I can't wait to see what happens next.
i think down 320 snap back and choo Choo as if nothing happened.
600 for xmas
new ath in the summer.
32,000$ a year later.
it looks more like a bit more of sideways for a few hours more and then bouncing up level by level... support at 350 is growing with every attempt... usd margins is below 20 mio -> correction should be done we're going to need some big event to justify the rise, blocksize limit / scalability being solved would probably be enough. |
|
|
|
|
I can't wait to see what happens next.
i think down 320 snap back and choo Choo as if nothing happened.
600 for xmas
new ath in the summer.
32,000$ a year later.
|
|
|
|
404 MONEY NOT FOUND  LMAO! |
|
|
|
wtf i dont get why i get so much heat every time i suggest that improvements can be made and scalability can be overcome.
you trolls are paid by blockstream or something...
The problem of scaling has already been addressed by 21 Inc's Bitcoin computer, which provides a complete turnkey solution with its fully pre-installed software stack. Which reminds me, have you considered pre-ordering 21 Inc's Bitcoin computer? fuck no. |
|
|
|
|
wtf i dont get why i get so much heat every time i suggest that improvements can be made and scalability can be overcome.
you trolls are paid by blockstream or something...
|
|
|
|
To anyone reading these this "study" was based on flawed assumptions and rather broken understanding of how Bitcoin's gossip network operates.
TL;DR the claims in this post don't match reality
You and hdbuck add nothing to this debate. Nothing you've said in this post can be backed up. You retract from it. You're polluting the debate. I can certainly point you to a whole thread filled with Adam's poor understanding of the networks' architecture... but you'll have to dig for it yourself if you really care by all means do dip it up. i recall being mostly right, except for the gossip network, but that too clearly needs improvements infact the very day i was talking about it, gavin was writing up a paper about the efficiency ( or lack thereof ) in bitcoin's current gossip network implementation. bitcoin is not a holly ledger, and yes there is much improvements to be made at its core. I'd love a link from either of you. where to start.... 1) making sure the gossip network actually does make every peer on average use 503Bytes to get everyone to hear about a 500Byte msg.
2) communicate new blocks by listing all the TX ID's in that block instead of in full.
3) has SOME trusted centralized nodes dedicated to allowing new nodes to sync fast ( probably don't even need to trust them using some fancy PGP or something)
4) and yes some SPV, and maybe different types of nodes, simi-full node, full node, super node, minner node.
wtv it takes.
"Whatever it takes" my particular view on what should be done is besides the point here, point is things CAN be done. |
|
|
|
bitcoin is not a holly ledger, and yes there is much improvements to be made at its core.
bitcoin is holy! bitcoin is going to save us!  and please stop pretending you have any technical competence to juge about what has been or is to be done on core level. reddit does not give you a CS degree, altho even this would not be enough anyway. i'm no core dev, not even well versed in the details of the protocol, but the stuff i came up with was just references to other peoples work. i looked around and saw several proposals, claiming to potentially give HUGE coding gains. i do have SOME technical knowledge, enough to form an opinion. sometimes there's a will but no way, this is not the case with bitcoin's scalability. |
|
|
|
To anyone reading these this "study" was based on flawed assumptions and rather broken understanding of how Bitcoin's gossip network operates.
TL;DR the claims in this post don't match reality
You and hdbuck add nothing to this debate. Nothing you've said in this post can be backed up. You retract from it. You're polluting the debate. I can certainly point you to a whole thread filled with Adam's poor understanding of the networks' architecture... but you'll have to dig for it yourself if you really care by all means do dip it up. i recall being mostly right, except for the gossip network, but that too clearly needs improvements infact the very day i was talking about it, gavin was writing up a paper about the efficiency ( or lack thereof ) in bitcoin's current gossip network implementation. bitcoin is not a holly ledger, and yes there is much improvements to be made at its core. |
|
|
|
if blocksize gets an issue it will be solved in 24h
its not a big deal, more a question of details
ideialy there wouldnt be this "blocksize" issue in the first place but there is so how do we deal with it dealing with it by ignoring it until it actually start to mess shit up and then saying " that's fine! bitcoin was meant to be slow and costly, using the holly ledger is a privilege! " is wrong. on ther other hand gavins proposal is equally ridiculous to the other extream. i'm confident devs will implement a happy middle ground On what do you base this confidence? Past performance? from what i see, the scaling conference, the open letter from devs, the on going discussion about it. it seems pretty clear something will be done about it, extcal what and when is up in the air. also what's encouraging is that there is still a lot of room for improvement in a few aspects of the protocol, after a little bit of study 2 months ago i concluded we could grow the network 250 times bigger without demanding more bandwidth than is currently being used, if all these improvements were rolled out. and from there i think 10-100 X increase in bandwidth requirements to run a full node isn't all that crazy, so from where i'm standing bitcoin can potently scale by a factor of 2500 - 25000 while still being very decentralized. of course i'm probably being a little optimistic on these potential coding gains. but i ain't worried about scalability anymore. |
|
|
|
3 more hours and the USMS will notify the winning bidder that his bid has been selected.
