Bitcoin Forum
July 19, 2024, 05:29:40 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
1  Economy / Speculation / Isn't it exciting... on: January 15, 2024, 05:14:28 PM
This is the most bullish I have seen this place in a while. Not long until the ATH again eh!

What could possibly go wrong?

2  Economy / Speculation / How is everyone doing? on: November 10, 2022, 12:34:32 PM
Well, now things get interesting!

We finally come back to what should have been the top at around 16500!

As we all know the past 2 years was Tether's very own version of Willy Bot, but on steroids. It was always going to com out in the wash and now the DoJ/SEC on the case it looks like its gonna be [ur]scrubbing day[/url] pretty soon...

So, will ~16 hold and become the new base for another speculative run up?

I for one welcome regulation in the space. Yeah I know GUBBERNMENT BAD... but don't forget, the regulators are going after the scammy exchanges and ponzi schemes that are screwing retail investors - they don't care about you and your sovereign Bitcoin, you are not a criminal... right?

Keep your corn off exchanges, use them to transact, respect bast practice for privacy and you get all the benefits of Bitcoin with assurances that nefarious actors can't screw you.
3  Economy / Speculation / I know you have all been waiting in anticipation of on update.... on: December 06, 2021, 01:49:07 PM

2017 forecast - with explanation of how post-Gox played out

2020 Revised forecast - with explanation of how each ATH must retest previous before next rally can begin.

Tether BS in FT - once a purview of cryptobloggers and niche sites, the overwhelming stench of alleged Tether fraud is now mainstream news.

BTC *will* retest ~1150 - timeframe is totally unpredictable because it depends on what unfolds in Florida, COPA, Wright vs Bitcoin devs, what happens with Tether and what the SEC decides about whether a coin that has a raise on promise of profit and is pre-mined constitutes a security. ETH clearly, air dropped Bitcoin... maybe.

You love to hate it, but you can't ignore it forever.
4  Economy / Speculation / Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids! on: June 20, 2021, 02:17:24 PM
Now guys, sgbett was on the verge of having a come-to-Jesus moment and you are prodding him back into the big blocker corner.

It's okay if he was smugly laughing to his inner-self after penning his "concession," finally thinking aloud, "Fools! They thought I am conceding but when I said 'Bitcoin' I actually meant Bitcoin Craig! Hah! Tricked em."

I know that's as good as we're gonna get as far as an apology is concerned, and we should all take it.

Of course, this was slightly embarrassing, written only 6 days ago, which is six days prior to the last ATH:

Ofc if you had a million riding on BTC right now the question would be sell or hold.

Everyone will tell you HODL of course, they are in the same boat.

Id say look at the 250k you actually have vs the paper million you would be about to lose.

Keep watching!

Y'all way too quick to try and call me out nutildah Smiley

hotpassion did you really re-buy at $46k? still think it will make $100k?

Sgbett, you still don't accept that you are the loser or fail in your prediction? There are only 5 days left and we are all watching what will you say on 19 Feb 2021.
I already bought BTCs back and I will not sell till it reaches 100k.

I think the question now is where BTC finds support. I'm seeing a little volume at $23k but I think it will have to test either $19k or $12k. The latter could be brutal! Honestly though I thinks probably going to be the former. All depends on how well y'all HODL Wink
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Fraud of the Century? on: November 26, 2020, 05:15:26 PM

I know ya'll know I'm just teasing you Wink

But seriously I am interested to hear what people think about how it could affect BTC when Craig has his day in court.

I've come to the conclusion that so many BTC traders are so caught up in the money making that they won't even care whether or not it is really Bitcoin as Satoshi envisaged.

If that's the case, then will BTC just continue to trade? Will it continue to be cyclical as it has in the past. I ask this question because, without the "digital cash" utility will it's remaining properties be sufficient to keep people interested?

I'm no stranger to being mocked for holding contrarian opinions, but it is pretty tiresome, so would appreciate considered arguments

As the dominant coin, and the societally accepted true Bitcoin, and being safe in the knowledge of Craig being a fraud as you all are, then there should be no fear of discussion. So tell me how the future of Bitcoin looks if it turns out he isn't lying? Who has a plan and what is it?
6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Craig Wright recognised by US Govt as Satoshi, author of white paper on: May 21, 2019, 12:21:33 PM

implications for Bitcoin?
7  Economy / Speculation / When you bet $1000 in Jan '18 that BTC would go below $10k in 2018 on: December 10, 2018, 11:25:08 PM
You reckon this BTC-Graphicdesigns guy will pay up?

I'll bet anyone $500 in any crypto that s/he doesn't lololol

Iíve played this game before Smiley

Your max downside is $1000
My max downside is infinite.

I *never* short anything. (Except fiat!)

