I am having trouble concluding that a mere bouncing around $37k is largely not holding $37k, even if technically there is above and below BTC price movement in that area.

Yesterday we did get into the mid $38ks and then we corrected down to $35.8k, and still we are back to $37k-ish.. so maybe we are in this area of $37kish for a while before breaking UP or DOWN, and I am not going to claim to know which way the break might go.. but I would think that it is not easy to whip up some excitement, even if BTC prices bounce between $31k and $43k - because we were just at $31k around 3 days ago, and even $43k would not be that far removed from being able to drop back down and test $30k support again..

So, maybe I am not going to get CITTTTEEEEEE, unless there is movement out of the $31k to $43k range.. and which way for a possible break out is more likely? 

Anyone? Anyone?

Didn't someone say $50k by a certain day.. Monday or Tuesday?  Could be... Could be.  $50k does not seem out of reach, either.. even to have a quickly 6 hour to 12 hour candle in that direction would not be outside of  reasonableness, even if that would be $13k in a fairly short period of time.. and I would not be dropping from shock from such a reverse Bart - even if some folks might consider that kind of short term pumpening of about 35% UPpity in a short time to be outrageous... .. but whatever, not really expecting such a thing to happen, even if it could happen.

I like your idea about a potentiality that El Salvador could get its loan from another source (besides the IMF), and for example the bitcoin community.  Surely I believe that it would be important that if such loan were provided by the bitcoin community rather than the IMF, then there would be some kind of loan management service in place in order to assure that the lender(s) get paid back.

However, you are also asserting that you believe that El Salvador's adoption of bitcoin is going to just put it out of business and therefore, it would not be a good loan risk whether we are talking about the IMF loaning the money to them or the bitcoin community.

You could be correct regarding some aspects of Government being less relevant, but you seem to be presuming a whole hell of a lot to suggest that in the short term El Salvador is going to transition into a society that is unable to collect taxes because of the individualizing power of bitcoin.

So, let's assume that IMF has assumed that El Salvador is not a good risk in terms of paying back any loan (for example $1 billion).  I still personally believe that they would be sufficiently good for it, and if such money were to be loaned through some kind of arrangement of the bitcoin community, terms could be reached to give assurances that El Salvador would be good for the loan.. .. surely a bit speculative on my behalf too, but I do believe that you, Elwar, are presuming quite a bit, too.

Might work?  Rome was not built in a day, and little by little peeps can port their lil selfies over to the better version of bitcoin.. I am not a fan of using bitcoin in the name.... but I suppose if such everything the same and  merely BIGGER blocks catches on and takes over, then probably it would be better to have bitcoin in the name at that point, perhaps?


Well of course there are a lot of factors that any country has to consider regarding various regulatory posturing that they might take towards bitcoin, and surely there are a lot of smart people in China who had been studying bitcoin way longer than Michael Saylor and Nayib Bukele, but for some reason, some of these quicker study folks are coming to better conclusions regarding why bitcoin might happen to matter. 

Even though it seems that China officials may well be fighting this tide too much and stifling innovation and industry in their country, they are better in a position to know what they want to do and how to approach the matter, and not even saying that any of their seemingly strong stances in regards to trying to control bitcoin industries in their country is going to work out well for them.  Could be a pretty BIG ass waste of their resources and energies if they believe that they can create some coins or embrace some "crypto" - non-bitcoin projects that they believe are going to sufficiently compete with bitcoin or allow them to keep bitcoin "in check" in their borders.  I am sure that there are plenty of smart people in China advising more friendly bitcoin related strategies, so who knows, exactly, what is real and what is NOT real or if some place like China will be ready willing and able to reverse themselves if they figure out that they are going down the wrong path in relation to their current posturing towards bitcoin.  Maybe they will end up being the smartest guys in the room - instead of seeming to disincentivizing (and stifling) bitcoin developments within their borders?

Oh?  So now the bigblocker tards want segwit?  Maybe they want taproot, too, no?

Anyhow, they could forkening bitcoin now with segwit and increase the blocksize, no?  or they could get a taproot version, right? and then forkening bitcoin with segwit, taproot and any other bug fixes that had been made along the way.. and then just add their dumbass bigger blocks to that, right?

To me, it just seems better to stick with actual bitcoin, and then if there were to be some kind of concern that something might be broken, to make a proposal for some reasonable and prudent changes.  Sure, some BIG blocker know-it-alls might imagine that their concerns are NOT being taken seriously, so they may need to work on both their presentation skills and make sure that they have both facts and logic to support what they are proposing and get some others (besides just their lil selfies) to consider supporting such proposals. 

