Bitcoin Forum
November 15, 2024, 08:27:52 AM *
News: Check out the artwork 1Dq created to commemorate this forum's 15th anniversary
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 ... 159 »
661  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin got featured on Business Insider: Bitcoin vs. Gold on: July 15, 2017, 12:06:07 PM
Business Insider is a page on facebook with 7.5 Million likes. it is stated that bitcoin will soar to over $20K on 2022 by cannibalizing gold.

i don't know where they got this idea, they just basically did a comparison about bitcoin and gold.  Either way what can you guys say about this?

view the whole video https://www.facebook.com/businessinsider/videos/10154847897019071/, it got 1.9K likes and 263K views at the moment.

I see a lot of maninstream media lately talking about bitcoin, but it's sad that we are going through this hardfork mess right now killing the price. If miners activated segwit with BIP141 we would be flying into 6 figures, but miners are compromised by governments trying to hardfork bitcoin into segwit2x or whatever other crap they can control so we are under attack and the price reflects this. Time to buy some discount bitcoin soon while it lasts.

Here we go again Billy the Silly - what governments and evidence please.

How about compromised by Blockstream and partners, evidence out there already.

The evidence is obvious for anyone that isn't a retard. They want to make bitcoin ultimately have insanely big blocks that will not be able to be run unless you are a specialized corporation just like mining. If you don't see the implications of this then go back to school and study some game theory.
662  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin got featured on Business Insider: Bitcoin vs. Gold on: July 14, 2017, 06:04:39 PM
Business Insider is a page on facebook with 7.5 Million likes. it is stated that bitcoin will soar to over $20K on 2022 by cannibalizing gold.

i don't know where they got this idea, they just basically did a comparison about bitcoin and gold.  Either way what can you guys say about this?

view the whole video https://www.facebook.com/businessinsider/videos/10154847897019071/, it got 1.9K likes and 263K views at the moment.

I see a lot of maninstream media lately talking about bitcoin, but it's sad that we are going through this hardfork mess right now killing the price. If miners activated segwit with BIP141 we would be flying into 6 figures, but miners are compromised by governments trying to hardfork bitcoin into segwit2x or whatever other crap they can control so we are under attack and the price reflects this. Time to buy some discount bitcoin soon while it lasts.
663  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited(Futures) Coin on: July 14, 2017, 04:21:59 PM
Can someone tell me what this coin is? Its no 780 on Coin Market Cap. Is this the BTC fork? Or someone is just wanting to cause confusion and possible scam ignorant investors?

It was made as a way to speculate with the potential hardfork to Buggy Unlimited. Obviously everyone dumped this shit to the ground because nobody would hold this thing on their right mind. This is just an advance of what will happen to JarzikCoin (segwit2xCoin). So get your coins ready to dump the JarzikCoins for free real bitcoins if the fork actually happens.
664  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Confirmed potential hard fork from bitcoin.org on: July 14, 2017, 03:58:31 PM
UASF winning wouldn't create 2 chains because the legacy chain would reorg.

That opinion is based on a number of assumptions that may never materialise and a number of variables that may never align to make it occur.  It is nowhere close to being a statement of fact.  It should also be noted that what people describe innocently as a "user activated soft fork" is, I would say emphatically, a significantly larger change in the manner in which the network is run then any change in consensus or reference client could ever be.  Or to put it another way, a fork with consensus is more natural and organic than an attempted fork with the hope or wish that consensus might catch up at some vaguely defined point in the future, which is what BIP148 amounts to.  I don't recall anyone prior to shaolinfry's proposal being made ever describing the network functioning in such a manner before.  

All updates have been deployed through UASF. Satoshi used UASF in the past. This is not the thing.

What disturbs the network is gathering behind closed doors with a couple corporations to try to hardfork into JarzikCoin.

