Dunno, what's the evidence there is actually a BTC dump going on?


The volumes of actual BTC traded today are pretty thin compared to a typical day in the 3-4 months of the current price boom. Not buying the "dump" interpretation (well, except that I'm buying the dips, of course ). Or at least not yet, anyway

While there may be some credibility to this view, I see the bear-trap perspective as equally credible.

Previous bull markets ended in a super-exponential top, and while this bull run has experienced a parabolic run on a linear scale, viewing it using an exponential scale reveals that the present price level has been achieved with a shallow rate of growth in comparison to previous tops. Not least, the market just seems to be too supportive around the $4000 level for this to be considered a true price correction. We will see, in due course (I am optimistically hoping the bear trap view is correct, the potential upside is vast in that outcome).

Not to mention, Dimon knows better than anyone the extent to which Federal Reserve money printing constitutes JPMorgan's trading profits (how much of JP Morgan's revenue comes from fed dollar printing, period?)


Dimon is afraid. Him and the world's fake capitalists, underwritten by government gangsterism, are becoming increasingly aware that real capitalism is coming, against which him and his cronies will be unable to compete. It's like a baby spitting out it's quantitative easing dummy and crying.

Funny how there are wankers are on both sides of this story


I dunno, if the illegality was simply unlicensed business, I totally don't care. If it was actual immoral content (i.e. porn were unwilling or deceived participants are sexually abused) then that's something else. I still don't think the law is a good way to handle sexual abuse, but it should certainly be handled (if sexual abusers are forced into their own separate economy by the widespread evidence of their misdeeds, it would be a far more effective punishment than fines or prison ever could be. Having to buy your life's goods from moral miscreants would be a serious piece of shit life to lead, whereas prison and fines tend to be a bit of a walk in the park).

Hmmm, is this an allusion to the South Korean state taking control of cryptocurrency exchanges and/or fixing the price of cryptocurrencies? Another example of how modern "capitalism" is a total joke (let's face it, Central Banks, FX and commodities markets between them essentially fix the price of everything with the powers they have over the world economy)

Well yeah, I guess it depends how much one really needs uncensorable commerce, most people don't care (likely including, bizarrely, drug dealers themselves, many of whom are more likely to trust their smartphones than Tor or darknet platforms).

The store seeding feature in 2.0 should improve the experience a great deal, these are mostly small independent businesses whose inventory is not going to cost customers of the respective businesses much disk space to host themselves.



Yep, the feature-set of 2.0 makes this outcome a great deal more likely, not to mention another nail in the coffin of the so-called war on drugs (where the most powerful adversary, the state itself, includes corrupt elements that fights both sides of the "war", and hence has zero incentive to ever "win")

Hmmm, it doesn't necessarily have to be a halving of whatever the predominant feature size was. Sure, Bitfury and Bitmain etc use 16nm for their Bitcoin mining ASIC chips, but Intel use 14nm for Skylake and Broadwell, so it depends on the lithography tech the manufacturers have access to from their partner foundry (I think Intel were even considering an intermediate 10nm node before 7nm at one point).



Isn't that an average price, though? Empathise with your position though, Sweden is kind of authoritarian hell for European capitalist proponents, closely competed with by France no doubt.

That's CPU manufacturing you're talking about, though. CPU's are complex and relatively non-repetitive designs.

New advances in lithography process nodes are often rolled out with chips that have the same circuit repeated over and over, like the SHA256 ASIC chips that mine Bitcoins, or GPU shaders. These can tolerate higher rates of failure in die manufacturing, it's strategised in the design of many chips on the market.



They could be talking about Sweden also, which has huge hydroelectric plants. And don't forget that the Chinese electricity price is probably subsidised.


Saying all that, I have no idea how reliable this news is, just that I'm not convinced the process node or the energy issue discounts the veracity of this news.

Well, you've been around bitcointalk a long time for you to know so little about it.

A suggestion: mining decentralisation is a good idea, but to convince yourself, you should find out why. It involves learning the basics about how Bitcoin works


Do you have any reasoning to provide? Why do you hate a transaction network layer, seems a little... weird.

Mimblewimble is one. There was a payment channels concept that wasn't compatible with Lightning too, but I've forgotten the name :/ It'll pop up again if it's viable tech.

Rootstock is one in a way, but I think it was troubled the last I heard. MAST is complex, I forgot the details totally, someone please fill us all in if it's relevant...


There are bound to be more, I've been lazy keeping up to date over the summer this year.


I think Lightning has been tested on mainnet, but it's don't get me wrong, it's still early on. All I mean is that Lightning is closer to commerical implementations & deployment than other 2nd layer concepts.

Nope.

They need to be Segwit, but they also need to be signature-heavy. People using Multisig transactions are still pretty rare, and that's the only way to use more than 2MB per block using the Segwit capacity upgrade.

Lightning will bolster this (Lightining involves multi-sig at the blockchain level), but this depends alot on the patterns of usage Lightning attracts. Realistically, alot of BTC will stay permanently hopping around/through Lightning channels, and so the increase in Multisigs may well be a major surge as the Lightning network accumulates it's natural useful quantity of BTC. After that, mined coins will gradually leak in to maintain that balance (whatever it turns out to be), but that doesn't seem to me like a feasible way to fill up an extra 2MB of every block.

After that, other 2nd layer networks (which are planned, but not as well developed as Lightning yet) may well provide the extra. We will see, the 1MB:3MB ratio was apparently chosen very carefully by the Segwit designers, so it's a big test of their engineering analysis.