How about, end of 2018 as a fair approximation of ďever againĒ

If I win I want $1k in BCH
You win Iíll send $1k in BTC


So you say it will be under $1000 by end of December?

Where do I say that?

The bet amount is £1k the price is $10k and the deadline is the end of the year.

If it goes under you lose if it gets to end of year without going below you win.
8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Selfish mining for the layman on: April 07, 2018, 12:50:18 PM
I wrote some thoughts about selfish mining. Iíd welcome some discussion about it. Iím not going to be upset if Iím wrong just want to understand why if I am!

First time Iíve ever written something other than a forum post!
9  Economy / Speculation / Calling top at $16500 (New speculation: Guess the price 19 Feb 2021!) on: December 07, 2017, 12:34:39 PM

Its been a while.

Imagine for a second that we are nearing the blow off top, I'm looking out for where we might ultimately form a new baseline (background)

I'm going to say ~$3700 looks good

As you all know, this run up started around $200

$200 to $3700 is $3500 increase. If we do a fib retrace of 78.6%, working the math we end up with that $3500 representing 12.4% of the overall expected gain before it corrects. That gives 3500/0.1240.214 => $16300 gain.

$16,300 + starting point of $200 = $16,500

Edit: fixed transposition of numbers 0.124 should be 0.214
Edit: added link to "guess the price Feb 19th" post
10  Economy / Speculation / Why this rally isn't a bubble yet... on: January 05, 2017, 11:07:31 AM
The price has broken the ATH (are nearly has, depending on your p.o.v) but google trends is showing search interest only just starting to bubble up - apparently driven by Africa and eastern Europe.

So if this hype cycle plays out like the others we're (once again) still at the "early adopter" phase for this particular bubble. Will this time be the vertical on the s-curve of adoption? I'd say 50/50 this time round.

$560k folks. Never Forget.
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / paging icebreaker re bip101 on: February 12, 2016, 12:20:49 AM
Could you please finally once and for all admit that bip101 is off the table

For the longest time now you have argued black and blue that that XT is rekt. Now we finally have the evidence that you need.

It's been a long wait and we need to thank everyone that has been so patient. Finally we can put to bed the idea that XT=bip101 and focus on the fact that XT is just one of several clients that supports the block size increase.

As the Wu Tang Clan might put it "The Chinese miner ultimatum ain't nothin' ta fuck wit' "

Tick tock
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Reversion to the mean on: October 07, 2015, 05:31:22 PM
All this talk is so wearing, I've been reading less and less on the forums and thinking.

When I got into bitcoin I saw something with massive potential to be disruptive technology. It looked to me like it could basically replace fiat currency, an opinion that I think was shared by a lot of people back in the day. Sure there was the whole get rich quick thing, and the insane volatility and the less cynical more funny community.

I still believe this fundamental idea that bitcoin can take over the world.

To do that it needs to grow though, and that's why "I am SGBETT and I am a big blocker"... but you all knew that already.

What seems to have happened though, is that a new idea has arisen. The idea that bitcoin *can't* scale, and should instead be used as some kind of settlement layer. That other things should be developed to provide the 'currency' style features.

What I am finding difficult is the whole debate seems to be now centred around the pro's and cons of two exclusive camps. BTC can *only* be store of value and settlement. BTC can *only* be cash. The participants have taken these as axiomatic truths and are arguing the pro's and cons.

At worst this is an intentional strategy, by characterising the argument in this way its easier to justify one position by radicalising the opposing view and arguing against it. At best its just misguided passion for what you believe in. A cynic might think its the former, but I am going to assume its the latter.

Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.

Concerns about full blocks are being used as a way to justify increasing block size.

The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.

Where does that leave us?

Well the followup work by Taleb describes Antifragility. This means positioning yourself to benefit massively/protecting yourself from loss should the unexpected happen, which it inevitably will.

Of course this perspective can be twisted to justify pro / anti block size increase. I'll leave it to the small blockers to give there explanation as to how keeping blocks small is antifragile.

My view though, is that having larger than you think you need blocks is antifragile. If there is an unprecedented surge in bitcoin use then transactions can increase massively, fees go up massively miners get paid, we all cheer because bitcoin adoption is taking off (we can surely agree that everyone would like to see adoption no?). If the blocks are much bigger than we need, and they are not needed, nothing happens. An antifragile view (imho) looks at both outcomes and checks to make sure neither results in tragedy.

Lets take centralisation. Massive blocks, really big regularly, means fewer people can run nodes etc. This could happen, but how badly? What constitutes unacceptable levels of centralisation, unacceptable as in 'terminal', can we define this? Is there an actual block size (not block size limit) that causes terminal centralisation? Do 8MB blocks cause this, 16MB, 32... ? Don't forget each doubling is 2 years, so we are already in 2020 before anyone could mine a 32 MB block.