I doubt that anyone, including yours truly, would be against BIG blocks (or BIGGER blocks for more onchain BIGGEDness) if there were to be some kind of perception that they were actually fixing something that needs to be fixed in bitcoin, and at the same time they would not be breaking more than they would supposedly be fixing.  I doubt that I am personally technical enough to understand with any kind of exactness, so I admit that I do have to rely on some kinds of assessments of a variety of folks.. but I can read English too if there were some reasonable proposal being made in regards to both describing problems that were purportedly being addressed, and surely there are smart folks out there who are able to give more technical assessments to potential BIG blocker proposals..  I doubt it is just a technical question.. but instead as I mentioned some needs to present facts and logic and perhaps some of these currently seeming dumbass proposals could end up gaining some traction to convince technical and non-technical folks that there is some kind of problem in bitcoin that could be fixed by some kind of reasonable BIG blocker proposal.. perhaps? perhaps?


Makes hardly any sense to talk about blocksize limitation increases in a vacuum, so I have no clue if I brought up segwit first or if you were talking about various ways that big blocker concerns were purportedly NOT being taken seriously, so whether I presented context first or you presented context first, it seems that if we are talking about these various ideas about historical proposals that had been made in regard to blocksize limit increases, segwit is surely a part of that discussion and a considered partial solution that ended up coming onto the scene (like I said) in late 2015 - seemingly in connection with some BIG blocker then concerns, and it ended up getting included into bitcoin, which likely satisfied quite a few folks in connection to some of the BIG blocker concerns that you had raised.. sure, it likely did not satisfy everyone, including ur lil selfie, but it could be possible that it took some of the wind out of the sail of some folks who might have otherwise wanted to ally with you, if you had actually made a BIP and tried to get support, so your base may have ended up shrinking down from 10 whiners to ONLY one whiner (ur lil selfie), or maybe we can give you some benefit of the doubt in terms of your whining about BIG blocks base.  Maybe you had 1,000 whiners in the BIG blocker camp, and then after segwit, you only could get 20 whiners thereafter?  Of course, I am pulling these numbers out of my ass to some degree just to make the point that segwit might have reduced the number of BIGblocker whiners.  Perhaps?

Oh shit, LFC.. Did you say that China bans bitcoin?  OMG what we gonna do?  This has never happened before.




By the way, I will acknowledge that China appears to be ramping up their level of severity in the actual "China bans bitcoin" (for reals this time) arena.  Yet, it does not hurt to reiterate how it seems that their "china bans bitcoin" in late 2016 really fucked over quite a few of their peeps because as a result of the "china bans bitcoin" that time, they likely had quite a few regular folks (rather than the elites) who had quite a few of their funds (anything then on China exchanges) frozen up for something like a year - and seems like it was more than a year.. and guess what happened in 2017 during that time that some china regular peeps had their funds locked up on exchanges?  sure some of them were able to still make sure that they had bitcoin exposure by going through local bitcoins and perhaps some other means, but it did seem that their late 2016  "china bans bitcoin" was problematic and impactful.. but not really problematic and impactful on bitcoin overall, but instead problematic and impactful on certain parts of their citizens.

Sure there might be some supposedly short term mining drama, but seems like a BIG SO FUCKING WHAT.

3/4 of this difficulty period had already run, and the hash rate and block times had mostly been flat throughout, and then in the past couple of days, it looks like there might possibly be around a minus 4% difficulty adjustment that will take place on Sunday.  Does not seem to be much of a change, and surely even within difficulty periods we see increases and decreases in hashrate, but the difficulty adjustments seem to work like a charm as well in terms of there potentially being costs to any kinds of attempts at longer term mining manipulations or chicanery...   

Showing current happenings and projections:
https://diff.cryptothis.com/

these difficulty adjustments are absolutely amazing, and pretty much takes the wind of the sails of so many ill founded accusations regarding hypothetical perilous effects of bitcoin mining blah blah blah.

Showing historical ups and downs in the difficulty adjustments and the associated hashrates

https://btc.com/stats/diff?_ga=2.166892222.1079250679.1586286038-48233127.1586286038


Exactamente!!!!!

They did win.... but it is called bcash, and they got two versions of that (so we could say bcashes or bcash x2 or bcash².. but whatever, they are be dee winners to be able to carry out their visions of the future of sound money and "on chain" super highway transactions and whatever else they believe to be going to attract the masses to their better mouse trap(s) soon.^tm

There do not seem to be any special taxes in El Salvador that comes from the passage of that law, at least so far.  Of course, while implementing there likely are going to need to be monitoring of revenues and business and even to see if the El Salvador economy might be benefiting or being burdened by their decision to go in the bitcoin as legal tender direction.  Of course, any infrastructure changes cost money, so whether the government has to pay or if there are private companies paying or maybe some combination of shared funding would surely be implementation concerns for any seemingly BIG change like this.  You might need to research into this matter if you believe that extra tax burdens on citizens would be an issue.. because my off the cuff understanding is that there are no extra taxes and probably normie folks would be advantaged by some of the clarity that has been provided with the bill, but surely some businesses are going to have some burdens in learning how to accept bitcoin payments, so there may well be some learning involved (including making sure that they have some kind of way to accept payment - some technology involved, probably).



