Bitcoin Forum
July 16, 2019, 11:14:51 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 ... 823 »
1401  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin doesnt only consume too much electricity, it destroys the environment on: November 06, 2018, 06:50:33 AM
much easier method of calculation bitcoin
average hashrate is 50exahash always running
thats 50,000,000terahash
thats ~3571429 asics (14thash each)
thats ~4642857kw/h (each asic uses 1.3kw/h)
thats ~4642857143w/h
thats ~16714152mj  the actual mining power of bitcoin mining in total per hour
thats ~2785692mj per block (/6)
thats ~222855mj per btc  (/12.5)
thats ~34mj per $1 (/6400)

the important part
thats ~4642857kw/h (each asic uses 1.3kw/h)

~4,642,857kw/h
=111,428,571kwh a day
=40,671,428,571kwh a year
=40.67twh a year
real funny thing.
international currency(BTC) using ONLY the electric of a small country...

however
a national currency like USD uses EVEN MORE electric than international currency(BTC)
meaning USD wastes even more than denmark

(v   note sarcasm attitute, but factual data  v)
must kill USD as its only national not international but wastes more electric
(^  note sarcasm attitute, but factual data  ^)

come on.. wheres the racist folks about "china"
oh wait. china does 6000TWH per year.. so that doesnt suite the narrative that "50% of mining is china" (20thw a year)
..as thats only 0.33% of china's production
1402  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mining Bitcoin Doesn't Need To Worry About Spending Electricity on: November 06, 2018, 04:06:29 AM
funny part is that the PoS lovers are not actually environmentalists. thy are infact people that dont want to pay for resources to get more coin, they just want free coin for no extra work.

it costs nothing extra/new for a PoS user to create blocks.
call it what it is...most yuppies understand. Proof of Lambo
if you have money/lambo you can create more money without having to spend more

just imagine if gold mining changed from a proof of work(diesel from excavators) costing the miner $1000 an ounce diesel burn. and turned it into PoS("i own a lambo gimme coin") costing nothing per coin but just waving THE SAME lambo's pinkslip/logbook every time.

yep those with a lambo get richer but the security level of the PoS chain does not toughen/get stronger. it just gives funds more often to those that just own more lambo's that they earned simply by owning lambo's

environmentally bitcoin is not doing any damage. as bitcoin miners are buying up EXCESS electric thats burned anyway, even if not used

here is few lessons to all the hobby miners trying to scream "eco friendly" as a ploy to try swaying others to consider PoS
1. the gap between electricity production vs demand.. and the actual math of PoW electric used shows that mining does not exceed the excess gap. so most farms are just paying for the gap that would have gone to waste. (its like buying out of date but still edible food to prevent it going to landfill)

2. PoS if enabled wont give local guy in his basement hobby miner a chance to earn coin mining a PoS. instead it will be the rich guys with lots of coin, gaining mor coin. and increasing their chances of getting more coin.. without increasing the chains security

3. if you think that anti-PoW = fair funds for small guys, you would be wrong. what will happen is people will syndicate(join stake) essentially pool funds together and one person then creates the blocks on the pools behalf. thus becoming the same 'pooled' scenario. but at zero actual cost and zero increase of difficulty
1403  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bipolar btc on: November 05, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
2013 spike was due to ASIC entering the economy in october 2013. yes after a certain level tipped into speculative FOMO to push it higher. but the trigger was asics

2017 spike was due to VC buy-up of coin to pay out reward tranches to certain groups due to segwit contracts due in november 2017. yes after a certain level tipped into speculative FOMO to push it higher. but the trigger was VC tranches needing paying

there is no correlation / trend / pattern
remember. charts dont tell you much
remember a trend anal is not a technical analyst.
1404  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: On Bitcoin Cash supporters' belief that Bitcoin Cash is more "P2P" than Bitcoin on: November 05, 2018, 08:46:20 PM
@Franky1

You are showing the number of transactions per block to say we have less utility but why not consider the number of confirmed transactions per day instead https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all
It gives a better overview and another scenario, I don't see less transactions with (excluding 2017)

do you see the 200,000-250,000 range turn down to the 150,000-200,000 range PER DAY (2016-2018)
yea if you exclude the price drama period of november 2017 january 2018(the spike) you prove my point
august 2017 dropped down

then if you look at other coins. litecoin rose by about 20k transactions (5k to 25k)if you look at the same periods and exclude the same couple month spike data of price drama

as did a few other coins rise.

