and that it is how people in a declining culture behave.
I'd like it if we all declined some more. We will. In my useful lifetime, I mean. |
|
|
|
It's literally the first rule of life. Doesn't change that a hundred women is hard r-type behavior, that women lose the ability to pair-bond the more sexual partners they have Men too - even more, perhaps. and that it is how people in a declining culture behave.
I'd like it if we all declined some more. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the path to lambo. Lambo leads to women. Women lead to marriage.
They sure try to, but succeeding is quite another matter. Lambo or no lambo. Marriage leads to...suffering.
Can't argue with that. |
|
|
|
So you cede that these issues exist. Great.
Did my reply imply as much? I don't think they are issues - that's why I was asking. After bitserve, fluidjax too pointed out the meaninglessness of focusing on 51% attacks as segwit-specific attack vectors. Fungibility isn't a real issue, either - still IMHO. As SW transactions become the majority, only old or newborn coins will be left in your Type 1 (coins that were never touched by a SW transaction). Besides, LN acts as a kind of giant mega-tumbler. If/when LN really gets into widespread use, it will only help fungibility rather than undermine it. Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'. Within the three posts preceding yours, 2/3 of them stated that they were cautious of accepting Segwit transactions until they gained some confidence in it. That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting.
Those two posters stated that they were wary of SW transactions right after the soft fork. This hasn't much to do with fungibility in my understanding - more of a reasonable wait-and-see attitude motivated by sane skepticism about the technology itself - skepticism that might have been triggered by the FUD wave that some were spreading at the time. Peace out. I'm totally cool. |
|
|
|
(quotes snipped and cherry-picked for manipulation) /s Can you provide me technical arguments/proof why Segwit is 'flawed' ore show it at the Github?
Yes. Fungibility. What's the issue with fungibility that's so specific to segwit? As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities. 1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions; 2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and 3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction. Only type-1 coins have a special status. Turning any coin into type-2 or type-3 is trivial. So does that make blacklisting easier? Reliance on miners not to revert to 'anyonecanspend' - an incentive for which only increases over time. That is, reliance on miners not to try a 51% attack. Does this imply the chain without segwit is invulnerable to 51% attacks? No. But without Segwit, all miners were able to do with a 51% attack is roll back transactions. They were unable to steal funds. I think @bitserve addressed this point better than I could. Why don't we focus upon these issues first, before moving on? So I assume that's it. I wanted to assess the full import of the terrible peril we've chosen to stick our heads into, so I could cry a little doom before getting bogged down in hairy technical discussions. Discussions that will be disrupted by friendly invitations such as the following. Get the fuck out of here with your BIG BLOCKER distraction talking points - now trying to pervert the concept of fungibility.
(snip)
get the fuck out of here with your nonsensical misleading assertions.
I would have liked to include some quote with "nutjob" or "ratt's ass". Maybe next time. You still get the picture  |
|
|
|
I'm not following the whole USDT drama, to me it's just like another alt/shitcoin, i.e. if anything, people would try to escape into BTC when it crashes. Of course it can take down some exchanges, but if you keep your BTC on exchanges thats the risk that you're taking
It may be unfashionable to think it, but I don't really believe there is one any more. Even if at one point it was money out of thin air, and there's no proof either way, they've likely earned it back now. It's going to be a forever mystery I reckon that's rolled out every now and then for a quick scare. Was it you who explained a possible mechanism by which the printers of tether could back it 100% with actual USD? The post ended with something along the lines of "they can't withstand an audit because the order of the transactions would be wrong; not the actual final amounts." Whoever it was, it was brilliant. Related: I searched (tether, audit, audited, usdt) using the top search field in the regular thread view, and I only got results from 2016 or older. Any hints on how to search this behemoth of a thread? |
|
|
|
Ok, everybody hold your breath, make sure you're gripping something sturdy, and let's hope @BigRekts doesn't start Tweeting again.
Don't like what I'm seeing with this movement into the weekend right now.
