pardon my ignorance (I've been out of the loop for a few years) but what are these bitcoins you are talking about?
Digital stuff for nerds. Basically useless. Don't worry, exit the loop immediately. let me rephrase that. I read a bit about the hard fork a while back, I just don't know what happened with that. Sorry gwoplock, I thought you were fishing for sarcasm. The attack is officially meant to double the blocksize (hence the 2x part of the name) while keeping SegWit, unlike the altcoin BCH, aka BitcoinCash (hence the ticker S2X). On paper, the motivation and the supporters are the same as the NY cartel. However, no proper replay protection has been implemented by the attackers. This is intentional, so the supposed fork is actually an attack. There has been open talk about "attacking" and "strategies" on some well-known Reddit subs. The real goal is replacing Core with more - say - malleable developer(s). Some kind of replay protection can be attempted post-fork at the user's risk. The token for the replay-protected resulting altcoin S2X is available for trade on a few selected exchanges, and is valued at a small fraction of the BTC price. In the meantime, several original signers from the infamous NY coven have retracted their support. A couple of major exchanges are trying to keep a foot in two shoes. |
|
|
|
pardon my ignorance (I've been out of the loop for a few years) but what are these bitcoins you are talking about?
Digital stuff for nerds. Basically useless. Don't worry, exit the loop immediately. |
|
|
|
So they are now on the same page as Satoshi is in his whitepaper. And in line with the Gemini exchange.
Nothing wrong with revising your view when you figure out there is only one measurement in the end: hashrate.
Consensus too was mentioned in the whitepaper, if I'm not mistaken. If there's any truth to the recent news, imagine how happy Gemini and Coinbase customers will be when the "bitcoins" they bought (at a significant discount, I bet) get turned down by Amazon's cart checkout. I sense lawsuits incoming. |
|
|
|
I think its all about setting a direction and the others will follow! right now we use workarounds...
That's wonderful for the people that know about bitcoin and this workaround. To bring BTC to the masses you need Amazon and the like to adopt it.
Definitely. Imagine a "Pay with Bitcoin" button on Amazon's checkout page and what it will do for general adoption. That could be the true tipping point to the mythical S-curve. |
|
|
|
This is strictly OT, but very interesting for me. Not sure how to do research on this without it being hopelessly tainted by ideology. Exactly the problem, yes. One often used option is to study animals first. Here's my take:
In a symbol-manipulating and culture-producing species, homosexuals fulfill the function of outliers not bound by responsibilities of family and to a certain degree free from regular societal norms and expectations. As such they are in a position to dedicate themselves to niche endeavors which may have no immediate useful function for society, but contribute to the experimentation and innovation which keep human culture evolving and adapting. They are often able to take bigger risks and pursue less profitable career-paths compared to heterosexual people with a family. Having children/spouses be dependent on your income makes you more conservative in taking risks and experimenting with your perceived role in society. Thus you can find many homosexuals in fields which demand extreme immersion and individuality of thinking in order to produce results: art and science.
Anyway it's probably best to ask some gay people what they think about all this.
That's not an unreasonable hypothesis, but humans evolved in tribes where no one man is indispensable. That's why women have the hypergamous instinct, in the event that one man dies (or they simply tire of him) they can move in with another. The christian missionaries in the new world did not like this part of native culture at all but it is how things work in tribal life. And it doesn't explain why homosexuality exists in animals. Sexual promiscuity and relative freedom, communal raising of the young, polygamy etc., are believed to be frequent behaviors (common in >50% of communities) in pre-agricultural human societies. The few remaining human communities that are in a pre-agricultural stage (hunters-gatherers) do follow this pattern, as do other social non-human primates (with exceptions). The percentage of communities with such communal sexual behaviour is species-specific. For example, bonobos and common chimpanzees are like this, but other large ape species have different behavior distribution (I'm thinking of mountain gorillas, baboons etc). The theory which is more popular among ethologists and anthropologists is that when agriculture sets in, there is literal and metaphorical fence-building: My land, my harvest, my woman. Don't touch or I'll kill you. Besides, not only the "landlord"'s role (male head of family), but also the female's, becomes harder to replace if it's just the basic couple, rather than the whole village, who must work the crops and the house. So the poetic image that goes along with this theory is that agriculture is the "loss of innocence" landmark for mankind. The pre-agricultural state can then be mythically transfigured into a lost paradise. My personal experience, while not significant statistically, reinforces this myth. I used to have a business in a distant part of the world. There, I befriended many people that have a nomadic (pre-agricultural) history and were forced into "civilization" only a few generations ago. They are different, indeed. The women react very differently. The men react quite differently. The sense of possession is much weaker indeed. The sense of impermanence is palpable. I like that general feeling very much. Of course, with the Internet and globalization reaching every "civilized" human, the dominant mentality quickly takes over. Things are changing fast and even trace amounts of that innocent paradise are being lost and will vanish soon. |
|
|
|
So true my friend. "If you don't hold your private keys, it's not your bitcoin."Sad though, I have a feeling that ten years from now, the banks that want to survive will be offering to store customers' bitcoin for them as a service.... and the public will be too scared of their own incompetence and just use it.  The MSM will probably even have weekly fake news stories about how this person or that person got robbed of all their bitcoin.. to scare people even more into using the banks. It will only take half a bank run to falsify that kind of MSM narrative. Or real interest (denominated in bitcoin) to persuade old bitcoiners. |
|
|
|
Decent dip in the last 24 or so hours. Large enough to make even Jimbo happy, probably. We'll know soon enough!  I managed to buy some more around $5600 (avg). Good enough for me. Still got some fiat for a pretty little accumulation. |
|
|
|
Can someone explain the hate towards btg?
