Here's their public statement. The Segwit2x effort began in May with a simple purpose: to increase the blocksize and improve Bitcoin scalability. At the time, the Bitcoin community was in crisis after nearly 3 years of heavy debate, and consensus for Segwit seemed like a distant mirage with only 30% support among miners. Segwit2x found its first success in August, as it broke the deadlock and quickly led to Segwit’s successful activation. Since that time, the team shifted its efforts to phase two of the project - a 2MB blocksize increase. Our goal has always been a smooth upgrade for Bitcoin. Although we strongly believe in the need for a larger blocksize, there is something we believe is even more important: keeping the community together. Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean blocksize upgrade at this time. Continuing on the current path could divide the community and be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth. This was never the goal of Segwit2x. As fees rise on the blockchain, we believe it will eventually become obvious that on-chain capacity increases are necessary. When that happens, we hope the community will come together and find a solution, possibly with a blocksize increase. Until then, we are suspending our plans for the upcoming 2MB upgrade. We want to thank everyone that contributed constructively to Segwit2x, whether you were in favor or against. Your efforts are what makes Bitcoin great. Bitcoin remains the greatest form of money mankind has ever seen, and we remain dedicated to protecting and fostering its growth worldwide. Mike Belshe, Wences Casares, Jihan Wu, Jeff Garzik, Peter Smith and Erik Voorhees -- *Mike Belshe* *CEO, BitGo, Inc* https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.htmlThey say they'll be back later to try again when fees are higher in the hope of securing enough support to win a consensus. To some degree it has been proven that miners rather than block sizes are responsible for both spam transactions and higher fees. I don't know if this data has been disseminated widely enough for some of the large communities on reddit, which support segwit2x, to be aware of the information and research done on the topic. 2x does seem unlikely and DOA at this point. News articles like the following which detail how miners can contribute to spam transactions (and higher fees) could use signal boosting: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/curious-case-bitcoins-moby-dick-spam-and-miners-confirmed-it/ |
|
|
|
|
Ethereum versus bitcoin is comparing two very different schools of thought in terms of how electronic currencies utilized in electronic exchange should be designed and constructed. One might compare ETH vs BTC to Nikolai Tesla versus Thomas Edison when they competed in their AC(alternating current) versus DC(direct current) battle to determine how electricity would be distributed across electrical grids.
The design philosophy and principles underlying bitcoin and ethereum are extremely different. Btc is designed and built in a way which is modeled after gold and precious metals. Ethereum is designed and built in a fashion which mirrors fiat. In ways ethereum is the opposite of bitcoin. If it is possible to visualize a scenario where fiat is worth more than gold, then perhaps eth has a chance of outpacing btc.
|
|
|
|
Gold standard was ended There is much speculation on the motives behind ending the gold standard. In that era fiat money may have represented what electronic money is today. There's a push to end paper fiat to create a cashless society. Some speculate this would give banks a monopoly over currency exchange. Ending the gold standard may have had similar motivations. The intent may have been decreasing competition between fiat and precious metals to create a goldless society, which would prop up a fiat based monopoly. Though the gold standard may have been manipulated it never hyperinflated the way fiat money does due to its limited supply. A society with both fiat and gold standards competing would have made this fact obvious. If modern day venezuela had a gold standard, golds value would remain steady while the bolivar--venezuela's paper fiat hyperinflated massively. Ending the gold standard allows people to elude this simple truth of finance/economics. Perhaps one reason why gold standards are no longer supported en masse. Of course everything said about gold standards here could also apply to crypto or altcoins with limited supply. Ethereum could hyperinflate due to its supply being limitless. But other alts with limited supply, like gold, could not hyperinflate which makes them look attractive and superior in times when hyperinflation hits markets. |
|
|
|
Markets for money and key financial assets have never been free in modern humanity (with the possible exception of the Italian Renaissance at the start of this period.) There's no reason to believe that, today, all of a sudden, they are. This is a quote from Lewis Mumford which does a decent job of summarizing the status quo of financial markets.  As the quotation states industry, like the financial sector, is built around being as expensive as possible to inflate profit margins. Bitcoin bucks the status quo in that it was developed and designed to be as efficient as possible which makes for an interesting contrast. At this stage of the game, I don't know if elites care about money or profits. Their main focus appears to be maintaining a united front and not turning against each other. This could imply that bitcoin won't be banned outright as this might upset the bankers and whales holding btc. An outright ban could divide and splinter the united cartel of elites who tend to coordinate, cooperate and work together to achieve mutual goals. I think it is unity and not money that is a motive. |
|
|
|
|
If bitcoin and its success can be defined as a net sum of the financial problems it solves: limited versus infinite supply, trust versus non trust based systems, lower bar to entry to consumers et al. Its success could continue until another technology comes along which solves those financial problems in a better fashion.
