Breaking news 2018: Trump wants to take over bitcoins and orders all of America to fight the war on cryptocurrencies by developing their own super asic to beat the Chinese at their own game. Every American will have to buy an asic and join TrumoPool to enjoy their freedoms. 51% attack to follow.
That definitely would MAGA. If POTUS decide not to shut crypto down, we would get finally rid of Wu's evil empire. As much as I don't like Wu tactics, there's something your should consider. Wu is way more invested in Bitcoin than 99.99% so, no matter what tactics he employs in the short/medium term it is in his best interest that Bitcoin is a fucking success in the long term. |
|
|
|
Yes, you could probably take over Bitcoin with around $1Billion. That would destroy Bitcoin AND your billion. Now.. why some individual like Bill Gates would feel like doing that? What would be the impact in PR for doing it? How much more would he lose?
Bill Gates was just an example, but we can think about some Bankers willing to do that. Would it necessarily have to be in the clear? I mean, I can think about some ways to do this undercover, so no PR impact. Now let's see one goverment (USA?) does it. The economical cost is almost negligible but.... again... a government destroying something that is not ilegal, fucking millions of people all around the world for no reason and, probably, with no way to cover/hid the action?
Why no way to cover/hid it? And I think it's STILL not illegal, Congressmen are taking their time to corner OTC trades and harden AML/KYC regulations. Is the pot "fragile"? Maybe... now let's compare it with how fragile are other pots:
- FIAT (well, you know).
- PM's (See Executive Order 6102)
- Stocks (see the large liss of crashes over time)
- Real state (safe most of the time, but it can also be easily confiscated as its absolutely not mobile)
All you listed above are known to have huge Big Players participation (a few families, Banks and the government itself) So, nothing to lose dream at night, but as I always say, follow the Triple D: Diversify, Diversify, Diversify.
I can agree with that. 1- Ok, let's take another example, Mark Zuckerberg does it to rekt the Winklevoss once again. It's not that easy to move the amounts of money needed without noone knowing. Less so to hire the needed personal (ASIC designers, etc), less so to make a chinesse factory produce them, less easy to transport, install and put all that ASIC's on a giant plant requiring HUGE amounts of electrical energy..... No, really, you can't do that something of that scale in a covert way. Maybe I am wrong, then tell me how you would do it and I will try to find the failure on your plan. 2- Oh yeah, the goverments could do it with legislation, of course, but I guess that's not what we were talking about. 3- Yet they all have demonstrated to be a "fragile" pot sometimes/somewhere along the history. Nothing is 100% safe. 4- That's my main point. |
|
|
|
So it says that if someone with Bill Gates net worth (there's a bunch of guys dirty rich like him, isn't it?) or any government feels like investing in create an ASIC more powerful than the actual Antminer then secretly building some mining farms, the whole Bitcoinland could be easily taken over? How much fragile is the pot where we're putting our money? Because I can think many reasons a government or some powerful banks would want to shut all this down. Apologies if I'm sounding naïve, I'm not a scientist, I'm only a curious Average Joe. Yes, you could probably take over Bitcoin with just around $1Billion. That would destroy Bitcoin AND your billion. Now.. why some individual like Bill Gates would feel like doing that? What would be the impact in PR for doing it? How much more would he lose? Do you have any idea of how much damage could someone do with one spendable billion if his intention was just to wreck havoc in the "real world"? He could even start a fucking small war if he was smart (and evil). Now let's see one goverment (USA?) does it. The economical cost is almost negligible but.... again... a government destroying something that is not ilegal, fucking millions of people all around the world for no reason and, probably, with no way to cover/hid the action? Is the pot "fragile"? Maybe... now let's compare it with how fragile are other pots: - FIAT (well, you know). - PM's (See Executive Order 6102) - Stocks (see the large liss of crashes over time) - Real state (safe most of the time, but it can also be easily confiscated as its intrinsically not mobile) So, nothing to lose dream at night, but as I always say, follow the Triple D: Diversify, Diversify, Diversify. |
|
|
|
