Sounds like we're all grumpy about 10k not being breached. It will happen, eventually.
Korea is about to breach 11k  # Source Pair Volume (24h) Price Volume (%) Updated 1 Bithumb BTC/KRW $538,934,000 $10979.10 8.50% Recently 2 Bitfinex BTC/USD $464,016,000 $9873.90 7.32% Recently 3 Bittrex ADA/BTC $238,131,000 $9511.08 3.76% Recently 4 HitBTC BCH/BTC $203,879,000 $9878.56 3.22% Recently 5 GDAX BTC/USD $189,911,000 $9942.90 3.00% Recently 6 bitFlyer BTC/JPY $175,394,000 $10269.00 2.77% Recently 7 Coinone BTC/KRW $126,222,000 $10991.60 1.99% Recently 8 OKEx ETH/BTC $112,976,000 $9930.23 1.78% Recently 9 Bitstamp BTC/USD $111,289,000 $9873.90 1.76% Recently 10 BTCC BTC/USD $99,960,000 $9998.00 1.58% Recently 11 OKEx ETC/BTC $93,106,600 $9867.94 1.47% Recently 12 Korbit BTC/KRW $83,896,900 $10991.10 1.32% Recently |
|
|
|
Over 71k unconfirmed bitcoin transactions atm.
The bulk (orange) are in the veeery low fee / veeeery low priority range: https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ |
|
|
|
Bitcoin can not be used as a payment method, because fees are too high and transaction speed is too slow.
Yet banks can, because they take days, charge more, and your transaction is subject to their approval.... PayPal too. If I buy a $1000 item and need to pay 2% surcharge (which many retailers have on their site) that is a higher fee than with BTC. In some cases the merchants charge even more to cover chargeback fraud (these charges are typically invisible, unless they give you the option to pay with other means too, like below:)... https://www.apmex.com/product/1/1-oz-gold-american-eagle-bu-random-year?catfeatprod1=truePrice of 1 oz american gold eagle at apmex: CHECK/WIRE/BITCOIN $1,357.69 CC/PAYPAL $1,414.26 (+57$) for "cheap" credit cards and "cheap" paypal... |
|
|
|
Bitcoin can not be used as a payment method, because fees are too high and transaction speed is too slow.
Yet banks can, because they take days, charge more, and your transaction is subject to their approval.... |
|
|
|
I used to think he was a dick & all his take over attempts pissed me off but BCH was the best air drop ever. Free money for fuck all.
I don't find him as a dislikeable character and I can't say I'm pissed with BCH because it was a clean split / launched as an altcoin in a sense - with an 8mb twist, which is similar to other parameter tweaking that altcoins typically have. That's unlike the classic/xt/s2x bullshit... But he certainly appears pretty nervous in that interview, he probably lost quite a lot of BTC trying to pump BCH - so the emotional and financial investment is starting to eat him from inside, he can't even stand people saying bcash and takes it ...personally. As for BCH, the free money from the airdrop was an added bonus, and it also enlightened me on the aspect of price-perception scaling[1]: price was, and still is, suppressed by the "impression" of an arbitrarily high number of $$$ "per share" due to the 21mn coin limit. And it was proven as suppressed due to the btc+forks sum easily having more combined value than btc alone, when this should not be the case. [1] https://steemit.com/money/@alexgr/perception-scaling-why-btc-bch-btc-in-terms-of-marketcap |
|
|
|
If you still hold BCH...
Would rather keep my dignity intact, TBH. EDIT: LOL @  Comedy gold right there....  |
|
|
|
Yep... I have, i don't want one single person to lose their money.
The coin is oversold. why would people (or bots) sit on this thread and encourage noobs to buy it, when deep down even the hardest bull knows it's the end for now.
Would you recommend your grandma to buy at 8150 ? Please answer that question.
