I bet we'll see 269 or 265 before 300 again, but 280 is a fucking good buy, and so is 300, FFS its going to 32,000K next bubble scheduled for take off in ~2years, buy or die.
Welcome back Adam's. Hope you had enjoyed your vacation buddy. You are right, even at $300, still it's very cheap. I will be buying around 4.5 coins within the coming few days to add to my stash. So it's cheap at $300, but not at what... $32k? So for it to even get to $32k/btc, millions of people have to happily be buying at that price, yes? So why would they? You guys don't get it, will never get it. Not quite. We just need a couple of banks and hedge funds with billions  Never. Gonna. Happen. Banks are laughing at bitcoin. Best hope is that some whales pump the hell out of it again, and a couple million young retail investors are foolish enough to buy at literally any price. Because "to da moon!" and all dat stupid nonsense. They are only laughing because they cannot get in the game and rub elbows with everyone. When we get the NASDAQ ETF they are going to be riding this baby to the moon indeed. |
|
|
|
I bet we'll see 269 or 265 before 300 again, but 280 is a fucking good buy, and so is 300, FFS its going to 32,000K next bubble scheduled for take off in ~2years, buy or die.
Welcome back Adam's. Hope you had enjoyed your vacation buddy. You are right, even at $300, still it's very cheap. I will be buying around 4.5 coins within the coming few days to add to my stash. So it's cheap at $300, but not at what... $32k? So for it to even get to $32k/btc, millions of people have to happily be buying at that price, yes? So why would they? You guys don't get it, will never get it. Not quite. We just need a couple of banks and hedge funds with billions |
|
|
|
i'm not so sure about this, remember doge? outside money in that case were responsible for the huge increment in the price, and they did built the ath together with chinese willybot or whatever you want to throw in it
I don't understand. What happened with doge? Doge made an all time high after its launch. Then it never reached it again, right? I'm saying that a new hype cycle starts when the ATH is passed. doge was responsable for the ATH, because attract many newbie that invested in bitcoin to buy doge they helped the price to grow, so you don't always need rich people to pump, to recall new comers in the pump Doge was responsible for the bubble? LMFAO. Dude, Doge wasn't launched until December 8 and most people didn't hear about it until around Christmas time. The bitcoin bubble had already peaked. The ATH was reached before Doge was launched. no you're wrong i was selling doge like tomorrow already after the first day of its launch which was around the time when the whole bubble started many were buying bitcoin purposely for buying doge, the doge mania helped a lot  best one I'll hear all day |
|
|
|
If that's what you think you should sell your coins now.
I don't necessarily believe that is the case right now but certainly won't pretend this is not possible, see smooth's comment again for explanation. The point is we have no way to know and it is a big enough risk that we shouldn't ignore its existence even if we are to pretend the odds for this to occur are small No one ever said ignore the possibility. But since you are so adamant about the need to worry about it, what do you propose we do?  I thought I told you already not to twist my or anyone's words |
|
|
|
 Wait..for...it... Later that day....  man is desperate |
|
|
|
If that's what you think you should sell your coins now.
I don't necessarily believe that is the case right now but certainly won't pretend this is not possible, see smooth's comment again for explanation. The point is we have no way to know and it is a big enough risk that we shouldn't ignore its existence even if we are to pretend the odds for this to occur are small |
|
|
|
Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.
Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining. So why haven't they attacked? Because they have no incentive to? You do know that's how the game works right? Why don't you explain it to us? What is there to explain? Can you not imagine a scenario where an entity controls more than 51% of the network yet decides it is in their best interest not to attack it? |
|
|
|
Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.
Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining. So why haven't they attacked? Because they have no incentive to? You do know that's how the game works right? |
|
|
|
2000 USD in 2015?
I'm a long term HODLER & about as bullish as it gets (without being deluded) but 2000 USD per coin is not happening in 2015, no way. Unless a number of huge corporations/organisations/companies start using bitcoin or integrating it into their payment systems then 2000 USD per bitcoin is not happening.
I think we could reach around 700 USD per coin as a result of next years halving but 2000 USD per coin is not happening for a while.
