I haven't read so much from what satoshi said back in the day but from the little amount I've read, he never came across as a attention craving shady old man like this dude seems to be.
Not to imply I'm fully on board with the story yet but... In 2011, it was a pretty widely held fear that Bitcoin could be declared illegal in most/all jurisdictions, and you wouldn't want to be out in the open as the creator. In late 2015, that fear seems to have mostly abated. satoshi is some lone genius (albeit little-crazy eccentric (i mean he must have been)) versus he is NSA derp? I'd say crazy bullish. I think the bullish part of the story is that the million+ Satoshi BTC stash is locked in a Trust until 2020. If this turns out to be true, (and I'm leaning toward yes) That means there is no risk of satoshi coin dump for the next 4 years at least, which is something that we couldn't say before. the coins maybe hitting the market at 2020 would be a bearish outlook imo. a very bearish outlook. i personally hoped that those coins got burned in the first place and may never seen selling cause the keys got destroyed. So you were previously bullish on some blind hope that such a man destroyed/lost his keys? The market hates uncertainty. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe people are speculating that the "Tulip Trust" is sitting tight until 2020.
|
|
|
|
Today, more breaking news that the MSM has no forking clue what is going on with the bitcoin market... Here's Tom with the weather. |
|
|
|
why no one told me $gbtc closed at 520$  That's an amazing price difference between gbtc and regular and real btc, and so far, I have not seen nor read any meaningful explanation regarding why such considerable price difference exists between gbtc and regular and real btc except that people (investors) are so BTC volatility adverse (shy) that they invest in some investment vehicle related to the stock market, gbtc, that they "know" - rather than one that they feel that they do not know, BTC. h however, ironically, the ongoing considerable price difference between gbtc and btc seems to create an additional uncertainty regarding the continued price "stability" of gbtc, which to anyone knowledgeable about BTC would rather own real btc rather than the paper imitation shit of gbtc... in spite of apparent arbitrage opportunities. Possibly because it's highly illiquid? And the only way John Q. Public can buy bitcoin "exposure" while logged in to his Schwab account? The arbitrage opportunities are shit, due to the lock-in of shares in the BIT. Thanks for that further information, which helps my thinking and speculation somewhat. Accordingly, it's all fine and dandy and easy to get into buying GBTC (buy high) at $520, but you probably have to jump through considerable hoops to get out. I have seen some of those institutional-type investments that pre-require that the investors have to wait a year before they can get out, which is bullshit when we know that we can easily and quickly buy and sell bitcoins directly with few restrictions. So, in essence, when investors ("institutional") are currently buying GBTC for $520 (31% inflated prices) and the direct BTC price is $395, that signifies that the long term (1 year into the future) outlook for BTC by those long term investors is at least $540, which is 4% higher than $520. in other words, a fairly bullish present/future value indicator. Just to clarify, shares in the BIT, Bitcoin Investment Trust, not GBTC, have a lock in period. Say you trade 500 BTC for a commensurate amount of shares in the trust... you have to wait a year to be able to take a cash payment to divest, or to convert those BIT shares to GBTC to sell them on the pink sheets exchange. |
|
|
|
That's the whole point of "academically neutral" FUD spreading.... obscurity... and still surprising to see, from time to time that some posters give the dufuss some credit.... hahahahaha paid shill or not, there can be a bit of humor in seeing some of the stupid-ass theories he comes up with in his attempts to describe a world that doesn't really exist.
"The irony of your gracefully fluid position is lost on most observers, but not all." |
|
|
|
why no one told me $gbtc closed at 520$ That's an amazing price difference between gbtc and regular and real btc, and so far, I have not seen nor read any meaningful explanation regarding why such considerable price difference exists between gbtc and regular and real btc except that people (investors) are so BTC volatility adverse (shy) that they invest in some investment vehicle related to the stock market, gbtc, that they "know" - rather than one that they feel that they do not know, BTC. h however, ironically, the ongoing considerable price difference between gbtc and btc seems to create an additional uncertainty regarding the continued price "stability" of gbtc, which to anyone knowledgeable about BTC would rather own real btc rather than the paper imitation shit of gbtc... in spite of apparent arbitrage opportunities. Possibly because it's highly illiquid? And the only way John Q. Public can buy bitcoin "exposure" while logged in to his Schwab account? The arbitrage opportunities are shit, due to the lock-in of shares in the BIT. |
|
|
|
To be sure, Blockstreamers only now are coming to realize that an increase of the effective block size limit to 4 MB will have the unexpected and unwelcome consequence of increasing the effective block size limit to 4 MB. Jesus christ at least get your FUD right. Fully validating nodes will effectively be moved to 4MB max... something you guys have been fighting and #rekking for many months now. The irony of your gracefully fluid position is lost on most observers, but not all. So Luke has already proposed to keep the 1 MB limit for the total block size, including the segregated part. Provide quotes or GTFO. [–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert 6 points 2 hours ago
Hmm, problem here is that CPU usage is not the primary bottleneck for block sizes: bandwidth is. And unfortunately, SW doesn't help in the bandwidth area at all. So while I do think we should take this opportunity to get the block size changes softforked in instead of hardforked (buying us a bit more time before a hardfork is required?), it does still need to be gradual and not just 4x at once.
