Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it! You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....
Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.
The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.
A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption. You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust. I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them. From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be? Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem. And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out. If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open. I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance. The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history. Should miners also decide the block time interval? Or the total supply? After all who knows the best option right? Might as well leave "headroom". I'm curious, how do you propose the block size could be kept down "if it turns out to be a problem". Is it up to the miners or not? What are "soft limits"? How do you enforce them? I know you probably have read all of these arguments but are not concerned with nodes having to keep up with the miners incentives to optimize for profits? Do you not agree with this? Do you think big game hunters should decide on the acceptable limits of endangered species they can hunt? Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.
 That was a rhetorical question. The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce. That's just straight up delusional. You're right! But I would posit that they don't need to agree, they all need to act in their own best economic interest and that the free market will decide the most efficient conditions. (one might argue that they would talk amongst themselves and come to some consensus as this would be in there best economic interest. they have before, though of course they may not again). I accept this is somewhat of a leap of faith, but the opposite requires on being smarter than the average bear. Humans are not, we are married to the idea that we are smart, and blind to all our flaws as a result. This is not a "leap of faith", this is downright naive. I'm sorry but what you posit is straight up nonsense. The miners are not a group, there is no such thing as "their own best economic interest". It is a competitive environment and they seek profit first and foremost. Miners with the most resources will set a limit beyond what the smallest players are capable of handling to eventually drive them out of the market. You are right that they have talked amongst themselves before, it was to organize this SPV mining scheme that succeeded in causing a fork of the network. Are you really suggesting we trust these guys to do what's best "for the greater good"!? |
|
|
|
That was a rhetorical question. The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce. That's just straight up delusional. Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve. Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all. Precisely. You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes. |
|
|
|
I'm now going to switch back to "BIP101/XT died for our sins", because it will be clear that it did, should the block size increase.
Nope, block sizes are dead certain to increase at some point and they always were. But if you feel better believing in the tooth fairy, feel free. A Pre-emptive strike! Yes they are, and if you want to believe that mike, gavin, XT and BIP101 had nothing to do with making that happen sooner rather than later, then feel free. I like how you portray me as having all the answers yet you pretend to be absolutely right about this one. Let me guess, you feel it in your guts, right? You're just going to ignore that it was Matt Corallo that engaged the debate on the dev mailing list and that two months later Mike & Gavin decided they wouldn't play ball anymore and decide to stifle discussions and launch their failed coup? |
|
|
|
I'm now going to switch back to "BIP101/XT died for our sins", because it will be clear that it did, should the block size increase.
Nope, block sizes are dead certain to increase at some point and they always were. But if you feel better believing in the tooth fairy, feel free. As if BIP101/XT was ever about the block size anyway These rugrats will literally believe anything you'll tell them  |
|
|
|
Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it! You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....
Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.
The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.
A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption. You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust. I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them. From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be? Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem. And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out. If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open. I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance. The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history. Should miners also decide the block time interval? Or the total supply? After all who knows the best option right? Might as well leave "headroom". I'm curious, how do you propose the block size could be kept down "if it turns out to be a problem". Is it up to the miners or not? What are "soft limits"? How do you enforce them? I know you probably have read all of these arguments but are not concerned with nodes having to keep up with the miners incentives to optimize for profits? Do you not agree with this? Do you think big game hunters should decide on the acceptable limits of endangered species they can hunt? Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.  That was a rhetorical question. The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce. That's just straight up delusional. |
|
|
|
Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it! You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....
Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.
The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.
