Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2019, 12:32:25 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: How would you classify yourself right now? (credit: VB1001)
Hodler - 108 (77.7%)
Trader - 11 (7.9%)
Bull - 10 (7.2%)
Weak Hands - 10 (7.2%)
Total Voters: 139

Pages: « 1 ... 16949 16950 16951 16952 16953 16954 16955 16956 16957 16958 16959 16960 16961 16962 16963 16964 16965 16966 16967 16968 16969 16970 16971 16972 16973 16974 16975 16976 16977 16978 16979 16980 16981 16982 16983 16984 16985 16986 16987 16988 16989 16990 16991 16992 16993 16994 16995 16996 16997 16998 [16999] 17000 17001 17002 17003 17004 17005 17006 17007 17008 17009 17010 17011 17012 17013 17014 17015 17016 17017 17018 17019 17020 17021 17022 17023 17024 17025 17026 17027 17028 17029 17030 17031 17032 17033 17034 17035 17036 17037 17038 17039 17040 17041 17042 17043 17044 17045 17046 17047 17048 17049 ... 25565 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21451167 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. (135 posts by 29 users deleted.)
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 2172


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 01:44:55 AM

My buy point is defenetly between 1600-1800 USD.




You never know my friend.


....and neither does anyone else here.

true

but wouldn't recommend that

1600s possible though

but under 1600 "highly unlikely"



I am not sure about the odds.

Let's say that the current range is between approximately $1950 and and $2,300.

maybe to odds for breaking down are 45% and 55% for up? but then if we break down, then how far down will it go?  greater odds against it the further down that you go.

In theory, you should have already bought a decent amount of coins on these first two downward legs, so waiting for more down before you buy more is not a bad idea.  But if you have not bought, and you are waiting, you might get left behind, no? [insert running after the train.gif]

In the event this goes 1.7k and then 1.2k, what future or top would come next vs. a breakout to 3.5k or 5k now? Would it mean an even larger top or a possible death?


What do you think?

Some of us are skeptical about the genuineness of the questions of newbie accounts.

For now, I am going to assume that you are not trolling.. welcome to the forum.


Well, yes, regarding your questions,  if the price breaks below $1850 to $1900 then the next area of support would likely be in the $1500 to $1600 area.. and if it breaks below $1500 then the next area of support would be $1200 to $1300... ..

So, in your question, you are asking about a break down to $1200, and that is not at all bearish.

Remember, it seems like a long time ago, but we were just at $1200 - about a month ago. So, yeah, it is no way bearish to return to $1200.. the same is true about $890, we could return to those seemingly low level price levels and still be in an overall bulltrend.... remember  we moved from $250 to $2760 in about 20 months.


Regarding breaking out to $3k, it becomes more delayed the lower the correction.  At this time, we have not experienced the correction beyond $1850, so it seems a bit premature to talk about what if $3k to $5k in the event of more correction.

We have to see how one leg plays out before predicting the next leg... so yeah, the greater the correction the more likely that more resistance will form at different levels... We have to play these step by step, because we cannot necessarily predict all of the legs, but when one leg happens, then we can attempt to predict the probabilities of the next leg - in either direction... and at the moment up seems more likely than down, but if we go down, then up becomes less and less likely... there is no exact answers, but just a bunch of probabilities that are strung upon each other.
I understand the skepticism and thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.  No trolling here, genuine questions only.   I was asking about a breakout now before further corrections. Lets say if this is the last leg before a pattern completes around 2K we would be able to predict a breakout sometime shortly after 2300 and likely predict a top. More my question was regarding the health of Bitcoin and if we did see such low corrections and how that might look for its future.  


Regarding up: Yes... we gotta break through about 3 resistance points before we reach the $3k to $5k arena.

We have to break above the $2350-$2400, then we have to break above $2600 and then we have to break above $2760...   Currently, there does seem to be quite a bit of buying support, but yes, I don't know the odds of breaking through each of these resistance points before experiencing another downward correction.  There are a lot of players, and there may be some holding back or some hidden cards, etc.  But, buying support does seem to continue to be pretty decent, and ongoingly decent.

