Bitcoin Forum
May 28, 2018, 08:14:16 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: May 31 Bitcoin Price
<$6,000 - 19 (12.2%)
$6,000-$6,500 - 4 (2.6%)
$6,500-$7,000 - 12 (7.7%)
$7,000-$7,500 - 9 (5.8%)
$7,500-$8,000 - 9 (5.8%)
$8,000-$8,500 - 5 (3.2%)
$8,500-$9,000 - 15 (9.6%)
$9,000-$9,500 - 14 (9%)
$9,500-$10,000 - 15 (9.6%)
$10,000-$10,500 - 14 (9%)
$10,500-$11,000 - 2 (1.3%)
$11,000-$11,500 - 4 (2.6%)
$11,500-$12,000 - 1 (0.6%)
$12,000+ - 33 (21.2%)
Total Voters: 156

Pages: « 1 ... 18207 18208 18209 18210 18211 18212 18213 18214 18215 18216 18217 18218 18219 18220 18221 18222 18223 18224 18225 18226 18227 18228 18229 18230 18231 18232 18233 18234 18235 18236 18237 18238 18239 18240 18241 18242 18243 18244 18245 18246 18247 18248 18249 18250 18251 18252 18253 18254 18255 18256 [18257] 18258 18259 18260 18261 18262 18263 18264 18265 18266 18267 18268 18269 18270 18271 18272 18273 18274 18275 18276 18277 18278 18279 18280 18281 18282 18283 18284 18285 18286 18287 18288 18289 18290 18291 18292 18293 18294 18295 18296 18297 18298 18299 18300 18301 18302 18303 18304 18305 18306 18307 ... 20527 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 20280996 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.
rafanadal
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 253
Merit: 27


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:22:34 PM

So , what's the new support
3000 ?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1527495256
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527495256

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1527495256
Reply with quote  #2

1527495256
Report to moderator
1527495256
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527495256

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1527495256
Reply with quote  #2

1527495256
Report to moderator
Gab0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 253
Merit: 113


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:22:49 PM

You have the balls to say that paying high fees is financial freedom. FREEDOM  
Otherwise I can go back to banksters, why? Different faces, same slavery problem

No, you pay high fees, BECAUSE it is giving you freedom. If you value the cost less than you value the freedom granted, do not use it. It is OPT-IN.
In other words:
The demand for financial sovereignty through the use of the - voluntary(!)- network of Bitcoin is higher than the supply right now, that is why it is expensive, not because of technical limitations. And spam attack, ofc  Cool

Freedom has a cost. No one forces you to pay it.

Ehm... no. You basically are saying
-If I want to voluntarily use the bitcoin network, I must pay those high fees. That doesn't sound like freedom for me. I cannot manage my resources freely if I'm losing a percentage every time besides the spent.

Please rephrase that, because only two alternatives available: fiat banking or the dark side
It's the wrong angle.

What counts for networks is network effect. The bigger the network, the more valuable the network. High fees discourage new users from joining, hence, high fees are detrimental to network effect, and to network value.

We need more throughput. We needed it a year ago.

Good comment. That's what I meant by saying that bitcoin was losing competitiveness with respect to other currencies by sacrificing utility.

According to Adam Smith (apologize for the outdated reference, but I'm still young and I still have a lot to read), the only way that an economic agent has to seize the market, and thus garantee its domain, is understanding the dynamics and processes of competition .

Competence in this sense can be understood perfectly in a Darwinian sense, as the capacity of the economic agent to ensure its subsistence.

That's why the network effect is so important. We are talking about a currency and a reserve of value. If we sacrifice its use as a currency, and its network effect, we lose its attribute as a store of value.

I can not understand the logic, in spite of what I have read, to keep the blocks artificially small, to keep the traffic jams in the network, high rates, and to give cases of uses to other currencies.

(I do not want to be misunderstood [which is very easy due to my bad english], I know it's a long way, but I think that we currently have the tools to not continue to make the situation worse, an increase of 2MB will not centralize the network, and is an option that we currently have while developing others.)
micgoossens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 351


Talk the talk - Walk the walk


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:23:53 PM

How Many btc could they stil have to dump  Huh  Huh
ragnar0k
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 101



View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:26:47 PM


This is genius:
Quote
1. The ban (on children pornography) prevents catching/jailing child molesters.