A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption. You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust. I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them. From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be? Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem. And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out. If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open. I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance. The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history. Should miners also decide the block time interval? Or the total supply? After all who knows the best option right? Might as well leave "headroom". I'm curious, how do you propose the block size could be kept down "if it turns out to be a problem". Is it up to the miners or not? What are "soft limits"? How do you enforce them? I know you probably have read all of these arguments but are not concerned with nodes having to keep up with the miners incentives to optimize for profits? Do you not agree with this? Do you think big game hunters should decide on the acceptable limits of endangered species they can hunt? Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives. |
|
|
|
Pedanticism and arrogance don't make for good arguments. Of course I know that there has been prior discussion of removing the 1MB limit. Thats not the same as 'the block size debate' though. You know it, but you'd rather avoid acknowledging the specific difference for fear of exposing the reality of the situation that the 1MB limit is temporary and should be removed. That much is true.
Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission.
This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. The fact you think you know everything just demonstrates how close minded you are. This means you can't be reasoned with. The only purpose of replying to you is so that others are aware of what you are doing. Nothing I say will make any difference to you personally.
Please get off your high horse and spare us your moral high ground bullshit. The market decides indeed and it has made a point to crush your pipe dreams of exponential block size growth. You can attempt to re-write history all you want the fact is BIP101/XT was DOA and only served to shine light on the numerous tumors that were necessary for us to get rid of. All you've managed is to force core devs to manufacture a bone they could toss to XTards to distract them with while the actual scaling work is being done. Yes the market hasn't decided it needs bigger blocks. This will continue to be true, until it's not. Nobody needs to rewrite anything. Both of you continue to speak like everything is decided, and because you are right now, that you will be right always. As I said this is supreme arrogance, as well as a profound failure to understand something as simple as the fact that things can change. Its like you think that if you argue really hard and stamp your feet and shout loudest that you think you can control it. You can't, I can't. The future of bitcoin is unknown and its emergent behaviour of all participants. If the market needs bigger blocks they will happen, however loudly you protest, and regardless of what the bitcoin core implementation has. If the market does not need bigger blocks then none of this will matter and core stays relevant. If bigger blocks aren't needed there will be a good reason I am sure, and it won't be 'artificial'. That moral high ground you are so desperate to avoid is where real people make real decisions. This troll infested cesspool of a thread is where you and ice try and pimp out your own personal view of what you think bitcoin should be as if it were a fact. It's not. You don't know what bitcoin will be, neither do I. You can only keep saying what you want it to be. It's important that anyone reading this understand that your opinions aren't fact. These posts are not for you to respond to, because there is nothing constructive you can say. You may as well not even bother reading them. In fact it'd be better all round if you just put me on ignore. Maybe you're in the wrong thread? This one says: XT (and BIP101) #REKT If you wanna create another one that discuss Bitcoin's future feel free but don't omit to mention XT, BIP101, exponential growth blocks, Gavin or Hearn, will not be a part of it. oh.. but he did... [prediction] Next spike $560,000 14 months from now To be fair I like this one  |
|
|
|
Sorry i drifted off topic. I'll go back to my "just you wait till december" stance then  When Jan rolls around you can give me a good kicking for being wrong eh! You're waiting for the next Scaling Bitcoin conference too heh I'm curious to see what they have in store as well. If I had to make a guess I'd say it will probably looks somewhat like Pieter Wuille's proposal but adjusted with Rusty Russel's most recent bandwidth growth estimates so something like 30% YOY increase but only for 2 years then revisit. If you ask me this whole thing is kind of a waste of time but again I think they're just set on throwing you people a bone so as to keep you from breaking things. We'll see if the market buys it though |
|
|
|
Pedanticism and arrogance don't make for good arguments. Of course I know that there has been prior discussion of removing the 1MB limit. Thats not the same as 'the block size debate' though. You know it, but you'd rather avoid acknowledging the specific difference for fear of exposing the reality of the situation that the 1MB limit is temporary and should be removed. That much is true.
Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission.
This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. The fact you think you know everything just demonstrates how close minded you are. This means you can't be reasoned with. The only purpose of replying to you is so that others are aware of what you are doing. Nothing I say will make any difference to you personally.
