Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2019, 04:58:42 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Dec. 14 Closing Price:
<$6,000 - 2 (14.3%)
$6,000-$6,500 - 0 (0%)
$6,500-$7,000 - 1 (7.1%)
$7,000-$7,500 - 3 (21.4%)
$7,500-$8,000 - 3 (21.4%)
$8,000-$8,500 - 3 (21.4%)
$8,500-$9,000 - 0 (0%)
>$9,000 - 2 (14.3%)
Total Voters: 14

Pages: « 1 ... 17045 17046 17047 17048 17049 17050 17051 17052 17053 17054 17055 17056 17057 17058 17059 17060 17061 17062 17063 17064 17065 17066 17067 17068 17069 17070 17071 17072 17073 17074 17075 17076 17077 17078 17079 17080 17081 17082 17083 17084 17085 17086 17087 17088 17089 17090 17091 17092 17093 17094 [17095] 17096 17097 17098 17099 17100 17101 17102 17103 17104 17105 17106 17107 17108 17109 17110 17111 17112 17113 17114 17115 17116 17117 17118 17119 17120 17121 17122 17123 17124 17125 17126 17127 17128 17129 17130 17131 17132 17133 17134 17135 17136 17137 17138 17139 17140 17141 17142 17143 17144 17145 ... 25575 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21452509 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. (136 posts by 30 users deleted.)
empowering
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1044



View Profile
June 15, 2017, 02:46:00 PM

Once bitcoin drops below $2,000 again, it probably won't ever get back up above it ever again.

Noted for prosperity
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
spooderman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2017, 02:47:38 PM

Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL
He has his reasons.
Yeah, he wants to hurt the entire bitcoin ecosystem because he is a narcissistic prick. That's not a fucking good reason. That or he is just an uninformed retard, doesn't really make a difference.

If one person can harm the entire community then there is centralisation in that area. That is the case with mining, and the manufacturing of mining equipment. You don't have to run Luke's code to use bitcoin, but you can't help having transactions included in blocks mined by Bitmain.

I suspect it is you who is the uninformed retard Smiley
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1190



View Profile
June 15, 2017, 02:50:48 PM

Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL
He has his reasons.
Yeah, he wants to hurt the entire bitcoin ecosystem because he is a narcissistic prick. That's not a fucking good reason. That or he is just an uninformed retard, doesn't really make a difference.

If one person can harm the entire community then there is centralisation in that area. That is the case with mining, and the manufacturing of mining equipment. You don't have to run Luke's code to use bitcoin, but you can't help having transactions included in blocks mined by Bitmain.

I suspect it is you who is the uninformed retard Smiley
So you agree that 0.5 mb blocks are enough? That's your position?
Lauda
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 2226


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile
June 15, 2017, 02:54:33 PM

Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL
He has his reasons.
Yeah, he wants to hurt the entire bitcoin ecosystem because he is a narcissistic prick. That's not a fucking good reason. That or he is just an uninformed retard, doesn't really make a difference.
I fully disagree. Luke-jr is a honest small blocker and has been consistent with his view for a long time. Anyhow: 1) He has had very decent contributions to the code. 2) He has written that HF proposal that increases the block size eventually.

So you agree that 0.5 mb blocks are enough? That's your position?
No reasonable amount, which would not fully centralized Bitcoin, is enough. Increasing the block size != improving scalability. Segwit -> Schnorr + signature aggregation are a very nice step. For those that do not know, and I'm sure ImI is part of those, the latter requires 1 signature for inputs from the same address. This means that TXs pulling out a lot of inputs from the same one would be very small in size in comparison to today. The bonus side effect of this improvement is not only capacity, but also the incentive to consolidate UTXO. Block size increases make sense, to a certain degree. However, kicking the can that way does nothing but set precedence for "weak/lazy scaling" and centralization. Let's have actual improvements, like those mentions and Weak blocks, before we do this?

Bottom reached?
lemmyK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 293
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 15, 2017, 02:56:06 PM

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09258   

Quantum-secured blockchain

Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1190



View Profile
June 15, 2017, 02:58:09 PM

Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL
He has his reasons.
Yeah, he wants to hurt the entire bitcoin ecosystem because he is a narcissistic prick. That's not a fucking good reason. That or he is just an uninformed retard, doesn't really make a difference.
I fully disagree. Luke-jr is a honest small blocker and has been consistent with his view for a long time. Anyhow: 1) He has had very decent contributions to the code. 2) He had written that HF proposal that increases the block size eventually.
Waiting for his very good reason to halve the transaction volume.

Increasing the block size != improving scalability.
Of course it is. More people means more value, and right now we are at about the limit of what the network can support. It's too basic to even talk about here, or at least it should be.
Lauda
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 2226


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:01:42 PM

Waiting for his very good reason to halve the transaction volume.
He is not advocating 0.5 MB anymore. You're confused. He's supporting BIP148, i.e. Segwit which is essentially a size up to 4 MB.

