Look at you     

Turning bullish, right before our very eyes... 


 


 

I'm glad that you are willing to admit your bad call;  however, I always assert that we can really never know for sure the shortest term price direction unless we happen to be a whale that is able to push it with 10k or more coins  (and/or equivalent in dollars maybe on bitstamp?).

On the other hand, BTC prices had been lingering for so long in the upper $300s after the Hearn fiasco.. and then attempts at pushing it below $350 had really not been going anywhere... at least not yet... and also people seem to be kind of less convinced that there is any real material issue that is dragging down bitcoin as Hearn was arguing.... I mean seeing through the apparent propaganda...

So far this uptrend has not been on very high relative volume (at least from my perspective), so that causes me to believe that it could be put to a halt or reversed with some voluminous dumping (maybe 10k coins would be sufficient?)

This pump has been a fairly slow and steady movement up from $380 to $400, and we could experience a few more days of this kind of slow upward  movement.  I don't really know, but I am just saying that it is possible, and I am not sure about the reason(s) why except likely we are just moving back into the lower $400s after spending weeks in the post Mike Hearn etc shenanigans... and maybe the btc market is kind of figuring out that the mike hearn shenanigans was a bit of bullshit hype and overblown?

It's not over yet.  Gosh, we just broke over $400 for a few minutes, and you are calling the end of $400, already?   Strange.


Maybe you are right, but it seems fairly likely that we will be going into the $400s, maybe approaching $420 within a few days.  I would place it at decent odds, rather than attempting to call it for sure one way or another at this point.

O.k.

More or less we are talking about the same facts.  The link i provided is six months, and the one you provided is two years.


this is a great "problem" to have, increased growth.  That is great, and I am sure over the coming months there are going to be various resolutions, including seg wit will address part of this.  Possibly also there may be a need to consider some kind of block increase, including the possibility of a 1 mb to 2 mb increase as has been proposed or some other variation will work out in the coming months or maybe within the year.  But in any event, there is no need to panic, yet, because bitcoin does not appear to be broken, and seems to have a good problem (increased users).

I hate to break the news to you but most of the shills are not core supporters... because it seems that in essence the presumption is with the status quo, and that is core.. therefore, the burden of persuasion is on classic/XT to convince to change the status quo. 

Each of us can look at the same charts, and it doesn't matter if you have been in since $6 or since $395 a few minutes ago.

You conclude that something has gone wrong, but that certainly is not a universal conclusion, and I doubt that you even believe such conclusion, yourself - instead maybe whoever is paying your wants you to say such.

People bet up, down, sideways and a lot of variations of such, and surely there are a lot of more ways to bet, currently, as compared with 5 years ago, or even two years ago.

There are way more ways to get in and to get out and adoption is increasing like a mo fo, and infrastructure is increasing decently, and certainly computing power is out of this world, and you would have never really predicted such level of investment into bitcoin.

Also, governments are a lot less hostile than anyone would have anticipated several years ago.  Apparently, they are much more indirectly hostile than they are directly hostile, which allows for some attempts to figure out spaces to manuever within the decentralized space and to continue to expand without internally destructing.   Looks pretty decent at the moment, even though we may be experiencing a lot of ups and downs on the way to the new ATH  and delays etc etc... whether we reach new ATHs in this year or within the next few years, at the moment, bitcoin seems to have a pretty decent foundation... including having various inputs and considerations regarding current and future scalability issues.

I don't really know too much about some of the technical applications either, so I rely on various representations from others.

I made my earlier post because I thought that some credible technical people (I cannot recall exactly where I saw it) were asserting that segwit brings a lot to the table, including (hypothetically) making it more feasible to absorb ethereum as a side-chain (if that were a potential goal of bitcoin to add such utility).

Anyhow, I thought that seg wit, to some extent, allowed the separation of some of the more secure (financial) aspects of bitcoin from the aspects of bitcoin that is not as necessary to be so secured in an immediate way... thus some smart contracts etc could be on the non financial side of bitcoin's chain, once seg wit is implemented and various technical bridges are built upon it.


I will look at your threads, too.  I'm not sure about today, because I have some valentine (whatever) obligations that may distract me a bit from getting to it.  hahahaha

Wow.. that's pretty cool to assert that my posts have




n





e





g





a



t


i





v


e




space [_________________________]





hahahahahaha   



I don't really have an answer for you at this time because I find your post to be a bit ambiguous in what you are asking.   

Well if consensus is nearing 100%, then it would not really matter whether the implementation is done via softfork or hardfork, and possibility in the near 100% scenario, a hardfork would be better because it would be quicker and everyone agrees.

O.k.  maybe transactions used to be free, and now they are $.09 and maybe later they will be more... however, we are no where near $3

And, yep you are likely correct that it will be good to have lower fees for micro transactions, if BTC is going to move into a fee based model..

but even that scenario is very speculative, at this point...   because from my understanding there are still some microtransactions being done on the blockchain for free, and maybe they take longer to confirm, but since they are microtransactions, it may be less important to get quicker confirmations.  a transaction of 100 satoshis is less critical than  a transaction of 100btc

You seem to be creating a false dichotomy.

Let's say for example seg wit gets implemented as planned within the next few months, and then there is continued discussion about whether a blocksize increase is still needed.

At that point, if 90 percent or more agree that a block size increase is needed then maybe could do a hard fork, to coerce the other 10%...


On the other hand, there are ways to design changes in soft forks rather than hard forks.  Have you ever heard about a soft fork?

A soft fork achieves all the same things, it is just voluntary, rather than forced... and maybe in the end, achieves all of the same goals without being as coercive nor as sudden and controversial.