One of the key issues allowing bitcoin's success is the industry wide stagnation, lack of innovation and development present in the banking industry. These circumstances led to a vacuum being created which bitcoin was able to fill. Now that blockchain is everywhere, bitcoin is like a mousetrap. It will reign supreme until someone succeeds in designing and building a better mousetrap. How long that might take is anyone's guess.
10 years is a long time in today's world. As someone stated earlier nokia and other corporate giants can rise and fall within that timeframe. Within 10 years both the united states and the european union could easily default on their debt and collapse taking the dollar and euro with them. I would like to be optimistic and say that bitcoin will replace gold and serve as a reserve currency eventually on the road to reaching $1 million usd per btc. Not because I'm holding a lot of bitcoins and will benefit largely from this but because bitcoin is probably the best designed and most reliable financial system that has ever been created and that value will be the biggest thing people look for if the USA and EU run into financial difficulties which appears almost inevitable at this point.
|
|
|
|
OP's article. Goldman Sachs CEO sees Bitcoin as part of a financial new worldGoldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has acknowledged that Bitcoins could play a leading role in the way the world economy functions in the future. Although his company has, up to now anyway, adopted a somewhat ambivalent attitude to anything cryptocurrency-related, Blankfein has suggested that the use of such currencies may become more common in the future. Blankfein sees the use of Bitcoin as part of the flow of history, with currency having undergone several mutations since it first emerged, thousands of years ago. As the structure of the world economy has become so much more complex in recent years, with digital technology playing a more important role than ever, the use of cryptocurrencies seems inevitable, as far as Blankfein is concerned. “I read a lot of history, and I know that once upon a time, a coin was worth $5 if it had $5 worth of gold in it,” Blankfein told business media giant Bloomberg. “Now we have paper that is just backed by fiat.” “Maybe in the new world, something gets backed by consensus.” Blankfein had tweeted in October that he was “still thinking” about Bitcoin, but he has also acknowledged that, although he may not “love” Bitcoins, they may well work out very well. There is still trepidation about Bitcoin in many conventional banking circles, however, with luminaries such as Credit Suisse Group AG CEO Tidjane Thiam insisting that the continuing growth of the cryptocurrency represents a bubble. Thiam described the speculation in Bitcoins as the “very definition of a bubble.” The relationship of the banking giants with the new currency still seems mixed, then, with many notable figures still ambivalent at best about Bitcoin. Bitcoin has been rising in value since the beginning of 2017 and recently surpassed a price of $7,000 for the first time ever. https://cryptodaily.co.uk/2017/11/goldman-sachs-ceo-sees-bitcoin-part-financial-new-world/ Its interesting how Blankfein's opinion differs from Jamie Dimon and other bank CEO's. Based on Jamie Dimon's response, one might expect Blankfein to proclaim bitcoin is a bubble that will pop like the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008. Blankfein's stance seems almost the complete opposite to Jamie Dimon's. I couldn't find a segment in this where Blankfein predicted bitcoin will hit $7,900 like some commented above. Then again the part of goldman that does price projections, is distinctly separate from their CEO, and the two don't necessarily stay in tight communication. So perhaps its to be expected. |
|
|
|
OP's article & link: IBM Has a New Blockchain Idea: Tracking Marijuana SalesCompanies are using the digital ledger technology popularized by bitcoin in banking, insurance, and contracts—but how about using a blockchain to track marijuana sales? Canada is planning to legalize cannabis sales next year, with some regulation of distribution and retailing done at the province level, following the same model used for tobacco and liquor. So when the government of British Columbia asked for suggestions about everything from age minimums to retail store rules, IBM came up with an innovative idea: use a blockchain. The idea, as IBM (IBM) laid out in a brief four-page submission, is to track pot supplies as they move up the supply chain from farm to distributor to retailer to consumers. The most well-known blockchain, typically a publicly-available digital document that uses encryption techniques to validate transactions, tracks the bitcoin economy and other cryptocurrencies like ethereum. But tech companies have been finding all sorts of new uses for the technology, such as Walmart’s (WMT) experimental blockchain tracking