Maybe the odds for breaking upwards rather than downwards have shifted from about 53%, which would have been yesterday's assessment to about 56%, at the moment? Am I missing something?
56.75% as of latest. (Trying to keep a serious face. I can hold it as long as I please.) I don't mind a bit more bullish assessment, but your assertion is OUTRAGOEOUS. (so much that I cannot even spell it.) and I think that you are just making shit up, just to tease and to cause us more bullish than reasonable.... You nasty rascal! My serious face was seriously compromised. Uh. OK, again. Last estimates rise to 56.83%! |
|
|
|
Maybe the odds for breaking upwards rather than downwards have shifted from about 53%, which would have been yesterday's assessment to about 56%, at the moment? Am I missing something?
56.75% as of latest. (Trying to keep a serious face. I can hold it as long as I please.) |
|
|
|
im just saying i heard big players are gonna dump btc tonight under $5k
Gotta call Jimbo quick! Be kind. |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/930436656045342720The head of that company has clarified that they made mistakes on the statement, as they are not a government administrative department, and have no rights to determine whether bitcoin mining is illegal This guy tends to be accurate. A post - rumor? - here a few weeks ago already talked about some electric co. in China shutting down energy supply to miners. Might have been Szechuan, though I'm not sure. Semi-old news used as fud/fomo tinder? |
|
|
|
We need more throughput. It is that simple. Right. We have segwit now, and it is not enough. Of course it isn't. Segwit just makes a little additional blockchain space available. The throughput will come from L2/L3 solutions: Sidechains, Lightning Network, whatnots. A multitude of L2+ solutions can be at work at the same time. That's where I hope to see competition for new ideas - not on the basic protocol, which IMO should stay as resilient and lean as possible. If you have a better alternative than segwit+bigger blocks, feel free to share. Clonecoins would not even matter if we already had the benefit they chose to incorporate.
Just as an example of a better alternative, on this thread a few days ago someone posted a link to a new technology which could be plugged in at L2, just below LN and therefore pushing it to L3. It would allow opening multiple (shared) payment channels with a single blockchain transaction. The idea can be improved, but already as it is, it could significantly improve on the problem, rightfully bannered by Jbreher, of opening and closing a channel for every human on earth (impossible with 1 MB blocks. Or 2 MB, or 8 MB, for that matter). It's not that I expect this particular gimmick to be the final solution, but it does show a lot of work is being done. A constellation of partial solutions can very well ease us into the L2 era. I think that's where the future is headed. |
|
|
|
As to why S2X future even has values, it's the reason that people have stated before. That is, in order to sell your S2X future when it goes live a month ago, you need to split your coins into BT1 and BT2. Now when that BT2 is worthless at 5 mbtc as news came out, people buy back (short cover) BT2 to re-combine with BT1 so that they can get back their original BTC and tx out of Bitfinex. Because seriously, who would want hold BTC a minute longer than needed on Bitfinex? Thus there is more people who want to buy back their BT2 to tx out than the losers who got rekted, but refused to realize loss, and hoped that some S2X dev will copy-paste BCH's EDA and replay-protection, so that they can at least hope for a pump later. Aha, a Bitfinex thing. Now I see! I always hoped (and suspected) the S2X fork would be called off, so I didn't even try to play any splitting trick with S2X and wasn't aware of how finex dealt with the issue. Thanks for the explanation. |
|
|
|
Your posts are always well reasoned, tought-provoking and informative, LewisPirenne. I am interested in your opinion. People are spamming the mempool with 1300 satoshi/byte tx, i.e. paying 3~5 mbtc per 225 byte standard tx, and most go to fee with only dust remaining, to lock up the tx in mempool during this BCH pump. But BTC+BCH is actually getting lower and lower in total, meaning someone is killing that golden goose that had just kept on giving so far.
