... I don't see any reason for this week $3000+ pump  My money's on the Yuan devaluation. Well, not my money. My money does not react to transient circumstances. But I think there is a good chance that the Yuan devaluation has something to do with the price bump. Something something Chinese punters' savings worth less something something Chinese punters getting scared about loss of savings something something Chinese punters look for stronger asset to hold value something something Chinese punters buy Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
You should still act like an angry cunt to him, if that is how you really feel.
I wouldn't expect any different. You know that some of your last posts were a bit outrageous towards him in terms of criticizing certain decent points that he was making, but whatever, maybe jbreher just loves abuse?
Naaah. The opportunity to metaphorically piss all over nutildah was darned near irresistible. Plus, a dedicated WO participant should not be bereft of sMerits, regardless of upbringing. Hmm... maybe I am getting soft. I ignored the obvious opportunity to castigate elementary english errors: |
|
|
|
Having said that, I do value my anonymity, which is why I can't disclose who I write for or what else I do to make ends meet.
You write -- loud 'n' proud -- for sportsbet.io. It's right there in your sidesig, ... whore. |
|
|
|
It's against the rules for merit sources to trade their smerits for anything of value
So this means we can still trade merits for BSV or Beam?  I do hate being out of merits, but it does encourage me to think up ways to farm up more merits. My sMerit supply is so piddly that when they trickle to me its like a weak stream of urine on my head. . Well, your retort was kinda funny. Though I guess I stretched my usual 'wet screen' policy a bit more than a bit. |
|
|
|
Nice
For those monetary archaeologists trawling this forum in the year 2140, the price of BTC just went from below $11,000 USD (is the USD still a thing in 2140?) to over $11,600 USD in the course of less than three hours. I'm assuming that is what prompted the comment of 'nice'. |
|
|
|
The only point i was making is that selling, then re-buying, then selling again and re-buying sequences would most likely (in my opinion) result in a lower number of bitcoins than you start with.
Only in the case of monotonically increasing corn price. But corn ain't nothin', if not volatile. I have absolutely no problem with selling bitcoin (or $$ for btc) in bits and pieces on the way up (or down, depending on your strategy).
It' the trading back and forth that I posit to be an unrealistic tool (when taken alone) to increase the number of btc that someone have.
I realize that you might be playing with small %%, still, i do not wish other people trading away their future wealth by trying to gain a bit of a leverage, hence my post.
There's the key. |
|
|
|
Every up/down, I make a profit.
Wow, you're making a profit every second of every day? Jeebus cripes, you love to be obtuse, don't you? Anyone who was following along at home would know exactly what I was talking about. But not you. Oh no. I write something, and your inner mental amoeba rises up to blind your eyes and ears to what I am conveying. To unpack it for you: Every cycle of up followed by down (or down followed by up - pick one) in which the swing exceeds my ladder interval, I make a profit. Did you really not understand exactly what I meant? Are you really that blinded by hatred? Or are you really that dense? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is unrivaled: Security, Liquidity, SoV. If you just tune it to make it coffee-ready, the system collapses.
Speculation based upon facts not entered into evidence. I don't see anything wrong with that because there isn't a known safe solution, if there was one, BTC devs would have implemented it already.
Speculation based upon facts not entered into evidence. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I much prefer incremental steps. I’m not in the mood for unsustainable pumps because we all know what happens after them.
I love unsustainable pumps. Make $ on the way up, corn on the way down. Yummy. nobody can do it on sustainable basis as it does not tell you where it will go. sooner or later, you would lose. For some value of 'lose' that has nothing to do with my personal situation. Can you elaborate, jbreher? Yeah. My elaboration is I don't believe that there is any way in which this strategy would cause me to "lose" - counter to biodom's claim. Every up/down, I make a profit. I can choose whether to take that profit in USD or BTC. Sometimes I flip from one to the other, depending upon cash flow needs. It is true that this causes me to sell at a price that I expect to be (wildly) exceeded in the future. Accordingly, if corn price goes up monotonically, I will eventually have no corn, and nothing but a gigantic pile o' stinky fiat. Is that 'losing'? Not exactly. Kinda. However, that pile of stinky fiat is rather stratospheric, given the ratios of play_money:stake I am laddering. And every up/down gives me a more corn (if I don't take the profit in USD). Accordingly, depending upon the amount of volatility in relation to upward trend, I may never run out on the high side. Losing? Hardly. So in reality, I was merely trying to soften a retort of 'bullshit' to biodom's blanket 'lose' statement. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I much prefer incremental steps. I’m not in the mood for unsustainable pumps because we all know what happens after them.
I love unsustainable pumps. Make $ on the way up, corn on the way down. Yummy. nobody can do it on sustainable basis as it does not tell you where it will go. sooner or later, you would lose. For some value of 'lose' that has nothing to do with my personal situation. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I much prefer incremental steps. I’m not in the mood for unsustainable pumps because we all know what happens after them.
