The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting.
something else that's interesting is that somebody just spent about 700 coins trying to punch through $263 support and got a bounce instead. We need bigger blocks. everybody knows it. That's why we know the fork will become the main branch. I'm personally not against a marginal increase in block size. I think 4 mb would be sufficient for the next halving interval, and perhaps we could double each 4 years after that. It gives reason to the decision: the allocations of new coins has been cut in half, so we double the available transaction space to compensate the miners. You all need to remember that this whole thing exists on trusting that the Blockchain can not be violated, which means trusting the miners, which means the miners must be properly incentivized, or they will turn against the system. You've heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" ?? What do you think happens when that hand stops feeding and the one with the teeth gets hungry? Yeah and Workers of the World Unite! Gimme a break with your commie talk. That gets no play here. The issue is not between a 8MB block and a smaller increase. It's about a block size increase or NO block size increase. It's your fault. There are no other proposals on the table, so we are forced to chose between Gavin's proposal or doing nothing. Doing nothing is not an option. Lol, "commie talk" indeed, I should mine for you for free? Fuck you, enjoy your fork, asshole. I take your cripplecoin, and double. Most of my remaining crypto horde is already moved into Monero (big risk, yeah, we'll see how that turns out) What I have left on bitcoin I am confident I will be able to spend on whatever chain survives, or on both, perhaps? |
|
|
|
I don't care, I want gigantic blocks.
Your post about boot strapping fiat currency in another thread was borderline brilliant, but this is just silly. The larger the blocks become, the more difficult to secure the block chain. If there are gigantic blocks there is no incentive to pay any fee, also no incentive to block non fee payments. “You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.” Yeah, I got that feeling, I've had a few more than I should as well, but I'm not gonna let you off so easily. How do you propose to incentivize chain security as distribution continues to halve?The blocks will naturally be limited by the cost and benefit balance in the market. I expect the fee will be small but not insignificant at any time. Eventually, the blocks will be limited by nature. Artificial limitation has no purpose (other than possibly to destroy bitcoin for someone with interest in other systems). For the sake of safety, I am ok with a small increase for now. I'm ok with a small increase, and I share your hope that natural selection would limit the blocks to a reasonable level, but it still remains possible that there exists irrational actors that would not limit themselves to the "natural" limit and instead use the larger artificial limit to attack the network. It has not been a problem for the six years up till now. An the reason is that there is a cost to make large blocks. The market works, as it always does. Central planning efficacy is an illusion. Go with the market, freedom and private property. It is the only sustainable way. It has not been a problem up till now because we have been incentivized by the block reward. If there is no incentive to pay fees on transactions, then how do you incentivize the miners when the reward runs out? - keep in mind, there is a vast oversupply of sha-256 mining capacity that would be sold to the highest bidder as soon as it becomes unprofitable to mine. |
|
|
|
The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting.
something else that's interesting is that somebody just spent about 700 coins trying to punch through $263 support and got a bounce instead. We need bigger blocks. everybody knows it. That's why we know the fork will become the main branch. I'm personally not against a marginal increase in block size. I think 4 mb would be sufficient for the next halving interval, and perhaps we could double each 4 years after that. It gives reason to the decision: the allocations of new coins has been cut in half, so we double the available transaction space to compensate the miners. You all need to remember that this whole thing exists on trusting that the Blockchain can not be violated, which means trusting the miners, which means the miners must be properly incentivized, or they will turn against the system. You've heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" ?? What do you think happens when that hand stops feeding and the one with the teeth gets hungry? Yeah and Workers of the World Unite! Gimme a break with your commie talk. That gets no play here. The issue is not between a 8MB block and a smaller increase. It's about a block size increase or NO block size increase. It's your fault. There are no other proposals on the table, so we are forced to chose between Gavin's proposal or doing nothing. Doing nothing is not an option. Lol, "commie talk" indeed, I should mine for you for free? Fuck you, enjoy your fork, asshole. |
|
|
|
I don't care, I want gigantic blocks.
