|
SELL!!!!! Last chance to sell at $27!!!! I wish all bears sell!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Gold and bitcoin are not debt. No one has the obligation to repay you anything for your bitcoin/gold.
|
|
|
|
如标题所叙， 如果我要从mtgox走电汇的方式提款到银行的账户的话要怎么做? 我的银行帐户在台湾 http://ppt.cc/UZ3-@.jpg↑图(SORRY，小弟不会贴图 如图，有五种方式，要选择哪一个? 最后那一个好像是只限定日本的? 还是大大都是用其它的方式存到自己的银行户头的? 我在香港, 可以用支付寶 (人民幣) 或電匯新台幣購買你的mtgox USD |
|
|
|
There is a bid wall at $27 waiting for you. Have you sold everything? This is your last chance!
there is an ask wall at $27.50. have you any usd left? this is your last chance for sub-$50 coins!!!111!! but of course you don't have usd left. no one does. anyway, this is normal market depth for a deeply consolidating market after a large move. it's what keeps the price within such a tight range and builds pressure for a breakout. No, I'm not going to all-in. I'm dollar cost averaging. The USD on bid side is at its all time high. There is plenty of USD but just don't want to buy @$27.5. Big wales like Mr. Loaded has bought too many cheap coins during last dip so they are not going to buy more, at least temporarily. On the other hand, bears are not selling despite the bid walls at 27.15 and 27. $27 should give bears a decent profit no matter what price they bought. Instead, the bid wall at $27 is keep strengthening. Conclusion: The bull has run for over a month and needs some rest. Plenty of USD on the bid wall waiting for the next knife (read: pig) |
|
|
|
stillllllllllllll waiting
for what? prices have flattened out since the knife. sure, no reversal has materialized, but the rally has been stopped. the market is in consolidation mode right now and is busy making up its mind... soon we will know. EDIT: this is exciting: -- 6-HR mass index finally into true reversal territory, coinciding with a -- bearish MACD crossover, and a -- clear double top on the DPO! not looking good for silver parity   There is a bid wall at $27 waiting for you. Have you sold everything? This is your last chance! |
|
|
|
4500 bid wall at $27.00  SELL SELL SELL!!! Last Chance for sell @$27!!! |
|
|
|
Are there still US dollars available during the weekend? Yes, 3.49M USD on the bid orderbook, a all-time-high level. (some of them could be fake order, of course) |
|
|
|
Please make a bigger chart
sarcasm? No.....just can't read your tiny charts.....
6-hr shows even momentum, still contradicting the rising price. and daily chart averages over the v-reversal price action completely. this is the second time you've accused me of cherry picking, and if you're going to trash my analysis so easily i'd appreciate it if you posted a chart yourself showing contradictory data or put any effort into the dialogue at all.
you're not even right. every chart, regardless of scale, shows the same exact data. i picked the largest interval i could without completely losing granularity. the only reason the daily chart doesn't match with my analysis is because it averages across the entire high volatility section of the price action, which is what im trying to comment on.
At least I would call it inconclusive, but you tend to show the bearish-est one |
|
|
|
Proof of work via SHA256 hashing is really nice because you can validate it by machine. For instance a nifty project would be to get some remote attestation capable hardware like the IBM 4758 cryptographic coprocessor often used by banks. Basically what's special about it is the hardware itself is exceptionally difficult to tamper with, and additionally IBM includes a mechanism called remote attestation where the hardware will tell you what software is running on it. Since these co-processors are used for many, many different purposes IBM can't release hardware that lies without damaging a significant amount of trust in them. So, what you would do is write a very small, very simple piece of code that implements the Bitcoin block hashing algorithm. What this code would do is accept encrypted messages from anyone, either the query "What's the legit block chain?" or the statement "Here is the next block in the chain" Since the messages are encrypted the operator of the service can't prevent someone from telling the hardware about the best known chain, so anyone making a query asking what the chain is can be pretty sure that the response is accurate. The existence of this service would allow others to use it to bootstrap their own clients without needing to know any honest nodes at all.