I CANT BELIEVE WE HAVE SEGWIT OUT BUT PEOPLE DONT WANT TO ACTIVATE IT http://segwit.co/What is wrong with you people? Looks like SW is not the 'no-brainer' solution some wanted it to be Or It needs more time with proper maketing Or More brutal pressure and chilling Or Compromise with BU Or HF into 2 separate Bitcoins |
|
|
|
Anyone have a link to the google docs chart that circulated around in 2014 outlining a standard technology adoption curve and with bitcoins price mapped along side?
There are some threads here. I ve done a simple log log chart normalizing the exponential adoption very good: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=800330.msg17016542#msg17016542Yes I need to update this and add a proper timescale at bottom...but you can imagine, below 1000 = nothing happened!  |
|
|
|
|
ASK sides are getting lower - all open exchanges order books look like to more ralley ....
|
|
|
|
Ich hab mal eine Trading-Frage, vll kann mir einer von euch Experten helfen:)
Ich habe bei BitMex seit einiger Zeit eine kleine Long-Position offen, wenn ich jetzt einen Stop-Limit-Sell-Order reinsetzte mit sagen wir 770$ Stop Preis und 765$ Limit Preis, wird bei 770$ dann automatisch ein Sell-Order ausgelöst unter der Bedingung, dass genug Buy-Orders bis 765$ vorhanden sind um meinen Sell-Order erfüllen ? Ist das richtig ?
Und was macht ein reiner Limit-Order ?
Wenn du long bist, dann kannst du eine stop ( loss ) order nur unter dem jetzigen kurs eingeben. Diese wird dann zum nächst besten preis ausgeführt (market) , falls der aktuelle preis unter dein stop preis fällt und du verkaufst deine long position. Eine limit order ist zum Kaufen zu einem tiefern kurs als jetzt oder zum Verkaufen zu einem höheren kurs als jetzt. Eventuell sprichst du aber von einer OCO order ? one cancels other ? Das ist eine bedingte order aus beiden Stop Loss und Limit order. Falls eine von beiden orders ausgeführt wird, wird die andere automatisch gecancelt bzw ungültig. |
|
|
|
I wrote a more easy to visualize explanation of the Byzantine agreement proof... can y'all understand this? The proof in the case where nodes can be malevolent is easy to visualize with 3 colored marbles as voters: red, white, and blue. Given 3 jars representing ballot boxes for 3 elections, two marbles can be placed in each jar without any marble voting more than twice, i.e. no voter has cheated yet the result is ambiguous. Declaring any of the jars as the first epoch, results in two quorum choices (forks) for which jar is the next epoch. One jar has red and white, the next red and blue, and the last white and blue. This is why the proof requires that the excess of the quorum be less than ¹/₃ (aka “-¹/₃”). So by adding a green marble, the ambiguity is resolved because the green marble can only be placed in two of the three jars― again presuming no voter cheated to vote more than twice. Thus the +²/₃ instead of ¹/₂+ is required for quorums in the presence of possible malevolence given an asynchronous network, because the ordering of the quorums can’t be proven.
Note if any 3 of the 4 marbles are colluding, i.e. ²/₃ or more (aka “+²/₃”) of the voters are malevolent, they can vote for as many conflicting quorums (forks) as they wish and it will be ambiguous which of the 4 marbles is cheating, because given 3 sets of 3 jars, a different one of the 3 cheaters can vote in each set. And the honest marble has to vote on the fork which the quorum is extending, because otherwise not voting is indistinguishable from unresponsive. It can’t be irrefutably proven that the 3 malevolent marbles were cheating because they can each claim that other one became unresponsive; thus voting for more than two quorums became necessary. And the honest marble voted more than twice also. Propagation order and responsiveness can’t be proven nor disproven in an asynchronous network.
Nope, sorry. Any graphs to help me? |
|
|
|
These Circle jerkers will soon realize that they made a huge mistake to turn against the Bitcoin community. They didn't turn against Bitcoin, Bitcoin turned against them. The 1MB anti-spam limit was in place when they started their business. Oh, and... ...and by "giving up" the OP means he will continue to post FUD well into the future!