Your post about boot strapping fiat currency in another thread was borderline brilliant, but this is just silly. The larger the blocks become, the more difficult to secure the block chain. If there are gigantic blocks there is no incentive to pay any fee, also no incentive to block non fee payments. “You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.” Yeah, I got that feeling, I've had a few more than I should as well, but I'm not gonna let you off so easily. How do you propose to incentivize chain security as distribution continues to halve?The blocks will naturally be limited by the cost and benefit balance in the market. I expect the fee will be small but not insignificant at any time. Eventually, the blocks will be limited by nature. Artificial limitation has no purpose (other than possibly to destroy bitcoin for someone with interest in other systems). For the sake of safety, I am ok with a small increase for now. I'm ok with a small increase, and I share your hope that natural selection would limit the blocks to a reasonable level, but it still remains possible that there exists irrational actors that would not limit themselves to the "natural" limit and instead use the larger artificial limit to attack the network. ,*, edit... I'm mostly concerned that the miners will not get paid without some kind of limit. Some kind of exclusivity must exist on the main bitcoin Blockchain to incentivize the cost of proof of work needed to secure the amount of value that will eventually be stored on the blockchain. |
|
|
|
The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting.
something else that's interesting is that somebody just spent about 700 coins trying to punch through $263 support and got a bounce instead. We need bigger blocks. everybody knows it. That's why we know the fork will become the main branch. I'm personally not against a marginal increase in block size. I think 4 mb would be sufficient for the next halving interval, and perhaps we could double each 4 years after that. It gives reason to the decision: the allocations of new coins has been cut in half, so we double the available transaction space to compensate the miners. You all need to remember that this whole thing exists on trusting that the Blockchain can not be violated, which means trusting the miners, which means the miners must be properly incentivized, or they will turn against the system. You've heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" ?? What do you think happens when that hand stops feeding and the one with the teeth gets hungry? |
|
|
|
I don't care, I want gigantic blocks.
Your post about boot strapping fiat currency in another thread was borderline brilliant, but this is just silly. The larger the blocks become, the more difficult to secure the block chain. If there are gigantic blocks there is no incentive to pay any fee, also no incentive to block non fee payments. “You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.” Yeah, I got that feeling, I've had a few more than I should as well, but I'm not gonna let you off so easily. How do you propose to incentivize chain security as distribution continues to halve? |
|
|
|
But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity.
This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need.
That reminds me of the Statists who claim that government expenditures should be based on need. What is not said but logically follows is that whoever determines the "need" ends up with all the power. Let the market decide. The problem is that the market does not decide in this case. It's the "Hearn and Gavin" show that propose their decision. The market has no say, well... until the fork actually happens and then bitcoin and Gavincoin can trade freely against one another... that will be interesting. |
|
|
|
kLee you are fucking amazing. Who informed you about that? Thanks! Twitter! Ok, while I think it's great that "Satoshi" has resurfaced to fight the Gavinistas, I do think that the hard limit must indeed increase (perhaps to 2mb, maybe in a few years it could go higher?) But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity. This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need.Technically speaking I have NO opinion on the block size. I just know when I see assholes (Mike + Gavin). But they are our assholes. Not my assholes, those two stink to high heaven. Hearn lost any trust of mine as soon as he began advocating for breaking fungibility. Gavin, I think, was a nice guy, but he's been compromised and can't be trusted either. |
|
|
|
kLee you are fucking amazing. Who informed you about that? Thanks! Twitter! Ok, while I think it's great that "Satoshi" has resurfaced to fight the Gavinistas, I do think that the hard limit must indeed increase (perhaps to 2mb, maybe in a few years it could go higher?) But the 101 proposal of doubling every couple years is pure insanity. This is not just a ledger that might exist on a few select locations around the world. This is a ledger that should exist on every computer around the world. The best security or guarantee of authentic transactions is when as many as possible can hold and parse the full Blockchain. This will not happen if you just double by arbitrary rule instead of calculated increases decided by need. |
|
|
|
yawn, why so much boringness and lack of moves, after all the fun of greek crisis and the fail to break 300 again
You must learn to embrace the sideways.  Time is short, enjoy it while you can. |
|
|
|
Hi, I'm new to all this. Can someone explain why eth price & volume are going up, and btc just sort of sits there doing nothing? This is all just temporary, right?
