I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that there was no block size limit in Satoshi's software. They added it later. He believed in game theory where things sort themselves out through risk and reward.
Not sure, but I found this? "Andresen never mentions the actual reason that Satoshi imposed a block limit. Oleg Andreev, however, does: Huge blocks could lead to excessive use of bandwidth which could lead to higher percentage of orphaned blocks due to higher synchronization delays." From: http://cascadianhacker.com/blog/2014/10/25_notes-on-increasing-the-maximum-bitcoin-block-size-or-why-it-aint-happenin.htmlIf bandwidth is really the only issue then you would think the 8mb compromise will likely gain enough traction to get implemented. After all, even with a 8mb limit, most miners will still be sticking to 750 k - until you provide sufficient incentive to change. Yeah, exactly. You can have a higher limit or no limit at all and it's still a risk for a miner to build a block that big. It's going to take a longer time to propagate over the internet which means more time for another miner to find another (smaller/faster) block and possibly orphan yours. I'm sure the limit was created to prevent some kind of "large block attack" (to disrupt miners with slow internet?) but in reality, risk and reward will prevent most miners from increasing their block size very much even when the limit is officially increased. Exactly, a big part of the cost of mining large blocks is the risk. I'm pretty sure that argument only holds in case of "excess capacity" though. Once sufficient network usage exists, a miner willing to create a block closer to max size will be rewarded higher as well (more tx, more fees), at the risk mentioned above. My impression is that miners are a risk averse bunch on average, so perhaps they'll always (on average) stay below the maximum, but I'd expect some form of equilibrium to emerge, a value that most miners see as a good tradeoff between minimizing risk and maximizing fees, and I'm certain that value will eventually be higher than what it is now the max block size, assuming the network continues to grow. tl;dr "minizing orphan risk" is certainly a consideration of miners, but it is also not the only consideration, otherwise this wouldn't be what we see in reality:  If miners were risk averse they wouldn't be miners. But when you're in the game it makes sense to minimize risk. |
|
|
|
I've got this strange feeling we'll go up when we least expect it.  |
|
|
|
|
Some big buys. Looking pumpy.
Edit: Thar she blaows!
|
|
|
|
I can't see much evidence of smoke clearing from having a sniff around. Sry. I know cryptocoinsnews is crap. But sometimes you want it to be true. |
|
|
|
Ruble?
Think about it. Greece has hundreds of islands, thousands of KM of coast plus they must be bored of all this regular economics shit.  It couldn't hurt. |
|
|
|
 Houston Athens Frankfurt, we have a problem. Will be much fun shorting € in next days  Put tarmi on the case and we'll all be begging for the drachma as the new pan-european currency. |
|
|
|
Houston Athens Frankfurt, we have a problem. |
|
|
|
Why should I believe that bro ? Although I want that for sure.
I might ask you a similar question. Why do you believe that the price won't rise? I've seen and heard different opinions on my situations especially Grexit. Some are saying that it will have a minor impact on Bitcoin or none, while others are saying the exact opposite. Wouldn't their best bet be Bitcoin and/or gold in case that Grexit actually happens? I'm pretty sure the price will rise, and I'm not looking for 6 months, 1 year, or 5 years, my target is a decade from now. But I always like to add reasons for my arsenal. Bitcoin can't be considered yet to be a safe heaven, even bitcoin enthusiast can't consider it a safe heaven. Plus, Greek people are not advanced in the modern IT to know about Bitcoin yet.Nonsense Greece doesn't have a strong ultra-liberal movement like the US, nor does it have to bypass the government like in Argentina; yet. Nor is it starved of investment and speculation opportunities like China. There's just no reason for Greece to have a particular interest in Bitcoin, yet. In fact, Argentina is proof that people will acquire the skills if they need them. Plenty of "advanced" countries have less knowledge and less interest in Bitcoin than medium-income Argentina. We will all know by this time tomorrow... in the meantime (today in Athens):  Macsga you doofus! I'm trying to defend your modern credentials. WTF is this!?!? You're not making it any easier. |
|
|
|
Well I invested 1500$ in Bitcoin since last March or so. Now i'm nearing 1000$. I've not made a penny.
I think i'm ready to quit trading. I'll never get that money back. I dunno how one could loose so much so fast, even if one is totally inexperienced, it seems one would make money at least 50% of the time. But i've made money something like 2% of the time. I just don't have the patience for this.
Use a cold wallet and forget your BTC, in a few years you will read that 1btc=20k$ and you could sell it Or your coins might end up in the wrong chain of a Bitcoin's hard fork and worth next to 0 in the future. Put in cold storage is OK, but forget and take for granted they'll be worth a fortune in the future in my opinion is a mistake Do you not know how a hard fork works? As long as the coins were acquired in a block before the fork, they are safe. Then you just wait to see which fork become the main chain and you're good to go. A forked chain is inherently unstable and one of the forks quickly dies, leaving one chain. It's an inconvenience more than a problem. Worst case scenario: in the extremely unlikely case that neither fork dies and the value starts to plummet, (double)spend the coins in both forks! This is a good point. Neither miners nor exchanges wants a forking war! (hehe...forking) They will do what they can to avoid a fork becoming an issue or collectively throw their weight on the likeliest candidate. If a fork happens it should be over in hours, if not minutes. |
|
|
|
Why should I believe that bro ? Although I want that for sure.