livestock and other farm products. And IBM has been at the forefront. Blockchain’s “relevance to regulating cannabis is similar to its many chain of custody applications in areas such as pharmaceutical distribution and food chains,” IBM wrote in its submission. “The core to those supply chains is the same, assuring health and safety of consumers, preventing fraud and counterfeiting while creating a foundation of transparency upon which to base regulation.” A blockchain could help the government ensure that cannabis crops are legally grown, that appropriate taxes are collected and that black market sales are blocked. Consumers would know the exact origin of any products they purchased as well. “This type of transparency would bring a new level of visibility and control to the provincial regulators and provide assurance to the multitude of cautious stakeholders regarding the way the management of a cannabis supply chain is rolled out within British Columbia,” IBM said. http://fortune.com/2017/11/07/ibm-blockchain-marijuana-cannabis/ Maintaining data integrity is one of the most under utilized aspects of blockchain. With large sums of money involved in the cannabis industry, there must be some temptation for counterfeit & fraud. Under normal conditions it might be possible to steal product and adjust data contained inside the backend database to prevent anyone noticing product is missing. Data stored inside a blockchain makes it much more difficult for numbers to be tampered with. There are many different ways in which blockchain protecting data integrity has potential to minimize counterfeit and fraud in many industries. |
|
|
|
|
With events like forks, you'll find that their effect diminishes over time.
Events like forks only affect btc's price in regard to how much fear and uncertainty they generate. The first fork had a big effect on price as no one knew for certain what would happen or what the implications of a fork would be.
Now that we've seen the effects of a fork, and realized they are not the doomsday scenario some made it out to be, the effects of the next fork won't be as noticeable. If there's a 3rd fork down the road, it could have no effect on price at all.
Its possible we've already seen the price bottom as far as the next fork goes.
|
|
|
|
OP's article: Uruguay is the latest country to see its central bank start experimenting with its own digital currency, according to statements. The Banco Central del Uruguay (BDC) announced Wednesday that a limited number of users would help testing a mobile-based app for the transfer of funds. Speaking at an event called "The Future of Money and the Financial System," BCD President Mario Bergara said that the digital currency would function like cash, allowing for balances to be passed between individuals. According to a report from the Latin American Herald Tribune, he explained: "It's not that you use the phone to order money transfers, as is done today, but having bills in the cellular and being able to pass them on from one user to another." Whether the digital currency will run on a blockchain-based platform is still not clear, but central banks around the world, including those in Canada and the U.K., have looked to the technology during similar trials. While no launch date was announced, the pilot is "fairly close" to launch, according to Bergara, with certain technological aspects of the program still to be finalized. "It will be a process of trial and error, success and failures," he was quoted as saying. Central banks around the world have been researching new ways of issuing their own digital currencies, including via distributed ledgers. Earlier this month, a researcher for the Bank of England published a blog on the subject, arguing that, regardless of its underlying technology, a central bank-issued digital currency would need "extraordinary" levels of resilience to be successful. https://www.coindesk.com/central-bank-of-uruguays-president-announces-digital-currency-pilot-program/... From the text of the article, I would guess this test is being conducted to do cost assessments of blockchain versus traditional banking system technology. Its likely also being done to test transaction speed performance, security and other factors. It won't necessarily develop into a full fledged program where people in uruguay will be able to utilize crypto issued by their central bank. It may only be a real world test to determine if blockchain can be developed into a cheaper variant of traditional banking systems. Conducting these tests in regions like uruguay serve as a buffer zone to prevent independent media from picking up details on how effective/ineffective the blockchain test was. If anyone has seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car." This crypto test in uruguay is similar to the General Motors EV-1. There are many parallels which can be drawn there. |
|
|
|
|
I think the influence of futures markets is exaggerated. Its an illusion.