Seems like their decision to pass such a bill and the governments stated commitment to invest in some infrastructure in the direction of facilitating bitcoin usage has a lot of potential to help citizens overall, especially in the remittance department, and likely in other transactional and/or providing abilities to save areas as well.


Apparently they already had bitcoin beach going on for a couple of years, so I am not sure why they need to conduct some kind of education campaign prior to implementing the law.  In other words, why cannot they implement the law and educate citizens at the same time?  Sure, some people take longer than others to learn, but bitcoin has been around for 12 years and it's an evolving space anyhow, so seems to be no reason NOT to go down the "why not both?"  approach to the matter, no?

I decided to respond to this especially since you had decided to chide another member - see below for using your post as a springboard to say whatever that poster had wanted without addressing the concerns that you brought up in your post (see below).

Surely, I do not know too many of the on the ground facts either, but any of us should be able to speculate about such facts in such a way that does not end up arriving at a dire conclusion, unless all that you are wanting to achieve is the arrival at a dire conclusion by reading negativities into what seems to be a decently powerful, empowering and positive news.

My understanding is that there are around $7 million people in El Salvador, and let's assert that the place is so god damned poor that ONLY about 1/10 of its population has cell phones, and perhaps similar numbers for various kinds of internet access or wifi.

I would think that this is going to mean that the government is going to have to start to invest in the development of that kind of technology and create incentives for the building of the infrastructure and getting some kinds of electronic device into the hands of more people, including any businesses that might be selling goods and services.  If the situation is very dire in terms of lack of availability of such devices, then I would consider that the government is going to have to work its ass off in terms of trying to make this successful beyond merely 1/10 of the economy.  

I doubt that the on the ground situation is as dire as you seem to be presumptively making it out to be, Obito, even if it might take some work and perhaps many years to spread even the technological abilities, my understanding is that there has been a kind of bitcoin beach already present in El Salvador and certain levels of expansion of adoption of the Strike app... so the El Salvador President (Nayib Bukele) has already seen some "on-the-ground" possibilities based on already existing facts and technological possibilities.  I would think that Bukele has some ideas about the kind of technological expansion possibilities or would have made the bill a wee bit more whimpy in terms of saying that businesses need to accept bitcoin unless they technologically are not able to.. which is already pretty strong language to be suggesting in such bill if the situation on the ground in El Salvador were to be as barbarically lacking as you seem to be presuming in terms of your doom and gloom ideas about failure or costs of going forward with bitcoin as legal tender greater than benefits, blah blah blah.



If we are in a public thread members can quote others for whatever reason that they like, or no reason at all... so sure it would be nice if members were responsive to the posts that they quote, but members are all over the place - especially newbies.. not trying to give any excuse to the newbie, but members are all over the place and sometimes do not have any clue about how to answer a speculative question, such as the one you presented, Obito.. in which you seem to be presuming facts and then wanting some other member to provide facts for your hypothetical.. and perhaps agree with your presumptive conclusion that this whole El Salvador bitcoin initiative is seemingly doomed to failure "cause da peeps there be too much poor ones.".. and maybe you are correct in the end, but seems like you are doing a lot of presuming and assuming too in your arrival at such a conclusion in such an early stage that we are ONLY one week into the announcement and only a few days into the bill passing (admittedly things seem to be moving pretty quickly there, but they also have 90 days from the publication of the bill - which presumably happened a few days ago - let's say June 8 - before the law goes into effect - let's say second week of September for the law to go into effect).

I feel so bad for all the troubles that you are having with the king daddy, nutildah - especially since you are seeming to be splurging with your payment amounts, too.  

I wonder if your wallet is not very good at fee recommendations, or maybe you are using a fee recommendation service that is not very good at predicting what reasonable fees should be?  Have you used such fee recommendation services in the past?

Can we really blame either king daddy, or lil ole me for your transaction NOT going through as quickly as you would have preferred?

From your response, I take it that you do not want to switch to some other kind of coin?  

Have you concluded that you are using king daddy for the right kinds of transactions or the goals that you are trying to achieve? Or are you thinking that you have gone above and beyond with your extra 3 sats per byte in order to get prompt receipt of your funds into the receiving address?

I am thinking that hopefully, you can just make one last transaction and just get all your coins out of this nightmare in order that you don't have to deal with this stressful situation no more.  What do you think?  

What other options are there? Does the wallet that you are using /or the fee recommendation service have a customer service?  I am pretty sure that bitcoin does not have one, and I don't really feel qualified in that direction, but maybe I can talk with you and make you feel better about your decision to invest into bitcoin for other reasons..? or I could help you create a spreadsheet?  Maybe?

Like you suggested, this store of value concept just might not fly for some people because what good is going to come from something like having all your bitcoin value sitting there and storing such value in bitcoin, but then when it comes time to send such stored value bitcoin somewhere or to cash out in order to realize such stored value, the sending or cashening outening does not workening.  That would really suck, especially if were to need it quickly.. like in less than 5 hours.  amiNOTrite?

