WTF!
We have the whale, whaling around on Bitstamp once again, whipping up a shit storm of trades within a $2 range.....
......but what is he trying to tell us this time?
Is $338 strong resistance, or is this meant to be incredible support at these levels?
He's trying to tell you that stamp's "real" volume looks like crap. |
|
|
|
|
hory shet
it really is a pump on all exchanges at once.
|
|
|
|
A lightning node is more centralized than a distributed network of Bitcoin nodes. Symmetric vs asymmetric. Pretty simple really, and not a bad thing in and of itself.
That description is equally true of miners v.s. wallet nodes. Symmetric vs asymmetric. So, the bitcoin network is asymmetrical already, Lightning hubs just add another layer of node types that serve as a promotion of the role for the miners (or could just be seen as an extra role). A more apt analogy would be a full node client vs a SPV client? Full node interacting directly with the network, and the SPV (partly) relying on a trusted intermediary. Not really, because using SPV does indeed involve some trust in full nodes, but using Lightning channels will provide the full extent of the privacy and veracity of standard Bitcoin transactions, i.e. trustless. If a party of the lightning payment channel misbehaves, funds will be locked down for a period of time until a set timeout occurs. You see full privacy(?) and veracity of standard Bitcoin transactions, I see a complexity machine (for a use small blockers see as superfluous to global reserve digital gold tokens) that takes away from the miners who actually secure the network. I have no problem with free individuals using lightning type payment channels, and it probably would be required for actual Bitcoin scaling. I just don't want to artificially cripple the real network to create greener pastures for it. |
|
|
|
A lightning node is more centralized than a distributed network of Bitcoin nodes. Symmetric vs asymmetric. Pretty simple really, and not a bad thing in and of itself.
That description is equally true of miners v.s. wallet nodes. Symmetric vs asymmetric. So, the bitcoin network is asymmetrical already, Lightning hubs just add another layer of node types that serve as a promotion of the role for the miners (or could just be seen as an extra role). A more apt analogy would be a full node client vs a SPV client? Full node interacting directly with the network, and the SPV (partly) relying on a trusted intermediary. |
|
|
|
Lightning transactions go through a centralized node, and settle to the actual blockchain.
Not saying it's a bad idea, and it may be absolutely necessary for exponential scaling... but it's certainly nothing like an actual bitcoin transaction.
I look at a lightning node as a transaction aggregating machine. The spread between the fees they aggregate and what they pay to settle on the blockchain would be their motivation for existence. In a sense, they live by eating a bite out of the miner's lunch. Intentionally and artificially scarce block space... higher fees... higher competitive advantage for LN and SC... more bites of the lunch.
Does it not then make sense for miners to run lightning hubs, as it looks like vertical integration is the best fit here? Sounds ok; if the blockspace is being packed more effectively, then a leaner chain and lower bandwidth requirements makes it easier for new entrants to the mining market to compete against established big miners. They probably should to protect themselves from outside entities taking artificially limited tx fee revenue... The question was "Why do people think that it could lead to centralization?". Largely, the answer to that question is: "Because it does." That wasn't my answer. If the miners process Lightning transactions as well as standard transactions on the network, and Lightning is just an open-access protocol, then there's no centralising pressure (adding an extra dimension to mining profitability has the potential to improve competition in mining). A lightning node is more centralized than a distributed network of Bitcoin nodes. Symmetric vs asymmetric. Pretty simple really, and not a bad thing in and of itself. |
|
|
|
Can't you guyz and galz just launch this mofo to 10k so I can buy a boat?
Is that really too much to ask for?
I sold during the last pump and while I could buy back in for less right now, I'm staying out of it. The CEO of Coinbase made comments this month about how they plan to 'upgrade' their system in the second week of December, as they undermine the core developers and go against community sentiment about what Bitcoin is. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/coinbase-ceo-brian-armstrong-bip-is-the-best-proposal-we-ve-seen-so-far-1446584055This is a corporate move to take Bitcoin over and turn it into something appropriate for bankers (the XT fork WILL NEED more updates, while its blacklists will be updated too), who can then use it to dump their fiat into while other systems collapse and hyperinflation starts. For this to work, they are counting on people like you, to be so happy with your profits and new boat that you won't care that Bitcoin has lost its integrity along the way. I'll get behind Bitcoin again if the community proves itself smarter than this however. So you sold your coins because XT was thoroughly defeated, zero blocks of the last 1000 solved and a paltry amount of nodes... Will you buy back if the max block size is 1MB in 2017? |
|
|
|
Lightning transactions go through a centralized node, and settle to the actual blockchain.
Not saying it's a bad idea, and it may be absolutely necessary for exponential scaling... but it's certainly nothing like an actual bitcoin transaction.
I look at a lightning node as a transaction aggregating machine. The spread between the fees they aggregate and what they pay to settle on the blockchain would be their motivation for existence. In a sense, they live by eating a bite out of the miner's lunch. Intentionally and artificially scarce block space... higher fees... higher competitive advantage for LN and SC... more bites of the lunch.
Does it not then make sense for miners to run lightning hubs, as it looks like vertical integration is the best fit here? Sounds ok; if the blockspace is being packed more effectively, then a leaner chain and lower bandwidth requirements makes it easier for new entrants to the mining market to compete against established big miners. They probably should to protect themselves from outside entities taking artificially limited tx fee revenue... The question was "Why do people think that it could lead to centralization?". Largely, the answer to that question is: "Because it does." |
|
|
|
|
Lightning transactions go through a centralized node, and settle to the actual blockchain.
Not saying it's a bad idea, and it may be absolutely necessary for exponential scaling... but it's certainly nothing like an actual bitcoin transaction.