With stocks, there are an infinite number of cases where movement in futures markets precede movement in actual stock prices. This creates an illusion where stocks prices appear to follow futures prices, like a cat chasing its own tail.
The reason futures markets appear to have influence is due to the stock market trading during limited hours. Bitcoin trading is 24/7. There won't be a period where bitcoin trading is closed and futures markets are open to create an illusion of bitcoin prices following in the wake set by futures. Instead both bitcoin trading and futures will move simultaneously and there could well be a difference of opinion between the two.
It may be that whales trading bitcoin on exchanges won't respect the opinion or price precedents set by futures trading. Time will tell.
Of course, my points about futures markets being an illusion with stocks could apply to gold and precious metals, with their limited trading day, as well.
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like you're looking for an e-commerce or merchant gateway solution.
Google used to have a shopping cart service a lot of people used but I can't seem to find it, now. You might try searching for "e-commerce" or "merchant gateway solution". My information on this topic is old and outdated.
Pricing everything in crypto and avoiding traditional fiat entirely is also possible.
|
|
|
|
Robots destroy far more jobs than they create. They don't require health insurance or healthcare. They don't pay taxes. They have no rights or freedoms. They form no unions. Stage no strikes. Protest nothing. They're the ideal worker. Their main competition comes from nations with low cost of living expense / low wages driving low cost of labor. Between outsourcing/offshoring of jobs and robots many established nations will lose millions of jobs which were once done by humans. Some estimates claim 50% of all jobs are in danger of being automated someday: Half of American jobs are at risk from automation, new study suggestsThe American workforce is under tremendous pressure, with change coming on multiple fronts. That uncertainty is leading to political and social turbulence, a new research paper suggests. One in four American jobs are at risk of being shipped overseas in the coming years and about half could be replaced by automation, according to Ball State University's Center for Business and Economic Research. A new paper titled, "How Vulnerable are American Communities to Automation, Trade, and Urbanization?" combines several recent studies on employment trends to present a stark view of the future job situation for certain parts of the country. "Some places and people observe robust benefits while others observe primarily costs" from the changes underway, the researchers wrote. "This has important economic, social, and political implications." https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/19/half-of-american-jobs-are-at-risk-from-automation-new-study-suggests.html The implications of this bring about discussion on topics such as (UBI) universal basic income where people are supplied wages by the state due to there being no jobs available for humans. Permaculture, living off grid and similar topics also tend to come up in discussions on job automation. |
|
|
|
It has been said that the federal reserve buys stocks as a segment of economic stimulus. This has been an ongoing thing spanning years. Here's an example. Central Banks' Massive Incursion Into Buying StocksA recent article in the Wall Street Journal details the reason behind why central banks are buying stocks. There are several forces driving this. Part of it is a hunt for higher returns, because of negative rates, nearly $11 trillion or roughly one-quarter, of global fixed-income assets yielded below zero at the end of 2016, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch. This means some are investing a bigger share of their growing foreign-exchange reserves in equities, corporate bonds, and other riskier assets while others are doing so merely to prop up their stock market in an effort to create a wealth effect, hoping it will cause consumers to feel better and go out and spend which will propel the economy forward. This should not be confused with buying foreign currencies or with quantitative easing programs, under which central banks like the Federal Reserve have already bought trillions of dollars' worth of assets to boost growth and inflation. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4064824-central-banks-massive-incursion-buying-stocks Its not investors who are running out of money. Its more strongly linked to deficits, debt and central banks no longer buying stocks due to budgetary constraints. The state also tried to subsidize mortgages to a degree to prevent the subprime mortgage crisis. All it means is a decent portion of the recent rally in the stock market is state subsidized. Part of the demand driving prices up come from the government. If the government runs out of money, there could be a negative price correction or crash. |