I don't know much about it, but making it mineable with gpu's should make it more decentralized, or no?
What's so wrong with it?
Thanks!
The way it was described to me recently here is this: GPU would work for a short period of time until someone manufactures and monopolizes on ASIC machines to control the hash power. In short, that is what we already have. Anyone Feel free to correct me if I've got that wrong. It's correct - GPU would work for a while, then we'd have GPU farms instead of ASIC farms: no big difference. However, from what I've read, this particular algorithm is memory-hungry. Now I don't know exactly how hungry it is, but in principle an algorithm that requires, say, 8GB to compute one hash would be very hard to farm. It would equalize hash power in a significant way, at least until RAM prices go down one or more orders of magnitude. Difficulty with such an algorithm may involve adjusting both computing power (as it is now with SHA256) and memory requirements. By tweaking the "memory-hunger" parameter, it could be made so that adding more GPUs to a farm won't yield significant results. You'd have to upgrade all your GPU chips with more RAM, or configure your farm to make a chip borrow RAM from its neighbor, which would then be made useless. Rather than "one CPU, one vote" it would be "one memory bank, one vote." Same concept basically, but economically more sensible with the current state of hardware progress. ..and something about a premine (only designed to make the initial devs rich)
On the other hand, premine is the unmistakable hallmark of a scam. So this particular altcoin is a joke/scam/useless anyway. |
|
|
|
It is better for the attack to come from within rather than from the governments.
And how would you know that these patsies and muppets aren't being coerced or paid by govt or big corp aligned interests? The logic behind what they are constantly trying to do only makes sense in light of such. Absent of that, it really makes zero sense. Yes, there probably is a certain government sponsoring the whole operation, but the point remains that this is a technical stress test performed with technical means - not a full-fledged open government campaign with electric power monitoring, localbitcoins infiltration and similar non-crypto means. |
|
|
|
Your post makes lots of sense. But maybe there's an alternative explanation?
Couldn't it be just an attempt to revive the vanishing BCH price, rather than to reduce the S1X/S2X price gap?
I mean, a way to repay back the "faithful" miners who mined BCH at a loss for a long time.
In any case, I'm waiting at the window with the bucket of my residual BCH ready to dump.
The point is that while the act itself may be self-interested, the date chosen is deliberate, since they can do the algo change at any time and ease the suffering of "mysterious miner" even today. But they had to chose a date right before S2X fork and hence it is a scheme to help the S2X succeed. Whether the scheme will succeed or not, who knows, but these kind of attacks are good in that it tests whether bitcoin can resist centralization. It is better for the attack to come from within rather than from the governments. Of course the date is deliberate, but what I meant is that the chosen date is likely to maximize the impact of the action, whether it is support to the S2X attack or a simple attempt at pumping BCH. The date choice alone does not necessarily point to an attack (other considerations could indeed reinforce the hypothesis of a coordinated attack). |
|
|
|
Since we are discussing politics, we might as well discussing Bitcoin politics. As people may know already, BCH is set to hard fork on Nov. 13, 2017 to change their EDA/DAA. https://bitsonline.com/bitcoin-cash-hard-fork/Now while people may laugh it off as just another joke from an ALT. I believe the date is chosen to deliberately cause max disruption. As we know, the S2X fork is set to happen around Nov 14, 2017 and that the next BTC difficulty adjustment will likely increase difficulty by at least 10%. So with another difficulty adjustment around Nov 10, we would likely see difficulty rise to at least 15~20% higher than the current level. As we discussed before, S2X coin is now trading far below the S1X/Core at the current rate (6:1). So the NYA miners are looking at 80%~90% mining loss right off gate if they choose to follow the S2X chain. There is no EDA either, so as more miners bail, the remaining miners would face an impossible task in getting to 100 blocks to collect their pay at the current projected difficulty. We also know that at least 30% of current hashrate is "mercenary" in that they are profit seeking and will jump to the currently most profitable chain, based on BCH experience. So by changing the BCH algorithm on Nov 13, it seeks to draw in the most opportunistic miners right