Maybe bitcoin is just broken.. completely broken, and it probably sucks for me too, since I have quite a bit of value in dee king daddy, relatively speaking?  

I am not sure whether I should panic at this moment, or maybe just sleep on it?  

The vast majority of the time when I have done my various transactions they have gone through without any meaningful issues.. sure sometimes they take longer than expected.. but hey.. maybe this time is different?  Perhaps?  Maybe transactions are not going to go through no more, even with a 3 sats per byte extra (like a tip)?

I am starting to run out of ideas, besides just crying.  Maybe someone else has some suggestions?


Should we just ignore the BIG blocker blokes?

I was just responding to what you said, and I already responded to that (of course in this above post).

Here's what you had said..




I was NOT trying to get caught up in a shitcoin discussion, I was mostly just attempting to respond to various points of your earlier post, and of course, the El Salvador law passage ONLY deals with bitcoin, but of course, shit coin pumpers are going to end up coming.  Surely, you have likely noticed that I am not very much into either talking about shitcoins or getting involved in them, but I have trouble anticipating a variety of scenarios that any government, such as El Salvador, might attempt to deal with some of the potential problems of the various shitcoins, and surely the shitcoin issue also goes much beyond the borders of El Salvador even if El Salvador is attempting to invite bitcoin in without dealing with the shitcoin matter, at least not in that legislation that has so far passed.



For sure we are going to have some interesting times with perhaps some jurisdictions, such as El Salvador becoming quite friendly and even inspiring copy cat jurisdictions, and we could also have some jurisdictions become hostile to bitcoin, so it will be interesting to see how some of those opposite approaches might play out, assuming that some opposing approaches continue to attempt implementation - even if in the longer run, there might develop some common standards - and surely the pro-bitcoin folks are going to want to have models like El Salvador, but even El Salvador is not in a vacuum, so they might have to both revisit their law or figure out some of the implementation challenges along the way, including figuring out how much support that they might have to provide for some businesses that are not currently technologically enabled to take bitcoin but might be able to get up and running with some assistance training and maybe even figuring out ways to afford devices that can process bitcoin/lightning payments.

I am not moving the goalposts.  Segwit passed and became a part of bitcoin in August 2017.  You are the one who seems to be suggesting that something might need to be done about that or that you are complaining about something that the blocks are not big enough that relate to issues from 2017.. .. so my who fucking cares should suggest to you that you have some kind of burden to show facts and logic for it to be relevant.  

Of course, I am not the only person here, so I may conclude that you have not provided sufficient facts and logic to be persuasive, but others might come to differing conclusions. But



It seems to me that I brought up a whole lot of good points regarding various burdens that are on you to show that there is some kind of issue or problem with bitcoin that needs to be fixed, which to me it seems that you have not done that, but maybe others are going to be persuaded by what I believe to be your ongoing nonsense.

Regarding my choice to respond, I will consider whether to respond or not, and at this point, I cannot think of anything more to say without being more repetitive than I already have been.  Accordingly, it seems to me that the ball is in your court, rather than in mine.. but whatever... you do you.  #nohomo


Maybe you should switch over to Bcash or Bcash SV.  I heard that their transactions are going through without any problems.  There might be some other shitcoins that you could also use that might meet your various transacting needs within the timeline that you would like and for the fees that you would like to pay.

 Perhaps? perhaps?


In the mean time, number go up?  Wen?

At this point, who fucking cares?   The ideas went through the BIP process in late 2015 and early 2016, code was written, reviewed and tested in early 2016 and middle of 2016, and in about November 2016 the segwit code was included and able to signal.. and had a year to either signal (wasn't it 95%?) or to have to be taken out after November 2017.. Anyhow, various shenanigans and proposals happened in 2017, and by August 2017, the code had achieved 95% signaling and it was locked in and activated in August 2017.  In other words, the code reached the 95% needed consensus.

Since August of 2017, there has been a lot of building on segwit, so if you want it reversed or modified, you have to go through the same or a similar consensus process to get it reversed or modified.  That's not going to happen because it seems to be doing its thing, it is getting built upon, and there is nothing broken about it, as far as I know (or care for that matter).


So what?  It was passed in August 2017 by more than 95% consensus.  It is now part of bitcoin, and people have been building and developing upon it for nearly 4 years.



So the 95% consensus was not real?  the 95% consensus did not happen?  or you are saying that peeps were tricked into agreeing to it, so it was fraudulent consensus?  What is the solution?  nullify segwit?  Does not seem very realistic to me.  Aren't we trying to deal with real scenarios rather than whining about past "could have beens"?



Sure there were a lot of vocal whiners that got increasingly loud starting in about 2017, and even continued quite a while after 2017 - even after they got their own lil forkening..  and sure there are still some straggler whiners, like ur lil selfie, Richy_T.



You are going over it because you are bitter, and you cannot get over it.



