|
feels like bottom fishers taking profit... wouldn't be surprised that this resistance is strong, but would expect big move if broken.
if we can't do it, i'd put good money on a higher low 799
|
|
|
|
knocking on initial resistance. might see a nice sharp move to 869 in the next few hours. or like 888?  |
|
|
|
|
I suspect the PBOC will find evidence of fake humans, trading on huobi.
|
|
|
|
I can't believe we're back on about block size again. My new compass is $700. I can't die holding bitcoins.
you'll die not holding bitcoin. feel better? |
|
|
|
if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspectioni think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end. the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority. many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way. but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered. Why not just call it as it is?? Think majority can probably agree to a >1MB block...as in a 2MB block. The problem is that's not enough for a BU crowd and really never was. They want their Unlimited block size. Think at the minimum it's misleading to say you just want a >1MB block when in reality you want a whole new system for a "dynamically adjustable blocksize". And that will never happen what the BU crowd wants is kind of irrelevant to what BU can do for blocksize. My BU node is set to 1.5MB excessive blocksize your BU node could be set to 1MB if you like, there a miner that does that. BU crowd doesn't want Unlimited blocksize, they want Unlimited freedom and choice. BU provides a way for minner to know what the each node is willing to accept, so that miner can make blocks that the vast majority will accept. how can you be against this idea? |
|
|
|
if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspectionIf you wrap the protocol in SSL and run it on port 443 then it is indifferentiable from HTTPS. i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end. A hard fork will end the debate over the technical details, but it will start the debate about who gets to be called Bitcoin. That's where it will get really ugly. who gets to be called bitcoin is not going to be a hard question to answer... unless hash rate is spilt like 40/60 ... which is SUPER unlikely since most miners "go with the flow" IMO most likely it would be like 5-10% hashing power forking off ( at most ), and they will have to hardfork difficulty and a few other minor adjustments to make that minority fork viable, at which point they clearly aren't "bitcoin"... but in this scenario it becomes unclear if "bitcoin" remains dominant after years of the "digital currency wars"  love your idea of making bitcoin traffic look like any other HTTPS traffic, there you go can't "ban bitcoin traffic" unless you ban https Lol |
|
|
|
if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspectioni think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end. the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority. many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way. but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered. |
|
|
|
its rarely been a good idea to wait. i'd say get some now, and get some later when the price drop, and get more when the price drops, and get even more when the price drops even lower, and buy even more when the price drops lower still the idea is at one point it will stop dropping and you'll have bought an amount you're comfortable with plan a price you think bitcoin has a reasonable shot at reaching assuming it crashes really hard after lots of unexpected bad news, so like 400 or 500? dont assume we're going to have wave after wave of bad news and selling, and wait for that price, it'll never come... just consider it a possibility. then buy some right now ( cuz you're bullish ) but not to much, enough so if it drops -20% your kinda sad but not stressed ... price drops -20%? you're still bullish on bitcoin? part of you has been hoping for lower prices? you not stressed! you know what to do!  |
|
|
|
Just another data point, since my node has been running bmon for almost exactly 1 week. With 512 connections, it's had a throughput of 2.49TB. The router is a VM on the same physical machine and has a total throughput of 72.26TB in the same time.
I think the competition for deploying gigabit fiber is going to outpace the demand for block space, especially if lightning and segwit get activated.
super node! |
|
|
|
do you have 200 peers? No. Less than half that. do you feel its cool that some peers come online download 1440blocks do 1 TX and go offline for 10 days , is that what you mean by decentralization?
