well this guy says it won't be resolved in time for August 1st...or the high probability of such bitcoin being bitcoin ....it is likely ...even if consensus is reached say for segwit2 +2mb ..they'd likely not have the code ready or if rushed...yeah...fork ..then fix action anyway...see link below....I've never seen Bitcoin follow a path that is easy....so just saying https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-miners-miss-first-bip-148-deadline/hope I am dead wrong...I doubt it however We need to bury all those fuckin' forks. Unlike evolving coins with a large degree of centralization where forks can be handled with relative ease, in a decentralized coin like Bitcoin forks are an attack on its long-term viability. The moment the precedent is set that Bitcoin is forked (with any meaningful support) into two coins or more, at that point Bitcoin is undermined as a store of value - because it can happen again, and again, and again. And that's not even factoring the aspect of who-controls-what after a fork, which seems to be the primary motive of a certain group. Nobody can fork a gold bar into two gold bars or ten gold bars. That's why it's a store of value. And that's why the process of bifurcation undermines Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I just read this article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-beginners-guide-surviving-bip-148-uasf/A quote: "First off, be aware that a chain-split create a high-risk situation. There is a chance that some sort of cyber-battle will break out between the two camps, perhaps even escalating to the point where bitcoin’s exchange rate(s) drops sharply, possibly to zero. Make absolutely sure you are not holding more value in bitcoin than what you are willing to lose." So, in this article Aaron van Wirdum seems to suggest that it is possible to 'loose' all your Bitcoins post-split. Is this to be interpreted as it's possible to 'loose' BTC due a price drop to zero or due some technical mishap as a result of a possible fork? Surely, even in the worst case scenario, if you keep your private keys and don't transaction around that time your Bitcoins will be safe? No, he suggests that the value of one's bitcoins can be lost (reduced to 0$/btc). This is different. Controlling your BTC gives you access to these BTC even if there are 10 different forks. What value these BTC have in any of these forks is a different matter altogether. |
|
|
|
Its dropping like a rock. We might see sub $2000 by the end of the weekend.
I don't think it will happen (I mean prices strongly sub-2k) for the simple reason that some people will be +20-30% up on their stash by selling at 2500-2800 and rebuying at sub-2k prices. If it goes way lower, some will be able to increase their btc holdings even more by simply trading the high and low. I guess some may be able to do it but BTC is scarce so it can't happen on a large scale, hence why the price will have to brake. |
|
|
|
Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:29 am
Would any statisticians like to chime in on how likely this horrible horrible recent luck for our pool is?
We have checked all our systems, and everything still looks fine, but this bad luck really is horrible!
Is their long-term trend similar? |
|
|
|
Looking at the few blocks not supporting SegWit2x shows that it is mainly small pools that didn't indicate anything and slush pool which indicates support for SegWit. https://coin.dance/blocksI was going over the bitcoin mailing list, until I read gmaxwell's post: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014633.html...
Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
story would be the same there in the near term).
...
... ...
I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.
There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
predicated on discarding those properties.
If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go
along with it.
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.
Sounds like a total shit-storm... Fuck all those fuckers who want to fork the shit out of bitcoin. Core devs support for Segwit 2x (check on the right): https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_supportI don't know what the solution is, but I do know that having a single chain is more important than breaking up bitcoin in (at least 2) forks, possibly 4 or 5 - some with different PoWs, or different properties. When the situation gets too messy with all the crap (uasf, segwit, segwit2x, classic/xt/bu bullshit), perhaps we should start with a clean slate to deal with scaling. If there's no consensus from the technical community, the miners and the economic entities, perhaps it's for a good reason... |
|
|
|
Also, Bitcoin is not broken, that's right... And I don't know enough about blockchains as I do about networks and most networks that exceed 80-90% capacity are bound to severe issues. We would need to reduce that congestion to 50% to be safe. Segwit will largely help in the long term, a blocksize increase can aleviate some of the issues right now.