Hey, let's remove the ban, so they don't have to catch them anymore. Problem solved!
Hail to the new BCH CEO
gembitz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 263


#free software:🐀


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:26:58 PM

I recently spearheaded the launch of a 5-year / $3-million dollar project called the Gigablock Testnet Initiative.  The goals of the project are to do scaling R&D so that bitcoin can scale to bank the billions of unbanked, facilitated low-friction payments between anyone, and .... well simply be better money.

Why limit the block size to 1GB? Lets make it 1000GB each block, You can then scale bitcoin to bank trillions of unbanked from the entire Milky Way! Or if we make the block size limit to 1000TB then we can scale bitcoin to bank trillions of unbanked from all the nearby galaxies. But then who will host the blockchain? Jesus, is that you?




luke jr. blocks will be .25mb and super fast runs on fisher price laptop in africa Cool weee
becoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1003



View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:28:01 PM

 There is still lots of work to be done.

Ah, I see. Then lets stop Bitcoin and restart it in 2 years when we're ready?

Oh, wait! Won't it be better to keep 1MB blocksize and decentralized as much as possible, and in 2 years make a bitcoin sidechain with all your ideas implemented IF they actually proved correct?
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1005



View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:29:32 PM

How Many btc could they stil have to dump  Huh  Huh

Only the first 10,000 of the 160,000 stuck transactions went through.  There are many people who've been trying to sell BTC for over 1 day now, but have had their coins stuck in mempool:



As the remaining 150,000 stuck transactions get processed, we could see continued dumping.  

I think we'll see BTC fall to a low between $3,000 to $4,500 over the next few weeks, before the BCH FOMO wears off for this wave and we get a significant rebound.
Last of the V8s
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1019


Be a bank


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:31:03 PM

You have the balls to say that paying high fees is financial freedom. FREEDOM  
Otherwise I can go back to banksters, why? Different faces, same slavery problem

No, you pay high fees, BECAUSE it is giving you freedom. If you value the cost less than you value the freedom granted, do not use it. It is OPT-IN.
In other words:
The demand for financial sovereignty through the use of the - voluntary(!)- network of Bitcoin is higher than the supply right now, that is why it is expensive, not because of technical limitations. And spam attack, ofc  Cool

Freedom has a cost. No one forces you to pay it.

Ehm... no. You basically are saying
-If I want to voluntarily use the bitcoin network, I must pay those high fees. That doesn't sound like freedom for me. I cannot manage my resources freely if I'm losing a percentage every time besides the spent.

Please rephrase that, because only two alternatives available: fiat banking or the dark side
It's the wrong angle.

What counts for networks is network effect. The bigger the network, the more valuable the network. High fees discourage new users from joining, hence, high fees are detrimental to network effect, and to network value.

We need more throughput. We needed it a year ago.

Good comment. That's what I meant by saying that bitcoin was losing competitiveness with respect to other currencies by sacrificing utility.

According to Adam Smith (apologize for the outdated reference, but I'm still young and I still have a lot to read), the only way that an economic agent has to seize the market, and thus garantee its domain, is understanding the dynamics and processes of competition .

Competence in this sense can be understood perfectly in a Darwinian sense, as the capacity of the economic agent to ensure its subsistence.

That's why the network effect is so important. We are talking about a currency and a reserve of value. If we sacrifice its use as a currency, and its network effect, we lose its attribute as a store of value.

I can not understand the logic, in spite of what I have read, to keep the blocks artificially small, to keep the traffic jams in the network, high rates, and to give cases of uses to other currencies.

(I do not want to be misunderstood [which is very easy due to my bad english], I know it's a long way, but I think that we currently have the tools to not continue to make the situation worse, an increase of 2MB will not centralize the network, and is an option that we currently have while developing others.)

Gab0 all these points were addressed back in 2015. You are making the mistake of thinking you are bringing fresh insight or points to the thread when in fact you are rehashing very old, answered points. Ibian didn't help you any, but then he's a known complete fucking idiot. Suggest you read a whole lot more and put your points in the newbie section. Just because we entertain the odd troll doesn't mean we mean to go on doing so.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1005



View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:32:00 PM


Oh, wait! Won't it be better to keep 1MB blocksize and decentralized as much as possible, and in 2 years make a bitcoin sidechain with all your ideas implemented IF they actually proved correct?


Why would we do that when we already built Bitcoin Cash?
Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1247



View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:32:09 PM

How Many btc could they stil have to dump  Huh  Huh

They're not really dumping, so much as shorting. They are doing both. Pretty obvious from the charts that they started pumping the BTC market back on 10/11, in anticipation of shorting it later when SW2x got cancelled.