UASF BIP148 wouldn't exist if they weren't trying to hardfork. And again, if BIP148 has no traction it will die and nothing will happen. JarzikCoin will permanently create a situation where we have 2 goddamned bitcoins.
665  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Confirmed potential hard fork from bitcoin.org on: July 14, 2017, 02:50:27 PM
Bitcoin.org just gave an alert on their website of a confirmed potential fork on Aug 01 and some warnings to users of bitcoin. It is unpredictable yet though how the market is gonna be like but it seems it ain't gonna be pretty. I was having hopes it may not get to this at first, unfortunately they are dashed. God help us as we help ourselves too. Sad
https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2017-07-12-potential-split
Once it's clear that there will be no hardfork, the market will react posibility.

As small holders all we have to do is wait and see. If you want, you can help by dumping the JarzikCoins for more legacy chain coins.
It's hilarious that you promote UASF so passionately, and yet don't realise that this post is about the chain split that UASF would cause with a minority in hash rate and economic support.  It's actually about a soft fork, not a hard fork.  Segwitx2's chain split would happen three months from SegWit activation, rather than precisely when SegWit activates.

Did you actually read the post?

The chances are that the UASF chain will be irrelevant, and it's likely that SegWitx2 will happen before then.

However, it's always good practice to keep your coins in a wallet where you can export the private keys.  Also, if UASF does become relevant, your coins might just be legacy coins when kept in web wallets and exchanges, so it's definitely a good idea now, as a precaution.

UASF winning wouldn't create 2 chains because the legacy chain would reorg. JarzikCoin would create a permanent split forever.

The whales will destroy JarzikCoin, or any other hardfork efforts. They are wasting their time.
666  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Confirmed potential hard fork from bitcoin.org on: July 13, 2017, 06:10:53 PM
Bitcoin.org just gave an alert on their website of a confirmed potential fork on Aug 01 and some warnings to users of bitcoin. It is unpredictable yet though how the market is gonna be like but it seems it ain't gonna be pretty. I was having hopes it may not get to this at first, unfortunately they are dashed. God help us as we help ourselves too. Sad
https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2017-07-12-potential-split

Not confirmed, just a warning. When the XT shit was happening, I think there was a similar warning too. Not sure if they bothered with Classic and Unlimited.

Once it's clear that there will be no hardfork, the market will react posibility.

In the small chance of a hardfork, the forked chain will crash in price as all the whales (except Roger Ver...) dump their JarzikCoins for sovereign legacy chain.

As small holders all we have to do is wait and see. If you want, you can help by dumping the JarzikCoins for more legacy chain coins.
667  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 13, 2017, 04:06:02 PM
Here's my theory FWIW:

1. Core devs have connections with the exchanges.
2. Exchanges have connections with the banks.
3. Banks tell the exchanges "off-chain scaling or we cut you off".

1. Governments can't control the bitcoin protocol or the network
2. Governments need huge blocksizes to centralize nodes inside corporations which are easily located and therefore bribeable because a network of random people running nodes anonymously is unstoppable unless you cut the entire internet
3. Banks eventually become the custodians of the nodes and along with mining corporations they get bribed and controlled to make bitcoin their bitch
668  Economy / Economics / Re: Rothschild: Get Ready For One World Currency By 2018 on: July 13, 2017, 02:34:04 PM
Well, that is a good catch, but it's not enough. Having a big stake on a company doesn't necessarily mean that they control every single newspaper on a daily basis and the Rothchild guy whose owns the stakes are going to be looking personally on everything every single day before releasing it, or at least, I don't imagine Lynn Forester de Rothschild reading The Economist headlines everyday before approving them for release. Or maybe they are such control freaks that actually do that... who knows..

There's a clip on youtube with a good example of how centralized & uniform american media is.

If you dislike links search on youtube for: "Media Brainwashing - News simply repeats the same taglines & phrases OVER and OVER".

Link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH8dejYGa5A

There's other evidence if you want it.

Well, in the case the Rothchilds are directly behind the particular The Economist newspaper from that day that talked about the Phoniex world currency in 2018, then we have just to wait a couple of months and see what happens. But 2018 is just too near. What are the chances this happens? There are no real signs of national currencies disappearing. Are the Rothchilds going to release Rothchildcoin without no support from the nations? are the nations going to suddenly support this Rothchildcoin out of nowhere?

