Bitcoin Forum
August 26, 2019, 06:25:12 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What do you think about more?
Sex - 54 (39.1%)
Bitcoin - 84 (60.9%)
Total Voters: 138

Pages: « 1 ... 20193 20194 20195 20196 20197 20198 20199 20200 20201 20202 20203 20204 20205 20206 20207 20208 20209 20210 20211 20212 20213 20214 20215 20216 20217 20218 20219 20220 20221 20222 20223 20224 20225 20226 20227 20228 20229 20230 20231 20232 20233 20234 20235 20236 20237 20238 20239 20240 20241 20242 [20243] 20244 20245 20246 20247 20248 20249 20250 20251 20252 20253 20254 20255 20256 20257 20258 20259 20260 20261 20262 20263 20264 20265 20266 20267 20268 20269 20270 20271 20272 20273 20274 20275 20276 20277 20278 20279 20280 20281 20282 20283 20284 20285 20286 20287 20288 20289 20290 20291 20292 20293 ... 24843 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21337205 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. (104 posts by 20 users deleted.)
JimboToronto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1302


You're never too old to be young.


View Profile
April 20, 2018, 06:39:17 PM
Last edit: April 20, 2018, 06:59:14 PM by JimboToronto

I have read about your journey through Mayan lands, and I am glad that life is treating you well.
When you say that the earth is cheap ... How cheap is it?

Thanks in advance.

I bought a 2 story palapa, cookhouse, eco toilet (composting outhouse) 2 wells (1 dug, 1 drilled) on almost an acre of land for about $15kCAD  ($11.8kUSD) half cash, half Bitcoin in January.

This week I'm buying a smaller lot, about 40 meters road frontage and 20 meters deep, with no structures for $3.1kCAD ($2.4kUSD).

The house is connected to water and electricity from town. It's on the edge of a village of less than 1k people on a gravel road.

The vacant land is less than a quarter mile away just beyond the reach of electricity on a mud road. Motions are already in place to extend electrical service there, hopefully within months.

There's already a larger gauge water line (suitable for irrigation) in front of the property, but I don't know if I can connect domestic service to it. No problem though. You can't drink the tap water anyway and bottled water is cheap. A large jug (25 liters?) costs 12 pesos ($0.80CAD/$0.60USD) plus deposit delivered daily by truck.

Edit: Do note that both properties were bought on canstancia not title. Land ownership by title requires family residency of over 100 years.

The only way to get around this is to register a corporation and then only if the owners of the ejido (in this case the Mayan community) agree to transfer title. This requires a large outlay so most people, foreigners and Mexicans alike, own by constancia.

You can read more about it here: https://www.mexperience.com/legal-title-of-mexican-property/
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1566800712
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566800712

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566800712
Reply with quote  #2

1566800712
Report to moderator
1566800712
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566800712

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566800712
Reply with quote  #2

1566800712
Report to moderator
1566800712
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566800712

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566800712
Reply with quote  #2

1566800712
Report to moderator
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 1322


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 20, 2018, 06:43:37 PM

So really all I know is that they intended to "scale" by increasing the blocksize. ... Has anything changed? Are they proposing realistic alternatives to lightning for scaling? Are there new developments that I should be aware of?

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.
vapourminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2425
Merit: 1225


what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?


View Profile
April 20, 2018, 06:47:17 PM

In other news who's gone short on 4/20 day?? bad move, expect the pump on 4/20.

I'm going real long on 4/20 day, if you catch my meaning, friend.

im down with that, and will being doing my part.
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1211



View Profile
April 20, 2018, 07:00:00 PM

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.

I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal.

But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1379


UNLEASH THE FURY!


View Profile
April 20, 2018, 07:05:43 PM

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.

I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal.

But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former.

You're the guy that when the Mormons ride up to your door, you invite them in, make them a strong mug of caffeine free tea, and then engage in a spirited discussion with them about the finer points of their beliefs with no serious intent on being converted.

Aren't you?
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1211



View Profile
April 20, 2018, 07:10:49 PM

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.

I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal.

But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former.

You're the guy that when the Mormons ride up to your door, you invite them in, make them a strong mug of caffeine free tea, and then engage in a spirited discussion with them about the finer points of their beliefs with no serious intent on being converted.

