In my opinion, this bitcoin classic thing is a horrible idea.
We just need core to roll out either 2MB or 4MB blocks and be done with all this nonsense.
+1 Could not agree more. What is the rush? It seems like these classic guys want to control the source (and fuck it up later on by adding other crap without proper testing) Kinda childish if you ask me. Go start your own alt coin, call it "better, classic, super trupper bitcoin" whatever you want. Core guys get what bitcoin is all about. Decentralized, independent, global, store of value. |
|
|
|
Mike Hearn exits, sign of big price jump?
For a huge price jump we need to see a scalability solution accepted and the end of this eternal "forkin' mess".
If Mike Hearn exiting is a step towards resolution, then let's finish the rest ASAP.
Hearn showed immaturity as a developer. Maxwell actually makes sense. If he worked on large projects (with large teams) and had to compromise to come up with a solution that is good for the project, he would know better. Instead he behaved like a little kid fresh out out of school; I know better, my way is the best. Decentralization, independence of any authority (banks, governments) is paramount. Slow growth is actually desirable. Why would someone wish bitcoin becomes another Paypal or Visa is beyond me. Just use Visa or Paypal/Visa if you want fast, reversible transactions. I don't understand why some people want bitcoin to replace Paypal or Visa. Where is the innovation in that? Store of value, settlement are far more desirable features as this commodity cannot be easily confiscated or depreciated. Bitcoin as a currency will become another alt coin sooner rather than later. I hope core does not lose control to classic/unlimited/power rangers. It will be a disaster in the long term. |
|
|
|
No, Classic is the choice. There is no fallback, if you want to stay relevant.
Can you clarify a technical advantage of classic above core with segwit ? As Far as I am aware Cores proposal comes with 45 developers, proposal is already further along, written and being tested right now, comes with many other improvements, and has practically the same capacity advantages as Bitcoin Classic/BIP102. I really don't understand why people would pick Classic unless Segwit is delayed for some reason or for political reasons which I am not interested in as I want to judge each proposal by their technical considerations. If classic was a 2+4 BIP + Segwit that may be interesting because it would contain all the advantages of segwit and have an effective 3-4MB capacity and than 6-8MB effective capacity with plenty of headroom to put off future forks for a couple years. It may have some centralization tradeoffs , but at least it is different enough to consider and make interesting. I know why Jonathan Toomim is so dissapointed that his proposal was vetoed for such a conservative one now. core with segwit is still fantasyware - they are testing it, yes, but there is a long way to go before even the most reckless development manager would consider it production ready. The market wants commitment on capacity now, not a vague, ever shifting promise of it in the future. And how much testing was done with classic? Think before you post. |
|
|
|
However the problems happen when 51% of the miners decide to start mining blocks larger than 1MB and 51% of the nodes supported blocks up to 2MB, then the blockchain would fork, specifically a hard fork. There would then be two blockchains. One blockchain would include blocks larger than 1MB while the other would not. The blockchain with larger blocks would be rejected by nodes that don't support larger blocks. If the blockchain with the smaller blocks happened to become longer than the blockchain with larger blocks, it could orphan that entire other blockchain. However, if the other larger block blockchain was longer than the smaller block one, then two blockchains would continue to persist until everyone agreed to use one or the other blockchain.
....
Because of the issues that can be caused by competing blockchains, the block size limit will only change with consensus. It only happens if nearly all of the miners and users agree to support those larger blocks and agree to upgrade to code that supports those blocks. Without consensus we would have competing blockchains which could be disastrous.
