That 1D volume though
|
|
|
LMFAO Right back over $400.
This is wack as hell.
Encouraging, looks like bulls still have plenty of ammo.
|
|
|
“The idea is now at the forefront of every financial institution, every corporation, every media outlet,” said Bobby Cho, director of trading at New York-based exchange ItBit. “Even if you’re reading about blockchain technology, you’re inherently reading about bitcoin also.” The interest is driving up the trading activity, and the increased activity is spurring interest from institutional traders who’ve been sitting on the sidelines, waiting for bitcoin’s market to perk up again. “Now the volatility is back,” Mr. Cho said, “and they’re thinking, ‘we can make some money here.’ These guys are looking for a product to trade.”
|
|
|
Case in point, just look at a couple of weeks ago, full of replies like this everywhere: I doubt the price will even hit $400 by 2016 And now suddenly, everything seems possible again. What im seeing is, don't be scared to think that we could hit 1k, 2k, 3k.. by 2016. It's perfectly doable. More and more people will learn how to use Bitcoin to their advantage. It only takes a handful of whales to want to move their capital across continues to skyrocket the price because the marketcap is tiny. And once this happens, the average joe will want to get in too because of fear of missing out. Past a point only idiots that still don't understand the importance of Bitcoin will not own some. That's actually conservative
|
|
|
Also, we still haven't resolved any part of the blocksize issue and the Fed is soon to raise interest rates (lifting the value of USD).
I am still hesitant, but am keeping an eye on as usual...
Yeah right
|
|
|
I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.
It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes. Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain. This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks. I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies Do you understand open-source software Apparently you don't. Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not Source: https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.9vi6d25isYes, a maintainer, that's how every successful FOSS projects work. Do you prefer for it to be Mike? Multiple implementations means multiple development teams, in this way both Mike and Core can contribute if that is what people choose. An election where there is only one party is totalitarianism. I am saying that there should be multiple alternatives for people to choose from. The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. There's no problem with different implementations. The issue with XT is it is run by incompetents who attempt to insert damaging and poorly-reviewed code to a very fragile consensus critical system.
|
|
|
I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.
It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes. Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain. This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks. I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies Do you understand open-source software Apparently you don't. Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not Source: https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.9vi6d25isYes, a maintainer, that's how every successful FOSS projects work. Would you rather have Mike?
|
|
|
This and the upcoming AMA's really need some more attention. Feels kinda bad no one had asked him anything in (what it looks like 5 hours).
Reddit where you at?!
the AMAs got alot of traffic already, not bad. reddit (the bitcoin part) is censored too much so that is one reason why Roger build bitcoin.com . Yeah I realize that, and I also know he bought the domain itself for $1mil. I just mean the reddit users that keep complaining about centralisation and theymos should move over to the other forum and start shooting the questions they've recently not gotten an answer to. Problem is the forum is a piece of shit.
|
|
|
I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.
It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes. Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain. This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks. I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies Do you understand open-source software Apparently you don't.
|
|
|
Everyone should read this. Why don't you join the phorkers forum and leave us alone already? https://bitco.in/forum/No one cares about you opinion. Sorry
|
|
|
This type of action is the #1 driver of adoption.
I don't care how hard it crashes afterward Bitcoin is here to stay.
I first bought at the top in 2013. It was likely the best decision of my life since without this financial attachment I would've never spent so much time learning about Bitcoin.
Sure some poor scrubs will complain that they got ripped off, that it's a scam or whatever... who cares.. these people will just pay the price and buy back at a higher price later on.
|
|
|
Maybe it would be wiser to acknowledge that the price has nothing to do with the blocksize debate.
Which was the way in which it was brought up. Do wise people always announce the quality of their wisdom as it is delivered? I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.