Regarding down and bitcoin image:  I really don't know.  Probably we would have to go significantly below $1k before the image is going to be negatively affected.  Of course, trolls and FUD spreaders are going to play any amount of downturn to the greatest extent that they can, but bitcoin remains pretty solid, even if the price were around $1k.    It will take quite a bit to get back to $1k.. so maybe we are talking too much about unlikely hypotheticals if we are going to dwell too much on the improbable rather than considering what seems to be more probable.

1575635545
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575635545

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575635545
Reply with quote  #2

1575635545
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1575635545
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575635545

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575635545
Reply with quote  #2

1575635545
Report to moderator
1575635545
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575635545

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575635545
Reply with quote  #2

1575635545
Report to moderator
1575635545
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575635545

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575635545
Reply with quote  #2

1575635545
Report to moderator
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 2172


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 01:49:16 AM

I hope that Segwit+2MB gets enough support to finally end this absurd war. At this time it looks as the only non contentious alternative. I don't like the idea of non unanimous hard forks, nor UASF. Whatever is supported by an almost unanimous majority is ok to me at this time (Well, except BU/EC as I am totally against it).

Seemed like a decent compromise to me. Core programmers snubbing it was disappointing.


It's an attempt to change governance and to accomplish such in the form of a hard fork.... A hardfork is not necessary. so why agree to something that is not necessary and that is problematic and that is going to set bad precedent for future take overs.. especially if they agree to either a hardfork or a change in governance.. ?
 
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 01:59:32 AM

I hope that Segwit+2MB gets enough support to finally end this absurd war. At this time it looks as the only non contentious alternative. I don't like the idea of non unanimous hard forks, nor UASF. Whatever is supported by an almost unanimous majority is ok to me at this time (Well, except BU/EC as I am totally against it).

Seemed like a decent compromise to me. Core programmers snubbing it was disappointing.


It's an attempt to change governance and to accomplish such in the form of a hard fork.... A hardfork is not necessary. so why agree to something that is not necessary and that is problematic and that is going to set bad precedent for future take overs.. especially if they agree to either a hardfork or a change in governance.. ?
 

Because it appears to be the only option on the table that a consensus can be built around. Also it can be rolled out by the Bitcoin Core team hence no change in governance.



The lack of code is probably a good thing at this juncture. I have been following this dispute only recently but the strong impression I get is that the only possible path to consensus on something like the miner agreement is if the code is ultimately produced, vetted and shipped by the core developers.

The miner agreement at this stage is simply a proposal. That proposal must now be vetted by the rest of the community to determine if a grudging consensus can be built around it.

Hopefully such a consensus will be possible. It strikes me as a far healthier path forward then stagnation forever in the current state or a civil war leading to a split into two coins.
...
It appears very clear that regardless of their technical merits neither

1) Variable blocksize
or
2) SegWit alone without a block size increase

can achieve consensus at this moment in bitcoin history. Thus neither are viable pathways forward right now.

Some compromise position must be adopted. It does not matter if it is a perfect solution. All it needs to be is safe and good enough to achieve widespread if grudging consensus.
...

There is fundamental disagreement in the community regarding on-chain versus off-chain scaling. Best hope of a breakthrough is a half-measure that allows both sides time to show what their solution offers.

Personally I hope to see some variation of Barry Silbert segwit agreement coded up vetted and released by the Bitcoin Core team as this is the only option on the table that appears to have any chance of achieving consensus.
...

We don't need to make a final determination between on-chain and off-chain scaling at this time. Kicking the can down the road by allowing both to be tried in parallel under the vetting and safety provided by the Bitcoin Core team sounds pretty good to me.

Plus though it is not the primary concern here it is worth mentioning that a successful consensus solution to this problem would likely be very good to everyone's pocketbook.
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1107



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 02:11:05 AM

Imo, the biggest problem right now is ETH. It was $8 at the beginning of the year. It's so severely inflated, that if it keeps crashing, it's going to keep taking everything else with it. That's what happens when you let a competitor gain too much market share. It's stupid that I find in order for BTC to hold its price, or continue rising, that requires ETH to hold a 13x inflated price (since the beginning of March).