|
|
|
Looking at their free shipping policy, amazon appears to operate mainly in the united states. Their shipping network isn't equipped to function well on an international basis. If north america represents amazon's largest consumer demographic, I think they'll wait for international expansion to grow before including widespread support for crypto currencies. The large majority of americans have access to debit/credit cards/paypal/gift cards & including support for crypto likely won't make a difference in their domestic US markets. Internationally however the percentage of consumers with access to electronic payment can decline. Crypto having a lower bar to entry for consumers could make it an attractive method of digital payment in areas like africa which are prone towards having unstable currencies and perhaps not the most cost effective methods of electronic payment. What amazon's precise business plans are is anyone's guess. Business is going very well for them atm. Their key thing is efficiency. Eliminating "brick and mortar" stores gives them an efficiency advantage over traditional stores. Whether amazon expands and includes support for crypto may depend upon regulation. Tariffs, taxes, fees on shipping. Import/export regulations from US based businesses to foreign countries. Whether amazon can establish distribution centers in other countries who will be open to them operating there. I don't think amazon will include support for crypto in 2018. But there is https://purse.io/ (which I have never used btw and can't comment on) it could make direct crypto support redundant to a degree. Paying for things on amazon with crypto may not be that difficult. What might be hard is finding shipping support, especially for international residents. |
|
|
|
Let's say we skip wait-times altogether. Say nobody gives a shit (a lot of people do, though). What about the fees? The astronomical fees from say, 200k utxo in mempool? I think it could hurt bitcoin more than it would help which gets me ranting about Core's incompetence. Fees are a controversial topic. One school of thought says: core developers are to blame. The opposing school of thought says: miners are creating a crisis to justify getting rid of core devs, to centralize the development and mining paradigms of btc under their own domain. Awhile ago, I posted an article containing evidence to support the latter argument, in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2277787.0The case for bigger blocks is open for debate. Its very possible there are hidden political agendas behind the call for increases in block size. Rather than legitimate technical or engineering based need for it. If you follow software engineers on twitter or social media. Its always interesting to see them weigh in and comment on the debate. They don't necessarily support segwit2x or bigger blocks like some might expect them to. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not an expert on this topic. My thoughts are, if some exchanges were manipulating buy/sell orders to push btc higher. There would be a bigger average difference in btc prices across exchanges. Exchanges who engage in market manipulation might sell btc for $7800, while exchanges who do not engage in manipulation might have a far lower btc price of $7200. That's one potential outcome and indicator we might expect if algorithmic book cooking was implemented on some exchanges.
The media is putting a lot of effort into developing new angles to criticize crypto. I think if there were real substance to this story, we would see clips on youtube of it occurring in real time. Traders on exchanges would try to sell btc for lower prices and (in theory) the algorithmic manipulation part of things would kick in and prevent the trade from happening to keep btc's price high.
The story of market manipulation is probably part of the unified front against bitcoin maintained by the media. It doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound reasonable enough that some will believe it.
|
|
|
|
|
Good find, OP. Nice info there.
It is known for sometime that there is a network of tax havens which operate off the books for the wealthy and powerful. There is a key angle present which the media neglects to mention. While these tax shelters offer the advantage of avoiding taxes, fees and penalties--it also functions negatively as a system of control.