Increasing the block size != improving scalability.
Of course it is. More people means more value, and right now we are at about the limit of what the network can support. It's too basic to even talk about here, or at least it should be.
No. I take it you have not studied any area of computer science? Increasing raw throughput does not mean improving scalability. This is me, talking to you, whilst ignoring the 2 MB DoS risk due to quadratic hashing time (I'll let you guess which proposal also aims to fix this but is being blocked by a cartel Roll Eyes ).

In Bitcoin, the only vulnerable algorithm (at this time) would be ECDSA. The plan is to move to Schnorr anyways and Segwit makes this move easier.

Back to price talk?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1190



View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:03:52 PM

Increasing raw throughput does not mean improving scalability.
It does with bitcoin. Twice the size in the same 10 minute blocks=twice the throughput. Basic fucking first grade stuff.
JimboToronto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1324


You're never too old to be young.


View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:04:20 PM

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Just got back from acquiring a bit more coin. Wish I could have afforded more. Didn't quite catch the absolute bottom but came close.

It's rebounded over $100 since... currently $2285USD (Bitcoinaverage).

Do you think this correction is done yet? It's still not as deep as the one from May 25-27. It would have to go below $2k do match that.
Lauda
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 2226


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:05:41 PM

Increasing raw throughput does not mean improving scalability.
It does with bitcoin. Twice the size in the same 10 minute blocks=twice the throughput. Basic fucking first grade stuff.
No. You are uneducated about these concepts, i.e. you don't even know that scalability actually means. If you are not willing to listen and learn, then I will no longer be wasting my time on you.

Do you think this correction is done yet? It's still not as deep as the one from May 25-27. It would have to go below $2k do match that.
It is not just a correction. I take it you have missed the Bitmain announcement/threat? I do not want it to go any lower, at least not yet.
ARTISTCOLONY
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:07:53 PM

Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL
He has his reasons.
Yeah, he wants to hurt the entire bitcoin ecosystem because he is a narcissistic prick. That's not a fucking good reason. That or he is just an uninformed retard, doesn't really make a difference.
I fully disagree. Luke-jr is a honest small blocker and has been consistent with his view for a long time. Anyhow: 1) He has had very decent contributions to the code. 2) He has written that HF proposal that increases the block size eventually.

So you agree that 0.5 mb blocks are enough? That's your position?
No reasonable amount, which would not fully centralized Bitcoin, is enough. Increasing the block size != improving scalability. Segwit -> Schnorr + signature aggregation are a very nice step. For those that do not know, and I'm sure ImI is part of those, the latter requires 1 signature for inputs from the same address. This means that TXs pulling out a lot of inputs from the same one would be very small in size in comparison to today. The bonus side effect of this improvement is not only capacity, but also the incentive to consolidate UTXO. Block size increases make sense, to a certain degree. However, kicking the can that way does nothing but set precedence for "weak/lazy scaling" and centralization. Let's have actual improvements, like those mentions and Weak blocks, before we do this?

Bottom reached?



luke-jr is cool bcause he will actually take time to help you and talk to you like a human being!! Cool
spooderman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2017, 03:09:46 PM

Twice the size in the same 10 minute blocks=twice the throughput. Basic fucking first grade stuff.

omg so you're saying 2X=X*2? fucking core lying to me all these years Cheesy

Basic

Yes, indeed you are sir.
ParabellumLite
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:13:12 PM

Once bitcoin drops below $2,000 again, it probably won't ever get back up above it ever again.

Didn't know you were still here Proudhon! I concur with respect to  the odds you outlined: it isn't likely at this point, not given the competition out there. The tech is getting ancient.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1190



View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:13:57 PM

Increasing raw throughput does not mean improving scalability.
It does with bitcoin. Twice the size in the same 10 minute blocks=twice the throughput. Basic fucking first grade stuff.
No. You are uneducated about these concepts, i.e. you don't even know that scalability actually means. If you are not willing to listen and learn, then I will no longer be wasting my time on you.

Do you think this correction is done yet? It's still not as deep as the one from May 25-27. It would have to go below $2k do match that.
It is not just a correction. I take it you have missed the Bitmain announcement/threat? I do not want it to go any lower, at least not yet.
Your habit of starting everything you say by pumping your own intellectual superiority is a bad one. If you don't wanna explain what you mean it's better not to.
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1009



View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:15:57 PM

Looking good ... BTFD (if you have cash).

Lauda
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 2226


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:19:33 PM

Your habit of starting everything you say with something about your own intellectual superiority is a bad one.
Consider this: 99.9% of the people that one encountered in the past year or so, are either inferior by knowledge or intellect and claiming they "know" or "understand" stuff whilst propagating completely flawed knowledge to others (which is damaging on its own). Therefore, you should understand.