I don't mind in the slightest. This is why I run a node. I know some people want the advantages of a full node as their wallet but can't keep it up 24/7 because of the demanding requirements. If a Bitcoiner wants to use a full node as his wallet, I think he should be able to do that with relative ease. But, no, that particular use case has little to do with decentralization. I've been over it before but I think the network should be robust enough to function assuming every government on the planet has banned Bitcoin outright and force the ISPs in their jurisdictions to block Bitcoin traffic entirely. Because, that's what will happen. Those in control don't want to lose control. Money is the most important thing they currently use to keep themselves in power. Inflation directly feeds the welfare/warfare state. Once the decentralized global mesh network is up and running (which I think is going to be the most important technological advancement for the future of a free mankind), we can figure out how much data we can share over it and increase up near that barrier. Bitcoin is, first and foremost, monetary freedom. All decisions should be made in that light and we should err on the side of caution every time. All transactions do not need to be censorship proof in a world where censorship proof transactions exist. if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is ) then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country? we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance" idk... sounds nutty. i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is. BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked. let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good" you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize. |
|
|
|
Do you run a node? Do you ever stream video content? Are you aware that hypothetical 100MB blocks are no more resource intensive than SD video content?
I do. I uploaded over a terabyte of data to other nodes last month. Obviously if blocks are bigger, the amount of data users need to share to keep the network running will increase. I have very expensive, top tier internet from a major ISP that I recently purchased specifically for running a Bitcoin node. I had to gimp my maxconnections with more typical home user speeds or my internet was unusable for other tasks like surfing the web. do you have 200 peers? do you feel its cool that some peers come online download 1440blocks do 1 TX and go offline for 10 days , is that what you mean by decentralization? |
|
|
|
One reason price might follow difficulty is that mining should not be too profitable (because nothing should be too profitable, the world doesn't leave free money lying around). Therefore the price of Bitcoins can't rise too much above the cost of mining (counting equipment depreciation among the costs of course). The cost of mining is proportional to the difficulty (approximately). Therefore we might expect to see price proportional to difficulty.
...
Hal Finney, November 30, 2010, 09:46:21 AM ... Message from the future ...  dif has more than tripled in the past year, while price has doubled. |
|
|
|
Today has not been the best day for me. The guy I was gonna trade half a dozen bitcoins with suddenly dropped off the face of the earth, so now I'm stuck with useless fiat instead of cheap coins. Can't get it back on kraken until sometime next week because banks break on weekends (they really need to fix that bug).
Sounds as if you do not have a large enough float.. whether that is BTC or cash. I don't usually conduct the trade on the exchange until after I have already locked in the profitable trade on Local Bitcoins or directly... and that is that I have actually either received the bitcoins from the guy or I have received the fiat from the guy. To do that, you have to have enough of a float that covers the full amount of bitcoins or fiat that you are trading and usually a bit more because of transfer times and other cushion issues that sometimes can get the money or the BTC in their proper locations and set up for the next trade.... that transferring money around can be a bit of a hassle and sometimes cause additional costs - that tend to be lessened, somewhat with having a decent float (and even then, it may be a bit cumbersome to manage with some unexpected costs, here and there) he's not trying to service the local market, he's trying to buy bitcoins off of it. it sounds to me like they agree on a price when stamps was bottomed, and then the seller failed to deliver, later today for unknown reasons. |
|
|
|
The big-blockers need to fork off already so that we can get on with Project Bitcoin, Satoshi's Vision and not this twisted Kore-Coin crapola.
If we don't, price will continue to stagnate.
Bitcoin has the potential to benefit in infinite ways from the global economic turmoil that is around the corner. In this way, BTC's price could spike to unimaginable highs. But it will never happen with no scaling solution, BTC simply could not handle an increase in 100 million+ users. There is no time to wait 5 years for this imaginary "Lightning Network" to suddenly manifest from vaporware into reality.
FORK IT ALREADY.