Tax shelters are designed around a trust based system where large sums of money are being held hostage. Many world leaders, presidents, dictators, senators and businessmen have the majority of their funds held hostage in this system of tax avoidance which allow globalists to exert influence over and control those in positions of power.
To give you an example of how this works, let's say that Bill and Hillary Clinton have $100 billion dollars. Their money could be held in a tax shelter which would allow them to avoid taxes. But as the tax shelter is designed around a trust based system, which would also give those who run the tax shelter network influence over both Clintons.
Looking at the list of those who use tax shelters, there will always be a large number of world leaders, dictators and politicians listed for this reason. Its no coincidence. When people vaguely refer to globalists, these networks of tax shelters are in a sense, what they're referring to.
|
|
|
|
|
Normally when Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon and a host of media personalities claim "bitcoin is a bubble" one might expect bitcoin's price to decline. One question we might ask is: "how much would bitcoin be worth if nobel prize winning economists like Robert Shiller, bank CEO's and others had not said anything negative about bitcoin"? Many would likely feel safer if there were a slight pullback in btc's price followed by a period of consistent marginal percentage peaks and valleys. However, the horrifying truth may be: bitcoin hasn't peaked, yet.
Negative media publicity and china (supposedly) banning exchanges, could be preventing bitcoin's value from reaching its peak. As people forget the media's claims of "bitcoin is a bubble" and the price stabilizes without a major downturn. People may eventually accept $6,000-$8,000 is the new normal. If these recent gains are sustainable that could draw more investors which could in turn push the price higher.
|
|
|
|
In that video, the author says that the 1000% return of bitcoin in a year is not justified by a fundamental ratio of bitcoin, which is the number of transactions completed using the cryptocurrency. He goes into consider different aspects and says that the only factor that could justify that price raise could be bitcoin taking over gold as a reserve currency, but he doesn’t agree 100% with that view. So, what he says is that bitcoin is in a bubble in the sense that it is overheated, meaning that the actual price is above the fair value. Which leads me again to what I said in the beginning: Could we calculate a fair value for bitcoin? If so, what ratios should we use? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2356775.0If anyone has heard of Norton antivirus founded by Peter Norton. Here's an interesting quote he made in the early days of IT security. Peter Norton: "(With computer viruses)We're dealing with an urban myth. It's like the story of alligators in the sewers of New York. Everyone knows about them, but no one's ever seen them." It is possible that a lot of things said about bitcoin are similar to what people said in the early days of computer viruses when many thought they were a hoax or myth & refused to believe they existed until hard evidence became distributed years later. Crypto is a new and emerging technology. People try to place expectations upon it based on what they know about existing technologies like the stock market but overall it may be futile. Offhand I can think of examples where stocks exhibited 300 times growth. After the economic crisis of 2008 there were bank stocks priced @ $0.01 which rose as high as $3.00 after the bailout bill was announced, 300 times increase in value. These types of massive price increases have been known to happen under special circumstances and aren't as impossible as some claim. If I remember correctly the zimbabwe dollar gained incredible value, more than 300 times growth(?), as it rebounded from its last hyperinflation. The venezuelan bolivar could potentially sustain incredible growth, greater than 100 times value in 1 year, if venezuela's economy stabilizes and recovers. Massive increases in price or value may not be as rare or extraordinary an event as some believe. |
|
|
|
|
Nice find OP. Good explanation for the recent uptick in btc price.
I see people trying to compare the current state of crypto to circumstances involving the 2008 economic crisis. Let's be clear there is no valid comparison there. Real estate and the housing market were both in severe declines which may have been magnified by the leverage aspect of collaterized debt obligations. Bitcoin is the opposite, its fundamental metrics relating to volume and users are increasing significantly and aren't leveraged the way derivatives often are.
Attempts to compare bitcoin to the economic crash of 2008, are attempts to compare a growing, thriving, crypto market with a 2005-2007 real estate market which was shrinking, withering and dying. The perspective of commentators there on CNBC doesn't amount to more than scare tactics and misinformation.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