I don't see it clear at all. If it said 2025... that's something more realistic than 2018. We are still in the early days of Bitcoin, I just don't see much changing 1 year only.
669  Economy / Economics / Re: Rothschild: Get Ready For One World Currency By 2018 on: July 13, 2017, 02:56:30 AM
So where are you getting the Rothchild-Phoenix connection from? I remember reading about The Economist thing, and I remember the mention the Phoenix but that was as far as I know just some sort of fictional piece/prediction and there was never a Rothchild connection so I want to see the evidence of Rothchild being involved in this so called 2018 global currency.

The connection comes from Lynn Forester De Rothschild owning a majority stake in the Economist Group which wields a controlling interest in The Economist magazine. Its mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of her wiki bio.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Forester_de_Rothschild

The Economist these days is shady in that many of its feature articles are written anonymously. It could be accurate to say anonymously written pieces are becoming a signature move for globalists.

Well, that is a good catch, but it's not enough. Having a big stake on a company doesn't necessarily mean that they control every single newspaper on a daily basis and the Rothchild guy whose owns the stakes are going to be looking personally on everything every single day before releasing it, or at least, I don't imagine Lynn Forester de Rothschild reading The Economist headlines everyday before approving them for release. Or maybe they are such control freaks that actually do that... who knows..
670  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [BREAKING NEWS]: Morgan Stanley thinks bitcoin is nothing more than... on: July 13, 2017, 02:38:13 AM
In this special edition of BREAKING NEWS we invite newcomers to the podium to discuss exactly what the banksters mean by the above statement.

Stay tuned.

Morgan Stanley and the rest of banking mafia groups will be late into the game just like everyone else on wall street.

The most likely word that is missing your headline is "bubble". That is the first step of every noob that comes into bitcoin for the first time.
671  Economy / Economics / Re: Rothschild: Get Ready For One World Currency By 2018 on: July 12, 2017, 05:51:53 PM
Quote
Rothschild: Get Ready For One World Currency By 2018

A Rothschild publication predicts that a one world currency is likely to be put in place as soon as 2018 – eroding individual nations’ sense of sovereignty.

The Rothschild-controlled Economist magazine published an article 30 years ago that highlighted the proabability of a world currency by the year 2018.

Thefreethoughtproject.com reports:

One must also keep in mind that the controlling interest of The Economist is held by the powerful Rothschild family, who regard themselves as the “custodians of The Economist magazine’s legacy.” In essence, the magazine operates as a quasi-propaganda arm for the Rothschild banking empire and related businesses and, is in many ways, meant to prime the pump of public opinion for the globalist agenda to be implemented.

The excerpt below appeared in the print magazine on January 9, 1988, in Vol. 306, pp 9-10.

Ready for the Phoenix

THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.

At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987. The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October. These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.



The New World Economy

The biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates. as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another. These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile.



In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments. In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment.



The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.



As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies. That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.



The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.

Only ten years later, in 1998, The Economist was once again engaging the public in an effort to forward the globalist agenda, with an article entitled “One world, one money.”

Very much in line with the 1988 piece, the publication attempts to explain why a much more centralized and controlled system would be beneficial to the global economy, while wholly ignoring the fact that such a centralized global currency would be a massive coup for the international banking cartel, and the Rothschild banking empire’s financial bottom line.

Additionally, it must be noted that the creation of a global currency would give an inordinate amount of geopolitical capital to unelected international bankers, and subsequently take power away from the citizens of each nation and their respective governmental representatives.

Does anyone really want international bankers to have such a vast amount of political power on top of the massive financial influence and sway they already hold in the halls of power?People want more say in their own lives, not having policy dictated to them by international banksters and bureaucrats.

Control over a nation’s money supply is, for all intents and purposes, the lifeblood of a state’s sovereignty – without this independence, the state only exists in name but is subservient to supranational powers whose interests lie outside of domestic and national political/economic concerns.

