LOL. Blockthestream inc. Mike "Final Call + Checkpoints" Hearn and decentralization.
Orwell everywhere.
Fixed it. No charge. Yes. Hearn triggered competition to the dev monopoly. But I know, monopolists hate choice. |
|
|
|
I see a ridiculous ATH, maybe 6 figures, catching up all the so called "realistic-conservators". They will think, "oh, we might see the last ATH again, we'll hit 1K". Then, they sell at 1K, we see a small correction, at about 700 dollars, then the big big money out there jumps into Bitcoin. Bang, 10K dollar a Bitcoin and a lot of 1K sellers committing harakiri.
More likely scenario: They sell at $1000, we see a correction to about $700, then they start panic selling. Btc price crashes to $1. Anyone who didn't sell at $1000, commit harakiri, including neurotypical. nah, i've already seen this story, and the price went to 230, 1 is only on the dream of haters this time if we can surpass a certain point, i'm expecting a much bigger run up notice how every new run up was bigger than the lst one, there was no regression Exactly - this story has happened multiple times already. Yes, first 'tulip' bubble to 32 (2011) and back to 3, second to 266 (2013) and back to 50, third to 1200 (2013) and back to 166, fourth to 5000 (2016) fifth to 20'000 (2017) Brave prediction!I'm bullish but this is mega bullish"  How much the fourth and fifth bubble will correct in your opnion? The 2011 bubble corrected about 93 percent. The 2013er bubbles 'just' 80-85 percent. I guess the next bubbles will correct about 70 percent. |
|
|
|
Maybe not. There are people here (bitcointalk) who disagree. Healthy disagreement Yes, healthy disagreement, but the master's track record is impressive. |
|
|
|
I see a ridiculous ATH, maybe 6 figures, catching up all the so called "realistic-conservators". They will think, "oh, we might see the last ATH again, we'll hit 1K". Then, they sell at 1K, we see a small correction, at about 700 dollars, then the big big money out there jumps into Bitcoin. Bang, 10K dollar a Bitcoin and a lot of 1K sellers committing harakiri.
More likely scenario: They sell at $1000, we see a correction to about $700, then they start panic selling. Btc price crashes to $1. Anyone who didn't sell at $1000, commit harakiri, including neurotypical. nah, i've already seen this story, and the price went to 230, 1 is only on the dream of haters this time if we can surpass a certain point, i'm expecting a much bigger run up notice how every new run up was bigger than the lst one, there was no regression Exactly - this story has happened multiple times already. Yes, first 'tulip' bubble to 32 (2011) and back to 3, second to 266 (2013) and back to 50, third to 1200 (2013) and back to 166, fourth to 5000 (2016) fifth to 20'000 (2017) |
|
|
|
Not necessery to 'mention' that the supply collapsed to the halve amount. That the reality is 'mentioned' or not is irrelevant.
It is unquestionably a reduction in supply, but in reality on the peak days of the madness the difference in availability would've probably been less than one per cent. Hundreds of thousands of coins were changing hands. I guess it may well add up cumulatively but exchange availability is elastic enough to meet most demand while completely disregarding the underlying inflation or reduced amount thereof. Trading is a zero sum game. Traders buy and sell and buy and sell. That doesn't raise the supply and therefore can't meet demand. |
|
|
|
No, after the halving date a 50fold increase began.
Do you really think that had anything to do with lower inflation? Yes, will happen again. At no point did I see anyone mention a halving that took place multiple months previously.
Not necessery to 'mention' that the supply collapsed to the halve amount. That the reality is 'mentioned' or not is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
I don't think this rise is "the rise". We'll probably still have many months of little price movement, as we've seen the last couple months, a kind of staircase shape till the thing goes parabolic.
