Bitcoin Forum
February 17, 2020, 06:52:28 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Feb. 15 Closing Price:
$0 - 3 (2.6%)
<$8,500 - 6 (5.2%)
$8,500-$9,000 - 3 (2.6%)
$9,001-$9,500 - 2 (1.7%)
$9,501-$10,000 - 12 (10.3%)
$10,001-$10,500 - 29 (25%)
$10,501-$11,000 - 21 (18.1%)
$11,001-$11,500 - 14 (12.1%)
$11,501-$12,000 - 7 (6%)
>$12,000 - 10 (8.6%)
>$30,000 - 9 (7.8%)
Total Voters: 116

Pages: « 1 ... 16866 16867 16868 16869 16870 16871 16872 16873 16874 16875 16876 16877 16878 16879 16880 16881 16882 16883 16884 16885 16886 16887 16888 16889 16890 16891 16892 16893 16894 16895 16896 16897 16898 16899 16900 16901 16902 16903 16904 16905 16906 16907 16908 16909 16910 16911 16912 16913 16914 16915 [16916] 16917 16918 16919 16920 16921 16922 16923 16924 16925 16926 16927 16928 16929 16930 16931 16932 16933 16934 16935 16936 16937 16938 16939 16940 16941 16942 16943 16944 16945 16946 16947 16948 16949 16950 16951 16952 16953 16954 16955 16956 16957 16958 16959 16960 16961 16962 16963 16964 16965 16966 ... 26062 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21526893 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (142 posts by 32 users deleted.)
spooderman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1002


View Profile WWW
May 22, 2017, 12:45:44 PM

yeah...that agreement is a piece of shit. just another attempt at a delaying tactic.

carry on with #UASF. nothing to see there.
100% First Deposit Bonus Instant Withdrawals Best Odds 10+ Sports Since 2014 No KYC Asked Play Now
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1581965548
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1581965548

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1581965548
Reply with quote  #2

1581965548
Report to moderator
1581965548
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1581965548

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1581965548
Reply with quote  #2

1581965548
Report to moderator
lost_in_base
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 22, 2017, 12:48:24 PM

Any news on this "agreement" thingy yet?  Where's it being announced?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1928093.0

Ouch, that doesn't look good!  There's no confirmed announcement yet though, is there?  Just speculation based on a "leak" which may or may not be accurate?
Actually that looks pretty good. Just can not have it all.


+ 1mb to 2mb
+ Segwit signaling
+ lower mempool
+ lower fees
+ price up

- time given to bitmain asicboost
- will bitmain support segwit?
- back to UASF?
- back to where we started
spooderman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1002


View Profile WWW
May 22, 2017, 12:50:28 PM

it's obvious nonsense, just go read up on reddit for a while, plenty of people have torn it to pieces already.
Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1528



View Profile
May 22, 2017, 12:54:42 PM

it's obvious nonsense, just go read up on reddit for a while, plenty of people have torn it to pieces already.

Bullet points on a whiteboard talks.

Real solid & tested code walks.
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1043



View Profile
May 22, 2017, 01:04:16 PM

So is it an attempt to stop the User activated fork getting traction ?

yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

so Segwit2Mb is a trap.
they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK.

So the folks who want 2Mb don't trust the SegWit people not to break away after SegWit is locked and block a later block size increase?

Sounds understandable given the emotionalism on this issue. It would be very disruptive to activate SegWit and then deactivate it before LOCK. Seems unlikely the miners would do this. It seems far more likely that the SegWit folks would increase their opposition to a block size increase to 2 Mb once they already have what they want.

I am not understanding why this is not a reasonable roadmap forward.
lost_in_base
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 22, 2017, 01:08:10 PM

So is it an attempt to stop the User activated fork getting traction ?

yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

so Segwit2Mb is a trap.
they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK.

So the folks who want 2Mb don't trust the SegWit people not to break away after SegWit is locked and block a later block size increase?

Sounds understandable given the emotionalism on this issue. It would be very disruptive to activate SegWit and then deactivate it before LOCK. Seems unlikely the miners would do this. It seems far more likely that the SegWit folks would increase their opposition to a block size increase to 2 Mb once they already have what they want.

I am not understanding why this is not a reasonable roadmap forward.

This roadmap is a new era in bitcoins history.
Soon 2200 USD, today!
Some people just do not want bitcoin to evolve.

lemmyK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 293
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 22, 2017, 01:21:36 PM

becoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2562
Merit: 1060



View Profile
May 22, 2017, 01:21:50 PM

So is it an attempt to stop the User activated fork getting traction ?

yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

so Segwit2Mb is a trap.
they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK.

So the folks who want 2Mb don't trust the SegWit people not to break away after SegWit is locked and block a later block size increase?

Sounds understandable given the emotionalism on this issue. It would be very disruptive to activate SegWit and then deactivate it before LOCK. Seems unlikely the miners would do this. It seems far more likely that the SegWit folks would increase their opposition to a block size increase to 2 Mb once they already have what they want.

