Community and major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase
Hmmm where did that ever happen  I sure hope by community and "major stakeholders" you are not referring to reddit and bitcointalk.org |
|
|
|
So the banks should re-open and that might cause BTC to fall a couple percent.
Not quite. There are numerous reports suggesting that even if Greece and the Eurozone were to strike a bailout deal (which btw is not guaranteed even after the package terms are approve by Greek congress) it could take at least a month before banks re-open. |
|
|
|
When has a financial market moving in an S-curve ever been reality? No matter how the technology progresses, there will be ups and downs in this market. It was unfathomable by most that we would ever see $200 Bitcoins again. Now we are struggling to capture $300 and hold it. The fact is, there isn't always money coming in to fuel rally after rally. There will be lulls in adoption and during those times, it will likely have more selling pressure than buying pressure which causes lower prices. People also have different ideas of what they want to sell at. Some big and some small will sell at every stop along the way.
Look I'm not putting in doubt your TA or market analysis but for Bitcoin to stall at a 3-6 B$ market cap 5 years from now spells utter failure IMO. You are seemingly looking at this only from a speculative POV. This is not a regular financial market driven only by speculation. We haven't seen s-curve in a market before because there was never one coupled to an underlying technology generating user adoption strictly from its innovative use cases. I will not argue that speculation is not what has driven this market so far since I do believe this to be true but this will not always be the case. Technological use-cases, once the infrastructure is installed, as well as socio-economic and geopolitical events will eventually be a driving force in this market. If we believe that new users are entering the Bitcoin ecosystem everyday strictly off the merits of the technology then there is no sense in believing that the underlying currency market cap would stall or fall to that level 5 years from now (barring any considerable technical issues) |
|
|
|
I've seen other counts where the Bubble of 2011 is counted as it's own mini supercycle with a new one starting after bitcoin bottomed out in $2 range. What do you make of that?
Then we are in exactly the same position. Where wave-[III] is not yet complete and we just finished wave-(4) of that [III] (the red count). Edit: And maybe I was a little overboard with that last comment in my other post. It'll be 10-15 years and maybe more depending on how long it takes to complete the V of (5) of [V]. We all may not be dead, but it'll be a long effing time. wait, are you saying we'll be in a 10-15 year long bearmarket? Not at all. I'm saying that if this is (5) of [III], once we get finished with this and the [IV] and the [V] and the [[II]] that follows that, combined, will be 10-15 years and possibly longer depending on how long everything excluding the [[II]] takes. This was all timed out approximately using typical lengths for the waves in question. Edit; As tzupy has said on numerous occasions, everything is beginning to "slow down". Not really on lower time frames, but the larger count is beginning to have more and more time between reversals. ....so 800$ or less in 2020.... yea ummmm no. Just like <$ enter the number of the week over the last 18 months wasn't possible, right? Ok...  I know this won't be approved by many here so no worries. Also, I didn't use Fibonacci to find the price levels. Those are only guesstimates and since you can expect the correction of a complete impulse to hit the level of the 4th of one smaller degree, it should be around 152-1163. This assuming the bear market is over.
I am not anywhere close to your level of understanding of EW but do you think it's really likely Bitcoin could survive going to 20k in the next 10 years then dropping down to double digits over the following 10 year period? It just doesn't seem to match up with adoption cycles and exponential growth trends.
Not to double digits, but triple is a possibility, yes. I think I prefer masterluc's count over that one. $120,000 here we come!  Miz4r, with all due respect, I like you now because I feel this bear market really humbled you. But you can prefer what ever you want, the market doesn't care what any of us want. As I said in the "questionable" post... That was all approximated using currently available data, so it can change a bit up or down, left or right. It all depends on how things play out. IMO it's more likely the price is 0 or low double digit (meaning failure or quasi-total collapse) by that time than triple digits. These are scenarios where TA loses me, when, as sscm2 mentionned, it seemingly totally loses touch with reality. |
|
|
|
I've seen other counts where the Bubble of 2011 is counted as it's own mini supercycle with a new one starting after bitcoin bottomed out in $2 range. What do you make of that?