yep.. btc took a dip and people used other coins instead.
1405  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: On Bitcoin Cash supporters' belief that Bitcoin Cash is more "P2P" than Bitcoin on: November 05, 2018, 07:33:06 PM
as for other posters who over inflate and over promote
BTC is not full
BTC is not empty
BTC is not full or empty due to sgwit technology adding capacity or any other false PR of spinning "segwit is great"
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/avg-block-size

infact btc is less full due to LESS transactions (less utility=lss people using the network)
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions-per-block

...
bch is not empty
bch is not full
those who screamed gigablocks by midnight coz gigabytes were wrong


ever since 2009-2013 bitcoin was statistically able to do 2100tx a block (3.5tx/s) (hindsight of LevelDB bug)
but if at 1mb allowed 7tx/s which even satoshi mentioned 7tx/s back in 2009-10

yet we see less than 2000 as the average... and dont try spinning it into "segwit is great" as less people using a network is bad.

all that can be said is the troops of people shouting "if you dont like it F**K off... got their wish. people have moved away from using bitcoin. the number of transactions went down. fee's though are higher than they were in 2015(when all the promises of innovation and scaling and upgrade drama started due to fees)
1406  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: On Bitcoin Cash supporters' belief that Bitcoin Cash is more "P2P" than Bitcoin on: November 05, 2018, 09:27:41 AM
personally i am not team CORE or team CASH.
my funds and care/concern are in the network of bitcoin that uses BTC
(my distain for TEAM core, but my LOVE of network bitcoin(btc, as visioned 2009-2013))
(^ just for clarity ^)

firstly to address the elephant in the room. onchain/ofchain
CORE want offchain..
but LN is not a bitcoin protocol nor is it a bitcoin network, nor is it a blockchain network.
LN is a separate network that any chainhash can link into it as long as that coin is LN compatible
LN was not made to be bitcoin compatible and sole feature of.. bitcoin was made to be LN compatible. so were other coins

now thats said
standing back and looking at the big picture it seems team core want to limit bitcoin and promote the separate network LN
standing back and looking at the big picture it seems team cash want to grow cash and promote cash

here is the techy stuff
LN due to factories and routing is not peer-to peer.. but is:
sender to pool to factory by channel by channel by channel to factory to pool to recipient

blockchain is closer as the sender identifies the recipient. but needs to be done via block inclusion.. so is
sender pool recipient

if a LN route node is not online, or in manual mode(not autopilot(*autopilot is risky*)) while asleep. payments are not made
also payments are not guaranteed. solid. definite finalised, they are just IOU/promises that are signed. (unconfirmed)
with onchain. if the fee aint right or the pool is doing preferred transaction choosing/exclusion. again no guarantee

to ensure a complete settled and immutible funds only the destination can use
blockchain coins (both btc and bch) are peer-pool-peer
LN is peer pool factory peer route peer factory pool peer

but both settling real immutible funds via onchain direct or LN. transactions need to be accepted by a pool before its actually guaranteed the recipients real funds guaranteed.

to answer the OP question in short

peer-pool-peer for both btc and bch
1407  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Are blockchain tracking sites tracking Segwit adoption wrong? on: November 04, 2018, 07:10:44 PM
Devs can propose rule changes.  They can't enforce them.  Only full nodes and miners securing the network can enforce rules.  

I'm going to call you out on this each and every time you lie about it.  Devs cannot enforce rule changes.  

of the network is supplied with stripped, non-full data the network no longer enforces full validations. they are automatically trated as scond class(downstream/bridged nodes) or as you call it "compatible"

If you went out for a meal with a group of people and you're all eating together, then everyone else decides to order a desert, but you don't want to, do you then whine about being treated as a "second class" attendee?  Have they "bypassed consensus" for that meal just because you don't want a dessert?  Are you going to hold a petty grudge against that one person who proposed having dessert and blame them for everything else you don't approve of for the rest of forever?  

Congrats on your -ve trust, by the way.  I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner to be honest.

awww you actually think the trust has meaning.. i think you have forgotten the point of bitcoin
you care more about cor trust, than you do about bitcoin security

if you went out for a meal as a group of 10 people and 6 people didnt want dessert. but the 4 people demanded dessert and so the whole table were given dessert. thus the restaurant were deemed as fully accepting dessert but, the waiter charged you 4 times more for your main meal because they had to scrape off the dessert from your plate and edited your receipt to show as a more expensive meal without dessert even though the reality is that a dessert was provided to everyone on the table. you were told to just accept it or f**k off to a different table.

its funny you argue that the meal order cannot change without group agreement. and then argue that people should just shut up if the group dont get a group agreement because one person gets to order for everyone
.. stop flip flopping. decide.. consensus is what you want or tyranny
1408  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Looking back at the White paper... Do you think Satoshi would be proud of us? on: November 04, 2018, 02:02:45 PM
It is working as it was supposed to work, because the decision to use the current implementation is based on consensus and if 98% of the people agree that it is the best implementation, then so be it.