I think you have misconceptions about the term bullish if you do not believe 2000$ can happen in 2015. Your line of thought explain exactly why you cannot conceive this number. Bitcoin will not rise in price because of corporate adoption of its "payment system". It will rise as a speculative store-of-value trading on commodity markets. We need only a microscopic fragment of worldwide equity and fund markets exposure for Bitcoin to reach this type of valuation. When approved the Nasdaq ETF should propel us way beyond that. |
|
|
|
Hmm... you do realise this is from 10 months ago? |
|
|
|
There are plenty of cheap and nice islands up for purchase in South-East Asia. Hell, I own a part of one in the Philippines. Yes it can be a hassle legally and you cannot always outright own the place but if you have money there are ways around  Panama seems to be a hotspot for island bargains. However a few buyers have arrived to find their very own surprise populations. I presume under those circumstances you're fully legally entitled to auction off the hunting rights to depraved Wall Streeters. Yes! I love Panama |
|
|
|
Australia? Well, some islands will be more expensive than others... Apparently, there are Approximately 180,497 available islands in the world. -> https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090510184804AArokSMThat means an average of 21,000,000/180,497 = an average of =116.3454240237 per island. Keep in mind this does not take into consideration that some islands will be with more than others ( see Australia ) or that bitcoin might be used for other things than buying islands. For example, yachts, Ferraris, castles, etc... I still harbor hope that for a princely sum of 50 or 60 bitcoins I might someday be able to buy my own island. I do not imagine it might be as nice as some of those depicted.  http://www.privateislandsonline.com/islands/near-batteau-islandMore like that, I suspect. There are plenty of cheap and nice islands up for purchase in South-East Asia. Hell, I own a part of one in the Philippines. Yes it can be a hassle legally and you cannot always outright own the place but if you have money there are ways around |
|
|
|
So those companies gonna buy bitcoin ? Can you read? |
|
|
|
yeah, Mycelium was your prime example of a wallet trying to establish a fee mkt in response to user frustration from unconf tx's. now that they blow up, you throw them under the bus forgetting they were a justification for your argument in the first place.
why do you keep insisting on lies and misconstructions? today it was my "prime example" and three day's ago it was ICEBreaker's... this is the bullshit I am talking about when I say I cannot trust anything that you write or even take you seriously. don't get me wrong you are often making valid points and bring interesting observations but your manic habit to twist and turn around everything your way, right or not, true or false makes you lose face every time. i don't even believe you have any kind of malicious agenda but you need to stop trying to deceive people to try and make a point. |
|
|
|
a possible scenario, which has played out with many alts, is that pre-halving hype ends up overshooting. by the time the actual halving arrives, bitcoin could be on its way down from the pre-halving rally
interesting. is this your analysis of LTC? has this been the case historically? |
|
|
|
I am not yet convinced that forking the network for a 1MB change to the block size is "better than doing nothing".
Then please explain how Bitcoin scales to handle increased demand by users? Don't forget that Pieter Wuille has said that sidechains are not a scaling solution. However, feel free to rebut that in your response. My point is : is putting on the network the pressure of a hard fork to kick the can down the road just a bit is really worth it? It seems a lot in this thread forget the danger of hard forks. Increased demand has in fact been well answered by the network over the last few days. Strangely this is a rather encouraging fact that not too many people seem to mention or acknowledge. To be clear I am not referring to shitty software and other amateurs node implementations. These got properly crushed because THEIR models and code were not able to handle the increased demand. I feel much less urgency going forward... unless we hit a 5K$ bubble in the next coming months |
|
|
|
Clearly, a rogue miner using FPGA tech was the thing Satoshi feared at that time. Satoshi did not always explain his actions and one reason for this is that detailing an attack vector increases the probability that it will be acted upon.
There's still ways to make nasty blocks. Blocks as small as 8mb that would take >10 mins to verify, and radically expand the UTXO dataset. It isn't as though we are out of the woods. The economic incentive to do something like this is that the miner could be building on it immediately whereas everyone else is still verifying, (or they just skip doing that, which fine but brings its own set of issues). Honestly, I'm the last person who wants to see the limit increased and a host of other problems appear. My original opinion was that an adaptive, dynamic block size limit was best, just like you argued all along. It was only when Gavin preferred a fixed scheduled increasing limit that I went with that, for the reason that any workable solution to the 1MB is better than no solution at all, and finally we are seeing with BIP 102 what must be the lowest common denominator in this whole saga. Even BIP 102 is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing. Regarding >10 mins verification. Those monster tx of nearly 1MB took a lot of people by surprise, except Core Dev who knew about this risk and had a 100KB relay limit. Unfortunately the "nasty" 25 sec verification tx were out-of-band and fed directly into Discus Fish. Maybe tx size should be limited to 10% of block size at the protocol level and this needs to go in with any >1MB change? I really like the anti-fragility aspect of Bitcoin which is amazing because every curve ball sent its way gets dealt with in the software making it stronger in the future. I am not yet convinced that forking the network for a 1MB change to the block size is "better than doing nothing". |
|
|
|
My definition of actual congestion is "appropriately competitive fees no longer prioritizing their tx."