I just realised Stamp has around 500 coins in sell orders. While Finex has 5700+. I never had a clue about the size discrepancy of these two exchanges.  ? Stamp has 2250BTC up to $3000, whilst bitfinex has around 3000BTC. There's not that much difference... At cryptowat.ch I'm grouping the orders in 10 BTC steps and last value shown is $2760.00 at Bitstamp summing around 500 BTC. While at Bitfinex grouping in 50 BTC the last relevant step is $3400.00 summing 5100+ BTC. Am I doing something wrong? I don't use cryptowatch. I use bitcoinwisdom. There's more than 2000BTC up to $3000 at Bitstamp. P.S.: Oh, so you are comparing how many coins are in Bitstamp up to 2760 vs how many in Bitfinex up to $3400? Well, that explains the discrepancy. No, you got it wrong. The last value shown for Bitstamp is $2760, which made me believe there weren't no more orders over it. But since you told me another tool (bitcoinwisdom) shows more orders over this value I believe cryptowat.ch is buggy. Try grouping orders in a scale of 10 BTC and tell me if it's different of what I'm seeing here. I think you gave the solution in your own question. You are grouping sell orders for Bitstamp in $10 blocks while for Bitfinex you are using $50 blocks.... Maybe there is a limit in rows displayed? I am sure both exchanges have orders up to the very high thousands (ppl camping for a flash spike/crash). So there's much more than what you are seeing displayed. |
|
|
|
I just realised Stamp has around 500 coins in sell orders. While Finex has 5700+. I never had a clue about the size discrepancy of these two exchanges. ? Stamp has 2250BTC up to $3000, whilst bitfinex has around 3000BTC. There's not that much difference... At cryptowat.ch I'm grouping the orders in 10 BTC steps and last value shown is $2760.00 at Bitstamp summing around 500 BTC. While at Bitfinex grouping in 50 BTC the last relevant step is $3400.00 summing 5100+ BTC. Am I doing something wrong? I don't use cryptowatch. I use bitcoinwisdom. There's more than 2000BTC up to $3000 at Bitstamp. P.S.: Oh, so you are comparing how many coins are in Bitstamp up to 2760 vs how many in Bitfinex up to $3400? Well, that explains the discrepancy. |
|
|
|
I just realised Stamp has around 500 coins in sell orders. While Finex has 5700+. I never had a clue about the size discrepancy of these two exchanges. ? Stamp has 2250BTC up to $3000, whilst bitfinex has around 3000BTC. There's not that much difference... |
|
|
|
In the end, it's all about money. The alts are not evil in and of themselves. If you don't understand something, it's good to stay away from it. Have no regrets. But if you can see an opportunity without directly harming anyone else, why not? Even bitcoin will have its losers (the ones buying high; but if they just use it to do value transfers, like buying something, they don't really lose) but that's the way it goes, all of this is voluntary.
The only reason I own ETH is I'm spreading my stuff across a bunch of alts. In the end, they all go back to bitcoin. (And the other alts have their uses too.) I got some precious metals too, because ... because!
In cryptoworld diversity is key to success FIFY |
|
|
|
BTC bought and BTC sold. End result for BTC price is zero!
The moral of today's story. Well, poloniex ETH/BTC is the main market. So i assume most of this ICO ETH would go through bitcoin part... So i got scared... Why scared? To dump Bitcoin for FIAT they first need to buy Bitcoin. Net result is almost (arbitrage with other trading pairs) zero. Also, if I had XXX millions in ETH I would probably not cash them all to FIAT inmediately.... But I wouldn't leave it all bet into one single coin... So most probably there will be some part they will just convert to BTC and hold. Net result positive. |
|
|
|
I don't know what the fuck you are talking about? I see the segwit2x support and it appears like it has a good chance of going to the next step. It seems to be a very bullish development. I am invested in bitcoin, so I like bullish developments because I become more wealthy as the price goes up, as long as my coins don't get hacked and as long as I don't sell too many of them.   Arguing with you is so much resource intensive it's not worth it (more so when I have to do it in a foreign language). Let's just take this last paragraph in which I think we both do agree and enjoy the run up. And, again, buy a damn hardware wallet P.S.: And, maybe I wasn't very eloquent with my poor english, but all that CoinCube has said in his last posts is exactly my opinion, which him has expressed with much more clear and concise words. |
|
|
|
So I was thinking about the price and how it relates to velocity of money. As we get more transactions and LN which will allow for very fast velocity of bitcoin, would that send the price up or down?