I might ask you a similar question. Why do you believe that the price won't rise? I've seen and heard different opinions on my situations especially Grexit. Some are saying that it will have a minor impact on Bitcoin or none, while others are saying the exact opposite. Wouldn't their best bet be Bitcoin and/or gold in case that Grexit actually happens? I'm pretty sure the price will rise, and I'm not looking for 6 months, 1 year, or 5 years, my target is a decade from now. But I always like to add reasons for my arsenal. Bitcoin can't be considered yet to be a safe heaven, even bitcoin enthusiast can't consider it a safe heaven. Plus, Greek people are not advanced in the modern IT to know about Bitcoin yet.Nonsense Greece doesn't have a strong ultra-liberal movement like the US, nor does it have to bypass the government like in Argentina; yet. Nor is it starved of investment and speculation opportunities like China. There's just no reason for Greece to have a particular interest in Bitcoin, yet. In fact, Argentina is proof that people will acquire the skills if they need them. Plenty of "advanced" countries have less knowledge and less interest in Bitcoin than medium-income Argentina. |
|
|
|
DanV just won't let those low hundreds go. Maybe I should send him a cowboy-hug gif. |
|
|
|
|
This volume is a fucking death sentence. I'm lubing up.
|
|
|
|
You are aware of that we saw all those and a lot more gifs since ~1250. And you surely also know that the Bears always formed a small minority amidst all those shouting bulls. All this and a lot more didn't prevent the price from crashing and further crashing. So keep on shooting around with Gifs and keep on claiming how wrong all the bears are. It won’t help you  This one's for you Cute :-) Is that you and me? No, that's you and tarmi, you cheating bitch! |
|
|
|
You are aware of that we saw all those and a lot more gifs since ~1250. And you surely also know that the Bears always formed a small minority amidst all those shouting bulls. All this and a lot more didn't prevent the price from crashing and further crashing. So keep on shooting around with Gifs and keep on claiming how wrong all the bears are. It won’t help you This one's for you |
|
|
|
about bfx and growing usd swaps...this is interesting. https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/315ks5/daily_discussion_thursday_april_02_2015/cpywuly"In current system, USD swaps are only taken out if you open a position more than you actually have in underlying. Say you have $100 in underlying, you can open up to $100 in a long position without borrowing USD. You also don't show up in USD swaps stats yet, because you haven't borrowed anything. If someone is trying to figure out how many people are in long positions in Margin Trading, they can't tell that you've added $100 long. OK, so moving on past your underlying. At $101, you take $1 of USD swap. What happens if a thousand traders do the same thing at $101, with same $100 underlying each? There'd only be $1K in USD swaps total, but there's $100K in long positions not visible. OK so basically there's no upper bound in how many not-visible long positions there could be. Only thing you can do is guess out of your ass at average leverage ratio. However, we can know the lower bound of how many not-visible long positions there are. BFX max leverage is 1:3.33, or 30% initial margin requirement. Meaning, if you have $100 in underlying, max you can open in long positions is $333.33. Out of the $333.33 total, 30% ($100) is your underlying, 70% ($233.33) is how much you've borrowed in USD swaps. That ratio of 30%/70% = 42% btw. So if we have $25M in borrowed USD swaps, the case where there is the least number of not-visible positions that are funded by sufficient underlying, is if every position was leveraged to max. Then there are an additional 42% of not-visible (sufficiently funded by underlying) longs on top of $25M. That's another $10.5M. So $25 + $10.5 = $35.5M total long positions in this minimum case. So, you can start guessing average margin ratio that's more realistic than everybody being max-leveraged. Say that the average of leverage positions is at 1:2. This would be like if you have $100, borrow another $100 for total $200 in long position. Half and half. Applying this to $25M USD swaps would be another $25M in underlying-funded long positions. $50M in total long positions. Compare this the old system. The stat of $31M in old system meant exactly $31M in long positions were being taken in BFX margin trading. Back then, didn't matter if you had underlying or not, if you had $100 and opened $100 in longs, you'd still show up on USD swaps +$100. As such, I say that it's a certainty that we're above old ATH of long positions. Probably by quite a bit. " ... So those USD swap numbers are positions that must be closed at some point. we are talking about 30 mil atm. That supernova I was talking about earlier will be epic ! Bullish! |
|
|
|
the whole USD swap offer market on bfx is is sitting at 200 k $.   we are in red supergiant stage. I repeat: "I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." - Robert Metcalfe (Inventor of Ethernet), 1995 Could you please elaborate more about that quote, Fatman ? ? ? ? ... it didn't. |
|
|
|
once the hydrogen is depleted the dying star starts to consume heavier shit like helium shitcoins.
supply is limited. there would be no need to borrow the whole order book in the first place if the supply was out there. that's like one star sucking hydrogen from its star companion. well, the star companion is dry, now they will probably collide.
my course of action> short both the shitcoins and btc (in that order to maximize profit).
I will make a ton of money on litecoin.
fapfapfapfapfapfap... |
|
|
|
just saying that there is no money hydrogen to "burn".
I have to admit, I'm getting a nerdgasm |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