I agree with you that ETH is severely overinflated, esp when I have the belief that it was never even intended to be a cryptocurrency in the first place (Vitalik himself said that) and thus hold any significant value. It's been pre-mined to death, and the float is tiny. But even worse, the ETH fans don't even realize that the mining floor is somewhere down around the single digit dollar area, and troll traders took millions of ETH off exchanges for pennies for the last 2 years in anticipation of running it up to the moon. Notice that I said troll traders, not people who actually believe in ETH and are long term holders. So any weakness in buying demand, or any flaw/bug found, or any exchange hacked, and ETH will get dumped into the absolute ground.

But I disagree that this will affect BTC to the negative or in any way whatsoever. It's completely disconnected. If anything, they'll be trading back into BTC on the way down.

I completely missed the boat on ETH and I'm still pissed about it. But I still don't get it. If decentralized applications ever take off, won't using ETH be prohibitively expensive at this price? Such that a cheaper alternative will instantly take it's place?
Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1522



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 02:11:17 AM
Last edit: May 29, 2017, 02:55:19 AM by Torque

I really don't understand anything. Many alts have gone 10, 20, 50, or even 75x in the past months while Bitcoin has done "only" a 2x and when we have a correction it gets linear to all cryptocurrencies. I expected the altcoin bubble to pop and start blowing into bitcoin but I am not seeing that yet.

I don't know if I was wrong or if that has yet to come.

What do you guys think?

I have been holding (my non-trading little stash) since 2013 so I will keep doing it no matter what but I am a bit confussed at this time.

It'll happen, give it time. A new form of money is a "shared hallucination" among its participants, and the more one is distributed and grows in value, the stronger it gets. The more the one is valued over the others, they will fall away and people will consolidate into the one with the most "shared" value (Bitcoin).

Folks in Altlandia don't understand this. I guess they think that one guy can own 80% of a overnight pre-mined coin, and if say 20 other dudes scoop up another 18% for pennies (since no one wanted it or cared) and then suddenly pump the remaining 2% to the moon, the "shared hallucination of belief" in its universal value is complete and cloned. It doesn't work that way. That is an illusion. No matter what the price is, 98% of a pre-mined, no-work coin is still owned by 21 people who have only held it for a brief period and who will likely dump it if it doesn't catch on with enough other people.
Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1522



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 02:13:06 AM
Last edit: May 29, 2017, 02:43:45 AM by Torque

I completely missed the boat on ETH and I'm still pissed about it. But I still don't get it. If decentralized applications ever take off, won't using ETH be prohibitively expensive at this price? Such that a cheaper alternative will instantly take it's place?

So you're scratching your head as to why people would go through the trouble to buy and secure a token at such exorbitant prices just to use some type of contract application? And not really use it as money?

Yeah, about that.... me too...

ETH didn't make any more sense to me (as a cryptocurrency that holds value) after it got pumped as when it did when it was basically being given away. I still don't get it. Neither do its investors. Neither does the media.
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 02:14:56 AM

Bitcointalk approves of my post immediately above  Cheesy (See post count)





JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 2172


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 02:15:42 AM

I hope that Segwit+2MB gets enough support to finally end this absurd war. At this time it looks as the only non contentious alternative. I don't like the idea of non unanimous hard forks, nor UASF. Whatever is supported by an almost unanimous majority is ok to me at this time (Well, except BU/EC as I am totally against it).

Seemed like a decent compromise to me. Core programmers snubbing it was disappointing.


It's an attempt to change governance and to accomplish such in the form of a hard fork.... A hardfork is not necessary. so why agree to something that is not necessary and that is problematic and that is going to set bad precedent for future take overs.. especially if they agree to either a hardfork or a change in governance.. ?
 

Because it appears to be the only option on the table that a consensus can be built around. Also it can be rolled out by the Bitcoin Core team hence no change in governance.


I don't know what you are talking about.  The plan seems to be somewhat vague.

First, if there were consensus to agree to seg wit then some of the witholders from signaling segwit could start signaling seg wit.. but they wont agree to signal seg wit without a 2mb increase first and in the form of a hardfork... so?  What does that mean? 

It means that the supposed supporters of a compromise do not agree to signal seg wit unless they get a 2 mb increase in the form of a hard fork.  A hardfork is not going to fly because it is not necessary.

seg wit has already been vetted and approved but a 2mb increase has not.. so that would need to be coded and tested... Anyone did that yet? 