If you don't wanna explain what you mean it's better not to.
I explained it to you with a rather lengthy paragraph. You've just dismissed it and continued posting the same nonsense.

No reasonable amount, which would not fully centralized Bitcoin, is enough. Increasing the block size != improving scalability. Segwit -> Schnorr + signature aggregation are a very nice step. For those that do not know, and I'm sure ImI is part of those, the latter requires 1 signature for inputs from the same address. This means that TXs pulling out a lot of inputs from the same one would be very small in size in comparison to today. The bonus side effect of this improvement is not only capacity, but also the incentive to consolidate UTXO. Block size increases make sense, to a certain degree. However, kicking the can that way does nothing but set precedence for "weak/lazy scaling" and centralization. Let's have actual improvements, like those mentions and Weak blocks, before we do this?
Scaling does not just mean more throughput on the main chain. Adding more throughput by increasing the block size is absolutely not equal to "improving scalability". An example of improving scalability would be enabling more throughput by using the same amount of resources. Signature aggregation, as described above, would be an example of such. Another way of imporving scalability is reducing resource cost, which is what Segwit does in part with it's sighash (trying to scale down the quadratic validation time to linear, which would also mitigate the DoS attack vector of a raw block size increase). There are also some other examples, but this should give you a general idea.

I am absolutely positive that we would have been somewhere above $5k, and pretty stable, had Segwit activated in January or February.
leowonderful
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1117


Bitcoin FTW!


View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:21:30 PM

This is why I hate vacations, I always come back to some odd or horrible situation happening. This "crash" isn't as bad as i thought it would be, probably some traders taking profits all over the board. We'll be back up in a few days. Nice time to grab some cheap coins, price might go down more but it probably won't be as much as the main drop.
Dabs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2534
Merit: 1329


The Concierge of Crypto


View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:21:58 PM

I feel like I'm watching The Big Bang Theory. Lots of doctors here (with PhDs) and maybe an engineer.
spooderman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2017, 03:22:05 PM

Lauda doing God's work as always.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1190



View Profile
June 15, 2017, 03:24:19 PM

Your habit of starting everything you say with something about your own intellectual superiority is a bad one.
You should understand considering that (based off of data in the past year or so) 99.9% of the people that one encountered are either inferior by knowledge or intellect, claiming they "know" or "understand" stuff whilst propagating completely flawed knowledge.

If you don't wanna explain what you mean it's better not to.
I explained it to you with a rather lengthy paragraph. You've just dismissed it and continued posting the same nonsense.

No reasonable amount, which would not fully centralized Bitcoin, is enough. Increasing the block size != improving scalability. Segwit -> Schnorr + signature aggregation are a very nice step. For those that do not know, and I'm sure ImI is part of those, the latter requires 1 signature for inputs from the same address. This means that TXs pulling out a lot of inputs from the same one would be very small in size in comparison to today. The bonus side effect of this improvement is not only capacity, but also the incentive to consolidate UTXO. Block size increases make sense, to a certain degree. However, kicking the can that way does nothing but set precedence for "weak/lazy scaling" and centralization. Let's have actual improvements, like those mentions and Weak blocks, before we do this?
Scaling does not just mean more throughput. Adding more throughput, such as increasing the block size, is absolutely not equal to "improving scalability". An example of improving scalability would be enabling more throughput by using the same amount of resources. Signature aggregation, as described above, would be an example of such. Another way of imporving scalability is reducing resource cost, which is what Segwit does in part with it's sighash (trying to scale down the quadratic validation time to linear, which would also mitigate the DoS attack vector of a raw block size increase). There are also some other examples, but this should give you a general idea.

I am absolutely positive that we would have been somewhere above $5k, and pretty stable, had Segwit activated in January or February.
What you are talking about is efficiency. Increasing the network capacity is far more relevant than the precise mechanism to achieve it. You don't simply get to pretend that one definition of a word you keep using, and arguably using wrongly, is invalid.
Pages: « 1 ... 17045 17046 17047 17048 17049 17050 17051 17052 17053 17054 17055 17056 17057 17058 17059 17060 17061 17062 17063 17064 17065 17066 17067 17068 17069 17070 17071 17072 17073 17074 17075 17076 17077 17078 17079 17080 17081 17082 17083 17084 17085 17086 17087 17088 17089 17090 17091 17092 17093 17094 [17095] 17096 17097 17098 17099 17100 17101 17102 17103 17104 17105 17106 17107 17108 17109 17110 17111 17112 17113 17114 17115 17116 17117 17118 17119 17120 17121 17122 17123 17124 17125 17126 17127 17128 17129 17130 17131 17132 17133 17134 17135 17136 17137 17138 17139 17140 17141 17142 17143 17144 17145 ... 25575 »
  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!