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

[billyjoeallen]

And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:

It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks.  All that matters is what the average transaction fee is.  Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks.  Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks.  Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.

It's easier to cause a network disruption if the network is already operating at maximum capacity. This is similar to the ease of creating a traffic jam during rush hour as opposed to another time. Fees will rise rapidly and chaotically if a spammer fills blocks. A prolonged attack will very likely cause the price to drop and allow the attacker to more than recover the fees by shorting.  

It's only a matter of time before this happens again.

Your post makes 0 sense because it implies just increase block size forever until it's able to handle all microtransactions on the planet.  Bitcoin can only function as a checkbook type device for large transactions at best, or as a clearing network at worst.  My personal estimates that I've researched to be able to accomplish this checkbook feat (as in cars, boats, houses, expensive but mainstream things that are several thousand in value) is around 8-10MB blocks (and we're talking trillions in market cap here).  3.2MB (what will be implemented in 2017) is starting to get close, so there's no reason to be dramatic and stupid about things.  After block size doubles from that 3.2MB point, most of the glass ceiling on price will be gone.

No, not forever, but we do need to have room for a critical mass of users. This will draw in more resources to work on the scaling problem.  If we don't have a critical mass (and I don't know how large that has to be except more than we have), development resources may be diverted to an altcoin(s) that can overcome our first mover advantage.   

[1714936595]

1714936595

[1714936595]

1714936595

[1714936595]

1714936595

[billyjoeallen]

Lightning network is a bunch of sidechains. It will almost certainly not be economically viable until Bitcoin's market cap is orders of magnitude higher than it is now. To achieve that, we need on-chain scaling and we need it before another cryptocurrency diverts the resources necessary to make it happen. This is urgent.

Bitcoin is becoming more and more like a premined coin with the existing monetary base large and growing. Coins are more distributed, but that is a limited advantage because hodlers have less individual incentive to promote adoption due to free riders benefiting who don't participate in that promotion.

Before average blocksize approached the 1 MB limit, something else prevented blocks from filling up besides fees. xactions were effectively free and blocks still did not fill up. That something was orphan risk. Large blocks propagate slower and are at a higher risk of getting orphaned. That is why fears of spam-filled blocks is overblown. That risk is always present. That is a reason why some miners mine empty blocks.

SegWit is riskier than a 2MB hard fork because it is a more radical change to the protocol.  I hope it works, but there is uncertainty that needs to be factored in.  In my opinion, it is reckless to attempt such a radical change instead of a simple 2MB hard fork because it may prevent the rally that would otherwise occur at the halving in July.  Markets hate uncertainty.  The more complicated the upgrade, the easier it is for bears and trolls to spread technobabble FUD. The more complicated the upgrade, the more things that can go wrong, similar to a machine with more moving parts. 

We are not out of the woods yet. We are just getting to the woods. 

[marcus_of_augustus]

^^ said the techno-babbling FUDster bear extraordinaire ... god what a total full time tool you've become.

[DaRude]

Lightning network is a bunch of sidechains. It will almost certainly not be economically viable until Bitcoin's market cap is orders of magnitude higher than it is now. To achieve that, we need on-chain scaling and we need it before another cryptocurrency diverts the resources necessary to make it happen. This is urgent.

Bitcoin is becoming more and more like a premined coin with the existing monetary base large and growing. Coins are more distributed, but that is a limited advantage because hodlers have less individual incentive to promote adoption due to free riders benefiting who don't participate in that promotion.

Before average blocksize approached the 1 MB limit, something else prevented blocks from filling up besides fees. xactions were effectively free and blocks still did not fill up. That something was orphan risk. Large blocks propagate slower and are at a higher risk of getting orphaned. That is why fears of spam-filled blocks is overblown. That risk is always present. That is a reason why some miners mine empty blocks.

