|
481
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: November 12, 2014, 08:26:49 PM
|
Shroomie, LampChop is that you?  Please don't remind me how many I sold at $3. I was turning a steep profit at $1... then shit tripled and I got excited  . Hey man don't worry, all you can do is affect the here & now. It's all good... paid off hardware, had a blast spending some extra money, and I still hold enough bitcoin to keep me interested  . |
|
|
|
|
483
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Falling is shooting interviews now.
|
on: November 12, 2014, 08:13:31 PM
|
I don't get his reasoning, he main critique is that bitcoin penetration/usage is way lower than "previously thought" or how the community makes it look like. I agree with that, but what does this say about possible future developments? if anything, I'd say "oh great, so I'm even more early adopter than I thought" or "there is way more room for growth than previously thought".
At least future development got a clear degree of uncertainty. I really loathe the desillusional people here that sometimes seem to only live in their own dreamworld. Almost everyday I see the same bullshit statement passing by: 'Adoption is ever increasing and....'. I really ask myself if the idiots that bring that shit to these boards tell that to themselves each and every day before they go to sleep, thinking about their 800 dollar+ coins. Whenever there is some lame announcement about some new Bitcoin venture, people immediatly grasp the opportunity to implictly proclaim that market adoption has just doubled again. I know better and so do many others here; if they will admit it is a second. When I read the media regarding Bitcoin, it is mostly (if not nearly exclusively) bad news. When I look around me I literally see no one using Bitcoin out of dozens of people I know. Above all I know for sure that many of them will never start using it, as they want to avoid risk. The adoption myth will slowly deflate itself in the mid term. Looks like pretty strong growth in usage to me: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/176027/txs_excluding_popular.pngI wonder how much of that is due to trading. Also: what immediatly catches the eye is that the growth in adoption seems far slower than price growth (that is, the bubble we saw in november/december 2013). I still don't see people jumping into Bitcoin, as it is far too complex for the average joe. He wants something simple, easy and safe, and therefore Bitcoin will simply prove to be no candidate at all in the long run. I expect that some altcoin (that is, not some Bitcoin clone but something real like Nxt for example) will take its place and that particular altcoin might have a small chance of becoming used as it is meant to be. Nobody will ever use the internet, it is way too complicated.  Altcoins can't simplify the protocol without taking something away. We don't need a simpler protocol. We need user friendly layers built on top of the protocol, and we are 100 times closer to that now than we were 1 year ago. It is still way early in the Bitcoin timeline and to call it dead at this point is drastically short sighted, |
|
|
|
|
484
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: November 12, 2014, 07:52:49 PM
|
lol @ If you're still looking for a safe-haven investment, a better option would be large-cap stocks with lots of cash and good management like Disney, Apple or Microsoft.
If the idea is to join the dollar rally, why target companies with dollars when you can just hold dollars. Especially when stocks are still pushing all time highs and creating megaphones. |
|
|
|
|
485
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: November 12, 2014, 07:45:09 PM
|
Anybody willing to take a guess at who would say the above??  Your alternative ego. Don't be lazy! Use to use the proper forum account or it doesn't count! This account has only been used by 1 single IP adress and that IP adress has never been used for any other account. Would really love it, if the forum would have a feature which would show if the account would be "unique", would proof in an instant how childish you are. IP addresses are a terrible way to determine uniqueness of users. No shit sherlock, but since I've got a fixed IP adress and haven't used any other, it would suffice in my case, but I don't have to prove myself. Besides if he would be smart enough, he can clearly distinguish all accounts, based on the way each account writes and makes spelling mistakes. But, it's ofcourse a lot easier to just throw accusations around and see what sticks. So you're getting your panties in a bunch over some troll trolling? Chill out dude. Why do you give a shit what he says? Why is it so important to you to be "right" in the eyes of somebody who's just trying to push your buttons for their own amusement? |
|
|
|
|
486
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Hidden Agenda?
|
on: November 12, 2014, 07:42:45 PM
|
I'm calling it. Pump and dump. Still in the pumping part. dumping starts at 450.
It started at $430  Panic sell all your coins now! It slid so fast from $430, I wasn't able to sell. By the time I actually noticed, I sold at $412, then bought back at $415 lol. I think I'll just stick it out to at least $500, trying to day trade on these big moves is a bit counterproductive. I think the difference with other pump/dumps is that this isn't news-based, and it's also very methodical. If anything this is a short squeeze, because any time it shoots up, it consolidates slightly before climbing higher. Anytime I think we're going to dip, by the time I try to sell and buy back we've already gone higher. Even if this is a pump and dump, it seems different. Yet short interest on bitfinex is still floating around the all time high... if shorters are getting squeezed, others are jumping right in behind them. This could go on for another $100 or so before they all learn their lesson. |
|
|
|
|
487
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Falling is shooting interviews now.
|
on: November 12, 2014, 07:37:55 PM
|
I don't get his reasoning, he main critique is that bitcoin penetration/usage is way lower than "previously thought" or how the community makes it look like. I agree with that, but what does this say about possible future developments? if anything, I'd say "oh great, so I'm even more early adopter than I thought" or "there is way more room for growth than previously thought".