Oh that is the issue.    yeah, right?

We already know that they are not dragging their heels because seg wit is sufficiently fast and sufficiently adequate for the time being to address immediate concerns.  Once seg wit goes into effect then there may be a need to continue to address and maybe go down the blocksize increase road






yes, you and others have come to that conclusion, and that is why a hard fork is being proposed.  It is not being proposed for technical reasons, but instead to change the consensus-based governance mechanism by attempting to cause turmoil and to create situations to show that such governance is broken.. when, really, it is not... just appears to be at the moment based on the introduction of an unnecessary hardfork.


O.k.  Do they need to know business and economics?

Leave that to others? 

Why is it relevant? 

Bitcoin  is currently not broken.... except for attempts to make it look broken.





i would think that there are a lot of things people know and don't know, and I was of the belief that bitcoin is not exactly a business that anyone is running.. and it is what it is.. and adjustments are made along the way based on a variety of inputs.


None of these matters are problems..

You have been calling for downfalls in the price of bitcoin for several years.. but you have your on and off moments depending your book and how much attention that you want to get with your various bitcoin is broken proclamations.

I understand that BullyJA is all over the place when he is making various assertions regarding what he is going to do, and that is part of my point to assert that it is a lot easier to be all over the place when you are making things up.

Anyhow, he also seemed to be asserting that he was going to continue to double down until he used up all of his supposedly existing coins, and yesterday at about $380, he said that he had shorted about 40btc, and then a bit later he said 80 BTC and then a bit later, in the upper $380s, he asserted that he had put 150BTC.  At that rate, he should be out of coins soon, hopefully, then potentially, we all could be relieved of his drama, and he can rest assured in fiat or some scam altcoin.

It would be interesting to see your source for this. 

Surely there may be some discussion of various hardfork possibilities, but when push comes to shove, there seems to be no need for a hardfork, if a very large majority are already inclined to agree to the change from 1mb to 2mb (if that is what you are talking about).

On the other hand, if they feel that there is a need for a hardfork, because there are other controversial provisions, then that would be a different story.

At this point, a hard fork seems far from inevitable, and even though this is a speculation thread, when we are talking about something that is not even currently on the table, it seems to be quite "out there" - even though technically still within the realms of speculation.

All of my most recent transfers of BTC over the past 6 months or so have included a transaction fee of between .0001 and .0002 BTC, which was generally between $.07 to $.09, and varying transaction sizes of .045BTC and 30BTC..., so your description of a possible $3 transaction fee seems to be quite excessive and outside of actual expected experiences... and really, there may be a bit of an incentive to transfer larger amounts because the transaction fee is the same no matter the amount transferred.

Yeah, right, whatever.   


The last six months regarding the average block size look pretty stable to me, with a slightly upward trend in the chart.. and that upward trend in the approximately 60% capacity arena potentially could be nearly completely resolved by seg wit.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=180days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

After seg wit goes into effect, then we can assess the situation and regroup... ..

In other words, transactions etc seem to be going pretty well on the technical side of bitcoin, and maybe some of the public is coming to realize that there are really not any technical problems in bitcoin, and accordingly, if you keep doubling down in selling your supposedly existing coins based on these upward BTC price movements, we may be relieved of you from bitcoin and your baloney posts very, very soon.     

However, I understand when you a guy is dealing with fictitious coins, he really doesn't ever run out of coins.


On the other hand, if you do happen to have some coins, and you really are selling them as you claim, then I can imagine you sticking around the forum, after you have run out of coins and while BTC prices go past $450 and then $600 and then $800 and further into the $2k to $5k price arena, and then you will continue to participate to attempt to talk down BTC prices in order that you would be able to get back in at a lower price than your sell prices in the $200s to $400s.  And, when prices drop from $3800 to $1800, you will stick out your tongue and proclaim that you were right all along. blah blah blah.

I remember, not that long ago, you were supposedly selling considerable amounts of BTC while the prices were below $280 and arguing that BTC prices were going down?  but that strategy did not go too well, right?

@ImI:  Why do you keep framing the issue as if a hard fork is inevitable?  Why is a hardfork needed in the first place?  I think that threatening and even engaging in action to employ a hard fork is what causes so much contentious behavior from a large number of persons who become more entrenched in their positions because the solution is framed as being a hardfork.

There seems to be no reason for a hardfork, except one that strives to fundamentally change bitcoin's currently existing consensus based governance mechanism. 

5 out of the past 7 weeks have had relatively low volume, and that includes this week.

I mean, really, we have a bit of an upward movement in price, but that upward move, so far, has not been coming with any considerable and/or meaningful increases in volume.

Now, on the other hand, if the price continues to increase and we begin to see some increase in volume, then we will possibly begin to see some price direction.

I am a bit suspicious, however, of the weekend, and if we really can experience anything greater than a 2-5% (seemingly upward) change in the price based on the current situation and the extended period that the price has been in the upper $300's price territory.

If we begin to see volumes of 15k coins for 2 or 3 days in a row on bitstamp, then I will start to consider that volume may be going up, and with higher volume we got a bit of a better sense which direction we are going to be going (maybe up), and if the price is going to be able to stay up.

If we do not experience the higher volume, then it seems that any whale can perform a 1,000-5,000 k dump on stamp and potentially completely stop or reverse an upward price movement.

Isn't that going to be more technologically practical on bitcoin (rather than an alt) after the implementation of Seg wit?

Yeah... maybe it is not fair to recognize any patterns of behavior and then attempt to analyze those behaviors?