SegWit is riskier than a 2MB hard fork because it is a more radical change to the protocol.  I hope it works, but there is uncertainty that needs to be factored in.  In my opinion, it is reckless to attempt such a radical change instead of a simple 2MB hard fork because it may prevent the rally that would otherwise occur at the halving in July.  Markets hate uncertainty.  The more complicated the upgrade, the easier it is for bears and trolls to spread technobabble FUD. The more complicated the upgrade, the more things that can go wrong, similar to a machine with more moving parts. 

We are not out of the woods yet. We are just getting to the woods. 

Exactly, that's why we need to knock out the "complicated" segwit right now before mass adoption 

[pinger]

"Man buys bitcoin forum off complete and utter faggot, makes the forum great again"

"Signature spammers automatically banned"

"brown people who speak retarded gibberish english go back to whatever shithole they came from"

"Two months after man buys bitcoin forum off faggot, bitcoin price soars"

I remember all bitcointalk members this thread is about BTC price movement, so please stay on toppic.

Waiting ATH at summer, please hold on until I get money to invest, this price is just fine.

[Meuh6879]

I ALWAYS wanted Theymos to encourage brown people to speak nonsensical english spamming some scammers signature

Hold on to your hats gentlemen, don't think I won't buy this shithole of a forum off theymos in the future and Make Bitcointalk Great Again!

i can find white people with brown speakable language : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTtxnW9JkB4

[r0ach]

SegWit is riskier than a 2MB hard fork because it is a more radical change to the protocol.

I'm starting to believe you're an actual banker shill from constantly repeating stuff like this.  Segwit is needed for SPV fraud proofs and malleability regardless of what you think block size should be.  Even the Gavinator, lord of the 20MB block says it's needed, so what are you smoking typing stuff like this?  Did Lambchop buy this account?

[Gyrsur]

SegWit is riskier than a 2MB hard fork because it is a more radical change to the protocol.

I'm starting to believe you're an actual banker shill from constantly repeating stuff like this.  Segwit is needed for SPV fraud proofs and malleability regardless of what you think block size should be.  Even the Gavinator, lord of the 20MB block says it's needed, so what are you smoking typing stuff like this?

blocks are almost full! we should fork to 200GB blocks!

https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/blocks?sort=size

 

EDIT: Gavin himself did a test up to 500GB. so no issues expected. just let's do it. better we destroy Bitcoin now.

[gentlemand]

What are the origins of segwit? Was it long proposed as a nice idea by multiple people or did it arrive out of nowhere from a single source and tickle everyone pink?

[r0ach]

What are the origins of segwit? Was it long proposed as a nice idea by multiple people or did it arrive out of nowhere from a single source and tickle everyone pink?

Supposedly began as seeking a solution to malleability.

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Yet another day, another $425. Ho freaking hum.

[aztecminer]

And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:

It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks.  All that matters is what the average transaction fee is.  Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks.  Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks.  Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.

IQ's dropped sharply round here it seems. Anyone suggesting blocks being full is not a problem and those raising it are 'stupid fucks' is being naive in the extreme. Focusing on the transaction fee is absolutely irrelevant. If my transaction won't confirm because transaction fees have risen by 2c from my last transaction - due to full blocks and rising network demand - stating the transaction fee average is low isn't much use to me because bitcoin isn't working as a payment system.

For bitcoin to succeed as a base payment ledger for the internet it needs to be functional and work for end users. You know, the guys who actually give it value. There is a lot of melodrama in this debate. But the minute bitcoin becomes persistently unreliable as a payment network with no realistic proposition of resolution and alternative chains or payment media which do not suffer the same problems, then it's market cap will take a dive of epic proportions.

+1.. the entire 2017 argument is them admitting they are going to do nothing other than kick the can further down the road. we were told this time last year that the fix would be in early this year, yet here we are and your telling us next year is the real deal.. this time your really going to increase the blocks.. promise.. cuz testnet.. segwit.. fees is all that matters.. schnorrt lines... #hardfork2017

[JayJuanGee]

And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:

It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks.  All that matters is what the average transaction fee is.  Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks.  Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks.  Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.