before the S2X fork, so that remaining miners would have a better chance of enforcing a NYA outcome and make S2X succeed. We already know that F2Pool pulled out of NYA and that ViaBTC would offer its miners the option to mine either S1X or S2X chain. By making BCH profitable to mine on Nov. 13, miners who would have bailed on NYA on Nov 14 because S2X price is so unprofitable, would be unavailable on S1X/Core chain. By trying to draw as much of profit-seeking hashrate to BCH instead of having them jump over to S1X chain right from the start, I presume the purpose is to try to crash the S1X price, or at least try to narrow the huge price difference between S1X and S2X so that people like Roger Ver, who make the 1000 BTC swap bet, can at least cover their ass and not look as bad. It could also make the forking debacle more drawn out than expected, as its ultimately a power struggle between miners and hodlers. Miners have to pay for electricity and depreciation, while it's free for hodler to hodl and not making any tx. So narrowing the price difference between S1X and S2X would make miners' struggle easier. Your post makes lots of sense. But maybe there's an alternative explanation? Couldn't it be just an attempt to revive the vanishing BCH price, rather than to reduce the S1X/S2X price gap? I mean, a way to repay back the "faithful" miners who mined BCH at a loss for a long time. In any case, I'm waiting at the window with the bucket of my residual BCH ready to dump. |
|
|
|
|
I was somewhat disappointed when bitcoin didn't dip to 52xx (or at least 53xx) before tackling the high 5k's again (and now close to, or at, 6k). So i bought the recent, much smaller, dip at 5810. Still keeping some fiat on hand just in case. There might be stormy seas soon, with all the forking turmoil. Hodl steady, gentlemen.
|
|
|
|
Why should we happy with that? Because it's fresh institutional big money coming in, possibly. I believe this whole quote in that article is dead wrong: "We imagine LedgerX won’t have too difficult of a time moving inventory, considering bitcoin’s astounding run of new record highs persists unabated. In a market starved for volatility, giving the "big boys" the ability to trade with massive leverage on what is already the most volatile asset class in existence is just what some funds need to make their year as they swing for the fences with 20x (or more in) margin."
From the rulebook rules that I last saw, LedgerX does not allow any margin trading. And no shorting. At least no naked shorting, which is good enough in my book. |
|
|
|
|
It seems I was utterly wrong in expecting a correction in the 42xx area before the next leg up.
The correction may come with the next FUD wave, but I expect it will be higher than that.
5xxx looks like a solid support bottom ATM.
10k by end of year is not unrealistic.
We do live in interesting times.
|
|
|
|
Holy Shit!!! Apparently, we're back to where we've started the day  5,500 on Finex. Where do we go from here? Down to 52xx again? Bumpy as hell. It feels like a series of "shakes" (bulltraps, beartraps). I smell real action coming later on. 10k within 30 days maybe? |
|
|
|
It's just that I'm a sweethearted, sensitive guy and some views just make me emotional.
 "you want me to tell you a story before going to bed ?"Oh yes please, auntie auntie! Just wait for the new ATH will you? Tonight I'd like to hear a bedtime story from the fictional soldier with a likely factual ass. |
|
|
|
that ass is stainless steal. yep ... she's a real soldier.  Also entirely fictional. The soldier is fictional. The stainless steel ass isn't. The camera has always lied, and nowadays it is actively manipulated. Fictional. [/quote] Awwwwright, it might be. If you don't mind, and if the lady doesn't mind, I'd like to check myself. (Sorry for the offtopic ramblings. It's just that I'm a sweethearted, sensitive guy and some views just make me emotional.) |
|
|
|
-snip-
that ass is stainless steal. yep ... she's a real soldier. (snip) Also entirely fictional. The soldier is fictional. The stainless steel ass isn't. |
|
|
|
Your mama and your gov't had your back though. They even vaccinated you. (pure speculation)
You talking to me? Yes, they had. And they did. But it seems confirmed by several sources that also the honey badger's mama has its back. Not the government, though. |
|
|
|
I would rephrase that to unfounded fear. The Dodo was a fearless bird and it may well have been that lack of fear which led to the Dodo's demise.
It was also slow, clumsy, and delicious to eat (reportedly). On the other hand, the honey badger, although fairly fearless, seems to lack the other qualities. Also it shrugs off venomous snake bites. Fucker has nothing to fear, thus it doesn't. I heard it said that it doesn't usually give excessive f**ks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