Let's say you run the network of a company and it has 10gbps - and you are at 10-30% use. This line costs you 10 grand per month. I flood your line (externally) by attacking it (DDOS) to 100% use all the time. Will you upgrade to 100 gbps and take your bill to 5-7x just because someone is DDOSing you? And if I do that again and again, not even 1 tbps will save you - but if you follow the upgrade logic due to DDOS, your company will be bankrupt. Blockchain use is similar. Even if blocks were 10x tomorrow morning, they would be full by very low fee txs. Even if they were 100x in size, someone running a script can fill them up - and the fees will be pretty low, as there will be no fee pressure. Still individual nodes go bankrupt as they can't sustain storage and bandwidth costs scaling to 10-100x. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not really digital money. It tried to be for a while, but Dell dropped Bitcoin recently, Egghead and Overstock haven't seen any benefits.
I *think* I read in the past that Overstock wasn't selling the BTCs they were getting. If that's the case, then it's highly unlikely that they haven't seen any benefits with bitcoin multiplying its value. |
|
|
|
This thread is so silent compared to 2013
People waiting 10k+ to open the champagnes  why not to open a cheap one @ 3k? Fair reasons are there for those who bought in middle 2015. Because the cheap one will end up (bitcoin pizza effect) costing 4x when BTC reaches 10k+? |
|
|
|
This thread is so silent compared to 2013
People waiting 10k+ to open the champagnes |
|
|
|
When people don't even realize why Bitcoin has the price it has (low unit count), it's time to stop listening their "expert" opinions. It's like trying to explain to a stock market noob why berkshire has the share price that is has - and them insisting on it being overvalued because surely no stock can cost 250k USD.
Not disagreeing with you, but with Peter Schiff I don't even think it's that. It goes a lot deeper, to the psychological level. He seems to think that Bitcoin being backed by "nothing" (i.e., belief x 8 yrs) and precious metals being backed by "nothing" (i.e., belief x 3000 yrs) are completely different. What he doesn't see is that they are EXACTLY THE SAME, the only difference is the amount of time that has passed. As we move forward in time, the "belief" that backs Bitcoin will come up to the same level as the "belief" that backs PMs. Hence more people holding, using, and valuing it over time. I see it like this: Fiat => backed by debt (money is issued as debt which has to be repaid with interest - which then requires more money issuance to infinity, thus increasing the ratio of money supply vs finite assets) Gold* => backed by the expenses to extract it BTC => backed by the expenses to extract it * Same for other metals. If it costs 0.02$ of energy to extract copper the size of a penny, then obviously you can't use copper for the penny anymore - and have to copper plate zinc (USA) or steel (EU) to make a penny or eurocent. |
|
|
|
Peter Schiff is the only finance guy that I know that can be so right about the U.S. economy and world markets, and so wrong about what Bitcoin actually is. Most of the audio is really good and worth a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF2DDrEaSOg (starts talking about crypto @ 24:18) It still mystifies him that Bitcoin becomes a new form of digital money and store of value because of people's belief in bitcoin's core attributes as money (i.e., permissionless, deflationary, scarce, utility, divisible, fungible, etc). It never occurs to him, or he's not willing to admit, that PMs got their value from the same power of belief over time. Sure Bitcoins are not backed by anything. But PMs are not "backed by anything" other than thousands of years of belief that has accrued over time. In time it becomes a self-fulfilling feedback loop. Sure you can duplicate a crypto, but you can't overnight duplicate the "belief". I don't think even the biggest and more informed gold promoters understand bitcoin, when they try to rationalize the seemingly "pumped" price of BTC against gold without accounting for the fundamentals - and then claiming tulipmania, pump&dumps, etc etc. Same goes for other classes of investors. Most of these guys wouldn't even care about Bitcoin if satoshi had made the choice to issue 21 billion coins instead of 21 million - with the consequence being that the price right now would be at 2.6$ instead of 