At least future development got a clear degree of uncertainty. I really loathe the desillusional people here that sometimes seem to only live in their own dreamworld. Almost everyday I see the same bullshit statement passing by: 'Adoption is ever increasing and....'. I really ask myself if the idiots that bring that shit to these boards tell that to themselves each and every day before they go to sleep, thinking about their 800 dollar+ coins. Whenever there is some lame announcement about some new Bitcoin venture, people immediatly grasp the opportunity to implictly proclaim that market adoption has just doubled again. I know better and so do many others here; if they will admit it is a second. When I read the media regarding Bitcoin, it is mostly (if not nearly exclusively) bad news. When I look around me I literally see no one using Bitcoin out of dozens of people I know. Above all I know for sure that many of them will never start using it, as they want to avoid risk. The adoption myth will slowly deflate itself in the mid term. Looks like pretty strong growth in usage to me:  |
|
|
|
|
489
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: November 12, 2014, 07:31:36 PM
|
Anybody willing to take a guess at who would say the above?? Your alternative ego. Don't be lazy! Use to use the proper forum account or it doesn't count! This account has only been used by 1 single IP adress and that IP adress has never been used for any other account. Would really love it, if the forum would have a feature which would show if the account would be "unique", would proof in an instant how childish you are. IP addresses are a terrible way to determine uniqueness of users. |
|
|
|
|
490
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: It's happening! --- 3̶6̶0̶$̶ 378$
|
on: November 12, 2014, 04:34:05 PM
|
If you were Bill Gates or Sir Branson, how much money would you get in BTC? I'd probably send $40 million over to Bitstamp  That'll get you around 111,100BTC at today's rate Don't know about Gatesy but think Brando already picked up and currently bagholding Bill Gates is already at the stage where he doesnt give a fuck about money (as in getting more of it) so I doubt he's going to be here watching to see the highs and lows but he's said favourable things about the tech model and sir Richard Branson as a billionaire doesn't need the money either but he is happily accepting them for his space tour flights and probably even hodling them since he would have no need to cash out into fiat anytime soon lol that's an interesting discussion but did you know that this year alone there were more new billionaires than ever before? I'd bet the first thought of many new billionaires is: "now I must make sure to remain billionaire" which means they are going to buy some bitcoins and that's a cold hard proven theory! Branson is worth around 5 billion I think but he owns a lot of stuff that generates revenue every year I was very happily surprised to see him getting into Bitcoin in its relative infancy but he obviously sees the potential in it He's right more often than he's wrong and he didn't get 5 billion by being dumb Branson does not care about Bitcoin or believe in it at all. They immediately swap Bitcoin into fiat at Virgin. They do accept Bitcoin because that would allow their customers to pay without audit and its a publicity stunt. Branson did not make his billions investing in speculative stuff. He has a freakin spaceship and there is nothing speculative about that kind of business. If there is nothing speculative in spaceflight, then why did his spaceship crash last week? It is insured and they have proper plans in place for such events! He already has a airline, he did not just decide to do something with no clear plan like most on this forum praying to get rich quick. I agree, but I'm not sure you understand what the word speculative means. |
|
|
|
|
491
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why first instead of second?
|
on: November 11, 2014, 10:16:23 PM
|
So you're trying to double spend, and then complaining that the network won't let you?
I am trying to do a double-spend attempt. I send one first transaction which will not confirm and than I send another tx which will confirm the problem is that f2pool now confirms first transactions. The "problem" is that pools use the first transaction they see to provide better protection against double spends and you are trying to double spend. |
|
|
|
|
492
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why first instead of second?
|
on: November 11, 2014, 09:00:36 PM
|
SHIT. It is impossible to confirm both transactions. And there is no pool with replace-by-fee method now.
I think that there will be no such pool with this option available to everyone in near future.
Well but one of those blocks would get orphaned? OK, the testnet is not a right place also. BTW, how did you get referal code? I want too Favor for favor you think/found the method for me on:How when I send first tx with 0fee and than second with 0.0004fee only for second to get confirmed and I will share the ref key ONLY with you(I guess he won't get mad that I shared it only with you) EDIT: What I am trying to here is: Lets say that my friend accepts 0conf transactions and will ship me 5USD after he sees the incoming tx. So I send first transaction with 0fee he sends me 5USD when I get the dollars I quickly broadcast a conflicting tx which will get confirmed so first drops and I still get the dollars.(That was just an example so you can understand better what I want to achieve with all those tx's) So you're trying to double spend, and then complaining that the network won't let you? |
|
|
|
|
493
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: November 11, 2014, 08:45:38 PM
|
where does he get this?:
But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.
That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.
After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.
Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable. Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU. So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput. What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput. I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain. I agree and I would like to add. You cannot store 20 years old unspent output into archive. You need to have instant access to those bitcoin if you are miner. Don't be so sure that you won't be able to store 20 years of UTXO dust 15 years from now. You'll probably be able to do it in a $5 chip the size of a postage stamp. http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6815/sandisk-ulltradimm-ddr3-400gb-ssd-enterprise-review/index.htmlStorage density is EXCEEDING Moore's law for the last 10+ years...What's your source, because my source (Computer Architecture: A Quantiative Approach 5th edidion, 2012), says that magnetic storage has been growing at about 40% per year since 2004:  Even flash is doubling every 2 years, not the 18 month timeline for moore's law. Edit: not sure why my image is choking the proxy, http://yrral.net/storage_growth.png |
|
|
|
|
494
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: November 11, 2014, 07:26:30 PM
|
Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill. Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in. Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal. I thought you were in favor of it?
