|
144
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Segwit details? N + 2*numtxids + numvins > N, segwit uses more space than 2MB HF
|
on: March 20, 2016, 12:54:38 PM
|
No, you can't-- not if you live in a world with other people in it. The spherical cow "hardforks can change anything" ignores that a hardfork that requires all users shutting down the Bitcoin network, destroying all in flight transactions, and invalidating presigned transactions (thus confiscating some amount of coins) will just not be deployed.
What a load of FUD. How you expect people to take you seriously when you make ridiculous statements like this I will never know.. |
|
|
|
|
145
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: sub 400 in 3.. 2.. 1...
|
on: March 20, 2016, 11:04:14 AM
|
More harsh times for bitcoin across the horizon.
Now that merchants are stopping accepting bitcoin in their stores we can expect a significant (20-30%) drop in the next weeks.
Hey, aren't you that fellow who sold his coins for only ten dollars? LOL |
|
|
|
|
152
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: March 11, 2016, 10:33:30 PM
|
The actual problem comes next if transactions continue to ramp up as they have progressively leading to a backlog which never clears.
Personally, I'm not anxious for all that spam to be "cleared" by getting included in the blockchain. It would be like having the street outside your house filled with trash and considering collecting them inside your house to "clean the street". When the network is spammed, two things can happen, or both of them to some degree. 1) the blockchain will get bloated with spam 2) the mempool will get bloated with spam Then it doesn't matter what price your wallet chooses, it will not guarantee inclusion by a miner, as the next person putting a transaction in will out bid you (yay fee market!).
This is only theoretical and provided all 1mb is legit use. Practice shows that even at "extreme" load, fees don't rise above 5-6 cents. The answer is simple: Legit txs are way below 1mb and the rest is topped off with spam. So there is no reason for fee competition at the top, as legit txs always outbid the spammers (provided their software is not crap). What you say would happen, if indeed there was sufficient legit demand to cover the 1mb (which, unfortunately, there isn't). The time when this will be so is coming but by the time legit activity hits 1mb in a year or so, or later, we'll be at 1.7mb or more, so, again, it won't matter. Being economically naive you would hurrah! at a working fee market. But actually by enforcing limited transactional scarcity with a blocksize cap what you actually do is break bitcoin for most people. Suddenly stuck transactions are widespread and sure you can still use bitcoin but fees will simply spiral upwards until they are ridiculous.
This is FUD (explained above why it has never worked that way). The best bit is that as the network becomes increasingly congested actually performing a flooding attack to completely disrupt the network becomes trivially cheap to employ.
The network will still process the best paying 250.000 txs per day, undisrupted, no matter how much one floods/spams it. Why do I feel you are deliberately choosing not to see the other POV? Let's forget for a minute that you seem to have the ability to tell apart a user transaction from a spam transaction and suggest that actually the daily demand for transactions rises above 250,000 consistently. Tell me how exactly users who are unable to get a transaction confirmed (they just sit there ad infinitum) are not 'disrupted'? Since when did failure of transactions to be written to the chain become a feature? It is a sign of failure. |
|
|
|
|
153
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: March 11, 2016, 09:46:54 PM
|
I doubt anyone is suggesting small blocks forever, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of an emergency need to take some kind of drastic measures to increase the blocksize limit on an emergency basis.. and in that regard, the impression and/or creation of an emergency seems to be largely fabricated with a bunch of loud and whiny voices.
I think it was something like a year ago when Hearn predicted that urgent action must be taken or Bitcoin would ...crash. Yes, he said crash. The rationale was something like "ohh nodes will fill their mempools and nodes will start crashing and ohhhh, we need bigger blocks". For a programmer it's very suspect why he didn't simply write a patch and say "here guys, this will fix nodes from crashing through a parameter that sets mempool size"... Why promote a hard fork for 8-20mb increases (which would be 20-50 times the legit activity of the network) instead of simply patching the software with a mempool limit, as 0.12 does? The whole crisis / urgency scenario was bullshit, as was the "problem=>reaction=>solution" - in terms of ...proposed "solution". For some reason your answer entirely misses the fact that blocks are filling up. A cheap transaction flooding attack brought the network to it's knees just last week. You are that dog cartoon saying 'everything is fine' as the house burns down around you. "We can't have 1mbforevah" "We want 1cent-txsforevah" (and if we get to 2 cents we say the network is down to its knees because we didn't pay the 2-3-5 cent fee) Newsflash: The system is not based on the premise of 1 cent txs forevah. Fees are dynamic, based on the load. You don't pay the fees => you get in line. And wait. The network operates normally for those that follow proper tx pricing. If they don't, it's usually because their wallet makes wrong assumptions about fees. They should upgrade to core 0.12. But then they'd have to download 10gb txs and 60gb spam... ooops. In a world where incoming transactions over 24 hours is less than blockspace that is fine - mild irritation to a few bitcoin users. Even as we are now with occasional surges of activity where transaction volumes fill the mempool leading to transaction delays it resolves soon enough as the backlog clears - with lots of complaints of a temporary nature. The actual problem comes next if transactions continue to ramp up as they have progressively leading to a backlog which never clears. Then it doesn't matter what price your wallet chooses, it will not guarantee inclusion by a miner, as the next person putting a transaction in will out bid you (yay fee market!). Being economically naive you would hurrah! at a working fee market. But actually by enforcing limited transactional scarcity with a blocksize cap what you actually do is break bitcoin for most people. Suddenly stuck transactions are widespread and sure you can still use bitcoin but fees will simply spiral upwards until they are ridiculous. The best bit is that as the network becomes increasingly congested actually performing a flooding attack to completely disrupt the network becomes trivially cheap to employ. |
|
|
|
|
154
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: March 11, 2016, 09:28:15 PM
|
I doubt anyone is suggesting small blocks forever, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of an emergency need to take some kind of drastic measures to increase the blocksize limit on an emergency basis.. and in that regard, the impression and/or creation of an emergency seems to be largely fabricated with a bunch of loud and whiny voices.