“GIVE ME CONTROL OF A NATION’S MONEY SUPPLY, AND I CARE NOT WHO MAKES ITS LAWS,” said Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.

Although the Rothschild family now generally keep a very low public profile, they still have significant business operations across a wide spectrum of sectors. While you may not find any one particular Rothschild on the Forbes’ most rich list, the family is estimated to control $1 trillion dollars in assets across the globe, thus having a strong voice across the geopolitical spectrum that many perceive as a hidden hand manipulating events silently from behind a veil of secrecy and silence.

Are you starting to get the picture?

http://www.anonews.co/rothschild-world-cuurency/

This cites a retro/throwback article from 1988 where the economist magazine called for a one world currency by 2018.

Still it is interesting to note that centralization has been a globalist objective for a very long time & how bankers have sought a monopoly over the money supply and currency of nation's for decades if not centuries.

So where are you getting the Rothchild-Phoenix connection from? I remember reading about The Economist thing, and I remember the mention the Phoenix but that was as far as I know just some sort of fictional piece/prediction and there was never a Rothchild connection so I want to see the evidence of Rothchild being involved in this so called 2018 global currency.
672  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Sybil-resistant poll about about the hardfork, segwit2x etc on: July 12, 2017, 03:25:50 PM
I'm not saying that they will be fake accounts with fake ids, just saying that with this kind of poll, it doesn't count the stake of the voter neither the invested money (like POW).

The all idea of Bitcoin is based on the fact that this kind of polls are meaningless as the democracy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority


POW is useless if people aren't accepting your work as valid, which is why miners and other state-sponsored actors want to get rid of people running nodes by increasing the blocksize to stupid levels (2MB is only the beginning, look at Bitmain roadmap, they want higher than 8MB by august 2018)

You could spend millions on huge trucks and other mining equipment and go dig a massive hole in the middle of the desert, that is a lot of Proof of work, but that means shit nothing if the people aren't validating it as valuable.

Miners = janitors.
673  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: JarzikCoin code aka segwit2xcoin already collapsing on: July 12, 2017, 12:36:18 PM
https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

FFS.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic.

Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released.

NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE.

The difference is, bitcoin is not just any other software, it's an unique software that can't afford rushing a hardfork in a couple of months, which is what Core would never do because they know the consequences. How much in denial can you be about the fact that Garzik is an idiot and so is everyone involved in the segwit2x mess? Time to to get real.
674  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Sybil-resistant poll about about the hardfork, segwit2x etc on: July 11, 2017, 06:34:02 PM
https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/

To sum it up on the main points:

-Majority wants segwit

-Majority would support BIP148

-Majority doesn't want a hardfork

-Majority thinks that in the case of a hardfork, it should be prepared with at least 1 year of preparation

-Majority thinks miners should NOT have final word in protocol changes for Bitcoin

-Majority thinks Bitcoin should not be governed at all. Users have the final word on protocol changes.

PS: Forkers in denial and Roger sockpuppets will think this is a scam because it's hosted on Luke's website.
675  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. on: July 11, 2017, 06:14:47 PM
In a couple of years we will have lightning network....
* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  Undecided

Here is what people want based on actual data from a sibyl resistant poll using Coinbase KYC


https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/

Looks like people reject segwit2x, people want segwit, people think a hardfork should have at least 1 year of preparation minimum etc.

People in denial and Roger sockpuppets will claim the data is fake because it's hosted on Luke's website to not face the facts.
676  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin as a Computer on: July 11, 2017, 04:56:50 PM
Money is not a computer, this is why Ethereum will never work as money. Sure you could call the network some sort of super computer, but I dont see how that is an appropriate description, the only thing being calculated are the hashes, but Ethereum aims at being a "global computer" and that may be its downfall. Turing complete global computer... the opposite of sound money. It will never be a store of value or a currency or anything similar.
677  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. on: July 11, 2017, 04:09:00 PM
In a couple of years we will have lightning network....
* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  Undecided

How do you know what the vast majority of bitcoin users want? Speak for yourself.