Please get off your high horse and spare us your moral high ground bullshit. The market decides indeed and it has made a point to crush your pipe dreams of exponential block size growth. You can attempt to re-write history all you want the fact is BIP101/XT was DOA and only served to shine light on the numerous tumors that were necessary for us to get rid of. All you've managed is to force core devs to manufacture a bone they could toss to XTards to distract them with while the actual scaling work is being done. Yes the market hasn't decided it needs bigger blocks. This will continue to be true, until it's not. Nobody needs to rewrite anything. Both of you continue to speak like everything is decided, and because you are right now, that you will be right always. As I said this is supreme arrogance, as well as a profound failure to understand something as simple as the fact that things can change. Its like you think that if you argue really hard and stamp your feet and shout loudest that you think you can control it. You can't, I can't. The future of bitcoin is unknown and its emergent behaviour of all participants. If the market needs bigger blocks they will happen, however loudly you protest, and regardless of what the bitcoin core implementation has. If the market does not need bigger blocks then none of this will matter and core stays relevant. If bigger blocks aren't needed there will be a good reason I am sure, and it won't be 'artificial'. That moral high ground you are so desperate to avoid is where real people make real decisions. This troll infested cesspool of a thread is where you and ice try and pimp out your own personal view of what you think bitcoin should be as if it were a fact. It's not. You don't know what bitcoin will be, neither do I. You can only keep saying what you want it to be. It's important that anyone reading this understand that your opinions aren't fact. These posts are not for you to respond to, because there is nothing constructive you can say. You may as well not even bother reading them. In fact it'd be better all round if you just put me on ignore. Maybe you're in the wrong thread? This one says: XT (and BIP101) #REKT If you wanna create another one that discuss Bitcoin's future feel free but don't omit to mention XT, BIP101, exponential growth blocks, Gavin or Hearn, will not be a part of it. |
|
|
|
XT stifled the discussion, please spare us your revisionist history.
The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community.
You say drain, I say motivate. *poof* A BIP100 appears! History is always revised according the viewpoint of the person recounting it. In those tricky cases where its recorded in black and white, it can be dismissed as an appeal to authority. Hmm, who should I believe about the impact of XT on BTC development? Clueless nobody sgbett (who believed " Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks") or uber-crypto-boss Adam Back (BitGold, Blockstream)? As for BIP100, please note it's not even fully specified, much less coded. Given that context, BIP100 means nothing more than a vote against 101. BIP100 was obviously just the nearest handy large rock for the pools to pick up and beat XT to death with. BIP100 can be gamed and it sets a bad precedent, thus the socioeconomic majority won't give miners that much power. I know you and Garzik are all hot and bothered over it, but sorry, it ain't gonna happen. #REKKKKTI agree BIP100 is a terrible proposal. I agree it can be gamed, and so it will be gamed. I agree it was only produced to try and neutralise the 'threat' of XT. I also believe that nobody will take it seriously and it will go no further. So why even bring it up? |
|
|
|
Pedanticism and arrogance don't make for good arguments. Of course I know that there has been prior discussion of removing the 1MB limit. Thats not the same as 'the block size debate' though. You know it, but you'd rather avoid acknowledging the specific difference for fear of exposing the reality of the situation that the 1MB limit is temporary and should be removed. That much is true.
Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission.
This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. The fact you think you know everything just demonstrates how close minded you are. This means you can't be reasoned with. The only purpose of replying to you is so that others are aware of what you are doing. Nothing I say will make any difference to you personally.