If it was 21 billion bitcoins, instead of 21 million bitcoins, would you consider a price of "8$" as expensive? Yet it is the exact same thing as 8000 with a supply divided by 1000. It's just that the average grandma can't even make distinctions between millions and billions, and how marketcap is calculated, so these things are outside her comprehension. It's that simple really. People who can't understand why bitcoin price is seemingly "high" will hand over their bitcoins for cheap. They'd do the same if they owned berkshire stocks - which are now close to 300k usd each, since they don't do stock splits and the quantity of stocks remains lower than other stocks. |
|
|
|
He's got the silver data wrong. Above ground supplies are not 17bn usd, that's around 1 year of mining supply if we round it to 1 bn ounces - although IIRC it's nearer 800mn ounces / 25.000 tons/year. Above ground silver (excluding landfills / non-economically recoverable) should be 1mn tons+, or 546bn+ USD. |
|
|
|
3. What do I do to claim my Bitcore (BTX)?
From what I see the claim gives 0.5 BTX per BTC, if I'm reading this correctly, and BTX price is ...28$.... so 14$ per BTC. That's not even worth bothering. |
|
|
|
|
The central page of coinmarketcap seems stuck at 8035$ but if you click on btc it shows 8140$... hmm...
|
|
|
|
So miners self-selecting to not mine BCH is proof of BCH mining centralization? I assert that is a useless definition of 'centralization'.
Mining centralization is proof of mining centralization. The market doesn't prefer it. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core are equally centralized / decentralized. Think about it. How could they not be? Because one is Jihan Wu's coin and does with it whatever he pleases? If he wants to change something, he can. It's his creation after all. Bitcoin Cash has the advantage of low fees, reliable confirmation times, and the ability to scale to a global payment network.
There is no such thing as reliable confirmation time in any chain, but particularly on BCH.. 504787 2017-11-19 05:54 504786 2017-11-19 05:26 504785 2017-11-19 05:15504784 2017-11-19 03:34 504783 2017-11-19 03:28504782 2017-11-19 01:48
504781 2017-11-19 01:47 504780 2017-11-19 01:18 504779 2017-11-19 00:58 504778 2017-11-19 00:38 In 6 hours there should be ~36 blocks, not 11 (and twice it took over an hour for the next one)... but anyway. |
|
|
|
Support was at around 40 percent. Then BIP-148 came along and threatened to disconnect any nodes that relayed blocks that were not signaling for segwit. At that point, you either signal or stop mining, so miners signaled. They were also encouraged by strong support (90%+) for the segwit2x agreement, which turned out to be a joke.
As I recall, this BIP wasn't merged in any official bitcoin-core clients. You'd have to download alternative versions or patch it yourself. UASF-supporting nodes were by no means dominating the node-network to be a threat. At least that's how I saw it while connecting for my daily sync. Perhaps the s2x was more of a motive. There is a very large community of bitcoiners besides Wu involved with BCH. If you never venture out of bitcointalk.org or /r/bitcoin, I can't blame you for being blind to it. Censorship tends to create echo chambers, to the detriment of the people in those chambers. I never made the claim that BCH is Bitcoin. Clearly that moniker is more closely associated with the Segwit chain. But that may change with time.
My claim is that BCH is more closely aligned with Satoshi's whitepaper. At 1MB and with 2 week difficulty adjustment, the segwit chain is much more fragile than BCH. BCH's mempool has not ever seen backlog and now that the difficulty adjustment algorithm has been upgraded, blocks times are much more reliable than the segwit chain.
BCH is much more centralized, plus it's at the mercy of any script-kid wanting to spam it for peanuts and fill it with gigabytes/day of spam. Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can't happen. I would probably do it myself for 24hrs or so, just to make an "academic" point that the "mempool is full" bullshit and "we need an upgrade" can equally apply to a 8mb chain if one goes out and spams it. I guess other people too had this thought, but there is also the thought that people who want to sell their BCH will be prevented if they have to download endless gigabytes. The marketing being pushed by the same crew is about the peer-to-peer e-cash system, with emphasis on the e-cash aspect. Centralization changes the first aspect: As people become unable to participate as peers, you go from peer-to-peer to a client/server model. You go towards the cash system a bit more (a few more tx/s while global requirements are in excess of XX.XXX tx/sec - which ultimately don't make a dent towards the cash-goal), but you recede way more in terms of p2p characteristics. If it's not a decentralized peer to peer system, then who cares? THIS is the novelty of bitcoin. Not the 10 minute transactions. If people wanted a client/server system, they have paypal and it can do instant txs. Even the cash-aspect of BCH promising "faster" txs is problematic. I mean if you want to go faster, you can do it like Litecoin (faster blocks). 10m blocks (on avg - could be 1hr if the difficulty is high) aren't good enough to buy you a coffee. Even 2.5m (LTC) aren't good enough - you'd need something like dash's system, or a pre-funded lightning channel. Anyway... |
|
|
|
There's a difference. Even Wu won't claim BCH is Bitcoin. He says it's something different. At least he's honest about it.
