Bitcoin Forum
July 23, 2019, 02:27:28 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: July 28 Closing Price:
<$3,000 - 6 (8.2%)
<$8,000 - 4 (5.5%)
$8,001-$8,500 - 2 (2.7%)
$8,501-$9,000 - 1 (1.4%)
$9,001-$9,500 - 11 (15.1%)
$9,501-$10,000 - 5 (6.8%)
$10,001-$10,500 - 7 (9.6%)
$10,501-$11,000 - 13 (17.8%)
$11,001-$11,500 - 6 (8.2%)
$11,501-$12,000 - 3 (4.1%)
$12,001-$12,500 - 4 (5.5%)
$12,501-$13,000 - 3 (4.1%)
$13,001-$13,500 - 1 (1.4%)
$13,501-$14,000 - 2 (2.7%)
>$14,000 - 2 (2.7%)
>$18,000 - 3 (4.1%)
Total Voters: 73

Pages: « 1 ... 23593 23594 23595 23596 23597 23598 23599 23600 23601 23602 23603 23604 23605 23606 23607 23608 23609 23610 23611 23612 23613 23614 23615 23616 23617 23618 23619 23620 23621 23622 23623 23624 23625 23626 23627 23628 23629 23630 23631 23632 23633 23634 23635 23636 23637 23638 23639 23640 23641 23642 [23643] 23644 23645 23646 23647 23648 23649 23650 23651 23652 23653 23654 23655 23656 23657 23658 23659 23660 23661 23662 23663 23664 23665 23666 23667 23668 23669 23670 23671 23672 23673 23674 23675 23676 23677 23678 23679 23680 23681 23682 23683 23684 23685 23686 23687 23688 23689 23690 23691 23692 23693 ... 24620 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21296368 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. (102 posts by 19 users deleted.)
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 298


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 10:22:08 PM

^Am I the only one here that remembers Last of the V8s was the ONLY person shilling FOR Bitfinex ever in this thread?  He will back any lie or scam imaginable as long as he thinks it's price positive for his BTC balance.  He basically pulled a mirror image of Roger Ver back when Ver said "MtGox is perfectly fine and trustworthy".
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Raja_MBZ
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 1274
Merit: 875


Vegeta! What does the scouter say about BTC value?


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 10:31:50 PM

Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 2248


Be a bank.


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 10:37:43 PM
Merited by malevolent (1)

@garbisbfx already proved himself out of the loop. Community service manager...
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 298


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 10:38:59 PM

@garbisbfx already proved himself out of the loop. Community service manager...

Lol.  That's exactly what I was about to type.  It's the fucking tech support guy who has no clue what's going on.  His job is 'Hardening the Gentoo install' - copyright Market Karpeles*.

*until some type of plausible deniability vector is needed to steal all customer funds
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1195


CyberDice - Best Bitcoin Dice Game


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 10:39:28 PM


Get ready for more of a shit show when it's true and the Twitter deletes that post.
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 298


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 10:45:32 PM

Since JayJuanGee & Last of the V8s claimed "everything r0ach says about Bitfinex is FUD", I assume we can depend on them to pony up the $1 billion to keep operations functional?  A $1 billion shortfall....AHAHAHA.
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 2248


Be a bank.


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 10:48:28 PM

lol.
confirmed
https://twitter.com/zirui_z/status/1122993005324009472
According to @zhaodong1982 there’s a high possibility that @bitfinex is going to do an IEO, and some big whales already reserved $300m of the allocations in #USDT
HairyMaclairy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1458


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 10:49:21 PM

And “resurfaces” is the wrong term as it implies that the need has previously surfaced, which it has not.  The need may never surface.

You've already banished it from your revisionist history?

There were some high fees in 2017. There was no need for a block size increase as demonstrated by the failure of BCH.

If it was “necessary”, BCH would have won.  

The result was a BTC dominance drop from an overwhelming ~85% to abut half. Are you prepared for a drop to about a quarter next time the stream is blocked? You're whistling past your own graveyard.

Do you actually believe that the value of Bitcoin is diminished every time some scammer comes up with ‘X on a blockchain’ and manipulates the price on some exchange with zero liquidity to create a meaningless market cap?