My suggestion is to go based on either BIP 103 or John Sacco's double-the-limit-every-subsidy-halving idea. Admittedly, he didn't literally say keep 1MB effective max, but if you get 4x from SegWit, you would actually have to soft fork lower on the max block size to keep luke happy. At least that's my reading. But they should not worry, since the space savings will only occur if the clients start issuing transactions in the new SW format. Which will not happen right away, if SW is deployed by soft fork. And even after the clients have upgraded, the use of SW will be optional. Will there be incentives for the clients to use it?
No, regular transactions get a 75% bump in space. Could you explain the math behind the 75% "bump" you state here? |
|
|
|
Are you going to spam this on every thread?
Re-posted in the everything bullish thread, the wall observer, and an individual thread for topic specific discussion. I'm done re-posting. Discuss your views on the topic if you would like. Peter Schiff: "I don't see bitcoins as an alternative to gold," he said. "If anything, [the creators of bitcoin are] modern-day alchemists, but you can't make gold digitally. It's no better than a fiat currency." http://www.cnbc.com/2013/11/12/peter-schiff-calls-bitcoin-bubble-tulip-mania-20.html |
|
|
|
|
Are you going to spam this on every thread?
|
|
|
|
he's talking about raising the total data rate (seg. witness + tx data) gradually, not the max_block_size limit ...
Sigh, you're right, he's afraid about even getting these "free" gains already... I knew that didn't sound like luke.  An hour later he gave us a kernel of moral wisdom on slavery. To Christians: why is slavery not permitted today? by some_random_guy_5345 in DebateReligion
[–]luke-jr 1 point an hour ago
Slavery is an imperfection. We can and should strive to get rid of imperfections. However, since slavery is not inherently immoral itself, when it is practised, it must be done morally and slaves treated as people, hence the need for guidelines. |
|
|
|
not sure if you read some of my previous posts up page ... there is way more than a plan in place already
imho that seg-witness stuff looks like a viable solution for the foreseeable future (4-6yrs) plus some other benefits to boot, better than a risky can kick, it is a low risk restructuring that buys time and makes lite clients a real thing again (not just security theatre like SPV bitcoinJ)
tl;dr short-term scaling is solved ... we can worry about the long term when it arrives because we will know better what it looks like then (particularly the fees market with less reward transition conundrum)
tl;do read I'll let luke-jr supply a little cold water for your 4-6 year solution euphoria: [–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert 6 points 2 hours ago
Hmm, problem here is that CPU usage is not the primary bottleneck for block sizes: bandwidth is. And unfortunately, SW doesn't help in the bandwidth area at all. So while I do think we should take this opportunity to get the block size changes softforked in instead of hardforked (buying us a bit more time before a hardfork is required?), it does still need to be gradual and not just 4x at once.
My suggestion is to go based on either BIP 103 or John Sacco's double-the-limit-every-subsidy-halving idea. euphoria huh? Luke-Jr is always conservative on bandwidth because lives in rural Florida on an apparently sub-par connection. If we scale TX rate 4x without a hard-fork then current bandwidth is already capable of handling that ... not sure where your cold water thinking is here, a damp squib? The key is without risky hard-fork for now ... in the meantime technology hardware, software and network data knowledge all improve while transition to fees driven PoW security gets closer (halving to 6.25btc reward) ... and lite nodes now have a viable future instead of client-server (risky offchain). It's all very encouraging, an alternative consensual path for foreseeble future to bludgeoning through an unpopular blocksize hardfork with exponential scaling into an unknowable outcome. The world might look very different in 2 years, let alone 5 or 20. I thought the quote was appropriate because even luke-"dialup"-jr is for conservative max increases (sooner than 2019 or 2021), and he understands the actual gains provided by SegWitness better than me and most. |
|
|
|
The miner panel at Scaling HK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ErmmDQRFs&t=18m12sWorth a watch for any bitcoin investor. My impression was that they all want bigger blocks, but feel that BIP101 is too aggressive. They don't hate the idea of being given more power in the form of BIP100, but added complexity and the possibility of a 20% miner blocking increases are negatives. |
|
|
|
maybe we will see dinosaurs, or sheep, mutton dressed up as lamb ... who knows what in the run to six hundy?