Maybe the cartel will do a flippening on ETH just for lolz. But if some insiders can flippen ETH in marketcap just like this, then it's actually really bearish for the entire crypto world. Because imagine what would happen when the real professional pumpers, i.e. Wall Street banksters, come on the scene.
I don't understand very well. In your opinion, does this bearish outlook get triggered only if there is an ETH flippening during the BCH fork scope? My gut feeling (not well thought out) is that of a simple cartel maneuver to pump BCH. The S2X might or might not have been just a diversion - I haven't figured out yet. Also, the nonzero value of S2X futures isn't clear to me. An explanation in this thread (Marcus or Torque? Can't remember) said it's the premium for early redemption of... of what? How does that fact fill in your understanding of the current situation? |
|
|
|
I think this is just a bit of a FUD phase. I feel sort of safe knowing that people are panicking even though the price has only dropped from 7300 to 6400
This. As Rosewater Foundation said, BCH is approaching a fork. It is broken at the protocol level: without a malleability fix, second and third layer solutions are very hard (near impossible) to implement soundly. Of course, the fees are lower, hur hur. With larger blocks and low usage, they must. Besides, BCH never suffered a single spam attack. But medium term? The only practical use of BCH, apart from trading, is buying Chinese mining equipment. What kind of future can such an altcoin have? They can pump and dump all they want, I still have an optimistic view of the near future. |
|
|
|
Sold half of my remaining BCH at 0.15 BTC/BCH!  Now let it pump just a little more... |
|
|
|
Open a node over Tor for online shopping. w/e Are you trolling? BTC can already use Tor as the network layer if it works on your BTC node. No I just don't get it. Isn't there a law about using fiat for shopping, because it's basically disintegrating anyway? Gresham or Hanlon or Newton...there's a law. The "bad money pushes good money out of circulation" law? That's Gresham's. But - admitting you wish to use BTC for coffee or whatever - it will be your LN client that manages the Tor connection, figures out a route to the recipient, and initiates the transaction. You don't have to actually set up any Tor node. |
|
|
|
Open a node over Tor for online shopping. w/e Are you trolling? BTC can already use Tor as the network layer if it works on your BTC node. |
|
|
|
I can be wrong, correct me if I do.
To use LN you must create payment channels. If I want to buy something on Amazon, I should open a payment channel with Amazon. But, if tomorrow I want to buy something on Ebay, I must also open a channel with them? And if later I want to buy a coffee at Starbucks, should I open another channel?
No such need, as long as you share a channel with a node (that has a channel shared with a node (that has... ...)))) with Starbucks. Same for Amazon. It's a mesh network. The general opinion is that there will be enough channels open to reach any relevant agent. Ah you mean like Bitcoin? But then without the peer to peer? Sounds great. It's still peer to peer (no central authority), but not one-to-one. There will be multiple routes. Irregular mesh topology over Tor. You will open an account (payment channel) with a bank (lightning node hub) which routes your payments where they need to go. The lightning network will certainly evolve to be central hubs routing payments. These banks (lightning node hubs) will settle on the blockchain when you close your account (payment channel) but otherwise won't really need the blockchain much.
Unless I'm mistaken
Right, not much need for on-chain stuff except opening/closing channels. Or possibly topping them up, I am still not clear on what will happen with "refill" operations as the protocol evolves. The hubs will be "central" only in the sense of "hyperconnected, with lots of money at stake in multiple channels". They won't be able to censor transactions or tamper with the protocol - or even figure out where the coins ultimately go. Hubs can be routed around if desired or necessary. Someone else will get the fees - if any. Not that shabby, is it? |
|
|
|
I can be wrong, correct me if I do.
To use LN you must create payment channels. If I want to buy something on Amazon, I should open a payment channel with Amazon. But, if tomorrow I want to buy something on Ebay, I must also open a channel with them? And if later I want to buy a coffee at Starbucks, should I open another channel?