I am not understanding why this is not a reasonable roadmap forward.

Any block size increase is not a reasonable roadmap forward. It solves nothing! It just postpones the inevitable next block size increase - 4mb, 8mb, 16mb... until full centralization. Big blocktards will accept anything just to follow this roadmap.
Okurkabinladin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 506



View Profile
May 22, 2017, 01:23:48 PM

So is it an attempt to stop the User activated fork getting traction ?

yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

so Segwit2Mb is a trap.
they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK.

So the folks who want 2Mb don't trust the SegWit people not to break away after SegWit is locked and block a later block size increase?

Sounds understandable given the emotionalism on this issue. It would be very disruptive to activate SegWit and then deactivate it before LOCK. Seems unlikely the miners would do this. It seems far more likely that the SegWit folks would increase their opposition to a block size increase to 2 Mb once they already have what they want.

I am not understanding why this is not a reasonable roadmap forward.

This roadmap is a new era in bitcoins history.
Soon 2200 USD, today!
Some people just do not want bitcoin to evolve.



I am more interested where will the next correction lead us. 1550 USD/BTC is the floor for now? I think its realistic to say, that we will reach atleast 4000 dollars per bitcoin during this summer, however there will be more bumps along the road, where bitcoin takes deep breath before rising again.

Just my two cents. Seeing proper attempts at technical analysis is rare these days, not the least for the fact, that everyone but to the moon people gets bullied into silence.
savetherainforest
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 514


Plant 1xTree for each Satoshi earned!


View Profile
May 22, 2017, 01:27:48 PM

Any so called "agreement", privately discussed only by a bunch of suits and not including input from any core devs, will fail.

Period.

Anyone believing otherwise is delusional.

The fact that the suits believe they are in control of anything, or can influence anything, is equally delusional.


Well... basically they still don't realize that everyone can create their own country just with 1 bitcoin and have their separate system.

Bitcoin user be like : "Mom... gonna start my own global banking system with just a thousand bitcoins!"  Cheesy  Cheesy


(*edit:) The conclusion being that even if a majority decides something, as long as there is a minority with the concept of the crypto (of bitcoin)... They will just decide to part ways and create their own economic union with their parted share and even maybe buying out the penny on the dollar coins that are left... or trying to get them for free from the ones that don't see any value in them anymore. Just for them to have control and majority... And this is how tyrannies are built!!! Cheesy Cheesy
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1043



View Profile
May 22, 2017, 01:48:23 PM

So is it an attempt to stop the User activated fork getting traction ?

yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

so Segwit2Mb is a trap.
they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK.

So the folks who want 2Mb don't trust the SegWit people not to break away after SegWit is locked and block a later block size increase?

Sounds understandable given the emotionalism on this issue. It would be very disruptive to activate SegWit and then deactivate it before LOCK. Seems unlikely the miners would do this. It seems far more likely that the SegWit folks would increase their opposition to a block size increase to 2 Mb once they already have what they want.

I am not understanding why this is not a reasonable roadmap forward.

Any block size increase is not a reasonable roadmap forward. It solves nothing! It just postpones the inevitable next block size increase - 4mb, 8mb, 16mb... until full centralization. Big blocktards will accept anything just to follow this roadmap.



If it also gets SegWit activated in the process then isn't it solving something?

Increasing the block size to 2Mb is not a slippery slope. It does not necessarily follow that we will then go to 4mb, 8mb, 16mb until full centralization.
CoinHoarder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1025

In Cryptocoins I Trust


View Profile
May 22, 2017, 02:06:52 PM

I don't get the negativity. This agreement sounds like a compromise of core/miners to me. Sure, it is a different version of Segwit, but it is Segwit nonetheless. We get Segwit and 2MB blocks... if not just rumors, then the scaling debacle is over. Sounds bullish to me.

Why the sudden shock that miners are in control of Bitcoin protocol implementation? They always have been and always will be- that is how Bitcoin was designed.
savetherainforest
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 514


Plant 1xTree for each Satoshi earned!


View Profile
May 22, 2017, 02:12:07 PM
Last edit: May 22, 2017, 02:24:27 PM by savetherainforest




If it also gets SegWit activated in the process then isn't it solving something?

Increasing the block size to 2Mb is not a slippery slope. It does not necessarily follow that we will then go to 4mb, 8mb, 16mb until full centralization.




"full centralization" ... the fuk you are smoking there?? Cheesy Cheesy


I for one if there is a split... I'm gonna use both versions of the coin, encourage and support them! Even the weaker / useless one! Just because I feel like trolling the other one that feels more entitled! Cheesy Cheesy

Laughing in portuguese : HueHueHueHueHue!!! Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2170
Merit: 2430


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
May 22, 2017, 02:21:28 PM

So is it an attempt to stop the User activated fork getting traction ?

yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

so Segwit2Mb is a trap.
they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK.