well ....if there is a plan of a plan that comes out of the Hong Kong btc scaling dev conference....well we will go over 400 usd btc quick imho.. http://www.coindesk.com/chinas-miners-heat-up-blocksize-debate-at-scaling-bitcoin-hong-kong/if nothing comes of it ...even something as lame as the above a plan for a plan....some kinda process hell it will probably drop back to mid 200's again I mean the rest of KNOW we don't know wtf is going on with crypto and btc......we have 'guideline' that we think is gonna happen but if the core devs can't figure it out among themselves either well ..'shudder' just scared myself  just saying..they can lie to me/ make stuff up/ I don't care ...I don't code.....just make it frigging 'plausible' that there is a plan for a plan us bitcoin types are used to little info and much hope ...so hell even that much would work ...to calm the 'kiddies" not sure if you read some of my previous posts up page ... there is way more than a plan in place already imho that seg-witness stuff looks like a viable solution for the foreseeable future (4-6yrs) plus some other benefits to boot, better than a risky can kick, it is a low risk restructuring that buys time and makes lite clients a real thing again (not just security theatre like SPV bitcoinJ) tl;dr short-term scaling is solved ... we can worry about the long term when it arrives because we will know better what it looks like then (particularly the fees market with less reward transition conundrum) tl;do read I'll let luke-jr supply a little cold water for your 4-6 year solution euphoria: [–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert 6 points 2 hours ago
Hmm, problem here is that CPU usage is not the primary bottleneck for block sizes: bandwidth is. And unfortunately, SW doesn't help in the bandwidth area at all. So while I do think we should take this opportunity to get the block size changes softforked in instead of hardforked (buying us a bit more time before a hardfork is required?), it does still need to be gradual and not just 4x at once.
My suggestion is to go based on either BIP 103 or John Sacco's double-the-limit-every-subsidy-halving idea. |
|
|
|
|
Nice thread. Thanks to Wex and RyN for helping people visualize what's going on there.
|
|
|
|
wow people have finally figured out it's retarded and completely against self interest to loan your coins out to people who want to dump down the price ? hot damn !
If you are confident that bitcoin has positive demand pressure in the long term, it is absolutely not against your interest to loan them the coins to push you higher when they close. Unfortunately you have to park them with someone else, which could very easily negate the interest income. We have too few shorts right now, not too many. |
|
|
|
Well, seeing as you lot have turned it into the Lambie Observer Thread again. Izabella Kaminska has a classic case of acute sociopathic personality disorder. She fits the symptoms as well as one can. The sociopath fears exposure above most things. I don't know what methods The Doxing used to unmask her and they likely weren't legal in many jurisdictions, but it has already been done. It is understandable that The Doxing left no concrete proof to avoid incriminating himself. I for one would not want to see him arrested for making the world a better place. It is very obvious she is indeed Lambie, and she has admitted it on multiple occasions, so further proof is not necessary. If she is low on funds from shorting bitcoin in hopes of blogging hit pieces and trolling the market so much she turned a profit, then I believe she would make a great candidate for a high level psychiatric study that might warrant a stipend. I believe in her delusions of grandeur she believed that one blogger could affect a world wide market. One can't help but notice the irony that Izabella tweets about her financial hardships, yet spends her days and nights fighting to defend the corrupt system that make her barely able to afford the high cost of living in London, rather than finding a mate and giving birth to and raising more Izabellambies. Perhaps that is for the best, who knows. It is nice to know who is doing all the ridiculous trolling, so The Doxing, if your reading, this ones for you buddy. https://twitter.com/izakaminska/This is an obvious attempt to provoke people to harass an innocent financial blogger in an attempt to generate bad press for bitcoin. I tend to agree with this. This, " interested in all things energy, central banky, market structurey and science fictiony.", is just so horrible... a pseudo-intellecutual-valley-girl-speak that doesn't jive with what we know. Real lambie's ego is far too huge and confident to willingly smear their own public image so badly. |
|
|
|
|
It's an idea for a startup competition, hope no one is betting the farm on that piece of news.
|
|
|
|
This is the kind of insane pump we should be selling. Innit?
Short term trader in me says yes. Degenerate moon kid in me says "Are you crazy?" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
