These days every exchange has its own price. Weird.
Yeah, they are going all over the place. |
|
|
|
Main thing for me is, in the end I want only one coin. This talk of 2 chains is ridiculous.
2 coins would at least put an end for good to this endless drama. The market will sort out the good coins from the bad ones. I don't think there will ever be enough consensus for a fork. However, if there is one then doesn't it mean all Bitcoin holders can double their money, provided the price stays the same? If we keep coins on one chain we can choose to sell the coins on the other forked chain. That way we get to keep our stash and get a shitload of cash too. Except of course the price won't stay the same. |
|
|
|
segwit nearly at 30% now.
only 30% is not voting for either BU or segwit.
imo we should just HF a new rule that says miners MUST be signaling for either BU or segwit
whoever ends up with >51% == winner
losers just deal with it and fallow suit.
Why do we need a winner? Why does anyone have to follow suit? Why is voting for the status quo wrong? The people who want the status quo aren't allowed to have an opinion? If the network was truly divided 51%/49%, wouldn't it be better for everyone if these two sides just went their separate ways instead of having a large minority of pissed off people? Why should we turn monetary freedom into mob rule? While I think yours is the opinion of a minority of bitcoiners, I think this sentiment is nevertheless present in a significant amount of people, especially quite early adopters and more "hardcore" bitcoiners. The problem I have with this stance is that it assumes that bitcoin will always be the default choice for hard currency, that it won't be outcompeted because its history and network effect will remain sufficient despite the network being unable to scale further from the current relatively minor userbase when other currencies might reach networks able to process transactions for all of humanity. Don't get me wrong, I want bitcoin to be a safe and reliable currency, I am not in the "move fast and break stuff" crowd. However, a complete inability to evolve will result in being outcompeted I think. |
|
|
|
The problem is the total inability for Bitcoin to reach any sort of consensus.
What matters is that it is resolved one way or another. The lack of governance is the real problem, only compounded by the refusal of so many to even acknowledge that there is a problem at all.
As others have said here before me, what makes this crash so difficult to stomach isn't the falling price. We've all seen bitcoin win all sorts of challenges before. What makes this one so disturbing is that the threat is on the inside, bitcoin's lack of governance, lack of ability to say "this is a problem and this is how we're going to fix it" is actually tearing it apart from the inside. I'd rather see bitcoin drop to $200 because of China or the US government than to $900 because of infighting. At least then I'd have some confidence that it would come through, but Bitcoin can only win through if it's in good fighting form and right now it isn't.
Exactly. By the way, I also find it disturbing that some people claim everything is peachy. Cognitive dissonance much? People said this ages ago when MtGox went down. If only it was locked down and all regulated by government, wouldnt that be perfect then. It would not then be bitcoin really. The government has already gifted you a virtual digital token currency and its called dollars. Enjoy that awesome system of exchange if you like overly powerful centralised regulation or in the case of China dictatorship and command economy communism. Let bitcoin be more about competitive capitalism which in my life time has not existed in any national currency I've held. I want to see if this can be a productive enterprise or not, I dont wish for the day government shuts it all down. I can already see the mess of lopsided politics influencing economies, it appears negative to me. Bitcoin needs to be above 900 to maintain the highs of January as a base for further rises. This roughly matches a 61.8% retracement of year start high to low and could relate to longterm uptrend since summer 2015 1) I never said anything like that when Mt.Gox went down. 2) Who is talking about moving to government regulation? |
|
|
|
The problem is the total inability for Bitcoin to reach any sort of consensus.
What matters is that it is resolved one way or another. The lack of governance is the real problem, only compounded by the refusal of so many to even acknowledge that there is a problem at all.
As others have said here before me, what makes this crash so difficult to stomach isn't the falling price. We've all seen bitcoin win all sorts of challenges before. What makes this one so disturbing is that the threat is on the inside, bitcoin's lack of governance, lack of ability to say "this is a problem and this is how we're going to fix it" is actually tearing it apart from the inside. I'd rather see bitcoin drop to $200 because of China or the US government than to $900 because of infighting. At least then I'd have some confidence that it would come through, but Bitcoin can only win through if it's in good fighting form and right now it isn't.
