Sage advice.  I've been around long enough to see more than a few dips in my time.  Back when I was just a speculator and had less appreciation for the real benefits of using Bitcoin, I remember being down by 65% at one point.  It was never really a big problem for me, though.  I had been very sensible and it certainly wasn't any kind of life-altering sum that I had sunk into it.  But I stayed in and subsequently my patience has more than paid off.  Now, of course, that's not to be taken as any kind of guarantee for anyone affected by the current dip, but just an example to show that things can improve.  Don't make any rash decisions, remain calm and weigh up your options carefully.  

Also, if you haven't done so already, consider moving beyond raw speculation and start looking at the other advantages that can be gained through using this technology.  The real value goes far beyond what figure in your national currency you might be able to sell it for.  Don't simply invest wealth.  Invest your time and your understanding.

As an aside, it's the fiat investments I'm getting hammered on.  Definite regrets in buying shares in my workplace.  Still, not losing any sleep over it.  You win some, you lose some.

Whatever your wealth is stored in, these seem to be very turbulent times.  Don't let it get you down.

Keep telling yourself that.  You think just because people don't bother wasting their time trying to convince you what an obstinate, audacious and ultimately misguided fool you are that you've somehow won the debate?  Get over yourself.

I was going to start a new topic in Reputation, "Greedy DooMAD versus the Three Stooges", where I point out that all three of you topic-derailing wingnuts have, at some point or another, accused me of wanting to "get rich" by supporting blockstream's supposed "agenda".  Incidentally, it always seems to happen when you've run out of arguments and have nothing left to offer up.  Anyway, I was going to do that to demonstrate just how easy it is to avoid derailing a topic.  Lead by example and such.  But you know what?  Screw you, I'm going to ruin your topic and see how you like it for a change, because it's not like you're ever going to learn, even when shown how.  So here goes:

When I get old and people ask me what I did during Bitcoin's formative years, I'll tell them I tried my best to keep this place sane while it was set upon by a small but determined number of mentally unhinged fanatics.  If I tell you your idea is a load of mindless drivel, I'm not saying it because I'm chasing some mythical paycheck or anticipated future profit.  I say it because I believe integrity is important.  And that's all forms of integrity.    

First up there's personal integrity, where I have to be intellectually honest with myself and say that even if I have what I believe to be a great idea about how Bitcoin should move forward, I'm probably not in a position to single-handedly turn an entire ecosystem on its head to implement whatever changes I might find favourable.  Even in the unlikely event that I ever thought the same way you do about ASICs and pools, I would have to be an egomaniac to believe I can simply undo something that numerous people have invested time, effort and money into in order to nurture and develop.  You don't just snap your fingers and undo the hard work of others.  In fact, you can't in this particular instance.  But you seem to think that, not only is it a piece of cake to completely decimate what is effectively an entire industry in its own right, but there are seemingly no moral implications to consider either.  The only "good" is your good and anything else is unquestionably evil.  It's that black and white to you.  Reasonable people, on the other hand, may have misgivings about pools or ASICs, but don't believe themselves to have either the power or moral authority to simply wipe them from existence as though they were nothing.  Who the hell do you think you are?

Then there's the integrity of the Bitcoin network itself.  If changes are to be made, they should never endanger the security or decentralisation of the network.  You demonstrate time and again that you have literally no concept of what those words mean.  I don't need to start a "smear campaign" for people to see what kind of moron you are.  They have eyes and are perfectly capable of seeing it for themselves.  You would gladly sacrifice the security of the network for even a hint of a chance that your fantasies would come true.  They won't, though.  

Cry about it all you want.  This is not censorship.  People aren't trying to extinguish your unique and precious flame.  They're just trying to talk some damn sense into you.  But you flagrantly ignore them and keep spouting dangerous, ignorant nonsense.  Then you act like the victim when mods delete your inane, whiny potshots meagerly disguised as casual conversation.  You still genuinely believe that what you saying is important, but sadly you are the only person who seems to think so.  And on top of that, you can't find a manner in which to express it that doesn't piss people off.  To say that's not a winning formula would be an understatement.


Other assorted thoughts in the topic:


I'm sure you're very proud of your inbred mutant circus freak-show offspring.  Doesn't mean the rest of us have to pretend to care.



