|
sometimes it seems to me like everyone around here is born backwards!
when price is rising or has already risen, they are asking "is it good time to invest" and they start regretting all the missed opportunities to buy bitcoin at lower prices. and they continue doing this without any action.
then when price falls, none of them make any move again! instead they keep asking "where is the bottom" and "will it ever recover" and still won't do anything!
|
|
|
|
-snip-
I don't see 540 MB blocks as a problem at all. People download fullHD and 4k video streams every day at their laptop while running youtube. There is enough bandwidth and space for big blocks these days.
that is 540 MB per block. there is one block every 10 minute on average which means 144 blocks per day or 144* 540 MB = ~77.76 GB per day. and you are storing this amount every day in other words comparing this process with video streaming is wrong on so many levels! first is that you don't store the videos you stream. you just watch temporarily. second you don't verify anything, you just watch a video which will consume little CPU power but a block needs to be verified, you don't just download it. you have to check every byte to see if it is a valid thing or fake. and that takes CPU and RAM and eventually you will find yourself needing only a strong computer to handle a full node and end up with master nodes aka centralization. Sure, 540 MB is huge, I admit it even though I am an advocate of block increases. This is why I thought of small increases over time, because I am sure that in, say, 10 years 540 MB block will not be considered huge anymore. Currently 540MB per block (=78 Gb per day) is infeasible also because setting up a new full node requires downloading the full history and it would take months or years if the increment were 78 Gb each day (it takes days or weeks with current block size). However, it is all currently only. I am not against block size increase either. in fact from what I have understood, and also if I recall correctly Andreas Antonopoulos also said we need on-chain scaling along size the second layer solution. a middle ground may be the best way to move forward which is mostly why I was excited about SegWit2x which never happened! but hopefully with SegWit capacity increase and later on with things such as signature aggregation we can be fine for a while and don't need a hard fork anytime soon. |
|
|
|
It seems to me that someone has decided to profit when the price approached 12 000$,taking into account the opportunity to buy under 6000$ level recently -100% profit looks very good.
to be fair the drop that you are mentioning is a perfectly normal and common thing after each big rise. it was a mere correction and it happened a couple of times (8 times to be exact) ever since the very bottom which was $5900ish the most recent one that I can refer you to is the drop from $11300 to $10100 and as long as these "lows" that are reached are increasing, I call it a rise not a dead cat bounce. which is why I also expect $15k in March. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I don't see 540 MB blocks as a problem at all. People download fullHD and 4k video streams every day at their laptop while running youtube. There is enough bandwidth and space for big blocks these days.
that is 540 MB per block. there is one block every 10 minute on average which means 144 blocks per day or 144* 540 MB = ~77.76 GB per day. and you are storing this amount every day in other words comparing this process with video streaming is wrong on so many levels! first is that you don't store the videos you stream. you just watch temporarily. second you don't verify anything, you just watch a video which will consume little CPU power but a block needs to be verified, you don't just download it. you have to check every byte to see if it is a valid thing or fake. and that takes CPU and RAM and eventually you will find yourself needing only a strong computer to handle a full node and end up with master nodes aka centralization. |
|
|
|
No, not temporarily. Permanently.
it is temporarily fixed until the block size (ie 8MB) is filled, then next target and next target... and as I calculated in my previous comment you will need nearly unlimited block size for that. and that is not considering spam attacks. People have doubts about Lightning Network. I am not taking sides here, but there is talk about high fees in the future and domination of LN by banks and corporations.
most of the information online about Lightning Network is either FUD or advanced and hard to understand. from what I understand the network has no chance of being centralized. there will always be nodes run by individuals even if banks run LN nodes too. and if you don't like them you can choose not to use them. just choose a different route which goes through the rest of the nodes. not to mention, thanks to onion routing, any node that receives a transaction can not tell where the start and end of this tx are coming from. Your calculation is valid, but it should be the ultimate goal. We don't need to achieve it now. Currently (unfortunately, but this is our reality) VISA is still more popular than BTC when it comes to paying for stuff. But knowing that the limit exists puts those who are concerned about disk space at peace, and we can do the increases slowly, only to be able to accommodate the local tx peaks, like the one we had in Dec'17.