Still here I see, bumping FUD, etc... Oh good, you are a hero member and so I think you are able to define exactly: What is SPAM ( in terms of transactions ) ?? I only accept mathematically and logically strict definitions. Otherwise anything and anybody using this word I will categorize as FUD and ignore. Tx in advance. |
|
|
|
o wow, thats great. Leave it to the Swiss to help grow the BTC revolution  ALL train stations in Switzerland, geez that country looks better and better every year to move to haha Yeah, what a strange world. Bitcoin should be the universal micro payment money that everybody should use, now only the richest nation in the world can afford the fees and really use it. Thx BScore  groan ... If the blockchain transaction fees were zero, Sweepay would still be charging their 6% or so for bitcoin purchases thru these machines. You're just trolling. You used right grammar: 'fees were' - in the past! Or would you claim you or anybody else use bitcoin for micro payments ? |
|
|
|
I hope segwit gets activated eventually. Only morons are actively blocking it.
you do know that LN can function without segwit. the benefits of segwit helping LN and helping bitcoin are exaggerated. seems kimdotcom is using the blockstream concept of LN, hense the delay in kimdotcom's service. however there are many many other concepts that dont need segwit. but the powerhouses choose their own partners even if it means making the community wait its just kicking a stone down the road to explain a year delaying real scalability. but thats a topic for another discussion. Yes I know and I will eat my hat once bitcash is up but LN stalled. Why the hack SW is sold to be needed for this much more needed 2. layer scalers? I might be really tooooo duuuuump. |
|
|
|
|
If you want to play big in bitcoin, either with pure investing or mining, you just have to run enough own nodes in order to ensure the safety of your bitcoins.
If our world will adopt bitcoin in big size, than distribution comes back and node and miner numbers will be sufficient.
This is just the beginning. Take your popcorns and wait. Bigger problems are in the scaling!
|
|
|
|
o wow, thats great. Leave it to the Swiss to help grow the BTC revolution ALL train stations in Switzerland, geez that country looks better and better every year to move to haha Yeah, what a strange world. Bitcoin should be the universal micro payment money that everybody should use, now only the richest nation in the world can afford the fees and really use it. Thx BScore |
|
|
|
Erschreckend leeres Orderbuch auf der Briefseite... da kanns nur eine Richtung geben!  |
|
|
|
|
Seen from an analytic perspective (try to be a bitcoin-outsider) the situation looks like this:
Core & BU are both willing to solve the needs and have provided 2 controversial solutions.
If one of those solutions have the class of a 'no-brainer' (as many try to chill / dictate in different forums & ways) - so why is there any need to discuss this?
So either one of those solutions is not such a 'no-brainer' = they failed to deliver
or
core / BU failed on convincing / marketing their solution.
Both do not lead to anything thats a no-brainer.
Only way out of this dead lock:
Combine core & BU solutions (I 'd recommend) and try again or fork...
Cheers
|
|
|
|
They might start doing this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULQSPaLSOxkThey don't like to be controlled esp by US-guys, TX fees, censoring .... Depend on how the dev stuff stalls ? They can also think and code.... |
|
|
|
Hier zeigt das nette Maidli vom Aktionärs TV das lustige kleine Bitcoin Tierchen , das wiedermal rund 100% plus in 2016 gemacht hat und den Vontobel im Spagat dazu https://youtu.be/15EhCdBOM2YViele Spass! ( und nein, beim SBB kann man noch keine Tickets für Bitcoin kaufen...) |
|
|
|
guess what, man? if you think everyone uses bitcoin and then give up using fiats, the fiats down so are the bitcoin. anyway i don't understand the 'trojan horse' mean.  There is not just black OR white in our world. FIAT might always be there and will go born and bust after its usual life cycle. The Trojan Horse is used here as a metaphor that means blockchain buddies MUST look into bitcoin for deeper understanding of the technology. And so I assume most of those 'brains' will get infected by bitcoin ( + its idea), because that works already and has much more behind than just pegging FIAT or stock onto a closed blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