You are smarter than that.
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 298


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 10:52:44 PM

lol.
confirmed
https://twitter.com/zirui_z/status/1122993005324009472
According to @zhaodong1982 there’s a high possibility that @bitfinex is going to do an IEO, and some big whales already reserved $300m of the allocations in #USDT

It seems there are some Chinese scammers that feel it's awfully important to keep the scam exchange Bitfinex afloat.  Hmmm...I wonder why.  It's almost as if back when you clicked on the Chinese scam exchange Huobi back in the day and noticed that EVERY SINGLE TRADE was fake and there were no actual buyers or sellers, they then moved over to Bitfinex after the govt went after them there.  Gotta keep those prices manipulated to keep people paying $5000 for...a timestamp.
malevolent
can into space
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1109



View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:00:46 PM
Last edit: April 29, 2019, 11:38:20 PM by malevolent

If it's really true, they could have milked the market when it was near the peak over a year ago. I have a hard time believing they'll actually gather enough money seeing how more people seem to be opening their eyes to what kind of a joke BFX always was.
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 298


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:12:06 PM

If the entire US govt wasn't crooked, they would be sending in Seal Team 6 in black helicopters to come in through the windows of this exchange.  Nevermind, the entire seal team was sent on a suicide mission and they all died in a helicopter to cover up the lose ends of the Bin Laden compound attack story.  Maybe they can send one F35 to fly towards it, fail in mid-flight, then heroically crash into the Bitfinex building and blow it up.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1300


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:12:42 PM

You could keep using your legacy non-segwit coins BUT... I guess you would have some problem forcing other people to send you coins that fulfill your "full legacy trace" requirement. In fact you probably already have that problem, don't you?

Not at all. To a first order approximation (i.e., the overwhelming majority), I have no reason to move BTC in or out. But for those coins that I do move: If someone wants me to pay to their SegWit address, that's no skin off my nose; For inbound, I provide a legacy address to pay to. Easy peasy.

Ok.

So then if the condition of Bitcoin blocks having a very reasonable 80% peak (maybe hourly averaged) capacity by whatever means, even if that implies only a moderate blocksize increase plus other L2 alleviating solutions... your confidence/preference in Bitcoin would be restored and not keep insisting that BSV is better because: Bigger blocks (even if noone use them), no segwit, no LN, etc?

I am just trying to determine if your main concern is only about congestion or if there additional unsolvable (like considering bigger blocks is ALWAYS better) issues here.

It would alleviate much of my worries about BTC's future. All things being equal (unfortunately they never are), I have lingering concerns about the way The SegWit Omnibus Changeset was constructed and more concerningly how it was activated. But seeing as we're discussing an unplanned hypothetical, I'm not about to invest in a full analysis.

There is also the fact that it is the stated aim of the SV protocol devs that they wish to essentially return the protocol back to that which was bequeathed by satoshi, and then leave it unmolested for all subsequent time (with the caveat that some black swan event may necessitate a change). I see a lot of value in providing a stable platform for other innovation to be built atop, rather than the constant churn and shifting sands endemic to a 'devs gotta dev' mentality at the base layer.

But hey - if BTC adopted an attitude that returned them to the economic model that existed from inception until blockapocolypse (namely, block cap always large enough to accommodate the sustained tx demand), that'd take one of the most on-target arrows out of my 'flaws of BTC' quiver now, wouldn't it?
micgoossens
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 2348


BTFD, on to 15K a coin !!!!


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:14:44 PM



whatever exchanges do...... ^1BTC=1BTC

Good Night WO-brothers, finished episode 3 and of to my HODL-station Cheesy
micgoossens
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 2348


BTFD, on to 15K a coin !!!!


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:16:49 PM



^
And cockr0ach please .... leave it for a sec Roll Eyes go jerk off or something.....
micgoossens
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 2348


BTFD, on to 15K a coin !!!!


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:18:11 PM



Saw a small go to sleep pump NICE Cheesy
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 2248


Be a bank.


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:18:18 PM

If it's really true, they could have milked the market when it was near the peak over a year ago. I have a hard time believing they'll actually gather enough money seeing how more people seem to be opening their what kind of a joke BFX always was.
There's a theory that they can scam Chinese whales one more time, even while Western punters pull out.
And the bigger and the more blatant the scam, the bigger the fundraise...
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1219


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:24:12 PM

This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.

Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence.

Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change?

If it was urgent it could probably be done in 48 hours.   But it won’t be urgent.  