Then we are in exactly the same position. Where wave-[III] is not yet complete and we just finished wave-(4) of that [III] (the red count). Edit: And maybe I was a little overboard with that last comment in my other post. It'll be 10-15 years and maybe more depending on how long it takes to complete the V of (5) of [V]. We all may not be dead, but it'll be a long effing time. wait, are you saying we'll be in a 10-15 year long bearmarket? Not at all. I'm saying that if this is (5) of [III], once we get finished with this and the [IV] and the [V] and the [[II]] that follows that, combined, will be 10-15 years and possibly longer depending on how long everything excluding the [[II]] takes. This was all timed out approximately using typical lengths for the waves in question. Edit; As tzupy has said on numerous occasions, everything is beginning to "slow down". Not really on lower time frames, but the larger count is beginning to have more and more time between reversals. I am not anywhere close to your level of understanding of EW but do you think it's really likely Bitcoin could survive going to 20k in the next 10 years then dropping down to double digits over the following 10 year period? It just doesn't seem to match up with adoption cycles and exponential growth trends. Maybe if the world shifts gradually to another coin(s). Bitcoin wouldn't have to crash completely because I think it is plausible (and even desirable) to have a handful of dominant blockchains and not just one superdominant one.Absolutely not desirable and increasingly improbable. But this is a discussion for another thread |
|
|
|
I've seen other counts where the Bubble of 2011 is counted as it's own mini supercycle with a new one starting after bitcoin bottomed out in $2 range. What do you make of that?
Then we are in exactly the same position. Where wave-[III] is not yet complete and we just finished wave-(4) of that [III] (the red count). Edit: And maybe I was a little overboard with that last comment in my other post. It'll be 10-15 years and maybe more depending on how long it takes to complete the V of (5) of [V]. We all may not be dead, but it'll be a long effing time. wait, are you saying we'll be in a 10-15 year long bearmarket? Not at all. I'm saying that if this is (5) of [III], once we get finished with this and the [IV] and the [V] and the [[II]] that follows that, combined, will be 10-15 years and possibly longer depending on how long everything excluding the [[II]] takes. This was all timed out approximately using typical lengths for the waves in question. Edit; As tzupy has said on numerous occasions, everything is beginning to "slow down". Not really on lower time frames, but the larger count is beginning to have more and more time between reversals. ....so 800$ or less in 2020.... yea ummmm no. |
|
|
|
sure it is possible. but only if bitcoin managed to replace fiat by the end of this year. people will dump all of their USD and its price will drop while bitcoin soars  10,000$ Bitcoin would represent roughly 150 B$ market cap. That is nowhere close to fiat-replacement value. For reference Berkshire Hathaway has a market cap of 350 B$ |
|
|
|
after some halvings will be possible, otherwise mining will be too profitable and will consume too much electricity, making countries ban ASIC things
Unless countries get into the mining ASIC things |
|
|
|
spoken like a true noob unfamiliar with the history and evolution of the space.
Mycelium, once Bitcoin Spinner, has been a MAJOR force in bringing Bitcoin to the masses thru a highly usable and clever programming team. w/o them, Bitcoin would not be what it is today in terms of how far along we've progressed. you're demonstrating a classic case of "everyone else is the problem but not me". the damage to new user adoption from this problem of double spending cannot be measured.
it's too bad your head is up your ass.
Here is a post from one of the dev fully taking responsibility for the issue: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dd1az/mycelium_downtime_comeon_guys_you_can_do_better/ct4352sI really couldn't care less how Mycelium has been a MAJOR force in bringing Bitcoin to the noobsSee this is the problem. "Noobs" preferring user interface and "ease-of-use" in place of robust, well designed software and then crying when the software fails them because of faulty implementation. |
|
|
|
Now, for the first time ever, people are starting to have to think about abandoning Mycelium, probably the most popular android wallet, because core dev refuses to address the spam attack with bigger blocks.
Great job ICBLow!