Are you saying if miners switch to Bitcoin classic (once available) or change the header file in their nodes we might end up with two chains? If you did this today, your 2MB blocks would be rejected. Unless they run their mining operations hoping others switch their nodes to higher limit so that they can accept larger blocks, confirming each other. They can decide to do just that, but the issue is of source control. When you are a miner with X number of nodes, you want consistency in your setup. You want fast, reliable setup. Last thing you want is to be maintaining core code. You don't want to solve orphaned or rejected blocks. Waste of time and money. |
|
|
|
Do you feel this unstoppable power? WHITE BEAR POWER! It won't take long until price drops below $300!  You seem desperate to buy them back :-) LOL |
|
|
|
Cryptsy event is completely irrelevant. The amount of coins stolen is so incredibly small.
do not understimate the panic selling that few coins can create, that the real damage not the amount of coins the bad news itself, can start a huge downtrend in not time, like it happened already also what Mike is saying, is not even that true, there are proposal for the issue he is describing, he just mad because none was accepting his altcoin... +1 The bad news will all fade away. Making it to NY times pretty much makes the 'news' fully realized, i.e. those who wanted to sell, sold. There might be more selling as it snowballs to low 300s (a big maybe), but then we'll have an explosive bounce. Just watch. |
|
|
|
Thanks to this guy Mike Hearn the price went down $60 today. Alot of people have lost a lot of money and it's all because of this guy.
In order to get back our money we need to find this guy and make him take back all the bullshit and lies he wrote in his blog. He will be making a full public media apology for his actions and a confession that he is a troll and FUD master.
So if you know Mike Hearn, his address or any information about him please post it. We need to contact him personally and let him know he is responsible for people losing their hard earned money. And we need to ask him what he is going to do about it.
A guy sold few hundred coins. Who cares? His post is just one guy's opinion. He reminds me of a finance professor http://www.businessinsider.com/williams-bitcoin-meltdown-10-2013-12Both did not understand where is the innovation in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.
He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.
What's do you mean? Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain, which is a no-brainer good idea. It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer. Why increasing blocksize is a good idea? It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin. The chain is already over 60GB. I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem. Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago. I guess now he will. You want fast transactions? You pay for it. Problem solved. Next. The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices. Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes. Running a node is already a form of taxation. Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO. That is a non-problem problem. OMG 60GB!! Not like an average - and btw streamed/downloaded - game, or a couple high quality movies don't take the same place. No, people don't have 60 -or 600 - GB to store their MONEY on their 1-2 TB HDDs... Or buy one extra for 100$ to run a node to help the network for thei thousands of dollars of BTCs , or the fact that they can just rent remote nodes for 10$ a month..Much cost, can't do. Also, obviously, all the supposed millions of users running nodes today, (no, they are not), and will not ever if 60GB goes to 600GB. If you don't see a problem even in a short-term, I just cannot help you. At 20MB/block, you'll be adding 3GB per day. Storage is just one aspect. |
|
|
|
Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.
He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.
What's do you mean? Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain, which is a no-brainer good idea. It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer. Why increasing blocksize is a good idea? It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin. The chain is already over 60GB. I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem. Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago. I guess now he will. You want fast transactions? You pay for it. Problem solved. Next. The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices. Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes. Running a node is already a form of taxation. Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.
He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions. There are already technologies to do fast transactions, not sure why someone would want
to change bitcoin to do that and more importantly why? You don't need bitcoin to do fast transactions. Ask Visa. They did it and are very successful at it.
If you want a public ledger, irreversible transactions, cryptographically secured by best, distributed network (self supported), you might look at bitcoin.
I doubt R3 will have the brain power to pull this one off. I think their first mistake was to hire Hearn.
Network effect will eat them live. What will happen, they will burn investors money and say, well, it was a good experiment.
But if they get 40 banks to collaborate, who knows. They might build their private blockchain to run it among themselves for inter-bank transactions but I'm
not sure where the hashrate will come from to secure it. Who is going to pay for it?
I know one thing, banks are the worst places to work on innovative projects. They are users of technology, they don't create anything new.
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't need the money, don't sell.
In your case, don't invest unless you are debt free, paid off mortgage etc. Be it stocks, currencies, precious metals, real-estate etc.
Stay away from any investments until you are completely debt free.
If I were you, I'd sell what you have, take the money, enroll in some college or university, upgrade your skills and
improve your earning potential.
BTW, bitcoin price might improve in few months or years. Probably after people like you exit the market.
|
|
|
|
Which part of '3600 coins per day' do you not understand?