(1) Smart Property is a good example where this service would be useful. Additionally it could argument or replace the checkpoint mechanism. The problem with Ripple-style consensus is stuff like the above just can't be done because maintaining a list of public keys associated with trusted entities is fundamentally a task that only humans can do. For Ripple human consensus is probably a reasonable idea - Ripple depends on human evaluation of trust relationships anyway - but applying that concept to Bitcoin would turn it into something very different than it is now. If someone has enough hashing power to rewrite every single blocks up to block #1, the IBM 4758 will still accept it as the legitimate chain but I don't think that's what we want. Human intervention is unavoidable in such circumstances. The question is, to what extent we could tolerate a blockchain rewrite? 6? 100? 2014? 210000? There must be a cut-off point where human intervention is needed. The bitcoin wiki ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contingency_plans#Many_historical_blocks_replaced) suggests that 6+ block rewrite is unacceptable and warrants taking down the network for more than a week to fix it manually. If we believe it is the right way to handle massive blockchain rewrite, why couldn't we consistently implement checkpoints based on human consensus? As the IBM4758 is programmable, the list of validators could be updated manually. With remote attestation, it is not possible to inject malicious validators to the system. If people are really uncomfortable with the concept of "elites", we could restrict it the "miners" and "riches". The identity of miners and riches could be determined automatically through the blockchain and no human intervention is needed. (With miners using the consensus scheme would not undermine the security, see below) It also isn't a given that it would make Bitcoin any more secure either: if miners use this consensus scheme too, then by breaking the consensus you can either re-direct hashing power to your new, illegitimate chain, or failing that, turn the hashing power off to make a 51% attack easier. For non-miners consensus can help, but only in the sense that the consensus is warning you something is wrong, so you shouldn't trust transactions for now until we figure out what is wrong. Bitcoin already has a primitive version of that with the alert system anyway.
As the automatic checkpoints are for blocks with 6+ confirmations, someone may fork the chain up to 5 blocks. In this case, people will only accept payments with at least 6 confirmations. Trying to replace a block with 6+ confirmation is not possible because all honest mining and non-mining nodes will treat the original block like a hard-coded checkpoint. Although an evil miner may try to extend his own illegitimate chain, no one would accept it: once consensus is made, it is irreversible without human intervention. For the alert system, I think it is controlled by the devs. As they are not constantly monitoring the network, an automatic warning system would help. Also depending to much on the devs during emergency is just another single point of failure. |
|
|
|
I think having to trust specific entities - even if they are multiple and diversified - is against the spirit of Bitcoin.
So that leaves miners and riches, effectively some PoW/PoS combination.
I have my doubts about the consensus model - it looks like a step backwards, what Bitcoin would have been before Bitcoin (and the blockchain) was invented. But assuming it proves itself technically, I'd be open for an alt that uses consensus for synchronization, and PoW for initial distribution (as opposed to Ripple's centralized model).
As long as people have the freedom to choose which elites to trust (or not trusting them at all), that would be fine. Although I call them elites, they are just some people with real public identities. Everyone could be an elite if want. If they were caught telling lies, their public keys will be blacklisted and their reputation will be ruined. And this system functions only when there is a hostile 51% attack or a network split. If there was no 51% attack or network split, everything is equivalent to pure PoW and whoever you trust makes no difference. If there were a network split, the system will help you to identify it and again it is irrelevant to who you trust as long as your validator list is highly diversified. If there was a 51% attack, you have to trust somebody (e.g. devs) anyway, instead of blindly accepting the hostile chain rewriting 5000 blocks. Yes, consensus is a step backward of blockchain, but this doesn't mean it is totally obsoleted and we could use it strengthening PoW. We will see how it works (or not works) on Ripple. If a pure consensus model works, then consensus on top of PoW must work. I agree this is not of the highest priority but I think it is something has to be done before bitcoin can support millions USD transactions. |
|
|
|
One or two of them missing would not be a problem at all. If, however, a large proportion of validators were missing, it may suggest a network split and everyone should stop accepting new transactions. The Ripple wiki has explained how this works.