Also, the average tx size is smaller with SegWit.
well those who say we need block size increase say we do not need SegWit so the average tx size is 450 bytes. and with SegWit we are getting a capacity increase (on chain scaling). I would agree that it is not enough. but I also say the way to go is not to increase the block size as BCH did. |
|
|
|
I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments. One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough. I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB? By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...
I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?
To run a full node, you are required to download the whole blockchain and as years pass, the file will become much bigger (with a larger block) which make the average user unable to do it and this will leave us with only big corporations doing it (centralization). There will be a point where Bcash will face the same issues we used to face before SegWit so yeah, increasing the block size is not the solution for the long term. In the beginning of 21st century it seemed unthinkable that high quality video could be transmitted over Internet, more of that: people were unable to stream music at that time because they had very small bandwidth. And look where we are now. You have VOD readily available and affordable, for 5$ a month or whatever. I think the same will happen to block size. Number of people on Earth is more or less limited and everybody can do only so many transactions a day. Number of transactions daily is limited that way, too. That top limit can be accommodated into blocks with that and that size. No more is needed. So we should increase the block size, knowing, that it will need to happen only to those limits, and knowing, that very soon the disk space to accommodate those limits will be very affordable for an average Joe. the real question is 1. how much do you think is the block size limit that is needed for scaling? 8 MB? 32 MB? 100 MB? 2. how big a block do you think most people can handle with all these "advancements"? 8 MB? 32 MB? 100 MB? it is said that VISA handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps) if we want to get to that number we need 540 MB blocks. 2000 transaction/second * 60 second * 10 Min (1 block) = 1,200,000 transactions * 450 Byte on average tx size = 540,000,000 Byte or ~540 MB unless your goals for scaling is A LOT smaller than this, there is no point in increasing the block size alone for scaling. |
|
|
|
I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments.
then you are looking at 8+ months old comments. One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough.
would you mind explaining how you came up with that conclusion? bitcoin cash currently has 8 MB blocks and they are empty (each block is 200 kB on average!) and how do you say it is not enough  I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB?
possibly because they were well aware of the dangers of increasing the block size to a huge amount all of a sudden. look at last months spam attack against bitcoin cash. it didn't cost a thing and it lasted more than week. blocks were full, transactions were delayed and you had to pay a higher fee if you wanted to get in a block (sounds familiar doesn't it?) and syncing becomes that much harder with bigger blocks. one of the problems with bigger blocks as OmegaStarScream said is the size and storage but also it is the usage of hardware when you have to use your CPU power to verify transactions (signatures). By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...
yes it will fix it but only temporarily. I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?
there is a much better solution and that I called second layer which is basically what you keep hearing as Lightning Network. |
|
|
|
|
I disagree with Keiser as much as I disagree with bitcoin cash. they both are getting far from what bitcoin is supposed to be, or if you want to call it: "Satoshi's Vision".
all Keiser says is true apart from the "fee" part. unfortunately people seem to have forgotten that bitcoin is all Keiser said but also it is supposed to be a currency or a payment system. even the original bitcoin paper by Satoshi Nakamoto is mentioning this all over it. and a currency can not function with extremely high fees such as $100+ fee for a normal transaction!
bitcoin cash is not Satoshi's vision because it is getting farther and farther from a decentralized currency and it started the day they turned their backs on "consensus".
but the current "view" about bitcoin that is not supposed to be cheap to use is not Satoshi's vision either.
|
|
|
|
this is an old news which was repeated to death in the past week and now you put it on your own website and post the link here?!! not to mention that it was a false news all along (visit the other 2 dozen topics with the same title as yours and you see why). at least next time try to copy paste the news as soon as it comes out not a week later!  |
|
|
|
their place in the top 5 is more or less cemented.
I disagree. because this "ranking" system that everyone is using is extremely flawed. it is based on market capitalization which can easily be manipulated and any coin out there can take their place either temporarily (like what DigiCube did last year and became #3 easily) or it can take their position for long term if good whales familiar with the manipulation come along.  |
|
|
|
|
make sure you don't have a dynamic IP which is a pretty common thing. and that means every time you reconnect to the internet your ISP will assign a new IP address to you which is different than the previous one and sites that restrict IP access will require you to verify your new IP.
what they usually do is that they add an option for you to add a "range" of IP addresses. for example 1.2.xx.xx so that it allows any IP in that range instead of a fixed one. for example it will allow 1.2.3.4 and 1.2.5.6 and 1.2.255.255 and so on. but it will block 1.3.3.4 for example.