So the folks who want 2Mb don't trust the SegWit people not to break away after SegWit is locked and block a later block size increase?

Sounds understandable given the emotionalism on this issue. It would be very disruptive to activate SegWit and then deactivate it before LOCK. Seems unlikely the miners would do this. It seems far more likely that the SegWit folks would increase their opposition to a block size increase to 2 Mb once they already have what they want.

I am not understanding why this is not a reasonable roadmap forward.

This roadmap is a new era in bitcoins history.
Soon 2200 USD, today!
Some people just do not want bitcoin to evolve.



I am more interested where will the next correction lead us. 1550 USD/BTC is the floor for now? I think its realistic to say, that we will reach atleast 4000 dollars per bitcoin during this summer, however there will be more bumps along the road, where bitcoin takes deep breath before rising again.

Just my two cents. Seeing proper attempts at technical analysis is rare these days, not the least for the fact, that everyone but to the moon people gets bullied into silence.

Yeah.. sure a correction is going to come, but it is kind of hard to hear you when we are going up $100 per day...

So the more immediate fact is that the price is going up.. not down.. so you are reflecting facts that are the opposite about what is happening...

So maybe talk about the up before focusing so much on the down..

But you don't believe in the current up.. even though it is happening right in front of your face...

I would like a correction too, ... but gosh, are we going to see one before getting to $2300 or 2400 first?
Lincoln6Echo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1029


Don't use bitcoin.de if you care about privacy!


View Profile
May 22, 2017, 02:29:26 PM

Back in 2013 I was waiting for a correction too when price went from 10$ to like 50$ and than above 100$. Still not happend... Tongue
Totscha
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1209
Merit: 609



View Profile
May 22, 2017, 02:41:16 PM

Back in 2013 I was waiting for a correction too when price went from 10$ to like 50$ and than above 100$. Still not happend... Tongue

I'm still waiting for the double digits I was promised in 2014.
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 747
Merit: 558



View Profile
May 22, 2017, 02:44:09 PM

MtGOX owes (from bankruptcy proceedings)
      45,609,593,503 JPY =~ 414,226,328 USD

There were 202185 BTC found.

202185 @ $2139 = $432473715

MtGox can technically cover its debts
Iranus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 503


View Profile
May 22, 2017, 02:56:49 PM

So is it an attempt to stop the User activated fork getting traction ?

yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

so Segwit2Mb is a trap.
they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK.

So the folks who want 2Mb don't trust the SegWit people not to break away after SegWit is locked and block a later block size increase?

Sounds understandable given the emotionalism on this issue. It would be very disruptive to activate SegWit and then deactivate it before LOCK. Seems unlikely the miners would do this. It seems far more likely that the SegWit folks would increase their opposition to a block size increase to 2 Mb once they already have what they want.

I am not understanding why this is not a reasonable roadmap forward.

Any block size increase is not a reasonable roadmap forward. It solves nothing! It just postpones the inevitable next block size increase - 4mb, 8mb, 16mb... until full centralization. Big blocktards will accept anything just to follow this roadmap.

This solution is basically just trying to retaliate against UASF by pushing through something suspicious much earlier, but a block size increase with SegWit is not necessarily a bad way forward.

Since Bitcoin started in 2009, the amount of storage which people typically have has much more than doubled.  Now it's fairly normal to have 2 terabyte hard drives like one of my computers does, while in 2009 it was very new for that to be conventional.

It's OK for the block size to rise if the average amount of capacity people's computers have raises faster than the size of the blockchain.  What's important is that the block size is not flexible and it can't just rise often like it could if BU went through.
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1924


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
May 22, 2017, 02:59:11 PM

MtGOX owes (from bankruptcy proceedings)
      45,609,593,503 JPY =~ 414,226,328 USD

There were 202185 BTC found.

202185 @ $2139 = $432473715

MtGox can technically cover its debts

And jackass would still be able to pocket the ~$18M difference.
Dotto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 979
Merit: 1004


No maps for these territories


View Profile
May 22, 2017, 03:10:38 PM

new soonish is imminent
Pages: « 1 ... 16866 16867 16868 16869 16870 16871 16872 16873 16874 16875 16876 16877 16878 16879 16880 16881 16882 16883 16884 16885 16886 16887 16888 16889 16890 16891 16892 16893 16894 16895 16896 16897 16898 16899 16900 16901 16902 16903 16904 16905 16906 16907 16908 16909 16910 16911 16912 16913 16914 16915 [16916] 16917 16918 16919 16920 16921 16922 16923 16924 16925 16926 16927 16928 16929 16930 16931 16932 16933 16934 16935 16936 16937 16938 16939 16940 16941 16942 16943 16944 16945 16946 16947 16948 16949 16950 16951 16952 16953 16954 16955 16956 16957 16958 16959 16960 16961 16962 16963 16964 16965 16966 ... 26062 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!