You are a kind of torch against the darkness when we face difficult times. Your attitude makes me more comfortable my coffee lover friend
Thanks, but it's easy to be positive when your coins are worth many times what you paid for them. I was lucky to have discovered Bitcoin just before a bubble, in early 2013. I'd read about the Great Bitcoin Bubble of 2011 and the lengthy recovery afterward, so I didn't panic when the price plummeted in April. Likewise I didn't panic after the autumn 2013 bubble burst and we went into a year-and-a-half bear market. It's really easy for me to hold firmly, while buying the dips. Those who bought in after learning about Bitcoin because of a bubble might have a harder time being resolute. Seeing the price fall to under $60 after I'd bought in at $68 and paid up to $120 was hard but the history lesson of 2011 taught me to be strong. For those who bought at $1300, the dip to $900 could be traumatic. _____ By the way, the only reason I used to mention coffee is because I usually post when I first check prices upon rising. My main drink is Guinness Extra Stout. That said, I'm on my second cup of Mocha-Java, full city roast with half-and-half cream and pure cane sugar. Yum. Thanks for your honesty Jimbo. I think I am in the exact situations as you are having bought in a long time ago. But still, I loved the idea behind bitcoin since the very beginning. p.s we have the same favourite drinks, Guinness and coffee.  By the way, it's very good we crossed $1000 once again |
|
|
|
|
Consider that Juventus was in second league (serie b I think) in 2006. It took quite a bit of time before they came to the top again and that was not certain. They did eventually even if they are facing a lot of hatred recently since they are having a lot of big favours from italian referees. Which makes many very unhappy
|
|
|
|
Good morning Bitcoinland. I see we're back up once again, battling over $1000... currently $998USD (Bitcoinaverage). Hopefully yesterday's whole day in triple digits was just a one-time thing. We still have lots of time left today to get over the hump. I should be getting some extra cash within a few hours, not a lot but enough to get another quarter coin. Every little bit helps. I'd hate to miss a chance to buy under $1000. Some day in the not too distant future, people will brag about having bought in triple digits, just as some now brag about having bought for double digits, and earlier adopters brag about paying single digits or pennies. Because lots op people dont trust bitcoin, thats why all the panic dumps happen in the first place.
If they don't trust Bitcoin, why would they buy coins in the first place? Nobody could ever consider traders very bright but that's just ridiculous. You are a kind of torch against the darkness when we face difficult times. Your attitude makes me more comfortable my coffee lover friend As we say, go bitcoin go! Yes, let's cross $1000 for good. |
|
|
|
Does anyone here know the current price of Blackbytes?
I've tried using them with a friend who wants to buy them from me but I have no idea about how much should I ask
BID orders:
0.04 GB/GBB | 2.0 GB | 50.0 GBB | @houlala
0.02 GB/GBB | 1.0 GB | 50.0 GBB | @byteballbtc
0.01 GB/GBB | 300.0 GB | 30000.0 GBB | @cellardoor
3.33333 GB/GBB | 1.0 GB | 3000.0 GBB | @christian ASK orders:
0.06984 GB/GBB | 22.0 GB | 315.0 GBB | @alfred
0.07 GB/GBB | 140.0 GB | 2000.0 GBB | @twinwinnerd
0.07692 GB/GBB | 1.0 GB | 13.0 GBB | @november12
0.1 GB/GBB | 2.0 GB | 20.0 GBB | @cryptorevolution
0.11 GB/GBB | 11.0 GB | 100.0 GBB | @coinling
0.12 GB/GBB | 12.0 GB | 100.0 GBB | @valley
0.25 GB/GBB | 225.0 GB | 900.0 GBB | @frank
0.26315 GB/GBB | 100.0 GB | 380.0 GBB | @degen_jonsnow
0.5 GB/GBB | 27.0 GB | 54.0 GBB | @hashmine Ok got it. It's still very liquid and price are very different at the moment. I would like to wait 2 or 3 more distribution rounds before deciding anything about them. thx |
|
|
|
Ethereum price is preventing me to try some more bets on Vdice. I'm on the wait and see balcony because I did that mistake once (with Bitcoin). I prefer to keep my eth while they keep marching.
If you are positive enough that you can win, I guess that would give you a good chance to double your profit. While the price is increasing, you can grow your volume of ETH while gambling, that if you are willing to take that bigger risk or just be contented with the guaranteed profit now. You just have to stop checking the price and stop looking at a certain crypto in terms of its price against fiat or another crypto. Many people had this problem with bitcoin since the old days. "It used to be worth $1, I'm not buying for $10, I'll wait until it goes down..." We all know how it ended  Right, but when you talk about gambling I think your reasoning does not apply. I don't want to lose ETH while is going up and I don't see a much stable price. I mean this is the way I see it. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin was a matter of faith back in the early days. Now it's a game like many others, unfortunately. I mean look at the value of a single coin (even after this drop) there's nothing in the digital realm that can compare.
There wolves, bulls and bears everywhere nowadays. No more eagles though
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone here know the current price of Blackbytes?
I've tried using them with a friend who wants to buy them from me but I have no idea about how much should I ask
|
|
|
|
Ok, stupid question time:
Should the Bitcoin fork occur, which blockchain will be used for distribution?
good question... Same here, good question. tonych please give it a thought a come up with an idea about further distribution rounds. |
|
|
|
this look like a pump and dump, last hope of getting out? those sell walls keep building up. the idea and coin look good but no hype and not many exchange for it.