So, how can core just agree?  You want them to agree to a hardfork?  You said that no change in governance.. ?  Looks like the threshold is 80% rather than 95%, and that appears to be a change in governance, no?  change from 95% to 80%, right?  that is a change?
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1107



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 02:24:35 AM

Bitcointalk approves of my post immediately above  Cheesy (See post count)

<snip>




Of course you just ruined it. Also, your pseudonymity is showing. Tongue
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 02:28:09 AM
Last edit: May 29, 2017, 02:54:11 AM by CoinCube


I don't know what you are talking about.  The plan seems to be somewhat vague.

First, if there were consensus to agree to seg wit then some of the witholders from signaling segwit could start signaling seg wit.. but they wont agree to signal seg wit without a 2mb increase first and in the form of a hardfork... so?  What does that mean?  

It means that the supposed supporters of a compromise do not agree to signal seg wit unless they get a 2 mb increase in the form of a hard fork.  A hardfork is not going to fly because it is not necessary.

seg wit has already been vetted and approved but a 2mb increase has not.. so that would need to be coded and tested... Anyone did that yet?  

So, how can core just agree?  You want them to agree to a hardfork?  You said that no change in governance.. ?  Looks like the threshold is 80% rather than 95%, and that appears to be a change in governance, no?  change from 95% to 80%, right?  that is a change?

Vague is good at this juncture because if it is going be something that consensus is built around core will need to put their stamp on it and ultimately write the code.

It is not currently possible to build consensus for SegWit by itself without an increase in block size. That leaves us with three choices.

1) Stagnation forever in the current state with no change ever.
2) Contentious hardfork with a split into two separate coins.
3) Some compromise position that is safe and that all parties can live with.

Of these three I believe option number 3 to be superior. Therefore what I hope to see happen is bitcoin core testing and vetting a combination package of 2mb hardfork + SegWit with whatever safeguards and testing they feel is necessary to avoid problems.

I believe it may be possible to build a broad consensus around this option that all parties can live with.
jonoiv
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 526


🐺Dogs for President🐺


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 03:09:36 AM

So... last time we were here, everyone was talking about the S curve!  

Yes, of course, there is an s curve (or at least a real decent possibility of the existence of such).

 You trying to suggest that an s curve might not exist merely because we are having a correction?

We could correct to $1000 and there is still an s curve.  

We could correct for a year, and there is still an s curve.

a correction - especially over a few days, does not negate the very likely existence of an s curve.

Now on the other hand, we cannot be 100% sure about the existence of the s curve, and we may need history to help us with that - for example looking back several years or even a decade or more is necessary, sometimes.



just saying!

r0ach
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 03:20:29 AM

Ok, people.  I'm tired of fucking around with ambiguous definitions:  Is bitcoin decentralized?  Does bitcoin have value? etc.  I have decided to address these issues from proof of work to proof of stake where a normal human can easily quantify if Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency has value and whether it will live or die:

http://steemit.com/steemit/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-14-defining-if-cryptocurrency-has-a-value-or-zero-value-from-a-fundamental-scientific-perspective

It's relatively short to read, but if you want the TLDR version, my stance is that proof of stake has no value whatsoever and I explain why, and proof of work with ASIC is almost functionally the same thing (externalized proof of stake) in practice and would also have no value.  I don't think anyone will find a valid argument against this post.
yefi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240
Merit: 1167



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 03:25:18 AM

I completely missed the boat on ETH and I'm still pissed about it. But I still don't get it. If decentralized applications ever take off, won't using ETH be prohibitively expensive at this price? Such that a cheaper alternative will instantly take it's place?

Cost of gas for computations is price-adjusted, so shouldn't increase in real terms until there is competition for block space.

It's an attempt to change governance and to accomplish such in the form of a hard fork.... A hardfork is not necessary. so why agree to something that is not necessary and that is problematic and that is going to set bad precedent for future take overs.. especially if they agree to either a hardfork or a change in governance.. ?

Primarily because the alternatives appear to be either ossification or radicalism, neither of which are appealing.
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 03:50:26 AM
Last edit: May 29, 2017, 04:36:47 AM by CoinCube

Ok, people.  I'm tired of fucking around with ambiguous definitions:  Is bitcoin decentralized?  Does bitcoin have value? etc.  I have decided to address these issues from proof of work to proof of stake where a normal human can easily quantify if Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency has value and whether it will live or die:

http://steemit.com/steemit/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-14-defining-if-cryptocurrency-has-a-value-or-zero-value-from-a-fundamental-scientific-perspective

It's relatively short to read, but if you want the TLDR version, my stance is that proof of stake has no value whatsoever and I explain why, and proof of work with ASIC is almost functionally the same thing (externalized proof of stake) in practice and would also have no value.  I don't think anyone will find a valid argument against this post.