If someone genuinely come up with something much better, then people will consider this and they will shift their decision to support the new implementation. Most people are satisfied that Bitcoin Core is solid and safe, so what more do they need?

i guess you forgot that the core devs themselves actually told the community that even if any% didnt upgrade to a new feature that the new feature gets adopted anyway
old nodes couldnt oppose a certain feature last year. as old nodes would blindly accept blocks even if they cant signature validate the new featured transactions. this is because the new feature supplies old nodes with a stripped/translated block that appears normal but not fully validate. thus old nodes couldnt reject those blocks due to the 'inflight upgrade'(consensus bypass).

so if the network was 98% not upgraded. those 98% end up as downstream filtered and stripped nodes. and only 2% are treated as full relay full validation full archival nodes.

so go check your history. things have changed
1409  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin less volatile than Standards & Poors. on: November 04, 2018, 06:16:10 AM
fiat is more volatile than bitcoin

but fiat hides it well. but reality reveals itself
remember the good old days where a piece of land was $10k. now its like $50k-$1mill+)
remember a loaf of bread was 20cents then $2 then (walmart)'rolled back' then inflated again
remember when new york upstate minimum wage was the same as inner and outer city minimum wage.. oh wait.. its always different

(im a brit. dont knitpick exact numbers. just understand the concept of the whole inflation and also the consumer goods and minimum wages gameplay)

volatile and velocity are 2 different things
  /\
 /  \
/    \=velocity

/\/\/\=volitile

____=stable

try going shop to shop for bread or milk. nothings the exact same
try going house to house for rent/lease/mortgage. nothings the exact same
try going state to state for minimum wage. nothings the exact same
1410  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Looking back at the White paper... Do you think Satoshi would be proud of us? on: November 04, 2018, 05:11:04 AM
SegWit is good and all, but it is nothing more than a buy-time solution in the run-up to the lightning network. Even with the lightning network running in full glory, we still need larger blocks, more so than what SegWit provides.

The Lightning Network is working quite well despite being still in an early-state. Broadcasting on-chain transactions is need for opening and closing channels but we can lower the cost of doing so and improve privacy by introducing Channel factories and Schnorr signatures. Unfortunately, it will take a lot of time to implement each of these solutions.

a segwit transaction. byte for byte is no better than legacy
segwit was only conceived.. purely to be LN compatible
.....
LN is not a bitcoin network. its an independent network that allows multiple coins to use (LN asks for which chainhash channels are to monitor) its why litecoin, vert coins and bitcoin all have new address formats bc1q ltc1q

LN is not sole 100% control(multisig requires channel partner signature). and even funnier factories make it so its even less sole control as it needs not only the multisig channel partner signature, but also the factory signature

research eltoo factories (when close session sent back to factory (before broadcast) the factory has to 'sign all' as the final signature)
1411  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: any early bitcoin adopter here? What's your opinion about the long bear market? on: November 04, 2018, 04:25:57 AM
great answer.

Do you think that because our market became more mature it's less likely to see high volatility movements as we had in the last few years?

volatility is every day. people think anything more than 1%($63) change is volatile. we see it alot, movements of 1-5%. but true long term bitcoiners call the volatility 'normal'. over the years we become less emotional/immune to caring about the volatility

i believe what you are asking is about velocity. (rare big spikes over 100%) rather than volatile(lots of little waves 1-10%)
1412  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Are blockchain tracking sites tracking Segwit adoption wrong? on: November 04, 2018, 04:06:57 AM
Devs can propose rule changes.  They can't enforce them.  Only full nodes and miners securing the network can enforce rules.  

