TERA2
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 266
Merit: 222
Deb Rah Von Doom
|
|
January 15, 2018, 11:35:24 PM |
|
If you look at 1W or 3D you see this flat line of soft support at 13500. Who is buying there? I imagine if there is a dip to 8000 its going to quickly come back to 13500.
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Online
Activity: 3878
Merit: 11064
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
|
January 15, 2018, 11:35:55 PM |
|
First quarters are shaping up to be bearish/volatile periods for Bitcorn, with upward cycles beginning Q2-ish.
Agreed. I don't think we'll see much action until March. You might be correct, but seems strange for you attempting to come off as some kind of a bearishly inclined soothsayer all of a sudden, with an attempted air of practicality. We have all kinds of action going on in the bitcoin space more narrowly and the crypto space more broadly, so when you are suggesting that there is not going to be "much action until March" are you saying that we are going to stay within a $12500 to $17500 range, or a broader $10k to $20k range, or something else? Even within those ranges, I would suggest that we still have significant "action", unless you are suggesting that "action" only counts if there is a BTC price break above $20k?
|
|
|
|
gentlemand
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014
Welt Am Draht
|
|
January 15, 2018, 11:36:31 PM |
|
He makes some pretty bad points regarding the vision of Satoshi.
Mr. Lingham projectile shat his credibility out the window the moment he sold everything in anticipation of some long forgotten fork attempt. Most of these people seem to wind up blowing it at some point and then turn embittered when their own genius fails them.
|
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
|
January 15, 2018, 11:42:48 PM |
|
He makes some pretty bad points regarding the vision of Satoshi.
Mr. Lingham projectile shat his credibility out the window the moment he sold everything in anticipation of some long forgotten fork attempt. Most of these people seem to wind up blowing it at some point and then turn embittered when their own genius fails them. Contentious forks are a serious issue. I don't blame anyone for selling while anticipating such eventualities - because they can be chaotic. But I do blame him for overlooking a lot of pretty self-evident things in the thesis he wrote.
|
|
|
|
gentlemand
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014
Welt Am Draht
|
|
January 15, 2018, 11:45:55 PM |
|
Contentious forks are a serious issue. I don't blame anyone for selling while anticipating such eventualities - because they can be chaotic. But I do blame him for overlooking a lot of pretty self-evident things in the thesis he wrote.
That's how you wind up with 50% or fewer coins for the same outlay than just staying put. At no point did I ever believe any of the contentious forks would succeed.
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Online
Activity: 3878
Merit: 11064
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
|
January 15, 2018, 11:47:23 PM |
|
He makes some pretty bad points regarding the vision of Satoshi.
Mr. Lingham projectile shat his credibility out the window the moment he sold everything in anticipation of some long forgotten fork attempt. Most of these people seem to wind up blowing it at some point and then turn embittered when their own genius fails them. Yes, exactly, and Lingham's genius was arguing fairly vociferously and persistently when in March 2017 BTC prices had dipped down from $1350-ish to $890 that he had expected that inevitably BTC prices would drop below $500, so HODLers should sell in order to buy back lower... and as we know that did not happen. even though there were a lot of folks trusting his self-proclaimed oracle representations.
|
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
|
January 15, 2018, 11:48:22 PM |
|
Contentious forks are a serious issue. I don't blame anyone for selling while anticipating such eventualities - because they can be chaotic. But I do blame him for overlooking a lot of pretty self-evident things in the thesis he wrote.
That's how you wind up with 50% or fewer coins for the same outlay than just staying put. At no point did I ever believe any of the contentious forks would succeed. You don't need to believe it will succeed. You only need to believe it has a high degree of risk to fuck things up. The market was pretty "constrained" prior to burying the 2x fork, and once that threat got buried, the purchasing power was unleashed from 7k -> 20k usd.
|
|
|
|
|
afbitcoins
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2101
Merit: 1061
|
|
January 16, 2018, 12:25:49 AM |
|
A lot of people get paid on Thursdays or the 15 of every month. It has zero impact.
You're not getting it. There is likely to be a larger-than-usual fiat infusion into crypto-markets coming up on or around the 18th of Jan and Feb. Fuck it. I'll shut up.Let's see how things play out and see for ourselves. Yes
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
January 16, 2018, 12:40:25 AM Last edit: January 16, 2018, 12:53:15 AM by jbreher |
|
He makes some pretty bad points regarding the vision of Satoshi. He names some points about bch and then says "that's closer to Satoshi's vision". Yet the points he quotes are the exact opposite, except technological scaling. Well, no. Nowhere does he say "that's closer to Satoshi's vision". Perhaps you are referring to the following?: "more closely aligned to Satoshi’s original white paper"? For that is something he actually does say - perhaps the closest to what you erroneously claim he said. If we're going to have a meaningful dialogue, you're going to need to speak with precision. Why don't you answer this, then point out which particular numbered stated attributes you believe to be at odds with this claim? 1) What part of "peer-to-peer" didn't he grasp? You either have a client/server system, or a peer-to-peer, or a semi-centralized system with very few "peers" who are your servers, and thus aren't really "peers"... you are their client. How can a client/server system be closer to Satoshi's vision than a peer to peer system?
