Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 05:00:07 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Nov. 30 Price Forecast:
Below $5,500 - 32 (13.2%)
$5,500 to $6,000 - 12 (5%)
$6,000 to $6,500 - 8 (3.3%)
$6,500 to $7,000 - 20 (8.3%)
$7,000 to $7,500 - 22 (9.1%)
$7,500 to $8,000 - 22 (9.1%)
$8,000 to $8,500 - 34 (14%)
Over $8,500 - 92 (38%)
Total Voters: 242

Pages: « 1 ... 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 16697 16698 16699 16700 16701 ... 18365 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 19688519 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.
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414



View Profile
March 20, 2017, 08:19:54 PM

Floor ?

1511110807
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511110807

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511110807
Reply with quote  #2

1511110807
Report to moderator
1511110807
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511110807

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511110807
Reply with quote  #2

1511110807
Report to moderator
1511110807
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511110807

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511110807
Reply with quote  #2

1511110807
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511110807
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511110807

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511110807
Reply with quote  #2

1511110807
Report to moderator
1511110807
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511110807

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511110807
Reply with quote  #2

1511110807
Report to moderator
1511110807
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511110807

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511110807
Reply with quote  #2

1511110807
Report to moderator
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


Live Stars - Adult Streaming Platform


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 08:24:21 PM

Floor ?


Launch pad.
york780
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224

the next 5 years are critical.


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 08:25:11 PM

Catapult.
elebit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 438


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 08:52:54 PM

When the small block chain eventually takes over the BU fork, are the BU nodes going to switch to that chain and basically erase the forked chain from memory?

It's supposed to work that way. Not just "Core 1MB", but any miner can set any blocksize at any time, and if that miner has guessed right and enough of the network accepts it then that will be everyone's new setting. Otherwise that whole chain will be orphaned. It doesn't matter if the blocksize goes up or down. That's what "emergent consensus" means.

Depending on what you signal, you could trick your fellow miners to mine chains that will have a low chance of survival. The more hash power and nodes you control the more you can potentially gain, but it's all subject to the usual variance to there is an element of chance to it.

Nobody really knows how that would play out, since nobody has taken it seriously enough to study it in detail and run any realistic simulations or testnets. How many confirmations will it take to protect against double spends? Nobody knows. The chain you're on can potentially be invalidated at any time. How large blocks will we end up with? Nobody knows. They'll probably get both larger and smaller.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344


Put BTC here: 1GSwznUNG4co5rS3ctmRgtYGcWiHAnwAyj


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 09:00:55 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.  

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

In other words, you are not really attempting to engage in any kind of meaningful interaction but instead wanting to disseminate your own talking points and to falsely attribute positions to others (isn't that called, creation of a strawman?)
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344


Put BTC here: 1GSwznUNG4co5rS3ctmRgtYGcWiHAnwAyj


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 09:02:57 PM

A compromise looks very likely  Cheesy



But I feel bad for selling... if I buy back now I will pretty much be down 5 btc..... ugh...


Could be worse.     Tongue Tongue    Cheesy
york780
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224

the next 5 years are critical.


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 09:16:58 PM

Yes it could. I sold my 230 Ethereum for 11 dollar each, just before the huge pump where it is now. I could have made 10000USD out of it. But hey bitcoin will go up and we will have a nice ROI at the end
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


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.
bitserve
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 294


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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 459


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: 1344


Put BTC here: 1GSwznUNG4co5rS3ctmRgtYGcWiHAnwAyj


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: 1344


Put BTC here: 1GSwznUNG4co5rS3ctmRgtYGcWiHAnwAyj


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: 1428


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: 560


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: 308


Live Stars - Adult Streaming Platform


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

no more mr nice guy

active BU OR ELSE!
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


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: 1344


Put BTC here: 1GSwznUNG4co5rS3ctmRgtYGcWiHAnwAyj


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: 1456



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: 210



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: 210



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.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 16697 16698 16699 16700 16701 ... 18365 »
  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!