including the price per bitcoin? I think the winning bidder has quite a good idea what his bid was, no need for the USMS to remind him. 11 people were bidders and nobody knows (unless the bidders work together secretly) Really, only 11 bidders? That is fairly bearish news, if true. Didn't we have close to 30 bidders in previous auctions? only the first one 11 was a tie with with another auction, lowest precipitation, as the twins said, it's kinda pointless to go to these you're pretty much guaranteed to buy at the top. |
|
|
|
|
even i'm bearish.
time for me to buy.
|
|
|
|
you don't think we are going parabolic adam?  it's a possibility i'm not prepared to bet on. |
|
|
|
wait, dont tell me ... up? Don't worry, he's not going to tell you...unless you pay him at least $29.95. its gata be down you need to be a little nutty to think further up is sustainable in the short term. altho 380 does sound about right considering 250-500 I agree, for example this micro-rally volume was 2x smaller than needed in order for growth to be sustainable. Actually I can freely say that even that volume spike, we would not pass $250 if there was no OkCoin manipulation.  volume looks good, altho i do think we will dive lower ( testing 299 kinda likely ), I do expect we'll come out of this above 260 probably above 360 and in a bull market. also note that there was a big sustained volume increases all of sept. and oct. things are looking gr8, but ya spiking to 500 was just nutty and obviously manipulation played a role. |
|
|
|
wait, dont tell me ... up? Don't worry, he's not going to tell you...unless you pay him at least $29.95. Why does he want $29.95 off people if he's so good at making money trading Bitcoin? Anyone that good's time would be so valuable they would make more money trading than wasting any of their time running an analytics website. Maybe he's charging $29.95 out of altruism. Another question, why is he charging $29.95 instead of $30.05? someone's gotta do it. what the world wants the world gets |
|
|
|
if blocksize gets an issue it will be solved in 24h
its not a big deal, more a question of details
ideialy there wouldnt be this "blocksize" issue in the first place but there is so how do we deal with it dealing with it by ignoring it until it actually start to mess shit up and then saying " that's fine! bitcoin was meant to be slow and costly, using the holly ledger is a privilege! " is wrong. on ther other hand gavins proposal is equally ridiculous to the other extream. i'm confident devs will implement a happy middle ground |
|
|
|
wait, dont tell me ... up? Don't worry, he's not going to tell you...unless you pay him at least $29.95. its gata be down you need to be a little nutty to think further up is sustainable in the short term. altho 380 does sound about right considering 250-500 |
|
|
|
not hard to beat buy and hold during a bear market. still 1500% is impressive probably much better than following my free bitmovements thread, you get what you pay for! Bitcoin Price Goes Parabolic, But Why? http://bullbearanalytics.com/2015/11/06/bitcoin-price-goes-parabolic/
...
Lastly, Gavin and Mike are back at it once again using scare tactics and fear mongering as a last gasp for the survival of their ill-fated BitcoinXT project. Ignore this noise, they are acting like spoiled children that didn’t get their way. Too bad, kids, you have already lost.
 I like that Gavin and Mike chose to take a proactive role in the block size debate, and i also like the way they went about circumventing the dev's power structure with this Forked software. I would totally be behind them, was it not for the extremest left side implementation they went for, also throwing in shit tons of other "enchantments" while trying to gain support of their radical blocksizelimit position killed them IMO. and yes at this point them pressing the issue feels like the whining of 5 year olds. |
|
|
|
So what happened with bitcointalk...?
It always happens at the most unusual times...
must of been a DDOS attack. idk about you but when i saw bitcointalk was down, i got nervous and sold everything. When they do their DDOS it's an obvious signal that the manipulator wants us to sell . but they know we know that! so actually they are trying to get buys using reverssicology but do they know that we know they know we know? |
|
|
|
not hard to beat buy and hold during a bear market. still 1500% is impressive probably much better than following my free bitmovements thread, you get what you pay for! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