I wonder. Can you even coherently and without contradiction use the terms "honest" and Wu in the same sentence? I will concede that you are likely only referring to Wu's rhetoric in regards to BCH NOT being bitcoin, but still, he seems to be such a sneaky destructive slime ball in so many other regards, that it causes me to believe that you may have by giving him too much credit in suggesting that he is "honest" some regard, because I tend to think of honesty as a more deeper character description rather than just some words that are used in a narrow context that happen to be truthful (this time). Key words "...about it" |
|
|
|
That's "s2x" not bch |
|
|
|
Do these pumps coincide with when BCH is more profitable to mine which relates to the diff level?
Judging from the spacing of the blocks issued (almost an hour apart), BCH doesn't seem too attractive/profitable at the moment. 504586 2017-11-17 17:34 14 minutes ago BTC.com 504585 2017-11-17 16:34 an hour ago Bitcoin.com 504584 2017-11-17 15:51 2 hours ago Bitcoin.com |
|
|
|
Yep, and those of us who were hodlers of both sides were labelled fools and shills. You've got to be a special kind of cocky to think only one side of a contentious fork is valuable and that you can pick which side that is immediately after the fork. Clearly there are people who value each path. That's why it is contentious.
A contentious fork is something different. BCH was not launched as a result of a contentious fork, more like an altcoin with a shared tx history but with different parameters. A major catalyst for BCH was segwit being forced down miners throats when less than the original threshold was in favor of it. IIRC the code was rather clear that in case of less than X% miner adoption segwit wouldn't happen, with X being something like 90-95%... how is that "forcing" miners? Segwit only happened because the miners signaled in favor of it - even though some had a twist (2x) to it. BCH forked off to avoid segwit and increase blocksize. How is that not a contentious fork?
One morning Wu decided that if btc goes with segwit he will launch his altcoin. This is unilateral action. It's like me deciding that I want to launch bitcoin <another name here> for whatever reason. It's not an organic split like what happened, say, in ETH, where the devs proposed a change and some people stuck with the old chain where "code is law". There's a difference. Even Wu won't claim BCH is Bitcoin. He says it's something different. At least he's honest about it. |
|
|
|
Yep, and those of us who were hodlers of both sides were labelled fools and shills. You've got to be a special kind of cocky to think only one side of a contentious fork is valuable and that you can pick which side that is immediately after the fork. Clearly there are people who value each path. That's why it is contentious.
A contentious fork is something different. BCH was not launched as a result of a contentious fork, more like an altcoin with a shared tx history but with different parameters. |
|
|
|
The only risk to you is that I may have also signed that same bitcoin over to someone else.
More recently another risk emerged: The ability of the node to feed the user a different chain, and then proclaiming that this chain is Bitcoin - when it's not. In this scenario, a userbase which relies heavily on a few nodes can be switched to any implementation the few node-owners want. So if a few node-owners collude, they can switch nearly the entire BTC userbase to another coin and then proclaim it BTC. So nodes are important. Very important. |
|
|
|
Build problems...
In file included from ./uint256.h:15:0,
from consensus/params.h:9,
from chainparams.h:10,
from bitcoind.cpp:10:
./crypto/common.h:16:10: fatal error: sodium.h: No such file or directory
'libsodium' is required. Thanks  Building now... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