A link would be helpful. You have to understand though that after an event like last years twin towers of the Pirate and GLBSE collapses, most or all validators not being so trustworthy is a tremendous concern. Retep makes a much more beautiful case than I can, because at the moment I am a vodka fueled trolling monster. There is no single point of failure. With the collapses of Pirate and GLBSE, we still have MtGox, BTC-E, bitstamp, bitcoin-central, Bitcoin Foundation, Bitinstant, Coinbase, Bitcoinstore, MPEX, SatoshiDice, Bitcoin Magazine, BFL, all devs, all moderators and donors of this forum, all individual members of Bitcoin Foundation, and a lot more. The list is growing exponentially as bitcoin economy grows. If 50% of them collapsed on the same day, that's essentially the end of bitcoin and there is no point to protect the blockchain anymore. Some people I listed may not be very trustworthy individually, but it is extremely unlikely for a majority of them colluding to defraud, while at the same time controlling 51% hashing power. Retep makes no direct comment on my proposal. I'd like to know what he thinks Let's get past the point where checkpoints after mid-2010 really don't serve a purpose and the earlier checkpoints just make sure clients are on the right blockchain. I'm not sure you realize how connected many of the people on your list are, but you still want to implement some new checkpointing system you thought about enough to come up with layers of without coming up with enough to offer some rules for it. There are things to be paranoid about in cryptocurrency, but your anxieties seem misplaced. You seem to think the people are less fallible than the computing when you need to flip that around. Have you considered this dietary supplement called Pimozide, I hear it helps people that nothing else can. The list will only get more and more diversified. If bitcoin stays as a mini-economy with everyone highly connected, no one would spend millions of dollars to 51% attack it. Decentralized checkpointing is only used to prevent massive blockchain rewrite. It does not replace mining. If there were no massive re-write, the checkpoints were not needed. If 70% of validators get kidnapped by aliens, the system will stop for a while as that will trigger the network split alarm and require human intervention. If no network split was found, the system will continue to work as usual. |
|
|
|
One or two of them missing would not be a problem at all. If, however, a large proportion of validators were missing, it may suggest a network split and everyone should stop accepting new transactions. The Ripple wiki has explained how this works.
A link would be helpful. You have to understand though that after an event like last years twin towers of the Pirate and GLBSE collapses, most or all validators not being so trustworthy is a tremendous concern. Retep makes a much more beautiful case than I can, because at the moment I am a vodka fueled trolling monster. There is no single point of failure. With the collapses of Pirate and GLBSE, we still have MtGox, BTC-E, bitstamp, bitcoin-central, Bitcoin Foundation, Bitinstant, Coinbase, Bitcoinstore, MPEX, SatoshiDice, Bitcoin Magazine, BFL, all devs, all moderators and donors of this forum, all individual members of Bitcoin Foundation, and a lot more. The list is growing exponentially as bitcoin economy grows. If 50% of them collapsed on the same day, that's essentially the end of bitcoin and there is no point to protect the blockchain anymore. Some people I listed may not be very trustworthy individually, but it is extremely unlikely for a majority of them colluding to defraud, while at the same time controlling 51% hashing power. Retep makes no direct comment on my proposal. I'd like to know what he thinks |
|
|
|
 we haven't seen a red candle in almost two months. so... how about now? I'd say it's purely arbitrary. If the v-shape reversal yesterday had happened near the Saturday midnight, we would have a short weekly red candle, followed by a long green candle. It's just not happened on the right time and it could be easily manipulated. Don't be too obsessed to these candles and indexes. |
|
|
|
In case you do not aware, checkpoints ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/checkpoints.cpp) are currently applied to Satoshi client. This means no matter how much hashing power one has, he will create a hard fork by trying to replace blocks before the last checkpoint. Therefore, bitcoin is never a pure PoW network. Currently, checkpoints are implemented for about every thousands of blocks, and it is solely determined by the devs. So theoretically, the devs could hardcode every single new blocks as checkpoints, making themselves as the central bitcoin clearinghouse, working like SolidCoin. My proposal is just trying to decentralise the process of checkpointing. If 6 blocks is considered too short, we may make it every 100 blocks, but definitely not thousands of blocks. 100 blocks checkpoint is not too bad, at least I am sure that the 10 million USD worth of BTC that I received in the morning will become completely non-chargebackable in the evening. I don't mind checkpoints as they are implemented. I worry about the ripple validation model because chain splits aren't actually that uncommon for a block or two, so as unlikely as a six block split is the six block split would be a concern in the validation model if there is a split vote between the two forked chains. There's also the more practical matter of just how much data is going to be added to the block chain if numerous parties from three distinct classes are signing every block once it reaches a depth of six. Trusting the core devs as they develop the software now is easy, because everything they commit is open. Expanding the circle of people to trust with such an intimate part of the software seems potentially messy. What happens if a number of your Elite validators just stop validating. Pirate and many of his pass through operators had great OTC ratings before the world burned and fools lost their money. You introduce a potential vulnerability that can come through a shortage of signatures on top of the one from a potential drop in hashing power. That and the only proof of stake systems at the moment (PPCoin, Novacoin), seem to have implementations that aren't all that vetted. 6 blocks is just a convenient number. I think as much as 100 blocks is reasonable and a split in this scale is very very unlikely. People like Pirate cannot exploit this system unless he has 51% hashing power; and even Pirate has 51% hashing power, he has to control at least 51% of validators before he could rewrite the chain. WIth these validators my concern is not rewriting the chain. It is denying blocks validation because people just up and disappeared. It is not difficult to name 100 elites (and we also have miners and riches). As the economy expands, we will have thousands of merchants working as validators (they will do it for free to protect themselves). One or two of them missing would not be a problem at all. If, however, a large proportion of validators were missing, it may suggest a network split and everyone should stop accepting new transactions. The Ripple wiki has explained how this works. The block signatures need not to be written to the blockchain. They are P2P circulated and stored in a seperate database. Validating nodes only need to keep signatures for blocks after the last checkpoints. (Actually only the signatures for the last block is required, because they are also confirming all of its parent blocks) |
|
|
|
The difference is we made a higher high this time.
