Bitcoin price is soaring. Its price trajectory is extremely steep. I fear that the Bitcoin price bubbles is reaching its point of yield. What is mean is, that such steep ascents in anything are rarely sustainable. I am going to sell my coins fairly soon. What do you all think?
If you are selling with the intention of cashing out then I will tell you that is a big mistake. But if you are selling because you want to sell high then buy low then by all means do it. I believe we are witnessing one of the greatest wealth generators in history. You should not miss it. |
|
|
|
I am only worried about other altcoins competition. In case you don't know: Vitalik Buterin and Vladimir Putin met yesterday and discussed the application of blockchain technologies in Russia.
It seems that Putin will endorse Ethereum because it is more centralized than Bitcoin and he could influence it through Buterin. What will happen if Russia will legalize ETH instead of BTC next year?
In the worst case scenario that would make bitcoin a redundant asset in the future.
Why are you worried? Bitcoin has better code than Ethereum will ever have. All the dapp ICOs that were organized in Ethereum will have to wait for Vitalik to find a solution to make the network scale. From listening to different podcasts and interviews of the elite coders in crypto, they have said that Ethereum will not scale and all the solutions proposed, like Casper and sharding, are mere delusions from Vitalik. I am not a coder but I would like to know what really is going on with Ethereum from the point of view of a coder. |
|
|
|
the value of a transaction is meaningless when it comes to fees, the only thing that counts is the size in bytes. a 10 input transaction for 0.001 btc is gonna cost more than a 1 input transaction of 10,000 btc.
fees have risen of course and so has the price. if bitcoin was $250 still it wouldn't be such an issue.
segwit will ease the pressure but it might not be the miracle people are looking for. a segwit block fits more transactions in but high fees might be here to stay.
Thanks for your reply. In the long term, if you had to hold one, would you choose BTC or ETH? If you are asking about the long term then Bitcoin is better than Ethereum. I am not a programmer but I have heard the term "technical debt" a lot when I hear technical people talk about Ethereum. So sure enough I searched online and found this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debtIf all those projects are built on a platform that bears technical debt, then it is only a matter of time before everything starts to fall over. |
|
|
|
|
How does NVO intend to compete with centralized exchanges in attracting users? I ask because we have seen Bitsquare for quite some time now and still it has not gained enough volume to be considered competitive vs. their centralized counterparts.
But I like the project and it is something that we need very badly especially in these times when exchanges get hacked and BTC stolen. I also believe the SEC might start clamping down on the centalized exchanges soon.
May NVO gain the traction it needs to be successful.
|
|
|
|
I cannot believe nobody has mentioned the upcoming UASF this coming August. If you do not know what that is then I suggest go read about it. If there was a possibility to make Bitcoin crash this year then that would be it.
that's the one. if we end up with two bitcoins, which would surprise me, i think the party would be permanently over. No. The price would drop until there was an obvious majority chain, at which point money would flow back in and there would be a domino effect which makes the previous one irrelevant. Even if there was an ETH/ETC kind of situation there would be an obvious "winner". In your opinion, on which chain would the Core developers choose to continue their development? In all honesty, where ever the best developers go, that is where most of our investments should go. Core has been doing a good job with Bitcoin so far. I know they tend to be conservative but that is only because they cannot risk breaking a multibillion dollar blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
I cannot believe nobody has mentioned the upcoming UASF this coming August. If you do not know what that is then I suggest go read about it. If there was a possibility to make Bitcoin crash this year then that would be it.
|
|
|
|
you also have Gmax saying that all bitcoin developers will move over to litecoin at 57m30s of video below and how he is happy to help litecoin.. https://youtu.be/LHPYNZ8i1cU?t=57m01syet any software 'brand' that is not blockstream/DCG endorsed he wont touch follow coblee(litecoin inventor) ->coinbase->DCG boblee(coblee's brother) ->BTCC->DCG gmaxwell -> blockstream -> DCG luke Jr -> blockstream -> DCG RustyRuss(LN) -> blockstream -> DCG and ofcourse barry silbert(DCG)-> alansilbert(capitalone healthcare)->hyperledger Then maybe it would be better to start supporting Monero because they are still holding on to the Bitcoin philosophy. Everyone in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have become greedy. I have noticed that some groups want to run a project like a company than what they really are. Open source projects. |
|
|
|
Personally, I am feed up with all of these shits flying around everywhere on the net. Months ago, when Bitcoin started to face the scaling problems, there seems to be groups who are proposing different ways to solve the problem and instead of them sitting together and rationally discuss the whole thing they instead chose to mudslinging and destroying each others' names and reputations.
