Bitcoin Forum
April 26, 2018, 03:00:34 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Apr. 30 Bitcoin Price
<$6,000 - 13 (7.9%)
$6,000-$6,500 - 2 (1.2%)
$6,500-$7,000 - 5 (3%)
$7,000-$7,500 - 3 (1.8%)
$7,500-$8,000 - 4 (2.4%)
$8,000-$8,500 - 10 (6.1%)
$8,500-$9,000 - 19 (11.6%)
$9,000-$9,500 - 21 (12.8%)
$9,500-$10,000 - 25 (15.2%)
$10,000-$10,500 - 11 (6.7%)
$10,500-$11,000 - 5 (3%)
>$11,000 - 46 (28%)
Total Voters: 164

Pages: « 1 ... 16596 16597 16598 16599 16600 16601 16602 16603 16604 16605 16606 16607 16608 16609 16610 16611 16612 16613 16614 16615 16616 16617 16618 16619 16620 16621 16622 16623 16624 16625 16626 16627 16628 16629 16630 16631 16632 16633 16634 16635 16636 16637 16638 16639 16640 16641 16642 16643 16644 16645 [16646] 16647 16648 16649 16650 16651 16652 16653 16654 16655 16656 16657 16658 16659 16660 16661 16662 16663 16664 16665 16666 16667 16668 16669 16670 16671 16672 16673 16674 16675 16676 16677 16678 16679 16680 16681 16682 16683 16684 16685 16686 16687 16688 16689 16690 16691 16692 16693 16694 16695 16696 ... 20323 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 20251047 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.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1063


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 09:18:38 PM

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.
What's your angle?

My angle meaning what?

I already stated what I thought, no?

In essence, I agree with any point that the current bitcoin system is established as a secure decentralized immutable way to store and transfer value.  If what bitcoin "is" is undermined by some kind of centralized system or manipulation or FUD that allows for such undermining of bitcoin "as it is", then that would be problematic.  

My angle remains that XT, Classic and now BU are either aimed or have effects that are attempting to undermine bitcoin "as is"... ... so we will see how all of that plays out, and whether bitcoin is going to be able to preserve its value in one form or another regarding a secure decentralized and immutable system that allows for the storage and transferring of value
Okay let's remove any possibility of ambiguity then.

Are you against increasing the transfer capacity of the bitcoin network, yes or no? Just yes or no.
no
So why do you want to stay at the current 1 MB? You can't have it both ways.

First of all.  You edited out my answer.
I made your answer concise as I requested and you ignored. Your victim card is revoked. And look, here I am editing you again!

If you don't show respect you do not get respect. Just how things are.
1524711634
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524711634

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524711634
Reply with quote  #2

1524711634
Report to moderator
1524711634
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524711634

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524711634
Reply with quote  #2

1524711634
Report to moderator
1524711634
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524711634

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524711634
Reply with quote  #2

1524711634
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1524711634
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524711634

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524711634
Reply with quote  #2

1524711634
Report to moderator
1524711634
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524711634

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524711634
Reply with quote  #2

1524711634
Report to moderator
bitserve
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 462
Merit: 340


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 09:26:58 PM

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gem4/jihan_wus_latest_weibo_post_looks_like_an_offer/

Jihan willing to talk is a GREAT sign! I really believe once he folds the scaling debate will start coming to a conclusion. The fact that he admits that he finds 2nd layer solutions a threat is telling, but he will realize that he cannot force the rest of the community to hold back on achievements to benefit the miners. A prosperous $2K+ bitcoin is much better for him than half a bitcoin with less users

Paradoxically, in the long-long run (20yr horizon), nobody will care about l2 solutions as l1 capabilities will be more than adequate to satisfy the volume of direct txs (except if we have unforseen spikes in kbytes per tx, like quantumproof signatures). L2 solutions are only* needed in the short and mid term, as block sizes can't grow too big right now without centralizing bitcoin, yet txs/sec must increase.

