Increased my position into LTC, PPC, NMC to 60%.
No BBQcoin? |
|
|
|
 Lots of 100 coin orders on bearstamp without corresponding movements. Anybody want to panic sell 1000 coins down to $320 finex? |
|
|
|
"Just not tonight, dear." |
|
|
|
There was a thread here dedicated to that topic.
Over 3 years it had >30K posts and >1.1M page views, probably the most popular thread after the wall thread.
But then Thermos locked that thread and banned it because some people there were pro BIP101 and scaling bitcoin as according to Satoshi's vision.
If you really want to ask BTC or Gold, why don't you ask Thermos why he blocked discussion on that topic and forced everyone to leave bitcointalk.
I learned more reading that single thread than any other on bitcointalk. Shame it's gone. |
|
|
|
However, if the system was prepared to handle the traffic, the project would become more attractive to big business. Right?
Right. So, which of the proposed scaling solutions addresses the issue so comprehensively? Which has the capacity or potential to scale up to 7 billion users? Well, the answer to that would require inside information, I believe. It literally doesn't require any inside information to answer that question. And that's the question that's actually on the table. , right? But, if the blocksize isn't increased enough, then it wouldn't make sense economically for big business to adopt the existing technology, right? However, if there were some inside information that some sort of big business opportunity was dependent on the state of the blocksize, then that would determine which proposal would be best suited to meet everybody's need. The thread topic states it best: "Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something?" Miners have full discretion of whether to include a no fee transaction, or not. Forcing a fee market from "on high" is central planning, which can often have the desired effect, in addition to several other (unintended??) side effects. |
|
|
|
It is now quite clear that this latest huge P & D was orchestrated by the USMS to ensure they got the maximum value out of the auction. Now that the auction is over, down we go! Thank goodness they have no more "seized" bitcoins to sell. Hopefully we will now see Bitcoin steadying itself.
This is actually probably the least likely of all possible explanations.  Seems like an insane coincidence that this happened the very moment the auction closed..... why is this the least likely explanation? The unlikely part is the USG giving a damn about making an extra million or two on an auction. The same organization takes in 2.6 trillion $ in revenue per year, and this blowoff top required much more than a million or two $ for fuel. It's slightly more plausible that (part of) the market wanted them to pay more for the coins, thus making them less inclined to dump them on the open market. IMO this has much more to do with MMM demand sparking dreams of a new bubble which was fueled further by people not wanting to miss out on it. The market then dumped many 10's of thousands of coins on their heads to disabuse them of this notion. While completely wiping out shorts on the way up, and slaughtering overambitious margin longs on the way back down. |
|
|
|
|
Real value is utility.
Scarcity only matters if there is demand.
More utility leads to more demand, by more users. This idea that just tucking away some private keys, using Bitcoin once a year... and thinking noobs will just continue to pay more for your bags is delusional.
The people that really cared about digital, uncensorable wealth storage are already "in". Those who aren't "in" see a distinct road block to further adoption and use in the 3 TPS artificial limit.
Censorship resistance and decentralization are very important, but it doesn't mean we should just become complacent about the competition. Open source software does not hold an esteemed position on the periodic table. Here's to hoping we buy some time for layer 2 scaling solutions with some modest scaling of the max tx capacity of the network.
|
|
|
|
"we are not really struggling for 380, this is a price consolidation after a good pump, we can return to 1200 in no time"
LOL LOL LOL
"Price consolidation" my arse.
"We can return to 1200 in NO TIME" [emphasis is mine] LOL MY ARSE.
Only the most insane members of the forum call it a PRICE CONSOLIDATION. They can't see the forest because of the trees.
We can't hold 320, yet these crazies are beating the drums by saying "we can return to 1200 in no time"!
LOL
No time, my arse.
Last time we saw 1200 was in late 2013. That's TWO years ago. Yeah, sure we will see 1200 in no time.
Just because we had a mini bubble from 250 to 504, these insane people are drumming it up for you to become a bag-hodler.
Crazy thing is there are so many gullible people in the world. How many of these idiots bought $500 bitcoins? People like amph sold their $0.001 bitcoins into the $500 market, reaped a sh*t ton of money and are still beating the drums for more profit. Just pure horse manure.