I love unsustainable pumps. Make $ on the way up, corn on the way down. Yummy. |
|
|
|
I wonder if you, jbreher, might still be playing with much tighter BTC laddering ranges than me, perhaps? Maybe even you have spread your increments out a bit larger as compared to what you had been doing in early 2018, no?
I scale in rough increments to make the percentage similar. Not exact percentage, as I place a premium of not having to put any thought into placing counter-orders. Round numbers makes that easier. I think about the same as then. I'd need to dig into records to answer with any precision. |
|
|
|
So has CSW paid Ver yet?
No, there's no chance he ever will. You think the judge would issue a warrant? Interesting. I was not aware CSW owed Ver anything. How much, and what for? Apparently like 75k for lawyer fees. Saw an article on it after my post. Thanks. |
|
|
|
just like jbreher currently flies of the government agent rails for certain kinds of references in that direction
.... I think that, for the moment, I have bit off enough personal bashenings in the ad hominem direction.
Haha. You think? Go Fuck Yourself, JJG. |
|
|
|
So has CSW paid Ver yet?
No, there's no chance he ever will. You think the judge would issue a warrant? Interesting. I was not aware CSW owed Ver anything. How much, and what for? |
|
|
|
Incidentally, it is working splendidly so far.
Yeah jbreher, splendidly is far from a couple of recent reorg occasions. With no known negative consequences. eta: Other than the loss of the coinbase tx revenues for the initial orphaned miners. Right, why would it have any negative consequences since nobody uses it, dah? Way to completely miss the point. Again. All the txs (again, save for the coinbase tx of each orphaned block) were ultimately included onchain. Nevermind the obvious blatant lie that "nobody uses it". Is this what substitutes for honest discourse in your pathological mind? Thanks Craig for sorting that out. We don't know what we would do without you. Precious. HM thinks I'm Craig. Jiggy thinks I'm a government agent. OTOH, several here have provided thinly-veiled evidence that they know exactly who I am. Which is, incidentally, neither of the above. Nor am I HM nor Jiggy, for that matter. |
|
|
|
What is more likely is that several computers or servers were used to mine the first million coins. Since there were no pools, each mined coin comes from a wallet on different computers.
Multiple computers can all use the same wallet. But the nonces on the blocks indicate that they came from a single "system" that was very fast, probably some sort of pool-like configuration. Or the difficulty was low No. The nonces in each won block indicate that the vast majority of mining power in the first days was definitely coordinated. How is that inconsistent with low difficulty on a single laptop? Quite evidently, it is not. I must have misunderstood what you were trying to convey. It seemed as if you were arguing against the post to which you responded. Specifically therein: "the nonces on the blocks indicate that they came from a single "system"". Sorry for the confusion. |
|
|
|
Incidentally, it is working splendidly so far.
Yeah jbreher, splendidly is far from a couple of recent reorg occasions. With no known negative consequences. eta: Other than the loss of the coinbase tx revenues for the initial orphaned miners. Right, why would it have any negative consequences since nobody uses it, dah? Way to completely miss the point. Again. All the txs (again, save for the coinbase tx of each orphaned block) were ultimately included onchain. Nevermind the obvious blatant lie that "nobody uses it". Is this what substitutes for honest discourse in your pathological mind? |
|
|
|
What is more likely is that several computers or servers were used to mine the first million coins. Since there were no pools, each mined coin comes from a wallet on different computers.
Multiple computers can all use the same wallet. But the nonces on the blocks indicate that they came from a single "system" that was very fast, probably some sort of pool-like configuration. Or the difficulty was low No. The nonces in each won block indicate that the vast majority of mining power in the first days was definitely coordinated. |
|
|
|
IF CSW has access to 1.1M BTC and IF CSW and/or allied miners deign to mount such an attack, then that may be devastating to BTC. Seems a lot of coin tosses would have to land on edge for such to be the case, but...
Heck, I wouldn't even think such an action unethical. It's just part of the game theory. It's not as if these ideas have not been hashed and rehashed publicly since years. Anyone astonished by these ideas either has not been paying attention or is in active denial.
Like to omit the inferences to the rest of that dramatic story, don't you jbreher? Like afterward life will be great, and the entire crypto community will all be singing kumbaya in BSV land? If any of that would to occur (which we all know it won't), it wouldn't suddenly endear ANYONE to BSV, BCASH, or any other Bitcoin shitcoin/derivative thereof. If BTC were destroyed due to CSW's actions, it's not like when the smoked cleared all the existing Bitcoin TM advocates, users, merchants, exchanges, brokers, and investors would suddenly race toward BSV or BCash. Quite the opposite infact. Sorry to disappoint your glorious troll 'vision'. Your flight of fancy is quite amusing as well, Torkey-poo. Firstly, I clearly indicated that these potentialities are each improbable, and more so in the aggregate. Second, I made no claim as to the effect upon BSV or BCH. Though for a rational person, who believes in the promise of crypto in general: If their preferred chain would be shown to a have a fatal flaw, they would likely look to other cryptos to find one that can fulfill their expectations. You yourself can be as irrational as you care to. Ain't no skin off my back. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
