"feel free to not understand it as well" OMG you killed me Sorry, hope it was good medicine, rather |
|
|
|
There is only one proper proposal for a working Bitcoin scaling concept, that also keeps the SEC out of it. It is real industrial style on-chain scaling. Sorry to say that, but I fear this guy here, Joannes Vermorel is absolutely right. There is no time any more left for romantic experimentation with Bitcoin and some fancy unsolved SEC layer stuff around. Listen around 1:25 https://memo.cash/post/f3cba7ea021820b07435eba96c209609b643ca81cf4f9db60b87546f52a9ea19Repeat if you feel not understanding that. Feel free to not understand it as well. |
|
|
|
BCH has a long way to fall yet. It still trades on hype ATM. Floor should be somewehre around 0.06btc IMO.
I disagree... 0.055 was the initial sell off bottom at the start of August 2017.... Then next time BCH got sold off support took over at 0.06.... This April support came in on 0.09 and now we are not falling below 0.1 it seems.... next threshold will be a pump above 0.2 which will be the new bottom going forward imo... Game theory suggests that the market will push BCH towards (a degree of) parity with BTC soon enough... Not even because of a flippening but merely because the market can do this and there are insane amounts of profit to trade of such a swing... Unless you borrow your ideas and opinions from talking heads in the eco system, any critical analysis tends to show what is written on the wall... BCH trades on fractal patterns, like BTC from 2009-2014... every fractal dwarfs the previous one...a $10k BCH per coin will happen sooner than later That's not game theory, that's wishful thinking. Unlucky for you, people aren't interested in centralized currencies especially when confirmed scammers/liars/fraudsters are the main promoters of them. Bcash (BCC) is no different than Bitconnect (BCC) and will also share the same fate. This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen a legendary member say. This just goes to show why Bitcointalk is headed nowhere. Not all legends have left alone this forum i.o. to achieve real decentralization and be free from censorship or rusted minds. But some are here, counting troll posts, a good measure of trolls' despair.  |
|
|
|
Wir lernen daraus ? > Ein paar einfache Vorteile von Cryptos gehen jetzt flöten, bevor die Nutzer-Masse den Druck / Nutzen hatte, eher Crypto täglich zu nutzen. |
|
|
|
franky1, no sane Bitcoin developer will say that Bitcoin has "bilaterally split" into two. It was Bitcoin Cash that split into an altcoin, and the insane part of it is Roger Ver and his sock puppets believe and spread this misinformation that "BCH is Bitcoin".
If the miners truly believe that and would follow Jihan Wu to threaten to "kill" Bitcoin, then I believe Bitcoin will undergo a POW change as a last resort.
if bitcoin core did not change from the legacy rules .. bitcoin core would still only be using only the legacy rules core split from the legacyrules by enabling weight to get the 4mb weight. and bitcoin cash just increased the base block to get their 8-32mb block buffer they BOTH changed at the same time.. 2 networks.. 2 different rules compared to the rule pre august. = bilateral split. Activation of Segwit was an inclusive soft fork that did not kick anyone out of the network. There was no "chain split", so there was no "bilateral split". It was Bitcoin Cash that changed the consensus rules and split from the Bitcoin blockchain. as to WHO orchestrated it.. you could argue that is was not core... but then in 2015-2016 Luke JR backtracked out of a consensus agreemnt by saying he was not part of core.
so you can play the social drama of who is or is not part of the core supporters all you like. but if you follow their salaries, you follow who they prefer to side with and who they play these silly social games for. you will see which side was which. and.. guess what Who, what, where are behind now us. The network has Segwit activated. Blame the miners, they did it. the UASF was not to continue legacy. and was not to create clams 2.0(unnilateral) it was to to be part of a mandatory planned consensus bypassing split where at the exact same block 2 separate rules came into play and the legacy blocks got killed off on that date Well some people in the community say that it was BIP91, not the UASF, that had Segwit activated. But blame the miners, they did it. after all it it was a whole network of pools wanting segwit and a whole network of nodes wanting segwit.. it would have got activated in december 2016-june 2017.. but the only supporters of it were those tight to a certain team.. but ill let you play around arguing the team game social games as all i care about is code that got implimented without true consensus. Blame the miners, they did it. I will not debate to the rest of this post to make everything more confusing. It was the miners that activated Segwit, not the Core developers who most of them were against the UASF. If Core did have control then it would have activated in one week. Blame the miners, they did it. OMG turn it as you wish Miners wanted compromise - the 2x only got them on board. W/O - no SW today. I agree, that might also be the correct answer, and it plays right in the point I was making. "Blame the miners, they did it". The Core developers cannot do anything, the community cannot do anything, but the miners did it. Was it then the fault of Barry Silbert, Jeff Garzik and the NYA signatories? Hahaha. I'd say, many hoped that core d compromise as well - or split, if not and we split  |
|
|
|
franky1, no sane Bitcoin developer will say that Bitcoin has "bilaterally split" into two. It was Bitcoin Cash that split into an altcoin, and the insane part of it is Roger Ver and his sock puppets believe and spread this misinformation that "BCH is Bitcoin".