No such need, as long as you share a channel with a node (that has a channel shared with a node (that has... ...)))) with Starbucks. Same for Amazon. It's a mesh network. The general opinion is that there will be enough channels open to reach any relevant agent. |
|
|
|
Imagine when millions of people are opening and closing LN channels or executing smart contracts.
It is not my intention to spread FUD, but we have an eventual problems between our hands.
I really hope bitcoin can scale offchain, as onchain.
How often does one open and close a credit card in their lifetime? Actually the situation is more akin to a debit card. The max amount (channel money capacity) is low. And each topping of the card must be done with on-chain transactions. At least, this is what I found the only time I read LN's tech spec. It was a while ago, and things might have changed already. I'm pretty sure that production updates to the LN protocol will solve all these issues: channel (money) capacity is a simple constant in the source code, being kept low on purpose in the experimental phase for security's sake. Refilling (topping) a depleted channel would be trickier, and I haven't yet figured out how it could be done. If anyone has pointers, I'd be glad to read up. |
|
|
|
We are the few, the enlightened, the ones who See. And that's not even an exaggeration. meh i make no claims Last thing I remember these things were $300 a pop and I was making dick-tree jokes. I'm not even clever. Food for thought. Well, genius and madness are almost the same thing. Only that one of them is useful. I know nothing in terms of the amount of knowledge that is out there, but what i know compared to the general masses scares them. answers by morning pls, lads. i don't even get half the questions Does he mean Rawls as in veil of ignorance Rawls? Funny guy. Yes, that's what he means. I wonder what a "scientific" approach to ethics could be like. Funny set of questions, some so vague as to be hard to answer, some flawed by the misuse of the word "orthogonal" to mean either "independent" or "contrasting", according to the phase of the moon. I think I can address about half of them with confidence, the other half with a "Uh? Whatever he wants to hear from me?" |
|
|
|
I just finished reading the open letter, and, I must admit, it scared the hell out of me. I have already sold all my Bitcoin Cash. I really wish things will not turn out the way the letter describes! Wondering if we all should have kept our BCH...  Jimbo and jbreher may well turn out to be the smartest guys among us. Patience is key, indeed. I'm still keeping some just in case... |
|
|
|
So, I bought i little today, and immediately bitcoin stalled. Sorry guys.
Don't worry, keep on buyin', we need moar cheap korn. |
|
|
|
I don't know how easy 400k will be, but 10k within the year looks doable.
10k within a year? Fork put aside, 10k will happen in Q1 2018 at the latest if they futures market goes live within 2017 which it should. I meant within the year 2017. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know how easy 400k will be, but 10k within the year looks doable.
|
|
|
|
However, cheap electricity, newest generation chips, and other factors that are now unbalancing the game won't be that relevant anymore, and there will be much fairer competition.
What -- exactly -- do you find _unfair_ about the current situation? Difference in costs and in the cost/return ratio. That's the point - not avoiding concentration, but letting concentration happen with similar ease almost everywhere. So Average David can spend 1000$, and his 1000$ are worth almost exactly as much as Goliath's 1000$.
David has some advantages that Goliath does not. For instance, applying the 'waste' heat to a real need. This is something that can be done at small scale, and cannot (or at least currently is not) done at scale. Peanuts. Besides, newer hardware squashes old to the point that old rigs aren't economical. Obsolescence should be realigned, too. Any American could put up a mining rig knowing that electricity costs are not the bottleneck anymore.
Nonsense. Electrical costs will always be a dominant factor in Bitcoin mining. Whether in flip flops in an ASIC or words in a memory column, each bit flip requires some number of Joules of energy. Of course, but flipping "the same bits" as quickly as possible (computing power, not memory bound) is one thing. Flipping "a much larger number of different bits" as quickly as possible - but less quickly because RAM won't allow max speed (memory bound computation) is rather less energy-intensive. Physics. I canna change the laws of physics, captain!
Right, I can't. Even if I could, I would be wary. I'm just an ordinary guy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