This is not "months ago". This started already when Satoshi introduced the 1 MB block limit. At that point, people saw the troubles ahead already. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg23049#msg23049The "problem" is that bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized, that is, there is no "boss of bitcoin". As such, there are no "people that can sit together and come to an agreement". (if there are such people, and if their agreement is what will happen to bitcoin, then those people are the governors of bitcoin) Bitcoin was designed with a hard wall into which it was going to crash (to solve a problem for which there was no well-thought solution and is a *profound problem* in bitcoin) ; and there's no mechanism that was foreseen to bring a solution, because Satoshi thought, or at least claimed, that one "could simply add a few lines in the code to change it", denying the essence of his invention, which is consensus by many different entities which have different, and sometimes opposing, interests. In fact, the solution was relatively easy as long as it was just a matter of a block size increase, but now, there are two different views: off chain scaling and on chain scaling ; with the nasty side effect that in order for off chain scaling to be POTENTIALLY successful, people have to be forced OFF the chain ; but on the other hand, for off chain scaling to be SECURE and permissionless, the chain has to be able to accept any amount of transactions.Core should not have pitched Segwit as a scaling solution but just a simple upgrade to fix transaction malleability plus others that make the protocol more secure and robust. For you personally, and I am not asking as a scaling solution, is Segwit a good upgrade for the network in general? |
|
|
|
OP, this is a good starting guide for what you want to do. https://www.weusecoins.com/bitcoin-cold-storage-guide/All you have to do is understand and follow the instructions in that guide. But before you send Bitcoins in your wallet, make sure to test everything by sending small amounts. I hope this helps. Good luck. |
|
|
|
That is a nice Star Trek reference there.  From your explanation, I believe the exchanges will play a critical role here. Would it be the best move for them to list BTC-148 and make the situation much worse? By listing it, yes it is letting the market decide which chain is preferred, but it also gives the chance of a permanent split which is something that should not happen to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Most of the answers given here are confusing the OP.
All you have to remember is to store your private keys offline. That's it. The Bitcoins you "own" are not really coins but they are entries in the ledger that you control through the private keys.
|
|
|
|
|
What does that have to do with anything? As long as he is contributing good and sound code then that is all that matters. To the credit of the core developers they have not broken Bitcoin yet.
|
|
|
|
Note that in all of this, any "majority of UASF nodes" is never needed or doesn't play any role. The "user interaction" only comes in the market, after the miners decided to split, and the exchanges decided to list both coins.
The secret hope of UASF is that this scenario is such a night mare to all miners, that they would suddenly be converted to go majority to the new coin before even letting this happen. In other words, it is a kind of silly hostage taking: "if you don't do it the way I say, I might have enough hash rate to fuck up bitcoin into two coins even though for the moment I'm largely minority".
It's a kind of game of chicken, but with a motor cycle heading against a tank.