I think it was something like a year ago when Hearn predicted that urgent action must be taken or Bitcoin would ...crash. Yes, he said crash. The rationale was something like "ohh nodes will fill their mempools and nodes will start crashing and ohhhh, we need bigger blocks". For a programmer it's very suspect why he didn't simply write a patch and say "here guys, this will fix nodes from crashing through a parameter that sets mempool size"... Why promote a hard fork for 8-20mb increases (which would be 20-50 times the legit activity of the network) instead of simply patching the software with a mempool limit, as 0.12 does? The whole crisis / urgency scenario was bullshit, as was the "problem=>reaction=>solution" - in terms of ...proposed "solution". For some reason your answer entirely misses the fact that blocks are filling up. A cheap transaction flooding attack brought the network to it's knees just last week. You are that dog cartoon saying 'everything is fine' as the house burns down around you. |
|
|
|
|
156
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Which would be the break point in your opinion?
|
on: March 11, 2016, 07:20:26 PM
|
Hi all
I have been making some profit buying BTC at sub 410 prices and selling at prices over 410 (normally I buy at 405-409 and sell at 410-416 then repeat). Price seems somewhat stable at those ranges... but (just in your opinion) which would be a point of break (i.e: if it goes over 422 it's that is going up so best to hold instead of buying-selling, or if it goes below 390 it is going down, so stop the game too and wait to buy lower).
Just your opinions-insight on this would be appreciated. Thanks.
BTC to work it's way up (nasty little long stop running corrections notwithstanding) to above $430s, but not above $450s. Put in bearish market structure, and then fucking tank good n proper. With that said, if BTC does somehow get above $450, and confirm itself with bullish market structure, then it has got to be a long. At this point though, I don't think that is going to happen. The Contrarian Indicator has spoken. Place your bets accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
157
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: I'm dumping my bitcoins so you should
|
on: March 11, 2016, 07:17:39 PM
|
It belongs here, not the speculation section.I was always selling during this fake pump (you really never know when it ends) and will be more as it goes up and I'm not re-buying later even if price goes below $200. I won't regret even if it goes above $1000 someday when I sold two times cheaper. I think it was the last big pump we could ever see. Someone might say that "I lost faith" but there should be no faith, common sense should be. Let's be frankly. Banks/governments will never use Bitcoin. Instead they will create own scalable blockchains. Normal people will never use Bitcoin. They simply don't need it. This means that bitcoin won't go mainstream and price won't get that high. Just think how the US government/JP Morgan/BoFA will adapt a currency which majority of emission is held by some kids and cryptopunks. Also 1/21 of coins is held by some anon who calls himself "Satoshi". This is no serious. This is fucking ridiculous. Comparing bitcoin capitalization with gold's is fucking ridiculous, too. Gold has got history of thousands of years and a lot of applications. Meanwhile Bitcoin is just a virtual asset that's been known for about 7 years and has got very poor applications. What is worse is that bitcoin is not really scalable. Again. Comparing bitcoin capitalization with facebook's is even more ridiculous. Facebook is a large company that connects the entire planet. Holding Facebook stocks generates huge revenues. Meanwhile BTC is just a speculative virtual asset. Not scalable. Old. Always bloating. Not stable. It's even not decentralized! Also, such a risk as banning Bitcoin in many countries must be considered. First of all, in China. Chinese government is a totalitarian one and they will finally ban bitcoin if it becomes a problem for them. Just like here, in Russia. European Union will likely ban using of bitcoin someday "to stop ISIS/terrorism financing". The US is not the world. The rest are weak/poor/small countries. What about the upcoming block halving - price went down when the Litecoin halving happened. Expect the same when the Bitcoin's happens. Don't put into this hype or you will most likely be eaten by whales. This all doesn't mean the whole crypto scene is doomed. No, absolutely not. I'm sure we will see new much better truly decentralized applications in the near future that will dominate/replace bitcoin. And not just bitcoin. TLDR: Sell out your BTC; don't rebuy it. Invest in other blockchains. Also, don't get fooled by the "hodl" propaganda that makes you never get a profit while whales do because YOU buy&hold. Central banks are talking about buying bitcoin (if they haven't already). The only unresolved issues for bitcoin are scaling and developer governance which currently are derailing the project in a major way. But even if money flows from bitcoin into other chains (eth or monero for example) that simply strengthens the cryptocurrency movement with the eventual winning chain being likely technologically far superior to bitcoin which let's face it was simply first. |
|
|
|
|
159
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: March 11, 2016, 07:11:41 PM
|
Core's vision make no sense
they want to make bitcoin full nodes be able to run by anyone
but they want the use of bitcoin to be limited to elite central bankers types
i dont get it.
They lack economic vision entirely. They preach about decentralisation, whilst openly trying to convert bitcoin from p2p cash to a settlement layer. Why would people continue to run nodes for an ultra expensive high value settlement network which processes very few transactions? There is no incentive to do so. Plus economically why are new users going to be attracted to bitcoin with finite transaction capacity and rising transaction fees above alternative chains and payment networks? Bitcoin is amazing because it combines all the best properties of cash with gold. They want it to just be gold and there is a reason that is no longer used by the common man. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