What the majority of bitcoiners sure don't want is piece of shit software rushed in a couple of months to hardfork bitcoin into two coins collapsing the price, that is what they don't want.

People that have a lot of money invested in bitcoin and therefore got the most skin in the game, do NOT want this stupid hardfork nonsense.

I couldn't care less about segwit, LN or anything else, bitcoin must not fork into two bitcoins, and big holders will not allow this.

Nobody holding big amounts wants a centralized network with big blocks. Bitcoin as store of value > Bitcoin as Paypal 2.0. In order for Bitcoin to stay a store of value, it must have a decentralized network, not a network run by a couple corporations.

No amount of fake spam and FUD will fork Bitcoin, the sooner you understand this reality the better.
678  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. on: July 11, 2017, 02:58:45 PM
What growth? Look at the mempool, most of the time it's far from full. Transactions are cheap. It's only when the mempool gets spammed out of nowhere that people cry about bitcoin. Ver and co spam the network to get the big block narrative going and confuse noobs into thinking increase the blocksize is a must now or else we'll die. Bollocks.

Still not a bad thing to go the 2 MB blocks even if currently 1 MB would be sufficient.

In a couple of years it will not be and then we have double the headroom.

In a couple of years we will have lightning network, and if we REALLY need 2MB, we will do it without less risk AND with a lot of other cool things that could be implemented with a hardfork. You are supposed to get maximum consensus in a hardfork and you are supposed to get as much interesting stuff as possible to avoid needing further hardforks.

Hardforking in a matter of a couple of months with software that is clearly not up to bitcoin standards is suicidal and not logical by any means.
679  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Software Engineer Buys 20,000 BTC in 2010, Quits Job to Travel Around Globe on: July 11, 2017, 02:27:29 PM
The recent meteoric rise of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has led to the appearance of some unlikely millionaires.  A recent interview by Forbes magazine shows just how powerful Bitcoin has been over the course of the past decade for those who invested early.

The interviewee, a former software engineer in Silicon Valley, asked to remain nameless. However, he did explain that he started purchasing Bitcoin in 2010 after doing some research. He decided that the purchase should be sizable enough to provide some real upside, should Bitcoin ever increase in value, and so he bought $3,000 worth, or, at the time, 20,000.

When the Bitcoin price really started to jump, he made his first sale of 1,000 Bitcoin, netting him $2.6 mln. Since then, he’s quit his day job and now travels the world, flying first class and staying only in five-star resorts.

After explaining his multiple sell-offs, and the $25 mln in profits he’s realized thus far, he explained that he sees Bitcoin values at $150,000 in the long term. “I really do think it will get there,” he says confidently, "But a lot of governments and companies will have to be on board, first. No amount of speculation in the world will push it that high.”

We all dream with being that guy, but being at the right moment at the right time it's just too difficult. All we can do is work with what we have, and just knowing what bitcoin is in 2017 puts you ahead of 99% of the population. Owning some BTC already puts you ahead of pretty much everyone else outside this forum.

Just keep on stacking BTC and in the long term history will be on our side and we will be rich.
680  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Afraid of August One? on: July 10, 2017, 06:28:17 PM
If they screw up you have Ethereum becoming number 1. I am expecting everything will go fine. There is a lot of market speculation surround 1 Aug. But if the result is positive we just go up again towards a higher market cap in 2018.

Ethereum will never become number one, even if Bitcoin hardforks and it crashes, Ethereum has to hardfork again into the PoS, so it has big problems ahead. Nobody will go to Ethereum as a safe haven from Bitcoin. Not even Litecoin is safe, I mean Litecoin is more centralized than Bitcoin.

There are no second chances, Bitcoin has to NOT hardfork or the entire cryptothing fails. No other chance at a crypto store of value, only one opportunity and it's called Bitcoin, so it CAN'T and will NOT hardfork.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 ... 159 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!