Will you please spare us your brainless FUD? This is why people cannot take you seriously. Mycelium fucked up. That's all there is to it. it's idiots like you that will get Bitcoin into trouble. i can't help you if you don't understand the technicals behind what is going on. bigger blocks would allow clearing of the mempool: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3db7qr/mycelium_servers_down/ct3mbjjThen why aren't every nodes down? The problem is clearly shoddy backend implementation on Mycelium part, as is clearly explained in the reddit thread you have linked by Mycelium devs themselves. Moreover, any user not relying on outdate wallet models with centralized server dependent on 3!!! nodes is not experiencing any of these problems. Bitcoin isn't to blame for amateur software. Everytime you cling on to any minor, user-defined issue to promote your FUD makes you look more pathetic and desperate. Mycelium has been the most popular of all the android wallets. ignoramus's like you are quick to blame them when in fact all the congestion problems are a result of full blocks and bloated mempools as a result of false "fee market" delusions from core dev worshippers like you. let's flip this around. just what kinda trouble would actually make you agree that blocks are too small. i suspect there aren't any that you would dare to admit to since you are stuck on your position no_matter_what. let me remind everybody what Bitcoin was meant to be: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11625671#msg11625671Your ignorance and disingenuity transpires through your tendency to rely on a variety of argumentum ad populumI don't care if 100% of Bitcoin users use Mycelium it doesn't change the fact that it is amateur software and should be treated as such. Maybe you should read again ICEBreaker post about supervenience? |
|
|
|
Now, for the first time ever, people are starting to have to think about abandoning Mycelium, probably the most popular android wallet, because core dev refuses to address the spam attack with bigger blocks.
Great job ICBLow!
Will you please spare us your brainless FUD? This is why people cannot take you seriously. Mycelium fucked up. That's all there is to it. it's idiots like you that will get Bitcoin into trouble. i can't help you if you don't understand the technicals behind what is going on. bigger blocks would allow clearing of the mempool: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3db7qr/mycelium_servers_down/ct3mbjjThen why aren't every nodes down? The problem is clearly shoddy backend implementation on Mycelium part, as is clearly explained in the reddit thread you have linked by Mycelium devs themselves. Moreover, any user not relying on outdate wallet models with centralized server dependent on 3!!! nodes is not experiencing any of these problems. Bitcoin isn't to blame for amateur software. Everytime you cling on to any minor, user-defined issue to promote your FUD makes you look more pathetic and desperate. |
|
|
|
By looking into bitcoin chart price history, their value increase exponentially
Year 2009 price BTC 10^-2 USD = 0.01 USD
Year 2010 price BTC 10^-1 USD = 0.1 USD
Year 2011 price BTC 10^0 USD = 1 USD
Year 2012 price BTC 10^1 USD = 10 USD
Year 2013 price BTC 10^2 USD = 100 USD (At 2013 until early 2014 it's value up to 1000 USD)
Year 2014 price BTC 10^3 USD = 1000 USD
Year 2015 price BTC 10^4 USD = 10000 USD (Speculation)
Year 2016 price BTC 10^5 USD = 100000 USD (Speculation)
Everything till possible although the chance is very low
expontial trends in all natural phenomena are rather very short-term and very hard to sustain over longer time periods, thus, I believe it will be very unlikely to see 10k USD this, or even next year. If we are to trust the typical S-curve adoption model of technologies we are only entering the exponential trend of Bitcoin`s adoption. |
|
|
|
Now, for the first time ever, people are starting to have to think about abandoning Mycelium, probably the most popular android wallet, because core dev refuses to address the spam attack with bigger blocks.
Great job ICBLow!
Will you please spare us your brainless FUD? This is why people cannot take you seriously. Mycelium fucked up. That's all there is to it. |
|
|
|
"In a video interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Casares says he’s not worried about bitcoin’s own volatility hampering its adoption – though he expects significant volatility over the next few years. He predicts that in a decade, one bitcoin will be worth somewhere between half a million dollars to one million dollars." http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/02/bitcoin-price-to-1-million/Again, this is not possible or even desirable until maybe era 6 - unless the value of the dollar falls significantly. We cannot/do not want to get to $500,000 per BTC any time soon. Here is the math behind it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=694401.0If BTC were to go to $500,000 in this era it would cause a catastrophic mining bubble: $500,000 x 25 = $12,500,000 per block = $75,000,000 per hour $75 million per hour would drive the mining to attempt to use 675 GW. This is about 30% of all the power generated on the planet. So, in order to keep our power consumption under about 2% of world wide power production, we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so. Using my previously derived formula for the power consumption: P = (6(50/2 e) + f)(x)(1 - g)/c [kW] where: x = exchange rate [USD/BTC] e = era [0..32] (we are currently in era 1) f = average fees per hour [BTC/hour] c = cost of energy [USD/kWh] g = average gross profit margin [unitless ratio] we can look at the power consumption in each era assuming a price of $500,000 per BTC. In order to make it simple I will make the following assumptions: x = $500,000 per BTC f = fees per hour will keep the coinbase above 6 BTC/hour (1 BTC/block) in all eras c = $0.10 per kWh g = 0.1 miner gross profit margin Original target Subsidy Est Fees Power % of total world
Era starting year BTC/block BTC/hour GW power production
--- --------------- ----------- ---------- ----- ----------------
0 2009 50.00000000 0.00000000 1,350 58.41%
1 2013 25.00000000 0.00000000 675 29.20%
2 2017 12.50000000 0.00000000 337 14.60%
3 2021 6.25000000 0.00000000 169 7.30%
4 2025 3.12500000 0.00000000 84 3.65%
5 2029 1.56250000 0.00000000 42 1.83%
6 2033 0.78125000 1.31250000 27 1.17%
7 2037 0.39062500 3.65625000 27 1.17%
8 2041 0.19531250 4.82812500 27 1.17%
9 2045 0.09765625 5.41406250 27 1.17%
I won't be satisfied until 51% of the world's power is used to secure the Bitcoin network. |
|
|
|
luc is making me consider converting all my remaining fiat to BTC |
|
|
|
What the heck is wrong with you people ?