Exactly. By the way, I also find it disturbing that some people claim everything is peachy. Cognitive dissonance much? |
|
|
|
I didn't mean centralised control, I just think the debate level is entrenched and hostile - all I see is is purile bickering. What mechanism we can have for decisions is difficult to envisage. Surely the default is the Core team - I have a feeling they could have done things better,or we wouldn't be here. I don't think too many people disagree we have scaling issues, so starting from there, how did we get to this shitstorm?
In a community as large as that of bitcoin, there will always be many different opinions. I think the constant bickering is a consequence of the fact that there is no mechanism of conflict resolution. As for the default being Core: I certainly don't want to cast aside the value of the technical expertise of the devs. That's an issue I have with 1 BTC = 1 vote (or rather 1 Satoshi = 1 vote). However, putting all decision power in the hands of the devs is giving them an enormous amount of responsibility and power. And while I think they have thus far been acting in good faith and for the benefit of bitcoin, I think much of the current conflict is because a significant part of the community has an issue with the amount of decision power a relatively small group of people have. |
|
|
|
Do you really think the BU crowd, the banks, Roger Ver and some Chinese dark forces all sat around a table together and conspired to bring Bitcoin down?
I know this is the internet age and anyone can believe anything - but the problem is simple. Bitcoin is at war with itself, unable to change to deliver a solution to a real problem and lacking leadership, and direction.
It has issues and no solution is apparent. There is no conspiracy of dumpers, just people who worry and sell coins because of this uncertainty. It is rational behaviour to sell when the price is not looking realistic.
That is all. I am a Bitcoin fan.
Agreed, although I wouldn't say that we need leadership but rather a more clear mechanism of decision making. 1 BTC = 1 VOTE To me, this seems like the most obvious solution, or at least part of the solution. |
|
|
|
But let's flip your stupid assertion on its head. Isn't it a problem that one angry chinese miner and one high powered enthusiast on the autism specter can bring Bitcoin to its knees? Why is that? Why is Bitcoin so weak?
A lot of bitcoin haters joined forces to make it look weak. Those are different groups with different agendas. They would hate to see segwit, LN and side chains implemented. Every fucking altcoin can be implemented as a bitcoin side chain without any risk to consumers! But that is the last thing banks would like to see. So they pump the alts they've chosen to distract average Joe from further converting his savings into bitcoins. The alt is not dangerous for banks. They can kill it anytime just by dumping it. 99% of altcoin investors are just desperado gamblers that don't really care about smart contracts or whatever. Do you really think the BU crowd, the banks, Roger Ver and some Chinese dark forces all sat around a table together and conspired to bring Bitcoin down? I know this is the internet age and anyone can believe anything - but the problem is simple. Bitcoin is at war with itself, unable to change to deliver a solution to a real problem and lacking leadership, and direction. It has issues and no solution is apparent. There is no conspiracy of dumpers, just people who worry and sell coins because of this uncertainty. It is rational behaviour to sell when the price is not looking realistic. That is all. I am a Bitcoin fan. Agreed, although I wouldn't say that we need leadership but rather a more clear mechanism of decision making. |
|
|
|
*Edit: I bought back like 80% of my coins
 Ok, that was original  |
|
|
|
In other news, Bitcoin share of Crypto market cap now 68%
It's not the ETF, it's the civil war. Sad to say but BTC needs to sort it's shit out one way or another, or it's still looking a risky buy. Yeah investors clearly don't like this situation, especially with BU now calling to attack Bitcoin Core miners before a fork happens to force them to upgrade. Not going to work of course but this kind of hostile behavior is definitely making people flee to fiat or other alts now. I think we'll be seeing even lower prices until this has been resolved. Imagine being new to bitcoin, wanting to figure out more about it to see if it is an interesting investment. So you visit Reddit and you get : "Judas ... Attack... Malicious Miners... Censorship...paid shill... Tyrant...Pumper....Idiots...". Yeah, I wouldn't touch that community with a barge pole... |
|
|
|
Looks like Litecoin is on its way to activate SegWit, almost at 50% now for the last 8064 blocks. The market also seems to like it. Bitcoin next?  Only 22% in the last 500 blocks, except for a new player, pools don't seem to have switched. |
|
|
|
100% there will be dump, below 900$
Mmm, if everybody starts agreeing with me, I might have to reconsider   No trust yourself. The law of the 3 dead cat bounces always works. Yes, correct. It always works except in those cases when it doesn't. You are so wise. You must understand the casus fully. You are the real expert here. Ok, kids. Cards on the table. Where is the bottom? Or where's the next move up to if there's no dump? Specifics, please. Then it will be clear who was right and who was wrong after the fact. I am calling 750-ish as intermediate bottom, 500-ish as final bottom. Hopefully people come to their senses by then. |
|
|
|
100% there will be dump, below 900$
Mmm, if everybody starts agreeing with me, I might have to reconsider |
|
|
|
I'd be interested in participating in a pool if it can be organized. I'm guessing there's thousands of BTC that would be interested in this. I'd trust dooglus as an escrow if no atomic swap can be established.
