"hodlers" have absolutely no power in POW as long as they don't run a node.
This is not strictly true, if they leave en-masse then the price will no longer be as supported and the mining will become less profitable and the networks security will suffer as a result. More accurate to say it is completely untrue. Market votes with its feet and I love to dump shit forks. My original post has NOTHING to do with forks. If you want to maintain that by hodling you are actually UASFing, be my guest...it is a rather harmless "delusion of crowds". |
|
|
|
Henichesk? On the beach maybe? more like Kyrylivka if the dot position is correct (in any case, it is Ukraine on or close to the Sea of Azov beach). |
|
|
|
What CZ@Binance wants, or when miners want to fork, doesn't matter. They are free to do as they wish.
UASF & 2X was the watershed, when the power was ultimately confirmed to be in the hands of the holders.
"hodlers" have absolutely no power in POW as long as they don't run a node. UASF does not mean that some dude with btc has the power. If you think that he has, then you are describing a POS system and even in that system you need to actively 'stake' your stash. Holding a trezor with btc on the POW system like bitcoin does not make you a "user" in the meaning of UASF. So I like green dildo's as much as the next guy .. ( wow, the ways THAT could be taken out of context...)
But I'm starting to get just slightly concerned we may be moving to fast.. anyone besides me getting that feeling?
50% increase in less than 2 months....
We're not in the parabolic mode quite yet.. but it does seem to me we are heading there quite fast.. I'd really like to see at least month or two bouncing around in the low 6xxx range before our next serious step up...
to fast, to soon means we hit a blow off top that is to low to hit my retirement target.. that would... annoy me....
I know that if you look at the last 5 weeks or so, starting from our April 1, break through $4,200, it appears that there has been a bit much in regards to price appreciation.. but bitcoin does these kinds of things. It is not out of the ordinary. First of all, there is almost no fucking way that bitcoin is getting to any kind of new ATH within the 10 months (if that is what you mean by "retirement target"), so in that regard, we should expect a decent number of 30% plus corrections between here and $20k... but even going from here to $20k is more than a 3x price appreciation, so in order to return to $20k (which is NOT an unreasonable expectation) we should be anticipating both periods of seeming froth that goes along with correction, and also the fact that sometimes the seeming froth is not really froth, but just getting back to previous price points (let's say in the $6k range), and maybe we could see a 50% or more price appreciation from here before any meaningful correction in the 30% plus arena takes place. In other words, it is almost pie in the sky for any experienced bitcoiner to really be expecting any kind of smooth sailing (or that infamously unrealistic word, "stability") between here and $20k and beyond, including likely ongoing emotional turmoil. I am not "expecting" it, but it is possible if we are on a "hockey stick" of btc adoption. Roughly: we almost doubled in less than 6 mo. If we are already on an exponent, then 12K could come in 3 mo, then 24K in another 1.5 mo, projecting 24K in 4.5 mo or by October 2019. If we are on a linear rapid growth starting with the surge from 4K, then we might reach about 10K by November, then probably pause. I give the first scenario 10-20% probability and the second one 40-50% probability. The third scenario (where we pause at 6K)-maybe 30-50% probability. |
|
|
|
I read the above and still don't get the problem. What type of address was needed before sending to Bech32 and why was it unspendable? And how can it be unspendable if it is sent back to the company's wallet and thus "proves" it's an inside job?
My understanding is that if you send coins from address starting with '1' (legacy) to bech 32 address (starting with 'bc1'), then you might have difficulty spending the coins, although I am not 100% sure because Coinomi claims that in their wallet you can "upgrade" legacy account to bech32. In any case, if you send from '1 to '3' first, then to 'bc1', it should be OK. Read here: https://coinomi.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/29000009746-what-are-default-compatibility-and-legacy-addresses-all-about-segwit-Re sending back at Binance-it is a puzzle and if true (I did not check), then the whole thing is definitely their own error. That guy at binance...I would not listen to one word outta his mouth one way or another any more. |
|
|
|
The so called luck some of the time it happens. Let that be at first for play's of the week. Too bad that it is almost NOT possible to have a playoff (LFC has to draw the last game and MC has to lose by four). That scenario just not going to happen. LFC could still win it, but it is a long shot now. |
|
|
|
Set your date back a few days and reload plugins until they fix it. BTW, use Ublock Origins not adblock or plus. My system date? It's on automatically. I can change that of course. Why ublock instead of adblockplus? I will wait and they would probably fix it overnight as they seem to be 'activating' devs to do this (even at a higher cost). BTW, the ancient Firefox 48 is NOT affected and work with maybe 99% of sites. Keeping something older in house (just in case). |
|
|
|
W Buffett bought AAPL at $1tril valuation
W Buffett bought AMZN at $1tril valuation
There must be method in his...never mind.