This really is a useless post coming from nowhere. You should read the last 40 pages to get an idea of why and how bitbay recovered from its past |
|
|
|
I have just come up with an absolutely crazy idea. I should probably be shot in the face! So here it is:
SegWit and LN would push a lot of the transactions offchain. So people running LN nodes would collect some fees. Ideally these would be much cheaper than today's on-chain trans fees, but there could be a lot more of them.
What exactly is preventing miners/pools from running LN nodes and earn some tasty fees? Lactose intolerance? Their inability to compile C++11 code? The fact that they have no more space for an extra virtual server for the LN node in their multi football field sized mining farm?
Please enlighten me!
Setting up LN node doesn't require ASICs produced by Bitmain. Thus I gather why miners don't like seg witness nor lightning? Yep. If you want to know the true centralization rate of bitcoin network you have to calculate the % of hash power produced by Bitmain ASICs. Interesting mini thread. I had something like that in the back of my mind but I've never gave it much thought. Now I see many things which I was clearly missing, thanks becoin. |
|
|
|
|
how long before the new safedice is released? Is there any ETA?
what about features? is there anything new worth waiting for?
|
|
|
|
|
These are the hard times where holding the keys and keeping them secure is more important than anything else
|
|
|
|
|
I think, really, that such a daily trading volume on bittrex after all that happened in the past is simply astonishing. I'm amazed and looking at how the bitcoin community is dividing I wish more people will unite on this project
|
|
|
|
|
Giving a deeper sense to the OP question I wouldn't even know if bitcoin is the future of bitcoin itself given the latest forking/changing debates going on in the community
|
|
|
|
What's my main problem? I really do not want we will undergo a blockchain split like ETH did. I support Bitcoin as a project and as a single entity.
Well, I can appreciate that -- I don't know many people who really want a split. I certainly don't, if it can be avoided. However, I strongly feel core is trying to change Bitcoin into something I don't want it to be. And I would rather challenge that than allow it to continue. It is more risky, more dangerous to allow their plan than to fight it. Those are my sincere beliefs. I understand your point, it makes sense. My point is, though, that I am tired of fighting for what I've said before. I don't want to contribute to what I see is the worst representation of the world I wanted to fight in the first place. We could both easily reason, but not everybody is like you and me. |
|
|
|
Now that there's recognition and volume in the market I think this is the most difficult time for the whole project. I know the software works but the wild world is about to ask for confirmations.  |
|
|
|
I really can't believe that in 2017 these are the kind of threads we should see here on bitcointalk.  |
|
|
|
Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea. Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB. Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed. The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched. But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.
Several attempted "abuses" of the blockchain under the 1MB limit have proved Hal right about needing the limit at least for launching purposes. A lot of people wanted to piggyback extraneous information onto the blockchain, and before miners (and the community generally) realized that blockchain space was a valuable resource they would have allowed it. The blockchain would probably be several times as big a download now if that limit hadn't been in place, because it would have a lot of random 1-satoshi transactions that exist only to encode information for altcoins etc.
At this point I don't think random schmoes who would allow just any transaction are getting a lot of blocks. The people who have made a major investment in hashing power are doing the math to figure out which tx are worthwhile to include because block propagation time (and therefore the risk of orphan blocks) is proportional to block size. So at this point I think blockchain bloat as such is no longer likely to a problem, and the 1MB limit is no longer necessary. It has been more-or-less replaced by a profitability limit that motivates people to not waste blockchain bandwidth, and miners are now reliably dropping transactions that don't pay fees.
A temporary restriction is becoming the most interesting dogma of the crypto world. Cryddit left the stage, Satoshi also, Hal is no longer with us. Three of the most ingenious devs agreed on what should have been a temporary mean. Where do we go from there? I do not support neither Core nor BU nor anything else but it's time to find a solution to this. Great thread, one of the smartest guys around (Death and Taxes) knew where this was all going 2 years ago. Curious why you don't support BU. What your main beef with it? What's my main problem? I really do not want we will undergo a blockchain split like ETH did. I support Bitcoin as a project and as a single entity. This is no longer a software/blocksize/scaling debate: this is war between conflicting interests. We are becoming worse than the world we were suppose to change... if you know what I mean by that. |
|
|
|
Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea. Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB. Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed. The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched. But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.
Several attempted "abuses" of the blockchain under the 1MB limit have proved Hal right about needing the limit at least for launching purposes. A lot of people wanted to piggyback extraneous information onto the blockchain, and before miners (and the community generally) realized that blockchain space was a valuable resource they would have allowed it. The blockchain would probably be several times as big a download now if that limit hadn't been in place, because it would have a lot of random 1-satoshi transactions that exist only to encode information for altcoins etc.
At this point I don't think random schmoes who would allow just any transaction are getting a lot of blocks. The people who have made a major investment in hashing power are doing the math to figure out which tx are worthwhile to include because block propagation time (and therefore the risk of orphan blocks) is proportional to block size. So at this point I think blockchain bloat as such is no longer likely to a problem, and the 1MB limit is no longer necessary. It has been more-or-less replaced by a profitability limit that motivates people to not waste blockchain bandwidth, and miners are now reliably dropping transactions that don't pay fees.
A temporary restriction is becoming the most interesting dogma of the crypto world. Cryddit left the stage, Satoshi also, Hal is no longer with us. Three of the most ingenious devs agreed on what should have been a temporary mean. Where do we go from there? I do not support neither Core nor BU nor anything else but it's time to find a solution to this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