Please get off your high horse and spare us your moral high ground bullshit. The market decides indeed and it has made a point to crush your pipe dreams of exponential block size growth. You can attempt to re-write history all you want the fact is BIP101/XT was DOA and only served to shine light on the numerous tumors that were necessary for us to get rid of. All you've managed is to force core devs to manufacture a bone they could toss to XTards to distract them with while the actual scaling work is being done. |
|
|
|
A straight line? really?  I don't see the difference between your chart and mine. Everything below 0.6 is mostly noise and spam. The difference is that I haven't tried to draw a straight line on an exponential trend. Exponential? Really? I took the image from here: https://medium.com/@OB1Company/scaling-bitcoin-9366988972b6 |
|
|
|
I'd imagine that if mining remained decentralized and the powers-that-be realized "it just ain't gonna" happen that they would be incentisized to keep full-nodes up and transfered their wealth into bitcoin at that point because they know their wealth would be preserved. If these incentivesized full nodes are running (as I translated Satoshi's message IMO) that's fine because we have powerful players supporting the nodes we know the network won't be "not" relaying/securing blocks for a long time. Everything hinges around mining decentralization. If this is possible then having full-nodes won't be a problem. And how many nodes does that represents exactly being fully decentralized? If 1000 nodes is enough, then can we consider 1M nodes to be unnecessary? No? Miner decentralization matters more than full-node decentralization. It takes half of the miners to become regulated to cause havok, while half of the full-nodes can be removed with no affect to the network. Agreed but how does the block size limit influence miners centralization if most miners rely on mining pools. block propagation delays with bigger blocks causing miners to tend towards using networks that offer no anonymity because Tor et all increase latency. That's just one thing it does. It also increases pool to pool header synchronization (centralization) to get a head start on mining next block. The first point is stronger because if miners can't remain anon then it can be subject to a regulation attack. (not to be confused with anonymous coin transfers) Actually bigger blocks do not effect miners ability to be anonymous whatsoever. It does effect the pools ability to be anonymous. However today there are no anonymous pools and I do not think this should be a necessary requirement for a sufficient degree of decentralization, since pools can be setup anywhere in the world and I do not think that the powers that be will be able to bring consistent regulation to bear in every jurisdiction in the world, which is what would be required to successfully censor or suppress Bitcoin under this model. It is important to make the distinction between mining centralization and pool centralization since they are in reality very different phenomena and we would be making a mistake to equate these two issues. Look, we're a bit tired of reading what "you think". Especially considering it's mostly wrong and completely disconnected from reality. Please go away. Thank you |
|
|
|
A straight line? really? I don't see the difference between your chart and mine. Everything below 0.6 is mostly noise and spam. |
|
|
|
Interesting but I hate to say it... I don't think most people are ready for this. All we are going to hear about are hacks glitches and losses. People are even more careless with their mobile's security than their home computers' which is negligible at best. Plus, as mentioned above, confirmation time is a very real issue.
One day I'm sure, I just don't see it just quite yet
99% of the merchants using Ingenico POS won't bother enabling the feature & signing up with BitPay. This is all bells & whistles and is not going to lead to more Bitcoin adoption. |
|
|
|
I barely have the heart to tell Zarasstua I intentionally used Cunningham's Law to get him to provide the actual lulzy figure, so we could proceed to make fun of it! Compare the discussions of the 200+ there ... https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-56#post-2078... with the childish behavior of the small blockers here in this thread. You can't have the same level in a discussion if a thread is full of 'censorship cheerleaders', 'consensus communists', 'childish picture and meme posters', 'competition haters', 'faked nodes and DDoS enthusiasts', vulgar poets and alikes. That this minority will get big blocks next year and beeing forked off the game if they'll be stupid enough to clamp on funny small block implementations, should be crystal clear. Shouln'd it? Hopefully 1.1 MB, if that, is "big" enough for you |
|
|
|
its all a bit pie in the sky but I can see this kind of price action giving people a real hard time!
How do you respond to Burt W's objections regarding the implausibility that so large a fraction of the world's electricity supply would be diverted to mining? Bitcoin to the moon means electricity price to the moon. Expansion of hash rates always lag behind speculative bubbles. |
|
|
|
How dare you!? I am most certainly in the "just you wait until december" camp, my xt-nodes blazing as a futile show of dissent!