It ain't just a river in Egypt.

I would mostly agree with the bear here.
The last full block crisis resulted in inaction, to force people onto segwit. I presume the next full block crisis will result in inaction, to force people onto lightning.

Dude wtf you weren't supposed to tell them!!

Some people just can't keep a secret. Smiley

This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.

Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence.

Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change?
That was a short spam attack period, you know damn well that was artificial and everyone knew it.

Yes, I remember people posting the addresses of the spammers at the time. That's the good thing about 1mb blocks, spamming gets expensive.
Big blocks are a disaster if there isn't sufficient utility. Say you had 32 MB blocks and only < 2 MB of actual traffic. Someone could easily spam 28 MB per block for peanuts. Sustained over 1 day: 4032 MB of garbage for almost free. Good idea indeed.

Addressing the issue is like balancing on a tight rope with the winds gusting and you cannot walk to either end all you do is shift your balance (the variable you control). I still have not seen a decent argument against dynamic recursive blocks. I've asked many times in this thread and never been linked to a good argument against them, maybe you have a link?
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1767


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:24:59 PM

sell BTC and buy BSV, will equal in price

[img ]https://www.FULLofSHITand DESPERATE/x/WD9D77oj/[/img]
NO

BSV only one altcoin which can go in the direction opposite to the falling crypto market
Go fuck yourself

Even the Roach is occasionally able to deliver more engaging content, alev. Cut it. Thanks.

I normally delete his shill posts, but I think it's more fun for everyone just to point and laugh.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1300


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:30:10 PM

This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.

Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence.

Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change?
That was a short spam attack period, you know damn well that was artificial and everyone knew it.

Yes, I remember people posting the addresses of the spammers at the time. That's the good thing about 1mb blocks, spamming gets expensive.
Big blocks are a disaster if there isn't sufficient utility. Say you had 32 MB blocks and only < 2 MB of actual traffic. Someone could easily spam 28 MB per block for peanuts. Sustained over 1 day: 4032 MB of garbage for almost free. Good idea indeed.

You seem to be postulating some novel mechanism by which one can examine each transaction, and classify it as spam vs. notspam. Care to divulge your criteria?

Your dumb arguments about what is "technically" spam and NOT, remains annoying - partly because this is well worn territory in which you have been shown to be attempting to continue to spread misinformation and to detract from the concerted sabotaging (albiet largely unsuccessful except for the purpose of continued FUD spreading) efforts of your Bcash butt buddies.

I forget you are often incapable of seeing the obvious*. Without a way to objectively classify an arbitrary tx as spam vs. notspam, any effort to reduce spam by keeping the block size small will -- by necessity -- reduce utility for notspam txs. Reduced utility in direct proportion to the ratio of notspam txs to spam txs. Your approach is counterproductive.

*Well, not really. I know full and well your inability to draw rational conclusions from spoonfed data. As well as your propensity to try to finish conversations for others. I still await the honorable and esteemed Lauda's reveal of the criteria to objectively classify an arbitrary tx as spam or as notspam.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1300


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 29, 2019, 11:34:02 PM
Merited by xhomerx10 (1)

I've seen some very nice hats that are not worn and are not in the signing campaign ..., jbreher!

Do you need new glasses?

My glasses are adequate, thanks.

I'm talking about the hat crushed on your bear's head.

You have it here if you want to use it.

Maybe later you changed it, because of the avatar that you are wearing now.

Yes. The avatar I am wearing now is proudly wearing the hat that xhomerx10 made me.
Pages: « 1 ... 23593 23594 23595 23596 23597 23598 23599 23600 23601 23602 23603 23604 23605 23606 23607 23608 23609 23610 23611 23612 23613 23614 23615 23616 23617 23618 23619 23620 23621 23622 23623 23624 23625 23626 23627 23628 23629 23630 23631 23632 23633 23634 23635 23636 23637 23638 23639 23640 23641 23642 [23643] 23644 23645 23646 23647 23648 23649 23650 23651 23652 23653 23654 23655 23656 23657 23658 23659 23660 23661 23662 23663 23664 23665 23666 23667 23668 23669 23670 23671 23672 23673 23674 23675 23676 23677 23678 23679 23680 23681 23682 23683 23684 23685 23686 23687 23688 23689 23690 23691 23692 23693 ... 24620 »
  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!