Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2019, 12:43:21 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What year will we achieve a new ATH?
2019 - 43 (28.7%)
2020 - 59 (39.3%)
2021 - 34 (22.7%)
2022 - 8 (5.3%)
2023 - 1 (0.7%)
Never - 5 (3.3%)
Total Voters: 150

Pages: « 1 ... 20320 20321 20322 20323 20324 20325 20326 20327 20328 20329 20330 20331 20332 20333 20334 20335 20336 20337 20338 20339 20340 20341 20342 20343 20344 20345 20346 20347 20348 20349 20350 20351 20352 20353 20354 20355 20356 20357 20358 20359 20360 20361 20362 20363 20364 20365 20366 20367 20368 20369 [20370] 20371 20372 20373 20374 20375 20376 20377 20378 20379 20380 20381 20382 20383 20384 20385 20386 20387 20388 20389 20390 20391 20392 20393 20394 20395 20396 20397 20398 20399 20400 20401 20402 20403 20404 20405 20406 20407 20408 20409 20410 20411 20412 20413 20414 20415 20416 20417 20418 20419 20420 ... 23965 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21180722 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. (24 posts by 13 users deleted.)
BobLawblaw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1911


BitcoinTalk's Most Fabulously Gay Black Power-Top


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 01:42:37 AM
Merited by edgar (1), Karartma1 (1)

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

BCH is just fucking retards running around in a China Shop, breaking and buying everything in sight, because they have more money than brains.

It's shameful, amateurish behavior, and it's fucking with BTC-proper.
1558874601
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558874601

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558874601
Reply with quote  #2

1558874601
Report to moderator
1558874601
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558874601

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558874601
Reply with quote  #2

1558874601
Report to moderator
GET 25 FREE SPINS AT REGISTRATION
GET 100% BONUS ON FIRST DEPOSIT
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558874601
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558874601

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558874601
Reply with quote  #2

1558874601
Report to moderator
1558874601
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558874601

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558874601
Reply with quote  #2

1558874601
Report to moderator
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 01:44:40 AM
Merited by Peter R (2)

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

BCH is just fucking retards running around in a China Shop, breaking and buying everything in sight, because they have more money than brains.

It's shameful, amateurish behavior, and it's fucking with BTC-proper.
I'm not convinced that segwit was the better choice. In general, doing something in a simple way is better than doing it in a complicated way. But it is what we have now.
RewFrew
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 110


Give me your tips for free.. And yes thanks.


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 01:45:19 AM

Those little dumps below 10K are very healthy for the next bitcoin ups.

Support this time: 9200$

We are not going below 9200$.
bitserve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 732


HODL.


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 01:46:58 AM
Last edit: May 07, 2018, 02:04:12 AM by bitserve

You... you quoted yourself in agreement.

Also, I fail to see why someone would buy loads of ETH to short it. I can't see a way for that to be profitable. You can't short your own position and make money.

Yeah, it makes total sense I do agree with myself, doesn't it?

Now seriously, I quoted it because I posted it several days ago before ETC started to pump and that's the reason I guess some people also thought the same. Or maybe it's just a random pump... who knows.

About the shorting ETH thing... well, that's how pump and dumps work.... some people pump it from point A, then more people FOMO in and keep raising the price to point B or C. Now the initial pumpers dump (or short) on the later.. profit! At least theoretically.
BobLawblaw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1911


BitcoinTalk's Most Fabulously Gay Black Power-Top


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 01:57:36 AM
Merited by Torque (1)

I'm not convinced that segwit was the better choice. In general, doing something in a simple way is better than doing it in a complicated way. But it is what we have now.

SegWit was needed for Layer 2 stuff, and did add effectively another 1MB to the blocksize.

It was win-win for everyone IMO.

I saw it as the more elegant way forward.
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:13:04 AM

Who's dumping all the rat poison squared? Is there a flippening drama unfolding?
I hate flippening drama Roll Eyes
Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1486



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:18:02 AM
Merited by infofront (1), Rosewater Foundation (1)

Segwit is working. LN is working. Transaction confirmation times are low, and fees are the lowest they've been in a long time. On LN they are non-existent. And the whole solution is supporting decentralization in the best way possible.

And yet people STILL want to bitch and find something wrong with the solution. And still bring up the block size shit like it even matters right now.

I'm so tired of the bullshit and I will call out anyone who brings that tired argument up again.

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:21:22 AM

PS. I only merited fake r0ach when he outed himself to fake Tera Roll Eyes


Ever seen a roach get squeezed?

It was the whiteness of r0ach the silver whale and the color of his bullion above all things that appalled me.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1260


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:28:47 AM

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1260


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:30:52 AM

I'm not convinced that segwit was the better choice.

I'm pert-near certain it wasn't.

Quote
In general, doing something in a simple way is better than doing it in a complicated way.

Abso-frickin-lutely.

Quote
But it is what we have now.

PorqueNoLosDos.png
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:38:29 AM

Segwit is working. LN is working. Transaction confirmation times are low, and fees are the lowest they've been in a long time. On LN they are non-existent. And the whole solution is supporting decentralization in the best way possible.