I doubt that my memory is perfect, yet who fucking cares what I remember.  If you believe that the history is relevant to getting whatever change that you would like to achieve, then pray tell.  You have the burdens of showing how that might be relevant, and maybe proposing what you would like to do about that now in order that we are going to be able to move forward rather than either whining about the past or whining about how our memories of the past might differ in various ways (that are supposedly relevant to current material issues, perhaps?).



I doubt that you put anything straight.  You just stated some various renditions regarding reasons that you believe that you and your fellow BIG blockers are supposedly victims of injustices.


It only seems to make a difference in the sense that you want to keep talking about it.



That argument seemed to have lost.  Segwit passed, but there was nothing like increasing the blocks that passed... so some of the diptwats decided to fork off into bcash.. which later forked again into bcash sv.. and both of those were opportunities to put your nonsense BIG blocker ideas to work.  From what I understand those to pieces of shit coins are just like bitcoin, except that they have BIG blocks.. What else could you want?



What does that have to do with anything related to bitcoin?  He's some dweeb involved in a shitcoin.. that happens to espouse your ideas of BIG blocks.  I am having some troubles understanding what point(s) if any you are wanting to make except whining about history that is long in the past.  Is there any modern day reason to discuss, including in this here thread?



I would think that part of getting consensus is to convince others to make whatever change that you are proposing.  So if you cannot convince anyone but yourself, then you are not going to get consensus in bitcoin, but you could start your own coin, I suppose.  Starting your own coin worked pretty well for Vitalik, didn't it?


So you are talking about something from 2016?  Not sure about what kicking out Gavin has much to do with anything that we should consider right now at this moment.  Are you trying to suggest that there is some kind of conspiracy to disallow disagreeing voices otherwise they get de-platformed?  Pretty vague accusations, if that is what you are wanting to suggest about something that happened in 2016 in terms of maybe your inability to bring something up now that is surely needed in bitcoin but you are having trouble getting your message out there?



I responded to you.  It's not like I am not cooperating.  I am probably your best friend, here.. because I am acknowledging what you are saying, even though I am largely proclaiming a vast amount of it to be lacking in persuasiveness.. at least so far.. .. but sure, others might differ in their opinions of your presentation of purported relevant information.



You can bring it up every day if you want..   I am not sure how well it will go over.  I am just giving my responses .. last I checked we were in a public thread.. or at least members of the forum can post so long as they do not get their posting privileges removed.


No.  I would prefer not to talk about shitcoins, and I believe that my above response speaks for itself in terms of why I mentioned those bcash shitcoins.


Ok.  No argument from me on that, even though I doubt that the purported "fail" is so "hard" as you are characterizing it to be, if there were any fail at all?...



Maybe bitcoin is not for people who are either getting damaged or they cannot find a use case for bitcoin?



I don't remember either not coping with dissenting voices or spinning off into a hissy fit.  That's news to me.  

I do have opinions on some topics, but not sure where you get that I am feeling threatened, either.

You might need a more specific example?      I probably should just let my various posts speak for themselves rather than going into more seeming irrelevance than you already seem to be leading.


You have some kind of proposal then?  I thought that submitting a BIP would be the right way to go forward with some kinds of proposals.  My way of dealing with a lot of the matters related to bitcoin is to figure out for myself if I am going to buy any or not and how much I am going to buy, so I have not participated in the BIP process because I am already happy with various ways that I use BTC, and it seems to be working pretty good for me so far.. of course, sometimes I do have to learn new things such as how to hold my coins or where to put them.



Again, we're in a public thread, so if you posted in the thread then anyone can respond to whatever you said or did not say or whatever any member wants to say that might be responsive to what you said or not.


I think that my various responses, so far, have been appropriate, adequate and within my discretion regarding what to write or not to write, and was not meant as any attempt to silence you or your bot, even if i believe you said a lot of dumb, whining about the past and irrelevant things, and even though I believe that you have failed and refused to provide evidence or logic why any of us should give any shits about your vague BIGblocker supposedly in good faith ongoing nonsense.  You still have rights to continue to say such ongoingly dumb things, and maybe after a while some of us might start to accuse you of trying to derail or shill the thread with such ongoing nonsense rather than really contributing anything of value... but then hey what are you shilling besides bitcoin naysaying and BIG blocker nonsense?  maybe it will start to make sense at some point, perhaps? perhaps? but I am having my doubts since you kind of seem to be stuck in the past nonsense and get stuck in the weeds of irrelevancies about supposedly being locked out rather than really presenting any current problem that bitcoin has or presenting some meaningful way forward.. or that might have some resonance with anyone besides yourself or maybe even taking that to some other thread .. because we have gone through a lot of that stuff already, and it does not all of a sudden become relevant because time has past but you still do not have facts or logic to show that it is an important topic.. so it seems to me.. at least as of the time of my typing this post.

Seems to me that your ongoing persistence on this topic strives to presume that something is actually broken in bitcoin, and that is not true.

