all this trollishness from even hero member accounts tells me we lost a good number of early investors.  |
|
|
|
years ago there was a manipulator with ~500,000Coins, he got #rect and so will this guy.
Today's manipulators aren't amateurs. When they get pwnt, it's by bigger manipulators, not by pocket lint gamblers. 2 million " pocket lint gamblers. " praying the manipulator will drop price below 400 one more time, so they can buy in ~5000$ of bitcoin each. while bigger manipulator s slowly and methodically have been scooping as much coins as possible without pushing price higher. how can he fail? well one way would be to buy bitcoins at 300+ during a pump hoping to cash in on the halvening but then bitcoin freezes up from filled up blocks everyone wakes up and sells gimpcoins . i suppose you'll keep saying shit like that till blocks get bigger. |
|
|
|
years ago there was a manipulator with ~500,000Coins, he got #rect and so will this guy.
Today's manipulators aren't amateurs. When they get pwnt, it's by bigger manipulators, not by pocket lint gamblers. 2 million " pocket lint gamblers. " praying the manipulator will drop price below 400 one more time, so they can buy in ~5000$ of bitcoin each. while bigger manipulator s slowly and methodically have been scooping as much coins as possible without pushing price higher. how can he fail? |
|
|
|
|
years ago there was a manipulator with ~500,000Coins, he got #rect and so will this guy.
|
|
|
|
Ouch! That was a heavy dump! Finex and stamp had been down to 416!  could you imagine some internet token being actually worth more than 400$? either the dollar has deeply depreciate, or people have just gone mad. Dollars in circulation: >1 trillion (M0 - cash) / >10 trillion (M3 - incl. bank deposits and cash equivalent) Ounces of silver above ground: ~30 billion Ounces of gold above ground: 6 billion Bitcoins in circulation: 15 million Scarcity is a factor. DOGE is also an internet token but it can't cost 400$ as it is issued in the billions. DOGE price: $ 0.000278 DOGE in circulation: 103 billion Satoshi's are potentially infinitely divisible and they are issued in the billions.  which is why Satoshi's will never be worth more then 1/2 a cent what a sad reality |
|
|
|
it just some more FUD you are spreading like "the LN routing problem" bull made up shit stories. Just stop it if you don't know what you're talking about.
Not according to this post ( point #4) I asked why not since it seems to be the main savior for the capacity wars.
Answer - more needs to be done before LN is viable.
Is there some good up-to-date source ( without being super technical) to read about LN issues/challenges ? Bahahahahaha, good luck with that. |
|
|
|
wow look at that crazy knife attack in the night silly bears  |
|
|
|
 this support looks promising. |
|
|
|
^^What do they call Whoppers in that crazy language of yours? Anything like German, with those gigantic sausage words? (apparently I'm not the only one to find them obscene, because Google just informed me: "The German language has lost its longest word thanks to a change in the law to conform with EU regulations. Rindfleischetikettierungsueberwachungsaufgabenuebertragungsgesetz - meaning "law delegating beef label monitoring" - was introduced in 1999 in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania."Ha ha, EU outlawed German Whoppers Hahahaha... whoppers... That's crazy talk, in your crazy language. At this moment, I am again torn in my thinking about whether the next 5% adjustment leg will be up or down.. I am kind of thinking up for the next leg... so maybe we could get one or two upward legs (5% each), before re-tracing downwards... and before returning up thereafter? I don't know if the $300s is a forever gone past, but likely, we are going to need to experience some pretty decent and convincing FUD.. accompanied by some actual dumping volume in order to achieve such.... in that sense $420s is much more possible than $300s... maybe lower $420s are like 41% chance in the next week, and $390s is about less than 10% chance in the next two weeks? Nonetheless, recent decent (and somewhat pleasantly surprising) upwards BTC price movements seems as if we may have one or two legs up before coming back down? I put this prediction of a next upward or two at about 52% up and 48% down for the first leg and maybe 51, 49 for a second leg. Thoughts anybody, regarding a more plausible scenario? step out side look up at the sky you see it now? MOOOOOOOOOOOON┗(°0°)┛http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/canada/montreal99.9% MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON |
|
|
|
what's these new purple, red and white squares, below the full block? |
|
|
|
Buy Or Die This weekend we witnessed a very important event, "The Bitcoin Roundtable Consensus". It was an intense meeting where the best and the brightest bashed heads for no less than 18 hours! Finally an agreement was reached. For anyone questioning whether or not this agreement will "stick" consider this, 80% hashing power, devs, and exchanges CEO were present and in full agreement, undoubtedly everyone of them is unhappy with the agreement for one reason or another, but that just means we found a happy middle ground. The market reacted very well to the news, and we are seeing very strong support at this new 440$ level. I firmly believe this news will catapult bitcoin to 750. For over a year now, the blocksize debate has been attributed to many market crashes, poeple have been busy pricing in some serious doom and gloom, but it turns out they were wrong, bitcoin will scale, it may not be graceful, but it will happen, so now the price is all out of whack! a correction is underway, i'm thinking >460 by tomorrow morning, and we will keep pushing new highs day in day out for weeks if not months. Adam's prediction: >= 750 in < 2 months Adam's Cheap Coins Target: 420 ( i wouldn't count on it, already an attempt at correcting the markets enthusiasm has failed. ) |
|
|
|
it will take all the fees generated by low value TX on each block, away from miners and move them to LN CEO node operators. 90% of fees generated on each block come from low value TX. some say its bitcoins killer app. a small change was required to make this comment more palatable. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin/USD 3-Day chart. Warming up main engines.  I'm a bit afraid by your chart... I shouldn't have oppened a short no?  |
|
|
|
i'm going to be writing up a bitmovements update later tonight. i think i'll call it Buy or Die  |
|
|
|
Some Miners mine empty blocks, usually if it's found before they have time to fill it up with transactions. Empty blocks are usual mines within a minute or less of the previous block. Because these blocks can't have transactions in them they bring down the full block average, these blocks do not contribute to the capacity of the network but are reflected in the average. Some miners limit there block size to the 750KB dealt recommended by the Core Developers, these blocks are 100% full at 750KB, this also skews the average. its worth noting when Gavin first proposed making bigger blocks the biggest objection from the Core developers was its not needed and if it is ever needed the limit could be changed quickly. well it's needed and they now saying next year. they also said they wanted more time to come up with another solution other then simply rising blocksize do you segwit? I think the 2MB should come before the SegWit. Not SegWit comes before 2MB. SegWit is more difficult to implement.
