Actually this reply was pretty pathetic lmao, he actually posted a reply
DAFAR ROFL more like JAFFAR  go back to your den You keep ignoring how Andreas Antonopoulos is on our side. Answer: Are you going to call Andreas Antonopoulos a bankster? A Core shill? A blockstreamer? What are you call him now that Andreas agrees with Core's roadmap? Or you will keep ignoring the fact that the best experts on the field are all supporting Core's roadmap? What's your call on this? Is Roger Ver better than all of them you say? Let me put this really simple for you. I am against SegWit, not necessarily pro Bitcoin Unlimited. It just happens that BU has taken philosophically the correct approach to the problem. The core should separate their enhancements into small packages and present each one to the community separately not in a foul umbrella package known as SegWit. Also I am against ugly hacks. The scaling fix should be simple and elegant aka just increasing the maximum block size. Okay so let me get this right. What you are saying is, we should go against the opinion of experts such as Andreas Antonopoulos, which tell us how stupid it is to raise the blocksize before activating segwit, and instead listen to your opinion, or Roger Ver's opinion, because you somehow know better? Is this a fucking joke? Nobody with a brain and invested money in Bitcoin is going to value some no nobodies opinion above Andreas and Core dev's. Get real. I think he is asking you to engage your brain, understand the situation, and make a decision for yourself instead of making an appeal to authority. But I suppose that might be difficult if you don't have a strong background in CS, economics and game theory. Adding a 1mb transaction size limit would fix the only legitimate issue I have heard about and would allow blocks to scale. Segwit is too big of a change to take lightly. It should be deployed on an alt coin first to allow testing. When it does come to bitcoin, it should be done as a hard fork so as not to leave nodes on the network who think they are fully validating when they are actually not. Or, the software could be changed to allow you to delete just the witness data as an alternative to pruning entire blocks, which is already supported. There is no reason you couldn't store the transaction chain without the witness data today. The only thing you gain with segwit is the ability to check block hashes after you delete witness data. |
|
|
|
I'm still here. Bitcoin is the biggest scam in human history. It may go much higher, but when it crashes it will create the biggest losses ever. Warren Buffet has said there is no value in bitcoin. You think you are smarter than the greatest fundamental trader in history? When/where did he say that? Please provide your source. The only comment I've ever heard from him on bitcoin is that he doesn't invest in things he doesn't understand. I doubt he has had a reason to take the time to understand what bitcoin is, which would be a prerequisite for him to declare there is no value in it. He's not the kind of person to make such statements lightly. |
|
|
|
$777 is the new $666, what a coincidence  I wish I bought more during $666.... regretted.. I'm too afraid to buy more now. It's expensive and not sure if I can make profit.. You probably felt the same way at $666. Probably felt the same way at $222, $333, $444 and $555, too,,,  you guys are right... when it's $888 I would be saying the same. At the end of the day, I missed all out. You don't have to invest your life savings all at once. Just dollar cost average invest into bitcoin with what you can afford, whether that is $10 per month or $400 per week or $100 per day.. or $1 per day. There are a lot of ways to invest an amount that is comfortable and should not cause regrets, as long as you try to apportion it to your own personal financial situation. For example, I am a kind of cautious person when it comes to investing, and it took me more than a year to establish my initial investment stake into bitcoin and to achieve a kind of feeling of comfort that I had a decent stake in bitcoin that was proportionate to my overall view of the investment (in contrast with and proportioned to other investments that I had at that time in light of my timeline and other personal circumstances) Yep... the best part about bitcoin markets is the percentage fees instead of the flat fees you see in traditional markets. It is reasonable to buy in very small lots. |
|
|
|
$777 is the new $666, what a coincidence I wish I bought more during $666.... regretted.. I'm too afraid to buy more now. It's expensive and not sure if I can make profit.. You probably felt the same way at $666. |
|
|
|
Real naive considering how popular Pokermon Go got.... Obviously you underestimate the effects of viral marketing on speculative bubbles. And how is the dark web going to make Bitcoin popular when the bulk of the population is against illegal activities. Doesn't make any sense.
It was super popular for about 2 months. I don't see as many pokezombies around anymore. |
|
|
|
Why is Block size an issue? Is there a limit on the number of blocks at a time?
The network will throttle itself to around 10 minutes/block. It can exceed this short term, but it will slow down on the next retargeting if it does. With 1MB blocks, bitcoin can only handle about 3.5-7 transactions per second (depending how you approximate the average transaction size). |
|
|
|
Very true.
I'm waiting for the day I wake up and see a thread "Amazon now accepts Bitcoin directly", check the exchange price, and see price of Bitcoin has almost doubled.
One popular app or big website becoming BTC integrated will have the possibility to make a huge difference in user base and drive the demand to new levels.