Thanks professor. |
|
|
|
 What a long, strange trip it's been. |
|
|
|
Hope that stuff's been kept at about 4C for the last decade. |
|
|
|
just look at the charts. this will create such big time confidence for all those btc investors to come. now it looks as if the "bubbles" get smaller and smaller.  the following months will be more of 2015 style. let´s wait for the halving of 2016. how am i gonna tell this to my wife, for fuck sake? no skiing in switzerland this winter i guess. What gets me is just how brazen and rude it is Rational people just roll their eyes when Bitcoin goes up and they're alway right The people who get fooled and fucked over are the ones Bitcoin needs to actually go somewhere This won't keep working but early adopters have a payday once again off the back of noobs Swings in the bitcoin price are exacerbated by fear and greed. One can be a part of the solution rather than the problem by buying some when the price looks like crap and everyone is panicking or depressed... and by selling some when everyone is feeling euphoric and you're checking the fiat value of your stash multiple times a day. Easier said than done tho... |
|
|
|
You seem pretty confident that no investment is being deterred by 3 TPS. I would argue that much of what is invested into bitcoin is on the basis of "what it can be", not necessarily "what it is today". 3 TPS being permanent would certainly dissuade me from future investment.
You seem to be pretty confident that Bitcoin was built to attract investment and deliver fast ROI (aka "make money fast"!). I believe it was not. It was built as a decentralised alternative financial and economic system and we are only at the beginning of that. It was not built to give up decentralisation by lifting the sky on blocksize to let facebook users exchange pocket money for 'likes' or something. There's something more serious behind Bitcoin than that. That's the grand experiment. And it is successfull and nobody will stop it anymore. If you think different then just invest your money in Mastercard shares or something. Thankfully, even the Core devs seem to be coalescing towards a modest increase in capacity to allow time for alternative scaling solutions to move from theory to reality.
Of course they are. And don't worry, scalability will adapt without handing the blockchain over to governments. Joe Hyperbole much? They're going to raise the TPS capacity modestly? Good. The 1MB4EVA crowd may be ridiculous, but they exist. |
|
|
|
In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks: The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity. The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block. For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from. TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price.
Bitcoin's network effect does not operate solely as a function of its transactional capacity. It is impossible for Bitcoin to differentiate itself through its transaction throughput. Only its censorship resistance and decentralized nature makes it unique. Seeing as a large majority of Bitcoin users are only interested in holding for the near future we have to assume this will be through of prospective adopters and therefore it is wrong to propose that Bitcoin's TPS put a glass ceiling on Bitcoin's network effect. You seem pretty confident that no investment is being deterred by 3 TPS. I would argue that much of what is invested into bitcoin is on the basis of "what it can be", not necessarily "what it is today". 3 TPS being permanent would certainly dissuade me from future investment. Thankfully, even the Core devs seem to be coalescing towards a modest increase in capacity to allow time for alternative scaling solutions to move from theory to reality. |
|
|
|
|
Capitulation candle to 290 or was that it?
|
|
|
|
2500
Don't mind me. Just recycling. Jinxed us  again before back to the queue |
|
|
|
I was referring to the centralisation as a harmful situation for the network, the thing that everyone is afraid of.
Miners' centralized block validation creates a network fork  Nothing to see here.
Some of the giant chinese mining pools are currently centralizing the validation of every transactions they mine.
Do you find that to be a concern?
I do. And I recall some of them paid dearly for that recently, so they might be thinking about it too. What part of "they're still doing" did you not understand? You'd think they would've stopped by now if really it wasn't profitable. But no, we'll just pretend that a couple of dropped blocks undermined weeks and months of cheating the system. "That'll make em learn"!  So we should be really afraid of miners solving blocks that will be rejected by the rest of the network? You guys have such interesting concerns. You can't "fork" the network with invalid blocks. |
|
|
|
About the winners:
Among the companies at the forefront of this move is DRW Holdings LLC, a high-frequency trading firm in Chicago founded by former options-pit trader Donald Wilson in 1992. DRW is a founding investor in a new bitcoin financial-services firm called Digital Asset Holdings that launched last month. Cumberland Mining & Materials LLC, a DRW subsidiary, has “begun to experiment with cryptocurrency trading,” DRW said.
Itbit's OTC desk got a consortium together for 5 blocks as well, min 10k coins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