The last halving was priced in by the time it happened. No, after the halving date a 50fold increase began. |
|
|
|
I think it is legitimate to fork Bitcoin with 51%, it might be ill advised but it is not wrong, since this represents the freedom and will of the participants of the Bitcoin network. Nobody is forcing the miners to do anything, they have the free choice to point their hash power wherever they want. Bitcoin is a type of democracy where the economic majority rules. However unlike democratic states, tyranny of the majority is impossible under the consensus mechanism of Bitcoin because the minority of such a split can choose to stay with the old rules in effect splitting Bitcoin in two. This is a good thing and a beautiful solution to the age old problem of tyranny of the majority. This is why a temporary majority can not force its will on the minority as you claim. do me a favor: link me to the last hard fork that forked based on 75% hashing power or less. then consult the Merriam-Webster dictionary and see the first definition of "consensus": 1 a : general agreement : unanimity I know what it means, you know consensus did exist before Bitcoin. Do me a favor and learn more about political philosophy and history. Then you would realize that consensus or unanimity is impossible among large groups of people. Which is why we need to build these political structures in order to best approximate effective decision making processes. Within Bitcoin this mechanism exists as the consensus mechanism, it is called consensus because most of the time there is unanimity however when fork events happen because of disagreement, then unanimity becomes impossible, it can then only be resolved through a fork. This is the decision making process of Bitcoin to think that we can all just agree with each other is completely ignoring human nature and the lessons taught by history. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Thanks. So XT is dead and so is BIP101. What are we going to do then, increase to what size?
Not really important which implementations will be ready next year and which not. The miners will run the implemention(s) that are ready. Yeah agreed, I am happy that BIP100 has gained so much support, it will be the miners that will always stay true to Bitcoin because of the incentive mechanism. Which is why the more I have been thinking about it, the more I favor BIP100. The thirty two megabyte limit can at least serve as a compromise for the small blockists. I am even accepting the concept that we will have to go through this struggle again when the limit needs to increased again in the future, at least at that point with 32x times the transaction volume we will be dealing with a more diverse group of people. Yes, by then the blockthestream core will be history as the dominant dev team. |
|
|
|
Thanks. So XT is dead and so is BIP101. What are we going to do then, increase to what size?
Not really important which implementations will be ready next year and which not. The miners will run the implemention(s) that are ready. |
|
|
|
I'm doxing
A anonymous stasi man exposing himself over and over again. |
|
|
|
Jeff Garzik: Simple math shows bitcoin block size must increase for full Lightning/side chain roll out & adoptionSorry, we're not going to trade our existing precious decentralization for some fantasy of "full" adoption. LOL. Blockthestream inc. and decentralization. Orwell everywhere. |
|
|
|
Jeff Garzik: Simple math shows bitcoin block size must increase for full Lightning/side chain roll out & adoption |
|
|
|
More ad hominem from the usual suspects.
No problem. That's all they can. The more they are exposing themselves, the better. Everybody understands who is representing Bitcoin and who is not. There is no way that the DDoS'ers, ad homines, warriors, node fakers and vulgar poets will be able to lead the community. Their implementation will be forked out of the game and result in an alt, which they can rename into 'fakerscoin', 'warriorcoin', 'vulgarcoin', 'shitcoin' etc. |
|
|
|
My original thread ended up moderated into the Altcoins sub, but I'm taking the content to the main forum anyway....
"Libertarian" bitcoiners are beginning to out themselves as XT/101 shills:
Because Libertarians and anarchists would never support a ridiculous, corporatist 1MBcap fee subsidy. That's something for subsidiots. |
|
|
|
Be Ready at Any Hour
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."
Matthew 24:36
You are such an easily mislead person. That's how it's supposed to work, using fee markets artificially subsided by the 1MB cap to determine optimal allocation of BS-chains and altcoins. It's great for a laugh!  Yes, but it won't work. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time." |
|
|
|
|
The adoption of big block implementations comes as soon as the stream of transactions is blocked. Which implementations will be ready and which not is not important.
|
|
|
|
More ad hominem from the usual suspects. If you scroll back a few pages you will see that actual arguments have been made. Read them and decide for your self what you believe, do not be fooled by ad hominen and sophistry.
A bunch of ad hominem pseudo bitcoiners whining about the posts of Peter_R the whole day and night. Unbelievable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