If you want to make a proposal to change something that is already existing, then you have the burden to provide evidence to support your claims as to why such change is needed and preferable over the status quo and also to provide the logic and argument to persuade why a change is needed. 

If you cannot meet your burden of  proof (evidence) and burden of persuasion (logic) then the status quo continues.  Big blockers had the same problem in 2015/2016, and then even after a proposal was passed, coded and then tested, they changed their minds and said that they did not like it, but they did not present another proposal that was able to reach consensus... segwit reached consensus and those various block limit increase proposals did not get accepted then, and it seems even more doubtful that they will get accepted now because bitcoin seems to be working even better than it was working in 2015-2017 as far as I can see... -  unless you can provide evidence and logic to convince me otherwise, and actually who gives any shits what I think submit your BIP and go through the official channels so that your dumbass ideas that lack both evidence and logic can get discussed and agreed to.

In other words, why agree to a change that is not agreed to and you are not even going through the proper channels to try to get such a change considered... in other words, no one gives any fucks about your made up claims and  your whining about history in which you supposedly were not heard because that BIP system was there all along, and there was not evidence and logic to persuade.. and then the nonsense did get implemented on those other bullshit bcash chains, and wonder why no one is using those superior BIG block systems?  Surely not superior nor a better mouse trap because if it were true, after nearly 4 years for one of the bcash pieces of crap and nearly 3 years for the other bcash crap, you would think that those  BIG blocker versions of bitcoin would gain some traction besides just being scams?  Go figure why they have never amounted to shit, except means to deceive, confuse and mislead people (especially newbies) about bitcoin?

Surely NOT a good example when talking about bitcoin development, and consensus kinds of decisions that are reached in bitcoin including open allowances for submitting of BIPs and getting discussion on any proposed changes.  The foot-binding example might well be helpful if you want to exaggerate in order to try to attract emotional attention to matters that should NOT be emotional.


Bullshit.  Many of the BIGblockers gave no shits about the issues, they just wanted to try to make it easier to make changes to bitcoin..

You gotta be fucking naive as fuck Richy_T if you believe that BIGblockers were actually going through their bullshit in good faith.


Oh my... why review it?  My memory still works.


I don't think so.

They got at least a year, and they just got worse and worse and worse.

Remember in late 2015, Peter wuille came up with a compromise (which was segwit), and for about 6 months (while segwit was coded and tested), there was a lot of consensus that it was great, but then with the passage of time, the disingenuine BIG blocker fucktwats just started to make up other shit about various disagreements they had with it.. .


You can make up any shit that you want... but you just sound bitter and resentful and crying over spilt milk..   It's already spilt.



Poor widdle tingilies... Sounds like made-up and exaggerated bullshit to me. 

I am the real deal, dude.

Just like that guy, proud"something something"


Understandable that each of us has to do what we has to do (or what we want to do), and of course, having had invested in bitcoin relatively early whether our average price per BTC is in the double digits, triple digits or even the lower 4 digits, we are going to feel quite a bit of flexibility in terms of doing what we want to do whenever we want to do it, and the BTC price might not matter too much.. especially 1) the lower down that we are on that average price of BTC acquisition ladder or 2) the larger number of BTC that we have and also 3) the higher that we might be above our target richie status levels... Actually we could have any one of the above three or a combination of the three that causes us to NOT give too many shits about if BTC price happens to be in a 40% to 53% correction arena at the time that we sell some of them.. especially if our "walking around" money or petty cash or whatever we like to be calling it might be running low.

Having the bounce from 53% correction ($30k-ish) to only a 43% correction ($37k-ish) can bring some confidence about NOT selling at the absolute bottom of a potentially temporary dip, but surely the other aspect is that we cannot really know whether we are in a temporary dip or if we might happen to be in a longer dip.. so who knows and if there are feelings that some "walking around" monies could come in handy, then let it be so!!!!

By the way, I have been in the process of freeing up some cash in the past couple of months and surely NOT a very comfortable time to be "freeing up cash,"  and I am still not 100% sure regarding how much I will need to "free up" in the end, so I was waiting to report on that matter when my situation gets into a bit less of a "work-in-progress" status.

So far my current status of "freeing up" some monies does not seem to be as impactful to my overall BTC portfolio as was my November 2018 freeing up some monies, which actually so many construction bills came due right around the same time ... and sure not at the best of times, but still managed through it. with really only screwing up a couple of percentage (2-3%) of my BTC holdings, and yeah I suppose that there were cashflow issues involved too.. and gosh it can be hard to calculate with very much specificity, even though I do know how my tax reporting numbers came out... and this time seems to be a wee bit less impactful, but I will likely know more later.. see what the BTC price does and also see what the total demand on my cashflow end up being... one funny thing is that if the quantity of BTC is similar, then right now the BTC price is 10x higher, so the cashflow expectations would likely need to be 10x higher too in order to have a similar level of relative impact, and arguments could be made that I am dealing potentialities of 10x the amount.. but seems to be a bit less, and thus my tentative conclusion that the overall situation this time seems to be less likely to be as impactful as the 2018 situation.


hahahaha

I can see that you are not taking my earlier comment very well (nohomo), and yes, duct tape does seem to work quite well for nearly anything.  #Justsaying.