If the miners truly believe that and would follow Jihan Wu to threaten to "kill" Bitcoin, then I believe Bitcoin will undergo a POW change as a last resort.
if bitcoin core did not change from the legacy rules .. bitcoin core would still only be using only the legacy rules core split from the legacyrules by enabling weight to get the 4mb weight. and bitcoin cash just increased the base block to get their 8-32mb block buffer they BOTH changed at the same time.. 2 networks.. 2 different rules compared to the rule pre august. = bilateral split. Activation of Segwit was an inclusive soft fork that did not kick anyone out of the network. There was no "chain split", so there was no "bilateral split". It was Bitcoin Cash that changed the consensus rules and split from the Bitcoin blockchain. as to WHO orchestrated it.. you could argue that is was not core... but then in 2015-2016 Luke JR backtracked out of a consensus agreemnt by saying he was not part of core.
so you can play the social drama of who is or is not part of the core supporters all you like. but if you follow their salaries, you follow who they prefer to side with and who they play these silly social games for. you will see which side was which. and.. guess what Who, what, where are behind now us. The network has Segwit activated. Blame the miners, they did it. the UASF was not to continue legacy. and was not to create clams 2.0(unnilateral) it was to to be part of a mandatory planned consensus bypassing split where at the exact same block 2 separate rules came into play and the legacy blocks got killed off on that date Well some people in the community say that it was BIP91, not the UASF, that had Segwit activated. But blame the miners, they did it. after all it it was a whole network of pools wanting segwit and a whole network of nodes wanting segwit.. it would have got activated in december 2016-june 2017.. but the only supporters of it were those tight to a certain team.. but ill let you play around arguing the team game social games as all i care about is code that got implimented without true consensus. Blame the miners, they did it. I will not debate to the rest of this post to make everything more confusing. It was the miners that activated Segwit, not the Core developers who most of them were against the UASF. If Core did have control then it would have activated in one week. Blame the miners, they did it. OMG turn it as you wish Miners wanted compromise - the 2x only got them on board. W/O - no SW today. |
|
|
|
I did not believe and do not believe in bitcoin сash, it's just a speculative coin, Roger Ver paid alot for it, but so never made successful!!!
In terms of percentages BCH always outperforms BTC in a downtrend and in an uptrend, as well. Trading volume / order book desnity and volatility are correlated - so this will change once usability & adoption gets higher by time. Traders are loving high vola, though |
|
|
|
 New poll suggested by nanobtc. age poll ?? whats the reason? Grow up, then u might get it. |
|
|
|
You should plot 2011 on there too  Theory: As the market grows in absolute value the time needed for the bear market process increases. This is due to the much larger number of players and money in each subsequent cycle. As an easy thought experiment, BTC can crash and blow up in just weeks if only a few hundred people are speculating in it. On the other extreme, if BTC is owned by everyone, the cycles would match economic ones with major changes taking decades or more to work through. Application: 2018 crash will take longer than the prior 2 cycles and (excepting total BTC failure) will not be as severe in total loss percentage. This would predict a bottom around late 2019 in the 3k range. Current Trade: To match the predicted timescale and magnitude it is likely we need another glade (3.0) to take it back to 8k+. This will take up another 2+ months, setting up the stage for a fall to fake bottom #2 (4.5k area). A few bounces off this area and then a final fall into the 3ks. From here it can bounce and slowly bleedout out as pessimism reaches a peak. External Events: ICO failure and enforcement, continued regulation and exchange failure, and most of all the coming next business cycle global recession would set up things for several years in the early 20's of bottomed out prices. This would be the time to find promising alts using new technology. $3000 is the new $99. Everyone and their grandmother expects us to go there. I don't. So there. Very nice comparison but 2011 - Markets where not very liquid - highest volatile and not accountable 2013 - We had first China crack down and MtGox desaster Now: If we go down that high (comp to 2011 / 13) - with many of those parameters improved or not existent -> REKT |
|
|
|
Precious metals are no longer a Schelling point because of the technology that governments have now, metals can no longer be moved without being confiscated. Gold and silver are under the control of nation-states, but Bitcoin has jurisdictional arbitrage and can’t be controlled by any partial grouping of nation-states. Once again you have gotten your facts 100% opposite of what they are in reality. It's ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more cost effective to create and run a police state in cyberspace than in the physical world. So, no, metals are not at risk because nobody can afford to create a police state monitoring what everyone does in the physical plane, but they can easily do so for the digital one. You're using the govt's own infrastructure in the first place. Please do not try to pass off such statements that are laughable at face value as facts. Shitcoins are the ones at risk due to having no valid Schelling point and ease of govt clamp down, not metals. If the govt attempts to outlaw silver and gold, they do not cease to exist. They still exist and have value. Since shitcoins have no intrinsic use or value, a govt clampdown destroys them. They're completely worthless. And yes, Kaczynski was right no matter how much you attempt to pretend he was not. The most oppresive forms of tyranny will manifest from the digital plane, not the physical one, due to the cheaper cost and ease of creating and running those systems as I mentioned above. Only a complete fool would embrace these digital slave systems over sound money - physical silver and gold. Gov are provenly good clampingdown physical ownerships. No chances for any PM here. Shop owners are at risk. Its harder or impossible to clampdown IP or virtual bearer instruments. Use Bitcoin and brainwallets, how is that stoppable better than PM? Never. But very highest goal is to get many into Bitcoin daily use and these ppl will stopp any gov. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