Do you claim that every BTC user runs a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client (often erroneously referred to as a 'full node')? Do you claim that no BCH user runs a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client? If the answers respectively are not 'yes' and 'yes', then I fail to see what your point is. Neither is purely peer-to-peer, and neither is purely client-server. 4) Without fees, mining profitability will fall of a cliff, not in 100+ years, but in 6 to 14 years from now. No miner will stay around to mine 0.0 to 0.1 btc per block until "coins are exhausted" in over a century ahead so that a fee market develops. That's bullshit. Without fees and a fee market, BCH is not futureproof. If you exist as a coin on the premise that users will always have ample space to transact, and that users can always have txs on with 1-2-5 sat/byte, at that point your store of value property is destroyed because
a) the network will be unsafe (no mining incentive) or b) you implement a tail-emission inflationary scheme to cover mining incentives by issuing more coins than the initial 21mn target.
The solution is so clear in its simplicity, it is truly stunning that you do not get it. _IF_ we were to reach a point where the fees were insufficient to incentivize any given miner to mine, then blocks will not be mined. This will create more demand for transaction processing. More demand & lees supply => prices rise to the point where block mining is incentivized. What price? The price of mining a transaction onto the blockchain. The price we call 'transaction fee'.
|
|
|
|
LewisPirenne
|
|
January 16, 2018, 12:43:21 AM |
|
https://vinnylingham.com/a-tale-of-two-bitcoins-20375d49d3d3It’s clear from the recent surge in Ripple (a highly centralized coin) to $2+ ($100bn+ market cap), that the market/traders definitely don’t care much about centralization.
From my reading of Vinny's twits and his argument with Core team over the past year, I thought his ideology follows more closely with the ETH and BCH crowd. The problem with the above statement is that those who don't care about centralization will probably end up using the upcoming bankster and govcoin in due time. So I have maintained in the past that ALT isn't really the problem, but govcoin with monthly airdrop in the form of Universal Basic Income or social welfare would be the real competition. Because Bitcoin is voluntary and based on incentives, people can leave any time if they want. So it got to be deflationary for hodlers to hold and fee market high for miners to secure. I mean if you are in crypto only for the money, I think it's perfectly fine for people to play with bankster/govcoin. After all, crony capitalism is highly lucrative and the overlords always want their goons and hanger-on to be well paid to set an example for others. Even if you are a diehard rebel planning to pull a disappearing act once the revolution fails, it still may be sensible to hedge a bit because if we can't get Gold Standard 2.0 empowered by Internet, than it's more likely that we will end up with some dystopian Fiat 2.0, paid for and paved with the blood of crypto pioneers. So with some bankster/govcoin on hand, you can actually claim some plausible deniability or at least as someone being led astray and now repentant.
|
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
|
January 16, 2018, 12:58:18 AM |
|
Well, no. Nowhere does he say "that's closer to Satoshi's vision". Perhaps you are referring to the following?: "more closely aligned to Satoshi’s original white paper"? For that is something he actually does say - perhaps the closest to what you erroneously claim he said. If we're going to have a meaningful dialogue, you're going to need to speak with precision. Why don't you answer this, then point out which particular numbered stated attributes you believe to be at odds with this claim?
This is what I'm having problem with: As many Bitcoin and Core developer supporters have indicated, the Bitcoin Cash philosophy is more closely aligned to Satoshi’s original white paper
...essentially implying that there is some consensus, even from bitcoin supporters, that bch is following the vision of satoshi better than btc, and then "backs it up" with a quote - when in fact you could insert another 100 quotes that are a condemnation. I don't know if he wants to play "balanced" or something, but it's not a case of balance, it's a case for accuracy. Do you claim that every BTC user runs a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client (often erroneously referred to as a 'full node')? Do you claim that no BCH user runs a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client? If the answers respectively are not 'yes' and 'yes', then I fail to see what your point is. Neither is purely peer-to-peer, and neither is purely client-server.
Per your rationale, if BTC, say, has 20.000 nodes and BCH has 20 nodes, they are the same, in their neither being pure p2p or pure client/server... yet, if you aren't intellectually dishonest, you realize that there is a big quality difference. The solution is so clear in its simplicity, it is truly stunning that you do not get it. _IF_ we were to reach a point where the fees were insufficient to incentivize any given miner to mine, then blocks will not be mined. This will create more demand for transaction processing. More demand & lees supply => prices rise to the point where block mining is incentivized. What price? The price of mining a transaction onto the blockchain. The price we call 'transaction fee'.