* L2 solutions might also be needed for adding more functionality, beyond txs.

20 years is too much of a long term... It's pointless we even speculate on that. But 3-5 years from now, L2 will be everywhere because it's the only way to make Bitcoin a real payment system. Not only because of number of transactions, but because we can have inmediate transactions via L2 instead of 10 min delay of L1.

Either we will have L2 in place soon (max 1 or 2 years from now) or Bitcoin adoption as payment system is not going to happen.

What Jihan BU should do is stop whining and work towards the future of Bitcoin. He (and other BIG miners) are in a privileged position to also get a good piece of the L2 cake. That way he can profit of both L1 and L2.

I don't have any problem in him also profiting from that. But he should move his lazy ass and start a new venture towards setting up an L2 hub (which might even be a big joint venture of chinese miners).



vortex1878
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 485
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 09:27:44 PM

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.
What's your angle?

My angle meaning what?

I already stated what I thought, no?

In essence, I agree with any point that the current bitcoin system is established as a secure decentralized immutable way to store and transfer value.  If what bitcoin "is" is undermined by some kind of centralized system or manipulation or FUD that allows for such undermining of bitcoin "as it is", then that would be problematic.  

My angle remains that XT, Classic and now BU are either aimed or have effects that are attempting to undermine bitcoin "as is"... ... so we will see how all of that plays out, and whether bitcoin is going to be able to preserve its value in one form or another regarding a secure decentralized and immutable system that allows for the storage and transferring of value
Okay let's remove any possibility of ambiguity then.

Are you against increasing the transfer capacity of the bitcoin network, yes or no? Just yes or no.
no
So why do you want to stay at the current 1 MB? You can't have it both ways.

First of all.  You edited out my answer.
I made your answer concise as I requested and you ignored. Your victim card is revoked. And look, here I am editing you again!

If you don't show respect you do not get respect. Just how things are.

I am just a random user / poster here.
I have logged in a few days back (please see my posting history) after years.
But I did have JayJuanGee on ignore since I had been very active a few years back. For a reason apparently.
Please do not reply to this moron.
Thank you.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1205


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 09:50:21 PM

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!



Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.
What's your angle?

My angle meaning what?

I already stated what I thought, no?

In essence, I agree with any point that the current bitcoin system is established as a secure decentralized immutable way to store and transfer value.  If what bitcoin "is" is undermined by some kind of centralized system or manipulation or FUD that allows for such undermining of bitcoin "as it is", then that would be problematic.  

My angle remains that XT, Classic and now BU are either aimed or have effects that are attempting to undermine bitcoin "as is"... ... so we will see how all of that plays out, and whether bitcoin is going to be able to preserve its value in one form or another regarding a secure decentralized and immutable system that allows for the storage and transferring of value
Okay let's remove any possibility of ambiguity then.

Are you against increasing the transfer capacity of the bitcoin network, yes or no? Just yes or no.
no
So why do you want to stay at the current 1 MB? You can't have it both ways.

First of all.  You edited out my answer.
I made your answer concise as I requested and you ignored. Your victim card is revoked. And look, here I am editing you again!

If you don't show respect you do not get respect. Just how things are.


In other words, you are a fucking idiot, and don't have enough balls to deal with actual substance, so you remove substance in order to attempt to frame the argument and the issues to your own fantastical preferences.

Another way of describing your behavior is trolling - which is putting out talking points and failure/refusal to engage with the substance of other posters (mio included).   Roll Eyes


JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1205


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 09:55:40 PM


[edited out]


I am just a random user / poster here.
I have logged in a few days back (please see my posting history) after years.
But I did have JayJuanGee on ignore since I had been very active a few years back. For a reason apparently.
Please do not reply to this moron.
Thank you.

Do you have any kind of substantive contribution that you would like to make to this line of discussion, Vortex1878, or do you just want to chime in with non-substantiated, admittedly non-informed and conclusory remarks about character?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1063


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 10:58:55 PM


[edited out]


I am just a random user / poster here.
I have logged in a few days back (please see my posting history) after years.
But I did have JayJuanGee on ignore since I had been very active a few years back. For a reason apparently.
Please do not reply to this moron.
Thank you.