IQ's dropped sharply round here it seems. Anyone suggesting blocks being full is not a problem and those raising it are 'stupid fucks' is being naive in the extreme. Focusing on the transaction fee is absolutely irrelevant. If my transaction won't confirm because transaction fees have risen by 2c from my last transaction - due to full blocks and rising network demand - stating the transaction fee average is low isn't much use to me because bitcoin isn't working as a payment system.

For bitcoin to succeed as a base payment ledger for the internet it needs to be functional and work for end users. You know, the guys who actually give it value. There is a lot of melodrama in this debate. But the minute bitcoin becomes persistently unreliable as a payment network with no realistic proposition of resolution and alternative chains or payment media which do not suffer the same problems, then it's market cap will take a dive of epic proportions.

+1.. the entire 2017 argument is them admitting they are going to do nothing other than kick the can further down the road. we were told this time last year that the fix would be in early this year, yet here we are and your telling us next year is the real deal.. this time your really going to increase the blocks.. promise.. cuz testnet.. segwit.. fees is all that matters.. schnorrt lines... #hardfork2017

You are retarded.


Nobody promised anything, and nobody is promising anything.


There are various developments in the works, as we all know.. including seg wit, and seg wit is currently in testing.. and segwit is likely going to be released soon (unless there is some kind of problematic issue discovered in testing that delays its release). 

Helrow?


I would rather have something not released, if there are problems, than to have it released with problems.    I believe that a month or two ago, there were some   
minor problems with seg wit; however, I believe that those problems were considered to be minor because they were easily fixed.  Recently, I have not heard about any problems with seg wit, and I am presuming if there were any significant problems, we would be hearing left, right and center about such problems from the various seem to be bitcoin obstructionists (which seem to include a vast majority of those XT/Classic supporters).


 

[abyrnes81]

Today bought 7 bitcoins , I believe I can fly.

[inca]

The price is flatlining at 425 in this huge flag. Meanwhile the typically popular fora are deathly quiet echo chambers. Where is the new money to drive the next bubble?

[aztecminer]

And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:

It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks.  All that matters is what the average transaction fee is.  Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks.  Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks.  Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.

IQ's dropped sharply round here it seems. Anyone suggesting blocks being full is not a problem and those raising it are 'stupid fucks' is being naive in the extreme. Focusing on the transaction fee is absolutely irrelevant. If my transaction won't confirm because transaction fees have risen by 2c from my last transaction - due to full blocks and rising network demand - stating the transaction fee average is low isn't much use to me because bitcoin isn't working as a payment system.

For bitcoin to succeed as a base payment ledger for the internet it needs to be functional and work for end users. You know, the guys who actually give it value. There is a lot of melodrama in this debate. But the minute bitcoin becomes persistently unreliable as a payment network with no realistic proposition of resolution and alternative chains or payment media which do not suffer the same problems, then it's market cap will take a dive of epic proportions.

+1.. the entire 2017 argument is them admitting they are going to do nothing other than kick the can further down the road. we were told this time last year that the fix would be in early this year, yet here we are and your telling us next year is the real deal.. this time your really going to increase the blocks.. promise.. cuz testnet.. segwit.. fees is all that matters.. schnorrt lines... #hardfork2017

You are retarded.


Nobody promised anything, and nobody is promising anything.


There are various developments in the works, as we all know.. including seg wit, and seg wit is currently in testing.. and segwit is likely going to be released soon (unless there is some kind of problematic issue discovered in testing that delays its release).  

Helrow?


I would rather have something not released, if there are problems, than to have it released with problems.    I believe that a month or two ago, there were some  
minor problems with seg wit; however, I believe that those problems were considered to be minor because they were easily fixed.  Recently, I have not heard about any problems with seg wit, and I am presuming if there were any significant problems, we would be hearing left, right and center about such problems from the various seem to be bitcoin obstructionists (which seem to include a vast majority of those XT/Classic supporters).