Sure many of us could be wrong, but I have heard so many bitcoin price analysts asserting that part of the reason that they believe that this particular bull run is not over (yet) is because the run up to $64,895 does not seem to be like a blow off top in a similar kind of way that blow off tops usually had been occurring in bitcoin in historical periods that we could identify a gradual, but then the blow off top happens in about the last 4-6 weeks in which the BTC price doubles or more than doubles during that time while it had already gone up considerably previous to the blow off top.

In any event, no one should have 100% confidence that blow -off tops of the past are going to play out the same with a way higher market cap, so there could end up being very wrongly expectations regarding how bitcoin's modern day or future blow off tops would compare with past blow off tops, and even I will admit to denying that December 2017 had constituted a blow off top, and probably I was pretty stubborn about that all the way until around November 2018 - around 11 months later... hahahahaha  whatever.

In any event it surely seem that not only does the timeline for the run up between about September 2020 from $10k-ish and April to $64,895, has a decent amount of gradualness of it throughout, though admittedly once we got past the previous ATH of $19,666 (which I would really characterize as the entering into no man's land at $17,250 around November 17) then the BTC price ran pretty hot at that time until about $42k on about January 7, without any meaningful correction, so in January we had a 3 -week correction until we began to run UPpity again from February 7.  

From February 7 we could describe it either as an UPity with three-ish corrections until May 10, or we could describe it as a mostly up until getting into the mid-$50ks and then largely a flat thereafter until May 10.  The former does seem a bit more fair of a description, but I could see either one being reasonably argued as sufficiently representative regarding what happened.

So really we had a sever correction that started on May 11-ish and then last for about a week until we got to our flattish location since about May 18 - 2-3 weeks now bouncing around mostly in the $30ks and wondering which way we are going to go.

So one question remains which way are we going to go from here - which positive newses does seem to give quite a bit of hope to a scenario that the bottom of $30,066 must be "in" even though we still are hovering within fairly easy striking distance to testing support in that area another time.   I personally am sticking with my assertion from previous times that I am not going to sleep with much confidence in respect to such bottom being "in" until we get above $46k and even more comfortable once we get above $50k, and sure maybe I am asking for too much before personally starting to feel confidence about the bottom being in.

So even if all of that happens and we get back above $46k to $50k, we still would have the question regarding whether we are going to new heights or not, which gets back to the question regarding if we already had a strong enough blow off top in April - ish and if a depiction of largely being in $50k to $64k for a good 3 months really could constitute a  blow off top within the meaning of bitcoin blow off tops, or if something more needs to happen in regards to UPpity before the top would be "in" for this cycle.

Seems to me that there are still pretty decent odds for a top for this cycle in the $250k to $500k arena.. and surely such top could end up falling outside of that range too that would still end up being quite a bit higher than $65k on the one end but even as far as $1.5million in a seemingly extreme more bullish than expected scenario.. but either way we could have our tippity-top coming in this calendar year or a dragging out of such a tippity top into as far as mid-to-late 2022 which might seem to be outside of previous BTC price prediction model expectations, but who proclaims that king daddy is willing to be constrained to price prediction models or squiggly lines on charts, especially when in the process of both a battle and also the greatest wealth transfer in history is underway.. seems that constraints and restraints would not really be reasonable if such a thing were to be happening, no?

Who died and left you as the WO consensus identifier?

I'm gonna have to give you a -1 WO for that level of boldness, and might even have to amp it up to -1.5 WO for your horrible gif creation talents (if we might be so bold as to label as that?)... Since yesterday many people have told me... sent me pms, just saying.


that's all.


My sense was that we took the stairs up and the elevator down... and sure perceptions can vary.


You would not do that.

you BIG meanie.

 


I agree.  That is a pretty stupid thought... I am speculating that it could be in the top 50 of all time, at minimum.


You are braver than most, including yours truly.

+1 WO for that one, to offset part of the -1.5 WO total tentatively pending re: toxicmoxic.

I doubt that "capacity issues" are as BIG and detrimental as you and the various dweeb twat BIG blockers had been making them out to be.  Some of that conversation about its not going to work and have to prepare our selves in advance blah blah had been and continue to be disingenuine nonsense to suggest that there is a need for a jumbo 747 to haul two passengers because some day there are going to be more passengers.. blah blah blah.

Seems way more practical to let the organic back and forth play out, including incentives for a fee market, and surely ability for easy propagation and transmission over unreliable networks and regular normie and poor peeps to validate the whole network remain quite important, rather than getting maniacally focused on dumb-ass overly-simplified purported and disingenuine solutions as if BIG blocks were ever really going to solve all the problems or needs for tweaking the system along the way without just creating a bloated attack vector rather than bringing actual utility and power to the peeps.. which bitcoin already does and likely will continue to do because it remains a people's network... rather than buying into some kind of BIG blocker nonsense and the various baggage that goes along with that either historical disingenuineness of the subject or even current ongoing attempts to bring up such already rebutted nonsense.