Aren't you?

Haha guilty Cheesy. I have never done that specific thing, but yea, I'm that guy.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 1322


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
April 20, 2018, 07:21:14 PM

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.

I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal.

But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former.

Well, the way I see it, Lightning was two years too late. And it will be three or four years too late before it makes an appreciable difference. In professional engineering, one always does the best bang for the buck before engaging more resource intensive, longer, more complex solutions. Simple blocksize increase first.

Add that the way Core/BS implemented the ugly kluge of shoehorning segwit in via a so-called soft fork has fundamentally changed Bitcoin's security model, and there is not much to love there.

Sure, Lightning allows high frequency txs between a limited set of participants, but it really doesn't do much for increasing the number of participants themselves. You can still only open or close about 5 channels per sec. How long will it take if everyone in the world wanted to open _one_ channel? Three decades.

But we've been over all these points - and more. I will continue to believe that Bitcoin Cash has the right way forward for Bitcoin. Others will continue to think that I am daft. I don't much care. I am happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But when others cast aspersions, I will reply to the slander.
doc12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1284
Merit: 1042


View Profile
April 20, 2018, 07:34:08 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.

The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s  there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s

The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.

Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.

There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.

I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal.

But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former.

Well, the way I see it, Lightning was two years too late. And it will be three or four years too late before it makes an appreciable difference. In professional engineering, one always does the best bang for the buck before engaging more resource intensive, longer, more complex solutions. Simple blocksize increase first.

Add that the way Core/BS implemented the ugly kluge of shoehorning segwit in via a so-called soft fork has fundamentally changed Bitcoin's security model, and there is not much to love there.

Sure, Lightning allows high frequency txs between a limited set of participants, but it really doesn't do much for increasing the number of participants themselves. You can still only open or close about 5 channels per sec. How long will it take if everyone in the world wanted to open _one_ channel? Three decades.

But we've been over all these points - and more. I will continue to believe that Bitcoin Cash has the right way forward for Bitcoin. Others will continue to think that I am daft. I don't much care. I am happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But when others cast aspersions, I will reply to the slander.

Shill your shitcoin in Rogers forum please... Thanks...

There is only one bitcoin and if there is a "bitcoin cash" then its monero and not your shitty forkcoin.  

Bcashers are the MOST annoying people in cryptospace, by far (Only challanged by the Verge-Shills)
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 1182



View Profile
April 20, 2018, 07:37:33 PM

What I am looking for is some basic civility.
You don't deserve it.
Toxic2040
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 1042



View Profile
April 20, 2018, 07:38:10 PM

-edited-
But we've been over all these points - and more.  Others will continue to think that I am daft. I don't much care.

Ad Nauseam.  The only way it gets better is a full retraction and admission that Bcash has perpetrated fraud for years and has been stealing brand identity for profit. Just buck up and admit your a shill and be on your way..please.
HairyMaclairy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1515


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
April 20, 2018, 07:43:44 PM
Last edit: April 20, 2018, 08:07:15 PM by HairyMaclairy

Jbreher

Let’s not kid ourselves here.  Bitcoin Cash is a money grab by Ver, Wu, Ayre, Peter R, Wright and the rest.

http://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-billionaire-calvin-ayre-building-100m-bcash-resort-antigua/

By continuing to support Bitcoin Cash, you are continuing to openly support fraud.  You will not get any sympathy from us so long as you openly support fraudsters.  

I ain't looking for sympathy (like I need it .... seen today's price action?). What I am looking for is some basic civility. Some assholes think it appropriate to turn every conversation I have into some sort of referendum on BCH. With unfounded/unsupported accusations to boot.

And no, BCH is not merely a money grab by a small handful of individuals. It is a legitimate contender in the cryptocurrency space, being developed by an legion of participants. And quite possibly in the long term the savior of Bitcoin. There is no fraud here. Nobody who looks at the issue more then five minutes is confused about the fact that BCH and BTC are two different things. The accusation that there is some intended fraud here is beyond ludicrous.

Show me someone who has had a loss due to 'Bitcoin' being in the name of Bitcoin Cash, and I'll show you someone who is cavalierly negligent, willfully ignorant, or both.