It's obvious this whole thing was planned way back when. The idea is to shake the weak hands out (or into the BCH shitcoin) before the CME group opens futures trading on 11/14. Then more bullish market action next year with Bitcoin ETFs coming online.

Not really a clever ruse. It's pretty much EXACTLY the same program as the SegWit/Altcoin "Flippening" campaign back in March. Same exact MO, complete with the shills coming out in force. They've got nothing new, just the same old social engineering FUD attack repeated over and over. Funny thing is, though, they can't dump it without pumping it first.
Lopumbo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 102


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:33:32 PM

6k$ is broken, changed my BTC stash at 0.13-0.23 levels to BCH...funny ride

waiting for the hardfork tomorrow
Hyperjacked
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000

It's all mathematics...!


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:34:33 PM

How Many btc could they stil have to dump  Huh  Huh

Boatloads...

I'm thinking the floodgates will open up next week and we could see 2-3k$ Bitcoin
AZwarel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 401
Merit: 280


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:36:16 PM

I recently spearheaded the launch of a 5-year / $3-million dollar project called the Gigablock Testnet Initiative.  The goals of the project are to do scaling R&D so that bitcoin can scale to bank the billions of unbanked, facilitated low-friction payments between anyone, and .... well simply be better money.

Why limit the block size to 1GB? Lets make it 1000GB each block, You can then scale bitcoin to bank trillions of unbanked from the entire Milky Way! Or if we make the block size limit to 1000TB then we can scale bitcoin to bank trillions of unbanked from all the nearby galaxies. But then who will host the blockchain? Jesus, is that you?


The eventual solution is to not care how big blocks get.  

When the demand arrives (which will be decades from now), 10 GB and even 100 GB blocks will be feasible.  This is fairly straightforward engineering.

But for now, our research shows that the throughput capacity of a global network of bitcoin nodes is limited to about 100 transactions per second (30x times the current throughput), due to the single-threaded mempool code path of Satoshi-derived clients.  After Andrew Stone's parallelization of mempool, the capacity was increased to about 500 transactions per second (150x the current throughput).  At this point, block propagation becomes the bottleneck.  There is still lots of work to be done.

.

I realize that you're being sarcastic, but you couldn't actually scale bitcoin to a galactic payment system due to speed-of-light constraints***.  Happily, since all our world is reachable by an electromagnetic signal in less than 100 ms, the actual bitcoin network doesn't have this physical scaling limitation.

On the highlighted part, translation: "we just need to ignore the Laws of physics and it will work!"
I smell male cow fecal matter.

***Actually, you can do a galactic payment system. Speed of light is only a limit for particle function, gravity has to/is clearly works near instantly through the galaxy, otherwise it would fall apart. Quantum entanglement already showed that state information (longitudional wave function) propagates faster than the light of speed (which is not a constant, depends on the medium it travels through).
jojo69
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1312


no FOMO


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:38:13 PM

So , what's the new support
3000 ?

As of this posting I would expect to find very robust support around $3950.  As nice as that would be, I think the chances of an actual test of that level are vanishingly unlikely.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1077


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:39:04 PM

You have the balls to say that paying high fees is financial freedom. FREEDOM  
Otherwise I can go back to banksters, why? Different faces, same slavery problem

No, you pay high fees, BECAUSE it is giving you freedom. If you value the cost less than you value the freedom granted, do not use it. It is OPT-IN.
In other words:
The demand for financial sovereignty through the use of the - voluntary(!)- network of Bitcoin is higher than the supply right now, that is why it is expensive, not because of technical limitations. And spam attack, ofc  Cool

Freedom has a cost. No one forces you to pay it.

Ehm... no. You basically are saying
-If I want to voluntarily use the bitcoin network, I must pay those high fees. That doesn't sound like freedom for me. I cannot manage my resources freely if I'm losing a percentage every time besides the spent.

Please rephrase that, because only two alternatives available: fiat banking or the dark side
It's the wrong angle.

What counts for networks is network effect. The bigger the network, the more valuable the network. High fees discourage new users from joining, hence, high fees are detrimental to network effect, and to network value.

We need more throughput. We needed it a year ago.

Good comment. That's what I meant by saying that bitcoin was losing competitiveness with respect to other currencies by sacrificing utility.

According to Adam Smith (apologize for the outdated reference, but I'm still young and I still have a lot to read), the only way that an economic agent has to seize the market, and thus garantee its domain, is understanding the dynamics and processes of competition .