segwit is supposedly available as of april. so if we were to make 2mb in a core relase today.. and had 75% miner consensus in 7 days of blockdata(1000) blocks.. bringing us up to march.. and then a 1 month grace period (even i have to admit thats a little short) then that would be a mad rush and still not beat segwit. segwit is a complicated solution to a simple problem, the simplest solution is the obvious one. segwit is a Hack it allows extra data in Multi sig transactions to be trimmed "making more space for typical transactions". It provides a benefit to off blockchane solutions Like LN (like making fractional reserve bitcoin easier) the problem miners lose revenue to off blockchain solutions and give them a discount (because segwit makes there transactions smaller) leaving less block space for you and me, and we have to pick up the bill with higher fees to compensate for security. I for one will use another alt before I pay a $10 in value as a bitcoin transaction fee. i agree with most of this, but I still think we need to have some faith in the dev's ( blocksteamer excluded ) ability to weigh all the pros and cons. fees will go back down, once segwit relieves some pressure ( if only for a little while ) and then 2MB HF will clear up even more blockspace ( <4MB effective blockspace ) but it won't stop there, at that point we are slipping down the slippery slop, more segwit like improvment + more HF is all but guaranteed. fee will remain at like 0.05-0.10$ indefinitely. |
|
|
|
There is still a huge amount of upward momentum in this market, judging by the moving averages. The problem is, if we continue on this trajectory, blocks will fill first, then fees will double. Then fees will quadruple, octuple, etc. until even the mathematincally challenged pumpmonkeys start to extrapolate what this means. Even though fees are still cheap, they will be only so for a very short period of time.
we have the capacity for a half million active users at most. Even if we ALL go away and get replaced by high rollers doing drug deals or speculating on the halving or whatever, and even if SegWit almost doubles the capacity, then what? Things just stagnate until we go through another two year clusterfuck to kick the can again? Rinse and repeat?
and what if through some miracle we get through all of that with flying colors and market cap goes to 100 Billion. Do you think the PBoC and the Communist Party of China will be happy with that and just let it continue to grow?
I'm starting to think the best way for me to liquidate my stash is just to sell a coin a week for however many years it takes, regardless of whether the price goes up or down. The objective of traders is to make money, of course, but the purpose of traders is SUPPOSED to be to function as liquidity providers who reduce volatility.
The problem as I see it is that the traders who make the biggest profit in this market actually create volatility, withholding liquidity when it is needed and dumping when the market is already crashing. I may have made a fundamental miscalculation. This could just be growing pains or this could be something endemic to disinflationary currency.
What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ. This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings. Even if Core changes their own governance rules to ratify this roundtable agreement, scaling may be slower than halvings. Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance. At some point, Bitcoin may hit stall speed and enter into an unrecoverable dive. What scares the shit out of me is this may have already happened. 27 months since the ATH, we're trading at <50%.
Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.
+1 I agree, besides I see one last bubble coming, that will bring (due to its "success") the end of Bitcoin with it. Luckily a much more "decentralized" digital-currency ecosystem will follow. The fall will be hard for many early adopters. tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD. LOL, where does the value for bitcoin come from, go down that rabbit hole it's the number of users holders and buyers (nicely correlated with metcalfe's law and transaction voluem) and a limited money supply nicely preserved by code and miners. This simple equation MV=PT illustrates why limiting the transaction volume and the quantity of money is a bad idea, (bitcoin has never grown under the notion of limited transaction volume) Bitcoin coders need to understand a little more about economics to be a true asset to bitcoin's development. do i need to post this yet again?   ahahahaha i love it! |
|
|
|
Some Miners mine empty blocks, usually if it's found before they have time to fill it up with transactions. Empty blocks are usual mines within a minute or less of the previous block. Because these blocks can't have transactions in them they bring down the full block average, these blocks do not contribute to the capacity of the network but are reflected in the average. Some miners limit there block size to the 750KB dealt recommended by the Core Developers, these blocks are 100% full at 750KB, this also skews the average. its worth noting when Gavin first proposed making bigger blocks the biggest objection from the Core developers was its not needed and if it is ever needed the limit could be changed quickly. well it's needed and they now saying next year. they also said they wanted more time to come up with another solution other then simply rising blocksize do you segwit? I think the 2MB should come before the SegWit. Not SegWit comes before 2MB. SegWit is more difficult to implement.
segwit is supposedly available as of april. so if we were to make 2mb in a core relase today.. and had 75% miner consensus in 7 days of blockdata(1000) blocks.. bringing us up to march.. and then a 1 month grace period (even i have to admit thats a little short) then that would be a mad rush and still not beat segwit. |
|
|
|
can Core and Classic not only coexist but work together? thats an empty question.. can they... yes... will they... well thats not the question you asked. and so that question will be left empty even if its the real answer you were looking for. blockstream are known to being vague and giving half answers that can be assumed to have 2 meanings. allowing them a get out clause to pretend its not what they said can they will they, such quibbling over semantics. i have no comment on the blockstream bit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