I'm not a developer, but I'm fairly sure that introducing much larger problems in the mistaken belief that it might fix something is not how development works.



Topics that are important to you personally != crucial.  Perhaps you're confusing it with the word "crusade", since you definitely seem to be on one.



I think history is written by the winners and you are one of life's losers.  It won't remember you at all.

Certainly seems to be a larger crowd by the time the Q & A segment kicks off at the end.  Definitely more than just 5 people there.  I think the photo in the OP is possibly a little misrepresentative.

Why is it "bad" that people with an all-consuming agenda aren't permitted to incessantly derail topics simply because they have "an axe to grind"?  That's exactly what you're doing.  And that's what's not allowed anymore.  Deal with it.  Or feign innocence, stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it doesn't apply to you.  Whatever floats your boat.  You posted in the topic when that rule was announced, so don't act like you weren't warned.  Whether you recognise it or not, your posts are clearly starting to annoy people, including the mods. 

Further, there are precisely ZERO serious, credible or realistic proposals to ban, restrict, disincentivise or otherwise remove either ASICs or Pools from Bitcoin.  These things, hate them all you want, are part of Bitcoin.  As such, it would seem there is not a great deal of scope for discussions about their removal in the Bitcoin Development & Technical Discussion sub.  If you want a coin without ASICs or Pools, you may wish to consider discussing it in a more suitable subforum where it would be more appropriate.  There are many altcoins that make grandiose (read: horseshit) claims about ASIC resistance and limiting pooling pressure, so I suggest you go preach to the converted and stop irritating the people who have dismissed you as a "crank".

I think it tends to go something like this:


*Ordinary, sane user starts topic about any given subject*

[aliashraf] *token reference to the actual subject, then POOLS, ASICS, POOLS, ASICS, POOLS, ASICS, POOLS, ASICS, POOLS, ASICS, POOLS, ASICS, POOLS, ASICS, POOLS, ASICS, POOLS, ASICS, POOLS ASICS*

[Zin-Zang/Khaos77]  *token reference to the actual subject, then POS, LN=BANK, MINER COLLUSION, POS, LN=BANK, MINER COLLUSION, POS, LN=BANK, MINER COLLUSION, POS, LN=BANK, MINER COLLUSION*

[franky1]  *token reference to the actual subject, then CONSENSUS BYPASS, DEV CONTROL, LN=BANK, CONSENSUS BYPASS, DEV CONTROL, LN=BANK, CONSENSUS BYPASS, DEV CONTROL, LN=BANK*


Almost every damn topic.  You literally can't help yourselves.  Basically, all three of you sound completely obsessed about the same old shit and derail topics left, right and centre with your mindless, repetitive dross.  Change the fucking record already.  I'm not surprised the mods delete that crap on sight.

Plus, it's always worth pointing out that it's not just developers who make these decisions alone.  Different developers offered users a larger blocksize and most users didn't take them up on the offer.  It seems like there are enough users opposed to larger blocks that it actually wouldn't matter even if devs did perform a complete U-turn and went all big-blocker on us.

All the trolls taking constant pot-shots at devs are wasting their breath, because they don't seem to comprehend that you can't have a network without the support of users.

Sounds like wishful thinking on his part.  Not only in thinking that they're going to change peoples' trading behaviour, but also where he's clearly in denial about the part where what institutional investors do is absolutely 100% still gambling and no amount of analytics will change that.  Some are just safer bets than others.

Crypto has opened the floodgates to people outside of the traditional finance sector.  It's only natural Dorman believes things would be better if they acted more like institutional investors, but they're simply not going to.  Ordinary people are going to treat it like gambling.  Some of them are going to buy into a random coin because they like the sound of its name, or because some bagholder was hyping it up on reddit and sounded vaguely convincing, or whatever other completely irrational impulse they had for buying into it.  The analysts can come up with whatever formula they like, but I suspect the general public are going to keep doing whatever and continue with largely random buying and selling.  

If the analysts need a head start, the groundwork is already laid.  That topic contains all the fundamentals you'll ever need to judge a coin on.

My stance hasn't changed since this post.

