Bitcoin Forum
January 16, 2022, 08:21:36 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Highest price we'll see in 2022:
50,000 - 0 (0%)
60,000 - 0 (0%)
70,000 - 0 (0%)
80,000 - 0 (0%)
90,000 - 0 (0%)
100,000 - 0 (0%)
125,000 - 0 (0%)
150,000 - 0 (0%)
175,000 - 0 (0%)
200,000 - 0 (0%)
225,000 - 0 (0%)
250,000 - 0 (0%)
275,000 - 0 (0%)
300,000 - 0 (0%)
>300,000 - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 0

Pages: « 1 ... 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 20294 20295 [20296] 20297 20298 20299 20300 20301 20302 20303 20304 20305 20306 20307 20308 20309 20310 20311 20312 20313 20314 20315 20316 20317 20318 20319 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 ... 30155 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25524575 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. (158 posts by 14 users with 9 merit deleted.)
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1536


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.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1642364496
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1642364496

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1642364496
Reply with quote  #2

1642364496
Report to moderator
1642364496
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1642364496

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1642364496
Reply with quote  #2

1642364496
Report to moderator
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1536


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?
Rosewater Foundation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 254



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 03:49:46 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.

Daytraders gotta daytrade. You're all over this place when your pet project is pumping.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 03:51:58 AM

Bigger blocks are a bandaid....
It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

Maybe as a soft fork.  

I suspect BTC won't be able to increase the block size limit directly (i.e., as a HF) without another blockchain split.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1536


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


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

Daytraders gotta daytrade. You're all over this place when your pet project is pumping.

Butthurt segwit maximalists misdirect their ire when Bitcoin Cash is enjoying a period of appreciation. Very loudly and very emphatically. Lashing out -- however inappropriately and however impotently -- against what they perceive as the foil of their pain. I merely reply.

I'm actually always all over this place. However, the most persistent and egregious untruths that would go unchallenged without my retort are false assertions about Bitcoin Cash.

I think of it as a service.

Cheers!
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1216



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 03:58:00 AM

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?
The internal market dynamics of a crypto currency protocol is a completely synthetic environment. It's like the internal legers of a corporation. You need management to make decisions in a corporation, "the invisible hand" can not run your corporation for you and for the exact same reasons it can not manage the internal dynamics of a crypto currency. It can punish protocols that chose poorer strategies and reward those that choose better strategies, but it can not chose your strategies for you. In that sense it regulates the internal dynamics of crypto currency protocols but only in that sense.


Why not trust miners to set the tx throughput supply to maximize profit under the demand and supply curves?
Because miners do not have the same set of incentives that users have and the bitcoin exists to serve users not miners, miners too exist to serve users. Admittedly that's just my opinion, but I think most people here can agree with it.
Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 2812



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 04:01:57 AM


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

Strange, i only see that argument coming from BCasher's, didn't expect less from Bcash shit noobs like you Kiss
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1536


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 04:03:38 AM

Because miners producers do not have the same set of incentives that users consumers have and the bitcoin product exists to serve users consumers not miners producers, miners producers too exist to serve users consumers.

So...
Cryptocurrencies -- specifically the market for tx inclusion -- are the one and only special case where the laws of economics do not apply?

(As an aside, I'm quite sure that, when the producers shut off their alarm clock at oh-dark-thirty, and wearily drag themselves out of bed to face another long grim day of producing, that doing it for the benefit of the exalted consumers ain't first and foremost on their minds)
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1536


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 04:05:26 AM


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

Strange, i only see that argument coming from BCasher's, didn't expect less from Bcash shit noobs like you Kiss

Once again, Paashaas yields a glancing and ineffectual blow, completely devoid of any cogent rebuttal.
realr0ach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 311


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 04:05:56 AM

Another day, another representative of the Jew World Order trying to disarm the population while flooding them with rapefugees that want to murder them (The Kalergi Plan):


JimboToronto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3164
Merit: 2714


You're never too old to be young.


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 04:24:35 AM

I cannot believe this shit.

I hop on a plane to Mexico with the price pushing $10k and less than 36 hours later it drops to $9.2k.

As Yogi Berra said, deja vu all over again.

Now someone will blame me for this crap. Go figure.

 Roll Eyes
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1216



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 04:25:55 AM

Because miners producers do not have the same set of incentives that users consumers have and the bitcoin product exists to serve users consumers not miners producers, miners producers too exist to serve users consumers.

So...
Cryptocurrencies -- specifically the market for tx inclusion -- are the one and only special case where the laws of economics do not apply?

(As an aside, I'm quite sure that, when the producers shut off their alarm clock at oh-dark-thirty, and wearily drag themselves out of bed to face another long grim day of producing, that doing it for the benefit of the exalted consumers ain't first and foremost on their minds)
I don't have the patience to get into the weeds with you right now. I'm sure I could debate with you until the sun came up and you wouldn't yield, even if I was right and well articulated. Hopefully someone understood what I was saying.
Derpinheimer2
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 69
Merit: 4


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 04:29:59 AM

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.
oh ok, but a pump and dump is not the same thing as shorting, just fyi.

Shorting involves borrowing something and selling it with the intent to buy back cheaper.
TERA2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 222


Deb Rah Von Doom


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 04:34:30 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...?
No I just want specific people who were assholes to me to shut up or admit how stupid they were.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3164
Merit: 3377


Volcano Corn!


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 04:38:47 AM
Merited by bones261 (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.

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

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

Wait... did't I put you on ignore a million years ago??? I must have been curious and undid it.  Everyone does something stupid now and then.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1536


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 04:47:18 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.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck.  Roll Eyes
bones261
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1823



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 04:58:04 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.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck.  Roll Eyes

What do you expect? I'm sure if I decided to post in the BCH thread and called it BCASH, all of your friends would jump down my throat. If you can't bare to refer to BTC as Bitcoin, then just refer to it as BTC here. Fair enough?
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3570
Merit: 2377


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2018, 05:01:30 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.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck.  Roll Eyes

What do you expect? I'm sure if I decided to post in the BCH thread and called it BCASH, all of your friends would jump down my throat. If you can't bare to refer to BTC as Bitcoin, then just refer to it as BTC here. Fair enough?

Actually, calling it bcash on the BCH/USD Wall Observer thread is not only accepted, but encouraged.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3386487.msg35480059#msg35480059
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 2432


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 05:12:59 AM

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.

Perhaps, but we do have better tech.
becoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3066
Merit: 1144



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 05:16:15 AM

What's the drama? Bitmain's corporate bond (aka bcash) appreciated against bitcoin?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 20294 20295 [20296] 20297 20298 20299 20300 20301 20302 20303 20304 20305 20306 20307 20308 20309 20310 20311 20312 20313 20314 20315 20316 20317 20318 20319 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 ... 30155 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!