 

third time i posted this to you: i have the same response as the last two times.

we were told fix would beginning of this year over a year ago.. they are holding back the fix.... according to you the fix is in the next couple years.  whatever.. keep convincing yourself. let me refer back to the problem with your thought process here:

March 30th 2016 i posted:

you know what ?? i have several hardware servers that are over six year old technology.. they run great still, they are Dell 2950 1U servers.. i have mostly migrated everything from those six year old servers and replaced with virtual servers or new hardware server, except for one server. it is running some accounting and product tracking software for one the companies i maintain. the company is totally reliant upon their accounting and product tracking software, if it goes down they are fukd, cant do business until it is back up.. i look at this six year old server and it has an amber light on it.. that means something might be going wrong..i look and see the battery is dead on the perc raid controller card.. np no big deal .. fukit i don't expect anything bad to happen to this server, it has been running great for six years. i can see something is wrong with the perc card but it seems to not be causing an issue to the accounting software.. fukit, i'm just going to leave the accounting software on this six year old server .. i aint gonna do anything about it.. why should i ?? i dont expect anything bad to happen.

that is how you are looking at things. this is where experience with technology comes into play.. i'm not leaving the six year old server like that. instead of waiting until that six year old server dies, i decided to spin up a virtual server and will migrate the accounting software to this new virtual server. here is the kicker: i am going to do this BEFORE my six year old server with the blinking amber light has a fatal hardware error and brings that accounting software down and that entire company to a grinding halt.. today i know its just a bad battery on the perc card, what if tomorrow that perc card goes bad ?? the point is, from an engineering viewpoint, u dont wait when u see a problem developing just because in YOUR OPINION and YOUR EXPECTATIONS that nothing bad is going to happen. in technology, it is more likely than not that something bad is going to happen. we don't take the risk, because if we do and the something bad happens then u have a company losing money every single day they cannot operate.

your veiwpoint is the reason why i do not allow programmers to fuk with hardware. programmers are just smart enough to be dangerous.. as we have seen with bitcoin, the programmers are doing the dangerous thing, they are waiting and taking that risk that nothing bad is going to happen.

[JayJuanGee]

And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:

It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks.  All that matters is what the average transaction fee is.  Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks.  Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks.  Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.

IQ's dropped sharply round here it seems. Anyone suggesting blocks being full is not a problem and those raising it are 'stupid fucks' is being naive in the extreme. Focusing on the transaction fee is absolutely irrelevant. If my transaction won't confirm because transaction fees have risen by 2c from my last transaction - due to full blocks and rising network demand - stating the transaction fee average is low isn't much use to me because bitcoin isn't working as a payment system.

For bitcoin to succeed as a base payment ledger for the internet it needs to be functional and work for end users. You know, the guys who actually give it value. There is a lot of melodrama in this debate. But the minute bitcoin becomes persistently unreliable as a payment network with no realistic proposition of resolution and alternative chains or payment media which do not suffer the same problems, then it's market cap will take a dive of epic proportions.

+1.. the entire 2017 argument is them admitting they are going to do nothing other than kick the can further down the road. we were told this time last year that the fix would be in early this year, yet here we are and your telling us next year is the real deal.. this time your really going to increase the blocks.. promise.. cuz testnet.. segwit.. fees is all that matters.. schnorrt lines... #hardfork2017

You are retarded.


Nobody promised anything, and nobody is promising anything.


There are various developments in the works, as we all know.. including seg wit, and seg wit is currently in testing.. and segwit is likely going to be released soon (unless there is some kind of problematic issue discovered in testing that delays its release).  

Helrow?


I would rather have something not released, if there are problems, than to have it released with problems.    I believe that a month or two ago, there were some  
minor problems with seg wit; however, I believe that those problems were considered to be minor because they were easily fixed.  Recently, I have not heard about any problems with seg wit, and I am presuming if there were any significant problems, we would be hearing left, right and center about such problems from the various seem to be bitcoin obstructionists (which seem to include a vast majority of those XT/Classic supporters).