2600$. The 2600$ "threatens" them because it simply sounds so high, while the 2.6$ wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. And that's the whole point really: Their objection is about what they perceive as a high price (!), which by consequence also affects the perception of what is considered "valuable". Something that costs 2.6$ doesn't sound so valuable vs something that costs 2600$, yet you can buy 1000 x 2.6$ - and it's precisely the same thing (mathematically speaking). So this behavior is definitely irrational and based on psychological factors, biases, etc - rather than sound economic analysis. In the end of the day, Bitcoin is an asset that has a marketcap in the range of a successful internet application like whatsapp. It is nowhere near the precious metals marketcap. It's not even close to 4 months of gold mining production (annual mining production currently at ~110-120bn $). When people don't even realize why Bitcoin has the price it has (low unit count), it's time to stop listening their "expert" opinions. It's like trying to explain to a stock market noob why berkshire has the share price that is has - and them insisting on it being overvalued because surely no stock can cost 250k USD. |
|
|
|
|
Αυτο που βλεπω ειναι οτι τα order book δεν εχουν καθολου αντιστασεις και στο πανω και στο κατω. Δλδ τωρα το stamp ειναι στα 2131, αλλα αμα καποιος θελει πχ 2000 coins, η τιμη παει 2500+. Δεν εχει stacked coins σε διαφορα επιπεδα τιμων - ειναι πρακτικα αδειο το book (για μια αγορα 30δις+). Και αυτο σημαινει οτι μικρη ζητηση ή μικρες πωλησεις κινουν το "δεικτη", χωρις απαραιτητα να αλλαζει κατι σε επιπεδο fundamentals.
Το ιδιο συμβαινει και σε αλλα exchanges, οπου βλεπεις πχ στο btc-e, μια αγορα 500 coins το παει απ'τα 1900 -> 2080.
|
|
|
|
Boy someone yesterday was awfully sure of himself that selling was such a bad idea ".....we be going uppity."
It didn't really had a fall from yesterday (bitstamp is up 20$ since yesterday, same time). The correction is in a few hours window. 600 drop from 2800 is not just a fall, it was an excellent shorting opportunity, if you are into that kind of thing. If you know the tops and bottoms beforehand, sure. |
|
|
|
Boy someone yesterday was awfully sure of himself that selling was such a bad idea ".....we be going uppity."
It didn't really had a fall from yesterday (bitstamp is up 20$ since yesterday, same time). The correction is in a few hours window. |
|
|
|
|
Γιατι νομιζετε οτι εχουν πεσει >30 δις σε altcoins? Δεν υπαρχουν τα bitcoins που καποιοι θελουν να αγορασουν, και αγοραζουν οτι βρουν σε παραλληλα coins. Αλλιως θα χε φτασει 10κ+ ηδη.
|
|
|
|
We used to have trains, champagnes, rockets etc for a few hundred bucks of movement. The lack of these indicades that nobody cares about 2450 or 2500 - people are anticipating much higher prices ahead in order to start posting "fireworks". So 5k+ it is then for mid-term target  |
|
|
|
|
The rate this thing is going, 3k will be faster than what most people expected just a couple of weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
Fees are getting stupid. Just paid about 5 bucks for a transfer, as suggested by my wallet.
Wallet software fail probably. First block inclusion is at around 1.2$ right now. https://bitcoinfees.21.co/The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 270 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top. For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 61,020 satoshis. Nope. Like I said, got another transfer with a buck attached that has been stuck for days. I assume that different wallets connect to different pools to maybe that could make a difference, but nonetheless this is the current reality. It was probably oversized tx in terms of bytes (like 2-3 inputs) so the fee per byte was lower (hence lower priority). |
|
|
|
Fees are getting stupid. Just paid about 5 bucks for a transfer, as suggested by my wallet.
Wallet software fail probably. First block inclusion is at around 1.2$ right now. https://bitcoinfees.21.co/The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 270 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top. For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 61,020 satoshis. |
|
|
|
Πω πω δεν το περίμενα η σφηκοφωλιά του τσυριζισταν.
Κάποια ανάλυση μπορείτε να κάνετε.
κάτσε έχω καλύτερη ανάλυση... Πάλι καλά που έχουμε τον Χερουβίμ και μας τα ανεβάζει στο slack   Σωστος ο γεροντας |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