Alright, fair enough. You are in a (supremely nutty) third camp, which believes both 'XT died for our 1MB sins' and 'XT will return for the Gavinista rapture.' Alas, if only you could understand the superlinear relationship between tx size and verification time, we could put this civil war behind us. Unless you are determined to destroy Bitcoin's decentralization-cum-survivability, and thus subvert the engineering requirement that it be above the law... XT opened a debate, you are the person that thinks its dead Sure its a bit beat up right now, but just you wait till xmas, remember we hit $560k in november so we are bound to need a little more room! XT stifled the discussion, please spare us your revisionist history. The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community. You say drain, I say motivate. *poof* A BIP100 appears! History is always revised according the viewpoint of the person recounting it. In those tricky cases where its recorded in black and white, it can be dismissed as an appeal to authority. Thank you, BIP100 is a great example of totally wasted efforts and focus. It never had any chance of being adopted and is nothing more than a distraction. |
|
|
|
thanks its all a bit pie in the sky but I can see this kind of price action giving people a real hard time! I for one plan to mitigate this by moving permanently to a place where everything is dirt cheap and temptations of conspicuous consumption are rare. I'll ride these years on a real low budget so that I can't fully enjoyed the benefits of delayed gratification when time comes. |
|
|
|
...If this theory is true, the next leg up will be greater in both duration and magnitude than any we have seen before... And when it's done it might just carry us right over the vertical part of the adoption curve. An unexpectedly long and severe bull movement might last three to four years and take us to some pretty extreme prices. I've written more about it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ne7yr/the_next_wave_of_cryptospeculation_is_coming_and/ Sgbett, any thoughts? Has anyone tried to find a pattern in the timing of expansions vs. retraction before? Would you agree the next bull run might take several years to complete, which might be "compressed" by your particular chart? ... I wildly underestimated one of the variables (as humans are wont to do) - time. Think I am bang on the money about the price though, I think $560k is the big one before it levels out around the 300k mark. the 'ristoprice' any move to a million after that would have to be decades long so not in my lifetime. As you've said though, i think its a multi year move, such that the noise during it will seem like huge price moves whilst its happening but with hindsight it will all become clear. Look at November '13: It starts out in the 200's and by the end of the month we'd hit $1,200 - about 4 weeks say. Prior to that several months spent so imagine we spend the next year or two slowly working back up to 1000 On the 9th Nov '13, the opening price was around 350 after several days of steady climbing, that day it hit $400. The following morning a plunge back down to $300 which was tested a couple times. At this point without a crystal ball it was anyone's guess what was going to happen. We were already well over the previous all time high. Calls of a bubble were already starting, it has to crash any time! Instead it carried on marching up relentlessly for the following week. On the 18th it broke $600, and went on to touch nearly $900 going into the 19th. A blow off top sure sure, and it was... back under $500 in 36 hours. It wouldn't go lower though, and another 10 days straight gains before finally running out of steam at the end of november at over $1200. Now, Imagine a 4 year run up from $1000 to $560k and imagine the totally unlikely fractal based scenario of the same patterns playing out over that timescale. The first year will be a steady climb, until around february of the second year where we will be at around $85k. Still holding? Good because by the end of feb its shot up to $101k and you are pretty happy right now! The trick now is not to panic as by mid march you'll have seen the price drop right back down to $55k. Panic sold yet? I hope not, because over the next 12 are going to see a climb to $225k - if you have the balls to ride that train. So we are mid march year 3 now, and over the next 3 weeks growth will suddenly accelerate, $393k in the fist quarter of april. You are smart, you'd sell here right. That would be a wise move because 60 days later the price has collapsed to $169k. You made bank though. Bitcoin is going nowhere now and you are sitting pretty. For the next year though you watch in dismay, as you set out of another 230% price rise. Bitcoin $560k, end of year 4. Those huge swings over weeks and months will all but guarantee redistribution. Given the behaviour of people during the past 2 run ups, something of that magnitude, over that length of time will be absolutely unbearable. The noise alone will shake people daily. Thats what my OP is about. Its a note to self. As much as we won't be able to reconcile our opinions about the block size debate I also think you are "bang on the money" about this one. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