Sideways All Summer Chin up, buttercup! Summer's almost over  |
|
|
|
Looks like we are setup for a stale few months. This is actually good news.
 Low as possible Long as possible |
|
|
|
This has has everything to do with China dropping the dollar peg. Currency wars (where every player tries to LOSE) are great for Bitcoin.
It should make people rush to bitcoin - but it hasn't, historically. I think it is the block size. Seriously, dude? What makes you think the block size problem has been resolved? Two pages of people saying this and not a single link. |
|
|
|
I don't think that the 5000$ fee was a the problem with BFX.
Please bear in mind this is only the non-refundable application fee. Still, if you spread that across all 50 states it would be a cool quarter million, right off the top. It was estimated that staying compliant for a nationwide bitcoin business would cost roughly half a million dollars per year. You've got to keep a compliance officer on staff (or several, depending on the size of your operation) you've got to file your quota of suspicious activity reports, and of course you'll probably want to hire Lawsky's consulting firm, not because they'll help you remain compliant, but because they will know exactly which palms to grease to keep you on the good side of the regulators. Don't feel like retaining their services? Don't be surprised to be at the top of the list of random audits. This whole banking regulatory system is a scam and it stinks to high heaven. |
|
|
|
Chin up, Buttercup!
Awww, thanks lamp chop, I can always count on you to cheer me up! (Also, chopinscript? Really? ---Nice touch.) |
|
|
|
Seems like 300$ dream is dead
Yeah, the dream is dead forever, never reach 300 ever again, dump everything you have, fiat is the only safe money, your government knows best, don't bother thinking for yourself, trust in what you are told by the Telescreen. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. |
|
|
|
Bids are back on finex, but bear in mind that they can easily get removed again. The guy/entity probably has a script running on the API to remove bids if the price comes within a certain % range of it. In conclusion, don't get fooled by the orderbook.
Well spotted. There is support, somewhere, but don't be looking at fake data and hoping to find truth. This is what a market is. It is nothing more than a price discovery mechanism. If the market were purely open and transparent, would it be a better indicator of value? Who knows? It would be an interesting experiment, but we have no markets currently that are not manipulated from which we might harvest useful data or glean useful information..., so; in the end, speculation is the driver of the market. Thus, gentlemen, your work is cut out and laid before you. Best of luck. |
|
|
|
|
Alright! This is it! Finally gonna get those $250 bids filled!
Come on, big dumps, no whamies, STOP!
Or is this just a tease?
:/
|
|
|
|
Sideways or down... is my guess.
Upside is gonna be in a little while longer... I think a buy now would require some Hodl. Yet I'd not wanna wait for the surge so a bid on the current price is my move... i'm ready for some hodl.
I knew this drop was coming and I think testing the bottom limit is too risky. I'd be very surprised to see 250 give way... we've already had three waves of decline. There isn't any significantly bad news to push it down much farther. This drop is simply do to the unfulfilled promises of the 300+ BTC.
I think people suggesting lower than 250 should have a very good reason.
I see sideways as the foreseeable future. Then back up.
"Sideways all summer" We've been trading in a wide band between 220 and 300 roughly for several months now. Patel had targeted 250 before another test of resistance at 300, and it's totally plausible. Personally, I hope we continue within this range of consolidation as long as possible. High probability it lasts at least until the end of the month, medium possibility we could stay in this range till the end of the year, maybe until early next summer. VERY low possibility that we are still in this range by the time the next American puppet, err, president gets selected, err, elected. |
|
|
|
Welcome back Tinkerbell, I missed ya... Now. can i have that gif of a pink pony on a trampoline? I just need to quote this as a reference in case I ever start to question the professor's true motives regarding bitcoin. Not even pretending to employ any semblance of professional academic indifference any more, are we professor? Very well, carry on. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