That would create an anomalous mining scheme, where miners only bother if they have a batch of txs to do with fees and then disappear... then they'll wait for a good backlog to buildup plenty of fees and give it a shot again... it would be something like a difficulty adjustment scheme, but based on real-time intention of people who want to transact. If the last block was confirmed recently = no serious backlog for the miner to even bother with. Let it build up several thousand txs and then try to mine.
|
|
|
|
d_eddie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 3559
|
|
January 16, 2018, 01:16:48 AM |
|
Do you claim that every BTC user runs a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client (often erroneously referred to as a 'full node')? Do you claim that no BCH user runs a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client? If the answers respectively are not 'yes' and 'yes', then I fail to see what your point is. Neither is purely peer-to-peer, and neither is purely client-server.
Per your rationale, if BTC, say, has 20.000 nodes and BCH has 20 nodes, they are the same, in their neither being pure p2p or pure client/server... yet, if you aren't intellectually dishonest, you realize that there is a big quality difference. Of course jbreher's being intellectually rogueish. He's smart enough to know better.
|
|
|
|
Torque
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3710
Merit: 5286
|
|
January 16, 2018, 01:21:31 AM |
|
He makes some pretty bad points regarding the vision of Satoshi.
Mr. Lingham projectile shat his credibility out the window the moment he sold everything in anticipation of some long forgotten fork attempt. Most of these people seem to wind up blowing it at some point and then turn embittered when their own genius fails them. Yes, exactly, and Lingham's genius was arguing fairly vociferously and persistently when in March 2017 BTC prices had dipped down from $1350-ish to $890 that he had expected that inevitably BTC prices would drop below $500, so HODLers should sell in order to buy back lower... and as we know that did not happen. even though there were a lot of folks trusting his self-proclaimed oracle representations. Vinny is a tool and sits at the top of Mt. Stupid (along with many others) when it comes to his Bitcoin and crypto knowledge. It fills me with glee knowing that something he recently attempted to bid on and failed to acquire, I've had in my possession for a few years now. Way to be late to the party, Vinny.
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
January 16, 2018, 01:26:44 AM |
|
Do you claim that every BTC user runs a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client (often erroneously referred to as a 'full node')? Do you claim that no BCH user runs a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client? If the answers respectively are not 'yes' and 'yes', then I fail to see what your point is. Neither is purely peer-to-peer, and neither is purely client-server.
Per your rationale, if BTC, say, has 20.000 nodes and BCH has 20 nodes, they are the same, in their neither being pure p2p or pure client/server... yet, if you aren't intellectually dishonest, you realize that there is a big quality difference. Of course jbreher's being intellectually rogueish. He's smart enough to know better. Smart enough to know that nobody of 'normal' means that truly wants to run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client -- be it BTC or BCH -- is unable to do so.
|
|
|
|
mrkavasaki
|
|
January 16, 2018, 01:31:36 AM |
|
is bitcoin death?
|
|
|
|
bonipper
|
|
January 16, 2018, 01:38:16 AM |
|
Damn, its gone down a bit to slightly above the weekly low.
|
|
|
|
Searing
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1465
Clueless!
|
|
January 16, 2018, 01:39:02 AM |
|
Yes, bitcoin is death indeed Was the death of my 'wage slave' job, I retired yesterday Jan 14th...all due to BTC....living on mining revenue and in HODL mode on BTC and other cryptos... Spent today, puttering around the house doing chores....been a wage slave so long..kinda clueless on how to approach this...retiring early stuff... kinda surreal in fact...., on what to do...I've no clue, yet, in that, once you wake up retired...everything suddenly is OPTIONAL..you need to do that day! ....clueless presently...but I'll figure it out!
|
|
|
|
d_eddie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 3559
|
|
January 16, 2018, 01:45:00 AM |
|
Do you claim that every BTC user runs a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client (often erroneously referred to as a 'full node')? Do you claim that no BCH user runs a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client? If the answers respectively are not 'yes' and 'yes', then I fail to see what your point is. Neither is purely peer-to-peer, and neither is purely client-server.
Per your rationale, if BTC, say, has 20.000 nodes and BCH has 20 nodes, they are the same, in their neither being pure p2p or pure client/server... yet, if you aren't intellectually dishonest, you realize that there is a big quality difference. Of course jbreher's being intellectually rogueish. He's smart enough to know better. Smart enough to know that nobody of 'normal' means that truly wants to run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet client -- be it BTC or BCH -- is unable to do so. But but... farmers in Africa? But but... the democratic finance that Ver says he dreams of, while Bitcoin forgot it and it's only for the elites? It's the same concept at the basis of PoW: Working must be hard, checking must be easy. And stay easy.
|
|
|
|
d_eddie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 3559
|
|
January 16, 2018, 01:46:08 AM |
|
Yes, bitcoin is death indeed Was the death of my 'wage slave' job, I retired yesterday Jan 14th...all due to BTC....living on mining revenue and in HODL mode on BTC and other cryptos... Spent today, puttering around the house doing chores....been a wage slave so long..kinda clueless on how to approach this...retiring early stuff... kinda surreal in fact...., on what to do...I've no clue, yet, in that, once you wake up retired...everything suddenly is OPTIONAL..you need to do that day! ....clueless presently...but I'll figure it out! I'm sure you will. Congrats on making it Searing!
|
|
|
|
|