 

third time i posted this to you: i have the same response as the last two times.

we were told fix would beginning of this year over a year ago.. they are holding back the fix.... according to you the fix is in the next couple years.  whatever.. keep convincing yourself. let me refer back to the problem with your thought process here:

March 30th 2016 i posted:

you know what ?? i have several hardware servers that are over six year old technology.. they run great still, they are Dell 2950 1U servers.. i have mostly migrated everything from those six year old servers and replaced with virtual servers or new hardware server, except for one server. it is running some accounting and product tracking software for one the companies i maintain. the company is totally reliant upon their accounting and product tracking software, if it goes down they are fukd, cant do business until it is back up.. i look at this six year old server and it has an amber light on it.. that means something might be going wrong..i look and see the battery is dead on the perc raid controller card.. np no big deal .. fukit i don't expect anything bad to happen to this server, it has been running great for six years. i can see something is wrong with the perc card but it seems to not be causing an issue to the accounting software.. fukit, i'm just going to leave the accounting software on this six year old server .. i aint gonna do anything about it.. why should i ?? i dont expect anything bad to happen.

that is how you are looking at things. this is where experience with technology comes into play.. i'm not leaving the six year old server like that. instead of waiting until that six year old server dies, i decided to spin up a virtual server and will migrate the accounting software to this new virtual server. here is the kicker: i am going to do this BEFORE my six year old server with the blinking amber light has a fatal hardware error and brings that accounting software down and that entire company to a grinding halt.. today i know its just a bad battery on the perc card, what if tomorrow that perc card goes bad ?? the point is, from an engineering viewpoint, u dont wait when u see a problem developing just because in YOUR OPINION and YOUR EXPECTATIONS that nothing bad is going to happen. in technology, it is more likely than not that something bad is going to happen. we don't take the risk, because if we do and the something bad happens then u have a company losing money every single day they cannot operate.

your veiwpoint is the reason why i do not allow programmers to fuk with hardware. programmers are just smart enough to be dangerous.. as we have seen with bitcoin, the programmers are doing the dangerous thing, they are waiting and taking that risk that nothing bad is going to happen.

The eyes rolling is mutual..... and your cut and paste provides further proof about how retarded you are that you cannot formulate your thoughts in order to apply such thoughts (if any) towards what is going at this moment and in this situation.   Go figure.   

[podyx]

Anybody have a clue why bitcoinwisdom isn't working? (not updating)

[aztecminer]

And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:

It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks.  All that matters is what the average transaction fee is.  Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks.  Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks.  Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.

IQ's dropped sharply round here it seems. Anyone suggesting blocks being full is not a problem and those raising it are 'stupid fucks' is being naive in the extreme. Focusing on the transaction fee is absolutely irrelevant. If my transaction won't confirm because transaction fees have risen by 2c from my last transaction - due to full blocks and rising network demand - stating the transaction fee average is low isn't much use to me because bitcoin isn't working as a payment system.

For bitcoin to succeed as a base payment ledger for the internet it needs to be functional and work for end users. You know, the guys who actually give it value. There is a lot of melodrama in this debate. But the minute bitcoin becomes persistently unreliable as a payment network with no realistic proposition of resolution and alternative chains or payment media which do not suffer the same problems, then it's market cap will take a dive of epic proportions.

+1.. the entire 2017 argument is them admitting they are going to do nothing other than kick the can further down the road. we were told this time last year that the fix would be in early this year, yet here we are and your telling us next year is the real deal.. this time your really going to increase the blocks.. promise.. cuz testnet.. segwit.. fees is all that matters.. schnorrt lines... #hardfork2017

You are retarded.


Nobody promised anything, and nobody is promising anything.


There are various developments in the works, as we all know.. including seg wit, and seg wit is currently in testing.. and segwit is likely going to be released soon (unless there is some kind of problematic issue discovered in testing that delays its release).  

Helrow?


I would rather have something not released, if there are problems, than to have it released with problems.    I believe that a month or two ago, there were some  
minor problems with seg wit; however, I believe that those problems were considered to be minor because they were easily fixed.  Recently, I have not heard about any problems with seg wit, and I am presuming if there were any significant problems, we would be hearing left, right and center about such problems from the various seem to be bitcoin obstructionists (which seem to include a vast majority of those XT/Classic supporters).


