Im trying to get some input on what a fair price would be because i bough these a while back and have never seen anymore for sell.
The market is unstable (i.e. values of most coins have dropped) and the absence of sales to reference makes it very hard to determine a 'fair price. I think the best course of action is to put up an auction and see what happens.
P.S.: Check your PMs. |
|
|
|
because having no clue of the reasons makes any statistic you give less worthy, as it has no context.
yes there may be multiple reasons. but not even investigating a single reason or multiple reason makes the stats worthless as anything important
No, actually the opposite is true. The statistic is very much valuable as it represents the actual current network usage of today. Making hasty generalizations due to potential use-cases is bad and will likely lead to completely wrong conclusions. |
|
|
|
yes people are actually currently moving funds to multisigs.. but you are not asking WHY.
even though i dont 'need' multisigs, i have moved funds over to a multisig... do you want to know WHY.
to play out some LN scenarios
Let's be honest here: You can not know why someone is doing that, especially not to generalize the increased multi-signature usage over the last few months. Extrapolating from anecdotal evidence is wrong. |
|
|
|
lol seems you have the wrong hat on today.
No, I do not. The agreement ended up being a big waste of time. cores implementation is not just a simple patch, it was a whole rewrite.
I never claimed that it was a simple patch. However, it is nowhere near as complicated as the /r/btc and other misinformed people try to make it out to be. firstly your playing semantics.. segwit is a BLOAT size increase(4mb). with a side effect of capacity increase (1.8mb-2.1mb)
It is a block size increase. secondly your right segwit doesnt mean moving txs to LN.
I know I am, don't worry. |
|
|
|
but you have not asked yourself why.. or asked bitfury why.. here is the answer
-snip-
No, you do not understand. The latest stats from Bitfury are based on current (i.e. actual) transaction usage. They are not speculating or anything. They have calculated the percentage of transaction types and then used those numbers with Segwit. |
|
|
|
rationally segwit is only offering 1.8x capacity increase.
That has changed now due to the usage type. Check the latest tweets from Bitfury. Now it is expected to be 2.1x considering the usage type from the most recent months. It's over, thanks.
-snip-
One would expect that to happen during a date such a Black Friday, but nope. Definitely genuine transactions.  |
|
|
|
In order to gain positive trust you usually have to engage in trades with users from DT1 or DT2 (default trust). It is explained in this thread. Make sure that you read the OP and the discussion. and also how to give a feedback?
You go to someone's trust list, e.g. mine and scroll down until you see this:  |
|
|
|
Please explain your feedback with no references and provide reference or proof that such feedback is true.
It is obvious that you do not understand the trust system and should read up on it. You do not have to leave any kind of references if you do not want to (e.g. "I do not trust X because of Y" is sufficient). I have updated those ratings now, as the accounts engage in trust abuse.
After consulting with others, I have left you a negative rating due to the act of calumny which is illegal (I've given you more than enough time). If you choose to rewrite it in a way which is not misleading, I will remove it.
Reported.
They have edited the post in the meanwhile. |
|
|
|
Excellent analysis Foxpup; thank you for doing that. If we're ever going to do something like this again, I really ought to write some code to automate this work; a hundred ballots is about the limit of what I can manage in a reasonable time frame.
I may be inclined to run another random election just to get some more of these stats. Maybe Miss Bitcointalk 2016?  |
|
|
|
I believe you know nothing and call a donation as bribe. Definitely some million dollars are too small for your greed.
Bribe: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust
|
|
|
|
You should be already out of discussion.. you are trying to bribe a staff member..
someone call 911.
I took it as a joke. If they were serious, I'd say that such an action deserves a negative trust rating. Bribery should never be supported. If a guy is evading a ban due to lack of quality posts and if he learns the same with time and becomes a Sr. Member then it should really not be a problem and should be considered a special case.
You've learnt nothing and proceeded to make even further violations of the rules. Definitely a "very special case". |
|
|
|
It does feel like some people for whatever reason do not want to disclose that they have some or a lot of these coins. Which is a shame in itself but also a douche move.
Doing so, and calling yourself part of some 'coin collectors' community is a hypocritical at best. I think they will fetch the highest price now when people are still trying to collect their full sets, rather than in a year or so when the ones collecting right now might have lost interest or sold their unfinished sets.
Disagree. The remaining singular coins have lost a tremendous amount of value. More so, what would a person do with a single coin from a set... I think that having the majority would be more valuable.
Considering how many sets have been assembled, especially low numbered sets (all excluding the #1), singular coins have lost a lot of value IMO. There's no reason to spend a lot of money on a singular coin when you could spend a little more and buy a whole set.
I've updated the previous post with the latest chart. |
|
|
|
Regarding your point specifically, that is, computational limits, I think that these can be overcome eventually by using highly specialized "transaction validation" hardware...
Just like ASICs (or whatever) are used for mining coins today
So you think that someone is going to attempt to invent specialized processing units for the sole purpose of running nodes? You do realize that running a node only makes you constantly lose money, so there is zero incentive to attempt a large investment for such. |
|
|
|
250k daily is really a huge amount even though bitcoin is used worldwide
No. 250k is very small (albeit *big* for something new like Bitcoin). In comparison, Visa does 2000 TPS on average which is over 150 Million transactions per day. but I see now that the trending of making new transaction is huge and within a few seconds there are lots of transaction made (based on blockchain.info)
A lot of factors suggest that it was a spam attack (actually a preparatory one; the second wave will come soon). |
|
|
|
I'm not sure why you guys are now speculating of a future in which a 100k increase of the block size limit is possible. You are not factoring in computational limits into this. Even if storage and bandwidth were very cheap (affordable for such blocks) and everyone had connections that could support them, there are still computational limits. Validating such a chain, or syncing up to the network would be a nightmare (you would likely never be able to catch up). And we would need such speeds across continents, dedicated entirely for the support of Bitcoin infrastructure
The problem with increasing the block size is not only the transfer speed. Yes, Segwit will effectively allow larger blocks, but that's not its main purpose, and the increase is marginal.
The most recent transaction type data shows that we would have a probable block size of 2.1 MB (up from previous 1.7 MB calculation). So 2.1x is what we call marginal today? |
|
|
|
|
Seems that some of these coins are lost for ever, unless someone is blatantly holding them back.
|
|
|
|
That is ridiculous , may be if you want free bets , i can provide you that. Out of 7 , 5 sure to win.
I still think that it may be a bit too little.  You have humor and wit, i like it.
What can I say, sometimes I'm a funny cat.
That said, I'll refrain for posting as the vital information was mentioned. |
|
|
|
I see you have account of staff so you might be knowing better than anyone here. But what i have learnt in all 30 years of my life is that money solves all problem(mostly) , maybe if the ban beheading guy gives you some money then you can rectify things , see i dont recommend this but this generally happen on other forum , and you should not restrict someone making account , don't you?
Most of all why that is so much worrying about red feedback? If he has some legit business here then he should not worry about it.
Okay if you think that is a good idea, my rates are: $1 million for unbanning, $5 million for removal of the negative rating. /s
FYI: It was never like that on this forum. |
|
|
|
the hong kong agreement was increased blocksize first and foremost
That agreement was nonsense, stop referencing it. segwit is smoke and mirrors
a bullshit over complicated solution and i think some of the miners can see this more clearly than others
That is an outright lie. Segwit is not as complex as the average (r/btc) Joe tries to paint it as such. Practically, the majority of the developers (non Core) support it. moving txs to LN will hurt miners revenue in the future so they will ultimately reject segwit without a block increase first
Segwit != moving TXs to LN. Stop spreading false information. Segwit is a block size increase. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