That's an assumption that's may fall away, it isn't true if you get paid in TX fees on a side chain from MM, you could mine empty Bitcoin blocks all day, and get paid in SC tokens. Sure, solving the block propagation issue should be addressed, and can be without a hard fork. I support Gavin's proposed solution, but I don't want to see it followed up by raising the block size limit. |
|
|
|
|
495
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Metals are getting absolutely monkey hammered
|
on: November 11, 2014, 07:23:29 PM
|
Nothing more solid than actual metals. You cant trust gf, you cant trust your family, you cant even trust Bitcoin as much as you can trust your metals. Yes, put all your faith in metal. Hold it above your family and those closest to you. Only the love of money will save us from evil. |
|
|
|
|
496
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: November 11, 2014, 07:16:33 PM
|
1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork) but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway To me (and I might be lonely) the magic of sidechains is exactly the opposite. Bitcoin works very well as it is and is defensible by my calculations. Any significant changes, and especially those designed to balloon it's capacity, are a huge threat. If Bitcoin more or less freezes now with only bug-fixes I'm pretty confident to trust it with significant value. The more 'good ideas' that get pumped into it the more wary I become. Yes, accelerated developments made possible by SCs might feed back into bug-fixes in Bitcoin but that's the only advantage I see in this regard. To me the suggestion that it could grow to even a tiny tiny fraction of the scale needed to service the world's exchange economy while preserving the aspects that made it interesting to me is beyond absurd and has been since I bought my first Bitcoin. Trying to get 'part way there' will both fail miserably (due to it's basic design if nothing else) AND ruin the original aspects which made it great enough to reach the high water mark it has already left. If it isn't torpedoed, I suspect that it will vastly exceed the existing high water mark absent any changes at all. That's why I'm still significantly invested. Right, with one soft fork we can enable sidechains and never have to hard fork. |
|
|
|
|
497
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: November 11, 2014, 07:11:27 PM
|
where does he get this?:
But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.
That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.
After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.
Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable. Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU. So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput. What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput. I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
498
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: November 11, 2014, 06:56:32 PM
|
1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork) but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway Maybe in your mind... in my opinion the whole point of SC is to allow innovation in the crypto space without diluting bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn't need to be a timestamping service or a distributed computing platform, but both are valid uses cases of sidechains.
2. it increases the required resources for all miners
but i thought brg444 said ALL miners would end up MM'ing SC's? I disagree with him on this point and so I won't argue in support of him here.
3. it reduces the value of transaction fees by increasing the supply of block space
maybe, maybe not if tx #'s grow significantly Possibly, but the initial increase will cause a devaluation. It may well establish a sound equilibrium after some time, but we won't know unless we try. And if it fails, we're fucked because you insisted on doing it on the main chain instead of testing things on a segregated sidechain.
4. any hardcoded limit will just be hit again and any algorithmic limit has a lot of questions about proper incentives to answer
true
5. there is no genuine proposal for how to adjust the limit (Gavin's proposal merely addresses the issues with block transmission latency that are a prerequisite to raising the limit. It should probably be done even if we leave the limit since it is a soft-fork change and currently miners who fill blocks to the limit are putting themselves at a disadvantage over empty blocks that propagate quicker)
why didn't the 0 tx block Mystery Miner take over a coupla yrs ago? Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill. Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in. Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal. I thought you were in favor of it? |
|
|
|
|
499
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: November 11, 2014, 05:16:50 PM
|
I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token? Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great. A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention. But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited. Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange. Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff. Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation. Financial incentive: Exactly! We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does. In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token. Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten. re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address. Gavin's block size expansion is a hard forking change that will splinter the community.... I don't see how you could possibly think that is preferable to a soft fork change that solves the same problem while also opening up many other exciting possibilities (such as the document timestamping service of thezerg, or a proof of storage chain, or a chain for distributed computing, or. ...). who is against increasing block size and why? 1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork) 2. it increases the required resources for all miners 3. it reduces the value of transaction fees by increasing the supply of block space 4. any hardcoded limit will just be hit again and any algorithmic limit has a lot of questions about proper incentives to answer 5. there is no genuine proposal for how to adjust the limit (Gavin's proposal merely addresses the issues with block transmission latency that are a prerequisite to raising the limit. It should probably be done even if we leave the limit since it is a soft-fork change and currently miners who fill blocks to the limit are putting themselves at a disadvantage over empty blocks that propagate quicker) |
|
|
|
|
500
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: November 11, 2014, 05:06:08 PM
|
Anybody who cares about Bitcoin in a positive way won't roll out changes which threaten to cause a tie, or even anything but a near-universal agreement.
yep For instance, a hard forking change to increase block size. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