I look at a lightning node as a transaction aggregating machine. The spread between the fees they aggregate and what they pay to settle on the blockchain would be their motivation for existence. In a sense, they live by eating a bite out of the miner's lunch. Intentionally and artificially scarce block space... higher fees... higher competitive advantage for LN and SC... more bites of the lunch.
|
|
|
|
Volume is positively anemic right now.  Barring a miracle, looks like those big bids protecting 300 are ripe for another test. I agree with you regarding a very considerable potential that $300 will be retested; however, you are way off base to assess volume as anemic. look - about 5 hours ago, we witnessed a battle involving nearly 14,000 BTC on stamp over a period of about 90 minutes. In the past 4 hours, we have also witnessed about an additional 3,000 BTC exchanged... relative to 14k, that is a smaller amount, but it is no where near any contextually accurate concept of "anemic." Will you look at that? JJG is NOT wrong, and is somewhat terse about it... Not sure how I feel about that yet. That said... I don't trust stamp volume at all. Curiously enough, finex has the only volume that looks to be organic trading. |
|
|
|
Lookit! Can we please just come to some sort of consensus about what is going to happen in the immediate future regarding the price? It seems to me we would all stand to benefit under such an arrangement.
You've heard the herding cats analogy? Try a group of idealistic neckbeards, greedy rubes, good traders, bad traders, govt plants against fungibility, and a generous dusting of criminals and ponzi victims... huoo boy. |
|
|
|
|
"the global Bitcoin network is stuck at 1MB blocks and ~3 transactions per second for the majority of 2016."
|
|
|
|
Volume is positively anemic right now. Barring a miracle, looks like those big bids protecting 300 are ripe for another test. |
|
|
|
So, will BTC go down because China dumps their hodlings, or will it go up as USD devalues? Perhaps both? First China dumps and we revisit $275. When they run out inflation takes over again and we're back to $400 before you know it. The dollar has been dying for as long as I remember, or so they´re always saying, but is presently at a 7-year high and looking pretty healthy. The FED will most likely be forced to start hiking rates in the near future which should be good for the greenback. I would imagine that this would be rather bearish for bitcoin. If it is a counter-trade to the dollar like most things that is.  Perhaps. Looking at that chart, I can't help but think we're getting close to the other side of the hill. I don't know if the Fed will raise interest rates or not next month, but I suspect they're thinking about more QE. If the world starts dumping USD for Yuan, they won't have to.  |
|
|
|
"Just not tonight, dear."   ~"He smiled understandingly—much more than understandingly. It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life. It faced—or seemed to face—the whole external world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor. It understood you just so far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey."~ |
|
|
|
So the trend for bitcoin is that it will be the safest haven for all investors. While all other asset classes can only diminish in the eyes of the ever improving bitcoin. Eventually the wealthy will come to terms with this inevitability and start to buy bitcoin to preserve what wealth they have as Bitcoin will become the obvious choice to everyone.
cheers "Just not tonight, dear." |
|
|
|
Not that again  No, not everything that gets laughed at [though the internet never was] eventually becomes outrageously popular. Most do not. Bitcoin transactions are growing. Payment processors like Bitpay release stats that show increasing usage. Payment processors like BitPay release stats that they're letting people go because faulty business model (see Fig. 1).  Fig. 1 If you've bought at 3$ you are up 100 times and if you bought at 30$ you are up 10 times.
More like $7-$40 and sold at avg. $6xx, but what does this have to do with bitcoin not being a purely speculative asset and me being ridiculously lucky? Why $6xx? On the way up, or the dead cat bounce after the peak? Any ideological reasons for the exit, or just gettin' while the gettin' was good? Did you buy some fine british automobiles with the proceeds??  |
|
|
|
To say the block reward is market-set is beyond idiotic. There is no effective market mechanism doing that, by design. The protocol does.
I kinda like the idea since it very clearly refutes any of the shills pretense that us "small blockers" do not want to let the "free market" operate. The argument goes like this: since the free market of peers dictates what code determines consensus then it should follow that any parameter within Bitcoin is a subset of a "free market" decision. I would agree it is quite a stretch but what concept that comes out of twisted XT shills' mind isn't?  So 1MB it is, says the free-market! The block reward schedule is overwhelmingly agreed upon by the market, through their decision to run software which implements it. They are also highly incentivized to not change it, as it would be disastrous to their current and future earning potential. Node operators are similarly incentivized to keep the schedule because altering it would be disastrous to the value of their holdings. Higher transaction capacity through larger blocks has another set of incentives and risks. brg444 demonstrates this is the case using another metric, the max block size. Right now, the market is indeed coalesced around 1MB max blocks. This veneer that a small cabal can wield a magic wand to protect us from ourselves is illusory, and to some, very undesirable. If Bitcoin relies on a handful of people controlling things from the top down, then it's a failure. The beauty of satoshi's idea is that it harnesses mutual self interest incentive structures to function and evolve. If the vast majority of nodes and miners decide to run software that enforces 1MB max blocks, then 1MB max blocks we shall have. |
|
|
|
2h PSAR flipped to bearish on BTCChina and Bitfinex.
Seems to be an unreliable indicator In this case, it was misleading... Oh shit... Your short term technical indicators have no power here.  |
|
|
|
...
The inflation rate is already governed by the market. The market is entirely happy with the 25 BTC block rewards. I also strongly suspect that the market will reduce the block reward to 12.5 BTC at the scheduled halving next summer.
not the market you dummy.. the protocol. the very same that you cant change with your stupid gif. The market defines the protocol. One small dev team is not the market. lel nope. try again. im done explaining such basics to you idiot. Another gem from the hdbuck school of rational debate. How deep does this mine go? With friends like this... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