Overstock is among the largest retail websites and it made very little difference to the price. It pumped but quickly fell back. IMO Amazon will be quite similar. what is needed is grocery stores, mortgage companies and utilities all to accept it. At that time, the stage will be set to price in BTC and pay employees and buy from the warehouse in BTC directly...making a complete cycle in Bitcoin economy. Overstock is #21. Amazon is #1 and has 50X the sales of O.co. Not to mention, Amazon also has the AWS business line, which is a much more natural fit for btc than retail sales. http://wwd.com/business-news/financial/amazon-walmart-top-ecommerce-retailers-10383750/ |
|
|
|
i want to go on a bit of a rant. its not price related but here's the chart anyway.  what would be best for bitcoin right now is unity.image core devs and bu devs and Gavin! coming out of the wood work all collaborating to give us segwit + free market BlockSize. that IMO is gold. that will yield small reasonable blocks size increases along side a LN network cooking to perfection. this outcome would yield 32,000$ a coin.. admit it. fight for this outcome. run a BU client if for no other reason as to express your desire for more diversified set of bitcoin BIPs on the table at any one time. anyway you look at it bitcoin is a buy right now, if it go segwit if it goes bu if it dose both in short order and then some. time is now. buy. Nope. Having no restriction on a size of a block chain is suicide! If core goes full retard and actually try that i'm shorting BTC getting some popcorn and will watch that dumb ass idea collapse on itself in fireworks. But don't let that discourage you. You go ahead and keep on shilling, BTW i like the rebranding from unlimited blocks to "free market BlockSize" how about "BestFlexibleBlocksThatSaveChildrenAndEndWars BlockSize" TM you too funny, but you try too hard Allowing block size to be determined by emergent consensus is not the same as no restriction. There are some issues surrounding the security implications of having potential time periods where multiple chains are competing because one has a block bigger than a large segment of miners will accept immediately. But to portray it as no restriction on block size just shows how little you understand about the BU proposal. |
|
|
|
No need to rush things. It may take longer than people think, but eventually we will definitely get the price to touch the magical $1000 barrier.
All the volatility as result of the panic dumps allow traders to increase their coin count, and thus for that reason I am happily taking advantage of this opportunity.
All signs are bullish where only one of the major Chinese exchanges getting "hacked" with tons of coins getting lost can get the price to go down badly.
True, but all im saying is, if we didn't had roger ver with is anti segwit agenda, we would be rising way faster, once segwit gets activated and people see the benefits and 0 negatives, and once we have segwit we could even consider a blocksize increase, but we have idiots stagnating bitcoin's progress right now. Why is faster better? Each time we get overheated and skyrocket we crash and burn. And each time this happens, it spooks more people away from bitcoin and it takes longer for the market to recover. Please tell me you are not just in this to get rich quick. |
|
|
|
The dollar has to be lower just in order to be realistic about its current worth.
Incorrect. The dollar will go to ATHs in 2017 or 2018, for the reason I told you (which comes from Armstrong). It must go sky high to totally break the global economy into an abyss, which will then destroy the dollar and usher in the new global monetary reset with Asia leading the way coming out of their bottom 2020. You've got to understand Armstrong's thesis about the $11 trillion dollar global short position and the international capital flows into the safe haven reserve currency as the crisis elevates into total chaos and war every where. Later the dollar will peak due to killing the global economy, and that is when you want to have gold. For now, you want the dollar, US stocks, and Bitcoin. Later in 2017/18, you want to transition to gold. It is still possible for gold to sell off to $850 as the dollar rally and US stock market rallies accelerate due to the rush to a safe haven. The world is not yet really to admit it is totally fucked and move to gold. That will come later. You will see a double in the US stock market over the next 2 years. Probably a triple or more in Bitcoin. Gold will go down. The thread moderator ( @adamstgBit ) deleted a huge swath of discussion, some of which you can find else where. Thought his nick was hacked and he was locked out?? Yep. Last active September 14th: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=23281 |
|
|
|
Geez its tanking again.... had thought this might be a good time to enter in a position last week.... when will the bubble form again  WTF are you talking about? We are only $6 below the recent high and still $20 above where we were a week ago. |
|
|
|
So... how's that Gold price been working out for ya lately, Mat? Silver is gonna be a +10-20x when the debt markets implode so it doesn't really matter where you buy it at. Maybe far higher, depends if the value of the fiats reaches zero or not before being transitioned to something else. If they actually imploded to nothingness, all metals and bitcoin holders are getting a giant wealth transfer from everyone else, but productive capacity would crater so you'd not be able to find lots of items no matter how much money you have. There will be a lot of dirt cheap real estate, cars, boats, houses, etc, though. Any other doom shitty speculation to provide us? They say that world we be destroyed by aliens before 2019, will bitcoin and other safe heavens go higher ??  The average lifespan of a fiat currency is 27 years and all economically incompetent individuals will soon figure that out. The wealth transfer is inevitable, it's only a question of what percentage each alternative to them like metals and bitcoin get. I don't know about you, but I'm front running the biggest bankruptcy in the history of the world - lot's of irredeemable paper IOUs with no cost to create. If there is no cost, then what's the problem? |
|
|
|
DB crash is good for the $, and consequently, bad for bitcoin  DB crash would be bad for the euro and consequently good for bitcoin. Currency volatility in general is also good for bitcoin since it opens arbitrage opportunities. bitcoin is backed by fiat again, if DB down, fiat down then so do the bitcoin. we need the bitcoin backed by the commodity, before the bank crashes, or the bitcoin is dead again. Bitcoin is not backed by fiat, it is priced in fiat. It could easily be priced in gold or look if someone wanted to make a direct trade of bitcoin for commodities. |
|
|
|
DB crash is good for the $, and consequently, bad for bitcoin DB crash would be bad for the euro and consequently good for bitcoin. Currency volatility in general is also good for bitcoin since it opens arbitrage opportunities. |
|
|
|
If you restrict transactions to 1mb, then you can scale linearly from the current worst case.
