|
APPL is the shorting opportunity of a lifetime.
|
|
|
|
|
greece happens to be on the thin end of the wedge for the mathematically inevitable collapse of a credit cycle based on compounding interest ... last time around it was Weimar Germany.
Greece has to hit the big red RESET button because all the rest are pussies and don't have the balls to call an end to that which is inevitable anyway, and only made worse by delaying. Keynesian economics is fundamentally broken, that much is known, the long run has arrived, for the love of Zeus, hit the button already, let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so say we go ahead with a hard fork to a > 1MB max block size ... are we also going to see a couple of other hard forking issues put through all at the same time or will this one be done alone?
Could it become like those congressional bills where all the crap legislation gets stuck inside the fine print of the guns 'n drugs 'n terrroists 'n kids cover page?
|
|
|
|
so $2 to $1200 is 600x, then 600x$200 is what? 12,000?
I think you're missing a zero  two or three even? |
|
|
|
europe is different this time, unlike everytime for the last millenia it won't disintegrate into a shooting, raping, looting violent orgy clustermess when the monetary systems collapse ...  rWWIII starts in europe after a monetary collapse, nothing surer ... the place isn't called the Old World for nothing. |
|
|
|
|
so $2 to $1200 is 600x, then 600x$200 is what? 12,000?
|
|
|
|
Off chain transactions with Chase and HSBC (as the example) would require 3rd party audits of their internal ledgers. From past experience when information is not publicly available (private internal ledgers), shenanigans will occur.
I guess to begin with the fact that people would store their bit coin with a CHASE or an HSBC would require trust from the user level. Currently bit coin allows users to keep their coins in their possession. I suppose having multisig would apply to some extent here if the adoption rate of users exceeded some defining threshold that made it impractical for the average joe to use to transact.
D&T you bring up an interesting dilemma that may come some day concerning being priced out of being able to transact on the chain as a normal user and being forced to use an alternative method to transact. Instead of using a trusted 3rd party, why not use another block chain that is not an SC to transact?
Of course there are exchange fees to get this done. So perhaps the lesser cost of the two may be the solution. In that case order book depth needs to be taken into account as well and any exchange transaction fees, withdraw fees and network fees. This is very interesting to explore as the ability to transact with less cost may change from time to time. Of course no one knows the future but it is a plausible thought to consider when discussing the topic.
Payment channels |
|
|
|
7 days until the Euro crashes. Can't wait.
I'm assuming you are referring to the troika's demand that Greece submit a bail-out plan that they will not submit, prompting a Greek Gov't shutdown and a massive bank-run. If this plays out as expected, the Euro will lose value against the GBP, Swiss Franc and USD, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will crash. What it will mean for bitcoin prices is far from certain. I don't see the price appreciating significantly in US Dollars until it becomes more widely utilized as a means to evade capital controls. Why isn't it being used this way yet?? The tools to handle the necessary amounts securely and privately are not well-developed enough for the stupid rich .... yet. |
|
|
|
|
people who like to talk a lot about illegal things on the internet should be careful that it doesn't just 'appear' on their computers someday (with a knock at the door) ... things like that happen.
|
|
|
|
anyone else notice that the recent bottom in price, 'so-called market cap (value of total coins issued) was also a test of the market cap at old ATH $266 price ~$2.5 bill.?
Seems like that will have made a very solid bottom (I'm calling it a top for the current crop of fiat currencies).
So, as more coins are mined, we can keep hitting lower lows without reaching a lower 'market cap' ... interesting, never thought about it like that before Well it is more in line with a volatility of market cap of a start-up before IPO, but this particular start-up, bitcoin, is continually issuing stock and diluting the existing stock. Dilution of shares also happens with many companies but usually in blocks of issuance due to capital raising events, etc. Sometimes the market cap is affected but not dramatically. It looks like we may have successfully tested the old ATH market cap and now it starts going back up. Using price as your only metric can be dangerous because price has so many emotional attachments due to human perceptions, particularly day traders, short term positions. Large scale trends need to renormalise out price to other more reliable metrics to be able see underlying factors driving network growth, adoption and value usage. |
|
|
|
|
anyone else notice that the recent bottom in price, 'so-called market cap (value of total coins issued) was also a test of the market cap at old ATH $266 price ~$2.5 bill.?
Seems like that will have made a very solid bottom (I'm calling it a top for the current crop of fiat currencies).
|
|
|
|
The one thing we know about Satoshi at this point is he wasn't in this to make a fast buck or gain personal glory. He seems to have genuinely been interested in establishing an automated rules based system and then to step out of the way. I wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years his initial mining coins are still sitting untouched.
 it's about sending a message. |
|
|
|
reversal to $220 in a matter of minutes... prepare 4 quickbuck
these days a rise of 5 $ is called reversal. it feels good to be a bear. this forum is full of no idea perma bull bagholders... i agree, fiat permabull bagholders. ignored. |
|
|
|
|
I am almost certain that if Satoshi had originally coded a block limit doubling every 2 years along with block reward halving every 4 years then this would never have been discussed or even pondered in so much questionable detail. People would be like, "Oh yeah, that's the way it works, let's just deal with now".
gmaxwell: thanks for your timely input on the necessary decentralisation quantification.
Do not forget that the hard-coded fees constants fix should be addressed simultaneously with this issue since they are inter-linked .... or we'll be back arguing about that eventually also.
|
|
|
|
Great post.
Perhaps the best way to deal with the transaction limit, so it does not continue to be a problem, is to quadruple the block limit size at each block reward halving every 4 years. This should put in in line with Moore's Law, such that running a full node won't be out of reach of the average user.
I like the simplicity of this strategy and it has grounding in practical limitations for physical hardware. Although I would suggest to have it at the midway points between halvings so as to smooth out any lumpiness in the response to fees/reward when changing the halving and max_block_size increase together. Analogous to presidential and mid-term election cycles. So quadruple max_block_size at 315k, 525k, 735k, 945k, thereafter every 210k blocks. But need to begin with a one-off quadruple increase to 4 MByte ASAP (to account for previous increase that would have ideally happened at 315k). Edit: on further thought maybe doubling every 105k blocks is less disruptive again, instead of banging the limit every so often. So a one-off quadruple to 4 MB ASAP then double to 8 MB at next halving (420k blocks) and double every 105k blocks thereafter, i.e. double approx. every 2 years, more or less, depending on hashrate, which is a rough proxy for network demand via price. |
|
|
|
|
There needs to be a consideration of chilling effects, or otherwise, upon ancillary technological development that is directed towards the current rules, when even merely discussing changing the rules.
|
|
|
|
... think we just found the ever-present dumper. Weak hands. Wonder how many of those "assets" are actually counterparty liabilities for as yet unfulfilled (short-sold) mining contracts? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