Yep.. pretty lame richy_t... you seem smarter than that, but whatever.. your continuing on and on with such lame talking point seems a bit ridiculous.


It's called trolling when you do that.


Who cares about other coins?  It is largely irrelevant because none of them are even close to having the same kind of transactional traffic and ongoing usage like bitcoin... so it largely seems irrelevant to assess some other nonsense coin that claims to have resolved the scaling problem, but then it has neither traffic nor ongoing attacks or other balances of adoption that bitcoin has.. so what's the point of making false comparisons except to just go on about gobble-dee-gook talking points that you already admit to largely being irrelevant (unless of course, if you might have some way to try to tie such topics into bitcoin with some kind of meaningful or relevant discussion rather than just spouting out bullshit like you say that you like to do in order to "rile the natives.")


Maybe you should provide a link, cAPSLOCK, if you believe that either there is something important and relevant that satoshi supposedly said.. From what I recall, Satoshi disappeared around late 2010, but a lot of the BIG blocker disingenuine nonsense started to get worked up in late 2015 so it increasingly ramped up in the next couple of years without really going away completely even though it should have been clear that not ONLY was the issue resolved in such a way to show the BIG BLOCKERs as largely disingenuine retards, but also current BTC development is ongoingly finding balance in onchain and offchain transactions including having goals of having some of the fee market to develop around this matter to help to inform if there might be needs for tweaks that go above and beyond ongoing tweaks that are happening.



Seems like a topic for another thread.  We have beat that topic to death so much over the years, and I hardly see what good comes from talking about such topic that you continue to believe as relevant, including your attempt to insert it into relevancy in the taproot activation thread.

I recall that you have always a bit more of a stiffy (relatively speaking) when it comes to believing that there is some kind of need to plan ahead for increases in BTC usage and concerns that both first layer solutions are not sufficiently anticipating increases in BTC usage (including perhaps disagreeing with having onchain fees that attempt to adapt to how quickly transactions might go through) and that various second layer solutions are not going to be enough to handle anticipated increases in BTC usage.. blah blah blah.


Aren't we all getting older?


You may have to go have a beer (or maybe a cigarrette) with your doc.

It's quite difficult to really explore topics in such a short conversation, and sometimes the blame on the government might be misplaced, even though for sure medical doctors have so many issues with standards of care compliance that even take away from their abilities to really exercise very much discretion - which likely frustrates them on a daily basis.. but then they learn to live with it... so sure, is that a blame the government issue?  Perhaps.


Of course, any of us are going to gain some level of empowerment by not relying too much on experts and having some knowledge of various topics whether we are talking with our mechanic or our accountant, and many of us might either not know where to start in terms of trying to learn about so many topics, and sometimes we do not have access to good information, either, so of course, if we are able to develop good critical thinking skills, that would be very helpful, but frequently we also come across a lot of people in the real world who think that they have good critical thinking skills, but instead of following one dweeb, they follow another, and it is not easy to think for your self or to bank for yourself, and surely there may be some needs to attempt to balance and to learn along the way.. and then sometimes, you just gotta admit that you have to rely on others for some things (representations of facts, logic and sometimes conclusions, too).


Of course, sometimes we are overly protected, but it is not easy to figure out a kind of proper balance.  I am not sure if we would want to live in a world without doctors who are able to advise and maybe keep people away from certain drugs without a prescription, but sure there are likely some drugs that should not require a prescription.. .. and sometimes if drugs are newer, they might have more restrictions than drugs that have been around longer.. so there is likely balance there, too.. . 

-1 WO for that.

 


Did you really say that a bottom might be in?

I can hardly believe it, but if it is coming from you... oh wait...



 


Don't encourage him.

-2 WO for that one.. 


Oh Gawd.. not another nonsense discussion of supposed "censoring"?

Let's blame theymos for bcash tards being retarded and unwilling or unable to identify actual value.

Of course, temporary.  By the way, do you have a link for that?



By the way, I mentioned the t-bone steak example of a wee bit more than doubling - probably a bit more than a year ago as compared to now, and I am not even sure if I have seen very many products in the grocery stores that have kept close to the same price or stayed within about 5%.. sure there are some examples, but still would they even come close to a mere 5%, I am having my doubts.  Of course, if we expand out to other things that people likely use or want to use such as housing, gas, electricity, construction, education, medical services, technologies such as computers and phones, communication services (internet), automobile, other transportation, personal care/grooming or other goods/services I am having troubles imagining containment of inflation to 5%, absent some manipulation of the data, and surely it does seem that people can actually see that they are being fed data that is not seeming to be very accurate in comparison to their life experiences (what else is new?)...

Edit: Torque made points with more specifics than me.. in the post just above my one.