And yet people STILL want to bitch and find something wrong with the solution. And still bring up the block size shit like it even matters right now.

I'm so tired of the bullshit and I will call out anyone who brings that tired argument up again.

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.
You are being a tribalist again. That's not necessary if we actually did make the right choice.
edgar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1001


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:39:43 AM

If anyone ever wants to know why I sound cynical then this is why. God it's going to be so fun to quote all those arrogant posts if new lows come.

fun to revel in the misery of others???

sounds kinda sociopathic, 'bro'

L'Chaim, eh...?
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1260


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:42:21 AM

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 292


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:52:43 AM

If anyone ever wants to know why I sound cynical then this is why. God it's going to be so fun to quote all those arrogant posts if new lows come.

fun to revel in the misery of others???

sounds kinda sociopathic, 'bro'

L'Chaim, eh...?

Not if you look at it from the perspective of shitcoin shills trying to force a centralized, non-fungible, permissioned ledger, cashless society slave system onto humanity when physical silver and gold are already a superior system in the first place.  But TERA IS A NOOB and doesn't understand things like this.
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:53:57 AM

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

Cheap knock-off flippening drama. Angry No wonder you're making your presence known.
Humbug.
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1210



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 03:05:42 AM
Merited by Icygreen (1)

Why is btrash doing so well ?
Probably because of the upcoming fork.
...
Quote
Proponents are looking forward to a 32 MB block size increase and op-code additions that could bring ethereum-like characteristics to the BCH network.

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ.

The cancer that is BCash cannot die soon enough, along with Roger Ver.
Bigger blocks is a good thing. The problem is that they are being deceptive cunts. If we had chosen big blocks and they had chosen segwit, we would still think the same thing about them, and for the same reason. And be applauding ourselves for making the correct choice.

It's the people, not the tech.
Bigger blocks are a bandaid. I was all for 2x when we needed the capacity. It is not a scaling solution. Its for people who spend 10 minutes researching crypto and think they're geniuses.
It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

Here is my 2 satoshi for what it's worth:

Block size, if handled correctly, will end up having nothing to do with scaling and everything to do with regulating compensation for miners. If miners are not being given enough incentive to provide sufficient security to the blockchain than blocks are too big, if the opposite is the case than blocks are too small. Scaling will have to come from second layer solutions. Some transactions will always need to be on chain, the value that people place on putting transactions on chain needs to be enough to compensate the miners, and in the absence of the ability to regulate demand, the only alternative is to regulate the supply of on chain space inorder to increase its price to the level necessary to accomplish this.
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2800
Merit: 1383


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2018, 03:08:54 AM

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

I actually started to pull out my private keys to start dumping BCH but realized I'm traveling and I don't have the full set of keys available. Oh well, will wait for the next pump.
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 03:26:43 AM

jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1260


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 03:39:23 AM

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

Cheap knock-off flippening drama. Angry No wonder you're making your presence known.
Humbug.

No. Once again, I did not insert BCH into discourse. I was merely replying to Torque's objectively flawed assertion.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1260


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 03:48:12 AM
Merited by Peter R (3)

Here is my 2 satoshi for what it's worth:

Block size, if handled correctly, will end up having nothing to do with scaling and everything to do with regulating compensation for miners. If miners are not being given enough incentive to provide sufficient security to the blockchain than blocks are too big, if the opposite is the case than blocks are too small. Scaling will have to come from second layer solutions. Some transactions will always need to be on chain, the value that people place on putting transactions on chain needs to be enough to compensate the miners, and in the absence of the ability to regulate demand, the only alternative is to regulate the supply of on chain space inorder to increase its price to the level necessary to accomplish this.

Yet we have known since Adam Smith that the hidden hand of the marketplace will ensure that the optimal solution is arrived at by letting prices find their own equilibrium. This has been more formalized in more recent times in that the price and quantity of a good will be set at the point where the demand/price curve and the supply/price curve intersect. Further still, dead losses are incurred any time production quotas are enforced. Given this, why do you assert the utility of a production quota on transaction throughput? Why not trust miners to set the tx throughput supply to maximize profit under the demand and supply curves?
Pages: « 1 ... 20320 20321 20322 20323 20324 20325 20326 20327 20328 20329 20330 20331 20332 20333 20334 20335 20336 20337 20338 20339 20340 20341 20342 20343 20344 20345 20346 20347 20348 20349 20350 20351 20352 20353 20354 20355 20356 20357 20358 20359 20360 20361 20362 20363 20364 20365 20366 20367 20368 20369 [20370] 20371 20372 20373 20374 20375 20376 20377 20378 20379 20380 20381 20382 20383 20384 20385 20386 20387 20388 20389 20390 20391 20392 20393 20394 20395 20396 20397 20398 20399 20400 20401 20402 20403 20404 20405 20406 20407 20408 20409 20410 20411 20412 20413 20414 20415 20416 20417 20418 20419 20420 ... 23965 »
  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!