I don't care for Proof of Stake so no argument from me on that. However, I disagree with your assumptions regarding Proof of Work.

Quote from: r0ach
As for proof of work - the basis of bitcoin - this will be an unpopular view but I really see it as just a form of externalized proof of stake in practice and not an actual open entropy system. Energy costs are not uniform across the globe so this causes the transaction validators (miners) to centralize into something resembling a matrix covering the earth:

This is a big centralization pressure, but arguably not a terminal one if you believe the energy costs on the planet are not outrageously lopsided in uniformity. The next evolution of the system was the introduction of ASIC mining. This is yet another layer of centralization on top of energy costs which I believe is not just additive, but more like multiplicative or quadratic in nature with the previous layer. Now your matrix of miners tends to look something like this instead:

It's a completely arbitrary number, but once you've reached a point where you can fit all the actors together into a large car where they can collude and form an OPEC-style cartel, doing things like blocking transactions from people they don't like, setting transaction fees abnormally high, or forking the network, you obviously no longer have any form of Nash equilibrium and the system I would say has become inherently valueless. No, this does not magically mean proof of stake now has value; it never had value in the first place.

What you fail to consider is that theoretical cartel actors cannot actually do any of these things in a profitable manner. Bitcoin is a consensus system. Unlike fiat its use is not enforced by state authority and violence. It requires the voluntary participation of each individual transacting in it.

Leaders in the bitcoin community have an economic incentive to behave above board. If they do not users will simply leave converting their bitcoins to something else that is managed better. This may happen through a fork of an outraged minority or people simply leaving for another coin.

Bitcoin's dominance is not guaranteed going forward. It will retain its position and value only if its community members behave in the manner necessary to maintain a broad consensus. Shatter the consensus be it via a community fracture, or mining cartel and all bets are off.

Nash equilibrium is enforced despite the existence of powerful actors by the free mobility of capital into and out of the currency in response to divergences away from the stable state.

Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1003


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 03:52:42 AM


seg wit has already been vetted and approved

Well, I'm glad that changes to our "permissionless", "decentralized" currency have been "approved". Should I prostrate myself or will a simple grovel do?

Though I agree with the spirit of much of the rest of your post. Small blockers have refused to accept any form of compromise and this will be no different.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1004


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 04:30:01 AM

Ok, people.  I'm tired of fucking around with ambiguous definitions:  Is bitcoin decentralized?  Does bitcoin have value? etc.  I have decided to address these issues from proof of work to proof of stake where a normal human can easily quantify if Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency has value and whether it will live or die:

http://steemit.com/steemit/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-14-defining-if-cryptocurrency-has-a-value-or-zero-value-from-a-fundamental-scientific-perspective

It's relatively short to read, but if you want the TLDR version, my stance is that proof of stake has no value whatsoever and I explain why, and proof of work with ASIC is almost functionally the same thing (externalized proof of stake) in practice and would also have no value.  I don't think anyone will find a valid argument against this post.
I do not think you understand the meaning of decentralized. Bitcoin is only centralized logically which is desired. Politically and architecturally it is decentralized. You should be clear that you are arguing for the fact that you "think" it is not politically decentralized. You cannot argue it is not architecturally decentralized because that would simply not be true.

With that you should revisit your article and perhaps I will read it when it is well understood that the author understands the meaning of decentralization on which his whole argument is formed. Heh, you mention ambiguous definitions are tiresome yet you then go off and give assumptions and hypothesis' based on ambiguous definitions yourself.
Mrpumperitis
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1070


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 04:43:58 AM

me thinks this is a last attempt on a push down on the whole market..but this is a imo..a beartrap...

be smart, ignore this on all coins, hodl everything and you will be happier in a week +

dont risk losing a huge % gain by gambling for a small temp gain

The market is exploding with new users everyday, new exchanges...big ones opening very soon too
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 2172


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 05:59:52 AM

So... last time we were here, everyone was talking about the S curve!  

