this is way overbought dont you think.
i mean wtf, tomorrow 1200 as if nothing happened?
really?
Yeah it seems like its acting in inverse logic, seems like everyone was actually expecting for ETF to fail and were expecting to buy the dip. Melt down didn't happen so all these money on exchanges got to go somewhere |
|
|
|
ETF failed and we're still at the price we were in Feb? I was told there would be a crash  is it still coming once the BU decide to fork? |
|
|
|
Bam! cheaper go cheaper ...  |
|
|
|
And how's the market doing tod  whoa what did i miss? |
|
|
|
centralised from chinese are much better than "centralise" from usa or un or satan eu-nato!!!!
you have short memo or iq "boy"
i donīt get your point. please let your iq enlighten me. if chinese not work ,bitcoin is now = 0 Yeah bitcoin wasn't 0 before chinese got in so... |
|
|
|
No, take off the hard block limit and leave BTC exposed to miner's will, you can trust us err them, you have nothing to worry about. Centralized miners are nice guys we ahem they wouldn't do anything bad with that. tl;dr: Centralized Chinese miners are threatening to spend $100 million to kill off Bitcoin if it tries to fight miner centralization. https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/827697817154052096*EDIT |
|
|
|
A week before I will get my 860 coins I WILL!  |
|
|
|
Is $1k party #3 still planned?? Or is everyone waiting for $10k party now? |
|
|
|
Finex is getting some volume back? Shorts are at 1yr high too, grab your torches? Do you think that when there are that many shorts, then the price is more likely to go up? I have no real clue, except that I do understand the motive to push the price in the opposite direction to force those shorts into being called. shorts are not at 1 year high, the 1 year high is 25,345 BTC August 1 2016 03:00 I was not really so worried about whether DaRude was technically correct, only whether there was some kind of significance in the quantity of change that he was witnessing... and whether that quantity of shorts would be some factor that would influence our insights concerning probabilities of the price moving in one direction or another. I do understand that it means that a lot of folks are appearing to be betting that the price is going down - but it does not necessarily mean that they are correct - but it does mean that we have had a significant amount of time in a price range that may cause some folks to believe that prices are going to be going down - even though they may not be going down.. Also, if the price went up to $950 or $990, would many other those shorts either be forced closed and sure some folks may chose to close them early or they may have taken certain stop loss measures... even at prices lower than $950. Ultimately, these matters can be a bit complicated, but still some folks may bet on shorter ranges without really appreciating that the price had been suppressed for about 2 years.. and we are likely still in a bull market and still in the process of rebounding from nearly two years of bear market. Edit: I just noticed the August 1, 2016 date that you mentioned - and yeah, what a coincidence, one day before the supposed "hack"... Well, those people that are betting are not doing it at BitFinex according to the pic below.  I see longs being more or less constant but shorts going up, are you seeing something else? |
|
|
|
Finex is getting some volume back? Shorts are at 1yr high too, grab your torches? Do you think that when there are that many shorts, then the price is more likely to go up? I have no real clue, except that I do understand the motive to push the price in the opposite direction to force those shorts into being called. shorts are not at 1 year high, the 1 year high is 25,345 BTC August 1 2016 03:00  Not seeing shorts crossing BTC25k on Aug 1st |
|
|
|
Finex is getting some volume back? Shorts are at 1yr high too, grab your torches? |
|
|
|
No, I'm not trolling. Some simple math: Say the network capacity is 15000 transactions per hour before the difficulty increase. Now the difficulty jump reduces capacity by 17%. So now capacity is 2550 transactions per hour less. Now assuming transaction demand remains the same, in 12 hours you'll amass 30k transactions above capacity which go into the mempool. So that alone explains more than half of the effect. No need to postulate a "spam attack". Any slight (10%) increase in demand at the same time would account for another 18k transactions making that 48k transactions, almost your measure 55k. Wait even with you math, a sudden consistent spike of 10% in volume across the board right at the time of difficulty adjustment looks normal to you? Now just a hypothetical, if you had limited resources and were to trying to spam the blockchain how exactly would you approach or perhaps time your attack?  we might be sending real users away to altcoins/paypal/...I'm not ruling out a spam attack, what you say is correct. I just don't like the going from "woah, there's 50k tx in the mempool" to "it must be a spam attack" when any 10% fluctuation in demand would explain it because this "jumping to conclusions" is really diverting the view from the actual problem we have here: namely that we might be sending real users away to altcoins/paypal/.... I don't want that happening, but I'm pretty sure it is.Postulating a spam attack (because it doesn't look "normal") everytime we hit the usage ceiling negates the existence of this problem and effectively diverts energy from solving it. I offered a different view that explains what's happening as quite "normal" so we can focus on the problem at hand: not enough capacity. That's funny cause actions like these cause the exact opposite reaction in me. Like every time there's blatant spam attack some BU supporter hilariously attempts to claim that it's normal organic growth. To a point where they lose all credibility and i find myself automatically starting to assume that it's shilling. Not that it can't be organic growth just because there's so much attempt at disinformation as if someone is trying too hard |
|
|
|
No, I'm not trolling. Some simple math: Say the network capacity is 15000 transactions per hour before the difficulty increase. Now the difficulty jump reduces capacity by 17%. So now capacity is 2550 transactions per hour less. Now assuming transaction demand remains the same, in 12 hours you'll amass 30k transactions above capacity which go into the mempool. So that alone explains more than half of the effect. No need to postulate a "spam attack". Any slight (10%) increase in demand at the same time would account for another 18k transactions making that 48k transactions, almost your measure 55k. Wait even with you math, a sudden consistent spike of 10% in volume across the board right at the time of difficulty adjustment looks normal to you? Now just a hypothetical, if you had limited resources and were to trying to spam the blockchain how exactly would you approach or perhaps time your attack? |
|
|
|
the prices delay on that site thought... You got a better source? |
|
|
|
|
Did we lose feed from Whoboi? Did China finally ban BTC?
|
|
|
|
|
We still in triple digits? That was like so 2016
|
|
|
|
|
So China's back at it with it's shenanigans i see
|
|
|
|
if you care about bitcoin miners continuing to provide a high level of power to mine and secure bitcoin...
then give them the means to control blocksize
with some control over blocksize miners can balance the fee pressure to maximize fees.
And if we don't? If we think of them as a tool, sort of like hiring people and asking half of them to dig holes and the other half to cover those holes up just to prove some work was done. If too many line up willing to do that you reduce their compensation, if not enough show up you raise the salary. But now these people keep showing up and asking that they control how many holes they dig. And then hire shills to run ads and try to influence your decision if you dont care about maximum fee revenue for miner, which in turn provides a greater incentive to secure bitcoin. ... another blockchain will. Yes finally!! We are fine with that. Please start another blockchain as soon as you wish, let us know if you need any help in the alt section of this forum. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