Competence in this sense can be understood perfectly in a Darwinian sense, as the capacity of the economic agent to ensure its subsistence.

That's why the network effect is so important. We are talking about a currency and a reserve of value. If we sacrifice its use as a currency, and its network effect, we lose its attribute as a store of value.

I can not understand the logic, in spite of what I have read, to keep the blocks artificially small, to keep the traffic jams in the network, high rates, and to give cases of uses to other currencies.

(I do not want to be misunderstood [which is very easy due to my bad english], I know it's a long way, but I think that we currently have the tools to not continue to make the situation worse, an increase of 2MB will not centralize the network, and is an option that we currently have while developing others.)

Gab0 all these points were addressed back in 2015. You are making the mistake of thinking you are bringing fresh insight or points to the thread when in fact you are rehashing very old, answered points. Ibian didn't help you any, but then he's a known complete fucking idiot. Suggest you read a whole lot more and put your points in the newbie section. Just because we entertain the odd troll doesn't mean we mean to go on doing so.
Very curious to hear your argument for why ever growing fees are good for the network. Do tell. Newbie.
Gab0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 253
Merit: 113


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:40:17 PM

The eventual solution is to not care how big blocks get.  

When the demand arrives (which will be decades from now), 10 GB and even 100 GB blocks will be feasible.  This is fairly straightforward engineering.

But for now, our research shows that the throughput capacity of a global network of bitcoin nodes is limited to about 100 transactions per second (30x times the current throughput), due to the single-threaded mempool code path of Satoshi-derived clients.  After Andrew Stone's parallelization of mempool, the capacity was increased to about 500 transactions per second (150x the current throughput).  At this point, block propagation becomes the bottleneck.  There is still lots of work to be done.

.

I realize that you're being sarcastic, but you couldn't actually scale bitcoin to a galactic payment system due to speed-of-light constraints.  Happily, since all our world is reachable by an electromagnetic signal in less than 100 ms, the actual bitcoin network doesn't have this physical scaling limitation.

What block size represents 100 tx / s?
What relationship, according to your opinion, exists between decentralization, block size and the number of nodes?


I appreciate this kind of comments. Your work and research will benefit us all, thank you very much.
CristiTCM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 135
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:40:21 PM

How Many btc could they stil have to dump  Huh  Huh

Only the first 10,000 of the 160,000 stuck transactions went through.  There are many people who've been trying to sell BTC for over 1 day now, but have had their coins stuck in mempool:



As the remaining 150,000 stuck transactions get processed, we could see continued dumping.  

I think we'll see BTC fall to a low between $3,000 to $4,500 over the next few weeks, before the BCH FOMO wears off for this wave and we get a significant rebound.

where can i see this graph?
TheFlynn49
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:41:47 PM


gravity has to/is clearly works near instantly through the galaxy, otherwise it would fall apart.

Recent reception of gravitation waves simultaneously to light signals from a distant galaxy's dramatic dwarf stars collapsing one into another prove that wrong.

And quantum entanglement cannot be used to send information.
becoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1003



View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:42:26 PM


Oh, wait! Won't it be better to keep 1MB blocksize and decentralized as much as possible, and in 2 years make a bitcoin sidechain with all your ideas implemented IF they actually proved correct?


Why would we do that when we already built Bitcoin Cash?

Because Bitcoin Cash is the most centralized shitcoin in the entire crypto Universe. And Bitcoin Cash CEOs are proven crooks. And most importantly Bitcoin Cash doesn't offer any solution to the scaling problem.

Last of the V8s
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1019


Be a bank


View Profile
November 12, 2017, 09:42:55 PM

where can i see this graph?
https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#8h
Pages: « 1 ... 18207 18208 18209 18210 18211 18212 18213 18214 18215 18216 18217 18218 18219 18220 18221 18222 18223 18224 18225 18226 18227 18228 18229 18230 18231 18232 18233 18234 18235 18236 18237 18238 18239 18240 18241 18242 18243 18244 18245 18246 18247 18248 18249 18250 18251 18252 18253 18254 18255 18256 [18257] 18258 18259 18260 18261 18262 18263 18264 18265 18266 18267 18268 18269 18270 18271 18272 18273 18274 18275 18276 18277 18278 18279 18280 18281 18282 18283 18284 18285 18286 18287 18288 18289 18290 18291 18292 18293 18294 18295 18296 18297 18298 18299 18300 18301 18302 18303 18304 18305 18306 18307 ... 20527 »
  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!