Yes, of course, there is an s curve (or at least a real decent possibility of the existence of such).

 You trying to suggest that an s curve might not exist merely because we are having a correction?

We could correct to $1000 and there is still an s curve.  

We could correct for a year, and there is still an s curve.

a correction - especially over a few days, does not negate the very likely existence of an s curve.

Now on the other hand, we cannot be 100% sure about the existence of the s curve, and we may need history to help us with that - for example looking back several years or even a decade or more is necessary, sometimes.



just saying!




I'm also just saying that you are not really going to see it on such a small timeline..

If there ends up being an S-curve that is reflected in price and adoption including like the networking effects of metcalfe, then we are currently, less than 1% of world wide adoption - even though there may be some areas of the world or some segments of the population that are more adopted than others.. techie nerdy types... and white males.. hahahahaha

Anyhow, adoption remains pretty low, still... so s curve is still premature too to see it, even though we may experience periods of exponential growth and exponential price appreciation.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 2172


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 06:03:53 AM

I completely missed the boat on ETH and I'm still pissed about it. But I still don't get it. If decentralized applications ever take off, won't using ETH be prohibitively expensive at this price? Such that a cheaper alternative will instantly take it's place?

Cost of gas for computations is price-adjusted, so shouldn't increase in real terms until there is competition for block space.

It's an attempt to change governance and to accomplish such in the form of a hard fork.... A hardfork is not necessary. so why agree to something that is not necessary and that is problematic and that is going to set bad precedent for future take overs.. especially if they agree to either a hardfork or a change in governance.. ?

Primarily because the alternatives appear to be either ossification or radicalism, neither of which are appealing.

No need to make any desperate moves... if the system is not broken, then why employ fixes that are not necessary, merely for the sake of giving into terrorists (or hostage takers)?  


So, yeah maybe some form  of ossification will be o.k... and then the disatisfied folks can fork off and then seg wit will happen.. or maybe we will all move to litecoin that has nearly everything that bitcoin has plus seg wit.  

Ossification is not the end of the world.  I'm gonna still buy me some bitcoin, even if I can only use it for storage and once in a while withdrawals.



seg wit has already been vetted and approved

Well, I'm glad that changes to our "permissionless", "decentralized" currency have been "approved". Should I prostrate myself or will a simple grovel do?

Though I agree with the spirit of much of the rest of your post. Small blockers have refused to accept any form of compromise and this will be no different.

What the fuck do I know..  I am just saying that there does not seem to be any reason to compromise in regards to a hard fork that is not necessary, a change in consensus levels which is not necessary and a 2 mg increase in the blocksize limit is not necessary - especially if there is seg wit.

Maybe if there were a soft fork that might work.. and maybe if there were not a change in consensus, that may work, and maybe if some of these supposed compromisers were really serious they would start to signal seg wit, but they are not going to because they only agree to seg wit with the imposition of unnecessary and problematic buggy-ass non-technical ideas.  

Why compromise with that?
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1107



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 06:52:46 AM

I completely missed the boat on ETH and I'm still pissed about it. But I still don't get it. If decentralized applications ever take off, won't using ETH be prohibitively expensive at this price? Such that a cheaper alternative will instantly take it's place?

Cost of gas for computations is price-adjusted, so shouldn't increase in real terms until there is competition for block space.


I remember when block space was cheap as chips. What's in store for those dApps when it's a buck a transaction? Am I missing something?
Pages: « 1 ... 16949 16950 16951 16952 16953 16954 16955 16956 16957 16958 16959 16960 16961 16962 16963 16964 16965 16966 16967 16968 16969 16970 16971 16972 16973 16974 16975 16976 16977 16978 16979 16980 16981 16982 16983 16984 16985 16986 16987 16988 16989 16990 16991 16992 16993 16994 16995 16996 16997 16998 [16999] 17000 17001 17002 17003 17004 17005 17006 17007 17008 17009 17010 17011 17012 17013 17014 17015 17016 17017 17018 17019 17020 17021 17022 17023 17024 17025 17026 17027 17028 17029 17030 17031 17032 17033 17034 17035 17036 17037 17038 17039 17040 17041 17042 17043 17044 17045 17046 17047 17048 17049 ... 25565 »
  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!