Note, that is *could* mine a big block. If we don't need it, we don't use it, and thats the flip side of the centralisation argument. Nothing bad happens.

You can dissect all arguments for and against block size in this fashion, trying to figure out what course of action is most antifragile.

Fee market - in 2020 with 32 mb blocks. If they are full then a simple extrapolation may be that we have 32x the amount of current fees in a block (about 6BTC). Maybe average fee per transaction has declined tenfold and there is only 0.6BTC a block. Still, the block reward is 12.5BTC so we still aren't exactly in tragic failure mode. If we are still only doing the same volume as today then nothing bad happens.

The closest I think we can get to arguing 'something bad happens' is the terminal centralisation of mining. A hypothetical *extreme* scenario. The fee market argument doesn't hold up because we still have decades before the block size gets small enough that fees are relevant.

I can't fathom why anyone is trying to force a fee market right now whilst the block reward is still so big. The only reason I can see is greed, and that would perfectly fit with all of human history. Bitcoin is the goose laying golden eggs right now, and it feels to me like some people aren't happy with one egg a day.

Why reversion to the mean, because this is exactly what the banks are doing right now. The banks squeeze us for every penny, because they are greedy and we have no choice.

This fee market? Who do you think pays for it, and to whom?

Appeal to authority, yes.
Appeal to emotion, yes.

Isn't that the whole point, doing smart things that feel right. Learning from history. Don't make bitcoin 'the bank', don't let greedy men fool you - it was inevitable that once bitcoin started showing value it would attract those that seek to take that value for themselves.

Bitcoin should be for everyone. Bitcoin should replace 'fiat' money.

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Why its not just about block size on: August 28, 2015, 03:03:58 PM
At first I thought it was, and I've come full circle on this.

It was my opinion that block size should be bigger (I accept others feel differently - thats cool). The only way for me to do anything about it, other than arguing oti, was to switch clients.

Then I read all the bad stuff about Mike and Gavin and what they were doing and I was a bit worried. I read about how they were putting nefarious changes that track IP addresses. Blocking nodes etc

That made me worried too. I don't like creeping censorship as much as the next man so tools that allow it should be regarded with suspicion. Then I read what the change did and saw that it didn't seem (to me) to be half as bad as people were making out.

Then I started to read more about why XT came about I'm not going to link to it all because everyone should do their own research. My understanding though in summary is that the core dev environment seemed to be pretty toxic. This is a pretty bold claim so I started reading through some past posts on the developer list, pull request discssions etc to try and establish how legitimate this claim is. To me it seems to have some legitimacy, but I would encourage you to look for yourselves and see what you feel. I won't post links because I don't want to be accused of leading you.

Now I'm not here to tell you Gavin and Mike are the good guys and core devs are evil. Nor am I here to support those that think XT is the end of times and the core dev team are the knights in shining armour that are going to rescue os from the defilers that sullied out land with a fork. The devil carries a fork. Therefore XT is the work of the devil.

I'm here to say that I think its important that people look around at what is going on and have a real honest think about the situation. Don't believe any of what I wrote above check it all out. Have a look at the pull requests that have been submitted, the discussion that follows. The manifesto posted by XT and the articles written explaining there philosophy. The actions that have been taken by the various participants.

When I did that I found that I no longer supported XT for the block size limit upgrade, but I supported it because it felt like it was right that there should be diversity in clients. That hard forks are almost unavoidable so better that we learn to love the bomb.

I will paste one quote though because I can't spend this whole post being entirely ambivalent, it was by Gavin and whether you like him or not I think he makes an interesting but probably contentious point, which is based on some facts as opposed to being pure conjecture, or open to interpretation. I'm not going to try and assert this is some ultimate truth and anyone that disagrees is a traitor or anything like that either. None of the discussion like that is helpful. There are some smart people on these boards and if they can all discuss instead of bickering maybe it can set an example. I'll do my best, I hope others will too.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen
Yes, I think having lots of diverse implementations of the Bitcoin protocol is a very good thing. I know Greg Maxwell has been pretty vocal in the past disagreeing with that, and I understand his point of view: it is really hard to get two or three or eleven different implementations to accept and reject exactly the same sets of transactions or blocks. Consensus is hard.

But it is hard to get EXACTLY THE SAME implementation running on different hardware or just running at different places on the network to accept and reject exactly the same sets of transactions or blocks. Bitcoin Core versions 0.7 and earlier could "self-fork" -- exactly the same code running on identical hardware could disagree about what chain was valid because of a bug.

And it's now safe to talk about the REAL reason for BIP66, which was to prevent a fork between 32-bit machines and 64-bit machines.

