the bears just disappear when bitcoin moves up 20 dollars.
I haven't seen tarmi or NHJT since they promised us double digit coins!
Bag holders say bitcoin moves up ..  nah, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0irL1M15DH8 |
|
|
|
can we please put any rallies on hold at least 20 days  wouldn't want to see my .6% daily interest borrower get margin called  0.15 btc/day to keep an in loss position open has got to be rough  hehehe. ouch! can't he just replace with a cheaper offer? |
|
|
|
What has to happen to be sure that we have a confirmed reversal? Break 260? 270? 280? 290? 300?
For me at least it would be getting firmly over 320 and lingering. Anything below that would possibly be another rinse and repeat. Ok, can you please elaborate some reasons for 320? I would like to hear your theory... I ain't got one. I'm just rather fond of that number. The little brother of 420? |
|
|
|
You can find it on the auroracoin.is website. These are the old wallets and yes 1.3.0.0 is the latest version. We are however just a few days away from publishing new wallets.
New wallets? So the price will start rising again  . I like it. New wallets coming tonight or tomorrow? A few = 3 days and msg was on the morning of the 6th, so tommorrow they go live unless they not professional enough to stick to schedule. How is "a few" = 3? In IT world, "a few days" are 2 weeks tm |
|
|
|
 huiuiui |
|
|
|
after reading Mike Hearn - Crash Landing, I'm thinking: what would it take to achieve this bad situation right now? An additional 5 tps injected into the network with minimal fee would do it, no? so why not... - go short
- open bitcoin transaction spam floodgates (at cost)
- watch hysteria on internetz
- wait for price to crash
- close part of short
- watch 20 mb block limit implemented in a hurry
- close rest of short
- profit
|
|
|
|
|
Do you guys think March 2016 is a bit late? I do.
Maybe we could divert the discussion to 'when should the 20 mb fork be done', like it sometimes works with children: "Do you want daddy to brush your teeth or would you rather want mommy to do it?"
|
|
|
|
|
I have to congratulate the mycelium coders for an awesome implementation of trezor support. Fits right in!
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
I just briefly tested mycelium + trezor.
works beautifully. Really well-implemented.
|
|
|
|
Block size could reach the 1mb limit at any time with a massive influx of users and the chart for average block size looks like it could possibly have a sharp exponential rise hitting the limit within a short period of time, well before March 2016. IMO, even Gavin may be to late. Most likely, if this increase in adoption happens, transactions will be pushed off-chain to Coinbase and other services until the limit can be increased. Anybody opposed to the block size increase doesn't even have a working solution for scale, so I don't see how their arguments can even fly. The bolded part is what scares me. There's just no alternative currently. It almost seems some people have an interest in hitting that wall of bad publicity, high fees and slow transactions. Why? Let's just "kick the can down the road", I'm with Gavin. |
|
|
|
With fees, I see no problem with the market sorting it out. Except - when someone wants to minimize the fees of his own transactions, some transactions will suddenly take forever to confirm. So a possibility to raise the fee on a nonconfirmed transaction would be great. Has anyone suggested that, or is it unpossible technically?
Yes it is called replace by fee I'm not sure. With replace by fee, you can change other things in the transactions (like outputs), no? This makes double-spending much easier. I'm not sure wether "increase fee" can even be done, since it also requires changes to the outputs (and maybe inputs). I see replace-by-fee as a very bad idea currently. First off, I think it's inevitable, as there is nothing that would make a miner want to not accept a higher fee. good point, but: it's not just about the miners, is it? Nodes wont route double spends currently, right? In other words: why isn't double-spending unconfirmed transactions possible (easy) right now? That said, you can make a restricted version that doesn't allow reducing any outputs. You would have to add an additional input to pay the higher fee.
Sounds sensible. |
|
|
|
given what has happened to Ripple today, i am forced to haul out one of my old time memes which i have now taken up to 70% probability in my own mind:
"The blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money".
I'd put it this way: "We will know if the blockchain is applicable to more than money only when Bitcoin is well established as money". that is not bad. not bad at all. how about this: "We will know if the blockchain is applicable to more than money only when after Bitcoin is well established as money".-majamalu in other words: the blockchain - money and maybe more |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