I'm going to call you out on this each and every time you lie about it.  Devs cannot enforce rule changes.  

of the network is supplied with stripped, non-full data the network no longer enforces full validations. they are automatically trated as scond class(downstream/bridged nodes) or as you call it "compatible"

new rules change without the network having to upgrade nodes.
take segwit. old nodes treat segwit as "compatible"... (the buzzword you love)

or as i call it network consensus bypass
yes we both wish for devs to used real consensus. but the bypass ("compatibility" as you call it) allowed it to change without mass node upgrade to 'opt-in'

as for the pools. the november 2016-summer17 election for segwit was consensus. and it only achieved ~35% vote.
as it was a wave a new version number if you want in...

analogy wear your old dirty underwear but wave a clean pair of underpants if you want in. only 35% of pools waved a clean pair of underpants (new vrsion number)
but then the 'mandatory update'(august '17) wasnt an opportunity for pools to wave their old underpants(stay with old version number) in the air to say they are sticking with things as they are. to prevent the new rules

the mandatory update was wear the old underpants, but you better wave new underpants(version number) in the air or your off the network. thus if pools didnt, they would be off the network
EG if there were 20 pools and only 2 pools waved new underpants(new version number) the network would be at 2 pools but show as 100% adoption... dont you get it. fake election.

you even said it yourself that core can write whatever code they lik and not be told what they can and cant do.
luke JR also said it when h said about the compatibility/ "inflight upgrades" bypass
gmax said it with is buzzword of bilateral split

core did not use the consensus election in the intended way. they bypassed it.

thus segwit got activated even without general public nodes having to change. or vote it in to a full community acceptance level. those opposing it just got ignored

then a couple weeks later it only needed one pool to create new skidmark free underwear and all nodes wont be checking that the underpants are really used(signatures of segwit tx's) as it blindly passes the 'are they underpants' test because it bypasses the full validation. (segwit provide old nodes with something that is not full data, that old nodes dont signature validate but just accept as "compatible" even though what they recive is not full real true validation data)

again the devs admit this.
downstream filtered(gmax buzzword)
bridged/stripped (luke Jrs buzzword)

again learn about luke jr's consensus bypass that he calls "inflight upgrades"
1413  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Are blockchain tracking sites tracking Segwit adoption wrong? on: November 03, 2018, 07:00:52 PM
Most likely Jihan Wu's degree on psychology at play here, by spreading his hashrate around and mining segwit blocks in some instances and don't in others, to trick people like franky1 into thinking his business is decentralized and he isn't calling all the shots. Naive in my opinion, that guys strikes as a classic control freak.

Too bad his shenanigans have ended up in a tricky situation as he finds himself holding massive amounts of bcash. Let's see how he gets out of this one.

though i now see some are digressing off the topic of segwit adoption, after they themselves admit adoption is slow as it takes time..

lets rply to this topic meander.. as it is funny
.. yep funny, old, outdated, mythbusted propaganda above by cellard. but gotta love your effort of that same old myth busted joke that keeps repeating for atleast 2-4 years old..
here is some tips. if you want to continue being a comedian, update your jokebook.. as people now laugh at you for using stale jokes rather than laugh with you about the content of the joke itself

p.s im a white-brit... but ill say this
i know you may have been drip-fed by fox news about terms like
"communism" "china" "bomb them bomb them bomb them"
but the reality is in china:
not every business is run by 1 man
not every facility is run by 1 man
not a whole population is controlled by 1 man.

one day i hope you take a plane journey and experience life outside your country and see the diversity of the world

and more specifically to antpool. not every facility is actually in china.
should you actually investigate such you will see that Wu doesnt manage the facilities. nor the block mining stratums. nor the decisions of the block creators deemed as "antpool"
also other pools that get wrongly classed as "china" are not china.. slush(managed by aa guy in thailand) f2pool, world wide access

..last point to make
pools cant change the rules.. but devs can. so the over all funny part is when defending a dev pointing at a pool is the weakest defense people reply with
(kid with chocolate on face: "no mummy, the dog ate the chocolate cookies and caused the crumbly mess"(dogs cant eat chocolate))
1414  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Are blockchain tracking sites tracking Segwit adoption wrong? on: November 03, 2018, 06:57:43 PM
if core removed the wishy washy witness scale factor *4, guess what
1. both legacy and segwit transactions can in full non stripped format all happily utilise the 4mb 'weight'
2. both legacy and segwit transactions would both be 25 cents. yep cores code makes legacy 4x more expensive. not discount segwit by 75%(thus code counters their PR adverts)

Wishy washy? Wasn't stripping the witness data from the middle to the end of a block allowed more transactions to fit in a block, and wasn't it to fix the malleability issues?

Gaslighting again?