What do you mean by "restrict transactions to 1 MB"? Restrict the maximum size of an individual transaction to 1 MB? Bitcoin unlimited is running a testnet with 10mb blocks and they aren't even close to straining decent desktop hardware.
I highly suspected that they are testing normal 10 MB blocks, which is obviously the wrong way to test stuff. Otherwise, that statement wouldn't hold ground. At 10 MB, with quadratic validation time, you could reproduce a block that requires a ridiculous amount of time to process. Bandwidth usage can be high, but 20mbit/second is pretty easy to come by. If you have less, you can serve fewer nodes but still provide more to the network than you consume.
The problem isn't the speed, the problem is the amount that you spend. Even at 1mbit/s, you can have 40-80 connections (again, source: my node). However, do you really think that you wouldn't be throttled down very soon considering that they'd probably label this as "not fair use"? Yes, at a 1mb transaction limit, it would scale linearly from today's worst case and still allow any transaction that is currently valid. If you pay for a data rate and they don't deliver that data rate they have breached your contract. Bitcoin has fallen to 80% of the cryptocurrency market. Transactions throughput has stalled. Other coins are working hard on massive throughput and are continuing to grow. The promise of bitcoin was not that everyone can run a node. The promise was that no single entity could control the issuance of money. Bitcoin can only meet this promise it it can scale enough to be useful as one of the primary means of international exchange. The good news is that if it doesn't, some other coin will. |
|
|
|
Yeah, it is subjective. My desktop could easily handle 20 mb blocks, and it isn't anywhere near top of the line.
No, I'm fairly certain that you've pulled that out of thin air. Exactly where, when and how did you benchmark validation time for a 20 MB block? Quadratic scaling induces problems with malicious 2 MB blocks, now imagine the implications on 10x of that. Sure, in 5 years I'd need more disk space, but I could also buy enough disk for 20 years at that rate for less than $600. In 5 years when I actually need it, that storage will likely be even cheaper. The CPU, RAM, and network connectivity I have today can already handle it.
You are forgetting several things in your point of view: 1) Syncing from scratch; 2) Bandwidth. Sure, you could argue that you'd need only download 20 MB worth of data on average every 10 minutes. However, this does not apply for full nodes, but full clients. A node, doing an average of 1 mbit/s at the current block size of 1 MB, will spend around 300 GB of data in 30 days (source: My own node). If you restrict transactions to 1mb, then you can scale linearly from the current worst case. Bitcoin unlimited is running a testnet with 10mb blocks and they aren't even close to straining decent desktop hardware. Bandwidth usage can be high, but 20mbit/second is pretty easy to come by. If you have less, you can serve fewer nodes but still provide more to the network than you consume. |
|
|
|
Why does everyone need to run a full node?
No, not "everyone" has to run one. We're already pass that point IMO. However, you should be able to run a node without it costing you a lot of money (this is subjective I know) if you want any kind of decentralization. See section 8 of the bitcoin white paper. Even Satoshi viewed full node operation as a business activity. If you didn't sign up for Satoshi's vision, what exactly did you sign up for?
Just because Satoshi had a view regarding something, that doesn't mean that they were right. I disagree with 'running a full node to being a business activity'. It's not like the node count isn't slowly going down due to the ever increasing resource cost required to run one. Remember, BTC is now being ran by these types:
-snip-
So we should believe in Ver's words, the same person that vouched for Mt.Gox solvency? Yeah, it is subjective. My desktop could easily handle 20 mb blocks, and it isn't anywhere near top of the line. Sure, in 5 years I'd need more disk space, but I could also buy enough disk for 20 years at that rate for less than $600. In 5 years when I actually need it, that storage will likely be even cheaper. The CPU, RAM, and network connectivity I have today can already handle it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