Negligible if we only consider the velecity factor. I could get a number out of my ass, but if you want to calculate it you just need to take two figures: 1- The delay that most transactions have right now. Say 1 hour to be conservative? 2- The total of payments (withdraws from Bitcoin to FIAT) that happen in a day / 24 Or just get a rough idea of what those delayed payments represent, and that is the figure. But then, inputs are also somewhat delayed. Considering the price is currently rising and not the opposite the net result means that instant transactions would mean more (1 hour equivalent) money in than out. So it could be argued that it would influence the price in a (completely negligible) positive way. Now, if we consider what influence other factors like media attention for having finally solved this absurd drama, or how Bitcoin recovers its dominance as a payment method and not just store of value.... well... thats not negligeable. Usually when someone refers to velocity of money, it doesn't mean the (almost negligible) time the transactions needs for settling but this: It can refer to the income velocity of money, which is the frequency at which the average same unit of currency is used to purchase newly domestically-produced goods and services within a given time period. In other words, it is the number of times one unit of money is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time.
And that has more to do with what usage people do with their money/bitcoins/whatever. TL;DR: Negligible. Irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not sinking, and bitcoin is not broken.
Sure there are various tweaks that can make bitcoin better, but there is no emergency death situation as you seem to want to argue.
If you think going from 90% to less than 40% market dominance is not an emergency... And scaling, or better yet, this absurd drama has played some part for that decrease of market quota. Also, Bitcoin is not broken, that's right... And I don't know enough about blockchains as I do about networks and most networks that exceed 80-90% capacity are bound to severe issues. We would need to reduce that congestion to 50% to be safe. Segwit will largely help in the long term, a blocksize increase can aleviate some of the issues right now.
I thought that I already got a consession from you that the first step is Segwit? So, yeah the second and third steps might happen, but you gotta do the first step before you get to the second step... so even though the odds of the second step might be pretty decent, the second step is not inevitable, as you seem to continue to suggest .. and maybe you have some kind of misreading about what has to happen in order for the second step to take place... and in any event it does not seem to be inevitable.. so why do you keep getting ahead of yourself? one step at a time, no?
By the way, it looks like there are people who will be working on testing the second step and going through various kinds of work to carry out the second step, but that still does not make the second step inevitable, even if it has decent chances to occur.
And, stop suggesting what I want, because I am only calling the situation as I see it, and this is not a matter about what I want or do not want, but instead a description of community dynamics and sentiment about the 2mb (second step) aspect of the segwit2x.
What miners are signaling is Segwit2x and that includes a compromise to a blocksize increase to 2MB. Are you suggesting that after getting the Segwit part, there will be enough support for a UASF to block the 2MB HF? Good luck with that.
I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this? It seems pretty likely that the first step is going to occur, and even if the second step were to fall through, we still have the first step... so cross that bridge when you get there rather than getting worked up and suggesting that the whole thing might be a failure if the second step were not to occur.
It would be a disaster if after getting Segwit some people insist on an UASF to avoid the 2MB hard fork. Anyway, I am pretty confident that won't happen. I don't want a UASF, I don't want a contentios SF or HF, I don't want EC/BU no matter that... I basically don't want anything that could result on a split. Well, it looks like you are in luck and there appears to be a largely non-contentious solution on the horizon... right? It looks like the current variation of segwit2x that allows a softforking of segwit first is gaining pretty likely success and support. 80.6% support on coindance 24 hour marker right now. https://coin.dance/blocksYep, and that makes me REALLY happy. Maybe you don't want to celebrate it... But you will when you see the outcome. |
|
|
|
|
On other news: Segwit2x signaling has just reached 80% for the last 144blocks (24 hours).... and growing.
|
|
|
|
Don't be ridiculous: We need more throughput. And If I were to spam the network I would use non Segwit tx's even if Segwit is implemented. Or maybe I would use Segwit TX's as the signatures doesn't count for the TX fee.