What is your definition?
1. mempool: 57000 0conf-Statoshi, 11000 Tradeblock 2. avg wait time for 0confs=45-60 min Chain.so 3. Mycelium no longer able to prioritize fees 4. continued complaints on Reddit of stuck tx's even with higher fees. 5. continuous stream of full blocks and functioning full nodes indicative that the capacity for bigger blocks exists today. 6. TPS able to spike to >100 when needed indicative of greater bandwidth than initially thought. 7. continued lack of wallet development for fee feedback. 8. full blocks creating new deviant behavior. That's an ad hoc (IE non-generalizable) mish-mash of random observations, not an objective definition. " Complaints on Reddit?" Oh dear sweet Jahbulon, please have mercy on those you have cursed with intelligence...  a single self applied metric for a simpleton's mind. is you. yes, i'm using a overall survey of the marketplace to make my determination that we indeed have congestion. you can't do so otherwise. If only that survey was objective and not full of misconstruction and sometimes outright false statements. 1. Mempool appears perfectly fine as we speak 3. Seems you still don't understand the problem with Mycelium 4. Source? 5. Tradeblock shows the avg blocks are hardly full 7. Wtf does this have to do with network congestion? 8. Source? |
|
|
|
is this the start of a new bitcoin bubble? I hope so.
Bubble's make BTC look bad. it scares people away, who wants to invest time/money in something that will collapse massively at a certain point. Steady growth is best, even if it takes ages. I agree. I have theorized that the WORST thing that could happen to btc is another bubble. Look how many people lost a lot of money during the 2013 run up and subsequent crash. Do you think they are waiting to get their hands back on some more btc? Probably not! It leaves a bad taste in peoples mouth and makes them much less likely to consider buying/holding/using btc again. I lost some money during the crash, but luckily got out before the price went down too far. I've been watching very closely since then, and waiting for the real bottom to hit. I'm still thinking going back to $200 or so is possible when the greek/chinese frenzy dies down. I'm sorry but this is a bit of nonsense. Bubbles are one of the main driving force behind Bitcoin adoption. No I think bubbles would be the absolute worst thing for adoption. I mean yes it gets btc a lot of press and attention, but you really think big time merchants want anything to do with a "currency" that goes thru multiple "bubbles" each year? No that will make it harder and harder for btc to look legitimate, and I've read the CEO of overstock say its a hassle for returns. They could just say we accept btc but returns only in fiat and make it easier than refunding in btc, but I think the volatility is a much bigger issue for adoption. BTC is irrelevant as it currently stands when speaking of retail/commercial usage. Merchants willing to accept it will adapt whichever way they believe is best for them to conduct business. Meanwhile, in the real world, Bitcoin is a commodity and is getting traded as such. It doesn't matter what you think, history has shown that bubbles drive adoption like nothing else. Bust and boom cycles are Bitcoin's killer app. Greed is Bitcoin killer app. Any smart person will tell you volatility is actually important for Bitcoin adoption. It attracts traders, it attract investors and we are in a phase where this is all we should care about : attracting more liquidity into the ecosystem. Again, it may hinder retail adoption but this is not important because until we increase Bitcoin's market cap at least 10-100x retail use will remain marginal. Bitcoin first needs to establish itself as a high beta store of value and safe haven before we can actually begin to consider it as the commercial currency of the internet. Anything else is putting the cart before the horse. |
|
|
|
is this the start of a new bitcoin bubble? I hope so.
Bubble's make BTC look bad. it scares people away, who wants to invest time/money in something that will collapse massively at a certain point. Steady growth is best, even if it takes ages. I agree. I have theorized that the WORST thing that could happen to btc is another bubble. Look how many people lost a lot of money during the 2013 run up and subsequent crash. Do you think they are waiting to get their hands back on some more btc? Probably not! It leaves a bad taste in peoples mouth and makes them much less likely to consider buying/holding/using btc again. I lost some money during the crash, but luckily got out before the price went down too far. I've been watching very closely since then, and waiting for the real bottom to hit. I'm still thinking going back to $200 or so is possible when the greek/chinese frenzy dies down. I'm sorry but this is a bit of nonsense. Bubbles are one of the main driving force behind Bitcoin adoption. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
