Price too high. Also lot of ICO investors ready to dump when launched at exchanges. current OTC price is 30 times ICO price. Not a bargain at all.
It's 30 times ICO price because the ICO was held at a time when altcoins were at the end of bear market. Not many investors believed in IOTA ICO. Then Ethereum pump came and brought altcoins back to live. IOTA price was pretty much stable since then. There was also more then a year of trading OTC trade volume is tiny. hardly 10% of the ICO investors have sold. Once on smaller exchanges the price will surely dip from current price. and then it will pump when it gets listed on polo. Better safe to wait than buying the top. it will instantly get listed on all exchanges including polo Also there are 3 buying and selling threads ob btctalk and the bot was initially not around and rebooted a couple of times so it does not reflect real otc volume over the last year ICO was 2 years ago. Don't expect investors to sell cheap after holding that long. And the price was already way higher. We dropped already 70% from alltime high or so... |
|
|
|
|
1. Cryptox
2. Bittrex
3. Polo
4. Cryptopia
|
|
|
|
Das die BILD nach dem gestrigen Entscheid weiterhin pro BTC ist stimnt mich freudig... Bullish Ich bin ja sowas von Stolz auf unseren BTC Ich bin da eher skeptisch. Hab wohl zu viele Verschwörungstheorien gelesen :-) Szenario: Ein paar reicher Männer haben gezockt und in BTC investiert. Nun wollen sie größere Mengen verkaufen ohne den Preis zu sehr drücken zu müssen so dass sie weniger dafür bekommen... Was könnten sie denn so tun??? Würde die Bild sich nicht "kaufen" lassen und einen positiveren Artikel schreiben als sie vorhatte? Soweit ich sehe kommen fast immer dumps nach reisserischen Bild-Artikeln. Ob das nun Gold oder Aktien sind. Nun dieser ist nicht so reisserisch aber dennoch bin ich skeptisch... |
|
|
|
If segwit will be used the other blocks would be orphaned with the software, thats true. But I bet at that time there will already be a software out, that fixes that and makes another altcoin with them like ETC did.
No, because a segwit block is still a good normal block. Because segwit is a soft fork. Every segwit block is accepted by an old node. Otherwise it is not a soft fork. So as a non-segwit node, you cannot decide whether a given block is a non-segwit block. Because segwit blocks are also OK. You could, indeed, implement ANOTHER soft fork, a non-compatible with segwit, true. Is that what you mean ? Yes I ment that, but I actually think I misunderstood something. Thank you. But still I guess we will not reach consensus as we stick to the 25% since months already. And with BU we will have the fork... |
|
|
|
No, this is not true. You only have no say with Segwit. If 51% of the miners implement segwit, all of them have to follow or get orphaned, and there will be only one chain. Whether your node supports segwit or not, only one single chain will be produced. No choice. Only miner majority. Core is nice to not activate before 95%, but they don't have to. 51% is enough.
However, with BU, you have a choice. BU being a HARD fork, (but backward compatible), it can make a NEW CHAIN forking off the normal bitcoin chain if it has 51% mining hash rate or more (if it has less, it will, being backward compatible, always be orphaned as it makes invalid blocks for the majority, but the standard chain is accepted by BU miners, which is the longest one).
If segwit will be used the other blocks would be orphaned with the software, thats true. But I bet at that time there will already be a software out, that fixes that and makes another altcoin with them like ETC did. So there is actually not really a difference. There will be 2 chains in either the way... If people get crazy we maybe even have 3 chains. Classic, BU, and Segwit... The main point is, it will always be a "double" amount of bitcoins with the fork. I suggest to think about different possibilities( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819160.msg18124177#msg18124177) |
|
|
|
I cannot see how a important change like this can be done without 95% consensus... I see people are saying that consensus can be reached at a 50%+ consensus for BU? { Please explain, because I am missing that point } ... I just love the fact that it is not easy to change important code in the protocol, otherwise miners would have dominated these decisions... we still have a say.  We don't have a say. If 51% miners decide to change to a software with a different protocol the original chain will be changed. The 95% was just implemented in the segwit software. And BU has implemented 75% as far as I know... |
|
|
|
I think any kind of change of the current protocol would mess up the payment systems. Doesn't matter what.
We all committed to 2 major bitcoin laws:
1. The protocol was said to be 1MB per block. Period!
2. There are only 21 Million Bitcoins. Period!
While the first one may be discussable and unimportant for the majority the second one is severe.
We will never reach 100% consensus with any kind change. NEVER! That means, we will have a forked chain for sure.
I fully agree with you, except that 1. is now also important: it determines the fee market. However, you proposition is not going to be accepted, because the second coin (obtained by burning bitcoins) will not be seen as bitcoin, but as an altcoin, and the first chain (true bitcoin) will keep on living. Nobody is going to burn a real bitcoin to obtain an altcoin. I know that its hard, but I think it can work like this: - You make a proposal for 2.0 - You ask major payment processors and exchanges, if they support it. They have to implement in advance and sign a contract, that they will stop support for 1.0 after some time - You invite the major stakeholders (vinclevoss, roger ver, major exchanges) to a consensus party where everyone has to click on the button so that most of the coins are moved... I mean its a change of a protocol. Its hard but not impossible... |
|
|
|
|
I think any kind of change of the current protocol would mess up the payment systems. Doesn't matter what.