Why is it so hard for people on the same boat (long on BTC) to row in the same fucking direction?
Why do we need to row in the same direction? We have a difference of opinion about whether something is needed or not. I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but I can still give my opinion and my opinion can differ, no? By the way, I am not alone in my opinion, and there are a lot of smart technical people in the bitcoin space who have a similar opinion to me. Wait, What? You really asking why do we need to row in the same direction? Because we are gonna fucking sink if we don't! Really, I prefer Segwit over Blocksize increase as Segwit is a real scaling solution and not a linear increase, BUT... If we were all agree to one solution or the other I would accept to row in that direction. It's avoiding sinking what counts here... and now we have a solution that should reasonably please most parties (Segwit +`reasonable 2MB blocksize increase that, even if you think we don't need it yet we will in near future). If this compromise doesn't work (and I am now reasonably confident it will) then nothing will and we would be basically fucked up. I will always prefer a not so bad agreement with an almost unanimous consensus than a "better" but contentious one. |
|
|
|
Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?
Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).
I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...
We need more throughput. Period. You got a better solution, code it and release it into the wild. Don't be ridiculous. There is no emergency here, and even the clearing up of the bitcoin blockchain in the past few days should go to show that the month long spam attack was a scam. There are folks who were directing their mining power at attacking the bitcoin network, and maybe that has become less effective and expensive? Anyhow they have temporarily ceased the bullshit attack shenanigans and we are getting decent processing times and fees, again. At least for the moment. Are you disagreeing that we need more throughput? Yes or no, wordy one. I suppose you could sum it up to that. We don't need more throughput, and maybe implementing seg wit will help with the spam attacks, too. Don't be ridiculous: We need more throughput. And If I were to spam the network I would use non Segwit tx's even if Segwit is implemented. Or maybe I would use Segwit TX's as the signatures doesn't count for the TX fee. Why is it so hard for people on the same boat (long on BTC) to row in the same fucking direction? |
|
|
|
Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?
Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).
I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...
Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus.. So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent. Am I reading this wrong? Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there? Unless someone says that I am totally wrong again: Yes, that's it. And it's a good thing. No hidden agenda unless... uhhh. it's very hidden. So in essence, segwit is a soft fork that would go into effect at an earlier stage and then it seems that if segwit goes into effect, it will likely receive more and more hashing power. I anticipate that there is going to be considerable lack of an ability to achieve consensus regarding a hardfork, unless it is truly of a real high consensus level - and there is a pretty large contingency of folks that really see no value to increase the blocksize limit, which will likely become even more apparent once seg wit actually goes live... why fuck up a good thing with bloated and totally unnecessary 2mg blocks? If all goes well, Segwit2x will pass with a near 100% hash rate. That same hashrate will enforce, some time later (3? 6 months?)) a 2MB blocksize increase. I am basically against HF's but... if they are able to unite a near 100% hashrate I am ok to a HF for blocksize increase. A FIXED 2MB blocksize increase, not an abomination like BU/EC. As much as I am PRO Segwit and LN, let me tell you it's effect won't be inmediately noticed. There's no LN in place yet. Many wallets don't support Segwit. So the effects won't be as much as theoretical, PLUS if we are really going to grow (don't we all want that?) Segwit+LN won't be enough to support that growth. A reasonable 2MB increase would be also welcome IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED with an almost 100% hashrate. Let's recap here.... HF are undesirable for the risk of a split... with an almost unanimous hashrate there's no such risk, so it's ok to me. |
|
|
|
Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?
Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).
I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...
Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus.. So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent. Am I reading this wrong? Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there? Unless someone says that I am totally wrong again: Yes, that's it. And it's a good thing. No hidden agenda unless... uhhh. it's very hidden. P.S.: The compromise is not "contingent", it INCLUDES a blocksize increase to 2MB in the near future. I am ok with it, and anyone that wants Segwit to pass should also be ok with it. If Segwit pass, the 2MB HF will also happen. No way around that, no tricks or everyone will lose. |
|
|
|
Roach, you did not reply me to enlighten me in what way I was wrong in this. ANyway, It's unnecesary you do it now, as it looks I was not "totally wrong" but instead totally right on my prospect.
My point was that it's not a "non-contentious" fork. It's still the same situation on the ground as the last 2 years with nothing really having changed. It doesn't matter if all the Chinese miners signal they want to hard fork because they all agreed they wanted to do that years ago. So once again...what exactly has changed? Pretty much nothing. It's still Bitcoin core vs Roger Ver and Jihan Wu as usual. The only thing that's changed at all is Barry Silbert got drunk and took a boat over to the Guangdong province and was like "hey guys, I heard you like pump and dumps??? me too???" If you mean its basically the same as the HK agreement. Yes, it is. But for the past couple of years both parties have been putting obstacles on the way to that agreement (which basically is a GOOD agreement now, as it was before). And finally it looks like both parties have delayed it enough for their hidden agenda (Wu for profitting in ASICBOOST and maybe Blockstream to develop whatever) and both are gonna honour that OLD deal. Yes, its an OLD deal... bout time it fucking gets implemented in a NON-CONTENTIOUS way. And I think that's exactaly what has changed... couple months ago that agreement was complemente contentious... now it looks like it won't. |
|
|
|
Today is a happy day. We are finally very close to a non-contentious solution for the scaling drama of this past years.
Totally wrong. Nothing has changed at all and it's still the same old parties having the same old positions. A contentious Chinese/Jihan Wu fork (only with Barry Silbert added to the mix) vs the other Bitcoin core people: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCTgqEBXYAQBgNI.jpg:largeIf you're trying to trade this, it's leaning far more towards a fork disaster than non-contentious fork. *disclaimer: I am neither attempting to long or short it myself. Can you elaborate more on your point? I have already read that and many other twitter/reddit comments that have been posted for the past months. Let's focus on current status: - It looks like Segwit2x will pass, maybe even with almost 100% miner support. - Segwit2x includes Segwit: Good. - Segwit2x includes a 2MB block size increase soon after: Good. I hate HF's but an almost unanimous HF for a fixed reasonable 2x increase is also ok to me. More so if it is executed with almost 100% miner support. - I see it as a reasonable compromise. Also, and most importantly, it is PERCEIVED as a reasonable compromise for most of the parties in this "battle". - It avoids BU, which is an ABOMINATION. - It avoids UASF, which could be a fucking disaster. Well, I could go on... But... can you tell me whats the wrong thing about this move? I don't see why it is "the same old parties having the same old positions". Why do you consider so? Disclaimer: I am not exactly trying to trade this... But it will for sure influence my trades which, anyway, are almost all the time long for the majority of my trading funds. I only do actively trade a little portion around 25-30% to keep increasing my long term stash. Roach, you did not reply me to enlighten me in what way I was wrong in this. ANyway, It's unnecesary you do it now, as it looks I was not "totally wrong" but instead totally right on my prospect. |
|
|
|
|
What did you expect? One way or another, the scaling issue will be solved soon (or Bitcoin "dead" again).
|
|
|
|
I got into usd mode..
We are waiting cashout
2490 is my guess
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. It's not too late to buy back in, even if you have to take a small loss to do so. It's better than being left behind as the uptrend continues. We wait for the segwit hangover, 2 different codes signaling for it and still at fight. The facepalms when they see it is 2 codes combined to signal segwit2x Hangover lasts about 12hours. If you sold based on TA I have nothing to say as I am not really into that shit. But, if you did it based on fundamentals around the scaling issue. I think you are misreading current situation and prospects. Anyway, as I always say, we need people to sell to keep growing in price in a healthy way (this is not inverse psichology, I REALLY meant it.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