Bitcoin is still in socialist distribution phase for the next 5 years. So why on earth do you try to pump it? Are you monkeys or what's your problem?
production costs are $275-$300 per bitcoin. Just think about it. To push this to $50-$100 might be more difficult to do than most shorts want to admit. Miners probably started buying about now. They will be buying below $300 IMHO. Speculators are getting out now. Will they push this below $150? Time will tell. People who are committed to bitcoin will not sell now, they will add. Investors are adding now. Especially those who mined coins before and those who went through these type of "bubbles" before. Even commercial farms can mine for 6-12 months without selling any coins. They all sit on healthy fiat profits, so I would not worry about them dumping 3600 coins a day, maybe 1000. What is 1000 coins a day in this market? |
|
|
|
OMG. This kind of posts are a clear sign, that nothing is over, yet.
+1 Too many bulls. We need only bears posting. The bottom will be when bulls sell all their coins. But who knows, this is bitcoin. It can shoot up to $5000 next month (or go down to $50) |
|
|
|
Bitcoin bottomed out at $160 and is already on the rebound...just crossed over $225 on coinbase. Fuck the bears.
If it was that easy everybody would be making money trading bitcoin. Traders expect 280-325 top in this bounce and then back to the trend. If we pass 400 and stay there, you might start thinking about recovery. 150 is a temporary bottom, volume was good, but was it THE bottom? Time will tell. |
|
|
|
I love bitcoin and I believe its a game changer. But currently its a bubble.
It had its chance to go down to $20 or whatever many months after crashing from $266. If we go that low again its cause its over. His thinking is: we are falling from 1200 so the momentum should carry us below $70. I think it is wishful thinking. We will see a lot of buying in the 100-150 range |
|
|
|
But I will still buy a coin knowing full well I won't make money on it or recover my loss potentially weeks or months down the road. I'm just saying many miners have lost the speculative attitude of crypto, for all they know they could mine at a loss now but Bitcoins price could jump up 2x or 3x or more next month and instead of making ANY money/coins they will wish they had had those coins.
Mining is an a way to acquire bitcoins at a discount. Speculation on future value is a completely different issue. If a miner can acquire a bitcoin at a cost of $300 through mining, or they can acquire a bitcoin at a cost of $180 from a trader, they will stop mining and buy the bitcoin from the trader. [/quote] +1 And we are well below production cost.... |
|
|
|
$165 in Stamp... seriously... if you're still holding bitcoins, you really need to get out soon unless you don't care about losing it all. At some point, the exchanges will probably halt trading and you'll find yourself in a position where you essentially can no longer withdrawal your coins for cash anymore.
so what, you keep the coins. If it goes to $50 (or $5), you become an early adopter and buy shitload to average down. BTW, keeping anything fiat or coins at any exchange is pretty bad idea. Keep your coins in cold storage. The down train will stop eventually. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin price is so damn low now that i believe the pump will soon throw us up some Couple of hundred dollars. buy now or regret it later.
No pump or V reversals. We first must flush out all the speculators like you. When bitcoin price goes flat for few months and nobody wants to sell (or buy), the new bull will start (assuming bitcoin network is alive and well). Drifting lower is in the cards, IMHO, as speculators, miners, hoarders exit. That does not mean it is not good time to buy some...You never know when this trend will reverse. If you buy now, buy small and keep adding when it goes lower. Catching the very bottom is impossible. |
|
|
|
|
You want to buy bitcoins because you still can buy them.
|
|
|
|
We just got in the hundreds today. I'll judge by how quickly we drop lower when i buy. I'm thinking by Friday I'll have purchased btc. ($20-$80 range)
Hint: Price is below the production cost. We only had this few times in the past. Were there any mining farms mining the last time it happened? I've seen pictures of people running 60-100 cards in storage spaces. 5 cards per motherboard. They were the "mining farms". If you run 10Gh or more, you were running a mining farm. The difficulty was only 1M... Ebay was full of ads to sell cards below their "market" value. People were offering cards in blocks of 10s on this very forum. But don't expect too much dip in network hashing rate, maybe it will go sideways for a while...dip a little |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