One of the principles of security is to eliminate single points of failure. Another is to try to minimize the damage done by failure of any one component. A diversity of implementations running on the network helps both of those aspects of security, and that is why I'm happy to see other implementations like Conformal's btcd or Coinbase's Toshi, and why I think multiple forks of Satoshi's original codebase is healthy for the long run.!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ

Polarising debate isn't helpful I can see advantages and disadvantages to all. Stubbornly setting up in one camp and arguing beyond reason that yours is the one true solution isn't good. You may say that is what XT has done but this can be levelled equally at core. XT is a choice, so is core. Lets have more choice and less 'Conscription'.
14  Economy / Speculation / Better Sell... on: August 24, 2015, 01:34:13 PM
AAPL -10%
NFLX -16%
IXIC -8%
DJI -4%
BHP -8%
BRK.B -6%
BP -7%

Better sell *everything* and buy buttcoins.
15  Economy / Speculation / I predict I will never make any money... on: March 10, 2015, 12:02:03 PM
...from bums who welch on bets!

I bet 1 BTC it isn't.

at no point before midnight GMT is it below $200

bitstamp price

What say you?

you got yourself a bet. it is roughly at $230 on bitstamp at the moment. I still have another 12 hours. you are going to lose the bet old man.

Quoted for reference. Current price on BitStamp is 232. Enjoy your bet.

hey polycoin, where's my money you bum!?
16  Economy / Speculation / Breakout incoming! on: March 07, 2015, 04:10:22 PM

my money's on up (obviously!) Wink

17  Economy / Speculation / The Despondancy Stage on: January 30, 2015, 03:48:46 PM
Dunno about anyone else but thats where I am!

For me its characterised by all the fear of price drop having gone, and an increasing sense of apathy. I log into BTC and can barely be bother to click any threads any more.

Everyone's seen the chart obviously...

I think this one is also a good match, in that stage 13 looks really familiar!

18  Economy / Speculation / Elliot Waves, what are they!? on: January 27, 2015, 02:44:13 PM
The more a read about it the more I'm convinced its an art not a science. The important thing is I don't think its something that is entirely without merit. Whether you can use it predictively to trade? Maybe. Am I going to, certainly not Wink

What I do know is there does seem to be a some logic behind the idea of impulsive moves.

I've seen various counts proposed for the bear market, and one of my favourites was the one where the ABC bearish correction coincides with large volume spike down a few days ago.

I also like the idea put forward about the throwover, my gut tells me this would be likely especially around 'big' (primary? sorry i don't know the terminology so well) waves. I think that the long bear market we went through was a pretty solid one.

So If we are starting a new 12345 main wave then we'll also be starting the smaller waves too, what we just saw, the impulsive bounce of what may prove to be the bottom, with our first exponential run up in a long long time (we've had ups but they have always looked like corrections over over sold positions in an otherwise downwardly moving market - this looked very different).

Then the sell off, which appears to be a normal correction event in a generally bullish trend.

It all looks very much like how elliot waves would unfold.

I guess what I'm saying is I think the next bull market is here, and the charts we are seeing look like they will make for some very convincing EW counts...
19  Economy / Speculation / Market Cycles - why 560k might be wrong! on: January 21, 2015, 06:22:37 PM
Following this post here I thought about how the next market cycle might unfold.

To recap, I think a full cycle of the form popularised by *that* chart, is a fair assessment of human emotion, market behaviour during speculative bubble. I think the bitcoin price is subject to speculative bubbles. I don't think that the bitcoin price is *purely* a speculative bubble though. I think underlying value based on adoption is also a factor, and I think the market price is a combination of these two factors.

That means each speculative bubble will be bigger than the last, and based off of the underlying value as some function of 'adoption'.

The charts below broadly summarise what I think might unfold:

This is basically the same idea I posted before in the 560k prediction post but from a different perspective, not formulaic but conceptual. Still with the obligatory outlandish price forecast though Wink

Once again attempting to trade on these numbers would be stupid. Instead these numbers are a guide to what one might expect in a 'success' scenario. A scenario that I can't say will happen, so you shouldn't think so either.

*IF* we were to go through another speculative bubble, perhaps driven by wall street this time, then it would probably be much of a much larger magnitude involving much more capital and take much longer. A year long consolidation followed by another year of gradually increasing price trending higher ending in a correction, followed by an exponential bubble phase over several months. Potentially taking us to a price on 4,5 or even six figures.

That's the 'worldwide adoption' model, and the speculative bubble that happens on the way. If it happens. Of course those posting below, know for a fact it won't  Kiss
20  Economy / Speculation / What if the price decline was really due to gox, but not how you think? on: January 15, 2015, 03:47:08 PM
Maybe what happened at gox in the final month, was an indicator of what was going to happen in the bigger market.

If it is then we have to go low $100s before price discovery can start afresh! (with a hell of a dead cat bounce to really put it up the bulls!)

(just to be clear, I'm not planning on testing this theory out with *my* meagre stash. I HODL as ever...)
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!