price is not the only piece of data. we'd already be sliding into the downtrend if it weren't for the irrational bulls who pushed it up to new highs. the speed of the recovery simply goes to show how hot the flames expanding this balloon are. it's all hot air though. just wait, the knife was the sign...  bearish divergence shows how the knife affected the price momentum, even though we reached new highs. Please make a bigger chart EDIT: Cherry picking again. Please look at 6-hr and daily charts |
|
|
|
Are you just cherry-picking? I will have different conclusion by choosing different time-scale: more bullish (or less bearish) for the longer term
also, will you post these charts? i am interested in counterdata. e.g. look at the mass index at 12 hours interval, it is below the blue line since 6 Feb and we had a non-stop rally. |
|
|
|
In case you do not aware, checkpoints ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/checkpoints.cpp) are currently applied to Satoshi client. This means no matter how much hashing power one has, he will create a hard fork by trying to replace blocks before the last checkpoint. Therefore, bitcoin is never a pure PoW network. Currently, checkpoints are implemented for about every thousands of blocks, and it is solely determined by the devs. So theoretically, the devs could hardcode every single new blocks as checkpoints, making themselves as the central bitcoin clearinghouse, working like SolidCoin. My proposal is just trying to decentralise the process of checkpointing. If 6 blocks is considered too short, we may make it every 100 blocks, but definitely not thousands of blocks. 100 blocks checkpoint is not too bad, at least I am sure that the 10 million USD worth of BTC that I received in the morning will become completely non-chargebackable in the evening. I don't mind checkpoints as they are implemented. I worry about the ripple validation model because chain splits aren't actually that uncommon for a block or two, so as unlikely as a six block split is the six block split would be a concern in the validation model if there is a split vote between the two forked chains. There's also the more practical matter of just how much data is going to be added to the block chain if numerous parties from three distinct classes are signing every block once it reaches a depth of six. Trusting the core devs as they develop the software now is easy, because everything they commit is open. Expanding the circle of people to trust with such an intimate part of the software seems potentially messy. What happens if a number of your Elite validators just stop validating. Pirate and many of his pass through operators had great OTC ratings before the world burned and fools lost their money. You introduce a potential vulnerability that can come through a shortage of signatures on top of the one from a potential drop in hashing power. That and the only proof of stake systems at the moment (PPCoin, Novacoin), seem to have implementations that aren't all that vetted. 6 blocks is just a convenient number. I think as much as 100 blocks is reasonable and a split in this scale is very very unlikely. People like Pirate cannot exploit this system unless he has 51% hashing power; and even Pirate has 51% hashing power, he has to control at least 51% of validators before he could rewrite the chain. |
|
|
|
That is true - but with that amount of media attention that we get recently there is a huge chance that there will be new money in the market.
markets are also anti-inductive. if everyone expects one behavior, it will do the opposite so as to minimize profits. you guys are so silly. just as bad as the first irrational bulls on the way up the 2011 bubble. do you think you all are going to be rich? do you really think that an exponentially increasing number of people will pour money into your pockets every day? pyramidal hierarchies are unsustainable and we haven't had a red candle on the weekly scale for almost two months. in two words: zero-sum Look at the weekly chart in log scale, it's nothing comparable with the 2011 bubble, and we are still 18% below the top. By the way, most of the weekly candle are green simply because we are still at the take-off stage. Zero-sum? Yesterday about 1M of USD was spent to pull it back from $21 to $26, and now we still have 3.4M of USD in the bid wall (AFAIK this is the all-time-high). There is lots of new money here. |
|
|
|
And it only becomes tempting to sell if you think we have hit the top. Not many of us around here think that is the case.
the knife says at least one of us, if not many, do. The knife (read: pig) would have earned at least 10% more in fiat if he had sold slowly at $26 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