Do you have any kind of substantive contribution that you would like to make to this line of discussion, Vortex1878, or do you just want to chime in with non-substantiated, admittedly non-informed and conclusory remarks about character?
Nobody likes you.
Ted E. Bare
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 503


Bear with me


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:03:31 PM

Be nice to each other dear bitcoiners. Kiss
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


GIF by SOCIFI


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:07:51 PM

no more mr nice guy

active BU OR ELSE!
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1063


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:14:59 PM

Be nice to each other dear bitcoiners. Kiss
Any time you start a thought with "it would be nice if..." that thought is wrong. Not always fun, but that is how the world works.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1205


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:32:41 PM


[edited out]


I am just a random user / poster here.
I have logged in a few days back (please see my posting history) after years.
But I did have JayJuanGee on ignore since I had been very active a few years back. For a reason apparently.
Please do not reply to this moron.
Thank you.

Do you have any kind of substantive contribution that you would like to make to this line of discussion, Vortex1878, or do you just want to chime in with non-substantiated, admittedly non-informed and conclusory remarks about character?
Nobody likes you.

Just like a troll to figure out any possible way to stray from any kind of somewhat relevant topic.....   Roll Eyes


But let me attempt to respond to the admittedly non-relevant subject that you raise:

1) I'm going to affirmatively assert that my mom likes me, and she has even told me so in a convincing way.  Wink

2) Over the past three years, there have been one, two and possibly more posters who actually posted that they liked me.  At the moment, I cannot remember the exact context and I cannot find the post in which each made such representation(s), but I will state, without reservation, that what I say is true and I could prove it, if I had a week to sort through posts.   Tongue
MinermanNC
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:53:11 PM

At the end of the day, the Chinese Mining farms will put BU into action should they so decide to. Regardless of how we all feel in here either way about it. If they did create the longer chain.... hence, to keep or have just one BTC coin only, do we really have a choice at that point other than to get onboard with it? ... just thinking lol

unless of course some want 2 coins  Huh lol

I also don't think should the worst happen, it will be the end of Bitcoin either  Shocked
deepcolderwallet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:55:21 PM

You are literally complaining that bitcoin is so successful than people other than internet nerds are becoming interested. This is Good News™.

Are you the new worst commenter on the forum?  The entire point of bitcoin is "decentralization".  To mine things like gold you have to go through the government itself and get permits and also deal with entities like the EPA, yet even with all that bureaucracy, gold and silver mining is still more decentralized than bitcoin mining is.  This is not a good thing when "decentralization" is it's entire selling point.
Welcome to the real world. Other people have Agendas. This was never not going to happen.

Please make a comment that makes some type of sense.  You first said I'm "complaining that others besides internet nerds are interested in bitcoin".  LOL, they are not interested in "bitcoin", they're interested in inserting themselves as middlemen and extracting usury and seigniorage fees from you.  The exact thing that bitcoin is supposed to prevent.  If bitcoin developers themselves can't even mine the coin they develop for and have to pay tribute to some cartel, I'm not sure there is much point in this because this thing has clearly gone off the rails.

THIS!!!
I could not put in words the actual state of Bitcoin better than you did.
deepcolderwallet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 21, 2017, 12:16:19 AM

At the end of the day, the Chinese Mining farms will put BU into action should they so decide to. Regardless of how we all feel in here either way about it. If they did create the longer chain.... hence, to keep or have just one BTC coin only, do we really have a choice at that point other than to get onboard with it? ... just thinking lol

unless of course some want 2 coins  Huh lol

I also don't think should the worst happen, it will be the end of Bitcoin either  Shocked

And here we can contemplate the voice of chinese miners!

NO, MY FRIEND!

