Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[valta4065]

Hmm...
You know it's really putting your faith in technology evolution and respect of the Moore law...

But experience is showing that Moore law is reaching a limit. The base of Moore principle is that the more time passes, the smaller electronic elements become. But we're reaching a point where you cant get any smaller! It becomes harder and harder and we'll eventually reach a physical limit: you can't go small enough to reach the nanometer. At this scale physics as we know no longer exists...

Moore's Law is a straw man - the previous poster was talking about general technological progress, not the much more narrow Moore's Law. A limit to component density didn't prevent technological development in the centuries before Gordon Moore, and there's no reason to suspect it'll stop simply when integrated circuitry reaches a physical limit.

Well I understand your point but I'd say it's totally flawed.
It's not because it had happened that it will actually happen 

I wouldn't be incredibly shocked if in 10 years scientists would explain that we reached a point in IT where development can't really go any further. You're still limited to physic, and if you can't make smaller elements... What can you do?

Oh maybe in only 3 days someone is going to come with a revolution in science and explain something that will allow us to use a 1000times better internet/PC. But it's not because it has, and it can, that it will 

If you can't make smaller elements... What can you do?

Well... you can:

• Connect multiple elements together.
  
• Continue to improve elements in ways that don't rely on component density, or even reduce the number of components.
  
• Develop better ways to connect elements.
  

A revolution in 3 days isn't necessary. Technological developments that speed our processing power and increase our bandwidth happen all the time, and are not tightly coupled to component density. They tend not to yield 1000x improvements, but they compound together over time to achieve something pretty spectacular. The shift from CISC to RISC CPUs, for example, reduced the complexity of CPUs (and hence the number of components they required), allowing more powerful computers - it wasn't necessary for component density to increase, because the number of components was *decreasing*. The shift from HDDs to SSDs has increased bandwidth. Wi-fi gets faster with every generation, and that's (broadly) using tech that's familiar to radio engineers from back in the day.

I'm not saying that Moore's Law didn't happen, that it was a bad thing, or anything like that. What I'm saying is that reaching a limit to the number of components we can put on a piece of silicon is not going to bring an end to technological development in general, or to IT in particular. Bitcoin is safe.

I'd say that you're rather right.
But being confident in the increase of IT performances doesn't mean it HAS to happen ^^

Bitcoin SHOULD be safe. But it doesn't need an apocalypse in IT sector to be endangered, just a freezing in evolution

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[bitcoinboy12]

Price is stagnant which is bad even for traders as there's not even 1% price change in between several hours. Seems most investors are now in altcoin.

[LMGTFY]

Hmm...
You know it's really putting your faith in technology evolution and respect of the Moore law...

But experience is showing that Moore law is reaching a limit. The base of Moore principle is that the more time passes, the smaller electronic elements become. But we're reaching a point where you cant get any smaller! It becomes harder and harder and we'll eventually reach a physical limit: you can't go small enough to reach the nanometer. At this scale physics as we know no longer exists...

Moore's Law is a straw man - the previous poster was talking about general technological progress, not the much more narrow Moore's Law. A limit to component density didn't prevent technological development in the centuries before Gordon Moore, and there's no reason to suspect it'll stop simply when integrated circuitry reaches a physical limit.

Well I understand your point but I'd say it's totally flawed.
It's not because it had happened that it will actually happen 

I wouldn't be incredibly shocked if in 10 years scientists would explain that we reached a point in IT where development can't really go any further. You're still limited to physic, and if you can't make smaller elements... What can you do?

Oh maybe in only 3 days someone is going to come with a revolution in science and explain something that will allow us to use a 1000times better internet/PC. But it's not because it has, and it can, that it will 

If you can't make smaller elements... What can you do?

Well... you can:

• Connect multiple elements together.
  
• Continue to improve elements in ways that don't rely on component density, or even reduce the number of components.
  
• Develop better ways to connect elements.
  

A revolution in 3 days isn't necessary. Technological developments that speed our processing power and increase our bandwidth happen all the time, and are not tightly coupled to component density. They tend not to yield 1000x improvements, but they compound together over time to achieve something pretty spectacular. The shift from CISC to RISC CPUs, for example, reduced the complexity of CPUs (and hence the number of components they required), allowing more powerful computers - it wasn't necessary for component density to increase, because the number of components was *decreasing*. The shift from HDDs to SSDs has increased bandwidth. Wi-fi gets faster with every generation, and that's (broadly) using tech that's familiar to radio engineers from back in the day.

I'm not saying that Moore's Law didn't happen, that it was a bad thing, or anything like that. What I'm saying is that reaching a limit to the number of components we can put on a piece of silicon is not going to bring an end to technological development in general, or to IT in particular. Bitcoin is safe.

I'd say that you're rather right.
But being confident in the increase of IT performances doesn't mean it HAS to happen ^^

Bitcoin SHOULD be safe. But it doesn't need an apocalypse in IT sector to be endangered, just a freezing in evolution

Well, I'm fairly confident that reaching the natural limit of components on chips won't suddenly cause all other development in other areas to stop, which seems to be what a "freezing in evolution" would imply.

[TReano]

Price is stagnant which is bad even for traders as there's not even 1% price change in between several hours. Seems most investors are now in altcoin.

lol nobody who is really trading is even considering altcoins... You should better put your money in a slot machine then into an altcoin..


If you really want to trade there are other markets which are mega liquid...

[billyjoeallen]

4 HR moving average crossover. Here comes the bump.

[WeltMaster]

NOVEMBER 25^rd

[nor9865]

384.1 preev

[WeltMaster]

http://www.coindesk.com/commonwealth-member-countries-bitcoin-legal/



>"prohibition of virtual currencies is unlikely to be effective"

nocoiner shills

BTFO
T
F
O

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[soullyG]

HELLO, ARE YOU THERE MOON?

[ImI]

did i miss something?

[blunderer]

did i miss something?

BJA has spoken

4 HR moving average crossover. Here comes the bump.

[Hunyadi]

[Elwar]

Hmm, I knew it would go up or down today or tomorrow.

I bet on down.

Good for my long term, not good for today's sale.

[barbs]

full retard?

[billyjoeallen]

4 HR moving average crossover. Here comes the bump.

Called it. Purely a technical spike.

[coins101]

I opened a big leveraged short at 394.  I don't see how things are going to go up until the block size debate is resolved.  Or at the very least there is no longer a looming threat of a hard fork.  

This isn't JUST a hard for but a reshuffling of the powers that be in core who are being paid by a private company to fund bitcoin (imo this entire debacle can be traced back to the foundation going belly up on funding development).

Until the two camps are united, core compromises on 2mb blocks or everyone in the community (exchanges etc) change their mind I see the drift downward as inevitable.

I do live in eternal fear of core announcing 2mb blocks and losing it all.  But I'm betting that if they haven't done it yet they aren't going to until hard fork is inevitable.

jk

I'm sure it will be OK. Just a fat finger.

I would have made the same call as you if I had thought to do it.

[Fatman3001]

So who is running classic?

Waiting for binaries/release

[kehtolo]

http://www.coindesk.com/commonwealth-member-countries-bitcoin-legal/



>"prohibition of virtual currencies is unlikely to be effective"

nocoiner shills

BTFO
T
F
O

This. This is quite some news!!! Legitimacy!!!! (MOAR of it.. and welcome)