Agreed, depending on the specifics, I might also be interested. |
|
|
|
lemme see if i have this straight - bitcoin core is somehow tied (loosely?) with blockstream, who apparently can't be trusted cause they took bank money. Core wants to implement segwit - allowing, later, blockstream's LN.
on the other hand, we have bitcoin unlimited, who want... well, i'm honestly not sure, but something besides segwit? and LOTS of people here don't trust THAT, parlty due to a recent exposure of a major bug.
or, to sum up - jack shit has been solved regarding scaling in years of arguing.
good job guys.
LN isn't from Blockstream, Drya and Poon came up with it (expanding other people's work). They don't work for Blockstream. Blockstream has some people working on LN (2 IIRC), but there are many teams working on a LN implementation (while coordinating with each other so these implementations can communicate with eachother properly. Claims that bitcoin is being capped to profit from a monopoly on LN usage are also hogwash, since LN is an open-source protocol, just like bitcoin. |
|
|
|
edit: civil war needs to stop.
I would love for the civil war to stop, but so far it seems like things keep escalating....  |
|
|
|
But I think you are not taking into account that if they go from dash to btc and then into fiat that's a zero sum. I mean, if during a week ALL of dash went to btc and then into fiat, the end result would be no change in BTC price (not for the usage of BTC as a way out to fiat). I don't think so, because the trade that would have influenced BTC/USD in a positive way has already been concluded when the user bought BTC for USD to buy Dash. The Dash/BTC trade does not really affect BTC/USD. The "cycle" of a "random Dash bubble speculator" could be described as follows: 1) User buys BTC for USD (before the Dash bubble). Impact on BTC/USD: Positive. Impact on BTC/Dash: None. 2) User buys Dash for BTC (before the Dash bubble). Impact on BTC/USD: Almost none.* Impact on BTC/Dash: Negative (Bitcoin going down, Dash up) 3) User sells Dash for BTC (after the Dash bubble). Impact on BTC/USD: Almost none.* Impact on BTC/Dash: Positive (Bitcoin going up, Dash down) 4) User sells BTC for USD (after the Dash bubble): Impact on BTC/USD: Negative. Impact on BTC/Dash: None. We are talking about steps 3 and 4, as 1 and 2 are already realized before the bubble, so the negative impact on the price could be significant. *There could be a minimal effect because of arbitrage via Dash/USD exchanges. But as BTC/USD market is much more important than BTC/Dash, impact on BTC/USD should be very limited. Nice and clear write-up. |
|
|
|
Does anonymous voting here mean not linked to your ID or unlinked from your public key? |
|
|
|
I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.
Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things. Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow. It's not. That's the whole point. You mean decisions just get made randomly? No. Humans don't act randomly. Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control. No. Just individuals working together for their own personal purposes. That's why we are still above 1200 even after the etf mess. If bitcoin had some kind of central authority it would not be worth nearly as much. Individual self-interest is and has always been the key. Yes, it is voluntary and selfserving. Indeed there is no central authority. That does not mean that there aren't any groups that exert some control over the workings of bitcoin though. The good thing is that the power is divided over many actors, but that doesn't mean that there is no power. Or would you say that what mining pool operators do doesn't affect you I am getting away from my initial point though. The question at hand was not to let a group control bitcoin, it was to find a way to measure the opinion of users/holders (as a source of information for developers, miners, exchanges,merchants and other users/hodlers). Thousands of individuals working independently is not "a group". Ok, semantics then. You were talking about a small number of people? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