Ahh those bloody idiots are back  Can you do no maths? How big will the blocks need to be to "handle an increase in 100 million+ users"  yeah maths are hard. Please fork off already to your alt and have fun just don't call it bitcoin to confuse people Stop pretending that the present technology couldn't handle large blocks. Perhaps the solution is to do both (blocksize increase and off-chain LN type deal) But you can't just do one, or the other. Core has refused to compromise over and over, they refuse to raise the blocksize to even 2mb which pretty much everyone agrees could be very EASILY handled. Core has shown they have no leadership skills, no vision and are motivated primarily to their own self-serving egos. They do not serve the greater whole. Furthermore, they engage in a deceptive campaign of censorship and other shady tactics to force their own side to "win", this has needlessly damaged the Bitcoin community itself by refusing to even allow certain discussions. The community has been effectively divided in this way. Can you even quantify the damage that has been done to all of us as a result of this? You can ignore it all if you want, but it will hurt you in the end. +1! LN is inevitable and desirable ( very desirable ) and same goes for bigger blocks... the solution is so obviously "both" its not even funny. segwit softfork is a magic trick, if you dont know how its done you're amazed, if you do you're unimpressed. we need simple incress and simple segwit. we need these things hardforked in, and we need to utilize synthetic forks to do that gracefully.
we need a to foster an dev environment which enables free choice, not free to use core0.12.1 or core0.13.1 the devs are here to service the network, not the other way around. what the world wants the world gets. only question is who will provide.  Is that the latest keyword for BU? Or would you be happy with 2MB block+segwit? i want non-magical BS incress with simplest possible TX malleability fix. to me, market driven BS to me is a must, we must allow a small % of nodes ( like 15-20% ) to cap block size, this will create a fee market which perfectly balances # of TX and fee/TX, to yield the most total fees miners can get given TX demand. a static cap will always badly balance fee pressure. |
|
|
|
The big-blockers need to fork off already so that we can get on with Project Bitcoin, Satoshi's Vision and not this twisted Kore-Coin crapola.
If we don't, price will continue to stagnate.
Bitcoin has the potential to benefit in infinite ways from the global economic turmoil that is around the corner. In this way, BTC's price could spike to unimaginable highs. But it will never happen with no scaling solution, BTC simply could not handle an increase in 100 million+ users. There is no time to wait 5 years for this imaginary "Lightning Network" to suddenly manifest from vaporware into reality.
FORK IT ALREADY.
Ahh those bloody idiots are back Can you do no maths? How big will the blocks need to be to "handle an increase in 100 million+ users" yeah maths are hard. Please fork off already to your alt and have fun just don't call it bitcoin to confuse people Stop pretending that the present technology couldn't handle large blocks. Perhaps the solution is to do both (blocksize increase and off-chain LN type deal) But you can't just do one, or the other. Core has refused to compromise over and over, they refuse to raise the blocksize to even 2mb which pretty much everyone agrees could be very EASILY handled. Core has shown they have no leadership skills, no vision and are motivated primarily to their own self-serving egos. They do not serve the greater whole. Furthermore, they engage in a deceptive campaign of censorship and other shady tactics to force their own side to "win", this has needlessly damaged the Bitcoin community itself by refusing to even allow certain discussions. The community has been effectively divided in this way. Can you even quantify the damage that has been done to all of us as a result of this? You can ignore it all if you want, but it will hurt you in the end. +1! LN is inevitable and desirable ( very desirable ) and same goes for bigger blocks... the solution is so obviously "both" its not even funny. segwit softfork is a magic trick, if you dont know how its done you're amazed, if you do you're unimpressed. we need simple incress and simple segwit. we need these things hardforked in, and we need to utilize synthetic forks to do that gracefully. we need a to foster an dev environment which enables free choice, not free to use core0.12.1 or core0.13.1 the devs are here to service the network, not the other way around. what the world wants the world gets. only question is who will provide. |
|
|
|
|
lots of volume still coming in.
|
|
|
|
at the end of the day we'll have segwit we'll have LN we'll have bigger blocks, and an up and coming script lang. and we'll have PBOC watching price  |
|
|
|
bitcoinity 24hour period spans 950 -750 but its doesn't feel so bad after 2 beers |
|
|
|
|
bitstamps itbit btc-e
not setting the new low commanded by the chinese overlord.
its like there giving them the middle finger
or... the market makers there are just flat out of ammo to panic with.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