My gut feeling (insert standard disclaimer) is that if the weekend was to be all bloody, we'd have seen stronger signs by yesterday. Of course - a swift, ominous move is always possible, but that's unrelated to the weekly cycle. The weekend trend start indicators have been moving back towards Thursdays since at least a few months. |
|
|
|
(snipped for relevance) I don't see exchanges, devs and users complaining how flawed Segwit it, nobody lost money ore saw critical errors. I only see that bullshit in the Bcash camp.
Can you provide me technical arguments/proof why Segwit is 'flawed' ore show it at the Github?
Yes. Fungibility. What's the issue with fungibility that's so specific to segwit? Reliance on miners not to revert to 'anyonecanspend' - an incentive for which only increases over time. That is, reliance on miners not to try a 51% attack. Does this imply the chain without segwit is invulnerable to 51% attacks? Besides, any such attack would appear as a fork, which the non-mining nodes would be free to follow or disregard. No substantial change from the pre-segwit state of things, I would say. A new ability for miners to fail to validate all portions of blocks. You mean miners running pre-segwit software that have to skip SW transactions? The list goes on.
How? |
|
|
|
Most peoples' taxes are taken out of their paycheck. With BitWage you can get your paycheck direct deposited to a bitcoin address without your company ever knowing you are getting paid in bitcoin.
This is nice. I will check it out. In Europe I was able to pay bills, rent (until I talked my landlord into taking BTC directly), etc. with bitwala. Not sure if there is a similar service in the US but a quick google search gives welto.io, coinbills.com and coinsfer.com.
Is Bitwala still working? After the great debit card purge, I'm not sure it's so easy anymore. Waiting eagerly for new arrangements to regrow a pool of bitcoin card operators. Buy a used car with bitcoin or go to the very few auto dealers in the US that accept BTC (again, what...every 5 years? are you holding fiat so you can buy a car?). When I wanted a car in Germany I went to a localbitcoins guy and got the cash to pay for the car. I think localbitcoins is banned in Germany. (Oh nos! I have to buy a gift card! That's not bitcoin! It allows you to have bitcoin as your main currency and not rely on banks or holding fiat that loses value over time, take the 3% discount through gift cards already).
Are you referring to Amazon here? What is in your experience/opinion the best way to get gift cards via btc? |
|
|
|
Woof! Woof!
Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion So relevant. Quoting doesn't help, either. It's just like spreading more dog food in the garden. First come dogs, then roaches. |
|
|
|
(quotes freely snipped for relevance)
Still having more money than you could probably spend (as such whales do) is not that terrible even if your net worth gets a cut of several hundred millions. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think they are as much depressed as I am right now.
I played this past peak much worse than I did the previous (2013) in which I doubled my Bitcoin count. The blame is on me (or my greed).
P.S.: No, not going to break/sell. I can perfectly (and depressedly) ride this thing until ZERO. I am more worried about the amount of profits already (even if temporarily?) lost than what I still have to lose (which is LESS).
We're soul brothers in a way - but swings and opportunities aren't over yet. New profits can and will come, and the one thing I learned about trading is: The only way to really learn a lesson is pay for it. You paid handsomely, but you're still in the green. Your glass is half full, see? And it's Don Simon Premium, not the usual stuff! It's basically that.... I didn't play well this time... But hindsight is 20/20... and I really don't like to have a substantial exposure to exchanges anymore.
So yeah, hodl and suck it up. In the end I will be fine... or not. We will see.