"gaslighting" new buzzword this month?..
whats next? "conservative".. "ad-hom".. yea certain buzzwords start circulating in a certain group of people, which just shows they only fed off each other in an echo chamber

keeping the 4mb and removing the witness scale factor would actually allow MORE transactions per block
as for malleability. pfft
its more for a new TX format that is compatible for LN
funny part a 2-in-2out tx of legacy vs a 2-in-2out tx of segwit.. legacy uses less actual bytes on a hard drive.
(but shhh dont tell them that. they still think stripping blocks and not validating signatures and not relaying every tx is ok)
another funny part. new/re-activated opcodes can re-introduce malleability. but thats for another topic

did you know that core could code many things. including a fee priority formula that charged people that re-spend funds more than once a day with a higher fee, thus a tx that has more aged utxos getting a lower fee.

Are you talking about a fee market? That makes it reasonable considering the limited size of each block.

But the "more aged UTXOs getting a lower fee" as a result does not sense. Can you explain why?

years ago there was a fee priority formulae..
refer to that and you will learn about "coin-age"

now imagine instead of just fee= byte*feeperbyte
but instead something like
fee= (byte*feeperbyte) * (144/coin-age)

so if a coins age is 1 confirm. 144/1=144, meaning the person pays 144x more
so if a coins age is 72 confirm. 144/72=2, meaning the person pays 2x more

image a current fee of 1satper byte. and a tx of (not exact) 250 bytes

confirms   1        6           72        144
price      36000   6000      500      250

now would you spam the network every block if it cost you 36000sat a time. or just use the network wisely for a couple purchases a day far cheaper

if you do the math you will find is a tx had just 1 confirm, but was ignored in the next 6 blocks.. the fee is already set-in as 36000. so when at the 6th block. it would then appear as a premium compared to fresh tx's wrote with a fee of 6 confirms(6000sat).
that way pools can also tell not just by time stamps. but by fee which deserve priority and would be more considered as its more profitable to accept them.

after all right now if everyone just paid 250sat.. because everything is just sat per byte.. there is no "priority". so a tx could sit in mempool for hours and have no better placement than someone who just made a fresh tx a minute ago.. as the amounts thy both pay right now are the same.

yep. bitcoin is code and MANY things can be done. but core pretend only 2 things can be done... hense their false narrative of
"gigabytes by midnight or LN"

What would be your ideal Bitcoin? Is it still Bitcoin Cash? You were debating for Roger Ver's narrative not too long ago.

no i was not. but seems your buddies have been telling you if people dont love core they must love cash.. (facepalm)
thats the narrow minded view of the kardashian drama.

my view is NOT network X monarchy by team A or F**k off to network Y
my view is network X that has MANY diverse teams that use consensus and all contribute and compromise until an agreement can be made of essential stuff all can generally agree on

EG
not 1mb or "gigabytes by midnight" false choices.
but consensus and compromise of 2-4mb which everyone can generally accept. (without the wishy washy bypass crap of 4mbweight limited by witness scalefactorx4) thats not actually a full utility of 4mb for all tx formats
1415  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Are blockchain tracking sites tracking Segwit adoption wrong? on: November 03, 2018, 06:16:22 PM
Would you believe that that would be the main reason why Antpool and Bitcoin.com are excluding Segwit transactions?

We can't say with 100% certainty that they are excluding SegWit transactions just by looking at the size of blocks.  We can definitely conclude that blocks larger than 1mb in size have to have some SegWit usage included, but it's entirely feasible to have a block smaller than 1mb that still includes some SegWit transactions.  Perhaps it's just a coincidence?  I saw two antpool blocks yesterday over 1mb.

you can spot when a block contains absolutely no segwit UTXO's because the "stripped" size(b) and the size(b) are virtually equal give or take a few bytes difference for the block format/header stuff

that said. the blocks that are tagged as "antpool" but do include segwit show that not everything is run by one man (countering the "china own 51%" racism

you will also notice that some "antpool" blocks coin reward are different. theres half a dozen different coin reward addresses. each different address represents a different facility in a different location.

you will also notice that one of them "antpool" coin reward addresses is actually a bech32 address. which also counters the propaganda. as it shows that antpool isnt a single mindset of Wu but different facilities differnt countries and different managers with different judgements