I guess it's also been a while since someone posted one of these:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/acbwry/scaling_vs_increasing_the_blocksize_a_hddssd/

Your original post states the pool switches algorithm to mine the most profitable altcoin at the time.  You seem to be claiming that your pool is different precisely because it does that.  Do the other pools in the Bitcoin Pool section do that?  If not, then it stands to reason you are an altcoin pool.  You are mining altcoins.

It's a job for the state to prosecute criminals and lock them up for the laws they have broken.  That alone should be sufficient.  Perjury and fraud both seem likely charges at some point.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if there were others too.

Lazy "journalism" in the loosest sense of the word.  Take whatever story is making the headlines generally and then make a tenuous link to Bitcoin and act like the two are somehow related.  Go away.

Okay, so I suppose it being more infectious than the flu means it's potentially more dangerous.  But it sounds as though flu and Covid-19 will have similar outcomes in that those who have it will generally only die if they have pre-existing conditions or already frail immune systems.  Almost like both illnesses are sharing the same pool of potential victims.

I'm still not sure I understand the hysteria over all this.  Normal flu has potentially contributed to killing hundreds of thousands of people each year, but that's not on the news every day. 

Plus, as others have said, there's likely very little impact on Bitcoin in terms of adoption because people supposedly don't want to handle physical cash.  I think people are just looking for an excuse to be bullish on speculation.

It has not been "debunked" on even one occasion.  A lone crackpot with schizophrenia has repeatedly expressed an opinion on the matter, but is too much of a chickenshit to do it from their main account.  No one seems to acknowledge their continued butthurt.



Swing and a miss.  Thanks for playing, though.

But it's a feature that was made in response to users requesting that something be done about spammers.  Users outlined the problem and requested that a change be made.  The administration acknowledged that and acted upon it.  For the most part, users support the improvements merit has brought.  There's just a small but vocal minority of antagonists (or perhaps even just one, lately) who would benefit from undoing such a positive change, and hopefully they will continue to be ignored, no matter how many sock-puppet accounts they create.

This place generally runs as the community wills it to.  The very fact that you have to resort to posting from an alt-account to make it look as though there's more dissent than there really is speaks volumes.

It sounds like you still don't "get" WO.  It's the closest thing the forums have to an informal chatroom, so it's not held to the same standards as the rest of the board.  Everything that needed doing was done ~3 years ago.  If you want the full history lesson, these topics, in this order, should be all the reading material you need in order to understand:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1990962.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1993570.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2004227.0

Alternatively, if that's too much to sift through, the short version is that, rather than discouraging users from making off topic posts in WO, users are now discouraged from reporting off topic posts in WO because the moderators don't want to deal with the additional workload it was generating.  Ergo, off topic posts (within reason) are permitted in WO.

As for your gripes about merit for "shitposts", the simple fact is that merit awarding is subjective and you don't get to determine other users' criteria for handing them out.  If they find these posts entertaining, they are free to merit them.

Yep.  And that's sadly something that's just innate to crypto.  It's all a bit experimental.  Any number of blockchains could conceivably come crashing down and ruin everyone involved.  Yet here we all are messing about with them, taking our chances.  And there Armstrong is making a tidy profit from it all, while notably taking fewer chances in practice by playing intermediary.  It's the users who carry the brunt of the risk.  Somehow I doubt he cares all that much if some of those coins he lists do fail.  He'll still have the profit and it won't be his problem.

If I were running a business like that, I suspect I'd probably try to appear like I'm staying on the fence, even in the face of reality.  Somewhere along the line, it turned into a political question.  Depending how you answer, potential customers may elect to use other services that view their preferred chain more favourably.  We're fortunate in that we all have the luxury of not needing to give a shit what the forkcoin supporters think.  But if Armstrong came out and said BTC was the undisputed #1 chain, the hardcore BCH/SV fanboys may take umbrage and elect not use Coinbase going forwards.  So you try to play 'happy families' instead, despite it being disingenuous.

Absolutely nothing.  Because there's nothing that needs to be done.  Wall Observer is kind of like a force of nature that acts independently with its own whims and idiosyncrasies.  You either get involved or you stay out of its path.  In no conceivable way do you attempt to mess with it or alter its natural course.  Many have tried.  All have failed.  Just try to accept it for what it is.