I also paid my lessons through the nose. Still in the green, though, using my new knowledge from old mistakes to make some corn on the side, and still learning useful tidbits at a much more reasonable price. See you at the 100k party sooner than we both think? |
|
|
|
Well, at least somebody is trying to hold "The bottom" up... . (Mic post some good pic)   Confirmed. Bottom is being held up.  Sometimes I feel like my biggest contribution to this thread is butt pictures, but I guess that's good enough. Here goes the last merit in my quota for legendaries or quasi-legendaries (>1k guys). I was hoping to give it to Last of the V8's, but he didn't take my invitation. About time for me to tribute infofront's status as a top bottom poster. As an aside for gentlemen only - If I had that kind of panorama readily available, I wouldn't mind the current search for any other bottoms. EDIT - sh** I f*** up, not 2! I never gave more than 1 merit to any single post. I tricked myself into clicking that button with both... uh, hands.  |
|
|
|
I'm very disheartened today. Lost a major chunk of my bitcoin holdings (almost 0.38 BTC) on Bitmex even though I've been longing since $8000 with just 4x leverage (adding more & more after every dump to average it further down), but still at $6140, I got liquidated. With this, I can pretty much assure that $6140 was actually the bottom. It was only to liquidate me, hard luck. Don't comment that I need to risk only what I can afford to lose, I know that very well, just had some real bad luck (as well as confusion) this time.
For reasons like this, I continue to conclude (personally) that leveraging is not necessary, especially in bitcoin. In bitcoin we are lucky to experience outrageously stupendous returns, and I we do not need to leverage in order to achieve such outrageously stupendous returns on our investment. Leveraging is a power tool that shouldn't be used lightheartedly. An understanding of the underlying arithmetic helps. On Bitmex in particular, shorts that are leveraged under 1 can't be liquidated at any price and only become a loss if/when the position is closed. Accordingly, if you just invest regularly, then the most that you can lose is 100% of what you put in - but if you employ leverage (especially using the margin trade vehicles supplied by exchanges), you not only can lose your 100% more quickly, you also lose it way faster, which causes a kind of magnification that if you employ 4x leverage than you can lose 400% - something like that. Well, kind of, yes. For example, if you make 4 repeated trades that burn each of their 100% approximately 4x times faster. Other side of the coin: for example, if you are using a leveraged position as a hedge, so you can hedge 4x times as much for the same "cost" (margin), admittedly on a smaller range. Not necessarily 4x smaller, though. The arithmetic details can get tricky. |
|
|
|
|
$4.5k might not happen, but mid $5k could. SOMA prediction. Almost completely wrong, almost all the time!
|
|
|
|
NEWS FOR YOU ITS YOUR DATE    QUICK list 12288 is finisht GOOD LUCK WO's (list snipped) 15/06/2018 d_eddie Oh really? I gave up on this long ago... removed from my mind. What was that list about again? |
|
|
|
everyone holding btc wants to retire early, who is paying?
lol
Who? Those who don't hold now, but will be wanting to hold when current holders will be wanting to retire. |
|
|
|
Yes, I understand that some folks like to gamble, so I suppose to each his own in that regard. Personally, I get much more comfort from attempting to employ a strategy that aims to lessen the gambling component, to the extent feasible and reasonable.
I concur. I found a way to move in that direction that is working for me at the moment. My safety short, dictated by dreams of mammoths, has been exactly that: an attempt to lessen the gambling component, more than an actual bet. A successful attempt, I should add. Had it gone really wrong, I'd have lost some 20-30% of my play money - which isn't that much anyway. I purposefully set my stops in advance (ballpark, tweakable stops) to avoid falling prey to emotions. Luckily, it went well. The mammoths weren't playing games with me. I more than doubled my play money, and I haven't even fully closed the position yet. Maybe I'll manage to rebuild a larger position (at a lower, more dangerous entry level), but only if we see a few up runs - and if I get a little lucky in timing. My language is that of a gambler, granted - "dangerous... if... little lucky...", but the attitude is more like that of a safety game in bridge: You give up the best possible outcome to mitigate the worst. For my short to fail, the price had to go over 12k. Isn't this kind of "bet" sensible? |
|
|
|
QUICK list 12288 is finisht GOOD LUCK WO's (list snipped) with this 2 lists running .... i don't see what to do for another one .... would be nice if i had made a BOTTOM list when it was on a higher price.... Don't worry mic, better not think too much about bottoms. BTC bottoms, I mean ;-) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