(sorry to the core cabin of PR team, for busting the myth of Wu)
so i hope all you lot in this topic that just follow a certain narative have all got the message about that myth. as thats been circling for years as a drama finger pointing exercise by mainly your buddies for years

for instance.. even just above combining antpool & btc.com into some single mindset....(facepalm)
but i do laugh when a certain group treat over a billion people (china) as a single mindset.. now that is funny
1416  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: .0023 sell every 20 seconds on Coinbase on: November 03, 2018, 05:46:01 PM
you will also see orders that are buying at X and then being put at a sell order ~$90-100 higher(1.3%)
or
you will also see orders that are selling at X and then being put at a buy order ~$90-100 lower(1.3%)

and just repeating as the price waves move
many traders dont throw everything at one order price and wait for 10%-100% spikes/dips. instead they take small % amounts and just repeat repeat repeat which nets them better overall % totals over time than waiting for bigger orders to hit bigger spikes
1417  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: any early bitcoin adopter here? What's your opinion about the long bear market? on: November 03, 2018, 05:22:15 PM
Bear markets should be measured from the first crash after ATH to the moment of breakout from the bottom. You marked November 2013 which was in a bull market right before ATH in December.
We had longer bear markets but it doesn't mean anything. Every situation is different and you can't predict the future bear markets by watching the previous ones. Especially when there weren't many of them.

the 2013 ATH was not a sustainable rise. its was just price drama. the cause ASIC's changing cost of mining. which then OVER escalated into speculation

the 2017 ATH was not a sustainable rise. its was just price drama. the cause VC btc purchase to then hand btc to certain investment contractual obligations. which then OVER escalated into speculation

the bitcoiners as a whole were not all active and online and able to actually be part of those events as they were temporary.
EG a volcano in hawaii looks emotional to watch but the main population were not actually on the island to experieince and feel it.
so dont worry/concentrate/care about ATH
however every day everyone gets to handle and be part of and experience and feel the benefits of the prices above the baseline/low tide/ground level.

so again dont measure history based on ATH but based on the differences of the ATL... it will switch your mindset to a positive mindset of glass half empty and still room to grow. instead of glass half full and not much left to go.
1418  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: any early bitcoin adopter here? What's your opinion about the long bear market? on: November 03, 2018, 04:40:16 PM
bitcoin is on a bull market
2016 >$300
2017 >$900
2018 >$5800

the temporary drama is not bull or bear.. but infact calve(small aged bull)  cub(small aged bear)

hourly/daily/monthly movements are not bull or bear. its just wild animal play of calves and cubs.

those not into animal financial analogies?
bitcoin is on a rising tide climate change. the temporary changes are just waves and tsunamis.. get used to it

what if i told you that if you cut away the temporary cub/calve drama of speculation

2013 >$10
2014 >$300

the only year that id consider was bear would be 2015,
but from 2012-18 was predominately long term BULL
1419  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Microsoft and Nasdaq to Build a Blockchain Platform on: November 03, 2018, 04:03:19 PM
I have heard this quite a while now but still no process. But I guess in the future it will be done and it will help a lot inside the crypto space.

ICE own nasdaq

they are working with microsoft and starbucks to do BAKKT
there are many topics on this forum and many blogposts and videos on the internet about BAKKT. all you need to do is use the search features of this forum, google or youtube
1420  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN CRYPTO on: November 03, 2018, 03:45:04 PM
looks like some social drama
..
funny part is he doesnt write code that changes the network.
if he had power segwit wouldnt have got activated
if he was an attacker the network would be dead.

all this "china", "Wu", "ver", "wright" stuff is social drama.. like a kardashian tv show.
sticking fingers up to a webcam. being a australian scammer. does not affect bitcoin.
plus

these screamers about 51% attack must realise that ASICS have been around for 4 years. and yet all that has happened is social drama finger pointing games
however those that do have power are the devs, the VC's that pay the devs. and the same VC's that have bought the main merchant/exchanges that then sway users to follow dev/merchant/exchanges because without them people cant spend funds through that cabal/cartel

i do like it when people scream "china own 51%". yet if you investigate the numbers you will see many of the "china" farms are not actually in asia nor in control/managed by one person

oh well
lets let the sheep do the standard fox news "bomb them bomb them bomb them" screams of racism, while completely ignoring where the real power lays.

mining pools cant change the rules. as any rules that defy what CODE THE DEVS RELEASE gets rejected. yep a mining pool can have 500zetahash and still get rejected in 2 seconds.
all a pool can do is change the arrangement of transactions in a block

funny thing. antshares and bitcoin cash are separate. they are not viruses that can attack the network. the only thing that is happening is finger pointing and social distractions away from where the real CODE manipulation source can happen.
Pages: « 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 ... 823 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!