Why everybody is losing his mind ?
Someone is swearing that we will see $400 on Sunday and the other is gurnating that we will see $500 in the time we are struggling to pass the $300 mark.
Are the trolls becoming super-uber-mega bulls or what ?!!!!
PPl are insane...the 500$ mark will not be reached Monday! If anything the irrational target prices makes me want to sell into a rally. Bollinger bands don't lie and we can't go up forever...400-500 within a couple months but it must be in an orderly fashion! when has Bitcoin ever behaved in an orderly fashion or cared for "bollinger bands" and your, or anyone's, opinion of what is "irrational"? |
|
|
|
What's wrong here?
|
|
|
|
Why are you in every thread whoring for attention? Is it not sunny in Davao today? Go outside and have a SML or Pilsen, whichever you prefer.. would ya? edit: oops, almost forgot it's a little late there |
|
|
|
Peter is definitely part of the problem. so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.
his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising. it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious. he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.
Your problem is that you've had a problem with gmax going back years on end, so your current position opposing all of the core devs' ideas is unsurprising. It's just all the whoring you do on Bitcointalk and Reddit, that make one suspicious. You're a much smarter version of Jorge Stolfi. Peter is part of the reason Bitcoin has a good chance of successfully scaling to 1MB. What has your African boy fetishism done for Bitcoin? i've already gone thru why i disagree strongly with gmax: 1. his handling of the PressCenter.org debacle-he still claims he was right after the fork won. 2. his whining about mining centralization 3. his general bearishness on Bitcoin 4. his views on consensus 5. his formation of Blockstream involving 9 of the top core dev committers with him as CEO. 6. his obstruction of the block size increase. he's the only one of the core dev i've ever had "problems" with. the above lists merely differences in ideology anyway. you really don't care about getting your facts straight heh? Adam Back is CEO there are at most 6 Bitcoin core contributors on Blockstream`s team. probably 3 of them would qualify ast "top committers" sorry: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3aykzr/btcchina_we_think_gavins_proposal_is_a/csh6szrAh I see, that's how you wanna play it. Well then 9 out of 300+ contributors. I don't see the problem |
|
|
|
Peter is definitely part of the problem. so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.
his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising. it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious. he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.
Your problem is that you've had a problem with gmax going back years on end, so your current position opposing all of the core devs' ideas is unsurprising. It's just all the whoring you do on Bitcointalk and Reddit, that make one suspicious. You're a much smarter version of Jorge Stolfi. Peter is part of the reason Bitcoin has a good chance of successfully scaling to 1MB. What has your African boy fetishism done for Bitcoin? i've already gone thru why i disagree strongly with gmax: 1. his handling of the PressCenter.org debacle-he still claims he was right after the fork won. 2. his whining about mining centralization 3. his general bearishness on Bitcoin 4. his views on consensus 5. his formation of Blockstream involving 9 of the top core dev committers with him as CEO. 6. his obstruction of the block size increase. he's the only one of the core dev i've ever had "problems" with. the above lists merely differences in ideology anyway. you really don't care about getting your facts straight heh? Adam Back is CEO there are at most 6 Bitcoin core contributors on Blockstream`s team. probably 3 of them would qualify ast "top committers" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