It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes. Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain Pretend "it's just another implementation" when it has clear intent to diverge from existing consensus rules. Fortunately it has been all too easy to see through their lies and manipulation
|
|
|
Of course not. We have Totalitarianism as long as we don't have choice. Since there is the first alt Implementation on the market that is ready for the next txs number explosion, the totalitarian developer situation terminated. The price is reflecting the new situation. The attempt to take over bitcoin by taking over the core developers by blockthestream inc. failed miserably.
Hang on, you're saying the price went up because XT..... failed to attract a userbase? As I wrote, the price went up because everybody knows now that there is choice. If the blockstream core devs will be stupid enough to prolong the stalemate into the next txs explosion, their implementation can be replaced by at least another one that is ready. The more alternative implementations we get, the better. Consult a professional, you've turned full retard. Funny thing is price started launching up after Blockstream's Liquid announcement Doesn't matter if you promote Blockthestream fulltime as a volunteer or as a paid shill. Developer decentralization can not be prevented. Indeed, repo is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin Anyone is free to contribute but don't expect to be welcomed warmly if you attempt to insert blacklists and blockchain bloating code
|
|
|
It's more likely not a soul in the Bitcoin Chinese world knows about XT
|
|
|
Of course not. We have Totalitarianism as long as we don't have choice. Since there is the first alt Implementation on the market that is ready for the next txs number explosion, the totalitarian developer situation terminated. The price is reflecting the new situation. The attempt to take over bitcoin by taking over the core developers by blockthestream inc. failed miserably.
Hang on, you're saying the price went up because XT..... failed to attract a userbase? As I wrote, the price went up because everybody knows now that there is choice. If the blockstream core devs will be stupid enough to prolong the stalemate into the next txs explosion, their implementation can be replaced by at least another one that is ready. The more alternative implementations we get, the better. Consult a professional, you've turned full retard. Funny thing is price started launching up after Blockstream's Liquid announcement
|
|
|
6th? I'd say more like 3rd, after USD and EUR By that time it's more likely those two are dead or have converted to using Bitcoin as reserve for their dirty fiat.
|
|
|
Internals of this impulse are very nice on close inspection. It would be wise for longs to be cautious in this area. Wave iv territory is 2200, we have seen the price violently return to this area in the recent past and it is a good guideline to expect. A higher order correction seems due. I didn't want to read this but I suppose it has to be expected. This kind of move can't be sustainable. Long term bitcoin could be anything but such a violent upturn based on pretty much no solid positive news will have to meet some kind of correction sadly. Hopefully we can stay around 330-360 though & not fall lower. Come on now... Money is flooding into exchanges right about now. OKCoin apparently seeing unseen user adoption... This is the beginning of something bigger.
|
|
|
Raise the fucking block sizes already.
That will happen eventually, but Not Tonight Dear. But soonish. Core's (blockthestream inc.) attempt to take over bitcoin got REKT.
They got competition by implementations that are ready for the next bubble. Developer centralization is over. Totalitarianism doesn't work here. Not only that, downstream users, rely on Bitcoin Core because they know it has the expertise and stability. XT has nothing, in the short time of it’s existence, hardly any changes have been merged, and what has been has deep technical flaws. Meanwhile Bitcoin Core has made literally hundreds of improvements. XT #REKT
|
|
|
yes and then no yes - we have been going up in the past few days at first 1-2% per day then 3-4% now 10%. this is not being driven by any real news but by ourselves just punting it up so it may well gone on for a while at even higher % increases so yes we may well go to $500, $700 or $1000.
but then at some point we will collectively loose our nerve and be down to $200 ish in a few months after the ath.
its what happened when we hopped on the willy bot train and it will happen here again.
and long before willy bot there was a period when we rocketed to $31 and crashed to $2.
rinse and repeat
Nice try you bitch ass shorters! http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/03/bitcoin-to-be-6th-largest-reserve-currency-by-2030-research.html
Sixth ? Try 1st. On a more serious note you know the pump is real when MSM start putting out puff pieces like that.
|
|
|
|