I expect that a combination of the lower fees, 2nd layer networks and Bech32 addresses will convince the overwhelming majority to adopt Segwit addresses (Bech32 addresses will be easier to handle, no UPPER CASE lower case distinction, you can almost read them out verbally to someone reliably)

What are they gonna legalise next? Pyjamas? Flowers?


The arrogance is astounding. "Oh, people are making (and losing money) on a financial instrument we can't control, let's make public statements about how concerned we are!"


Maybe gangsterments should just shut up and let it be. They only serve to make themselves look even weaker when they make the bold pronouncement "there's no Bitcoin policy yet, except to make it legal, and we're going to be watching, super-close!!!". No-one gives a shit how closely they watch, when there's nothing they can do to save their precious AML laws, it turns out regular people can use their money exactly how they want too, not just the gangsterment "representatives" and their corporate protection racket sycophants, boo-hoo.

There's nothing they can do, without cancelling every part of human rights law in their statute books (although, let's face it, they're already well on the way to doing that to save us from mysteriously crazy psychos attacking public places, who have seemingly no demands or objectives, and who all seem to have mysteriously popped into existence at the same time the gangsterments started to lose control)

The blockchain doesn't lie, that's precisely how it's designed


There is no "1MB Bitcoin" anymore, you're howling into the wind.

(and Segwit is already activated over a week ago, you're one of those "alternative facts" people, aren't you?)

LOL

State regulators have been complaining publicly that their power to protect (i.e. protection racket) is completely circumvented by cryptocurrencies for, oh, I don't know, about 6 or 7 years now.

AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, DUMMIES


Satoshi designed it like this, that's the whole point. There's nothing the state can do, short of declaring martial law and searching peoples houses (and computers) daily. In many ways, this is simply the beginning of the end for the nation state. They won''t give up lightly, and will show us their true (ugly) colours while doing so. They are violent protection rackets, and only the highly compliant citizens are capable of deluding themselves into believing anything else.

You're a bit confused, you don't understand what's going on


Here is a post from a few days ago where I list the >1MB Bitcoin blocks since Segwit activated last week


>1MB blocks are becoming increasingly more common (and ever larger), Armory wallet supports Segwit addresses now, and I think Electrum might have Segwit addresses too.

So, how is this magic happening, if Bitcoin is still using a 1MB blocksize limit? I suggest you take some time to learn about what's really going on, as you clearly don't know

You forgot to mention why. Why?

I concur with this point.

But I don't think there's anything we can do, the pain will be significant and unavoidable.


People have been raised to believe in this system, no differently to the way they were raised to believe in religious parables, or in personifications of the forces of nature before that. Sadly, human beings just want a simple life for the most part, very few people are interested enough in understanding how their entire living environment is constructed and functions.

And that's the type of view point you need to contemplate the importance of a technology like Bitcoin to begin with, smart well informed people make up the majority of the eraliest proponents and adopters of Bitcoin, almost by definition. The alternative is to behave with some benevolence towards those that lost out, but that's a very complex situation when you think it through in practice. It's difficult to justify on someone else's behalf how much money or resources they deserve to be gifted, the have a strong tendency to disagree in their own favour (and why not).

These things happen in history. It's happened before and will happen again. I guess the best we can do is to continue to do our best to make things simpler for the naysayers so as to convince them of the importance of the impending wave of cryptographic tech, that's probably the most effective way of minimising disruption & smoothing out the distribution.

It still won't be pretty when the dust settles IMO. Disruptive technology is disruptive, unfortunately.

This is completely incorrect, unfortunately. The opposite is true.

For money to be trusted, and ultimately valued, people cannot be fearful that some specific tokens within the money supply are subject to non-acceptance or seizure. Having this characteristic devalues the money properties of a given money instrument, and so Shapeshift, Changely and whoever else are working against Bitcoin's wider acceptance (and market value) by behaving in this manner.

Furthermore, Bitcoin's design exacerbates this problem: 2 or more inputs can be combined into a single output in a Bitcoin transaction. That means that blacklisted inputs can be mixed seamlessly with any number of "clean" inputs too. Doing this carefully, those that wish to make blacklisted BTC acceptable can make the job of blacklisting unworkable in practical terms.


The real solution to immoral or criminal acts is rather like that of one's health: prevention > cure.

Loss is a part of life. When you lose something or are violated somehow as a consequence of someone tricking you or taking advantage of your unawareness, it's often best to accept the loss and move on. Learning from one's mistakes (and those of others) seems to be going out of fashion since the 20th century, I expect the age of cryptocracy will re-introduce the school of hard knocks to the coddled middle-classes once again (the working class and modern elite class are much better versed in the realities of anti-social & sociopathic behaviour types, the middle class have been made overgrown schoolchildren by their over-reliance on the state)

Please don't bother


Not only does asking for the government's permission completely go against the fundamentals of Bitcoin's raison d'etre, but the Bitcoin Foundation is a corrupt non-entity, long since written off by Bitcointalk.org members after their bankruptcy proceedings revealed their hilarious spending frivolities.

The Bitcoin community doesn't need to support the addition of another corrupt charity status organisation to the world, there are more than enough of these parasites to go around already

Who's going to protect us all without central banks?

Who will protect you:

• From keeping your money safe when interest rates are negative
• From inflating away the money supply when the commercial banks lose your account deposit whilst gambling with it
• From making huge profits on financial markets
• From setting monolithic interest rates that are either too high or too low for your own individual circumstances
• From charging the public interest that doesn't even exist as a part of the money supply to secure their indefinite death-like grip on the actual productivity of wage-slave neo-serfs of state gangsterments

Yeah, let's all shed a tear for these jumped-up loan sharks using the criminal alias "central banks"