We all committed to 2 major bitcoin laws:
1. The protocol was said to be 1MB per block. Period!
2. There are only 21 Million Bitcoins. Period!
While the first one may be discussable and unimportant for the majority (I talk about users not miners!) the second one is severe.
We will never reach 100% consensus with any kind change. NEVER! That means, we will have a forked chain for sure.
And if there was a fork, we would automatically have 2 chains, with a maximum of 21 million EACH!
That means, we more or less DOUBLE the amount. Yes I know, its not a double actually, but the majority of investors don't understand that and will just think bitcoin was hacked. Consumers just don't understand that! "Which one is the right one now?"'s will be everywhere ...
We have similar problems with ETH already. The fork harmed ETH a lot. And this was although people invested in ETH are probably a lot more technical understanding already than the ones invested in Bitcoin.
If we fork bitcoin the trolling will be gigantic!
Keeping that in mind I have only one "solution" for Bitcoin as "unique Bitcoin":
We have to create a second chain (BITCOIN 2.0), where Bitcoin can MOVED to by burning it from the original chain. Only this way the number of bitcoins stays the same. Consumers will move their coins, if there is an easy way and everyone accepts the new protocol. Laggers can easily be forced by stopping support of 1.0 payments...
We can enhance the protocol in any consensus way (of course here is a lot of work hidden) and anyone can decide to move. Decision is only made by stakeholders not by miners.
There are only a few more or less acceptable problems (at least more acceptable than to double the coins):
- new and old coins are not fungible (new ones can not be converted to old ones any more)
- the bitcoin generation on the old chain will still go on. Thats why there should not be any coin generation on the new one, because that would increase the amount. For the new chain is probably only a POS/POI consensus acceptable. (I will not go into a discussion about POW against POS here. Let's just say, that with PoW we will run into a mess again)
- as a result the old chain will sooner or later just run for generating bitcoins that can be transferred. Transactions will not generate fees for miners any more so the chain will run out, if there can be generated any bitcoins any more.
- The payment providers have to implement 2.0 in advance in order for any change.
|
|
|
|
Wir haben neues ATH und keinen interessiert es  Gutes Zeichen?  Ja, das entspricht etwa dem verhalten Anfang 2013. Ob sich die Geschichte wirklich wiederholt? ;-) Das hieße dann im April etwa 5k dann dump auf 2k um dann im Dezember wieder bei 20k zu landen... einverstanden.  |
|
|
|
Wir haben neues ATH und keinen interessiert es Gutes Zeichen? Ja, das entspricht etwa dem verhalten Anfang 2013. Ob sich die Geschichte wirklich wiederholt? ;-) Das hieße dann im April etwa 5k dann dump auf 2k um dann im Dezember wieder bei 20k zu landen... |
|
|
|
So Charles Hoskinson resigned as advisor? Armageddon.
Seems to be so. Max will publish an official statement on this today. Sad. It needs quite some experience already to appreciate more experience. In many fields I already met people, that thought "I know all now", just because they know a little. Or "I am the boss, I don't need advisors". Hopefully this is not the case here... Its always the case when your ego takes control. Little max with millions, you fools! Not looking good for lisk without half a brain helping out. Wouldn't say its always. It worked quite well with Vitalik. I guess he is very open to advisors. |
|
|
|
So Charles Hoskinson resigned as advisor? Armageddon.
Seems to be so. Max will publish an official statement on this today. Sad. It needs quite some experience already to appreciate more experience. In many fields I already met people, that thought "I know all now", just because they know a little. Or "I am the boss, I don't need advisors". Hopefully this is not the case here... |
|
|
|
Can you explain how this new computer system will use or accept existing ETH tokens? Without backing by a real demand I see current rise as a pump which will be inevitably followed by a dump. Maybe you should broaden your view. Was there a demand for a smart phone in 2007? |
|
|
|
really? looks somehow fakey... Domain registrant name: WhoisGuard Protected |
|
|
|
|
fehlten nur 3 $ vom ath auf bitstamp...
|
|
|
|
Selbst wenn der Kurs sein ATH erreichen wird (wovon ich mal ausgehe), wird er sich meiner Meinung nach nicht lange halten können. Laut RSI total überkauft und alle Blöcke hoffnungslos voll. Es wird ein Epic Down werden, spätestens am 11.03.2017. Wenn es nicht so kommt auch gut. Bin erst einmal all out  ein RSI von 80-90 war noch nie ein Problem bei BTC. wir hatten 2013 sogar 96!!! Was danach aber passierte wissen wir wohl alle nachher ist doch egal |
|
|
|
Selbst wenn der Kurs sein ATH erreichen wird (wovon ich mal ausgehe), wird er sich meiner Meinung nach nicht lange halten können. Laut RSI total überkauft und alle Blöcke hoffnungslos voll. Es wird ein Epic Down werden, spätestens am 11.03.2017. Wenn es nicht so kommt auch gut. Bin erst einmal all out ein RSI von 80-90 war noch nie ein Problem bei BTC. wir hatten 2013 sogar 96!!! |
|
|
|
Das erinnert mich irgendwie an Karneval 2013, da ging man feiern, schaute mal zwischendurch auf den Kurs und traute seinen Augen nicht  wieso, da gings doch schon nach unten, erwartest du noch nen dump? Die Rakete hatte wohl wieder mal ne Fehlzündung. Mal sehen, wann die nächste startet... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