A little speculation. Do you think the miners that are signaling for Segwit activation would support UASF? Segwit - BIP 9 right now is at 30%. If all that starts signaling BIP 148 we will see the blockchain split. With that much support would that split become permanent? I have asked the same question before but no one gives a straight answer. A chain split could be avoided if: 1. BIP 148 gets enough support, if 51% of miners activate BIP 148 before or after August 1. 2. If 95% of miners lock in Segwit before August 1. If BIP 148 has a minority hashrate support then there obviously would be a chain split. There would be two bitcoins and that would indeed be a messy situation, double-spends, a single transaction getting tied to two different chains. But even after chain split, segwit activated BIP 148 should have upper hand and as this chain gets longer it should replace/wipe out the legacy chain. If I am right at the end there would be only one chain. The best scenario for the bitcoin community is to avoid chain split. But I guess it would not going to be easy with retards like Jihan Wu and his allies who own 51% of hashrate. For the time being it is a good idea to make some investments in litecoin. Let the dust settle down after August 1.I am thinking about holding some Ethereum Classic myself. I will finally be having my first altcoin. dinofelis thanks for the thorough explanation. Another question would be how long would a minority chain "survive" if it gets around 15% - 20% of hashing power, and if it is possible for BIP 148 to gain such support? Let us put our speculation hats on for the sake of discussion. |
|
|
|
Thanks.  |
|
|
|
"jtimon - as said on the mailing list I think bip148 is rushed and that makes it risky" That I agree with. That is what a lot of people do not try to understand, including the people who support BU. The Bitcoin network is already worth billions in market capitalization. The Core developers have to be conservative. Some viewed the 95% threshold for Segwit activation as "too conservative" when in fact it is the right thing to do to avoid a split. |
|
|
|
Note that in all of this, any "majority of UASF nodes" is never needed or doesn't play any role. The "user interaction" only comes in the market, after the miners decided to split, and the exchanges decided to list both coins.
The secret hope of UASF is that this scenario is such a night mare to all miners, that they would suddenly be converted to go majority to the new coin before even letting this happen. In other words, it is a kind of silly hostage taking: "if you don't do it the way I say, I might have enough hash rate to fuck up bitcoin into two coins even though for the moment I'm largely minority".
It's a kind of game of chicken, but with a motor cycle heading against a tank.
A little speculation. Do you think the miners that are signaling for Segwit activation would support UASF? Segwit - BIP 9 right now is at 30%. If all that starts signaling BIP 148 we will see the blockchain split. With that much support would that split become permanent? I have asked the same question before but no one gives a straight answer. |
|
|
|
As you all know, on August 1, there will be users who will try a user activated soft fork or famoualy called UASF. What it will do is nodes that it will start rejecting none Segwit nodes, risking a split in the blockchain. Depending on how much support it garners from the miners, the split might last a few hours, a few days or maybe longer.
If in case it lasts longer, how much would the price of Bitcoin be? Would it be low enough that we see Ethereum become no.1 in Coinmarketcap?
ETH is under doubts of having some serious exploit that would allow people to steal people's ETH. Look at Romanov's twitter. Link? For everyone's viewing pleasure. Im not sure if I want to put ETH hoping it's a safe place during any turbulence.
If miners decide to mine 10% on the BIP148 chain, there's still not much to worry about
At 20%, you have to start taking it serious
At 30%... anyone not holding BIP148 coins is insane
Any higher and snowball effect will kick in, BIP148 chain wins, legacy chain is destroyed, BTC gets segwit and defeats miners.
The miners that are activating Segwit are 30% the last time I saw the chart. Do you think maybe most of them will support BIP 148? |
|
|
|
|
As you all know, on August 1, there will be users who will try a user activated soft fork or famously called UASF. What it will do is nodes that have it activated will start rejecting none Segwit nodes, risking a split in the blockchain. Depending on how much support it garners from the miners, the split might last a few hours, a few days or maybe longer.
If in case it lasts longer, how much would the price of Bitcoin be? Would it be low enough that we see Ethereum become no.1 in Coinmarketcap?
|
|
|
|
Can anyone speculate how much of the total hashing power would be behind UASF? Would it be good to assume that the 30% that are signalling Segwit now would all support UASF?
30% would surely cause a split.
UASF itself causes a split... deemed as a hard bilateral split* which is: much much worse than a hard contentious upgrade much much much worse than a hard consensual upgrade * technically if its User activated (non mining) then its a hard bilateral split, not soft but if they want to pretend its 'soft' (not user related) then its actually MAST not UASF But would it not also depend on how much hashing power is behind it? What if there is only a total of 5% or less supporting it? but core do love playing buzzword games to stroke people to sleep with false pretenses of soft cushions and fluffy clouds
Why bring Core into this? They are against UASF if I am not mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