 

third time i posted this to you: i have the same response as the last two times.

we were told fix would beginning of this year over a year ago.. they are holding back the fix.... according to you the fix is in the next couple years.  whatever.. keep convincing yourself. let me refer back to the problem with your thought process here:

March 30th 2016 i posted:

you know what ?? i have several hardware servers that are over six year old technology.. they run great still, they are Dell 2950 1U servers.. i have mostly migrated everything from those six year old servers and replaced with virtual servers or new hardware server, except for one server. it is running some accounting and product tracking software for one the companies i maintain. the company is totally reliant upon their accounting and product tracking software, if it goes down they are fukd, cant do business until it is back up.. i look at this six year old server and it has an amber light on it.. that means something might be going wrong..i look and see the battery is dead on the perc raid controller card.. np no big deal .. fukit i don't expect anything bad to happen to this server, it has been running great for six years. i can see something is wrong with the perc card but it seems to not be causing an issue to the accounting software.. fukit, i'm just going to leave the accounting software on this six year old server .. i aint gonna do anything about it.. why should i ?? i dont expect anything bad to happen.

that is how you are looking at things. this is where experience with technology comes into play.. i'm not leaving the six year old server like that. instead of waiting until that six year old server dies, i decided to spin up a virtual server and will migrate the accounting software to this new virtual server. here is the kicker: i am going to do this BEFORE my six year old server with the blinking amber light has a fatal hardware error and brings that accounting software down and that entire company to a grinding halt.. today i know its just a bad battery on the perc card, what if tomorrow that perc card goes bad ?? the point is, from an engineering viewpoint, u dont wait when u see a problem developing just because in YOUR OPINION and YOUR EXPECTATIONS that nothing bad is going to happen. in technology, it is more likely than not that something bad is going to happen. we don't take the risk, because if we do and the something bad happens then u have a company losing money every single day they cannot operate.

your veiwpoint is the reason why i do not allow programmers to fuk with hardware. programmers are just smart enough to be dangerous.. as we have seen with bitcoin, the programmers are doing the dangerous thing, they are waiting and taking that risk that nothing bad is going to happen.

The eyes rolling is mutual..... and your cut and paste provides further proof about how retarded you are that you cannot formulate your thoughts in order to apply such thoughts (if any) towards what is going at this moment and in this situation.   Go figure.   

yeah i need reformulate and regurgitate it a third time cuz your synoptic pruning deleted your memory cells used to retrieve the data from the last time i told you this same thing. i'm thinking maybe it is a white matter disconnect is why you can't understand it that you require me to reformulate it for you. the part of your brain that perceives the writing in this forum is not communicating effectively with that part of the brain that actually THINKS.

[JayJuanGee]

The eyes rolling is mutual..... and your cut and paste provides further proof about how retarded you are that you cannot formulate your thoughts in order to apply such thoughts (if any) towards what is going at this moment and in this situation.   Go figure.   

yeah i need reformulate and regurgitate it a third time cuz your synoptic pruning deleted your memory cells used to retrieve the data from the last time i told you this same thing. i'm thinking maybe it is a white matter disconnect is why you can't understand it that you require me to reformulate it for you. the part of your brain that perceives the writing in this forum is not communicating effectively with that part of the brain that actually THINKS.

Your further elaboration makes little to no sense.

You are criticizing me for not thinking, but at least I am not cutting and pasting my previous quotes as if that responds to a current post.


To attempt to convert this line of discussion into something a bit more relevant to bitcoin prices, I am looking forward to the day in the likely very near future in which bitcoin prices break through your self-described $500 "ceiling."    hahahahhaha

I can already predict you changing your story when you are obvious going wrong with your lame, ill-conceive, conspiratorial and lacking of insight perspective.

I can already anticipate you asserting that you were right all along, even though you are obvious and clearly predicting BTC to be incapable of going passed $500.   See more at lame.ztec.ex.miner.com