Tell me this isn’t confusing. Because I have been tricked by this Bitcoin Cash logo once already thinking it was a Bitcoin logo. And if I can be tricked, what chance do the noobs have?




What about these promoters of Bitcoin Cash?

[url=https://ibb.co/i7sEZ7]



You pretend that there is no brand hijacking going on.  You cannot possibly be so naive to genuinely believe that on the evidence so you must be a fraud like all the others.
LastJedi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 122


View Profile
April 20, 2018, 07:55:20 PM


Oh, he's a major whack job, no doubt, but he denies ever doing Coin of the Week.
He did have a photo with him and Satoshi Nakamoto having dinner in Japan last night.

No wonder the price shot up so quick cause he found who the creator of bitcoin is. Grin


Who would of ever thought he would be so young but accomplish such things in his brief time on this earth. Cheesy
Neo_Coin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 176


"Be Your Own Bank"


View Profile
April 20, 2018, 08:20:43 PM

Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1509



View Profile
April 20, 2018, 08:25:06 PM

You pretend that there is no brand hijacking going on.  You cannot possibly be so naive to genuinely believe that on the evidence so you must be a fraud like all the others.

jbreher's not naive about the brand hijacking, he just doesn't give a shit. And he's in hella denial about BCash's chances of being successful in the future.  

For everyone one person that buys some BCash, there's a million buying Bitcoin. And that ratio will only get worse for BCash in the future. Do the fucking math, jbreher.
Ludwig Von
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 298



View Profile
April 20, 2018, 08:43:39 PM

You pretend that there is no brand hijacking going on.  You cannot possibly be so naive to genuinely believe that on the evidence so you must be a fraud like all the others.

jbreher's not naive about the brand hijacking, he just doesn't give a shit. And he's in hella denial about BCash's chances of being successful in the future.  

For everyone one person that buys some BCash, there's a million buying Bitcoin. And that ratio will only get worse for BCash in the future. Do the fucking math, jbreher.

BCash is created as a parasite, on the base of imaginary flaws to be fixed. It was created as a parasite and only survives by the grace of it 's ghost. If it becomes too greedy, it could kill it 's ghost and by
doing that commit suicide. luckilly the parasite has attracted other parasites to itself, so it is flawed in it 's expoitation of the ghost. Ultimately the parasites will just turn out to be reinforcing the resilience of the
ghost and simply destroy themselves. Nothing in the whole discours about the raison d' ëtre in the BCash story makes sense.
GHCoins45
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 547
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 20, 2018, 08:53:06 PM

guys, let's focus on bitcoin and leave shitcoins to die
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
April 20, 2018, 09:13:09 PM

What I am looking for is some basic civility.

I'm just sore I didn't sell at the top. You are all a potential target for my fury at this point.
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 2251


Be a bank.


View Profile
April 20, 2018, 09:16:13 PM

What I am looking for is some basic civility.

I'm just sore I didn't sell at the top. You are all a potential target for my fury at this point.

Sure there'll be another top soon enough for you not to sell at Tongue


meanwhile, flash: some NY Fed dork called John shared some minor fud
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
April 20, 2018, 09:19:22 PM

^And now we're all going to die. See what you've done, jbreher?
Do you see??
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
April 20, 2018, 09:21:49 PM

What I am looking for is some basic civility.

I'm just sore I didn't sell at the top. You are all a potential target for my fury at this point.

Sure there'll be another top soon enough for you not to sell at Tongue


Fury intensifies.
Angry
Pages: « 1 ... 20193 20194 20195 20196 20197 20198 20199 20200 20201 20202 20203 20204 20205 20206 20207 20208 20209 20210 20211 20212 20213 20214 20215 20216 20217 20218 20219 20220 20221 20222 20223 20224 20225 20226 20227 20228 20229 20230 20231 20232 20233 20234 20235 20236 20237 20238 20239 20240 20241 20242 [20243] 20244 20245 20246 20247 20248 20249 20250 20251 20252 20253 20254 20255 20256 20257 20258 20259 20260 20261 20262 20263 20264 20265 20266 20267 20268 20269 20270 20271 20272 20273 20274 20275 20276 20277 20278 20279 20280 20281 20282 20283 20284 20285 20286 20287 20288 20289 20290 20291 20292 20293 ... 24843 »
  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!