I know you miners already started threatening and making a lot of noise, and I know you will do even more noise, but the truth is that WE ARE NOT TRADING OUR DIGNITY FOR PROFIT!
Bitcoin is far more an investment, a currency or whatever. Bitcoin is FREEDOM.

WE ARE NOT TAKING IT FROM CHINA! You can fork, you can have all your Buttcoin ruled by the greedy miners, this just WILL NOT BE OUR CURRENCY!

I prefer seeing Bitcoins Market Cap falling to less than 1 billion (that will never happen anymore, just saying) than having it in hands of people worse than my government.
deepcolderwallet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 21, 2017, 12:45:00 AM

All these advocating for a hard fork are clueless, they have no idea how mercenary the miners are due to the amounts of money they are outlaying continuously on electricity and other costs. The profitability calculations includes chain difficulty and price.

Cut that bullshit, chinese miner! We all know how cheap it is to assemble an ASIC in china and how cheap is electricity there. Many steal power instead of paying. Go away with your disinformation!
gembitz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 263


#free software


View Profile
March 21, 2017, 12:51:03 AM

no more mr nice guy

active BU OR ELSE!

MinermanNC
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 21, 2017, 01:02:19 AM

I need cappuccino! for my BU  Grin
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


GIF by SOCIFI


View Profile
March 21, 2017, 01:57:02 AM

ETH collapsing bitcoin UP
Fakhoury
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004


Permabull Bitcoin Investor


View Profile
March 21, 2017, 02:34:56 AM

jbreher
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1038


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
March 21, 2017, 02:38:20 AM

I'm sure I someone will come along and call me paranoid for having such views. Considering current events, I don't think a little paranoia is a bad thing. I prefer to look at it as being prepared. Erring on the side of decentralization is the prudent choice in my opinion.

I don't consider your 'paranoia' unwarranted. However, I think keeping the transaction processing capability down works against your stated goals.

It would seem to me that your stated goal for 'decentralization' is an increase in the number of non-mining nodes. I think we can likely agree that the only population that would have any interest whatsoever in being a non-mining node would be Bitcoiners. I reason from this that increasing the number of Bitcoiners would add the the population of people that may self-select in becoming non-mining nodes. Indeed, it would be my expectation that increasing the number of Bitcoiners will -- all else being equal -- lead to more non-mining nodes.

It seems axiomatic to me that making Bitcoin applicable to more use cases, or more usable for the use cases it has, or downright cheaper to use, will lead to more usage, and more Bitcoiners. And that increasing transaction capability and decreasing transaction cost both serve these aims.

Long story short, I believe making Bitcoin more capable -- even at some real increment of per-node operational cost -- will lead to an increase in the number of non-mining nodes. I realize others may differ. And creating a controlled experiment is likely out of the question.

Of course, I really don't think non-mining nodes add any value to the network. Only to their operators. Again, I realize opinions on this matter differ as well.
PoolMinor
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1357
Merit: 1016


XXXVII Fnord is toast without bread


View Profile
March 21, 2017, 02:50:24 AM



Second of all, you are planting assumptions about my position based on information that I did not provide.



Wow, there is a statement of futility.
Also pot & kettle argument here.
Also-also no one likes you.


Pages: « 1 ... 16596 16597 16598 16599 16600 16601 16602 16603 16604 16605 16606 16607 16608 16609 16610 16611 16612 16613 16614 16615 16616 16617 16618 16619 16620 16621 16622 16623 16624 16625 16626 16627 16628 16629 16630 16631 16632 16633 16634 16635 16636 16637 16638 16639 16640 16641 16642 16643 16644 16645 [16646] 16647 16648 16649 16650 16651 16652 16653 16654 16655 16656 16657 16658 16659 16660 16661 16662 16663 16664 16665 16666 16667 16668 16669 16670 16671 16672 16673 16674 16675 16676 16677 16678 16679 16680 16681 16682 16683 16684 16685 16686 16687 16688 16689 16690 16691 16692 16693 16694 16695 16696 ... 20323 »
  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!