I don't use bittrex anymore since they started scamming people so you have to check to see if they offer this option or not.
|
|
|
|
|
whether it is required or not to implement KYC, I say it I a huge downside for any bitcoin gambling site that actually implements it. because unlike exchanges, gambling sites do not work with fiat and one of the main attributes of these gambling sites is their privacy and for many gamblers this is why they even choose bitcoin gambling sites instead of regular ones with fiat.
also in many countries like US it is illegal to run an online gambling site anyways so implementing KYC doesn't make much sense anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
the only thing that Chinese holidays did to bitcoin was to create some panic sells based on pure speculation (saying Chinese are selling to cover the cost of their travels!) and increase the size of the drop that was already going on.
and now it is having the same reverse effect. as the New Year is over now, the panic sell due to that pure speculation is over and with it the sell pressure is vanished. so with the price already rising, it became easier to reach higher prices.
|
|
|
|
|
it has been 9 years already that bitcoin has been around and has been mined, traded, used,... by millions of US citizens. there have been lots and lots of businesses and services such as GDAX (coinbase), Bitpay, Bittrex, ... working in US and there are already some regulations.
what the hell have they been doing all this time that they say they are not "close to bitcoin regulation" yet?!!
|
|
|
|
There are several Universities which has already started providing full time courses related to cryptos and bitcoin technology and it has already become an important curriculum in the field of computers and business studies and there are students who are already enrolled in those courses .Recently i came to know from one of my friend from India that an academy has opened in their country as well which provide courses related to block chain technology and digital currencies and he also said that there are several par time course course providers as well.which already makes it clear that btc education is something important in everyone's life.
which? any examples? just curious this has been going on for a while now. from small workshops to full courses and more. there are a lot of big names among them too. Universities such as MIT, Berkley for example started their courses 2 years ago. you can search among news sites to find a lot of information: https://cointelegraph.com/news/which-universities-are-offering-blockchain-courseshttps://themerkle.com/10-universities-that-offer-blockchain-courses/ |
|
|
|
It says that cryptocurrency investors could lose their life savings ‘at any time’
if you go out and ask anybody they will tell you not to invest "all your live savings" in anything. so if some people choose to ignore the most obvious warnings then they deserve to lose it if you ask me! and it is not limited to bitcoin nor limited to cryptocurrencies. it is a general rule of any investment. if you put all your money in a Stock, you still can lose all your money if that company is bankrupt. |
|
|
|
With the current rise in bitcoin prices there may have been a lot of profit with bitcoin purchases at around 80 million, do you still hold or sell them today?
actually its dropping again now.so if your waiting for another growth stop it for a while and think of what is the final decision,but i advice you to hold until we reach the speculation about $30,000 max price,and i guess this all possible because bitcoin will make this real for us.all waiting for the pump to happen that was more like a short term profit taking by the day traders who were waiting for an opportunity to get out after this current ongoing rise. I wouldn't call that "dropping again" thing. and as you can see price is slowly rising up again. and it is actually healthier to have drops like these, it prevents bubbles from shaping up. |
|
|
|
|
every argument that I have heard so far regarding this supposed "waste of energy" has been with the assumption that bitcoin is useless and was trying to make the conclusion that bitcoin should not continue to exist in long term.
practically there is no difference between this argument and simply calling bitcoin "fraud" like what JP Morgan did recently. and their motives and fear about bitcoin are perfectly clear...
but the fact is, as bitcoin provides a useful currency, or a payment system in a decentralized way that people want and are using, that warrants any kind of power consumption that it may have.
|
|
|
|
the problem is not with bitcoin or your transaction, the issue is that the Payeer website is not crediting your account with the amount that you gave them. probably because it took a long time to confirm (~17 days). the only thing you can do now is to contact Payeer, give them the transaction ID you posted here and ask them to fix this problem manually for you in your account there. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