He will buy BTC at $50-60K (~1 tril) or maybe when BTC price exceeds BRK-A (currently at $327,765/share)
Did he actually pay a $1t valuation for his shares though? But yeah, seems like he's gotten old. yeah as he is buying AMZN right now. |
|
|
|
W Buffett bought AAPL at $1tril valuation W Buffett bought AMZN at $1tril valuation There must be method in his...never mind. He will buy BTC at $50-60K (~1 tril) or maybe when BTC price exceeds BRK-A (currently at $327,765/share). how bloody Orwellian this is, it's not even funny. |
|
|
|
The value of gold though is completely base on the current scarcity of it. Over then next decades the scarcity is likely to change a lot.
The point on scarcity is correct because its already true, most of the gold mined was done in the last hundred years. The obvious reason being the industrial revolution and the introduction of the combustion engine, of course the mining of gold increased massively. So why isnt gold as cheap as hell, the price went up no doubt about it in any currency I've ever heard of. Certainly sterling the oldest FIAT standard and originator via Newton of a gold standard the price altered massively from the old £1 gold coin exchanged (still made) and now £1 doesnt buy a snack. FIAT has exceeded the production of gold, its proven even easier to increase production. Another reason is the great population growth in the world, its not linear more like exponential growth and some view this as very negative. I really dont as people can be gigantically productive and inventive and I rate people as an asset to any country but thats a personal view. Gold divided among all these new people together with an ever greater bias to giant government and global corporations over the people as individuals and the origins of capitalism as capital and production with the people not the state, we have the result in gold price going up greatly and so far as I can tell will continue to go up for as long as Im around hence I hold it as capital. What I really disagree with is the idea of gold or Bitcoin as if they oppose each other. I'm not even going to discuss as it makes little sense, its like saying Bitcoin or live in your own house when both can be productive assets. The argument to hold many assets not just one should be perfectly clear as we see great variation in Bitcoin, it doesnt invalidate it but it makes sense to have many options to stay stable personally I don't disagree. The current value of gold reflects the low value of FIAT. I don't know if Bitcoin will replace gold or something else will or something all together different will happen. I just expect a massive change, at least in the lifetime of my children if not my own. Depending on the continued value of gold seems very risky. I am hoping for bitcoin, but afraid that it would be something along 'likes" or "connections' or some other "social" credits. Eeeww. |
|
|
|
Block by 16vV8! This is our 1st of BLOCK WEDNESDAY!  It looks like large miners are using PPLNS scheme timing to get more (or get a bonus). I don't know what their game here is. |
|
|
|
I would prefer if 40% of 50-60 year olds got to own it. Two reasons; 1. they got much more money (on average). 2. they would mostly give such btc to 'youngsters' in due course, restricting spending of it for a while. |
|
|
|
This is the historical since the beginning of the thread WO:  +1 WOsMerit. Out of plain sM. Impressive job. Anyone got a merit to spare here? yes, merited VB 1001. |
|
|
|
Looking at these dates, all I could say: darn it, I could have gotten into btc way earlier (as a few people here probably did). First heard about it in Nov 2011 in the Wired article (BTC at $2), then totally forgot about it until October 2013 (BTC above $200) in the run-up. The future is hopefully bright, but if someone gave me a choice of 100K now and flat for the next 10 years vs a 'slow" grind from 5K to 500K in 10 years, my choice would be the former. I always preferred fast gains (and even losses) to a slow grind. Perhaps, i don't have a patience for it. why people did not invest early: https://twitter.com/bitstein/status/1122195120340774912an argument from 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk5zs-hmVw4 |
|
|
|
Im Antlitz der aufgehenden Sonne
Stand ich frühmorgens da
Mein Leib voller süßer Wonne
Und güldene bitcoins im Haar
Nice lyrics ...imagining Rammstein singing it (they make everything sound so 'tough")..  |
|
|
|
|
City dominates
bitcoin will recover soon
to make me happy
|
|
|
|
How come so many poor people here?
drugs Long@20k? Long at $20k is a dumb explanation. No one with any brains is long at $20k for 16 months without, at minimum, making some additional buys to bring down their average cost per BTC. In other words, it should be quite difficult to sympathize with anyone who made that kind of dumb gambling move to buy at $20k and to sit on it without having further plans and action in the 16 months. Edit: By the way, you raised a bit of a different point, Hueristic, so we are deviating from the original point that I was attempting to make. I went back to my original post, linked above, and for context, that post was questioning how it seems that so many people involved in such a greatly performing asset class, such as bitcoin, since 2013 are "poor." Sometimes "poor" is a subjective, rather than objective status. A guy losing 450 mil out of 500 mill might feel "poor", but he is not, objectively. There was a dialogue about it in "Billions" where Ax talks to a hedge fund manager who is left with "just" 200 mil. The opposite could be true too. Did everyone felt "rich" when we were about to climb over 20K? I felt mostly bewildered. hats snipped
Boring afternoon, solution:
Sort the hats.
I will save and update the record now that it is created.
well, you are missing my hat for some reason. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
:
